Loading...
01-1045�RIGJNAL RESOLUTION C1TY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA r�es�,t�a Refesed To Council File # p\ • Lo�},g Green Sheet # 110384 r3 Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the October 2, 2 2001, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Properry Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 addresses: 4 Proroertv Ap ero aled Ap ep llant 5 733 Pierce Butler Route (Rescheduled from 9-25-Oi) James Gaffney for Club Metro 6 Decision: Layover to the November 6, 2001, Property Code Enfarcement meeting. 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 436 Shepard Road West (Laid over from 8-21-01) John Kerwin for Nicollet Restoration Decision: Outstanding issues with respect to the marina do not need to be resolved in order for the building to be issued a certificate of occupancy; however, all the deficiencies and requirements idenfified by the Fire Department with respect to the building and the outside storage must be resolved within two weeks of City Council approval of tl�is decision. Also within rivo weeks of City Council approval of this decision, the owner must submit an application for an outdoor storage site plan to LIEP (L'acense, Inspections, Environmental Protection). After the outdoor storage site plan is submitted, the owner must get approval from LIBP within one month. If all this is not accomplished, then the appeal will be deemed denied. 16 1985 Grand Avenue Ken D. Johnson for Muriel Johnson Trust 17 Decision: Appeal granted on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) If the nonconfomung 18 doors ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated door assemblies; 2) The 19 building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with a11 applicable codes and ordinances. 20 2246 Seventh Street West Victoria Pream for Keller Properties, Inc. 21 Decision: Appeai granted on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) If the nonconforming 22 doors ever need to be replaced, they wiil be replaced with conforming fire rated doar assemblies; 2) The 23 building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances. 24 2254 Seventh Street West Victoria Pream for Keller Properties, Inc. 25 Decision: Appeal granted on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) If the nonconforming 26 doors ever need to be replaced, they will be repiaced with conforming fire rated door assemblies; 2) The 27 building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances. Resolution for Properiy Code Enforcement of 10-2-01 �i � I r'�—. ��; 4 r' i +�«d t ` i �! , i �`,t ; � 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yeas Na s Absent Blakey Coleman � Hazris Benanav � Reiter �� Bosffom f Lantry �/ `� 6 d Green Sheet 110384 Requested by Depamnent of. � Form Approved by City Attorney � 8 Adopted by Council: Date ��, �.0 a qo � 9 � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council 10 Adoprion Ce fied by Council Secr __. 11 By: � _ �-,. �� � 12 Approved by Mayor: Date ��/� ��/ �� 13 By: 01-I O�I.t ia r � � _ �...sar DEPARTMqJUOF.FICElCOUNqL.. . . . - OATE.1NrcWTEA. . . . , .. _. . . , � .�� �2!'.�, Citj Council Offices October 3 zoo GREEN SHEET NO �� a38(} COMACT PQ2SIXJ & PI-IONE ' InMlauDaFe IntlWlu�e Gerry Strathman, 266-8560 ����� �,�� MUST BE ON COUNCILAGFNDA BV (DAT� ASSIGN NUMBERFOR utY�STOn1EY tJlYttmit ROUTING � FNRMCMIiFANCFiOR FWYCJ11LfFRV/ACCt6 ❑rnvortlox�smsrart� ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) CTION RC-0UESTm _ Approving the October 2, 2001, decisions of the I.egislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals fox the following addresses: 733 Pierce Butler Route, 436 Shegard Road West, 1985 Grand Avenue, 2246 Seventh Street West, 2254 Seventh Street West. RECAMMENDATION Approve (A) or Reject (R) PERSONALSEItVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWERTXE FOLLOWING QUESTiONS: 1 Has this personffirm everwnrked under a wntract Torthis depa�tmeM1 pLANNING COMMISSION VES NO CIBCOMMITTEE 2. HasthispersoNfirtneverheenaciryempbyee? CIVILSERVICECOMMISSION VES NO 3. Does lhis persoNfirm possess a sldll not nwmalrypossessed by anY���M cily emDloY�? YES NO 4. is Mis person/fiim a targetetl vendoff YES NO E�lain all yes answers on separa[e sheet and attach to green sheet INI7IATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNITV (Who, Wha[, When, Where, Why) . ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED F�e��r;;�s C�C±tef' ��� � DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED � TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION f COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDING SOIIRCE � ACTNITY NUMBER FlNANCIAL INFORMATON (IXPWN) ' C.�\ � �3 . NOTES OF '1 F� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, October 2, 2001 Room 330 Courthause Gerry Strathmau, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 135 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Tom Beach, LIEP (License, Inspections, Environmental Protection); Pat Fish, Fire Prevention; Wendy Lane, LIEP; Steven Olson, LIEP 733 Pierce Butler Route (Rescheduled from 9-25-01) James Gaffiiey, owner, 4209 44th Street West, Edina, appeazed and stated he is not disagreeing with the report about making the building code compliant. It is just a question of time. The inspector said there were no permits for three items: the sports bar, the underground baz, and the walk-in freezer. When he purchased the properry in 1996, those three items were in the building, and he had it in his contract that the building had to be code compliant. He would like those items looked at to see what has to be done to make them code compliant. The building is being sold and the buyers are assuuiing these responsibilities. Mr. Gaffiiey would like to start some of the work for them so the building can be brought up to code. Steven Olson reported he has been in this building several times over the years. He inspected it for Mr. Gaffney in 1995 when he was purchasing the building. There is a written report of that inspection. At the time of that inspection, there was a large baz on the main floor in deteriorating condition, a small bar ofFthe dance floor in moderate condition, and a bar in the basement that was not being used. What generated the present report is that new people aze purchasing the business. The inspecfion this time found the same bazs there, but the volley ball area present in 1992 had been modified into a dance azea, and a complete baz had been installed with a walk-in cooler for beer to support this. In addition, there was another bar installed by a pool table in the basement. The last time permits were issued was 1994. Two bars were built interior, one walk- in cooler installed, and a baz constructed in the patio to serve drinks outside, all without pernut. Mr. Olson advised the owner to discontinue use of these ateas, apply for permits, and submit the plans for construction of these things. Assuming these things were built without permit, stated Mr. Strattunau, one solution is to remove them. Although it is not proper, some things get built in the City without permits. He asked is there a way to issue a permit retroactively. Mr. Olson responded that is a valid option. There may be a problem with plumbing and electrical, as these things will have to be exposed for the inspectors. Mr. Gaffiiey stated the walk-in cooler has been there since the building was built. Mr. Olson responded there is a walk-in cooler on the upstairs level off the kitchen, but there is a new walk- in cooler in the basement. Mr. Gaffiiey responded he knows what was there when he purchased the bar; however, the goal is to make the property compliant. The new owner may remove one of the bazs anyway. �� \U�5 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF OCTOBER 2, 2001 Page 2 Mr. Strathman asked is there a time &ame for when it will be sold. Hopefutly, Mr. Gaffuey responded, the property will be purchased in a month. Mr. Strathman stated the inspector believes there is constrnction installed without pernut, which would make it illegal, which could be ordered removed. The alternative would be to do what is necessary to get ttus code compliant. If additional time is given, asked Mr. Strathman, could he work with Mr. Gaffney to get the items compliant with the code. Mr. Olson responded he can work with him, but these things should not be used untii they are brought into compliance. Mr. Strathman stated a month is not a long time. Mr. Olson responded there aze three existing bars that can be used. The other bars can be discontinued, the owner can submit proper plans, and get permits to do the work. The cooler is the easiest thing to do. If the owner submits whoever installed the cooler, and he applies for a permit, an inspector from the mechanical office could be out there next week. The cooler is being used for beer; therefore, Mr. Olson has less concerns than if it was being used for food. Mr. Strathman asked about discontinuing use of these items until they aze brought into compliance. Mr. Gaffrtey responded one is discontinued alzeady. The one in the sports bar would be a hardship. Mr. Strathman stated there are too many questions of fact; therefore, he will lay over this matter for a month. Tn the meantime, stated Mr. Olson, there is illegal plumbing, ice that could be contaminated, and peopie could get sick. Any use of facilities that were installed without proper perxnits for water, sewer, and sanitation aze not a good idea. He asked is this office willing to accept that responsibility. Mr. Strathman responded there is a balance of concerns here. Inasmuch as these facilities have been in use far some time without any known harmfixl effect, he will recommend continuing this matter. Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the November 6, 2001, Properiy Code Enforcement Meeting. This lay over will give the owner time to wark with the inspector and resolve some problems. If the problems aze still unresolved on November 6, he will make a recommendation to the City Council. 436 Sheuard Road West (Laid over from 8-21-01) John Drucker, 2626 31 st Avenue South, Minneapolis, representing John Kerwin, appeazed and stated Mr. Kerwin's business trip was delayed. Mr. Kerwin's main request is that the questions of zoning for uses unrelated to the building be sepazated from the certificate of occupancy for the building. The only item specifically enumerated on the list is outdoor storage. They appiied for an outdoor storage pemut, but it was retumed because the boats were tied together. Zoning wanted a combined application for the boats and the outdoor storage. Mr. Kerwin refuses to do this. c�� �oy� PROPERTI' CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF OCTOBER 2, 2001 Page 3 Pat Fish xeported she did an inspection on September 10 on the property. Some items were completed. The issues that remain aze zoning, outdoor storage, electrical, and inside storage. In Chapter 34, she cannot certify a building if it is in direct violation of any City laws or ordivances. Zoning is right on ffie checklist that they have always used to approve buildings. If it is not zoned for a specific use, she canuot issue a certificate of occupancy. Wendy Lane reported there are two zoning issues: the mooring of the boats and the outside storage. The owner applied for a site plan review for the outside storage, but the mooring of the boats has not been addressed. There has never been an applica6on submitted for Plauning Commission approval for that mooring. Mr. Strathman stated both uses--the outdoor storage and the mooring of the boats--are noncompliant. The owner is asking that the mooring of the boats issue be split off from the question of the zoning for the outdoor storage so he can then get a certificate of occupancy for the building from Ms. Fish. He asked is he understanding this correctly. Mr. Drucker and Ms. Fish responded that is correct. Ms. Lane responded it is zoned properly for the mooring of boats, but the Planning Commission needs to approve it; they need to issue a river conidor conditional use pernut. The owner has not applied for one. Mr. Strathman asked what would be the harm if the zoning for outdoor storage was approved and a certificate of occupancy was issued for the building. Ms. Lane responded they were hoping to connect them to addzess a11 the violations together. Then, a certificate of occupancy could be issued for that property and for a11 the uses on the property as opposed to splitting off the different uses and treating some as okay and some as not okay. Mr. Strathmart asked what is Mr. Kerwin's reluctance to seek the necessary permit for the mooring of the boats. Mr. Drucker responded Mr. Kerwin has not been able to obtain what the requirements would be for the issuance of that. There are no guidelines and nothing enumerated. He believes what is down there is not in City jurisdiction. He would like to treat that as a sepazate issue and raise that question independent from the building and the storage. If Mr. Kerwin could get a clear list of the requirements, he could be talked into applying for a permit or challenging it on the issue of the specific requirement, stated Mr. Drucker. Mr. Kerwin's contention is the City should cite the boats if it feels the boats aze illegal. If the owner got it zoned properly for outdoor storage and complied with a11 the other items on the code compliance, Mr. Strathman asked, would there be a problem. Ms. Fish responded this has been going on during her entire cazeer with the Fire Deparhnent. The use of the property has always been in question. He was issued a certificate of occupancy for storage. What was found was illegal and dangerous. She does not want to take that chance again. Ms. Lane responded if Mr. Kerwin does not understand what the ordinance requirements are, she can give those to him. Some of the standards are subjecrive. She does not know how the Plauning Commission would look at some of those items; however, the findings tUat the Plauuiug Commission hase to make are clearly spelled out in the ordinance. U\ PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF OCTOBER 2, 2001 Page 4 He cau understand the rationale from the CiTy's staff perspective, stated Mr. Strathman, and he can understaud everyone's frusiration with this property; however, it does not seem quite right to deny the owner use of the building if it is in compliance and properly zoned because the adjoining marina may or may not be properly zoned. Mr. Strathman stated he will recommend that Mr. Kerwixi's appeal be granted with respect to the zoning issue regazding the marina and the building not needing to be resolved. However, a11 of the issues with respect to the buiiding must be done. If the City Council agrees with his recommendation, it will include the requirement that the remaiiuug items on the deficiency list be resolved within iwo weeks of City Council action. If that is not forthcoming, then the appeal will be denied. Ms. Lane asked about the outside storage. Mr. Strathman responded he understood that it was properly zoned for outside storage. Ms. Lane responded site plan approval is required and she has to have evidence that outside storage is above the regulatory flood protection elevation. She would also like to have it clear that the marina and mooring issue is separated out so this approval would not mean the use is being approved. Mr. Strathman asked what is the reasonable period of time for a site plan to be approved. Tom Beach responded a month. Mr. Beach stated how about if they set the same two week deadline for the submission of application and they can take as long as they want. Mr. Drucker responded he will get the application to him within the same two week timetable for completion of ali the requirements on the list. Gerry Strathman's decision is as follows: Outstanding issues with respect to the marina do not need to be resolved in order for the building to be issued a certificate of occupancy; however, all the deficiencies and requirements identified by the Fire Department with respect to the building and the outside storage must be resolved within two weeks of City Council approval of this decision. Also within two weeks of City Council approval of this decision, the owner must submit an application for an outdoor storage site plan to LIEP (License, Inspections, Environmental Protecfion). After the outdoor storage sate plan is submitted, the owner must get approval from LIEP within one month. If all this is not accomplished, then the appeal will be deemed denied. This decision is not exactly what everyone wants, but it seems to be a fair resolution. 1985 Grand Avenue Per Mike Unna.mi, the Fire Department has no objections to granting this appeal. Gerry Strathman granted an appeal on the nonconforming doors on the following condiuons: 1) If the nonconforming doors ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire �\ PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF OCTOBER 2, 2001 Page 5 rated door assemblies; 2) The building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with all applicable codes and ordinauces. 2246 Seventh Street West Per Mike Urmann, the Fire Department has no objections to granting this appeal. Gerry Strathman granted an appeal on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) If the nonconforming doors ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforniing fire rated door assemblies; 2) The building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with a11 applicable codes and ordinances. 2254 Seventh Street West Per Mike Urmann, the Fire Department has no objections to granting this appeal. Gerry Strathxnan granted an appeal on the nonconfornung doors on the following conditions: 1) If the nonconforming doors ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated door assemblies; 2) The building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The meeting was adjourned at 2:08 am. rrn. �RIGJNAL RESOLUTION C1TY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA r�es�,t�a Refesed To Council File # p\ • Lo�},g Green Sheet # 110384 r3 Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the October 2, 2 2001, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Properry Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 addresses: 4 Proroertv Ap ero aled Ap ep llant 5 733 Pierce Butler Route (Rescheduled from 9-25-Oi) James Gaffney for Club Metro 6 Decision: Layover to the November 6, 2001, Property Code Enfarcement meeting. 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 436 Shepard Road West (Laid over from 8-21-01) John Kerwin for Nicollet Restoration Decision: Outstanding issues with respect to the marina do not need to be resolved in order for the building to be issued a certificate of occupancy; however, all the deficiencies and requirements idenfified by the Fire Department with respect to the building and the outside storage must be resolved within two weeks of City Council approval of tl�is decision. Also within rivo weeks of City Council approval of this decision, the owner must submit an application for an outdoor storage site plan to LIEP (L'acense, Inspections, Environmental Protection). After the outdoor storage site plan is submitted, the owner must get approval from LIBP within one month. If all this is not accomplished, then the appeal will be deemed denied. 16 1985 Grand Avenue Ken D. Johnson for Muriel Johnson Trust 17 Decision: Appeal granted on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) If the nonconfomung 18 doors ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated door assemblies; 2) The 19 building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with a11 applicable codes and ordinances. 20 2246 Seventh Street West Victoria Pream for Keller Properties, Inc. 21 Decision: Appeai granted on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) If the nonconforming 22 doors ever need to be replaced, they wiil be replaced with conforming fire rated doar assemblies; 2) The 23 building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances. 24 2254 Seventh Street West Victoria Pream for Keller Properties, Inc. 25 Decision: Appeal granted on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) If the nonconforming 26 doors ever need to be replaced, they will be repiaced with conforming fire rated door assemblies; 2) The 27 building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances. Resolution for Properiy Code Enforcement of 10-2-01 �i � I r'�—. ��; 4 r' i +�«d t ` i �! , i �`,t ; � 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yeas Na s Absent Blakey Coleman � Hazris Benanav � Reiter �� Bosffom f Lantry �/ `� 6 d Green Sheet 110384 Requested by Depamnent of. � Form Approved by City Attorney � 8 Adopted by Council: Date ��, �.0 a qo � 9 � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council 10 Adoprion Ce fied by Council Secr __. 11 By: � _ �-,. �� � 12 Approved by Mayor: Date ��/� ��/ �� 13 By: 01-I O�I.t ia r � � _ �...sar DEPARTMqJUOF.FICElCOUNqL.. . . . - OATE.1NrcWTEA. . . . , .. _. . . , � .�� �2!'.�, Citj Council Offices October 3 zoo GREEN SHEET NO �� a38(} COMACT PQ2SIXJ & PI-IONE ' InMlauDaFe IntlWlu�e Gerry Strathman, 266-8560 ����� �,�� MUST BE ON COUNCILAGFNDA BV (DAT� ASSIGN NUMBERFOR utY�STOn1EY tJlYttmit ROUTING � FNRMCMIiFANCFiOR FWYCJ11LfFRV/ACCt6 ❑rnvortlox�smsrart� ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) CTION RC-0UESTm _ Approving the October 2, 2001, decisions of the I.egislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals fox the following addresses: 733 Pierce Butler Route, 436 Shegard Road West, 1985 Grand Avenue, 2246 Seventh Street West, 2254 Seventh Street West. RECAMMENDATION Approve (A) or Reject (R) PERSONALSEItVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWERTXE FOLLOWING QUESTiONS: 1 Has this personffirm everwnrked under a wntract Torthis depa�tmeM1 pLANNING COMMISSION VES NO CIBCOMMITTEE 2. HasthispersoNfirtneverheenaciryempbyee? CIVILSERVICECOMMISSION VES NO 3. Does lhis persoNfirm possess a sldll not nwmalrypossessed by anY���M cily emDloY�? YES NO 4. is Mis person/fiim a targetetl vendoff YES NO E�lain all yes answers on separa[e sheet and attach to green sheet INI7IATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNITV (Who, Wha[, When, Where, Why) . ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED F�e��r;;�s C�C±tef' ��� � DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED � TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION f COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDING SOIIRCE � ACTNITY NUMBER FlNANCIAL INFORMATON (IXPWN) ' C.�\ � �3 . NOTES OF '1 F� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, October 2, 2001 Room 330 Courthause Gerry Strathmau, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 135 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Tom Beach, LIEP (License, Inspections, Environmental Protection); Pat Fish, Fire Prevention; Wendy Lane, LIEP; Steven Olson, LIEP 733 Pierce Butler Route (Rescheduled from 9-25-01) James Gaffiiey, owner, 4209 44th Street West, Edina, appeazed and stated he is not disagreeing with the report about making the building code compliant. It is just a question of time. The inspector said there were no permits for three items: the sports bar, the underground baz, and the walk-in freezer. When he purchased the properry in 1996, those three items were in the building, and he had it in his contract that the building had to be code compliant. He would like those items looked at to see what has to be done to make them code compliant. The building is being sold and the buyers are assuuiing these responsibilities. Mr. Gaffiiey would like to start some of the work for them so the building can be brought up to code. Steven Olson reported he has been in this building several times over the years. He inspected it for Mr. Gaffney in 1995 when he was purchasing the building. There is a written report of that inspection. At the time of that inspection, there was a large baz on the main floor in deteriorating condition, a small bar ofFthe dance floor in moderate condition, and a bar in the basement that was not being used. What generated the present report is that new people aze purchasing the business. The inspecfion this time found the same bazs there, but the volley ball area present in 1992 had been modified into a dance azea, and a complete baz had been installed with a walk-in cooler for beer to support this. In addition, there was another bar installed by a pool table in the basement. The last time permits were issued was 1994. Two bars were built interior, one walk- in cooler installed, and a baz constructed in the patio to serve drinks outside, all without pernut. Mr. Olson advised the owner to discontinue use of these ateas, apply for permits, and submit the plans for construction of these things. Assuming these things were built without permit, stated Mr. Strattunau, one solution is to remove them. Although it is not proper, some things get built in the City without permits. He asked is there a way to issue a permit retroactively. Mr. Olson responded that is a valid option. There may be a problem with plumbing and electrical, as these things will have to be exposed for the inspectors. Mr. Gaffiiey stated the walk-in cooler has been there since the building was built. Mr. Olson responded there is a walk-in cooler on the upstairs level off the kitchen, but there is a new walk- in cooler in the basement. Mr. Gaffiiey responded he knows what was there when he purchased the bar; however, the goal is to make the property compliant. The new owner may remove one of the bazs anyway. �� \U�5 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF OCTOBER 2, 2001 Page 2 Mr. Strathman asked is there a time &ame for when it will be sold. Hopefutly, Mr. Gaffuey responded, the property will be purchased in a month. Mr. Strathman stated the inspector believes there is constrnction installed without pernut, which would make it illegal, which could be ordered removed. The alternative would be to do what is necessary to get ttus code compliant. If additional time is given, asked Mr. Strathman, could he work with Mr. Gaffney to get the items compliant with the code. Mr. Olson responded he can work with him, but these things should not be used untii they are brought into compliance. Mr. Strathman stated a month is not a long time. Mr. Olson responded there aze three existing bars that can be used. The other bars can be discontinued, the owner can submit proper plans, and get permits to do the work. The cooler is the easiest thing to do. If the owner submits whoever installed the cooler, and he applies for a permit, an inspector from the mechanical office could be out there next week. The cooler is being used for beer; therefore, Mr. Olson has less concerns than if it was being used for food. Mr. Strathman asked about discontinuing use of these items until they aze brought into compliance. Mr. Gaffrtey responded one is discontinued alzeady. The one in the sports bar would be a hardship. Mr. Strathman stated there are too many questions of fact; therefore, he will lay over this matter for a month. Tn the meantime, stated Mr. Olson, there is illegal plumbing, ice that could be contaminated, and peopie could get sick. Any use of facilities that were installed without proper perxnits for water, sewer, and sanitation aze not a good idea. He asked is this office willing to accept that responsibility. Mr. Strathman responded there is a balance of concerns here. Inasmuch as these facilities have been in use far some time without any known harmfixl effect, he will recommend continuing this matter. Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the November 6, 2001, Properiy Code Enforcement Meeting. This lay over will give the owner time to wark with the inspector and resolve some problems. If the problems aze still unresolved on November 6, he will make a recommendation to the City Council. 436 Sheuard Road West (Laid over from 8-21-01) John Drucker, 2626 31 st Avenue South, Minneapolis, representing John Kerwin, appeazed and stated Mr. Kerwin's business trip was delayed. Mr. Kerwin's main request is that the questions of zoning for uses unrelated to the building be sepazated from the certificate of occupancy for the building. The only item specifically enumerated on the list is outdoor storage. They appiied for an outdoor storage pemut, but it was retumed because the boats were tied together. Zoning wanted a combined application for the boats and the outdoor storage. Mr. Kerwin refuses to do this. c�� �oy� PROPERTI' CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF OCTOBER 2, 2001 Page 3 Pat Fish xeported she did an inspection on September 10 on the property. Some items were completed. The issues that remain aze zoning, outdoor storage, electrical, and inside storage. In Chapter 34, she cannot certify a building if it is in direct violation of any City laws or ordivances. Zoning is right on ffie checklist that they have always used to approve buildings. If it is not zoned for a specific use, she canuot issue a certificate of occupancy. Wendy Lane reported there are two zoning issues: the mooring of the boats and the outside storage. The owner applied for a site plan review for the outside storage, but the mooring of the boats has not been addressed. There has never been an applica6on submitted for Plauning Commission approval for that mooring. Mr. Strathman stated both uses--the outdoor storage and the mooring of the boats--are noncompliant. The owner is asking that the mooring of the boats issue be split off from the question of the zoning for the outdoor storage so he can then get a certificate of occupancy for the building from Ms. Fish. He asked is he understanding this correctly. Mr. Drucker and Ms. Fish responded that is correct. Ms. Lane responded it is zoned properly for the mooring of boats, but the Planning Commission needs to approve it; they need to issue a river conidor conditional use pernut. The owner has not applied for one. Mr. Strathman asked what would be the harm if the zoning for outdoor storage was approved and a certificate of occupancy was issued for the building. Ms. Lane responded they were hoping to connect them to addzess a11 the violations together. Then, a certificate of occupancy could be issued for that property and for a11 the uses on the property as opposed to splitting off the different uses and treating some as okay and some as not okay. Mr. Strathmart asked what is Mr. Kerwin's reluctance to seek the necessary permit for the mooring of the boats. Mr. Drucker responded Mr. Kerwin has not been able to obtain what the requirements would be for the issuance of that. There are no guidelines and nothing enumerated. He believes what is down there is not in City jurisdiction. He would like to treat that as a sepazate issue and raise that question independent from the building and the storage. If Mr. Kerwin could get a clear list of the requirements, he could be talked into applying for a permit or challenging it on the issue of the specific requirement, stated Mr. Drucker. Mr. Kerwin's contention is the City should cite the boats if it feels the boats aze illegal. If the owner got it zoned properly for outdoor storage and complied with a11 the other items on the code compliance, Mr. Strathman asked, would there be a problem. Ms. Fish responded this has been going on during her entire cazeer with the Fire Deparhnent. The use of the property has always been in question. He was issued a certificate of occupancy for storage. What was found was illegal and dangerous. She does not want to take that chance again. Ms. Lane responded if Mr. Kerwin does not understand what the ordinance requirements are, she can give those to him. Some of the standards are subjecrive. She does not know how the Plauning Commission would look at some of those items; however, the findings tUat the Plauuiug Commission hase to make are clearly spelled out in the ordinance. U\ PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF OCTOBER 2, 2001 Page 4 He cau understand the rationale from the CiTy's staff perspective, stated Mr. Strathman, and he can understaud everyone's frusiration with this property; however, it does not seem quite right to deny the owner use of the building if it is in compliance and properly zoned because the adjoining marina may or may not be properly zoned. Mr. Strathman stated he will recommend that Mr. Kerwixi's appeal be granted with respect to the zoning issue regazding the marina and the building not needing to be resolved. However, a11 of the issues with respect to the buiiding must be done. If the City Council agrees with his recommendation, it will include the requirement that the remaiiuug items on the deficiency list be resolved within iwo weeks of City Council action. If that is not forthcoming, then the appeal will be denied. Ms. Lane asked about the outside storage. Mr. Strathman responded he understood that it was properly zoned for outside storage. Ms. Lane responded site plan approval is required and she has to have evidence that outside storage is above the regulatory flood protection elevation. She would also like to have it clear that the marina and mooring issue is separated out so this approval would not mean the use is being approved. Mr. Strathman asked what is the reasonable period of time for a site plan to be approved. Tom Beach responded a month. Mr. Beach stated how about if they set the same two week deadline for the submission of application and they can take as long as they want. Mr. Drucker responded he will get the application to him within the same two week timetable for completion of ali the requirements on the list. Gerry Strathman's decision is as follows: Outstanding issues with respect to the marina do not need to be resolved in order for the building to be issued a certificate of occupancy; however, all the deficiencies and requirements identified by the Fire Department with respect to the building and the outside storage must be resolved within two weeks of City Council approval of this decision. Also within two weeks of City Council approval of this decision, the owner must submit an application for an outdoor storage site plan to LIEP (License, Inspections, Environmental Protecfion). After the outdoor storage sate plan is submitted, the owner must get approval from LIEP within one month. If all this is not accomplished, then the appeal will be deemed denied. This decision is not exactly what everyone wants, but it seems to be a fair resolution. 1985 Grand Avenue Per Mike Unna.mi, the Fire Department has no objections to granting this appeal. Gerry Strathman granted an appeal on the nonconforming doors on the following condiuons: 1) If the nonconforming doors ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire �\ PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF OCTOBER 2, 2001 Page 5 rated door assemblies; 2) The building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with all applicable codes and ordinauces. 2246 Seventh Street West Per Mike Urmann, the Fire Department has no objections to granting this appeal. Gerry Strathman granted an appeal on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) If the nonconforming doors ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforniing fire rated door assemblies; 2) The building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with a11 applicable codes and ordinances. 2254 Seventh Street West Per Mike Urmann, the Fire Department has no objections to granting this appeal. Gerry Strathxnan granted an appeal on the nonconfornung doors on the following conditions: 1) If the nonconforming doors ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated door assemblies; 2) The building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The meeting was adjourned at 2:08 am. rrn. �RIGJNAL RESOLUTION C1TY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA r�es�,t�a Refesed To Council File # p\ • Lo�},g Green Sheet # 110384 r3 Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the October 2, 2 2001, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Properry Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 addresses: 4 Proroertv Ap ero aled Ap ep llant 5 733 Pierce Butler Route (Rescheduled from 9-25-Oi) James Gaffney for Club Metro 6 Decision: Layover to the November 6, 2001, Property Code Enfarcement meeting. 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 436 Shepard Road West (Laid over from 8-21-01) John Kerwin for Nicollet Restoration Decision: Outstanding issues with respect to the marina do not need to be resolved in order for the building to be issued a certificate of occupancy; however, all the deficiencies and requirements idenfified by the Fire Department with respect to the building and the outside storage must be resolved within two weeks of City Council approval of tl�is decision. Also within rivo weeks of City Council approval of this decision, the owner must submit an application for an outdoor storage site plan to LIEP (L'acense, Inspections, Environmental Protection). After the outdoor storage site plan is submitted, the owner must get approval from LIBP within one month. If all this is not accomplished, then the appeal will be deemed denied. 16 1985 Grand Avenue Ken D. Johnson for Muriel Johnson Trust 17 Decision: Appeal granted on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) If the nonconfomung 18 doors ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated door assemblies; 2) The 19 building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with a11 applicable codes and ordinances. 20 2246 Seventh Street West Victoria Pream for Keller Properties, Inc. 21 Decision: Appeai granted on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) If the nonconforming 22 doors ever need to be replaced, they wiil be replaced with conforming fire rated doar assemblies; 2) The 23 building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances. 24 2254 Seventh Street West Victoria Pream for Keller Properties, Inc. 25 Decision: Appeal granted on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) If the nonconforming 26 doors ever need to be replaced, they will be repiaced with conforming fire rated door assemblies; 2) The 27 building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances. Resolution for Properiy Code Enforcement of 10-2-01 �i � I r'�—. ��; 4 r' i +�«d t ` i �! , i �`,t ; � 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yeas Na s Absent Blakey Coleman � Hazris Benanav � Reiter �� Bosffom f Lantry �/ `� 6 d Green Sheet 110384 Requested by Depamnent of. � Form Approved by City Attorney � 8 Adopted by Council: Date ��, �.0 a qo � 9 � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council 10 Adoprion Ce fied by Council Secr __. 11 By: � _ �-,. �� � 12 Approved by Mayor: Date ��/� ��/ �� 13 By: 01-I O�I.t ia r � � _ �...sar DEPARTMqJUOF.FICElCOUNqL.. . . . - OATE.1NrcWTEA. . . . , .. _. . . , � .�� �2!'.�, Citj Council Offices October 3 zoo GREEN SHEET NO �� a38(} COMACT PQ2SIXJ & PI-IONE ' InMlauDaFe IntlWlu�e Gerry Strathman, 266-8560 ����� �,�� MUST BE ON COUNCILAGFNDA BV (DAT� ASSIGN NUMBERFOR utY�STOn1EY tJlYttmit ROUTING � FNRMCMIiFANCFiOR FWYCJ11LfFRV/ACCt6 ❑rnvortlox�smsrart� ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) CTION RC-0UESTm _ Approving the October 2, 2001, decisions of the I.egislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals fox the following addresses: 733 Pierce Butler Route, 436 Shegard Road West, 1985 Grand Avenue, 2246 Seventh Street West, 2254 Seventh Street West. RECAMMENDATION Approve (A) or Reject (R) PERSONALSEItVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWERTXE FOLLOWING QUESTiONS: 1 Has this personffirm everwnrked under a wntract Torthis depa�tmeM1 pLANNING COMMISSION VES NO CIBCOMMITTEE 2. HasthispersoNfirtneverheenaciryempbyee? CIVILSERVICECOMMISSION VES NO 3. Does lhis persoNfirm possess a sldll not nwmalrypossessed by anY���M cily emDloY�? YES NO 4. is Mis person/fiim a targetetl vendoff YES NO E�lain all yes answers on separa[e sheet and attach to green sheet INI7IATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNITV (Who, Wha[, When, Where, Why) . ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED F�e��r;;�s C�C±tef' ��� � DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED � TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION f COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDING SOIIRCE � ACTNITY NUMBER FlNANCIAL INFORMATON (IXPWN) ' C.�\ � �3 . NOTES OF '1 F� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, October 2, 2001 Room 330 Courthause Gerry Strathmau, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 135 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Tom Beach, LIEP (License, Inspections, Environmental Protection); Pat Fish, Fire Prevention; Wendy Lane, LIEP; Steven Olson, LIEP 733 Pierce Butler Route (Rescheduled from 9-25-01) James Gaffiiey, owner, 4209 44th Street West, Edina, appeazed and stated he is not disagreeing with the report about making the building code compliant. It is just a question of time. The inspector said there were no permits for three items: the sports bar, the underground baz, and the walk-in freezer. When he purchased the properry in 1996, those three items were in the building, and he had it in his contract that the building had to be code compliant. He would like those items looked at to see what has to be done to make them code compliant. The building is being sold and the buyers are assuuiing these responsibilities. Mr. Gaffiiey would like to start some of the work for them so the building can be brought up to code. Steven Olson reported he has been in this building several times over the years. He inspected it for Mr. Gaffney in 1995 when he was purchasing the building. There is a written report of that inspection. At the time of that inspection, there was a large baz on the main floor in deteriorating condition, a small bar ofFthe dance floor in moderate condition, and a bar in the basement that was not being used. What generated the present report is that new people aze purchasing the business. The inspecfion this time found the same bazs there, but the volley ball area present in 1992 had been modified into a dance azea, and a complete baz had been installed with a walk-in cooler for beer to support this. In addition, there was another bar installed by a pool table in the basement. The last time permits were issued was 1994. Two bars were built interior, one walk- in cooler installed, and a baz constructed in the patio to serve drinks outside, all without pernut. Mr. Olson advised the owner to discontinue use of these ateas, apply for permits, and submit the plans for construction of these things. Assuming these things were built without permit, stated Mr. Strattunau, one solution is to remove them. Although it is not proper, some things get built in the City without permits. He asked is there a way to issue a permit retroactively. Mr. Olson responded that is a valid option. There may be a problem with plumbing and electrical, as these things will have to be exposed for the inspectors. Mr. Gaffiiey stated the walk-in cooler has been there since the building was built. Mr. Olson responded there is a walk-in cooler on the upstairs level off the kitchen, but there is a new walk- in cooler in the basement. Mr. Gaffiiey responded he knows what was there when he purchased the bar; however, the goal is to make the property compliant. The new owner may remove one of the bazs anyway. �� \U�5 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF OCTOBER 2, 2001 Page 2 Mr. Strathman asked is there a time &ame for when it will be sold. Hopefutly, Mr. Gaffuey responded, the property will be purchased in a month. Mr. Strathman stated the inspector believes there is constrnction installed without pernut, which would make it illegal, which could be ordered removed. The alternative would be to do what is necessary to get ttus code compliant. If additional time is given, asked Mr. Strathman, could he work with Mr. Gaffney to get the items compliant with the code. Mr. Olson responded he can work with him, but these things should not be used untii they are brought into compliance. Mr. Strathman stated a month is not a long time. Mr. Olson responded there aze three existing bars that can be used. The other bars can be discontinued, the owner can submit proper plans, and get permits to do the work. The cooler is the easiest thing to do. If the owner submits whoever installed the cooler, and he applies for a permit, an inspector from the mechanical office could be out there next week. The cooler is being used for beer; therefore, Mr. Olson has less concerns than if it was being used for food. Mr. Strathman asked about discontinuing use of these items until they aze brought into compliance. Mr. Gaffrtey responded one is discontinued alzeady. The one in the sports bar would be a hardship. Mr. Strathman stated there are too many questions of fact; therefore, he will lay over this matter for a month. Tn the meantime, stated Mr. Olson, there is illegal plumbing, ice that could be contaminated, and peopie could get sick. Any use of facilities that were installed without proper perxnits for water, sewer, and sanitation aze not a good idea. He asked is this office willing to accept that responsibility. Mr. Strathman responded there is a balance of concerns here. Inasmuch as these facilities have been in use far some time without any known harmfixl effect, he will recommend continuing this matter. Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the November 6, 2001, Properiy Code Enforcement Meeting. This lay over will give the owner time to wark with the inspector and resolve some problems. If the problems aze still unresolved on November 6, he will make a recommendation to the City Council. 436 Sheuard Road West (Laid over from 8-21-01) John Drucker, 2626 31 st Avenue South, Minneapolis, representing John Kerwin, appeazed and stated Mr. Kerwin's business trip was delayed. Mr. Kerwin's main request is that the questions of zoning for uses unrelated to the building be sepazated from the certificate of occupancy for the building. The only item specifically enumerated on the list is outdoor storage. They appiied for an outdoor storage pemut, but it was retumed because the boats were tied together. Zoning wanted a combined application for the boats and the outdoor storage. Mr. Kerwin refuses to do this. c�� �oy� PROPERTI' CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF OCTOBER 2, 2001 Page 3 Pat Fish xeported she did an inspection on September 10 on the property. Some items were completed. The issues that remain aze zoning, outdoor storage, electrical, and inside storage. In Chapter 34, she cannot certify a building if it is in direct violation of any City laws or ordivances. Zoning is right on ffie checklist that they have always used to approve buildings. If it is not zoned for a specific use, she canuot issue a certificate of occupancy. Wendy Lane reported there are two zoning issues: the mooring of the boats and the outside storage. The owner applied for a site plan review for the outside storage, but the mooring of the boats has not been addressed. There has never been an applica6on submitted for Plauning Commission approval for that mooring. Mr. Strathman stated both uses--the outdoor storage and the mooring of the boats--are noncompliant. The owner is asking that the mooring of the boats issue be split off from the question of the zoning for the outdoor storage so he can then get a certificate of occupancy for the building from Ms. Fish. He asked is he understanding this correctly. Mr. Drucker and Ms. Fish responded that is correct. Ms. Lane responded it is zoned properly for the mooring of boats, but the Planning Commission needs to approve it; they need to issue a river conidor conditional use pernut. The owner has not applied for one. Mr. Strathman asked what would be the harm if the zoning for outdoor storage was approved and a certificate of occupancy was issued for the building. Ms. Lane responded they were hoping to connect them to addzess a11 the violations together. Then, a certificate of occupancy could be issued for that property and for a11 the uses on the property as opposed to splitting off the different uses and treating some as okay and some as not okay. Mr. Strathmart asked what is Mr. Kerwin's reluctance to seek the necessary permit for the mooring of the boats. Mr. Drucker responded Mr. Kerwin has not been able to obtain what the requirements would be for the issuance of that. There are no guidelines and nothing enumerated. He believes what is down there is not in City jurisdiction. He would like to treat that as a sepazate issue and raise that question independent from the building and the storage. If Mr. Kerwin could get a clear list of the requirements, he could be talked into applying for a permit or challenging it on the issue of the specific requirement, stated Mr. Drucker. Mr. Kerwin's contention is the City should cite the boats if it feels the boats aze illegal. If the owner got it zoned properly for outdoor storage and complied with a11 the other items on the code compliance, Mr. Strathman asked, would there be a problem. Ms. Fish responded this has been going on during her entire cazeer with the Fire Deparhnent. The use of the property has always been in question. He was issued a certificate of occupancy for storage. What was found was illegal and dangerous. She does not want to take that chance again. Ms. Lane responded if Mr. Kerwin does not understand what the ordinance requirements are, she can give those to him. Some of the standards are subjecrive. She does not know how the Plauning Commission would look at some of those items; however, the findings tUat the Plauuiug Commission hase to make are clearly spelled out in the ordinance. U\ PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF OCTOBER 2, 2001 Page 4 He cau understand the rationale from the CiTy's staff perspective, stated Mr. Strathman, and he can understaud everyone's frusiration with this property; however, it does not seem quite right to deny the owner use of the building if it is in compliance and properly zoned because the adjoining marina may or may not be properly zoned. Mr. Strathman stated he will recommend that Mr. Kerwixi's appeal be granted with respect to the zoning issue regazding the marina and the building not needing to be resolved. However, a11 of the issues with respect to the buiiding must be done. If the City Council agrees with his recommendation, it will include the requirement that the remaiiuug items on the deficiency list be resolved within iwo weeks of City Council action. If that is not forthcoming, then the appeal will be denied. Ms. Lane asked about the outside storage. Mr. Strathman responded he understood that it was properly zoned for outside storage. Ms. Lane responded site plan approval is required and she has to have evidence that outside storage is above the regulatory flood protection elevation. She would also like to have it clear that the marina and mooring issue is separated out so this approval would not mean the use is being approved. Mr. Strathman asked what is the reasonable period of time for a site plan to be approved. Tom Beach responded a month. Mr. Beach stated how about if they set the same two week deadline for the submission of application and they can take as long as they want. Mr. Drucker responded he will get the application to him within the same two week timetable for completion of ali the requirements on the list. Gerry Strathman's decision is as follows: Outstanding issues with respect to the marina do not need to be resolved in order for the building to be issued a certificate of occupancy; however, all the deficiencies and requirements identified by the Fire Department with respect to the building and the outside storage must be resolved within two weeks of City Council approval of this decision. Also within two weeks of City Council approval of this decision, the owner must submit an application for an outdoor storage site plan to LIEP (License, Inspections, Environmental Protecfion). After the outdoor storage sate plan is submitted, the owner must get approval from LIEP within one month. If all this is not accomplished, then the appeal will be deemed denied. This decision is not exactly what everyone wants, but it seems to be a fair resolution. 1985 Grand Avenue Per Mike Unna.mi, the Fire Department has no objections to granting this appeal. Gerry Strathman granted an appeal on the nonconforming doors on the following condiuons: 1) If the nonconforming doors ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire �\ PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF OCTOBER 2, 2001 Page 5 rated door assemblies; 2) The building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with all applicable codes and ordinauces. 2246 Seventh Street West Per Mike Urmann, the Fire Department has no objections to granting this appeal. Gerry Strathman granted an appeal on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) If the nonconforming doors ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforniing fire rated door assemblies; 2) The building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with a11 applicable codes and ordinances. 2254 Seventh Street West Per Mike Urmann, the Fire Department has no objections to granting this appeal. Gerry Strathxnan granted an appeal on the nonconfornung doors on the following conditions: 1) If the nonconforming doors ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated door assemblies; 2) The building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The meeting was adjourned at 2:08 am. rrn.