Loading...
00-991ORIGINAL �`ff�e`(�2� — ��-� RESOLUTION Green Sheet # 104017 CITY�OF SAINT PAUL, MI�VNESOTA a3 �F .. � �,,,. , R n� - Presented by u- "a- � " � �,- � . � a£'., � — � Referred To Committee Date 1 BE IT' RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the.October 10, 2 2000, decision of the Legislafive Hearing Officer on Properiy Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 address: 4 Propert�ppealed � 5 � � Q Council File # � p-`tq � � A�pellant 5 97 O�ord Street North Mark Gehan for Buffalo Sober Group, LLC. 6 Decision: Appealdenied_ �v��• �YcL���:o,�.� do.� ��m�r�� - �v b e. ��. 8' �-oo a . 7 9 10 11 12 13 Yeas Na s Absent Blakey � Coleman �` Harris � Benanav �' Reiter � Bostrom �/' Lantry � o a Requested by Department of. � Form Approved by City Attomey E� 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 �� Adopted by Council: Date �,c.� , c� 5�r� c7 Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council Adoption Ce .' ied by Council Secre B By: — '�� Approved by Mayar: Date � \ \ B . ° �.-�� �--�-.��- s y' a n J\n=-- - - cl�, � �� Council Offices �tsor� a a�ariE IUST BE ON CWNCILAGH�IDA BY October 25, 2000 ���� 10-19-2000 namxe TOTAL # OF SIC,NATURE, PAGES � °-q91 GREEN SHEET No 1 ��:017 orr..a,�+r owrtm¢ arvcaxa. ❑ tllv�ndMFV ❑ ana.iut ❑puu��u.a�axcFSOrt ❑wuxry�mnn.ccro ❑ wvoRlort�wnMm ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SICaNATURE) Approvfng the 10-17-00 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement appeals for 97 O�cford Street North. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB CAMMITTEE C1V71 SERVICE CAAAIdISSION RSONAL SERV2CE CONTRACiS MUST ANSWER 7NE FOLLOWIN6 QUESTIONS: Flas this De�coNfirtn erer vrorked under a canhact farNis tlepartmeM7 YES NO Hes this vereorJfirm em heen a cdY emWeYyee9 vES NO Ooes this peisorvhtm possess a sldll not tarmallypossesseE by any cuneM cily employee7 YES I� Ic Mis persoMrtn a targeted ventloft ' VES NO �u�1`qsri; ,n.-�,.„��,n�,"`';��.. ��'P��Qf � �, � '� � 2��� OF TRANSACTION S SOURCE COST/REUENUE BUDGETED (dRCLE ONk� ACiNITY NUMBER VES NO Qc7 ���� NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, October 10, 2000 Room 330, City Hall Gerry Slrathman, Legislative Hearing Officer Staff Present: Pat Fish, Fire Prevention; Wendy Lane, License, Inspection, Environmental Protection(LIEP); Tom Riddering, LIEP; Mike Urmann, Fire Prevention Gerry Strathxnan called the meeting to order at 1:34 p.m. 586-588 Reaney Avenue (Rescheduled from 10-3-2000) (No one appeazed to represent the properry.) Mike Urmann reported he had no objections to an appeal. Gerry 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, appeazed and stated she is appealing the requirement to install fire rated doors. Gerry Strathman granted a vaziance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 875 Thomas Avenue (Laid over from 9-19-2000) (No one appeared 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 faY indicating that the appellants wish to withdrawn their appeal.) 412 Goodrich Avenue (No one appeazed to represent the property.) Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMFsNT NOTES OF 10-10-2000 60 Rose Avenue East (The appellant appeared and stated he has withdrawn his appeal.) Appeal regarding repair of billboards (Laid over from 9-19-2000) 0 0 -qq� Page 2 Brian Bates, appellant, appeared and staxed this began with an August 9, 2000, letter to Cbris McCarver from Wendy Lane. The last sentence reads that no pernut 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 permit property under his control to be used for such a sign, which does not conform to the following requirements and without first obta.ining the requisite permits for such sign." Section 33.03 reads in essence that any repairs exceeding $300 needs permits. It i: Mr. Bates understanding that Section 33.02 reads that minor repairs do not need permits. (Mr. Bates gave Mr. Strathxnan copies of Sections 66.201 and 33.03.) Gerry Strathman asked was his claim that the work Eller Media wants to do constitutes maintenance of the sign. If it exceeds $300, responded Mr. Bates. Also, nowhere does it say $300 per billboard. Multiple billboards 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 career in constnxction 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), appeared and stated there are two basic components, which comprise the perimeter that the grading sits upon. The grading costs $2.25 a squaze 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 board. Mr. Strathman stated to make the repairs on one board would cost $450. Mr. Faribeau responded that is correct, but that does not include sales taY, transportation, labor, fabrication. His estimate of $450 is using the baze minimum. 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 perxnits are nof required. To see when it is required, a person has to look at Uniform Building Code 106.1, which reads "...no building ar shucture regulated by this code sha11 be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, moved, improved, removed, converted or demolished unless a separate permit for each buiIding or structure has first been obtained from the building official." Mr. Riddering considers this to be maintenance for people who are changing the sign faces. o� -°l�� 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 pernut 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 structures that could pose a public danger. If a permit 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. Sirathxnan asked if they had applied for a perxnit to do this repair, would one have been issued. Ms. Lane responded the moratorium refers to alterations to signs and new construction. 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 perxnit, it would have been granted, which would include a fee and an inspection. Any decision regazding the zoning ordinance is appealable to the Plazuiing Comxnission. Mr. Strathman stated the appeal is here because LIEP did not issue a permit, but if a permit was issued, this appeal would be before the Plamiing Commission. Ms. Lane responded the decision not to issue a perxnit 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 tlus appeal was originally to the Planning Commission. The interpretation of 33.03 seems to be an issue. Wlien 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 aze 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 ElIer Media, appeared and stated his position is this appeal is improper. Scenic Minnesota has no right to appeai this decision. Secondly, these signs are legal nonconforming structures in Saint Paul; therefore, these signs are governed by 66301 which deals with nonconforming signs. Thirdly, there is ample law dealing with legal nonconfornung uses. They aze 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. ao •`1°l� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 10-10-2000 Page 4 Chris McCarver, Eller Media, appeared and stated the standard bitlboazds were originally built to withstand 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 piatforms 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 gave Mr. Strathman OSHA regulations.) Mr. Liszt stated the cost of painting a house is over $300, and it does not require a pernut. Historically, maintenance issues do not require permits. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal by Scenic Minnesota. The interpretation of the Building Officer and Zoning Inspector is a reasonable interpretation of the current statute. 97 Oxford Street North Mark Gehan, representing Buffalo Sober Group, appeared 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 Department who said there are no health or safety issues at this building. This is a zoning issue: should the certificate of occupancy be revoked when a shucture does not have an existing nonconforming use permit. If the only 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 are 26 residents in the facility, who are in recovery. He questions why there is an immediate need to revoke the certificate of occupancy pending the decision of the Planning Commission. The people opposed to this can express their opposition at the Planning Commission and the City Council. Gerry Strathman stated the issue of continuance should be addressed at tlus point, which would suspend the enforcement of the revocarion 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; therefare, there are no outstanding safety code violations because there is no recent iaspection. 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 arraignxnent August 25. In Fire Marshal Zaccazd's letter, he referred to Section 62.101 which reads the use cannot be changed without meeting the provisions of this code. Section 64104 reads the certificate of occupancy is required by the Saint Paul Legislative Code which also constitutes certification of zoning complaints. The City's Planuing staff is recoxnmending denial of this appiication to the Plamiiug Commission. Anne Hinrichs, 1060 Laurel Avenue, appeazed and stated it was the investors responsibility to look into the zoning. That apparently did not happen. The properiy was zoned for a duplex. For over 9 months, the neighborhood has absorbed 30 additional residents in the neighborhood. 00 -`1`1�, 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. Hinrichs stated she has foriy signatures of people who aze opposed to this. She would like to expedite things. 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 be£ore the Ciry Council, the Zoning Committee wiil haue aiready met. This matter may be better served by continuing this hearing. Wendy Lane eaplained the Planning Commission meets on October 20 and then the decision is appealable within 15 days. The Zoning Committee and the Planuing Commission may choose to lay it over. Also, it may take a long time for it to get through the City Attorney's Office. Mr. Strathman asked what would the Fire Department do if the appeai 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 continue it. Alexander Drivas, 1072 Laurel Avenue, appeared and stated there is a problem finding parking 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 revoke@ 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 permit them to operate the building in the fashion it is being operated. That is not a matter of facival dispute. Mr. Strathman asked what he is looking for in filing this appeal. Mr. Gehan responded he is tcying to avoid having 26 people without a home. The only case in which the ciry has revoked a certificate of occupancy on a zoning issue was for a sauna. This issue has become political. Zoning matters rypically 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 Marshall to issue a revocation 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 are not parties to this proceedings. Due to the informal nature of these hearings, stated Mr. Strathxnan, he sometimes hears from people that have an interest, but not in the legal sense. 00 -�q� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 10-10 2000 Page 6 Gerry Strathman denied the appeal citing he does not find any basis for finding the Fire Mazshail in error or acting unreasonable in revoking the cerkificate of occupancy. The meeting was adjourned at 2:53 p.m. 0 ORIGINAL �`ff�e`(�2� — ��-� RESOLUTION Green Sheet # 104017 CITY�OF SAINT PAUL, MI�VNESOTA a3 �F .. � �,,,. , R n� - Presented by u- "a- � " � �,- � . � a£'., � — � Referred To Committee Date 1 BE IT' RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the.October 10, 2 2000, decision of the Legislafive Hearing Officer on Properiy Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 address: 4 Propert�ppealed � 5 � � Q Council File # � p-`tq � � A�pellant 5 97 O�ord Street North Mark Gehan for Buffalo Sober Group, LLC. 6 Decision: Appealdenied_ �v��• �YcL���:o,�.� do.� ��m�r�� - �v b e. ��. 8' �-oo a . 7 9 10 11 12 13 Yeas Na s Absent Blakey � Coleman �` Harris � Benanav �' Reiter � Bostrom �/' Lantry � o a Requested by Department of. � Form Approved by City Attomey E� 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 �� Adopted by Council: Date �,c.� , c� 5�r� c7 Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council Adoption Ce .' ied by Council Secre B By: — '�� Approved by Mayar: Date � \ \ B . ° �.-�� �--�-.��- s y' a n J\n=-- - - cl�, � �� Council Offices �tsor� a a�ariE IUST BE ON CWNCILAGH�IDA BY October 25, 2000 ���� 10-19-2000 namxe TOTAL # OF SIC,NATURE, PAGES � °-q91 GREEN SHEET No 1 ��:017 orr..a,�+r owrtm¢ arvcaxa. ❑ tllv�ndMFV ❑ ana.iut ❑puu��u.a�axcFSOrt ❑wuxry�mnn.ccro ❑ wvoRlort�wnMm ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SICaNATURE) Approvfng the 10-17-00 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement appeals for 97 O�cford Street North. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB CAMMITTEE C1V71 SERVICE CAAAIdISSION RSONAL SERV2CE CONTRACiS MUST ANSWER 7NE FOLLOWIN6 QUESTIONS: Flas this De�coNfirtn erer vrorked under a canhact farNis tlepartmeM7 YES NO Hes this vereorJfirm em heen a cdY emWeYyee9 vES NO Ooes this peisorvhtm possess a sldll not tarmallypossesseE by any cuneM cily employee7 YES I� Ic Mis persoMrtn a targeted ventloft ' VES NO �u�1`qsri; ,n.-�,.„��,n�,"`';��.. ��'P��Qf � �, � '� � 2��� OF TRANSACTION S SOURCE COST/REUENUE BUDGETED (dRCLE ONk� ACiNITY NUMBER VES NO Qc7 ���� NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, October 10, 2000 Room 330, City Hall Gerry Slrathman, Legislative Hearing Officer Staff Present: Pat Fish, Fire Prevention; Wendy Lane, License, Inspection, Environmental Protection(LIEP); Tom Riddering, LIEP; Mike Urmann, Fire Prevention Gerry Strathxnan called the meeting to order at 1:34 p.m. 586-588 Reaney Avenue (Rescheduled from 10-3-2000) (No one appeazed to represent the properry.) Mike Urmann reported he had no objections to an appeal. Gerry 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, appeazed and stated she is appealing the requirement to install fire rated doors. Gerry Strathman granted a vaziance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 875 Thomas Avenue (Laid over from 9-19-2000) (No one appeared 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 faY indicating that the appellants wish to withdrawn their appeal.) 412 Goodrich Avenue (No one appeazed to represent the property.) Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMFsNT NOTES OF 10-10-2000 60 Rose Avenue East (The appellant appeared and stated he has withdrawn his appeal.) Appeal regarding repair of billboards (Laid over from 9-19-2000) 0 0 -qq� Page 2 Brian Bates, appellant, appeared and staxed this began with an August 9, 2000, letter to Cbris McCarver from Wendy Lane. The last sentence reads that no pernut 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 permit property under his control to be used for such a sign, which does not conform to the following requirements and without first obta.ining the requisite permits for such sign." Section 33.03 reads in essence that any repairs exceeding $300 needs permits. It i: Mr. Bates understanding that Section 33.02 reads that minor repairs do not need permits. (Mr. Bates gave Mr. Strathxnan copies of Sections 66.201 and 33.03.) Gerry Strathman asked was his claim that the work Eller Media wants to do constitutes maintenance of the sign. If it exceeds $300, responded Mr. Bates. Also, nowhere does it say $300 per billboard. Multiple billboards 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 career in constnxction 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), appeared and stated there are two basic components, which comprise the perimeter that the grading sits upon. The grading costs $2.25 a squaze 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 board. Mr. Strathman stated to make the repairs on one board would cost $450. Mr. Faribeau responded that is correct, but that does not include sales taY, transportation, labor, fabrication. His estimate of $450 is using the baze minimum. 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 perxnits are nof required. To see when it is required, a person has to look at Uniform Building Code 106.1, which reads "...no building ar shucture regulated by this code sha11 be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, moved, improved, removed, converted or demolished unless a separate permit for each buiIding or structure has first been obtained from the building official." Mr. Riddering considers this to be maintenance for people who are changing the sign faces. o� -°l�� 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 pernut 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 structures that could pose a public danger. If a permit 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. Sirathxnan asked if they had applied for a perxnit to do this repair, would one have been issued. Ms. Lane responded the moratorium refers to alterations to signs and new construction. 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 perxnit, it would have been granted, which would include a fee and an inspection. Any decision regazding the zoning ordinance is appealable to the Plazuiing Comxnission. Mr. Strathman stated the appeal is here because LIEP did not issue a permit, but if a permit was issued, this appeal would be before the Plamiing Commission. Ms. Lane responded the decision not to issue a perxnit 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 tlus appeal was originally to the Planning Commission. The interpretation of 33.03 seems to be an issue. Wlien 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 aze 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 ElIer Media, appeared and stated his position is this appeal is improper. Scenic Minnesota has no right to appeai this decision. Secondly, these signs are legal nonconforming structures in Saint Paul; therefore, these signs are governed by 66301 which deals with nonconforming signs. Thirdly, there is ample law dealing with legal nonconfornung uses. They aze 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. ao •`1°l� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 10-10-2000 Page 4 Chris McCarver, Eller Media, appeared and stated the standard bitlboazds were originally built to withstand 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 piatforms 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 gave Mr. Strathman OSHA regulations.) Mr. Liszt stated the cost of painting a house is over $300, and it does not require a pernut. Historically, maintenance issues do not require permits. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal by Scenic Minnesota. The interpretation of the Building Officer and Zoning Inspector is a reasonable interpretation of the current statute. 97 Oxford Street North Mark Gehan, representing Buffalo Sober Group, appeared 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 Department who said there are no health or safety issues at this building. This is a zoning issue: should the certificate of occupancy be revoked when a shucture does not have an existing nonconforming use permit. If the only 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 are 26 residents in the facility, who are in recovery. He questions why there is an immediate need to revoke the certificate of occupancy pending the decision of the Planning Commission. The people opposed to this can express their opposition at the Planning Commission and the City Council. Gerry Strathman stated the issue of continuance should be addressed at tlus point, which would suspend the enforcement of the revocarion 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; therefare, there are no outstanding safety code violations because there is no recent iaspection. 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 arraignxnent August 25. In Fire Marshal Zaccazd's letter, he referred to Section 62.101 which reads the use cannot be changed without meeting the provisions of this code. Section 64104 reads the certificate of occupancy is required by the Saint Paul Legislative Code which also constitutes certification of zoning complaints. The City's Planuing staff is recoxnmending denial of this appiication to the Plamiiug Commission. Anne Hinrichs, 1060 Laurel Avenue, appeazed and stated it was the investors responsibility to look into the zoning. That apparently did not happen. The properiy was zoned for a duplex. For over 9 months, the neighborhood has absorbed 30 additional residents in the neighborhood. 00 -`1`1�, 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. Hinrichs stated she has foriy signatures of people who aze opposed to this. She would like to expedite things. 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 be£ore the Ciry Council, the Zoning Committee wiil haue aiready met. This matter may be better served by continuing this hearing. Wendy Lane eaplained the Planning Commission meets on October 20 and then the decision is appealable within 15 days. The Zoning Committee and the Planuing Commission may choose to lay it over. Also, it may take a long time for it to get through the City Attorney's Office. Mr. Strathman asked what would the Fire Department do if the appeai 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 continue it. Alexander Drivas, 1072 Laurel Avenue, appeared and stated there is a problem finding parking 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 revoke@ 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 permit them to operate the building in the fashion it is being operated. That is not a matter of facival dispute. Mr. Strathman asked what he is looking for in filing this appeal. Mr. Gehan responded he is tcying to avoid having 26 people without a home. The only case in which the ciry has revoked a certificate of occupancy on a zoning issue was for a sauna. This issue has become political. Zoning matters rypically 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 Marshall to issue a revocation 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 are not parties to this proceedings. Due to the informal nature of these hearings, stated Mr. Strathxnan, he sometimes hears from people that have an interest, but not in the legal sense. 00 -�q� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 10-10 2000 Page 6 Gerry Strathman denied the appeal citing he does not find any basis for finding the Fire Mazshail in error or acting unreasonable in revoking the cerkificate of occupancy. The meeting was adjourned at 2:53 p.m. 0 ORIGINAL �`ff�e`(�2� — ��-� RESOLUTION Green Sheet # 104017 CITY�OF SAINT PAUL, MI�VNESOTA a3 �F .. � �,,,. , R n� - Presented by u- "a- � " � �,- � . � a£'., � — � Referred To Committee Date 1 BE IT' RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the.October 10, 2 2000, decision of the Legislafive Hearing Officer on Properiy Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 address: 4 Propert�ppealed � 5 � � Q Council File # � p-`tq � � A�pellant 5 97 O�ord Street North Mark Gehan for Buffalo Sober Group, LLC. 6 Decision: Appealdenied_ �v��• �YcL���:o,�.� do.� ��m�r�� - �v b e. ��. 8' �-oo a . 7 9 10 11 12 13 Yeas Na s Absent Blakey � Coleman �` Harris � Benanav �' Reiter � Bostrom �/' Lantry � o a Requested by Department of. � Form Approved by City Attomey E� 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 �� Adopted by Council: Date �,c.� , c� 5�r� c7 Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council Adoption Ce .' ied by Council Secre B By: — '�� Approved by Mayar: Date � \ \ B . ° �.-�� �--�-.��- s y' a n J\n=-- - - cl�, � �� Council Offices �tsor� a a�ariE IUST BE ON CWNCILAGH�IDA BY October 25, 2000 ���� 10-19-2000 namxe TOTAL # OF SIC,NATURE, PAGES � °-q91 GREEN SHEET No 1 ��:017 orr..a,�+r owrtm¢ arvcaxa. ❑ tllv�ndMFV ❑ ana.iut ❑puu��u.a�axcFSOrt ❑wuxry�mnn.ccro ❑ wvoRlort�wnMm ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SICaNATURE) Approvfng the 10-17-00 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement appeals for 97 O�cford Street North. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB CAMMITTEE C1V71 SERVICE CAAAIdISSION RSONAL SERV2CE CONTRACiS MUST ANSWER 7NE FOLLOWIN6 QUESTIONS: Flas this De�coNfirtn erer vrorked under a canhact farNis tlepartmeM7 YES NO Hes this vereorJfirm em heen a cdY emWeYyee9 vES NO Ooes this peisorvhtm possess a sldll not tarmallypossesseE by any cuneM cily employee7 YES I� Ic Mis persoMrtn a targeted ventloft ' VES NO �u�1`qsri; ,n.-�,.„��,n�,"`';��.. ��'P��Qf � �, � '� � 2��� OF TRANSACTION S SOURCE COST/REUENUE BUDGETED (dRCLE ONk� ACiNITY NUMBER VES NO Qc7 ���� NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, October 10, 2000 Room 330, City Hall Gerry Slrathman, Legislative Hearing Officer Staff Present: Pat Fish, Fire Prevention; Wendy Lane, License, Inspection, Environmental Protection(LIEP); Tom Riddering, LIEP; Mike Urmann, Fire Prevention Gerry Strathxnan called the meeting to order at 1:34 p.m. 586-588 Reaney Avenue (Rescheduled from 10-3-2000) (No one appeazed to represent the properry.) Mike Urmann reported he had no objections to an appeal. Gerry 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, appeazed and stated she is appealing the requirement to install fire rated doors. Gerry Strathman granted a vaziance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 875 Thomas Avenue (Laid over from 9-19-2000) (No one appeared 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 faY indicating that the appellants wish to withdrawn their appeal.) 412 Goodrich Avenue (No one appeazed to represent the property.) Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMFsNT NOTES OF 10-10-2000 60 Rose Avenue East (The appellant appeared and stated he has withdrawn his appeal.) Appeal regarding repair of billboards (Laid over from 9-19-2000) 0 0 -qq� Page 2 Brian Bates, appellant, appeared and staxed this began with an August 9, 2000, letter to Cbris McCarver from Wendy Lane. The last sentence reads that no pernut 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 permit property under his control to be used for such a sign, which does not conform to the following requirements and without first obta.ining the requisite permits for such sign." Section 33.03 reads in essence that any repairs exceeding $300 needs permits. It i: Mr. Bates understanding that Section 33.02 reads that minor repairs do not need permits. (Mr. Bates gave Mr. Strathxnan copies of Sections 66.201 and 33.03.) Gerry Strathman asked was his claim that the work Eller Media wants to do constitutes maintenance of the sign. If it exceeds $300, responded Mr. Bates. Also, nowhere does it say $300 per billboard. Multiple billboards 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 career in constnxction 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), appeared and stated there are two basic components, which comprise the perimeter that the grading sits upon. The grading costs $2.25 a squaze 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 board. Mr. Strathman stated to make the repairs on one board would cost $450. Mr. Faribeau responded that is correct, but that does not include sales taY, transportation, labor, fabrication. His estimate of $450 is using the baze minimum. 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 perxnits are nof required. To see when it is required, a person has to look at Uniform Building Code 106.1, which reads "...no building ar shucture regulated by this code sha11 be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, moved, improved, removed, converted or demolished unless a separate permit for each buiIding or structure has first been obtained from the building official." Mr. Riddering considers this to be maintenance for people who are changing the sign faces. o� -°l�� 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 pernut 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 structures that could pose a public danger. If a permit 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. Sirathxnan asked if they had applied for a perxnit to do this repair, would one have been issued. Ms. Lane responded the moratorium refers to alterations to signs and new construction. 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 perxnit, it would have been granted, which would include a fee and an inspection. Any decision regazding the zoning ordinance is appealable to the Plazuiing Comxnission. Mr. Strathman stated the appeal is here because LIEP did not issue a permit, but if a permit was issued, this appeal would be before the Plamiing Commission. Ms. Lane responded the decision not to issue a perxnit 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 tlus appeal was originally to the Planning Commission. The interpretation of 33.03 seems to be an issue. Wlien 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 aze 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 ElIer Media, appeared and stated his position is this appeal is improper. Scenic Minnesota has no right to appeai this decision. Secondly, these signs are legal nonconforming structures in Saint Paul; therefore, these signs are governed by 66301 which deals with nonconforming signs. Thirdly, there is ample law dealing with legal nonconfornung uses. They aze 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. ao •`1°l� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 10-10-2000 Page 4 Chris McCarver, Eller Media, appeared and stated the standard bitlboazds were originally built to withstand 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 piatforms 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 gave Mr. Strathman OSHA regulations.) Mr. Liszt stated the cost of painting a house is over $300, and it does not require a pernut. Historically, maintenance issues do not require permits. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal by Scenic Minnesota. The interpretation of the Building Officer and Zoning Inspector is a reasonable interpretation of the current statute. 97 Oxford Street North Mark Gehan, representing Buffalo Sober Group, appeared 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 Department who said there are no health or safety issues at this building. This is a zoning issue: should the certificate of occupancy be revoked when a shucture does not have an existing nonconforming use permit. If the only 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 are 26 residents in the facility, who are in recovery. He questions why there is an immediate need to revoke the certificate of occupancy pending the decision of the Planning Commission. The people opposed to this can express their opposition at the Planning Commission and the City Council. Gerry Strathman stated the issue of continuance should be addressed at tlus point, which would suspend the enforcement of the revocarion 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; therefare, there are no outstanding safety code violations because there is no recent iaspection. 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 arraignxnent August 25. In Fire Marshal Zaccazd's letter, he referred to Section 62.101 which reads the use cannot be changed without meeting the provisions of this code. Section 64104 reads the certificate of occupancy is required by the Saint Paul Legislative Code which also constitutes certification of zoning complaints. The City's Planuing staff is recoxnmending denial of this appiication to the Plamiiug Commission. Anne Hinrichs, 1060 Laurel Avenue, appeazed and stated it was the investors responsibility to look into the zoning. That apparently did not happen. The properiy was zoned for a duplex. For over 9 months, the neighborhood has absorbed 30 additional residents in the neighborhood. 00 -`1`1�, 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. Hinrichs stated she has foriy signatures of people who aze opposed to this. She would like to expedite things. 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 be£ore the Ciry Council, the Zoning Committee wiil haue aiready met. This matter may be better served by continuing this hearing. Wendy Lane eaplained the Planning Commission meets on October 20 and then the decision is appealable within 15 days. The Zoning Committee and the Planuing Commission may choose to lay it over. Also, it may take a long time for it to get through the City Attorney's Office. Mr. Strathman asked what would the Fire Department do if the appeai 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 continue it. Alexander Drivas, 1072 Laurel Avenue, appeared and stated there is a problem finding parking 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 revoke@ 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 permit them to operate the building in the fashion it is being operated. That is not a matter of facival dispute. Mr. Strathman asked what he is looking for in filing this appeal. Mr. Gehan responded he is tcying to avoid having 26 people without a home. The only case in which the ciry has revoked a certificate of occupancy on a zoning issue was for a sauna. This issue has become political. Zoning matters rypically 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 Marshall to issue a revocation 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 are not parties to this proceedings. Due to the informal nature of these hearings, stated Mr. Strathxnan, he sometimes hears from people that have an interest, but not in the legal sense. 00 -�q� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 10-10 2000 Page 6 Gerry Strathman denied the appeal citing he does not find any basis for finding the Fire Mazshail in error or acting unreasonable in revoking the cerkificate of occupancy. The meeting was adjourned at 2:53 p.m. 0