The URL can be used to link to this page

262968 . WHITE - CITV CI.ERK t 262��8 PINK - FINANCE COUI1C11 BLUERV- MAVORTMENT GITY OF SAINT PAITL File NO.� � � " esolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby ratifies and approves the action of the Saint Paul Board of Appeals and Review pertaining to the following listed property and as shown by the Minutes of said Board of Appeals and Review, dated October 9, 1973, and marked by reference as Exhibit A; and November 27, 1973, and marked by re�erence as Exhibit B; such Minutes which are on file in the Office of the City Clerk: Date of Board Minutes Case No. Property Appellant EXHIBIT A 10/9/73 50-73-H �896 Lincoln Ave. Mrs. Michael Kelly (Genevieve C. ) 10/9/73 54-73-H 506-508 Hopkins Robert M. Shimek _ EXHIBIT B 11/27/73 52-73-H 593 E. Belvidere Raymond Stensgard (Now under new owner, Thomas Stassen) 11/27/73 58-73-H 429-431 Mt. Ida Mrs. Floyd M. � Johnson 11/27/73 61-�3-H 291 Stinson Julius Wilensky (Duplex) COUIVCILMEN Yeas Butler Nays Requested by Department of: P� Konopatzki [n Favor Levine i Meredith v Against BY S� Roedler Tedesco Mme.President� �t JAN a 3 tg74 Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date . Certif ed a ed by C '1 ry BY By s� Approve y Ma r: Date - � 19 Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By BY BtISHED FE8 $ ��74 � ' � . �� /� IT 10-9-73 - :'`eetin� �Io . 94 � /9 Cassette Tane 'Vo. 106 2�2�68 � i�4INUTES OF THE I��IEFTI'_'1G ST. PAUL BOARD OF APPEALS A'�D REVIE��' Tuesday , October 9 , 1973 County Board Room 356 City Hall an�1 Court House 1 : 30 p.m. P,4E:•1BERS PP�ESENT : D. Donald Woznialc, Chairman Raymond R. Grove t�ii t ciie 11 P�I. Kamin Mrs . Estyr Bradley Pealce A4rs . Norma Sommerdorf Arthur P�1. Tieso James D. Voigt P�4�i�BERS ABSENT : None AGEPICIES PRESE'dT : Department of Community Services Div. of Housing and Building Code Enforcement : Franlc Staffenson , Sam Blue City Fire Prevention Bureau: Dan PJorrgran ��. OTf?ERS PRESENT : Ruby H�ant , Council President Frances Boyden, Legislative Aide to Council President Robert M. Shimek , Appellant l�4rs . Phyllis Tylanselle , Appellant Kenneth Snielman , Anpellant Doris L. Getsug, Executive Secretary , Appeals Board P�leeting of the St . Paul Board of �ppeals and Revie�J t4as called to order at 1 : 30 p.m. by Chairman D. Donald 4�?ozniak. A motion s�as made to a�nprove the minutes of_ the Board. P�leetina of August 28 , 1973. R!IOTION ti+iAS CAR?:IED and so ordered. THE VOTE : Ayes 7 ; '�ayes 0 ; Abstentions 0 . - - - - -- -- -- -- -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5�J- 73-H 896 Lincoln �-lrs . ''�lichael Kelly (Genevieve G. ) SUBJECT : � Prior Hearin� 8/28/73 - Continuance of an appeal from Hearing of_ � " 6/12/73 for an extension of time to repaint :nouse to comply ��rith Housing Code Regulation regarding exterior lead naint . / • ' 10-9-73 - i'�leeting :v'o. 9"+ Cassette Tape No. 106 Page 2 2�2�68 � PROCEEDINGS : Chairman Wozniak announced that P�Irs . Kelly , appellant , notified the Board that she ��ras unable to ap�ear for the hearing of the continuance of her case because of a nrevious medical a�pointment . However , '`{xs . Kelly had mailed a letter to the Board dated 9/28/73 , requesting an extension of tzme until sprin� in order to comply �ith the re-paintin6 of her house. She stated that she was having difficulty in that the painter witliiJhom she had contracted to do the job Yept delaying getting started on the work. She also stated it might be better to naint the house in the spring rather than in the fall because of the inclement winter weather which might affect the new paint and cause it to ;�eel sooner. Chairman Woaniak moved tnat an Extension of. Time be granted to ?�4rs . Kelly until 3une 1 , 1974 . P�IOTI0�1 WAS CARRIED and so ordered. Chair- man ti'�ozniak directed the Executive Secretary to notify r4rs . Kelly of the approval and also to state that "No more Extensions o£ Time would be granted to �irs . Kelly." THE VOTE : Ayes 7 ; Nayes 0 ; Abstentions 0 . --- -------- ---- ---- -- -- - - - - -- -- -- - - -- -- - - - - ---- -------- ---- -- -- -- -- -- ( � 54- 73-H 506-508 Hopkins Robert "+S. Shimelc SUBJECT: Prior Hearing 8/28/73 - Continuance of an appeal for t,raiver of cer- tain Housing Code Regulations because of financial hardship. APPEARANCE : �.ir. and N1rs . Rob ert Shimelc PROCEEDINGS : Mr. Shimek stated he was going to start making some of the rec�uired repairs on lzis house this month. r�1rs . Shimek stated that if thev did not have to re-iaire the entire building , they could afford to make all the reauired repairs . All they would need �aould be an Extension of Time. After some discussion regarding the repairs wnich the Shimelcs could and would make , including certain electrical and nlumbin� repairs , Chairman �Voznial: motired that an Extension of Time be granted until April 15 , 1974� Zr'it�t-he understanding that an inspection would �e made sometime about the 15th of �pril , 1974 , and that a hearing ��ould � � be held on the case at the next scheduled Board ��ieeting following April I5 , 1974. However, if everything ��as re�aired to the satis- faction of the Inspector , there would be no need far a further hearing. i�10TI0N �VAS CARRIED and so ordered. , � � 10-9- 73 - Aseeting P1o. 94 Cassette Tane No. lOb Page 3 -. 262��8 ( THE VOTE : Ayes 7 ; Nayes 0 ; Abstentions 0. - - -- -------- -- -- -- -- ------ -- -- - - - - - - -- - - -- - - ---- ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - 56- 73-� 350-352 Aurora Ave : :�e�neth F. Spielr�an SUBJECT: � Rec{uest for 30-day Extension of Time to com�ly wiLh certain Housing Code Regulations . APPEAR�'VCE : No one aaneared. PROCEEDI�IGS : r�Ir. Spielman failed to a�pear for hearing at 2 :00 n .m. (Ho�aever, see later appearance at this meeting) . Chairman rVozniak reauested background material on this case from rir. Frank Staffenson. ��1r. Staffenson re_f_erred to a l�tter brought to attention of Chairman ��ozniak which letter caused :`•Ir. Staffenson to ' re-placard this particular �uilding. ��ir. Staffenson said he ivould {� ' like to add to this information t�e nro�erty a� 3�8-340 Aurora, �ahich was also condemned; and 354 Virginia which was a2so condemned. These �vere houses tivithin less than a block area of o�e anotner ilhich F1r. Spielman owned. 1�1r. Staffenson said t,iey had Ueen having some �roblems . This situation - had caused a great deal of anxiety '�otn for ��Ir. S�ielman and for the Department as to what :�ir. SPielman' s status :.as . T:Ze Departrnent had forestalled action for sar�etime and had suspended such action for many months , waiting to see what was hanpening. The homes ti�rere presently vacated and little or nothing happenecl. The Denartment had had some confrontation with the nrevious h7anager tvho had �ezn out there. One of the Departmen.t men �,-as verbally exnelled from i.he property. T�e Department had been patient waiting to get some direction from P�Ir. Snielman , but had not received any. The Departme�t , therefore , had moved for condemnation. Chairman '19oznialc as::ed if this was t�e same pro�erty at 350-352 Aurora Eahich i,ras appealed last summer by I�Ir. Snielman :tilio anneared at the hearing but ti�rould not �,ait for his case to be co�sidered by the Board . ��Ir. Staf_fenson replied. affirmatively. Chairman �tiQZniak revie�ved the situation further, mentioning phone calls by '�ir. Saielman about six or seven ��reeks ago regarding the Department ' s oro�osed �lacardina o.f. this property. i�r. Staffenson stated that thev t�en susnenc?ed nlacarding tizis property pendina the filing of an a?�pea1 by ?�:r. Snielman. Ho�vever, ( � no ap�aeal had. been filed by Se�tember 19 , 1973 ; hence , a letter of con- demnation tiaas sent out. However , I�Ir., S�ielman filed an appe�l on the folloti��ing day. � I i _ • � ' 10-9- 73 - I'Zeeting No . 94 Cassette Tane No; 106 Page 4 ��6U � Inasmuch as T�Ir. Spielman failed to a7near for the nresent hearing, Chairman tiVozniak moved to have the CASE DISi-tIS�ED. i-lotion was secondecj by P�rs . Sommerdorf. ��OTI0�1 WAS CARRIED. (Case ��as re-onened when i4r. Spielman subsequently arrived for the hearing -- See T�Iinutes on Page 11 of this .text) . T�iE VOTE : � Ayes 7 ; Nayes 0 ; Abstentions 0. 57- 73-F 1575 L' Orient St. lYilder School Day-Care Program SUBJECT : Rec�uest caaiver of Fire Code Regulation restricting occunancy because of frame construction of �uilding, restrictin6 occupancy to 20 children at the i�lississippi Sc�iool for a prospective Day-Care Center. �PPEARA�ICE : P�irs . Phyllis �lanselle , Director t • PROCEEDI'�TGS : P�4rs . i�ianselle stated they would like to reQuest a �aaiver of the Fire Code Regulation tiahereby they �rould be permitted to ?Zave 25 children. The State Denartment of V']elfare had stated there j�ras enougi� square footage in the room for 25 children, according to their c{ualifications . i�rs. ilanselle stated they had surveyed the area and there iaas a tremendous need, and they 1,rould li�ce to serve as many as jaas possible. Also , the same room :�ad been used as a public sc,zool classroom f_or the same age cnildren which they would be serving and that tney had had as many as 28 cliil.dren in that same space. i�Ir. Dan Norrgran, Asst . Fixe i�Iarshal of the St. Paul Fire Prevention Bureau, stated that they had received a rea,uest from the State Depart- ment of Public W�elfare to make an inspection of this �vilder Day-Care Center. They stated it was a pay-Care Center on their records , which indicated the Center would. be for children, age 3, 4 , and S years old. i•fr. Norrgran stated tliat this age group ha.d certain reauirements as far as fire safety rJas concerned. According to ��Ir. Norrgran, if. they had made tne insnection wiien occupied, they would have seen that tlie children were more than 5 years old ard certainly would not have enforced the re�ulations �ahich annly to a nursery school, tizat this was not a nursery school ; this ��ras a regular . scnool , and the nursery school requirements did not apnly in this particular instance. / , _ 10-9- 73 - D4eeting �to. 94 Cassette Tane No. 106 • Page 5 � 2G2�68 l, According to their records , hotaever, as stated by i•ir. Norrgran, this structure was to be a nursery scnool . Hoi,rever, when the apneal was filed, they learned it was to be a regular sc�.00l. Therefore , they went out and re-checked and found out it was not a nursery school so that the linitation of 25 c11i1dren was perfectly accentable , and this was based upon the State regulation of the sc{uare foot area per chilci. Therefore , the Fire Department had no ob}ections to this number and "it ��as a mistake" as far as the classi_fication of the building was concerned; they had received the wrong information from the State and upon the Department 's re-checic�ng they found out the classification ''was something else." ?drs . Sommerdorf asked if these children were nursery school a�e -- about 4 years of a�e. I�1rs . T�ianselle re�lied negatively, that they were elementary age children - - ages 6 through 12 years of age , that it lvas a �ay-Care Center for motliers tv�io were not in t�ie :�ome before an� af.ter school during t.le school year and full-time on scnool holidays and summers. Chairman �^loznialc aslced ho�a many Day-Care Centers and cdursery Schools were operated by �'Jilder on the second floors . ?•1rs . ;-ianselle re�lied. ' at the nresent time they had none . However, rdr. rvorrgran mentioned 25 �do. Dale St. as one such possible location. In answer to C1_zairman b9ozniak' s question, r•1r. Norrgran statAd they ;' .• were in the process of inspecting all of the l+lil�er Sc:�ools since the Crocus Hill case . P�1r. rlorr�ran stated that they had receiveci a re- quest from tne State Department of Public j�lelfare t�ho tvere re-examining some of t��eir day-care centers and nursery sc?iools to malce certain thev were in code comnliance . " `�Ir. Norrgran said their Department had been accused of s?�o��ing favoritism to the �!iilder Day-Care Centers whicli was not the case . He stated that the ti+Iilder Day-Carz Centers followed regulations as well as an}�one else . In fact , accordin�; to :"�1r. Norrgran, the best day-care centers which they had inspected had been the ti+Iilder �ay-Care Centers . However , if they did not comply with regulations , t,ieir cases could be brought before the Appeals Board. Chairman Wozniak t�1en P�OVF.D that this a�peal BE DIS'IISSED. Tlotion ��as seconded. P•IOTION 4tiAS CARRIED and so ordered. T��E VOTE : Ayes 7 ; Nayes 0 ; Abstentions 0 . -- -- ---- -- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- --- - -- -- - ----- - --- -- Cha�rman Wozniak referred to some corresnondence and tc� a letter he re- ceived from tlie City Attorney ' s Office , dated October 5 , 1973, in iahich . a previous legal opinion �vas cited stat�i;ng that the St . Paul Board of r Appeals and P.eview was without authority to recommend to the City Counci]. a waiver of the State Building Code , and further, that tTie City o£ St . Paul was witliout autiiority to waive the provisions of the State Ruilc�inQ Code . ` , . 1�-9-73 - ?�4eeting '�o. 94 Cassette Tane Pdo. 106 Page 6 ��Q C7 , � Therefore, the City Attorney ' s Office would not annrove a resolution of the Appeals Board' s action, as submitted by tne Executive Secretary for the Board, whicli included a waiver o.f_ the State Buildin� Code , precisely, Section 8 . 02 , as it pertained to 341 So. �iamline , Case No. 53- 73-F, regarding use of a second floor of a building for school nur- poses ; and also, would not anprove a resolution of the A�peals Board' s action, as submitted by the Executive Secretary for the Board, iahich included a waiver of the State Building Code as it pertained to Case P1o. 55- 73-F, granting an Extension of Time relative to use of second f.loor of the Crocus Hill School . 6Vith regard to the Board` s potver to . grant refunds of the five dollar filing fee , Chairman tiVozniak stated �hat in consultation with tne City Attorney' s Office, they drew up a new ordinance �ahich ��ould give the Board the option for a snecif.ic condi- tion to grant the rebate of t?le f_ive dollar filing fee to be anproved. by the City Council. � Chairman j�'ozniak aske� for a motion on the pronosed ordinance , rea�ing from the City �lttorney' s letter as follows : "I believe that this amendment for the granting of refuncls covers all of the situations which you have in mind, tllat t��is amendment meets taith the approval of the St. Paul Board of �lppeals and Review, and I tvill nresent a copy of this to the President of the St. Paul CitV Council , indicating tnat it is being prepared at the request of the St . Paul Roard of �lppeals . " Chairman N7ozniak stated that the four areas of situation were : f� . (a) There is a financial hardshin (b) It is found tilat , in turn , the Appeals Board lacks juris- diction to hear tne matter (c) Tliat the petitioner rec�uest to withdrai•r the petition for appeal after the petition is f_iled, but before the Appeals Board commenced the hearing in t:�e matter (d) 6�dhere it is found and determined that it would be in the best interests of the City of St . Paul to grant such a refund. Chairman ,Yozniak reauested a motion to instruct Deputy City Attorney, Pierre Regnier, to draft t'�e ordinance giving the St . Paul Board o£ Appeals and Review the nower to grant refunds under those circumstances cited by Chairman ?�'oznial:. It was h10tiED and seconded that the St. Paul Board of Appeals and Review apnrove t1�e amending of the ordinance to nrovide for refund of the filing fee under the conditions cited. "-1C1TIO�V IV:1S CARRIED and so ordered. THE VOTE : Ayes 7 ; Nayes 0 ; Abstentions 0 . ( . - � . _ _ . • - 10-9- i 3 - ��eetirl� `�a. 94 , Cassette Tane :�10. ��68 _ Page 7 ( Chairman +:�zniak then read the entire letter of the City AttorneV , dated 10;�,/73. (See attached cop}� of letter inserted as pa.rt of these minutes) . Chairman ��ozniak brought to the attention of_ tYie B4ard members t�at even an extension could not be granted by the Bo�rd. At this p�int Chairr�an �vozniak thanked. C�uncilman tiunt , Presi�ent of_ the City Council�tiaho had just arrived for attending Board meetin6. In view o� the City Attorney' s opinion, as stated in letter of 1J/5/73, Chairman 1''ozniak expressed con�ern regarding t?�ie f.uture role �f the Appeals Board, an3 the continued need for its existence. Chairman �'�ozniak stated firstly, for example , that the Board T-�ad not held a r�eeting for two months , the reason '�eing that only matter� which affect tha .ZOUSing and fire codes - - "the obvious small ones'' - - �aere being bre:zjht to the attention of the Roard tiahile otlier cases �vere, perhans , �eina determi�ed administratively. He said that if a person needed ir��ediate relie_f, he could no� get such assistance frc� this Board so L1at the Board' s function tvas hampered. Secondltir , ?f in fact , t;ie Board of Appeals had absolutely no autzority, even to� or3P_t extensions of time to bring a�pellants in comnlian�e �aith the State �uilding Code , there ��as not much tivork left for tlie �3oard to do. Ho:-�e�1er, Chairman �Vozniak believed there were some area� under the � State Builriin? Code ��rhere it might not be nuite so specific -- t+here the BoarZ could grant relief to some home owners and to some commercial people � e�C. � without getting lrit0 a "real hassle" OTl T�V�1@t�l@T OT' P_Ot the c{ues;.ion specifically involved the State Building Co�.e , that there might be a "little variance , a ` little dispute in thinking. " President i�unt, of the City Council , stated that while she could not speak on 'ae�alf of the ather councilmen at this time , she dic� sense the feeliZ� of the Council , that the Council taas certainly in symnathy with the zdea of trying to grant aid to peonle who have prob?er�s with trying tQ get t�eir property into code comnliance . However , the problem arose as to hoti�r muc;� legal authority was vested in t:�e Council to do tzis throuQh the Board. of Anpeals nrocedtzre . Possibly, t�° Council 3=ad not had a clear understandin� of tiahat that shotzld be an�i that there �vas a need for such fu�ther clarification. The Poaru o� A�peals ��.as certainly providing a valuable service , and the Council recogniz�d tizis fact . Councilr::a� Hunt stated t:�ere had 'oeen several meetings with Lhe City Attorne}'` s Office and with the �Iayor' s staff to c�iscuss an o��lin�nce or procedure �vnich miqht be follo�Ved by the Board of Anpeals. The c�uestion �hat :aas being �aised today , hotaever , i,�as whether or nat thexe was enough ��orl: left , according to the City Attorney' s inter�retation , that would rtake it �aorthivnlle for this Board to sexve as a Bo�rd of Appeals . i � � % _ � ' � 10-9- 73 - r-ieeting No. 94 Cassette Tape No. 106 Page 8 2624�8 7� Chairman jti'ozniak agreed that while he had not had time to study the matter fully, si?�ce he only this day received the City Attorney' s letter, there tiaas a question of what real worlc the Board would be doing. Chairman �t�ozniak s�ated that what he meant to imply was that he thought that there tvere so�ne disputes in the State Building Code, but that with tne administrative decisions that were going to be made , if the question was a straight building code matter, the Board, perhaps , would never see it. Chairman Woznia'_�c thought that the Council should, perhaps , look at it from that poin� of view. A typical exam�le was the Crocus Hill matter wnerein the Board had granted the appellant an extension of time so that � he could have te�norary use of, the old school until the new location was available, but Sv�'14 �ould have been wiped out financially, if the Board had not nelped by granting this waiver. Chairr�an Wozniak stated that this Board was , probably, one of the best lay boards on which he had ever served, and every member fiad had "tremendous talen� input. " He felt that this Board, as constituted, had varied interests and had made good, solid value judgm.ents for many people, that it �°ould be "a shame" to lose tIiem. There tivere, perhaps , many other areas cf city government i,rhere their talents could be put to work. Chairman j�-ozniak said he had suggested months ' ago during a dis- cussion of �rocedures that some kind of hearings could be held so that people would not arbitrarily have their gas and electric turned off; far these kinds of activ�ties , hearings could be ?ield. Chairman Wozn.iak stated that he di� not like to be presumptuous to suggest to the Council . � "hotiti� to run your oovernment" but felt if there were some areas where these kinds of jucbne�.ts needed to be made, that the Board was here. In the past , Board �eetings were held twice a �anth when the Board usually had five , six, or seyen cases , and it worked very �tiTell . Noc,r, there were nat many cases co�ing in. Chairman Wozniak stated he was certain that many of these matters involved the State Building Code , which was why there t,rere fei,rer cases being brought before the Board of Appeals . At this point Chairm�n �tiozniak asked rfr. Frank Staffenson �ti�hy there were so fez�r a�peal cases . �•:r. Staffenson revlied that he could speak only for the Housing Code. One reason was that they were in a state of slow-down because of summer, as -usual, for the�r surveys . The other reason was that they were tr-�'ino to make ad�inistrative decisions whenever and wherever nossible. Th�y were trying "to contact these people , i.o talk it over with them, to make some kind af �ersonal contact. " If there taas an outright refusal , they just moved a:�ead--they had no alternative. Ho�,rever, if these people ��ere able to come u� �ith any icind of excuse , they would try to work with them- -"just call �zs , write us , let us �.now. 'T `-ir. Staffenson thought that they should try to do this administratively, rather t;zan "to dump them all on t�e Board, �tinich �vas what was happeninb for a period of time." > � , 10-9-73 - ��ieeting ?v'o. 94 � Cassette Tape No. 106 Page 9 - 2��8 � Because of the fewer number of cases coming before the 4ppeals Board, Chairman j�ozniak then asked �Ir. Sam Blue , of the Division of Code En- forcement , whether the cases , such as , regarding garages , side-yard variances , etc. , were being settled administratively. '-lr. Sam Blue re- plied negatively, that they were not settling these cases administratively. He �-stated that, as a matter of fact , one of these cases involving a side- yard question had been suggested, presently, to go befare the Board of Appeals , regarding a matter where the own�r built a garage extending into a street. The City tivas in the process of vacating tnis section of the . street . "Our question is does he have to have a side-yard? Our Code says he does . " Settlement of this problem, therefore , ivas recommended to go befoxe th.e Board of Appeals . Mr. Blue explained that the reason fewer property-types of anpeals have been coming before the Board of Appeals was because they had not been placarding as much because there has been a shortage of standard housing to relocate people. "We have held meetings with the HR4, with the City and contractors for relocation services , and the Welfare Department-- with these three groups , trying to find a solution to the replacement housing for these people . HRA can go only so far--they cannot provide subsistence allowances in r�any of these cases . The Welfare Department has been locked up in what is called a flat-grant program now which has tightened them up. The problem has got so severe that our Departm�nt has been reluctant to placard until tive have exhausted everything we can da. b1r. Blue stated that they were taking more forceful action i,rith the ' . otivners of these properties than they ever had done before. As a policy, they �aere tagging them for allowing the condition to exist . PIr. Blue stated, "RTe thought that depriving them of their income would help. But since that has not helped, we are ta�ing more forceful action." Mr. Staffenson stated, "It has helped, but we do not have enough reloca- tion housing. " I�Zrs . Peake asked Mr. Staffenson and P�Ir. Blue how the City of St. Paul could justify not having any place to move people when "they are up there in my neighborhood burning down good houses. °' Mrs . Pea?�ee stated that in the location of the Hill School there were many houses which HRA had brought up to Code and were rehabilitated, but noti,r were being knocked down. l��rs . Peake also cited the area by Maxfield School and stated, "YOt1 should see some of those houses . They have hard-wood floors and good woodiaork. Today, they are building houses up there out of plywood. They have the Fire Department up there plus the bulldozer knocl:ing down good houses that cauld be moved and these dislocated families could live in them.'T Mrs. Peake asked for an explanation of this situation. P�Ir. Staffenson replied that the houses tivhich Mrs . Peake was referring to were houses iahich had been purchased by the School District for expansion. He stated that ��Ir. Blue had been 'working very hard to try to get some- thing going to move some of those standard homes . However, the City had little capability to do so. For example , they did not have the trucks nor trailers needed. He stated, however, that Mr. Blue worked many hours ; . to try to put together some lcind of package to get some of those vacant buildings moved by private contractors and private enterprise . 1 - • 10-9-?3 - P�teeting ?�o . 6R Cassette Tape No. 106 ' Page 10 � �5�� ( President Hunt , or the City Council , stated that at the last HRA Board cf Commissioners ' meeting, on her motion, that the HRA staff were directed to work with the schools and City in an attempt to move as many of those houses as soon as �ossible, so that they would not be torn down. �a�ncilman Hunt sa.�ggested to Chairman �Yozniak regarding the concern he had expressed, thai. it would be helpful to the Council if he would put ir� writing some o� the- concerns- that he had expressed, and suggest to the City Council that it give consideration as to the manner in which these matters could best be handled. The Council would then be able to - make further determination as to how the Board should be continued or used to deal with some of these problems. Chairman ti�ozniak stated that taking into consideration the facts as stated by the Division of Code Enforcement and the combination of the State Building Co��'spre-empting the whole City Code, that there might be some other duties a�d functions within the new City Government which the Board might be able to perform. ^-1r. Blue stated t?�at tne reason for the existence of the Appeals Board was that it came into being with a stronger version of the Housing Code , particularly, wit� L?�e one-for-one bath. requirement. This triggered a need for an Appeals Board because of hardship situations . He said ther� ��as still a need =�or the Appeals Board to speak to the Nousing Code. If ever they had a more ajgressive enforcement of the Housing Code , that � , they would be rig:�t back to the situation of several years ago. ' Chairman l�iozniak s�:ggested to Councilman Hunt that one matter that the Council might cansider w�.s whether or not there should be an amendment to the State Building Code as it :related to an Appeals Board in the Cities of the First �lass . Councilman Hunt replied that this suggestior was a very good pcint.- �Ir. Blue stated t�at t�.eir Department very much anpreciated the efforts of the Appeals Board �embers who went out and personally looked at these situations and of�ered a different insight from theirs. "Because we are not as forceful in bringing so much to the Board, should not discourage the Board from its activity. " Mr. Blue expressed personal concern that if the Board was reconstituted to meet requirements as a State Technical Board, it would lo�e the humaneness that was needed in looking at the Housing Code. b�r. Blue stated, "There is nothing worse than appearing before a Board of straight technical neople �,rho �,rill look at a technical interpretation. 1�zy are not going to understand some of the hardships of these ordinary people ." He hoped it would be possible to have one �oard that had bo�h qualities . After some further discussion, Chairman 1�Yozniak agreed to send a letter '�oth to the Mayor and to the City Council �Yith recommendations regarcling this situation. '��r. Staffenson suggested that iahat was necessary was that, as an urban legisiative group , a letter should be sent to the Council . / � � 10-9-?3 - P�leeting I1o. 94 , Cassette Tape No. 106 Page 11 262�� rec{uesting legislation to take care of this matter. 1�� : -S��=i3=�-=��T��i3A�T:------ --------------- ------ - - - - -=--- --- -- - -- - - - ---- - At t is point , airman j�iozniak brough� up the matt°r of the Spielman Case again and tald Mr. Spielman, who ?�.ad arrived late to the Board Meeting, that his case had already been considered by the Board earlier in the meeting at the scheduled time of 2 : 00 p.m. , and that his case had been dismissed because he was not present . In respon.se to Chair> ma� Wozniak' s question as to whether he wished to have the Board re- open his appeal , Mr. Spielman replied affirmatively. Chairman Wozniak then '•10�TED tnat �ir. Spielman' s appeal, which had been dismissed, now be REOPENED. P�iotion was seconded. Pi0TI0N WAS CARRIED. THE VOTE : Ayes 7 ; Nayes 0 ; Abstentions Q. Mr. S�ielman thanked the Board for re-o�ening his case and stated that the property involved was already placarded, but the work required was in the �rocess of being completed. In answer to the question as to whether the property was vacant , 1!1r. Spielman said that people were living in it , that it iv as a tt,ro-family home. i�1r. Staf�enson said that there ;aas a vacation date set for '�ovember l , 1973. It had been changed a couple of times . t�ir. Spielman said. the electrical tirark had already been done , that he already received a bill ( , for t:�e work, and that the other t,rork s4as expected to be done by November 1. �ir. S�ielman explained some of the difficulties fie had had getting contractors and workmPn out to do the job . A4r. Staffenson said that th� placard would be lifted and t;�at a re-inspection �4�ould be made on Nov��ber 1. Chairman Ilozniak then stated that there was nothing before t�e Board regardin.g this appeal. ��OTION j'�rAS �SOVED and seconded to d.isrniss the Spielman case again. i•i0TI0v WAS CARRIED. THE VOTE : Ayes 7; I�ayes 0 ; Abstentions 0. �ome discussion follo�:ed regarding the State Suildino Code. '1r. . Staffen�on explained t�e need for uniformity. i�r. Staffenson state�., "If there are a thousand cities in T.tinnesota, for exanple, there are one thousand different building codes . The attempt tiJas made to make the code uniform and to enforce its uniformity. The State Legislature literally blanketed in that everybody :�ould do th.e folloiving, period; in fact , going so far as to hold classes in the out-state area, particularly, saying this is what the code is ; this is what you �rill do ; t�iere is no alternative, in order to standardize buildino and construction in hlinnesota. This is the reason for t�e uniforr� code." ( � � � � J � ' � 10-9-73--rdeeting No. 94 Cassette Tape No. 106 Page �Z 262�� ( Chairman ti�iozniak said he could see the need for minimum standards . Chairman Wozniak said his firs�C preference tsould be to make a different Board of Appeals for the City of St. Paul than what it lvas in the law. 1��Ir. Blue stated, " Therets a comment that our Department is proposing that the State. Building Code be amended to give the Building Official more latitude in granting some waivers to the req_uirements , and we have made a decision not to ask for the _amendment through the normal pro- cedures . Instead, we are going to attempt it legislatively as the next step at the next convening of the State Legislature . For some built-in reasons we do nat think it would be successful-through their normal ' amending procedures. At that time it �ou�d he possible to broaden the ` items that could be modified. ZVe are faci�.g some problems that are not even appealable under any form which have the effect of having to be done. At the present time A4r. Erickson is climbing further and further out on a limb on some of these things by, in effect , overlooking them or allowing them to go on. We are looking for some relief. " There was some further discussion with regard to the make-up of tfie Appeals Board and thz Technical Board as s�ecified in the State 3uilc�in� Code . It was pointed out that during the �revious administration, ac- cording to the Division of Code Enforcement , they had outlined to the then i7ayor some of the problems that coula develop on the Board of Appeals. They had compiled a Board of App�als set of rec{uirements from several cities around the country and put a packa�e together. They had done the same thing for the present liavor at his request , through �'. � Mr, hiarzitelli, the City Administrator. T:�ey had taken the same package that had been compiled for the previous aci_�inistration to this adminis- tration when this a�peals matter came to t�e forefront again involving a special problen. Chairman jhiozniak asked what was going to happen regarding the ��lontessori School waivers t�.at tFie Board had granted. It was pointed out by the Gode Enforcement officials that the City Altorney' s letter stated that the Board' s action would not be forwarded �o the City Council. There would be no local approval of a license and the State ivould not grant a license until other arrangements would have been made . Mrs . Peake asked �ahat was going to happen to ail of the other nursery schools where they were operating on the sQcond floor or in the hasement. Would they all be denied their licenses. The reply was that the State Building Code addressed itself only to above-the-first-floor area, not to tne basement . Basement school codes were under the jurisdiction � of the local fire codes. Chairman Wozniak asked a question for clarification regarding the fire code- -was that being considered as part of the State Building Cocle or . not . The reply i4as no, that the State was considering ado�ting a uniform fire code, but the hearing scheduled for discussion was can- celled. This code was a fire code developed in California by the Cal- ifornia Fire Chief' s Association and ivas considred to be a very tough code f � �\ . . . . . . . . � . . . . . . . . . . .. . . � 10-9-73 - b�eeting No . 94 Cassette Tape ''do. 106 Page 13 262��8 �/ Mr. Blue stated that they were not very happy with a State approach to code control. For this reason they were going to attempt to get a modification of the State Code and ho�ed to be meeting with ��iinneapolis , Bloomington, Duluth, and some of th.e larger urban areas because they had clifferent problems th.at had to be looked at individually. t�Ir. Rlue stated, "You cannot relate this type o,f situation to a model code that has been developed in California. �4'e are going to attemnt to �et this modificatiori done through a legislative process rather tha�n through building code amendments , hopefully, with greater success . If we do succeza., then a correctly constructed Apx�eals Board ivould have a good value. " P�Ir . Blue stated that another problem with which t?�ey were confronted were the rules pertaining to the handicapped. The State Code stated that wh�n any remodeling took place , nrovisions must be made for the handicaz�ped. ?`�r. Rlue saw no difficulty with this nrovision when building a new building--"You certainly could design this- -Hoiyever , wIien you are rehabilitating existing buildings , certain prohleMS do arise. As an example , in the Summit-University area they were re-doing a three-story apartment building, taking big apartments and making them sr�aller. A problem arose because the building had a five-foot dif- ference in grade from the street to the first floor. T?lere �vas no way to put in a ramp. The elevator would just kill the project . Ho?ve�Ter, according to State regulations , provision had to be made for the handi- capped. Tliis was a case where ��Ir. Erickson had to waive such provisions ( • because it was not practical . He i��ould have lilced nothing better than to have shared th.is problem with the Board of Anpeals , " After some further discussion of code enforcement problems , and there being no furth.er business , Chairman jVozniak adjourned the meeting at 3 :05 p.m. � � l , _ _ _ . __ _ _ __ -- __. , ;, , ;, ��2�68 �,: . � . 1 � , . . �, _ . . � � �\,.i t� . . .. . � ,�, �;:,:� � C ITY OF SAI NT PAUL 1 � � � �'� � � . OFFtCE OF THE C1TY ATTORNEY January 15, 1974 R. SCOTT DAVI ES �QUncil-RESearch Cerr�e�- J�►� � b1974 Ms. Doris Getsug Recording Secretary , St. Paul Board of Appeals and Review 705 Court House Saint Paul, Minnesota Dear poris: Enclosed herein are three resolutions pertaining to actions taken by the St. Paul Board of Appeals and Review. Rather than placing all of these items in one resolution, I have prepared three separate reso- . lutions. The first resolution containing several items pertains to matters taken up by the Board of Appeals and Review which do not require a filing in the office of the Register of Deeds. With regard to this resolution which has several items, it is sufficient that the Minutes referred to as Exhibits A and B be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk as the resolution indicates. The other two resolutions pertain to ma.tters which should be filed in the office of the Register of Deeds so as to place a property owner on notice as to this Council action. After having the proper councilman sign these resolutions, you should take them to the City Clerk' s office and have them placed on the agenda for adoption by the Saint Paul City Council. If you have any questions with regard to these matters, please feel free to contact me at any time. Yours truly, .�"'�'r.� � � PIERRE N. REGNIER Deputy City Attorney PNR:jr Encs. City Hall, Saint Paui, Minnesota 55102 � 612 298-5121 . . 11/27/73 - "4eeting No . 9� ' ,� „ Cassette Tane ?•�o . I�7 �X h�/ 13 �T �3 C F - �� -Q6 d � -�� ?�IVU`T'ES OF �HE '�rE'`'I'�,� ST. PAUL �30ARD OF �PpF�LS A'_`dD .T'.E��I�i`.' , Tuesday, �Iovember 27 , 1973 �ount�� Boarc� P,00m 356 City HaZl and Court I�ouse 1 : 30 n.m. A�rP�-�BERS PRESENT: D. Donald ?'Jozniak, Crairman ?tavmond n. Grove ��titchell i-�. Kar�in s'=Irs , Estvr Bradlev Pea'ce '�trs . '�iorma Sommerdorf Arthur ?_1. Tieso James �. Voigt �`,1E?�BERS ABSENT : `Ione �!�ENCIES PRESE:�iT: Division of F?ousir�� a��l Ruil�in� Code Fnforcer:ent : Rortald DeTomaso , ?'o��sing Code Ins:�ector Steve Roy, Hous�ng Code Insnector Richard �mey, Building Ins�ector Da� Person, Bu?�;'in� Ins�ector OTHERS PRESE'_`dT> T'io�a.s Stassen , Annellart for 'tr. Stensgard � J�alius ?�li.lenslcy, _An�ella*�t and ''tilliam J. `�icholas , ?:ealtor, Rhocl.es Co?��na�v .?ose��? 0'r3eil7. , �!ttorney for A.�nellant I,evine Edt:rard T�frombois , P.pnellant Steve DeCosta Doris L. �etsuQ , Executive Secretar�r, Anneals ?iozrd_ T-leeting of tlle St . Palil Board of An�eals an�l P.evie�v laas call.ed *o orde.r at 1 : 30 p.m. by Chairman D. �onald ?ti'oznialc. �'. ?•�IOTI�'V �ras made *o a;�prove t?ie �`4inutes of t�e Baard r�`eetinQ of August 28 , 1973. '-�otion �•.as carried and so ordered. THE V�JTE : �yes 7 ; Nayes 0 : .'lbstentia�s 0 . Case :`10. Pro7ert� �.��e�_l.ant ;2- 73-L� ��.� r. . ?��lvi.�ere nzv;��7�ca S*en5��rc� , . 11/27/73 - �ieeting No. 95 - ' Cassette Ta�e '•io . 107 52-73-H--503 E. Belvidere- - Dage Z GriC`_� } �� p• , a�+ SUB�TECT : Prior I--Iearing - 8/28/73 - - Continuance of an a��eal �or an exter.sion of time to comnly with housing and fire code regu]_ations . On 8/28/73 the A_?�neals Poard had granted a 60-day Zvaiver �a�t�� re- inspection. Property no�a in nrocess of being so_ld ; nurchaser i�rishes to appeal for an extension of time to January 1.5 , 197� , in order to be in code comnliance . 1�PPF:I�RANCE : �•4r. Thomas Stassen, 1486 Oalcd�le , ?:rest St. I'aul , T7innesota. Phone ?�?umber -- 226-9777 . PROCEEDI�dGS : Idr. Stassen sta_ted he c�as re�resentinQ �1r. �tens�ard. , ��ho '�ad hac� a heart attack during the interim neriod of his granred extension. ?-!e statecl P7r. Stens�ard ?�as sellin� the nronerty ir� c�uestion to '1im. As the netia purchaser, �Zr. Stassen said �ie was to ta?:e title to the nronertv sometime this wee�c, nossi'�ly by Dec. 1 , 1973. Iie taas �ull�T a�,�are o� � tne need�d repairs , having checked over t'ie list , and �,�as �renare� to brin� tne nroperty, ivhich ivas rental , un to code comnliance, as rea�iired . However, he was re�uestin� an extension of time ta January 15 , 197� , in orc?er to comply. Chairman �;�ozniak �10VFD that an extension b� gr. anted to �tr. Stassen to January 15 , 1974 . Pflotion was seconded. P�10TIn"1 ?'JA.S CAP.RI�'D, Chairman t+�oznial� rec�uestecl �hat '�1r. Stassen telenhone '_`ir , Staff_enson o� t�le Code Enf_orcement Division. At this noint , A•1r. Ronald DPTomaso , Hotzsin� Code Insnector , said he taas nresent and was renresentin� r�ir. Staffenson. i,-ir. DeTomaso stated he had nerformed t?ie origina.l surve>> of t�ie premises and Tvould malce a re-insnection on January 15 , 1974 . � T��1r.. I�Iozniak stated i.f. on re--insnect�on the repairs were avnroved that °�ir. Stassen need not re�a�peax before the Roard at t?ie end of_ the ex- tensi.on time on January 15 , 1974 . THE VOTE : Ayes 7 ; rlayes 0 ; Abstentions 0. Case �10 . PronQrtv Ant�ellant 58-73-Ir 429-431 i•-It . Ida. (_f_our-�lex) �?rs . Floy�? '��. Jo`�nson St1BJECT : i:�c�uest ext��sion of t�r:e anc? rect�zest �,Taiv°r of snlnn o� ±'_•le reRUirec? I'E.'?"Jd17'S �E,'C�US2 O`' f1.TLc`3:1Cicl1. i'11T'C�S'11D l''��1 ]'E.'�?`ll'C� t0 i1011S1�1��? CO��C C�l:'1- �lia.nce, 11/27/7.3 - "Teeting '_'do. 95 58-73-��- -429-431 '��t : ?da- - Cassette Ta�e '�?o. 107 Page 3 �� — Y f �..9�� APPEARANCE : i,1rs . Johnson di� not a�near. P20CEEDI'�I�S : Mrs . Johnson was unable to annear .f.or t�e hearin�; as she could not �?et a su�stitute teacner on t?iat� date . I�otiaever, '��irs. Jonnson had sent a letter to tlze Board re�uesting an extension of time to a�near before the Board at its m�eting on the second Tuesday in January, 1974 , which �aoul� be January S , 1974 . Chairman Wozniak asl:ed '':r. DeTomaso if there titiTas anything that was critical ir. the way o.f. req_uirea renairs . ?�tr. DeTomaso statec� he ha<� made the original ins�ection and had also taken some nhotos of the nre- r�ises on this morninQ� s meeting date and *�resented the nictures for t'.ze Board' s inspection. He stated the con�l.it_ions of the �remises tvere c�uite difficult f.or the tenan*s an�i r�entio�.ed, �speciallv, the cond�- tion of mold groivth in t:ie corner o� the small Uathroom and no �vash- basin hoo'.�;un upstairs at 43]. Nit . Ida. In ans�,rer to �hairman ?Yozr_ia1.` s qLtestion whether the tenants wexe r?ost- ?v eld�rly ancl on ret?rement , "�1r. DnTomaso stated that most o� th�m tzere old neonle at 431 r�It. Ida and som;e others were far�ilies . j�iith reference to ;�Irs . Jo?Lnson ' s lette.r t�r'iich she had sizbmitted to thP Board, r�Ir. DeTomaso said he ti,�anted to maI:e some corrections : (1) The n�ca living room window iahich `•1rs . 7ohnson stated had been installed .for 429 rit. Irla tras actuallv for 431 Pft. Ida. � (2) Net,r combination front �?oor for 429 ;4t , Ida , co�trary to !�7rs . Johnson' s statement , had not as yet ?�een in- stalled. (3) The baser�en� Zlindows , contrary to "Trs . ?o�inson ' s state- ment that tiiey ha:i all b�en repaired or re�iaced, were renlaced only on the east side. In answer to Chairman !Vozniak' s question as to 1�rhat critical renairs should. �e made durin� the interim if r�rs . Jo?Znson �,rere granted a-� ex- tension of time for a hearing i:n .Tanzzary , 1974 , `-�r. DeTor�aso renliec� that to alleviate some of t�e living conc�.itions , t'�e niold con�.ition of the u�stairs bathroom at 431 Ttt . Ic?a should be corrected. Itlso , he stated, some of_ t'•�e iziterior �,Tal]_ finishin� s'�ould '�e redone in terr�s of removing tile old neelinQ and sca].in? covering �vhi.c'i �vas mnre than just �aint , that it �vas the old coverinR fro!� years of annlic�tion . ue stated h� realized there �vas a nroblem, how�ver , f_or the instal.l�*ion of ��ashbasins because of the smallness of the b�t'lroom.s . ?-1r. . De'T'oma.so stated also tIiat he �aolilcl cemrnunicate i�rith ?irs . �?o'�nson a�!d s�.i��est t}��t she try> ro acceler. �t� '�?::� ni_ar�'�er o� re-�a�rs r.o '�e m��e �_u.�,�n? *_�is time . �••1rs . Sor�.merdorf as�:ec� hotv m�nv ��cnl� i:rere livi:��? at t?�e ��r:�mise5 and what other facts i,rer� I�:no:r�. a5o�.zz ti2e n;;o-�]_e lz�Jing the�e. 11/27/73 - ?Zeeting "do. 95 . . 58-73-��- -429-431 `•1t . Ida-- Cassette Tane '."o . 107 " � � P a g e 4 C�''r'Z � a- 9' S 8' �� ' The F.xecutive Secretary of the Roard re�orted that on October 2 , J_973 , �`4rs . Johnson made an initial inauiry by telephone regard�_nQ filing an a�aneal with the Board. At t'.�at time she state� that cost of the �1�ort: to be done i,Tould run between �10 , 000 and �15 , 000 whicn she cou_id not afford to snend at tIlis tim� ; hoi,:ever , she �-�ould try little bV l ittle to bring the various items u� to code comnliance but neede� more tir�e . She stated tilat there i�rere four _families , totaling ten nPonle , nre- sently living there , most of t?iem on wel�are , OAA, or somP form of disability pension. Rent zJas �60 per month ner familv. She said ther. e was a "�rim ary group relationship iaith each other" , and that tenants tivere tivilling to do u�it7zout such renairs as "ti�Tashbasin installations" , etc . , which iaould raise the rent . In order to malce t1.�e renairs , in- cluc�ing �vzring and other code items , she would ha�ae to raise the .rent. A�out two to three years ago she stated this case a�peare�. bef_ore the Board of Anneals uncier previous ol,m�r and that the ten2nts a7�earecl in favor of the landlord at that time . Tnere being no furt?Zer discussion on the matter , Ch�.irman �!loznial: `I�tiF��' that a continuance hearing be granted to r•�rs . Johnson until the second Tuesday of Januar�r , 1974 , and that - (1) itr. DeTomaso tiv�.s to communicate �aith "�ir. s . �Tohnson to make the critical repairs to the bat?�room at 431 :�4t . Ic1a and to accelerate the num�er of items scheduled for repair di�ring the interim. �2� The �xecutive Secretary was to notify ��rs . Johnson t}iat she must make tize necessary ar. rangements in order to appear for her hearin� in January, 1974 . The motion was seconded. THF r�i0TI0T1 j'IAS CARRIFD and so ordered. THE VOTE : Ayes 7 ; :dayes 0 ; Abstentions 0 . Ca_se No. pro�ertv Anx�ellant 59-73-B 1640 Hillcrest (Gar�ge) Irving ?"!. �'? �innette T:. I,evine by Josenh 0"1ei11 , attornev. SUBJECT : Request lvaiver of reauirement undex Bizi.lding Cocle 4J . 00 - l . C. �vith re�ard to garaue extension. AFPEARA'`ICE : �1r. Joseph 0'Neill , att.orney for apnellant . pItOCEEDI`3GS :. ?�4r . 0':�1ei11 stated ti�at t;:ie ar?�el�ant , Ttr. T,evine , «as unable to an�e�r , 59- 73-B- -1640 f-Iillcrest 11/27/73 - r•�eetinp� �io. �S . . _ � • CaSSette T:ane '�a. 107 Page 5 . ." �,�'- �1� ` � because of having been called out of t�ze city. rTr. . 0'Pdeill state� that this case involved the matter of � corner lot on �-�illcr�st �ve . anc? '-4acalestex St. He sai.d tliat tliere was no side�valk on rtacalester St . Exhibitin� a diagram, Mr . 0"deill no�nte�. oiit t�e location on �iacalester and �Hillcrest. He sho��ed that as r�.�acalester ran south, the street �,ras 60 £eet �•ride with no sicie�4all:s at where t?ze a�nellant re- sided on tlle corner. l�s the street i•��nt d�tvn to t,ne next block to Boland Ave . , R?acalester narrotJecl dot.rn to 30 feet . As ''tacalester �t . folloi�ed do;�m to tT�e next block, tfie street narrotaed �lown to 1.0 feet arid tIien came to the location of tIle I-TigIiland Park, Elementary School . . He stated Iie ivas nointing out that f_act becaus� it did become im-�or. tant . In describing t�1e sit?zation, °1r. OTNeiI_1 stated that in Sentember, � 97.3 , the ap�ellant , �Zr. Levine , decided to change `�is garage from a one �car to a t�ao car garage . Because of_ A�r. Levine ' s heart cond.ition, it was necessary to build ' an� eye tyne door, in order to have a ttao-car garage. P�Ix. Levine received a nermit from the city o� St . Paul an� nroceec�.e�. to start construction. FSe itilas almost 85% or 9�o com*�leted z+rhen someone �rom the city came by and said, "I think you might be over the nro�ertv line -- you had better get a survey. " � i�1r. C�'?'Zeill stated that :"-1r. Levine , therefore , ?iad a survey r�ade , co�v of tiahich P�4r. 0'Neill t�ien ex�ibited to the �oard, ti�rilich showed r�ir. Levine' s oarage to be extending over the lot line . r�r. Levine hacl contacted "�Ir. �''_`1ei11 , ��,r%io in turn contactec� t�ie City Attorney' s �f�ice . The City Ilttorney' s 0£f_ice had advised '�Tr. 0��?eil1 , "t+!ell , �Jhat you hac� better c3o , considerzng the situation with t?ie street here an�i th� very little use or �ossibility of ever extnnding or ;videnin� that street , you cou7_d recommend �or a vacation. " Pir. OT�leill stated that he did so and he exhibite� to the Boarc� i�1em��rs a copy of the �etition, �ahich he ha�1 nxesented to t��e City Co�_znci]_ to show that all or the peo-�le who lived on the four corners had joinec� in this ?�etition, because they did not see it as any difficulty. P-ir. 0'Neill stated that :�e had talI;ed to the members of the Council ��hen the matter ca.r�e before the Council , and they had indicatel that i,rhile they were of a lilczlihoo� to ma�;e a gxant , the �etition for vaca- ti_on, they thought, woul�l set a. very bad nr.ecedent. They, t?lerefore , had asked the City Attorney' s �ffice to meet with ��Zr. 0"�eil.l to �vork out soMe kind o.f. a per.mit f.or the lif_e of the garage. t,�r. 0'Neill stated that they then did meet and worked out t'�e situatio� and th�t the matter was stil.l pendina be Fore the City Council_ p�zblic �tTorl:s Committee . i1r. 0"`�ieill stated that at the time tha.t he had r�ade anplication before the City Council , he ?�ad asked for a uariance on the Building Code. The City Council ha� ind.icated that the m�.tter `vas �ro- �erly a case for tlie Zonin�. Board. �.�x. 0'Pdeill tiien nre�arecl_ a netition or the Zoning Board, and }lad sent in the an�l icatiori and r?onev -�or the filin� fee . �Iowever, the a�plication lvas rejected with an in�'ication that tze nro?�er nlace f.or this matter ;aas be�ore t?ie St . Paul �oard o� App�als and R�vie�a. . 59-73-B--1640 ;Iillcrest 11/27/73 - ?IePting '�io . 95 ' ' Cassette Tane "io . I�7 Da�e 6 ._ � �d � C� ' �-� �4 6� "So , ��1r. Chairman and menbers of the ?�oarc�. , ��rIlat ��re are doing toc�ay is asking you �or a lTariance f..rom the T.egislative �izilding Cod.e o� the City of. St. Paul , 4� . QO - 1 . C. , ti�lhic?i nxovides under this Section that garaQes loca_ted on tIie corner lots s�ould be set back for a distance o� at least eig�it (8) • f_eet £rom the si3e _lot line . " - Mr. 0'Tdeill_ then �resented some nictures of *.le area, and stated that the Denartm.ent of Pu�ilic Safety Iia�. also examined th.e matter a.r_d indi- cated that t�ere i:-as no safety problem. r4r. Ot'�leill also stated that he thought ��ir . Donovan in th� Engi;�eer �s Office , had felt that it would set a bad �recedent and their office had made a xecommendatior. to the City CouncilA t�at the ori�inal netition be deniPd. r1r. 0':`�leill , hot�rever, tiloug}it tliat the Council was of the mood that thev laere going to gran� tfie netition if i-1r. OT:�eill could work something out with the City Attorney' s Office . T�r. 0'Neill summarized his �resentation by referring a�ain to the ex- hibits for the Board' s exar�ination - - the certificates of s�irve�T , the petition ti,�ith t'�e si�natures of. the neighbors , a man o� the area, ancl pictures of_ tTne �arage anc� �remises and the streets involved, incl�a�lin� the nictures ta�en by tne Executi�re Secretary o� the n�oard. i�Ir. 0'Neill said he felt the ch.ances of the wi�3ening of_ r.lacalester St . �,rere a minimum. '`Ir. ,0'ileill stated that ?<1r. Segal of t'le City �lttorney ' s Office had sent ?iim a lett�r ta'�ich he thou¢ht containe:i most J.i?;el.y i�rii.at the Council intencied �� clo on the nroblem of the gaxa6e bei.n� on public pro?�erty, i?�e let,tex stated that the Council ' s �err�it coulcl . �rovide nermission and authority:" . . . are hereby granted to the oz•aners of the subject nro�ert�r, to install and maintain a garat�e as located on the pronerty on plans annrove�. b�r th� �Ppt. o� nubl ic ?trorks , t?zat the permission and authority to maintain a Qarage ti•Tithin the *�ublic street , riGht-of-��ray, tJOUld continue f.or the life o-E the nresent gara�e , and. furthe� for the condition upon the City Council ` s retaining t�1e rig'Zt to revoke t�ie permit at anv time the nublic necessity would reauire; unon �rior :aritten notic� thereto, t�e owners of the nronerty , an onnort�znity of a hearin6. It is coTiter�plated that the permit t•�ould not be revol:ec� un- less the nublic necessity r�quired the use of_ the street �or iaiclenin� of�t..acalester St . In that event , the owner o� the nro�er�y ?,rould be � required to remove the garage at his own cost anc� exnense . " ?Tr. 0"�?ei11 said iie guessed th�.t that likelihood - = -- - �rould L�e very very remote. ��Ir. Dan Person, Chief Buildinc7 Insnector of the ?�ui.l.ding ne�t . , statec� he wanted to clarify one stater�ent : That is , t�at I�uilclina Insnector , r�1r. Amey was out there , an�l }iad renort�d that ' th� gara?e tiaas almost done: ;Ar. Person said that was not true , that the garage slab ha.�? not even been noured yet when '7r. -�1mey '�a�i insne�ted the �ara�e nror�erty. T4r. Amey told the otaners that it iaas buil�/°ver t?�e �ublic �ro�ex`y, However , the o�aner contintzed r_o bL:ild t'�ere even after their clenartr�ent �iad told him that he could not d.o so . TM�r. Person said tl�at he could veriry hi� re;�ar?<.s with Ins�ector �`,m�y, and 1Ix. 0'Neill stated �iz tivould ��ave *o hav� his client nreser.t �.lso - - t�iat there ��ras a clisnute over t'�at r�atter . 'tr. �";ei?_1 st�te�l t'�::� i* 4��as on �ent .` 2.3 , 1Ji3 , ch.�.t t'�e �e.rn:it ?-�as o'.�tained �rc�m t?:e F,.ii iti�n�� D°ilt . � $Il��. lt .'J�iS 1�: �i1C' rliS �` �c�2'�� Jc �iOVG;Tl')°T ��lc'1� :lOfi1C� E:,3S T('.C°�1-�„'C�. . . 59- 73-B--1640 f�illcrest 11/27/73 - �-ieetinC �ro. 95 � Cassette Tane �;o . 107 page 7 cl � 6_� G�' �+ 2C, �g 6. 8 that t;1e otilners mi6ht nossibly be over the nro�erty line. T�ir . 0"�eill stated he did not knotv �:�he�� that certificate of survey �,�as dated, but it �•ras s�iortly th�reafter -- on the 21st of ?�lovember , 1972 , tha� thet� went out and got the surve��. Chairman y'v'ozniak asked Building Insnector : Person , if the citv rPc�l�ired a nlot nlan of gara�es to T�e submittec� for �ermit nur�oses . itr. ??erson sta.ted no, that tfie city did not ha�-e this rec�uirement . Chairman ':�`oznia?�_ com�ented that it might be because tliey ;a2re too exnensive to obtain. Building Inspector Ferso� said t'nat �ro�ably t�:is �ti�as one of t'�e problems that they had. Pzo�le co�ald go to t�e Ruil�i:�g Dent . and oh- tain a Ruilding Permit , ho�aever, they did not have ar.y idea whe?-e t�eir lot lines were and they got a �ermit, an�. then they would nroceed t�it?z their construction. Then all of a sudden they would rind out t?�at they �aere over t�le nronerty line and it clid create a nrohlem. '�-1r. person st�ted tTiat in one family or tZJO family dwellin�s the basic contractor was reauired to be Iicensed for doin6 the work. Tn t?�is event , A1r, Levine , as a home-o�,mer , sianed t�ie �ermit , �icked un tne �ermit himself, and insodoinQ , '_�e assumed the responsibility of th� gara�e�being in the oro:�zr place . T�ze licensnd mason c�ntractors in these instances , taere a�aare of the location on t�ie tiro�ertV ?Jher� the Qarage itself sjiould be. However, ��r. Levine , took this resnonsibility himself when he too'� out liis o��rn �Lllldin� ner�it. 'ir. 0'Neill stated t?iat he t.�as siire that such z�ras true , and that j:as tIze reason that the Board of �l:�peals �aas set un for the pur�oses o� talcing care of such sit�aations ��hich do develon on a hardshin basis . �1x. 0"_Veill said he iJas sure it i�ras ?ir. Levine ' s responsibility ancl t�at ��ras why they iaexe before thP Poard of Appeals , because ��1r. Levine �.ren* aIiead and had it done. Per?ians , if_ there had been a masonry contractor or someone else , that lvould have been done the ot'�er :vay, but un�orttt�ate- ly, the citizens could not al�vays knotv all the rules and rerulations . fIopefully, t:�at ivas tishy ?ae have the Board of A�peals . There being no furt?�er discussion on the case , Chairman �!TOZnial: asked f.or a motion on t.ie r�atter. 'tr. ?Camin i�iOVED that the variance be grantee� from t�ie req_uirement under the St. ?'auI Legislative Buildina Co�e , 40. 0� - l . C. ;�1rs , Sommerdorf seconded the motion. TTiF MOTICI'V ��:45 Cr1RRIED. TfIE VOTE : Ayes 7 ; Nayes 0 ; Abstentions Q . At this _ ?�oint , Chairman ?��oznia'. ha�l to leatie t?�e Roar:l "leeting , in orcier to attend ano�her meetinQ . He asl:ed '!r . Ties� to ta�:� c�ver the �ha�rr�an- • ship £or the rer�aining time . 60-73-H--806 N. �lbert St. 11/27/73 - '�4eeting �To . 95 Cassette Tane rdo . 1Q7 Page 8 Case No . Pronerty A�nellant `� � - ZG �-y`r 60- 73-H 806 �I. Al�ert St. Fdward LaFromboise , Juels Fairbanl_<s After- Director care Residence SUBJECT : F'.equest �vaiver of_ certain housing code reQuirements because o.f_ financia� hardship. �IPPEARA�ICE : � t1r. Edward LaFromboise , Director for Appellant . PROCEEDINGS : ?�:r. LaFromboise stated that they would 1iI�e to g�t a ivaiver on the ?�artitions on th.e second floor of this half-way }louse . He had a rou?h � draft of the floor plan , �vnich he exhibited to tile Roard, s�ioiving the iaall that separ. ated �he room and the passageway , and the general lav out of the prem_ises . He stated th� co�ie nrohibited going through t?iese� rooms to go to the bat�iroom. It was suggested that they rer.tove the �,-all which t,rould make the rooms a dormitory tyne thing. This taas an a�artm�nt the ��ray it was nresently set up . One room was a kitchen , and it was being made into a '�edroom. A1so , they were making enough room for neople that tiley had in m�.nd to occuny this facility. They i,rould like to obtain a ��aiver on t�iis because nresently there was notning in their bud�;et to allow them even to taTce out the wall on the east side to maI:e this a dormitary tyne style facility. Also , they felt that it ��ould weal:en the builcling by talcing out this iaall . They dicl nat know hota t�e studs �Jere in there and fea:recl t�iat it wo�zld z,rea'cen the structure. Immediately across the h.all�vav was the same situation here; the wal.l as the partition separating tile� rooms with the bathr�om beyond. They zJere , therefore , askinQ f_or a waiver on tnis wall a1so . Chairman Tieso asl:ed ho�J man�T total areas were the concern here , V:ere they proposing to take the �•ralls out and make dormitories? ?�r. LaFromboise replied two -- these �ti�ould be the east and vrest sid.es o� the building. Til@Y were anartments , they were askina not to remove the �,�al1s in c{uestion, because t}ie occupants were all males . As far as th��- were concerned, they could not see anv nrob 1em in one male�s goina throu�?� another male' s beclroor� to �o to the bathroom. i�Ir . Kamin aslced whether the entire floor was a sleening ar.ea . '>1r. LaFromboise renlied that it was all f_or slee�ing, r10 li.ving rooms , na coo?cing ; the dining room and kitchen �aer.e on the first floor. l�Ir. Steven Roy, Buildin= Code Dept ., askecl �ahether_ this ��ras ��as a r?at±er for the Flealt�L Dent . If_ t'_�is were so , that theT•e ivas no r�nz-esentativ� nresent from that depaxtment . tIe noted. "Ir. G7.enn Eric��son` s �i�;nature i��ls on a letter datecl 1"Z/13/72 , reaardin�T �. certificat� er occti�anc;- and that.• it. ilas a Buildir;� Insnector , a.�nar�ntlti� , ��lo hac� made the inspection. T�1r. . �1r:�;�, �3u�lc?in� Ilzs-o�ctor , hzd '�een ?�rnsel?t , b2iL. ��ct ?c;�t 3TICl the Housin� �'Q;�� ;15;�?C�C,T' � .=jta.t�Cj li. I+'25 a?1 OVE'TI7.t�T7I'_'? t�rn!jle;n , 60-73-H�-806 rd. Alhert St . 11./27/73 - �4eeting �io. 95 ° ` Pa e 9 Cassette Tane .�1 10� g�� g G _ z- r� � r•ir. Tieso suggested a 10-minute �ostnonement tem�orarily so that ''Tr. A.mey or a renresentative from the ?3uilding Dent . could be nresent . Case IvTo. Pronertv Apnellant 61-73-FI 291 Stinson (Duplex) Julius ':^lilens'cy SUBJECT : Rec�uest extension of time to re-sell defaulted pro�erty because o-� being elderly and financially unable to take care of requirecl ret�airs � to be in housing code comnlia.nce . ApPEARAIVCE : . iir . Julius j�lilensky and ?•�r. ��Tilliam J. Nicholas , Realtor of the Rho�es Company. � Pi:OCEFDINGS : ,�Ir. Wilens�y stated that he had sold this nronerty to a ;�i.irchaser ivha had de.f.aulted in his nayments . As a restzlt , :�!Ir. 1Vilensl�:y �vas tryin� to resell the �ronerty and ha�1 brou�ht iaith him to the }learing , n1_r. ryilliam J. `dicholas , a realtor , from the Rhodes Com�any, i�rho �vas his agen.t in this matter. Mr. �Iilenskv said the previous owner had been notified of the neecled repairs to brino the property into code compliance . The former oi,rner had made some of ths repairs , but they had not f_inishe�l all of the necessary work. T•ir. Wilens�:y said he had lost money on tllis nronertv and Eaas fin ancially unable to take care of_ the reQuir. ed re�airs at this tin.e . I�loreover , because of his being elder. ly (73 years of age) , he �vas not in the posi�ion tc do any of the worlc himself, anddid not �1ant the responsibility of this property. He was , therefore , an�ealing for an extension of_ time until he could resell t�ie pro�erty. Chairman Tieso asked rZr, j+li]_ens�y zahether t�e duplex �,ras occupied at the present time . A1r. lVilens�cy re�l.ied t�iat one anartment wa.s occunied but was being vacated as of Dec . 1 , 1973. The buildinQ then �aoulci he completely vacated. i�1r. T'�'ilenslcy stated that he c�id not intend to rent the pronert>r. Ho�rever, if he were unable to sell the nronerty �vitllin a reasonable time, he l�Toul.d ha��e to do something zyith it to nay the taxes and possibly would have to rent the nx�o�erty. ' T�ir. Nichol_as of t'�.e Rhod_es Comna.ny said they i,rere trvi.n� to sell: the property "as is . " Chairman '�'ieso ex�lai�.ed tnat the property could not be sold, "as is" , since it had already b�en inspected and nust be brotzaht into Housing Code cornpliance before selling tl�ie property, unless tne neta buyer were made aware of the code inspection and r.cedeci re�airs , anc� tilould be purcnas=in�; t;ie property ti�-ith t�ie understandin�; t3iat }le ;ti��; assu:�in� respons 'ibili�y for such renairs . , . 61- 73-H- - 291 Stinson 11/27/73 - �eeting No . 95 ' ` Cassette Tape � I07 P a g e 10 � �C'�� F��"p'G I � D4r. Wilensky said he was definitely assuring the Board that he would inform the neiv buyer of the needed repairs as designated by the Division of Code Enfoxcement. Mr. Kamin and ?�1r. Grove noted that the buyer would have to come before the Board of Appeals , so that the Board ��ould be made aware of the fact that the buyer �vas assuming from bir. �Vilensk�� the responsibility for these repairs. - � Mr. ti�lilensky stated that if this was tlle case, he �ti�ould, therefore , make arrangements for tlie prospective buyer to come before the Board and notify the Board that P.Zr. jVilensky had informed tlze buyer of the needed repairs for code compliance . Chairman Tieso asked P�Ir. j-+lilensky if it were possible to keep the nlace � vacant until he found a buyer. Mr. Wilensky said possibly so, unless it got to a point where he could not afford to keep it up - - "Afterall , he :vould have to heat the building all winter and pay taxes . " Chairman Tieso stated that if the place were rentea, that some of the tiJOrk would have to be done for the new ten�nts . P�Ir. Wilensky said he would need an extension of time to comply, because of financial hard-- ship and needed time to resell the property. Chairman Tieso asl:ed i�ir. llilensky ho�r much time did lle need to complete the code items designated as of November 12, 1973 . i�1r. bdilensky said he was not certain how long it �,rill take to complete tne items , although they i�ere not too big. However, he also did not know hoia long it would take him to sell the property. He would like to liave a c}iance to sell the property. However, if he came to tlie point where he �vould have to rent the property, he would fix it befare renting it . Chairman Tieso said the Board would like to knotiv today what his inten- tions were - - to rent or to sell . Mr. ��tilensky said his intention was to sell the property, that the property �vould be completely vacant by � December l, and he had made no attempt to rent the property because it was a hardship on him. Chairman Tieso asked T-ir. Wilensky if he knew how long he intended to keep the property vacant. P,�r. Wilensky said at least two or three months . If he rented the property, the tenants might destroy it, as had been his past experience- -that he would have to go through the same process again - - fixing up the place - - that he had spent considerable money daing so . It was suggested by members of the Board that an eatension of 90 days be given Mr. {dilensky, who thought he might be able to sell the property by that time. The Housing Code Inspecto� reauested that deadline date set for the extension for their files , so that they could make a re- inspection. Chairman Tieso suggested that the �.ate be set as of ',7arch 1 , 19?4 , and that re- inspection be made by �;ebrzzary 15 , 1974 , by the initial Code Enf.orcement Inspector. , 61- 73-H- -291 Stinson 11/27j73 - Meeting No. 95 " ` Cassette lape No. 107 Page 11 ��'-• 1.0 LgL � c . � For clarification, Cllairman Tieso repeated the matter that h1r. �Vilensky stated he would not rent the property unless he made the repairs to comply with the Housing Code items designated as of l�?ovember 12 , 1973. If the property was not sold by March l, 1974 , then I�4r. 1"�ilensky would make a re-appeal before t?�e Board. Chairman Tieso then I�10VED that an extension of time be granted to Mr. Wilensky until ��larch l, 1974, in order to sell the property, ieith a re-inspection to be made by February 15, 1974, unless sold prior to that date , and no rental tiJas to be made unless in compliance with the Novem- ber 12, 1973, designated code items . P�Iotion was seconded by b1r. Grove . �IOTION jVAS CARRIED. THE VOTE : Ayes 6; Nayes 0; Abstentions 0. -- - - -- -- -- - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - -- Case No. Property Appellant (CONTINUED) 60- 73-H 806 N. Albert Edward LaFromboise PROCEEDINGS: (continued) At this time the Board took up for continuance of hearing, the appeal of 806 N. Albert, which has been delayed earlier in the meeting, since Building Inspector Amey had now returned to the meeting. b1r. Amey was briefed on the earlier discussion, ��rhich had taken place regarding changes to be made at the premises . h1r. Amey stated that the Building Code requirement tiJas a technical one, and that they had no objection to the use of the premises in the matter described. P�1r. Voigt then A10VED that the appeal be granted under the condition that the building be continued to be used only as a half-caay house in the matter described. � �irs . Sommerdorf asked if the letter of December 13, 1972 , attached to the application form regarding sprinlclers , held any current relevancy. P�1r. Amey stated that the matter in auestion regarding the installation of sprinklers under the boilers �aas no longer a requirement under the new State Building Code . Mrs . Peake seconded the motion . THL P10TION W�S CARRIED. THE VOTE : Ayes (; Iv'ayes 0 ; Abstentions 0. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - There bein�; no further business , Acting Chairman Tieso �djo:.irned the meeting "a�t 2 : 25 p. m.