Loading...
01-914ORIG�NAL Presented Referred To Committee Date BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the August 21, 2001, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on the following addresses: Propert�Ap en aled AQpellant 436 Sheroazd Road West John Kerwin for Nicollet Restoration, Inc. Decision: Laid over to the October 2, 2001, Properiy Code Enforcement Meeting. 882 Seventh Street West Thomas Fable, Lindquist & Vennum, for Minnesota Brewing Company Decision: Laid over to the September 25, 2001, Properry Code Enfarcement Meeting. 1259 Berkelev Avenue Laura Cantrell Decision: Appeal denied on the Property Code Enforcement Correction Notice dated July 31, 2001 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey � Coleman ,/ Harris � Benanav Reiter � Bostrom � Lanh'y ✓ 0 Adopted by Council: Date: A�� .� afl� Adoption Certified by Council Secr� � BY � �� `� Apprc Date: By: Council File # �\ — 4�y Green Sheet # 106172 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �� Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council I� City Council Offices Gerry Strathman, 266-8560 BY TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES ����.� 8-22-2001 „ rurae�sart rtoura�e oauerz GREEN SHEET eeu�,�rowFerae - o� - 9 ry �O 106172. arccaiac� � an�neuar ❑ arcuciuc _ ❑nu��a�enaR. ❑waou�eero ❑MVOR(ORAfOffNli� ❑ (CIJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNANRE) Approving the August 21, 2001, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 436 Shepard Road West, 882 Seventh Street West, and 1259 Berkeley Avenue. PLANNING CAMMISSION CIB COMMITTEE CNIL SERVICE CAMMISSION ties tl� ae�soNfrm ever worketl under a ca�tract tor tluc Aeparhnent? YES NO Hac m"m aeisoMim ever 6een e edy empbyee7 YES fq Doe6 thie D�� D�es e aidll IIaR namnNYD�sed DY �Y a+�L cilY empbyeel YES NO k mu o�soMrm a tayeted �enaoR YES NO ,. �$8°�2.!Ch �"+E?�lt�i �.� i' :�.{;[. eosTmevo�ue euusereo �cuce� or� rEa xo � °�^� �cnvirr xu�rt ,�on.u„on �owinnn C�� �i� � � �. NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, August 21, 2001 Room 330, City Hall Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer Staff Present: Pat Fish, Fire Prevention; John Powers, Fire Prevention; Steve Schiller, Fire Prevention Gerry Strathman called the meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. 436 Shepard Road West (Rescheduled from 8-7-01} John Kerwiu, Nicollet Restoration, Inc., appeared and stated this property is the somewhat abandoned power genezating plant, also laiown as Island Station. He purchased the properry twenty years ago. After doing a chunk of the Minneapolis river front, he came to Saint Paul at the urging of George Latimer (former mayor) and others to join the City's river front renaissance. He is pursuing a plan to put restaurant, housing, and new buildings on the river. The existing building would be rental apariments. The rest of the land on the site would be retained. (Mr. Kervin submitted plans to Mr. Stratlunan.) Mr. Strathman stated he sees a marina in the plans. Mr. Kerwin responded boats would go under a bridge to get into the marina. Last Friday, he signed an option to sell the building. Maybe a power plant is all that can be done with this property. The present use is unheated storage. The other use is a boating community on the river, which started in 1991. About 10 to 15 boaters have grown up down there and live aboard the boats. It is not a pretry marina. An article was written about the coxnmunity in 1997. (Mr. Kerwin submitted an article to Mr. Sirathman.) Mr. Kerwin stated there was an artist community living in the building at one point. The City objected to that and there was two to tluee yeazs of bitter litigation. A resolution came out of that for the certificate of occupancy, the storage in the building, and the boats on the river. (Mr. Kerwin showed some paper to Mr. Strathxnan.) Mr. Kerwin stated tlus document is the appeal; e�ibits aze attached. He is requesting the City honor the certificate of occupancy of 9-12-94, which is the result of years of litigation, ordered pernuts, and work. He has stayed adherent to the uses that were there on 9-12-94. Nothing has changed since then. The Legislative Hearing Officer approved the use of 1994 that ran up to 8-25-99, wluch is when a City inspector was renewing the certificate of occupancy the third time and came up with E�ibit F(in the documents he submitted), which is a corrections letter. The letter said when the items on the corrections letter aze completed, the City will issue a certificate of occupancy. The items were corrected and he never got his certificate. o� ��� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF AUGUST 21, Z001 Page 2 Mr. Strathman asked why the agreement with the City in 1994 seems to have broken down. Mr. Kerwin responded that is in Pazagraph 3, III (in the doeuments he submitted). In his frustration in trying to develop Island Stafion, he went to the State Legislature, Building Codes Division, and Department of Natural Resources, which resulted in Legislative Initiarives. The first initiative was the adoption of the uniform code for building restoration, which is the code being written at the State Capitol to be used internafionally. Because he pushed this code, he was named to the committee that would study this code and modify it over a yeaz. That was dated and sent out 12-16-99. The next day, there was a new certificate of occupancy conections list that contained more items. Two critical items were on it: remove the propane tauks that heat the boats and yank the extension cords that gave them power. Mr. Kerwin stated the forum for the adoption of the building restoration program went on. Steve Zaccazd (Fire Department) was there and was surprised to see Mr. Kenvixi there. Mr. Zaccazd has not attended a meeting since. Mr. Kerwin got criminal citations two weeks later from Pat Fish for failing to remove propane tanks and electrical cords. He was found guilty. He pulled out eactension cords and the propane ta.uks were gone. At the sentencing, the City Attorney said that they could find things at the building if they really comb through there. He also said Mr. Kerwin was going to jail. Six days after that, it goes from a one page conection list with a few items to a three page correcfion list with a couple dozen items. The last inspection came out dated 7-19-01 with a four page inspection list. That is what is being appealed today. Mr. Strathman asked what the property is being used for and are the boaters gone. Mr. Kerwin responded the boaters are still there. Ha1f haue gone solar and wind and planning to drag propane tanks over the ice again. The building is being used for storage. The Fire Department letter reads to vacate, but there is not much to vacate. It is not human occupied. If that building is not guarded, the neighborhood children get in there. The City threw out the guard. There has been a lot of vandalism since then and a fire. Mr. Strathman asked when the City forced the guard out. Mr. Kerwin responded it was put on the certificate of occupancy list that it was appazent a guard was sleeping in the building in unsanitary conditions. This was true, said Mr. Kerwin. Now, there is a slight human presence in the building: there is man that sorts and delivers pallets. He has electricity. Occasionally he fixes pallets. Mr. Kenvin would like Mr. Strathman to a11ow him to keep tkris human presence in the building. Also, there is a bus on the properry. This is for the outside guazd. He has another place to live, but he sleeps at the bus a lot of the time. As for the four page list, Mr. Kerwin stated, he has addressed in his documents all the items on that list. Some of the items aze zoning and they do not belong on the list because this is a fire inspecfion. There are previously resolved items on the list and new items that were not on the August inspection. Mr. Kerwin stated Inspector Fish has been told from high up to get the owners of this property. Ms. Fish responded that is not tnxe. c��-��'� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 3 Pat Fish reported she does not disagree with Mr. Kerwin about the building itself. Every item on the list addresses safety. She strongly disagrees with the allegation that she was told to get anybody at that building. The original inspection was August 1999, which was two years ago. That is more time than others have received. Mr. Kenvin has been given adequate time to address these situations. Inspector Brent Ricketson was with the Fire Department a short time and did the original inspecfion August 1999, stated Ms. Fish. He had several items on the list. Fire received complaints that people were living in the building. Ms. Fish went with Mr. Ricketson to investigate. She found seven 500 gallon propane tanks perched on the edge of the properiy with rubber hoses coming off of the tauks mm�ing off the driveway through the trees and who laiows where. Eventually, it was covered by snow. Someone had tapped into the electrical service from the back of the building, run wire down through the trees, attached to the trees onto a pulley, and ran it onto the boats. She saw this as an unsafe condition. She ended up writing a tag for the propane and a tag for the electrical. Mr. Kerwin did lose that court case. Ms. Fish stated the propane was removed because of the flood eazlier tYus year. The fire chief ordexed the propane and the electrical out. The electrical was cut by Xcel. It was not as voluntary as stated earlier. The person found living in the building was hardly a guard. He was elderly, living in one of the units, and in an extremely unsanitary condition. There is no sewer there, bathroom facilities, nor water, except for the river. Ms. Fish told him he had to leave. The department policy is that when the certificate is revoked, it is reinstaxed by having a renewal inspection of the entire premises. It was due for a renewal anyway because it was two years later. The first time she went through the property in June, stated Ms. Fish, the person who represents Mr. Kerwin did not have keys to all the areas. Ms. Fish still has not gotten into ail of the areas. She did see some electrical problems, and needed an electrical inspector to accompany her when she reinspected. When she did the reinspection, not all the items were conected. There were exit signs put up, storage removed from the boiler, but there is still more of both to be done. The electrical inspector was with her. He did itemize and made a list of things to be corrected. As for the person living in the bus, stated Ms. Fish, an electrical cord was coming out of the bus, ran across the ground, into the water, and someone had driven a hole into the brick and concrete wall of the building, run the cord through the building, down to the next floor, and into the service down there. The entire lower floor was flooded. Mr. Kerwin's representative was told not to turn the power back on after the water recedes until he calls and gets it reinspected. Someone called Xcel and had the power turned on. It was never reinspected. When these things are done on the list, there will be a reinspecfion. There was one set up for Thursday, but Mr. Kerwin's representative cancelled it because of the appeal today and because he was going to be out of town. Mr. Kerwin has had more tnne than a lot of owners have had to resolve these issues. She cannot certify a building unless the zoning is correct, but she is addressing life safety issues and fire code issues. She does not know anything about the committee that Mr. Kerwin and Mr. Zaccazd aze on and that has nothing to do with the fire and building codes. O��`�\� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Strathman stated a certificate of occupancy was received in 1994 and issued again in 1996. Between 1994 and 1996, the building apparently was qualified for a certificate of occupancy; in 1999, it was not qualified. He asked why was it okay and now not okay. Ms. Fish responded she was involved in the inspecfion of the building in the 1980's and eazly 1990's when people were living in it iliegally. She has not been involved with it since it was cold storage. She went with this inspector in late 1999 because he was new to the staff and did not haue a lot of e�:perience. The flood this year brought a lot of this to the foreground. This building is certified for cold storage only. Anytime someone is down there, they aze repairing and building pallets in that one unit. That may be a good strategy for a guard, but manufacturing cannot be done in a cold storage wazehouse that does not have fire protection. If the certificate of occupancy is revoked, asked Gerty Strathman, the owner would then need to discontinue use of the building, secure the ea�terior, and it would sit there until it is redeveloped. Ms. Fish responded he would have to vacate, secure the building, and not use it for storage. The outdoor storage and the upkeep on the grounds would still need to be addressed. Mr. Kerwin asked aze a11 the items on the August 25 inspection complete. Ms. Fish responded no. Anything completed was taken off the list and is not on the current list. Electrical panel cleazance problems, outside vehicle storage, pallets higher than six feet. Mr. Strathman stated his role is to seek and make an independent judgement as to whether the fire department has acted within the law and in a reasonable manner. Sometimes he goes futther to see if an accommodation can be made that is acceptable to the enforcing agency and the appellant, so an undue burden is not created on the property owner. He can limit himself and say what is done here is in accordance with the law. Or, he can set it aside and look into whether there is any kind of accommodation that can be reached between the fire department and the owner so both parties can go forwazd without further disagreement. Ms. Fish has a legitimate concern about protecting life and safety, stated Mr. Strathman. He asked is there an accommodation that could be reached that would a11ow the owner to have a certificate of occupancy and confinue to use this building ar is it her view that this cannot happen until the items on the list are satisfactorily addressed. Ms. Fish responded the owner has to stop the pallet manufactnriug. The electrical has to be corrected. The other items are not that difFicult. He started reducing some of the storage heights and making better aisles and cleazances to the eleclrical panels. They started putting up the exit sign. Mr. Strathman asked was the pallet storage lease temunated. Mr. Kerwin responded he has not begun eviction proceedings. The man is not manufacturing pallets. It is a safer building with him there. If the pallet storage was done in a safer manner, Mr. Strathman asked, would that address her concems. Ms. Fish responded she does not fliivk it can be conducted there. If he is going to have a manufachiriug occupancy, the requirements aze different; however, he is not going to meet those requirements in that space and in that building. ��^��t� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCENIENT NOT'ES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Slrathman asked about an agreement that there would be only storage there and no repairs nor manufacturing. Ms. Fish responded the burden would be on the City to check on it because that was the agreement before. Mr. Kerwin stated his azchitect is continuing to work with Inspector Fish. Mr. Stratluvau stated if Mr. Kerwiu says the pallet business needs to stay there and Ms. Fish says it cannot, that is not a negotiarion. Mr. Kerwin responded if that is what would resolve this in order to get the certificate of occupancy, he would do it. The list has about four catches. Mr. Strathman stated he has two options: 1) he can make a ruling on the appeal and forward it to the City Council for approval, 2) continue this issue for a month, and allow one more opportunity for Mr. Kerwin to work out something with the fire department. Mr. Kerwin responded he wili try. If Ms. Fish can clean up the list and get together with Mr. Drucker (architect), maybe the list could be down to a few items that they could discuss. Ms. Fish responded she would haue to do a reinspection on the building to see how many of these items aze done. Gerry 5lrathman laid over to the October 2, 2001, Property Code Enforcement Meeting in hopes that Mr. Kerwin and the Fire Department will work out an agxeement that will allow the certificate of occupancy to be issued. If that is not successful, he will make a ruling on October 2 and send it to the City Council. 882 Seventh Street West Amy Reed, Lindquist & Vennum, appeazed on behalf of Minnesota Brewing. She asked for a continuance so they can investigate the items on the deficiency list and work with the Fire inspector. John Powers reported this is an extensive list. If they aze going to work on complying, he has no problem with a continuance so they can work towazd that goa1. Gerry Strathman laid over to the September 25, 2001, Property Code Enforcement Meeting. 1259 Berkeley Avenue Laura Cantrell, owner, appeared and stated she has been living at this property for 18 years. The properry has a few problems, and she has put a lot of work into the house. Steve Schiller sent her a corrections notice. She does not disagree that these items need to be done. She got the debris from the tree hauled out. She is working on getting a loan. She is on disability, warks part time, and was reevaluated in November. She has not seen a check since then and has been living ofF her sa�ings. She has had contractors that did not do the work properly. She is requesting more time. The chniuiey, house pa3nting, front steps cannot be done by September 1. �\���� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 6 Steve Schilier reported he received a complaint on the house. His office tries to look at people's finances, although they do not delve into them. One of his major concerns is that she is not getting three good bids on what is being done on the house. Some items require little money up front. For example, half of bag of cement is all that is needed for the front steps. The main problem is the deterioration on the gazage eatension. There is little or no value in a garage e�ension of a foot. The repair can go into next yeaz easily. Ms. Cantrell stated she has major problems with the windows. She repaired the steps two yeazs ago, but it did not last. She can do things the easy way, but she wants to rebuild things. Gerry Strathman stated there aze two ways to handle this: 1) continuing this to sometime in the future to see where the property is, 2) having the inspector give the owner additional tune, which is the inspector's call. Mr. Schiller responded he is willing to wark with her. To protect herself, pernuts need to be pulled so that people aze not taking advantage of her. Her contractor has to come forward, say they aze licensed and bonded in Saint Paul, and pull permits to stand by their work. The garage can wait until next year. The steps have to be addressed because she is close to losing the handrails. If water gets behind the stucco, she will lose her stucco and get water damage inside her house. It will go from a small repair to a large repair. Ms. Cantrell asked can she keep him involved on what she is doing. Mr. Schiller responded she only needs to contact him with the people that are doing the woxk at her house, and to give him a call when they pull permits. Mr. Strathman stated the order reads that the work has to be done by September 1 and asked is he going to amend that. Mr. Schiller responded there are two items that needs to be done right away: repair the stucco on the chimney and repair the steps. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on the Property Code Enforcement Correction Notice dated July 31, 2001, because everyone is in agreement that the work needs to be done; however, the inspector will grant the owner additional time to get this work done. Mr. Schiller responded that if nothing is done this yeaz, everything agreed on today is off. The meeting was adjourned at 2:52 p.m. � ORIG�NAL Presented Referred To Committee Date BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the August 21, 2001, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on the following addresses: Propert�Ap en aled AQpellant 436 Sheroazd Road West John Kerwin for Nicollet Restoration, Inc. Decision: Laid over to the October 2, 2001, Properiy Code Enforcement Meeting. 882 Seventh Street West Thomas Fable, Lindquist & Vennum, for Minnesota Brewing Company Decision: Laid over to the September 25, 2001, Properry Code Enfarcement Meeting. 1259 Berkelev Avenue Laura Cantrell Decision: Appeal denied on the Property Code Enforcement Correction Notice dated July 31, 2001 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey � Coleman ,/ Harris � Benanav Reiter � Bostrom � Lanh'y ✓ 0 Adopted by Council: Date: A�� .� afl� Adoption Certified by Council Secr� � BY � �� `� Apprc Date: By: Council File # �\ — 4�y Green Sheet # 106172 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �� Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council I� City Council Offices Gerry Strathman, 266-8560 BY TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES ����.� 8-22-2001 „ rurae�sart rtoura�e oauerz GREEN SHEET eeu�,�rowFerae - o� - 9 ry �O 106172. arccaiac� � an�neuar ❑ arcuciuc _ ❑nu��a�enaR. ❑waou�eero ❑MVOR(ORAfOffNli� ❑ (CIJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNANRE) Approving the August 21, 2001, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 436 Shepard Road West, 882 Seventh Street West, and 1259 Berkeley Avenue. PLANNING CAMMISSION CIB COMMITTEE CNIL SERVICE CAMMISSION ties tl� ae�soNfrm ever worketl under a ca�tract tor tluc Aeparhnent? YES NO Hac m"m aeisoMim ever 6een e edy empbyee7 YES fq Doe6 thie D�� D�es e aidll IIaR namnNYD�sed DY �Y a+�L cilY empbyeel YES NO k mu o�soMrm a tayeted �enaoR YES NO ,. �$8°�2.!Ch �"+E?�lt�i �.� i' :�.{;[. eosTmevo�ue euusereo �cuce� or� rEa xo � °�^� �cnvirr xu�rt ,�on.u„on �owinnn C�� �i� � � �. NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, August 21, 2001 Room 330, City Hall Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer Staff Present: Pat Fish, Fire Prevention; John Powers, Fire Prevention; Steve Schiller, Fire Prevention Gerry Strathman called the meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. 436 Shepard Road West (Rescheduled from 8-7-01} John Kerwiu, Nicollet Restoration, Inc., appeared and stated this property is the somewhat abandoned power genezating plant, also laiown as Island Station. He purchased the properry twenty years ago. After doing a chunk of the Minneapolis river front, he came to Saint Paul at the urging of George Latimer (former mayor) and others to join the City's river front renaissance. He is pursuing a plan to put restaurant, housing, and new buildings on the river. The existing building would be rental apariments. The rest of the land on the site would be retained. (Mr. Kervin submitted plans to Mr. Stratlunan.) Mr. Strathman stated he sees a marina in the plans. Mr. Kerwin responded boats would go under a bridge to get into the marina. Last Friday, he signed an option to sell the building. Maybe a power plant is all that can be done with this property. The present use is unheated storage. The other use is a boating community on the river, which started in 1991. About 10 to 15 boaters have grown up down there and live aboard the boats. It is not a pretry marina. An article was written about the coxnmunity in 1997. (Mr. Kerwin submitted an article to Mr. Sirathman.) Mr. Kerwin stated there was an artist community living in the building at one point. The City objected to that and there was two to tluee yeazs of bitter litigation. A resolution came out of that for the certificate of occupancy, the storage in the building, and the boats on the river. (Mr. Kerwin showed some paper to Mr. Strathxnan.) Mr. Kerwin stated tlus document is the appeal; e�ibits aze attached. He is requesting the City honor the certificate of occupancy of 9-12-94, which is the result of years of litigation, ordered pernuts, and work. He has stayed adherent to the uses that were there on 9-12-94. Nothing has changed since then. The Legislative Hearing Officer approved the use of 1994 that ran up to 8-25-99, wluch is when a City inspector was renewing the certificate of occupancy the third time and came up with E�ibit F(in the documents he submitted), which is a corrections letter. The letter said when the items on the corrections letter aze completed, the City will issue a certificate of occupancy. The items were corrected and he never got his certificate. o� ��� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF AUGUST 21, Z001 Page 2 Mr. Strathman asked why the agreement with the City in 1994 seems to have broken down. Mr. Kerwin responded that is in Pazagraph 3, III (in the doeuments he submitted). In his frustration in trying to develop Island Stafion, he went to the State Legislature, Building Codes Division, and Department of Natural Resources, which resulted in Legislative Initiarives. The first initiative was the adoption of the uniform code for building restoration, which is the code being written at the State Capitol to be used internafionally. Because he pushed this code, he was named to the committee that would study this code and modify it over a yeaz. That was dated and sent out 12-16-99. The next day, there was a new certificate of occupancy conections list that contained more items. Two critical items were on it: remove the propane tauks that heat the boats and yank the extension cords that gave them power. Mr. Kerwin stated the forum for the adoption of the building restoration program went on. Steve Zaccazd (Fire Department) was there and was surprised to see Mr. Kenvixi there. Mr. Zaccazd has not attended a meeting since. Mr. Kerwin got criminal citations two weeks later from Pat Fish for failing to remove propane tanks and electrical cords. He was found guilty. He pulled out eactension cords and the propane ta.uks were gone. At the sentencing, the City Attorney said that they could find things at the building if they really comb through there. He also said Mr. Kerwin was going to jail. Six days after that, it goes from a one page conection list with a few items to a three page correcfion list with a couple dozen items. The last inspection came out dated 7-19-01 with a four page inspection list. That is what is being appealed today. Mr. Strathman asked what the property is being used for and are the boaters gone. Mr. Kerwin responded the boaters are still there. Ha1f haue gone solar and wind and planning to drag propane tanks over the ice again. The building is being used for storage. The Fire Department letter reads to vacate, but there is not much to vacate. It is not human occupied. If that building is not guarded, the neighborhood children get in there. The City threw out the guard. There has been a lot of vandalism since then and a fire. Mr. Strathman asked when the City forced the guard out. Mr. Kerwin responded it was put on the certificate of occupancy list that it was appazent a guard was sleeping in the building in unsanitary conditions. This was true, said Mr. Kerwin. Now, there is a slight human presence in the building: there is man that sorts and delivers pallets. He has electricity. Occasionally he fixes pallets. Mr. Kenvin would like Mr. Strathman to a11ow him to keep tkris human presence in the building. Also, there is a bus on the properry. This is for the outside guazd. He has another place to live, but he sleeps at the bus a lot of the time. As for the four page list, Mr. Kerwin stated, he has addressed in his documents all the items on that list. Some of the items aze zoning and they do not belong on the list because this is a fire inspecfion. There are previously resolved items on the list and new items that were not on the August inspection. Mr. Kerwin stated Inspector Fish has been told from high up to get the owners of this property. Ms. Fish responded that is not tnxe. c��-��'� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 3 Pat Fish reported she does not disagree with Mr. Kerwin about the building itself. Every item on the list addresses safety. She strongly disagrees with the allegation that she was told to get anybody at that building. The original inspection was August 1999, which was two years ago. That is more time than others have received. Mr. Kenvin has been given adequate time to address these situations. Inspector Brent Ricketson was with the Fire Department a short time and did the original inspecfion August 1999, stated Ms. Fish. He had several items on the list. Fire received complaints that people were living in the building. Ms. Fish went with Mr. Ricketson to investigate. She found seven 500 gallon propane tanks perched on the edge of the properiy with rubber hoses coming off of the tauks mm�ing off the driveway through the trees and who laiows where. Eventually, it was covered by snow. Someone had tapped into the electrical service from the back of the building, run wire down through the trees, attached to the trees onto a pulley, and ran it onto the boats. She saw this as an unsafe condition. She ended up writing a tag for the propane and a tag for the electrical. Mr. Kerwin did lose that court case. Ms. Fish stated the propane was removed because of the flood eazlier tYus year. The fire chief ordexed the propane and the electrical out. The electrical was cut by Xcel. It was not as voluntary as stated earlier. The person found living in the building was hardly a guard. He was elderly, living in one of the units, and in an extremely unsanitary condition. There is no sewer there, bathroom facilities, nor water, except for the river. Ms. Fish told him he had to leave. The department policy is that when the certificate is revoked, it is reinstaxed by having a renewal inspection of the entire premises. It was due for a renewal anyway because it was two years later. The first time she went through the property in June, stated Ms. Fish, the person who represents Mr. Kerwin did not have keys to all the areas. Ms. Fish still has not gotten into ail of the areas. She did see some electrical problems, and needed an electrical inspector to accompany her when she reinspected. When she did the reinspection, not all the items were conected. There were exit signs put up, storage removed from the boiler, but there is still more of both to be done. The electrical inspector was with her. He did itemize and made a list of things to be corrected. As for the person living in the bus, stated Ms. Fish, an electrical cord was coming out of the bus, ran across the ground, into the water, and someone had driven a hole into the brick and concrete wall of the building, run the cord through the building, down to the next floor, and into the service down there. The entire lower floor was flooded. Mr. Kerwin's representative was told not to turn the power back on after the water recedes until he calls and gets it reinspected. Someone called Xcel and had the power turned on. It was never reinspected. When these things are done on the list, there will be a reinspecfion. There was one set up for Thursday, but Mr. Kerwin's representative cancelled it because of the appeal today and because he was going to be out of town. Mr. Kerwin has had more tnne than a lot of owners have had to resolve these issues. She cannot certify a building unless the zoning is correct, but she is addressing life safety issues and fire code issues. She does not know anything about the committee that Mr. Kerwin and Mr. Zaccazd aze on and that has nothing to do with the fire and building codes. O��`�\� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Strathman stated a certificate of occupancy was received in 1994 and issued again in 1996. Between 1994 and 1996, the building apparently was qualified for a certificate of occupancy; in 1999, it was not qualified. He asked why was it okay and now not okay. Ms. Fish responded she was involved in the inspecfion of the building in the 1980's and eazly 1990's when people were living in it iliegally. She has not been involved with it since it was cold storage. She went with this inspector in late 1999 because he was new to the staff and did not haue a lot of e�:perience. The flood this year brought a lot of this to the foreground. This building is certified for cold storage only. Anytime someone is down there, they aze repairing and building pallets in that one unit. That may be a good strategy for a guard, but manufacturing cannot be done in a cold storage wazehouse that does not have fire protection. If the certificate of occupancy is revoked, asked Gerty Strathman, the owner would then need to discontinue use of the building, secure the ea�terior, and it would sit there until it is redeveloped. Ms. Fish responded he would have to vacate, secure the building, and not use it for storage. The outdoor storage and the upkeep on the grounds would still need to be addressed. Mr. Kerwin asked aze a11 the items on the August 25 inspection complete. Ms. Fish responded no. Anything completed was taken off the list and is not on the current list. Electrical panel cleazance problems, outside vehicle storage, pallets higher than six feet. Mr. Strathman stated his role is to seek and make an independent judgement as to whether the fire department has acted within the law and in a reasonable manner. Sometimes he goes futther to see if an accommodation can be made that is acceptable to the enforcing agency and the appellant, so an undue burden is not created on the property owner. He can limit himself and say what is done here is in accordance with the law. Or, he can set it aside and look into whether there is any kind of accommodation that can be reached between the fire department and the owner so both parties can go forwazd without further disagreement. Ms. Fish has a legitimate concern about protecting life and safety, stated Mr. Strathman. He asked is there an accommodation that could be reached that would a11ow the owner to have a certificate of occupancy and confinue to use this building ar is it her view that this cannot happen until the items on the list are satisfactorily addressed. Ms. Fish responded the owner has to stop the pallet manufactnriug. The electrical has to be corrected. The other items are not that difFicult. He started reducing some of the storage heights and making better aisles and cleazances to the eleclrical panels. They started putting up the exit sign. Mr. Strathman asked was the pallet storage lease temunated. Mr. Kerwin responded he has not begun eviction proceedings. The man is not manufacturing pallets. It is a safer building with him there. If the pallet storage was done in a safer manner, Mr. Strathman asked, would that address her concems. Ms. Fish responded she does not fliivk it can be conducted there. If he is going to have a manufachiriug occupancy, the requirements aze different; however, he is not going to meet those requirements in that space and in that building. ��^��t� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCENIENT NOT'ES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Slrathman asked about an agreement that there would be only storage there and no repairs nor manufacturing. Ms. Fish responded the burden would be on the City to check on it because that was the agreement before. Mr. Kerwin stated his azchitect is continuing to work with Inspector Fish. Mr. Stratluvau stated if Mr. Kerwiu says the pallet business needs to stay there and Ms. Fish says it cannot, that is not a negotiarion. Mr. Kerwin responded if that is what would resolve this in order to get the certificate of occupancy, he would do it. The list has about four catches. Mr. Strathman stated he has two options: 1) he can make a ruling on the appeal and forward it to the City Council for approval, 2) continue this issue for a month, and allow one more opportunity for Mr. Kerwin to work out something with the fire department. Mr. Kerwin responded he wili try. If Ms. Fish can clean up the list and get together with Mr. Drucker (architect), maybe the list could be down to a few items that they could discuss. Ms. Fish responded she would haue to do a reinspection on the building to see how many of these items aze done. Gerry 5lrathman laid over to the October 2, 2001, Property Code Enforcement Meeting in hopes that Mr. Kerwin and the Fire Department will work out an agxeement that will allow the certificate of occupancy to be issued. If that is not successful, he will make a ruling on October 2 and send it to the City Council. 882 Seventh Street West Amy Reed, Lindquist & Vennum, appeazed on behalf of Minnesota Brewing. She asked for a continuance so they can investigate the items on the deficiency list and work with the Fire inspector. John Powers reported this is an extensive list. If they aze going to work on complying, he has no problem with a continuance so they can work towazd that goa1. Gerry Strathman laid over to the September 25, 2001, Property Code Enforcement Meeting. 1259 Berkeley Avenue Laura Cantrell, owner, appeared and stated she has been living at this property for 18 years. The properry has a few problems, and she has put a lot of work into the house. Steve Schiller sent her a corrections notice. She does not disagree that these items need to be done. She got the debris from the tree hauled out. She is working on getting a loan. She is on disability, warks part time, and was reevaluated in November. She has not seen a check since then and has been living ofF her sa�ings. She has had contractors that did not do the work properly. She is requesting more time. The chniuiey, house pa3nting, front steps cannot be done by September 1. �\���� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 6 Steve Schilier reported he received a complaint on the house. His office tries to look at people's finances, although they do not delve into them. One of his major concerns is that she is not getting three good bids on what is being done on the house. Some items require little money up front. For example, half of bag of cement is all that is needed for the front steps. The main problem is the deterioration on the gazage eatension. There is little or no value in a garage e�ension of a foot. The repair can go into next yeaz easily. Ms. Cantrell stated she has major problems with the windows. She repaired the steps two yeazs ago, but it did not last. She can do things the easy way, but she wants to rebuild things. Gerry Strathman stated there aze two ways to handle this: 1) continuing this to sometime in the future to see where the property is, 2) having the inspector give the owner additional tune, which is the inspector's call. Mr. Schiller responded he is willing to wark with her. To protect herself, pernuts need to be pulled so that people aze not taking advantage of her. Her contractor has to come forward, say they aze licensed and bonded in Saint Paul, and pull permits to stand by their work. The garage can wait until next year. The steps have to be addressed because she is close to losing the handrails. If water gets behind the stucco, she will lose her stucco and get water damage inside her house. It will go from a small repair to a large repair. Ms. Cantrell asked can she keep him involved on what she is doing. Mr. Schiller responded she only needs to contact him with the people that are doing the woxk at her house, and to give him a call when they pull permits. Mr. Strathman stated the order reads that the work has to be done by September 1 and asked is he going to amend that. Mr. Schiller responded there are two items that needs to be done right away: repair the stucco on the chimney and repair the steps. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on the Property Code Enforcement Correction Notice dated July 31, 2001, because everyone is in agreement that the work needs to be done; however, the inspector will grant the owner additional time to get this work done. Mr. Schiller responded that if nothing is done this yeaz, everything agreed on today is off. The meeting was adjourned at 2:52 p.m. � ORIG�NAL Presented Referred To Committee Date BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the August 21, 2001, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on the following addresses: Propert�Ap en aled AQpellant 436 Sheroazd Road West John Kerwin for Nicollet Restoration, Inc. Decision: Laid over to the October 2, 2001, Properiy Code Enforcement Meeting. 882 Seventh Street West Thomas Fable, Lindquist & Vennum, for Minnesota Brewing Company Decision: Laid over to the September 25, 2001, Properry Code Enfarcement Meeting. 1259 Berkelev Avenue Laura Cantrell Decision: Appeal denied on the Property Code Enforcement Correction Notice dated July 31, 2001 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey � Coleman ,/ Harris � Benanav Reiter � Bostrom � Lanh'y ✓ 0 Adopted by Council: Date: A�� .� afl� Adoption Certified by Council Secr� � BY � �� `� Apprc Date: By: Council File # �\ — 4�y Green Sheet # 106172 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �� Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council I� City Council Offices Gerry Strathman, 266-8560 BY TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES ����.� 8-22-2001 „ rurae�sart rtoura�e oauerz GREEN SHEET eeu�,�rowFerae - o� - 9 ry �O 106172. arccaiac� � an�neuar ❑ arcuciuc _ ❑nu��a�enaR. ❑waou�eero ❑MVOR(ORAfOffNli� ❑ (CIJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNANRE) Approving the August 21, 2001, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 436 Shepard Road West, 882 Seventh Street West, and 1259 Berkeley Avenue. PLANNING CAMMISSION CIB COMMITTEE CNIL SERVICE CAMMISSION ties tl� ae�soNfrm ever worketl under a ca�tract tor tluc Aeparhnent? YES NO Hac m"m aeisoMim ever 6een e edy empbyee7 YES fq Doe6 thie D�� D�es e aidll IIaR namnNYD�sed DY �Y a+�L cilY empbyeel YES NO k mu o�soMrm a tayeted �enaoR YES NO ,. �$8°�2.!Ch �"+E?�lt�i �.� i' :�.{;[. eosTmevo�ue euusereo �cuce� or� rEa xo � °�^� �cnvirr xu�rt ,�on.u„on �owinnn C�� �i� � � �. NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, August 21, 2001 Room 330, City Hall Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer Staff Present: Pat Fish, Fire Prevention; John Powers, Fire Prevention; Steve Schiller, Fire Prevention Gerry Strathman called the meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. 436 Shepard Road West (Rescheduled from 8-7-01} John Kerwiu, Nicollet Restoration, Inc., appeared and stated this property is the somewhat abandoned power genezating plant, also laiown as Island Station. He purchased the properry twenty years ago. After doing a chunk of the Minneapolis river front, he came to Saint Paul at the urging of George Latimer (former mayor) and others to join the City's river front renaissance. He is pursuing a plan to put restaurant, housing, and new buildings on the river. The existing building would be rental apariments. The rest of the land on the site would be retained. (Mr. Kervin submitted plans to Mr. Stratlunan.) Mr. Strathman stated he sees a marina in the plans. Mr. Kerwin responded boats would go under a bridge to get into the marina. Last Friday, he signed an option to sell the building. Maybe a power plant is all that can be done with this property. The present use is unheated storage. The other use is a boating community on the river, which started in 1991. About 10 to 15 boaters have grown up down there and live aboard the boats. It is not a pretry marina. An article was written about the coxnmunity in 1997. (Mr. Kerwin submitted an article to Mr. Sirathman.) Mr. Kerwin stated there was an artist community living in the building at one point. The City objected to that and there was two to tluee yeazs of bitter litigation. A resolution came out of that for the certificate of occupancy, the storage in the building, and the boats on the river. (Mr. Kerwin showed some paper to Mr. Strathxnan.) Mr. Kerwin stated tlus document is the appeal; e�ibits aze attached. He is requesting the City honor the certificate of occupancy of 9-12-94, which is the result of years of litigation, ordered pernuts, and work. He has stayed adherent to the uses that were there on 9-12-94. Nothing has changed since then. The Legislative Hearing Officer approved the use of 1994 that ran up to 8-25-99, wluch is when a City inspector was renewing the certificate of occupancy the third time and came up with E�ibit F(in the documents he submitted), which is a corrections letter. The letter said when the items on the corrections letter aze completed, the City will issue a certificate of occupancy. The items were corrected and he never got his certificate. o� ��� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF AUGUST 21, Z001 Page 2 Mr. Strathman asked why the agreement with the City in 1994 seems to have broken down. Mr. Kerwin responded that is in Pazagraph 3, III (in the doeuments he submitted). In his frustration in trying to develop Island Stafion, he went to the State Legislature, Building Codes Division, and Department of Natural Resources, which resulted in Legislative Initiarives. The first initiative was the adoption of the uniform code for building restoration, which is the code being written at the State Capitol to be used internafionally. Because he pushed this code, he was named to the committee that would study this code and modify it over a yeaz. That was dated and sent out 12-16-99. The next day, there was a new certificate of occupancy conections list that contained more items. Two critical items were on it: remove the propane tauks that heat the boats and yank the extension cords that gave them power. Mr. Kerwin stated the forum for the adoption of the building restoration program went on. Steve Zaccazd (Fire Department) was there and was surprised to see Mr. Kenvixi there. Mr. Zaccazd has not attended a meeting since. Mr. Kerwin got criminal citations two weeks later from Pat Fish for failing to remove propane tanks and electrical cords. He was found guilty. He pulled out eactension cords and the propane ta.uks were gone. At the sentencing, the City Attorney said that they could find things at the building if they really comb through there. He also said Mr. Kerwin was going to jail. Six days after that, it goes from a one page conection list with a few items to a three page correcfion list with a couple dozen items. The last inspection came out dated 7-19-01 with a four page inspection list. That is what is being appealed today. Mr. Strathman asked what the property is being used for and are the boaters gone. Mr. Kerwin responded the boaters are still there. Ha1f haue gone solar and wind and planning to drag propane tanks over the ice again. The building is being used for storage. The Fire Department letter reads to vacate, but there is not much to vacate. It is not human occupied. If that building is not guarded, the neighborhood children get in there. The City threw out the guard. There has been a lot of vandalism since then and a fire. Mr. Strathman asked when the City forced the guard out. Mr. Kerwin responded it was put on the certificate of occupancy list that it was appazent a guard was sleeping in the building in unsanitary conditions. This was true, said Mr. Kerwin. Now, there is a slight human presence in the building: there is man that sorts and delivers pallets. He has electricity. Occasionally he fixes pallets. Mr. Kenvin would like Mr. Strathman to a11ow him to keep tkris human presence in the building. Also, there is a bus on the properry. This is for the outside guazd. He has another place to live, but he sleeps at the bus a lot of the time. As for the four page list, Mr. Kerwin stated, he has addressed in his documents all the items on that list. Some of the items aze zoning and they do not belong on the list because this is a fire inspecfion. There are previously resolved items on the list and new items that were not on the August inspection. Mr. Kerwin stated Inspector Fish has been told from high up to get the owners of this property. Ms. Fish responded that is not tnxe. c��-��'� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 3 Pat Fish reported she does not disagree with Mr. Kerwin about the building itself. Every item on the list addresses safety. She strongly disagrees with the allegation that she was told to get anybody at that building. The original inspection was August 1999, which was two years ago. That is more time than others have received. Mr. Kenvin has been given adequate time to address these situations. Inspector Brent Ricketson was with the Fire Department a short time and did the original inspecfion August 1999, stated Ms. Fish. He had several items on the list. Fire received complaints that people were living in the building. Ms. Fish went with Mr. Ricketson to investigate. She found seven 500 gallon propane tanks perched on the edge of the properiy with rubber hoses coming off of the tauks mm�ing off the driveway through the trees and who laiows where. Eventually, it was covered by snow. Someone had tapped into the electrical service from the back of the building, run wire down through the trees, attached to the trees onto a pulley, and ran it onto the boats. She saw this as an unsafe condition. She ended up writing a tag for the propane and a tag for the electrical. Mr. Kerwin did lose that court case. Ms. Fish stated the propane was removed because of the flood eazlier tYus year. The fire chief ordexed the propane and the electrical out. The electrical was cut by Xcel. It was not as voluntary as stated earlier. The person found living in the building was hardly a guard. He was elderly, living in one of the units, and in an extremely unsanitary condition. There is no sewer there, bathroom facilities, nor water, except for the river. Ms. Fish told him he had to leave. The department policy is that when the certificate is revoked, it is reinstaxed by having a renewal inspection of the entire premises. It was due for a renewal anyway because it was two years later. The first time she went through the property in June, stated Ms. Fish, the person who represents Mr. Kerwin did not have keys to all the areas. Ms. Fish still has not gotten into ail of the areas. She did see some electrical problems, and needed an electrical inspector to accompany her when she reinspected. When she did the reinspection, not all the items were conected. There were exit signs put up, storage removed from the boiler, but there is still more of both to be done. The electrical inspector was with her. He did itemize and made a list of things to be corrected. As for the person living in the bus, stated Ms. Fish, an electrical cord was coming out of the bus, ran across the ground, into the water, and someone had driven a hole into the brick and concrete wall of the building, run the cord through the building, down to the next floor, and into the service down there. The entire lower floor was flooded. Mr. Kerwin's representative was told not to turn the power back on after the water recedes until he calls and gets it reinspected. Someone called Xcel and had the power turned on. It was never reinspected. When these things are done on the list, there will be a reinspecfion. There was one set up for Thursday, but Mr. Kerwin's representative cancelled it because of the appeal today and because he was going to be out of town. Mr. Kerwin has had more tnne than a lot of owners have had to resolve these issues. She cannot certify a building unless the zoning is correct, but she is addressing life safety issues and fire code issues. She does not know anything about the committee that Mr. Kerwin and Mr. Zaccazd aze on and that has nothing to do with the fire and building codes. O��`�\� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Strathman stated a certificate of occupancy was received in 1994 and issued again in 1996. Between 1994 and 1996, the building apparently was qualified for a certificate of occupancy; in 1999, it was not qualified. He asked why was it okay and now not okay. Ms. Fish responded she was involved in the inspecfion of the building in the 1980's and eazly 1990's when people were living in it iliegally. She has not been involved with it since it was cold storage. She went with this inspector in late 1999 because he was new to the staff and did not haue a lot of e�:perience. The flood this year brought a lot of this to the foreground. This building is certified for cold storage only. Anytime someone is down there, they aze repairing and building pallets in that one unit. That may be a good strategy for a guard, but manufacturing cannot be done in a cold storage wazehouse that does not have fire protection. If the certificate of occupancy is revoked, asked Gerty Strathman, the owner would then need to discontinue use of the building, secure the ea�terior, and it would sit there until it is redeveloped. Ms. Fish responded he would have to vacate, secure the building, and not use it for storage. The outdoor storage and the upkeep on the grounds would still need to be addressed. Mr. Kerwin asked aze a11 the items on the August 25 inspection complete. Ms. Fish responded no. Anything completed was taken off the list and is not on the current list. Electrical panel cleazance problems, outside vehicle storage, pallets higher than six feet. Mr. Strathman stated his role is to seek and make an independent judgement as to whether the fire department has acted within the law and in a reasonable manner. Sometimes he goes futther to see if an accommodation can be made that is acceptable to the enforcing agency and the appellant, so an undue burden is not created on the property owner. He can limit himself and say what is done here is in accordance with the law. Or, he can set it aside and look into whether there is any kind of accommodation that can be reached between the fire department and the owner so both parties can go forwazd without further disagreement. Ms. Fish has a legitimate concern about protecting life and safety, stated Mr. Strathman. He asked is there an accommodation that could be reached that would a11ow the owner to have a certificate of occupancy and confinue to use this building ar is it her view that this cannot happen until the items on the list are satisfactorily addressed. Ms. Fish responded the owner has to stop the pallet manufactnriug. The electrical has to be corrected. The other items are not that difFicult. He started reducing some of the storage heights and making better aisles and cleazances to the eleclrical panels. They started putting up the exit sign. Mr. Strathman asked was the pallet storage lease temunated. Mr. Kerwin responded he has not begun eviction proceedings. The man is not manufacturing pallets. It is a safer building with him there. If the pallet storage was done in a safer manner, Mr. Strathman asked, would that address her concems. Ms. Fish responded she does not fliivk it can be conducted there. If he is going to have a manufachiriug occupancy, the requirements aze different; however, he is not going to meet those requirements in that space and in that building. ��^��t� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCENIENT NOT'ES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Slrathman asked about an agreement that there would be only storage there and no repairs nor manufacturing. Ms. Fish responded the burden would be on the City to check on it because that was the agreement before. Mr. Kerwin stated his azchitect is continuing to work with Inspector Fish. Mr. Stratluvau stated if Mr. Kerwiu says the pallet business needs to stay there and Ms. Fish says it cannot, that is not a negotiarion. Mr. Kerwin responded if that is what would resolve this in order to get the certificate of occupancy, he would do it. The list has about four catches. Mr. Strathman stated he has two options: 1) he can make a ruling on the appeal and forward it to the City Council for approval, 2) continue this issue for a month, and allow one more opportunity for Mr. Kerwin to work out something with the fire department. Mr. Kerwin responded he wili try. If Ms. Fish can clean up the list and get together with Mr. Drucker (architect), maybe the list could be down to a few items that they could discuss. Ms. Fish responded she would haue to do a reinspection on the building to see how many of these items aze done. Gerry 5lrathman laid over to the October 2, 2001, Property Code Enforcement Meeting in hopes that Mr. Kerwin and the Fire Department will work out an agxeement that will allow the certificate of occupancy to be issued. If that is not successful, he will make a ruling on October 2 and send it to the City Council. 882 Seventh Street West Amy Reed, Lindquist & Vennum, appeazed on behalf of Minnesota Brewing. She asked for a continuance so they can investigate the items on the deficiency list and work with the Fire inspector. John Powers reported this is an extensive list. If they aze going to work on complying, he has no problem with a continuance so they can work towazd that goa1. Gerry Strathman laid over to the September 25, 2001, Property Code Enforcement Meeting. 1259 Berkeley Avenue Laura Cantrell, owner, appeared and stated she has been living at this property for 18 years. The properry has a few problems, and she has put a lot of work into the house. Steve Schiller sent her a corrections notice. She does not disagree that these items need to be done. She got the debris from the tree hauled out. She is working on getting a loan. She is on disability, warks part time, and was reevaluated in November. She has not seen a check since then and has been living ofF her sa�ings. She has had contractors that did not do the work properly. She is requesting more time. The chniuiey, house pa3nting, front steps cannot be done by September 1. �\���� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 6 Steve Schilier reported he received a complaint on the house. His office tries to look at people's finances, although they do not delve into them. One of his major concerns is that she is not getting three good bids on what is being done on the house. Some items require little money up front. For example, half of bag of cement is all that is needed for the front steps. The main problem is the deterioration on the gazage eatension. There is little or no value in a garage e�ension of a foot. The repair can go into next yeaz easily. Ms. Cantrell stated she has major problems with the windows. She repaired the steps two yeazs ago, but it did not last. She can do things the easy way, but she wants to rebuild things. Gerry Strathman stated there aze two ways to handle this: 1) continuing this to sometime in the future to see where the property is, 2) having the inspector give the owner additional tune, which is the inspector's call. Mr. Schiller responded he is willing to wark with her. To protect herself, pernuts need to be pulled so that people aze not taking advantage of her. Her contractor has to come forward, say they aze licensed and bonded in Saint Paul, and pull permits to stand by their work. The garage can wait until next year. The steps have to be addressed because she is close to losing the handrails. If water gets behind the stucco, she will lose her stucco and get water damage inside her house. It will go from a small repair to a large repair. Ms. Cantrell asked can she keep him involved on what she is doing. Mr. Schiller responded she only needs to contact him with the people that are doing the woxk at her house, and to give him a call when they pull permits. Mr. Strathman stated the order reads that the work has to be done by September 1 and asked is he going to amend that. Mr. Schiller responded there are two items that needs to be done right away: repair the stucco on the chimney and repair the steps. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on the Property Code Enforcement Correction Notice dated July 31, 2001, because everyone is in agreement that the work needs to be done; however, the inspector will grant the owner additional time to get this work done. Mr. Schiller responded that if nothing is done this yeaz, everything agreed on today is off. The meeting was adjourned at 2:52 p.m. �