02-964(�mer�.� _ 0�.�. \to aco �
CouncilFile# a�.-'9f��{
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Green Sheet # 113834
a?
Presented
Refened To
Committee Date
i'
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the October 8,
2002, decisions of the Legislative Aearing Officer on Properry Code Enforcement Appeals for the following
addresses:
4 P IOp erty An�ealed
5 136 Isabel Street West-Upper Unit
6 (Appeal withdrawn.)
A�epllant
Jessica Schultz
7 1271 Seventh Street West Chad Solheid
8 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) If the nonconforming
9 doors ever need to be replaced, they will be repiaced with conforming fire rated door assemblies, 2) The
10 building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with all applicable codes an ordinances.
11 124 Dale 3treet North (Laid over from 9-10-02) Ann M. Webster
12 Decision: Laid over to the October 22, 2002, Property Code Enforcement Meeting.
13
14 977 Fuller Avenue (Laid over from 9-10-02) Cherie Eula 7ohnson
15 Decision: Laid over to the October 22, 2002, Property Code Enforcement Meeting.
16
17 691 Dale StreetNorth -- �''S °`�4'`QS.s 1a:� Vone X. Moua
ovc�r-�p n1c.v.r�,io y�
18 Decision: Appeal denied on the August 23, 2002, �etter from License, Inspections, Environmental Protection.
19 854 Ocean Street Michael Lewis
20 Decision: Appeal granted based on the owner's assurances that he is properly disposing of his trash. The
21 owner will maintain receipts showing that he is taking his trash to a proper facility, and the owner will show
22 these receipts when asked by City officials.
� `('(te� �eY�.�' a
�`�� (��\C. S�� et�- ��r� —
�.
�a�� ov �r �
Ne�, �, ao� �
J
� �� �
CE�'v.iJc.... �-
� � �:.�.� .
Property Code Enforcement Appeals, Grreen Sheet 113834
� gb�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Yeas Na s Absent
Blakey ,/
Coleman ;/
Hazris ,/
Benanav �/
Reiter �/
Bostrom ,/
Lanuy �
8 Adopted by Council: Date �� \� i g� v�
9
10 Adoption
11 By:
12 Approved
13 By:
Requested by Deparhnent of:
�
Form Approved by City Attorney
�
,______� ,__... Rayor for Submission to Council
2.
�� Di�
DFPAF2TMENTlOFFICFJCOUNCIL DATEINRIATW vr ._ , V _
City Council 0£fices October 9, 2002 GREEN SHEET NO ���a��}
CONfACT PERSON & PHONE NXINIOah NWallua�
Gerry Strathman, 266-8560
oF.,x.�rdrtcsrae ancouc..
MUST BE ON (�IIAJCIL AfENDA BY (DAT�
ASa�GN
�n11�IBEMFOR arv�narotY ❑arccliNc
ROqi11iG
�� wiR1�cILLfERY1CFtoR ❑ ni111ICJ11LaERln4CClo
❑ WvoRloRAS3lsrqNl) ❑
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE�
CTION RE9UESiED
Approving the October 8, 2002, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code
Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 136 Isabel Street West-Upper Unit, 1271
Seventh Street West, 124 Da1e Street Noith, 977 Fu11er Avenue, 691 Dale Street North, and
854 Ocean Street.
RECOMMENDATION Approve (A) or Reject () PE0.SONALSERViCE CON71tAC75 MUSTANSWER THE FOLLOWIN6 QUESiIONS:
1. Has this M��rm everworNed urWer a contrad for thie tlepartmeM?
PLANNfNG CAMMISSION vES No
CIB COMMITTEE 2. Fks Mis p�vsauTim evw been a cily empbyee7
CNILSERVICECAMMISSION YES NO
3. Oces ihis persa��m poasess a sfdll �ot nantralNp�ssetl 4'! anY wrtetR cilY emP�oY�?
YES NO
4. is Nis pera0n/firtn a tarpeted vEndoY7
YES NO
F�Iain all yes answe�s an aeparate sheet antl at[ach to preen sheet
INITIA7ING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNITV (Who, WAat, When, Where, Why)
ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED
Councal Research Center
OCT 4 � 2002
DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION f COST/REVENUE BUOGETED (qRCLE ONE) VES NO
R7NDING SOIIRCE ACTNISY NUMBER
FINAHCW.1NFORMAS1oN (E]� WN)
UZ c t to�
2�.
MINUTES OF TF� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEIv1ENT MEETING
- Tuesday, October 8, 2002
Room 330 Courthouse
CTerry Stt�thman, Legislative Hearing Officer
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m.
STAFF PRESENT: Joel Essling, Code Enforcement; Thomas Riddering, LIEP (License,
Inspections, Environmental Protection); Steve Ubl, LIEP; Michael Urmann, Fire Prevention
136 Isabel Street West-Upner Unit
Gerry Strathman stated this appeal has been withdrawn.
1271 Seventh Street West
Gerry Strathman stated he sent a letter to the owner with the following decision: Variance
granted on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) If the nonconfonning doors
ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fue rated door assemblies, 2)
The building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with all applicable codes and
ordinances.
124 Dale Street North (Laid over from 9-10-02)
Gerry Strathman requested an update.
Ann M. Webster, owner, appeazed and stated she has taken the appliances out of the kitchen. It is
not a fourplex anymore. She put up the railing around the wood area.
Michael Urmann reported the only cail the field inspector received was a message from the
appellant. Nothing has been set up for a reinspection for approval. Ms. Webster responded she
spoke to Karen Bachco, who said she has no special paperwork that has to be done by Ms.
Webster.
Mr. Strathman asked can an inspection be arranged within the next couple of weeks. Mr.
Urmann responded yes.
Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the October 22, 2002, Property Code Enforcement
Meeting for an inspection to take place so that he can get an update on the property. If the owner
passes the inspection, she will not need to come on October 22.
977 Fuller Avenue (Laid over from 9-10-02)
Richard Hawke, representing owner Cherie Eula Johnson, appeared and stated he talked to Pam�
Kelley (PED [Planning and Economic Development]). The remaining condition of Ms.
Johnson's approval for the program is delivery of paid receipts showing that she has paid the
oZ a c�y
PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 8, 2002 Page 2
second half of her 2002 real estaie t�es, and Ms. Kelley had the receipt in her hand. He was told
that there is no way they wili not help Ms. Johnson now. The loan has not been given yet.
Mr. Strathman asked will the loan be sufficient to remedy all deficiencies here. Mr. Hawke
responded it will be sufficient to remedy the deficiencies identified for this purpose. The owner
is getting bids now and determining what needs to be done.
Joel Essling reported that his concern is if the house stays in this condition during the winter, it
may be the end of the house. Mr. Strathman responded that is not an acceptable option. He has
been dealing with this long enough.
Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the October 22, 2002, Property Code Enforcement
Meeting. He would like to finalize this matter on October 22. He will be looking for two things:
i) a final determinafion from PED that they will make the loan, 2) a schedule whereby the
necessary corrections will be made. If Ms. Johnson anticipates any problems, she should call Mr.
Strathman.
691 Dale Street North
The following appeazed: Vone X. Moua and Mee Moua, owners. Ms. Mee Moua stated the
building inspector requested the second floor bathroom on the southside to be converted into
handicap accessibility; however, the building's structure is too small to expand a lazger bathroom
and the building does not have elevator accessibility. The first level does not accommodate
handicap accessibility; therefore, it is impossible to accommodate accessibIlity on the second
level.
Gerty Strathman asked why the City is seeking a conversion of this bathroom. Steve Ubl
responded that he and Vone Moua have been working extensively throughout this project. He is
trying to seek a compliance for the second floor as it states in the code. They are not able to
accommodate the compliance for the first floor.
Mr. Strathman asked what kind of building it is. Mr. Ubl responded relatively old, masonry, two
story. It was residential on the second floor and they are converting it to business office space.
There is a change in use; therefore, the code requires the space is brought up to current codes.�
The code says the main floor is required to be handicap accessible; however, it is exempt because
of a grandfather clause. The code states the second floor is to be brought up to the current
handicap accessibility codes. It is cost prohibitive to get an elevator in this structure. They do
not have handicap accessibility on the main floor. With assistance, people can get to the second
floor and utilize that space.
Mr. Strathman asked why the City is not looking to convert the first level bathroom. Mr. Ubl
responded that became a cost issue. LIEP agreed to accept the conditions of a grandfather clause
if the project was done in a certain amount of time, which it was. Clearly, the main floor should
have been handicap accessible. That would have been hazd to achieve because the first floor is
right against the sidewalk.
�Z � �y
PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 8, 2002 Page 3
On the second floor bathroom, asked Mr. Strathman, tYiey aze not looking to change the structure,
but to add different fixtures. Mr. Ubl responded they aze asking for the relocation of the fixtiues
in that bathroom. They aze not trying to expand that bathroom.
Mr. Strathman asked does he have a sense of what it would cost. Thomas Riddering responded it
is not a major reconstruction to move the toilet a bit. T1�e accessibility code contemplates that
there are many dif£erent types of handicaps. Just because it is not accessible to someone in a
wheelchair, that does not mean these accessibility features would not be useful to someone with
another type of disability. That is why it is required even on a floor that is not otherwise
accessible.
Mr. Moua stated he took ownership of this property in March 2001. It was an abandoned
building. His family took personal pride in taking care of this building. Ninety percent of the
work was done by he and his family. He grew up in this area and knows the community well.
The building is about 108 yeazs old. The first floor was a tavern for 50 to 60 yeazs. The second
floor was two unit apartments. Since he took over the properry, he continued the tavern business
downstairs to bring everything up to code.
Mr. Moua stated he had numerous conversations about expanding the bathroom upstairs. Both
the Mouas are professionals in the clinical social work area. They are trained to work with the
handicapped. The Mouas are planning to turn the building into a mental heaith clinic. Mr. Ubl
said he could carry the patient up to the second floor, but he will not allow his staff to do that.
He appreciates that the City grandfathered the first floor. The building is not handicap accessibie
on either floor. His insurance company will not a11ow anyone to be carried to the second floor
for treatment. He has worked with other nonprofit organizations who have used alternatives. For
example, he could rent another place to meet clients' needs. He wili not discriminate against
anyone.
Mr. Moua went on to say he is aware of the clause that if the cost exceeds 20% of the project, it
can also be grandfathered in. His plumber could not make today's meetin�. They have not
arrived at a bid for making the building accessibie. In his opinion, he accommodates as much as
possible to make it accessible without moving the structure. He believes it will run between
$5,000 to $10,000 because old plumbing has to be changed. That exceeds 20% of the total cost.
The whole project upstairs is waiting for the decision today. He has been trying to get a clear �
understanding from the City as to why he needs to convert this bathroom. It does not make sense
to him. His plumber has never seen this.
Mr. L3bl stated the establishment on the main floor is open to the public. Prior to that there was
an agreement from all parties. There are two bathrooms upstairs, but they are only focusing on
one bathroom. They met on several occasions as to how to address that bathroom prior to the
main floox establishment being acceptable for usage. They came to an agreement that the
fixtures had to be reconfigured for the bathroom to comply. They agreed that they had to go
through the ceiling on the main floor. They agreed they would do that while the business was
open and in operation. He questions this conversation today because there was an agreement.
�Z_'c� �
PROPERTI' CODE ENFORCEMENT MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 8, 2002 Page 4
Mr. Strathman asked is the state building code being referred to here. Mr. Ubl responded yes, the
Minnesota Accessibility Code. _ ,
Mr. St�athman stated he does not have the authority to grant variances. He asked is there a
reasonable interpretation of the code he could use to give the appellants what they are asking.
(Mr. Ubl read the code.) Mr. Ubl responded that he accepted the ground floor not being in
compliance. When the second floor went from residential to business, that kicked in the
requirement for one of those bathrooms to be compiiant.
Mr. Strathman asked is it reasonable to suppose that the bathroom may exceed 20% of the
project. Mr. Ubl responded the owner did a lot of work on his own. From the building's
standpoint and Yus past experience, stated Mr: Moua, he is suspect that it would exceed 20%.
Mr. Moua stated he does not recall an agreement that the establishxnent would be open for
business if the upstairs is converted. Since the first day, the first floor was treated as one project
separate &om the second floor. He has a floor plan that has been passed through the City.
Nothing on this plan indicates what the specifications are for moving everything.
(Mr. Moua showed and explained to Mr. Strathman the plan drawn by Mr. Ubl.)
Mr. Strathman stated the ADA requirements are difficult and a financiai burden on many
remodeling projects; however, it is a matter of national policy that accessibility shall be provided
whenever possible. He cannot find a reasonable interpretation of the state code that would allow
this bathroom to not be handicap accessible. The state code zequirements seem to be clear. Mr.
Strathman said his role is to review the actions by the inspzctor to see if they are consistent with
the law and reasonable. It is not his role to substitute his judgement for theirs. The actions the
enforcement officials have taken are reasonable and consistent with law. He does not feel they
aze in enor.
Ms. Moua asked what kinds of disabilities aze the City talking about. They work with mental
disabilities and these people do fine going up the stairs. This is a high stair. Mr. Strathman
responded that there are wide range of handicaps, and being in a wheelchair is only one. Some
people can get up the stairs but may need special accommodations to use the bathroom, such as
bazs to hold onto because of back or leg problems. �
Mr. Moua stated if the first floor is not handicap accessible, how can it be possible to remedy
everything on the second floar. Mr. Strathman responded he senses that the City would like to
have the first floor handicap accessible, but there is a provision of the law that aliows it to be
grandfathered in. He encouraged the owners to work with the inspector to minimize the burden
on them and yet achieve at least minimum requirements with public policy.
Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on the August 23, 2002, letter from License, Inspections,
Environmental Protection. He does not see any error in Mr. Ubl's decisions.
oZ-�r�
PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NIINiJTES FOR OCTOBER 8, 2002 Page 5
854 Ocean Street
Michael Lewis, owner, appeared.
Gerry 5trathman stated this has to do with a summary abatement order for the owaer to provide
gazbage service at his properiy. He asked the rational for not having regular gazbage service.
Mr. Lewis responded he makes so little garbage that it is cheaper to bring it over to Water Street.
Mr. Strathman stated the inspector is not able to be here this aftemoon. There were complaints
from neighbors that people were putting garbage in their dumpsters. The thought is that Mr.
Lewis may be one of those people. Mr. Lewis responded he has not done that.
Mr. Strathman stated the appeal application reads that he takes his trash to the refuse and
recycling station, and he pays them $1. He asked does Mr. Lewis have any receipts. Mr. Lewis
responded no because he never ihought he needed them. It is very informal. He drives up, tosses
his bag in, and hands them $1.
Mr. Strathman stated this is a difficuit one. He sympathizes with the desire to minimize the cost
of gazbage disposai if he produces very little; however, Saint Paul does require that people have
garbage service. It is not enforced unless there are complaints. Someone has probably
complained that Mr. Lewis is not disposing of his trash properly. Mr. Strathman asked how the
City can be assured that he is disposing of his trash properly. Mr. Lewis responded he can start
saving receipts.
Gerry Strathman granted the appeal based on the owner's assurances that he is properly disposing
of his trash. The owner will maintain receipts showing that he is taking his trash to a proper
facility, and the owner will show these receipts when asked by City officials. If there are fi�rther
reports of evidence that this is not the case, they will reconsider this matter.
Appeal of Summary abatement order at 812 Stewart Avenue.
(The owner called to say that she missed the 10:00 a.m. meeting. Mr. Strathman told her to
attend the 1:30 meeting. Again, she did not appeaz.)
Gerry Strathman stated the decision from this moming stands.
The meeting was adjoumed at 2:20 p.m.
�