The URL can be used to link to this page

01-5970 R � V I � A � �m�r� ��. -- -J uY.L. \'� � 2oc� RESOLUTION „,, C,JTY OF SAINT PAUL, MINWESOTA Prasenrsa Referred To Committee Date 1 BE TT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the June 5, 2001, 2 decision of the Legislafive Hearing Officer on Properiy Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 3 Propertv Ap�ealed Appellant 4 1846 Carroll Avenue John Starr 5 Decision: Appeal granted on the nonconforming doors with the following condirions: 1) when the 6 nonconfornung doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doars, 2) the 7 building must otherwise be in compliance. 8 917 Jessamine Avenue East Judith Bakula for Theresa Living Center 9 Decision: Appeal granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 10 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 11 building must otherwise be in compliance. 12 1577 Ashland Avenue Harold Brady 13 Decision: Appeal granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 14 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replace$ with conforming fire rated doors, 2} the 15 building must otherwise be in compliance. 16 819 Holly Avenue ��/ Patrick Caruso for Premier Fence 17 Decision: Laid over to the 3uly-i$, 2001, Properry Code Enforcement meeting. 18 609 Capitol Boulevard Jeffrey Brooks Martin 19 Decision: Appeal denied on the egress window, but the compliance date is extended to December 5, 2001. CouncilFile# 01- Sq� Green Sheet # 106159 �� 20 799 Smith Avenue South David Cross 21 Decision: Appeal denied on fence. Crreen Sheet 106159, Page 2 O1-Sq4 2 4 5 6 7 Yeas Na s Absent Biakey � Coleman � Harris � Benanav ✓ Reiter � Bostrom � Lantry i / � T $ � Adopted by Council: Date a-00 l0 ' l 1 Adoption ertified by Council retary 2 By: 3 Approved by Mayot: Date V v� � 1 ZCt� � � 4 By: Requested by Department of. � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � City Cou�cil'Offices Getry Strathman, 266-8560 �,�� June 6, 2001 �xw�asoa TOTAL # OF SIfaNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET oo,ui�r owarae o►-s�� No 1 Q6159 arcceue,. ❑ an�noiser ❑ arvasuc _ ❑nuxeuaa�ccaew. ❑nuxuiuwwviviKCro a wwawR�awqum ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE� Approving the 6-5-01 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code En£orcement appeals £or the following addresses: 1846 Carroll Avenue, 917 Jessamine Avenue East, 1577 Ashland Avenue, 819 Holly Avenue, 609 Capitol Boulevard, 799 Smith Avenue South. PLANNiNG CAMM{SSION CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION OF TRANSAC770N i HeFChis pa'saMUm everv�o�ked unaer a rnn6na tor tMa departmenl? YES NO Hm tlde Peisoruhrm wer baen e cdY empbyee4 YES NO Oceathis petsoiUR+m D� a sWll nd �wrmai�YP�sed bJ enY aurteM atY employee? YES NO R Mis P�B�fin e fBrgMeA vendoR YES NO ♦ ,' tiY' � a. - �U� 0 6 2D4� ipUm� ',�"5c �u� V O�i! �� 2001 CASTlftEV@7UE BU06ES�jdRCLE ONH) � � SOURGE ACTNI7Y NUTABER o�-s�� - NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, June 5, 2001 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislarive Hearing Officer The meeting was cailed to order at 1:30 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: John He�er, LIEP; Thomas Riddering, LIEP; Mike Urmann, Fire Prevention 1846 Carroll Avenue (No one appeared to represent the property.) Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must othenvise be in compliance. 917 Jessamine Avenue East Judith Bakula, Theresa Living Center, appeazed to request an appeal on the replacement of all their doors for fire doors. Gerry Strathman stated there was some question about whether any orders were issued. Ms. Bakula responded the inspector did send the cvritten order. Mike Urmann stated he has no objections to a variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1577 Ashland Avenue Hazold Brady, owner, appeared. Gerry Strathxnan stated there was some question about whether the doors were fire rated. Mr. Brady responded he believes it was done about ten yeazs ago. They were panel doars, and he added another layer of wood on the front. Michael i3rmann stated this is called a Chicago Fix. For a while, fire service thought this would meet the requirement for a 20 minute fire rated doar. After further testing, it actualiy depletes the door because of the ea�tza added weight and the fasteners. It is not allowed under the fire code anymore as a fis. Nonetheless, Mr. Urmann has no objections to a variance. o t �� PROPERTY CODE BNFORCEMENT NOTES OF JUNE 5, 2001 Page 2 Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conformiug fire rated doors, 2) the building must othenuise be in compliance. 814 Holly Avenue Patrick Caruso, Premier Fence, appeazed and stated Premier Fence sold a fence to a homeowner who signed a conuact. The contract between the company and the homeowner read "The owner is to locate correct property locations and fence lines and observe current building codes." Premier Fence obtained the pernut, installed the fence per the owner's instrucfions, and had the owner sign ofFon the contract to install in the owner's eacact locadon. A month later, the owner and kus neighbor had a dispute over the properry line. A survey was completed and found the owner was 2 to 3 feet over his property line. The City contacted Mr. Caruso by letter saying it was his responsibility because he was the holder of the pemut. Mr. Caruso explained that it was a situation between two neighbors. He received a letter from Thomas Riddering, which read there was no evidence that this fence was mandatory or in violation and this is no Ionger Premier Fence's responsability. A week later, Mr. Caruso got another letter from Mr. Riddering which read it may be Mr. Caruso's responsibiliry because a11 fences have to be within the property line according to code. It is clearly indicated on the Premier Fence contract, that if a customer chooses not to get a survey, the fence wili be installed where the owner indicates. A lot of burden is being put on the contractor. Mr. Caruso has been awazded hundreds of permits in the past 15 years following the exact sazne procedure. (Thomas Riddering and John He$ner anived. Mr. Strathman explained the situation.) Gerry Strathman stated it appears clear the fence is in the wrong place. The dispute seems to be whose responsibility it is to move it. It is Mr. Carusds posifion that it is not his responsibility because he fulfilled the terms of the contract as he sees them. The directives from Mr. Riddering are that Mr. Caruso has to move the fence. Mr. Strathman asked why it is Mr. Caruso's responsibility to move it. Thomas Riddering reported it is Mr. Carusds responsibility because he pulled the permit. ff a contractor builds something in accordance with some plans as lie is contracted to do, he wi11 be in compliance with his contractual requirements, but he may not be in conformance with the law. Any violations of the law aze always violations to the contractor. The contractor will presumably go to the owner because the owner's defective plans cost him money, and the owner needs to pay the contractor to change the fence. LIEP does not deal with owners. LIEP has a relationship with the contractor when they pull the permit. Mr. Strathman asked can a homeowner puil a pemut. Mr. Riddering responded they can pull a homeowners permit and then LIEP deals with them as the contractor. Mr. Strathman asked did NIr. Caruso submit plans showing where the fence would be built. John Hegner responded no; however, LIEP expects the person who obtaans the building permit to 0 � �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JLINE 5, 2001 Page 3 bring the fence to the property line and not beyond it. LIEP would like the fence to be an inch or two within the property line so there will not be any disputes. If Mr. Caruso declines to move the fence, asked Mr. Strathman, what are the consequences. Mr. Riddering responded he can get a ticket for not installing the fence in accordance to the law. It would be up the courts to decide. Mr. Caruso stated Mr. Riddering did receive a pemut applicafion as is instructed on all permits in Saint Paul, in which is provided all lot d'unensions, location of the dwelling, street and ailey locafion, location and design of the fence. Mr. Riddering okayed the pernut and provided Premier Fence with the pernut. Nowhere does it say that Premier Fence must provide a survey to idenfify legal properties. It was clearly indicated on the contract, of which LIEP has a copy, that the owner is to locate the properry location and fence line, observe current building codes, and obtain permit. As a convenience, Premier Fence provides a permit in Saint Pau1. Somewhere along the line, Mr. Caruso was told by LIEP that he must pick up a pernut. Mr. Caruso has to look into what the law actually reads: whether Premier actually has to provide a permit. Premier Fence has been successful in a thousand jobs in the past ten years. Although it is unfort�mate, Mr. Caruso does not feel it is his responsibility when something is three feet off--not slightly off- -of the properry line. This is not a matter of a careless contractor, but two neighbors that have a dispute over where the fence should be placed. It is unfair for the contractor to provide legal surveys and the additional cost to the customer if 99% of the customers are comfortable where the fence line is located. Mr. Hegner stated the Saint Paul Legislative Code reads that fences should be completely within the boundary lines of such lot. It is Mr. Carusds responsibility to find that. Mr. Canxso responded the law does not clearly state it is his responsibility. That may be debatable. If a homeowner tells him where the properiy line is located, Mr. Canzso does not feel he should doubt the owner and instruct the owner the property must be surveyed before proceeding with the work. Mr. Strathman asked where Mr. Caruso is in seeking a resolution to tivs matter. Mr. Caruso responded he is waiting to hear from the owner. If the owner wants him to remove the fence, he will do it. Mr. Strathman asked how long he is intending to wait for the owner to snake a decision. Mr. Caruso responded three to four weeks. The City sent him the legisiative code after the fact and the instructions for a fence pemut says nothing about a survey or property corners. The City could do a better job describing that. Mr. Strathman stated if there aze construcfive suggestions for the City about communicating better with building contractors on such matters, Mr. Strathman is sure Mr. Riddering wouid be open to hearing those. With respect to this particular matter, it is cleaz it needs to be moved. � � r J� [� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JIJNE 5, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Caruso said Premier Fence does 30 to 40 permits that aze in progress. If there is a gray azea, he does not know the direction of future projects. Gerty Strathman laid over this matter to the July �8 24, 2001, Properly Code Enforcement meeting to allow Mr. Caruso time to reach a conclusion with the owner. If there are anaugements with the owner to move the fence, there is no need for anyone to attend the July �6 24 meeting. If the matter is not resolved by then, Mr. Strathman will make a decision at that time. There wiil be no enforcement action against Mr. Caruso while the matter is in continuance. (Note: 819 Holly Avenue will be continued on July 24 instead. The July 10 meefing has been canceled. Mr. Caruso and LIEP staff have been notified.) 609 Canitol Boulevard The following appeazed: Jeffrey Brooks Martin, owner, and Robert Casselman, friend and mentor. Mr. Martin stated this is about the opening height in the windows in his basement. They open up to 17 inches and the requirement is 24 inches. This is a two bedroom aparhnent. The windows are in a sleeping room. Mr. Strathman asked was he looking for a variance to aliow them to continue being used as a sleeping room. Mr. Martin responded yes. Michael Urmami reported the requirement is 24 inches opening height, which put the windows about 7 inches less than the need for the height. There is also a sill height problem. The sill height is more than 48 inches. Gerry Strathxnan asked the sill height. Mr. Urmann responded he did not get a chance to talk to the inspector, who is out today. Mr. Urmann was informed it was over 48 inches. Mr. Martin responded it was his understanding it was 48 inches. Mr. Casselman responded his paperwork reads it is suppose to be 44 inches. Mr. Strathman asked were there other windows in this room. Mr. Martin responded there aze two windows per bedroom, and they aze both 17 inches. Mr. Urmann stated there is no way he can allow less than 24 inches open because the person in the basement with the high sill height would not be able to get out in an emergency nor will a fire fighter be abie to access someone if they have to use the windows for ingress in a fire situation. Mr. Strathman asked how old this building is. Mr. Martin responded it was moved to this foundation appro�mately 20 to 30 years ago. He cannot find any additional paperwork on it. Iv3r. Sirathman asked has he looked at what would be required to make these windows larger. Mr. Casselman responded there are some addirional problems here that would exacerbate the problem. There is a giant pazking ramp to the south which is uphill. All the water spills off that o� �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NQTES OF .iUNE 5, 20� 1 Page 5 ramp. If the windows wells were installed, water would come off the pazking ramp, into those windows, and consequently into the basement. Are window wells there now, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Martin responded there are wutdow wells now, but to a lesser degree; they do not e�end as faz out from the building. Mr. Strathman stated Mr. Urmann is conect about the life safety issues because of the difficulty of someone getting in and access for fire officials. He is willing to grant additional time to work out a solution. Mr. Casseiman stated this issue has never come up before during an inspection. Mr. Strathman responded this happens with some frequency. There aze lots of things to look at and different inspectors see different things. Aiso, fire departments sometimes have particular items they are concerned about, and inspectors are instructed to look at a particular item in the future. Once the item is cited, the City has a responsibility, and could be liable if the problem is not corrected. Regarding the sill height, Mr. Casselman stated the inspector indicated he was going to back the variance. Mr. Strathman responded he could not grant a variance in tlus circumstance regardless of the inspector's support. Mr. Urmann stated there are also 19 violafions in the building that need to be addressed--storage, electrical problems--which could effect fare safety in the building and egress. He is willing to work with the building orvner as long as he could get some compliance on some of these other issues. Mr. Martin responded he is in compliance with all the violations except the windows. Some of the violations were fram tenants storing their bicycles and toys in front of the property. They have been removed. Mr. Strathman asked what would be a reasonable tune to take care of the windows. Mr. Martin responded a year. Mr. Urmann responded he believes the job can be done within sixty days because it is a singie window per bedroom that needs to be altered. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal, but extended the compliance date on the windows to December 5, 2001. 799 Smith Avenue South (David Cross presented photographs to Gerry Strathman. They were later retumed.) David Cross, owner, appeared and stated he recently purchased the properry in August. He wants to build a fence He is also going to have a survey done. There is a lot of front property that he can use for his gardens. He wants to place his fence 16 feet back from the street. It will be an additional seven feet from the sidewalk. Businesses in the azea are built up to the sidewalk. When he filed for a variance, it was denied. He wants to extend a six foot fence past the front of the house to capture the 700 squaze feet of land for his gazdens. He wants to build to the top of �� 'J \� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JUNE 5, 2001 Page 6 the four foot berm. He is not obstructing any view. He is not on the comer of the lot. The fence will be in alignment with the neighbor's tree, which is on the comer. This will cut down on the noise and extend the yazd all the way azound. People will still be able to get to his front door without traveling through a fence. Mr. Strathman asked why the fence needs to be six feet tall. Mr. Cross responded for privacy. He is an aquatic gardener, and he will be adding ponds and waterfalls. Thomas Riddering reported the code limits the height of a fence to six feet siY inches above the sidewalk or finished grade to any residential pazcel. This fence would stick out in front and it is on a berm so it will be higher than six feet six inches. Mr. Cross responded he would be installing a six foot fence. David Kenyon responded it will be ten feet above the sidewalk. Mr. Riddering stated he can grant a variance if the site or tenain conditions warrant a waiver of the height restricfions. In this case, he does not feei he has the authority to grant a variance. Also, it would be inconsistent with what he sees is the intent of the code: there is a setback so a person can look down the street and not have it blocked by a large fence. Mr. Cross is pursuing this because a person can only look down the block at the four houses where he is located. One of the neighbors has a hedge that is kugher than six feet. His neighbors haue no problem with him installing a six foot fence. Mr. Strathman stated his function is to see if Mr. Riddering's decision is in accordance with the law and reasonable. It seems it is reasonable. Mr. Strathman does not see anything in the code that says he can grant a variance because of traffic, noise, and other issues. The code just refers to tenain. He wi11 deny the appeal. Mr. Cross asked was it being denied because it is a privacy fence. Mr. Kenyon responded the code allows a six foot fence in the front yard as long as it is not obscuring. Mr. Cross asked if he put in a six foot fence and small bushes that grow like the neighbors that have an eight foot hedge, what is the compliance. Mr. Kenyon responded that is a way around the code. However, Mr. Stratkunan stated, it is safe to say that if there is a compiaint, the owner may have to correct that situafion. Mr. Cross asked about the buildings that obscure. Mr. Riddering responded it is an existing nonconforming situation; the building was already there. Mr. Strathman stated it is the City's pla.nning policy to encourage commercial buildings to be built at the street. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on the fence. The meeting was adjourned at 2:23 p.m. rrn 0 R � V I � A � �m�r� ��. -- -J uY.L. \'� � 2oc� RESOLUTION „,, C,JTY OF SAINT PAUL, MINWESOTA Prasenrsa Referred To Committee Date 1 BE TT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the June 5, 2001, 2 decision of the Legislafive Hearing Officer on Properiy Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 3 Propertv Ap�ealed Appellant 4 1846 Carroll Avenue John Starr 5 Decision: Appeal granted on the nonconforming doors with the following condirions: 1) when the 6 nonconfornung doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doars, 2) the 7 building must otherwise be in compliance. 8 917 Jessamine Avenue East Judith Bakula for Theresa Living Center 9 Decision: Appeal granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 10 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 11 building must otherwise be in compliance. 12 1577 Ashland Avenue Harold Brady 13 Decision: Appeal granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 14 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replace$ with conforming fire rated doors, 2} the 15 building must otherwise be in compliance. 16 819 Holly Avenue ��/ Patrick Caruso for Premier Fence 17 Decision: Laid over to the 3uly-i$, 2001, Properry Code Enforcement meeting. 18 609 Capitol Boulevard Jeffrey Brooks Martin 19 Decision: Appeal denied on the egress window, but the compliance date is extended to December 5, 2001. CouncilFile# 01- Sq� Green Sheet # 106159 �� 20 799 Smith Avenue South David Cross 21 Decision: Appeal denied on fence. Crreen Sheet 106159, Page 2 O1-Sq4 2 4 5 6 7 Yeas Na s Absent Biakey � Coleman � Harris � Benanav ✓ Reiter � Bostrom � Lantry i / � T $ � Adopted by Council: Date a-00 l0 ' l 1 Adoption ertified by Council retary 2 By: 3 Approved by Mayot: Date V v� � 1 ZCt� � � 4 By: Requested by Department of. � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � City Cou�cil'Offices Getry Strathman, 266-8560 �,�� June 6, 2001 �xw�asoa TOTAL # OF SIfaNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET oo,ui�r owarae o►-s�� No 1 Q6159 arcceue,. ❑ an�noiser ❑ arvasuc _ ❑nuxeuaa�ccaew. ❑nuxuiuwwviviKCro a wwawR�awqum ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE� Approving the 6-5-01 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code En£orcement appeals £or the following addresses: 1846 Carroll Avenue, 917 Jessamine Avenue East, 1577 Ashland Avenue, 819 Holly Avenue, 609 Capitol Boulevard, 799 Smith Avenue South. PLANNiNG CAMM{SSION CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION OF TRANSAC770N i HeFChis pa'saMUm everv�o�ked unaer a rnn6na tor tMa departmenl? YES NO Hm tlde Peisoruhrm wer baen e cdY empbyee4 YES NO Oceathis petsoiUR+m D� a sWll nd �wrmai�YP�sed bJ enY aurteM atY employee? YES NO R Mis P�B�fin e fBrgMeA vendoR YES NO ♦ ,' tiY' � a. - �U� 0 6 2D4� ipUm� ',�"5c �u� V O�i! �� 2001 CASTlftEV@7UE BU06ES�jdRCLE ONH) � � SOURGE ACTNI7Y NUTABER o�-s�� - NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, June 5, 2001 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislarive Hearing Officer The meeting was cailed to order at 1:30 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: John He�er, LIEP; Thomas Riddering, LIEP; Mike Urmann, Fire Prevention 1846 Carroll Avenue (No one appeared to represent the property.) Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must othenvise be in compliance. 917 Jessamine Avenue East Judith Bakula, Theresa Living Center, appeazed to request an appeal on the replacement of all their doors for fire doors. Gerry Strathman stated there was some question about whether any orders were issued. Ms. Bakula responded the inspector did send the cvritten order. Mike Urmann stated he has no objections to a variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1577 Ashland Avenue Hazold Brady, owner, appeared. Gerry Strathxnan stated there was some question about whether the doors were fire rated. Mr. Brady responded he believes it was done about ten yeazs ago. They were panel doars, and he added another layer of wood on the front. Michael i3rmann stated this is called a Chicago Fix. For a while, fire service thought this would meet the requirement for a 20 minute fire rated doar. After further testing, it actualiy depletes the door because of the ea�tza added weight and the fasteners. It is not allowed under the fire code anymore as a fis. Nonetheless, Mr. Urmann has no objections to a variance. o t �� PROPERTY CODE BNFORCEMENT NOTES OF JUNE 5, 2001 Page 2 Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conformiug fire rated doors, 2) the building must othenuise be in compliance. 814 Holly Avenue Patrick Caruso, Premier Fence, appeazed and stated Premier Fence sold a fence to a homeowner who signed a conuact. The contract between the company and the homeowner read "The owner is to locate correct property locations and fence lines and observe current building codes." Premier Fence obtained the pernut, installed the fence per the owner's instrucfions, and had the owner sign ofFon the contract to install in the owner's eacact locadon. A month later, the owner and kus neighbor had a dispute over the properry line. A survey was completed and found the owner was 2 to 3 feet over his property line. The City contacted Mr. Caruso by letter saying it was his responsibility because he was the holder of the pemut. Mr. Caruso explained that it was a situation between two neighbors. He received a letter from Thomas Riddering, which read there was no evidence that this fence was mandatory or in violation and this is no Ionger Premier Fence's responsability. A week later, Mr. Caruso got another letter from Mr. Riddering which read it may be Mr. Caruso's responsibiliry because a11 fences have to be within the property line according to code. It is clearly indicated on the Premier Fence contract, that if a customer chooses not to get a survey, the fence wili be installed where the owner indicates. A lot of burden is being put on the contractor. Mr. Caruso has been awazded hundreds of permits in the past 15 years following the exact sazne procedure. (Thomas Riddering and John He$ner anived. Mr. Strathman explained the situation.) Gerry Strathman stated it appears clear the fence is in the wrong place. The dispute seems to be whose responsibility it is to move it. It is Mr. Carusds posifion that it is not his responsibility because he fulfilled the terms of the contract as he sees them. The directives from Mr. Riddering are that Mr. Caruso has to move the fence. Mr. Strathman asked why it is Mr. Caruso's responsibility to move it. Thomas Riddering reported it is Mr. Carusds responsibility because he pulled the permit. ff a contractor builds something in accordance with some plans as lie is contracted to do, he wi11 be in compliance with his contractual requirements, but he may not be in conformance with the law. Any violations of the law aze always violations to the contractor. The contractor will presumably go to the owner because the owner's defective plans cost him money, and the owner needs to pay the contractor to change the fence. LIEP does not deal with owners. LIEP has a relationship with the contractor when they pull the permit. Mr. Strathman asked can a homeowner puil a pemut. Mr. Riddering responded they can pull a homeowners permit and then LIEP deals with them as the contractor. Mr. Strathman asked did NIr. Caruso submit plans showing where the fence would be built. John Hegner responded no; however, LIEP expects the person who obtaans the building permit to 0 � �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JLINE 5, 2001 Page 3 bring the fence to the property line and not beyond it. LIEP would like the fence to be an inch or two within the property line so there will not be any disputes. If Mr. Caruso declines to move the fence, asked Mr. Strathman, what are the consequences. Mr. Riddering responded he can get a ticket for not installing the fence in accordance to the law. It would be up the courts to decide. Mr. Caruso stated Mr. Riddering did receive a pemut applicafion as is instructed on all permits in Saint Paul, in which is provided all lot d'unensions, location of the dwelling, street and ailey locafion, location and design of the fence. Mr. Riddering okayed the pernut and provided Premier Fence with the pernut. Nowhere does it say that Premier Fence must provide a survey to idenfify legal properties. It was clearly indicated on the contract, of which LIEP has a copy, that the owner is to locate the properry location and fence line, observe current building codes, and obtain permit. As a convenience, Premier Fence provides a permit in Saint Pau1. Somewhere along the line, Mr. Caruso was told by LIEP that he must pick up a pernut. Mr. Caruso has to look into what the law actually reads: whether Premier actually has to provide a permit. Premier Fence has been successful in a thousand jobs in the past ten years. Although it is unfort�mate, Mr. Caruso does not feel it is his responsibility when something is three feet off--not slightly off- -of the properry line. This is not a matter of a careless contractor, but two neighbors that have a dispute over where the fence should be placed. It is unfair for the contractor to provide legal surveys and the additional cost to the customer if 99% of the customers are comfortable where the fence line is located. Mr. Hegner stated the Saint Paul Legislative Code reads that fences should be completely within the boundary lines of such lot. It is Mr. Carusds responsibility to find that. Mr. Canxso responded the law does not clearly state it is his responsibility. That may be debatable. If a homeowner tells him where the properiy line is located, Mr. Canzso does not feel he should doubt the owner and instruct the owner the property must be surveyed before proceeding with the work. Mr. Strathman asked where Mr. Caruso is in seeking a resolution to tivs matter. Mr. Caruso responded he is waiting to hear from the owner. If the owner wants him to remove the fence, he will do it. Mr. Strathman asked how long he is intending to wait for the owner to snake a decision. Mr. Caruso responded three to four weeks. The City sent him the legisiative code after the fact and the instructions for a fence pemut says nothing about a survey or property corners. The City could do a better job describing that. Mr. Strathman stated if there aze construcfive suggestions for the City about communicating better with building contractors on such matters, Mr. Strathman is sure Mr. Riddering wouid be open to hearing those. With respect to this particular matter, it is cleaz it needs to be moved. � � r J� [� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JIJNE 5, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Caruso said Premier Fence does 30 to 40 permits that aze in progress. If there is a gray azea, he does not know the direction of future projects. Gerty Strathman laid over this matter to the July �8 24, 2001, Properly Code Enforcement meeting to allow Mr. Caruso time to reach a conclusion with the owner. If there are anaugements with the owner to move the fence, there is no need for anyone to attend the July �6 24 meeting. If the matter is not resolved by then, Mr. Strathman will make a decision at that time. There wiil be no enforcement action against Mr. Caruso while the matter is in continuance. (Note: 819 Holly Avenue will be continued on July 24 instead. The July 10 meefing has been canceled. Mr. Caruso and LIEP staff have been notified.) 609 Canitol Boulevard The following appeazed: Jeffrey Brooks Martin, owner, and Robert Casselman, friend and mentor. Mr. Martin stated this is about the opening height in the windows in his basement. They open up to 17 inches and the requirement is 24 inches. This is a two bedroom aparhnent. The windows are in a sleeping room. Mr. Strathman asked was he looking for a variance to aliow them to continue being used as a sleeping room. Mr. Martin responded yes. Michael Urmami reported the requirement is 24 inches opening height, which put the windows about 7 inches less than the need for the height. There is also a sill height problem. The sill height is more than 48 inches. Gerry Strathxnan asked the sill height. Mr. Urmann responded he did not get a chance to talk to the inspector, who is out today. Mr. Urmann was informed it was over 48 inches. Mr. Martin responded it was his understanding it was 48 inches. Mr. Casselman responded his paperwork reads it is suppose to be 44 inches. Mr. Strathman asked were there other windows in this room. Mr. Martin responded there aze two windows per bedroom, and they aze both 17 inches. Mr. Urmann stated there is no way he can allow less than 24 inches open because the person in the basement with the high sill height would not be able to get out in an emergency nor will a fire fighter be abie to access someone if they have to use the windows for ingress in a fire situation. Mr. Strathman asked how old this building is. Mr. Martin responded it was moved to this foundation appro�mately 20 to 30 years ago. He cannot find any additional paperwork on it. Iv3r. Sirathman asked has he looked at what would be required to make these windows larger. Mr. Casselman responded there are some addirional problems here that would exacerbate the problem. There is a giant pazking ramp to the south which is uphill. All the water spills off that o� �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NQTES OF .iUNE 5, 20� 1 Page 5 ramp. If the windows wells were installed, water would come off the pazking ramp, into those windows, and consequently into the basement. Are window wells there now, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Martin responded there are wutdow wells now, but to a lesser degree; they do not e�end as faz out from the building. Mr. Strathman stated Mr. Urmann is conect about the life safety issues because of the difficulty of someone getting in and access for fire officials. He is willing to grant additional time to work out a solution. Mr. Casseiman stated this issue has never come up before during an inspection. Mr. Strathman responded this happens with some frequency. There aze lots of things to look at and different inspectors see different things. Aiso, fire departments sometimes have particular items they are concerned about, and inspectors are instructed to look at a particular item in the future. Once the item is cited, the City has a responsibility, and could be liable if the problem is not corrected. Regarding the sill height, Mr. Casselman stated the inspector indicated he was going to back the variance. Mr. Strathman responded he could not grant a variance in tlus circumstance regardless of the inspector's support. Mr. Urmann stated there are also 19 violafions in the building that need to be addressed--storage, electrical problems--which could effect fare safety in the building and egress. He is willing to work with the building orvner as long as he could get some compliance on some of these other issues. Mr. Martin responded he is in compliance with all the violations except the windows. Some of the violations were fram tenants storing their bicycles and toys in front of the property. They have been removed. Mr. Strathman asked what would be a reasonable tune to take care of the windows. Mr. Martin responded a year. Mr. Urmann responded he believes the job can be done within sixty days because it is a singie window per bedroom that needs to be altered. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal, but extended the compliance date on the windows to December 5, 2001. 799 Smith Avenue South (David Cross presented photographs to Gerry Strathman. They were later retumed.) David Cross, owner, appeared and stated he recently purchased the properry in August. He wants to build a fence He is also going to have a survey done. There is a lot of front property that he can use for his gardens. He wants to place his fence 16 feet back from the street. It will be an additional seven feet from the sidewalk. Businesses in the azea are built up to the sidewalk. When he filed for a variance, it was denied. He wants to extend a six foot fence past the front of the house to capture the 700 squaze feet of land for his gazdens. He wants to build to the top of �� 'J \� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JUNE 5, 2001 Page 6 the four foot berm. He is not obstructing any view. He is not on the comer of the lot. The fence will be in alignment with the neighbor's tree, which is on the comer. This will cut down on the noise and extend the yazd all the way azound. People will still be able to get to his front door without traveling through a fence. Mr. Strathman asked why the fence needs to be six feet tall. Mr. Cross responded for privacy. He is an aquatic gardener, and he will be adding ponds and waterfalls. Thomas Riddering reported the code limits the height of a fence to six feet siY inches above the sidewalk or finished grade to any residential pazcel. This fence would stick out in front and it is on a berm so it will be higher than six feet six inches. Mr. Cross responded he would be installing a six foot fence. David Kenyon responded it will be ten feet above the sidewalk. Mr. Riddering stated he can grant a variance if the site or tenain conditions warrant a waiver of the height restricfions. In this case, he does not feei he has the authority to grant a variance. Also, it would be inconsistent with what he sees is the intent of the code: there is a setback so a person can look down the street and not have it blocked by a large fence. Mr. Cross is pursuing this because a person can only look down the block at the four houses where he is located. One of the neighbors has a hedge that is kugher than six feet. His neighbors haue no problem with him installing a six foot fence. Mr. Strathman stated his function is to see if Mr. Riddering's decision is in accordance with the law and reasonable. It seems it is reasonable. Mr. Strathman does not see anything in the code that says he can grant a variance because of traffic, noise, and other issues. The code just refers to tenain. He wi11 deny the appeal. Mr. Cross asked was it being denied because it is a privacy fence. Mr. Kenyon responded the code allows a six foot fence in the front yard as long as it is not obscuring. Mr. Cross asked if he put in a six foot fence and small bushes that grow like the neighbors that have an eight foot hedge, what is the compliance. Mr. Kenyon responded that is a way around the code. However, Mr. Stratkunan stated, it is safe to say that if there is a compiaint, the owner may have to correct that situafion. Mr. Cross asked about the buildings that obscure. Mr. Riddering responded it is an existing nonconforming situation; the building was already there. Mr. Strathman stated it is the City's pla.nning policy to encourage commercial buildings to be built at the street. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on the fence. The meeting was adjourned at 2:23 p.m. rrn 0 R � V I � A � �m�r� ��. -- -J uY.L. \'� � 2oc� RESOLUTION „,, C,JTY OF SAINT PAUL, MINWESOTA Prasenrsa Referred To Committee Date 1 BE TT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the June 5, 2001, 2 decision of the Legislafive Hearing Officer on Properiy Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 3 Propertv Ap�ealed Appellant 4 1846 Carroll Avenue John Starr 5 Decision: Appeal granted on the nonconforming doors with the following condirions: 1) when the 6 nonconfornung doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doars, 2) the 7 building must otherwise be in compliance. 8 917 Jessamine Avenue East Judith Bakula for Theresa Living Center 9 Decision: Appeal granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 10 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 11 building must otherwise be in compliance. 12 1577 Ashland Avenue Harold Brady 13 Decision: Appeal granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 14 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replace$ with conforming fire rated doors, 2} the 15 building must otherwise be in compliance. 16 819 Holly Avenue ��/ Patrick Caruso for Premier Fence 17 Decision: Laid over to the 3uly-i$, 2001, Properry Code Enforcement meeting. 18 609 Capitol Boulevard Jeffrey Brooks Martin 19 Decision: Appeal denied on the egress window, but the compliance date is extended to December 5, 2001. CouncilFile# 01- Sq� Green Sheet # 106159 �� 20 799 Smith Avenue South David Cross 21 Decision: Appeal denied on fence. Crreen Sheet 106159, Page 2 O1-Sq4 2 4 5 6 7 Yeas Na s Absent Biakey � Coleman � Harris � Benanav ✓ Reiter � Bostrom � Lantry i / � T $ � Adopted by Council: Date a-00 l0 ' l 1 Adoption ertified by Council retary 2 By: 3 Approved by Mayot: Date V v� � 1 ZCt� � � 4 By: Requested by Department of. � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � City Cou�cil'Offices Getry Strathman, 266-8560 �,�� June 6, 2001 �xw�asoa TOTAL # OF SIfaNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET oo,ui�r owarae o►-s�� No 1 Q6159 arcceue,. ❑ an�noiser ❑ arvasuc _ ❑nuxeuaa�ccaew. ❑nuxuiuwwviviKCro a wwawR�awqum ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE� Approving the 6-5-01 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code En£orcement appeals £or the following addresses: 1846 Carroll Avenue, 917 Jessamine Avenue East, 1577 Ashland Avenue, 819 Holly Avenue, 609 Capitol Boulevard, 799 Smith Avenue South. PLANNiNG CAMM{SSION CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION OF TRANSAC770N i HeFChis pa'saMUm everv�o�ked unaer a rnn6na tor tMa departmenl? YES NO Hm tlde Peisoruhrm wer baen e cdY empbyee4 YES NO Oceathis petsoiUR+m D� a sWll nd �wrmai�YP�sed bJ enY aurteM atY employee? YES NO R Mis P�B�fin e fBrgMeA vendoR YES NO ♦ ,' tiY' � a. - �U� 0 6 2D4� ipUm� ',�"5c �u� V O�i! �� 2001 CASTlftEV@7UE BU06ES�jdRCLE ONH) � � SOURGE ACTNI7Y NUTABER o�-s�� - NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, June 5, 2001 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislarive Hearing Officer The meeting was cailed to order at 1:30 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: John He�er, LIEP; Thomas Riddering, LIEP; Mike Urmann, Fire Prevention 1846 Carroll Avenue (No one appeared to represent the property.) Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must othenvise be in compliance. 917 Jessamine Avenue East Judith Bakula, Theresa Living Center, appeazed to request an appeal on the replacement of all their doors for fire doors. Gerry Strathman stated there was some question about whether any orders were issued. Ms. Bakula responded the inspector did send the cvritten order. Mike Urmann stated he has no objections to a variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1577 Ashland Avenue Hazold Brady, owner, appeared. Gerry Strathxnan stated there was some question about whether the doors were fire rated. Mr. Brady responded he believes it was done about ten yeazs ago. They were panel doars, and he added another layer of wood on the front. Michael i3rmann stated this is called a Chicago Fix. For a while, fire service thought this would meet the requirement for a 20 minute fire rated doar. After further testing, it actualiy depletes the door because of the ea�tza added weight and the fasteners. It is not allowed under the fire code anymore as a fis. Nonetheless, Mr. Urmann has no objections to a variance. o t �� PROPERTY CODE BNFORCEMENT NOTES OF JUNE 5, 2001 Page 2 Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conformiug fire rated doors, 2) the building must othenuise be in compliance. 814 Holly Avenue Patrick Caruso, Premier Fence, appeazed and stated Premier Fence sold a fence to a homeowner who signed a conuact. The contract between the company and the homeowner read "The owner is to locate correct property locations and fence lines and observe current building codes." Premier Fence obtained the pernut, installed the fence per the owner's instrucfions, and had the owner sign ofFon the contract to install in the owner's eacact locadon. A month later, the owner and kus neighbor had a dispute over the properry line. A survey was completed and found the owner was 2 to 3 feet over his property line. The City contacted Mr. Caruso by letter saying it was his responsibility because he was the holder of the pemut. Mr. Caruso explained that it was a situation between two neighbors. He received a letter from Thomas Riddering, which read there was no evidence that this fence was mandatory or in violation and this is no Ionger Premier Fence's responsability. A week later, Mr. Caruso got another letter from Mr. Riddering which read it may be Mr. Caruso's responsibiliry because a11 fences have to be within the property line according to code. It is clearly indicated on the Premier Fence contract, that if a customer chooses not to get a survey, the fence wili be installed where the owner indicates. A lot of burden is being put on the contractor. Mr. Caruso has been awazded hundreds of permits in the past 15 years following the exact sazne procedure. (Thomas Riddering and John He$ner anived. Mr. Strathman explained the situation.) Gerry Strathman stated it appears clear the fence is in the wrong place. The dispute seems to be whose responsibility it is to move it. It is Mr. Carusds posifion that it is not his responsibility because he fulfilled the terms of the contract as he sees them. The directives from Mr. Riddering are that Mr. Caruso has to move the fence. Mr. Strathman asked why it is Mr. Caruso's responsibility to move it. Thomas Riddering reported it is Mr. Carusds responsibility because he pulled the permit. ff a contractor builds something in accordance with some plans as lie is contracted to do, he wi11 be in compliance with his contractual requirements, but he may not be in conformance with the law. Any violations of the law aze always violations to the contractor. The contractor will presumably go to the owner because the owner's defective plans cost him money, and the owner needs to pay the contractor to change the fence. LIEP does not deal with owners. LIEP has a relationship with the contractor when they pull the permit. Mr. Strathman asked can a homeowner puil a pemut. Mr. Riddering responded they can pull a homeowners permit and then LIEP deals with them as the contractor. Mr. Strathman asked did NIr. Caruso submit plans showing where the fence would be built. John Hegner responded no; however, LIEP expects the person who obtaans the building permit to 0 � �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JLINE 5, 2001 Page 3 bring the fence to the property line and not beyond it. LIEP would like the fence to be an inch or two within the property line so there will not be any disputes. If Mr. Caruso declines to move the fence, asked Mr. Strathman, what are the consequences. Mr. Riddering responded he can get a ticket for not installing the fence in accordance to the law. It would be up the courts to decide. Mr. Caruso stated Mr. Riddering did receive a pemut applicafion as is instructed on all permits in Saint Paul, in which is provided all lot d'unensions, location of the dwelling, street and ailey locafion, location and design of the fence. Mr. Riddering okayed the pernut and provided Premier Fence with the pernut. Nowhere does it say that Premier Fence must provide a survey to idenfify legal properties. It was clearly indicated on the contract, of which LIEP has a copy, that the owner is to locate the properry location and fence line, observe current building codes, and obtain permit. As a convenience, Premier Fence provides a permit in Saint Pau1. Somewhere along the line, Mr. Caruso was told by LIEP that he must pick up a pernut. Mr. Caruso has to look into what the law actually reads: whether Premier actually has to provide a permit. Premier Fence has been successful in a thousand jobs in the past ten years. Although it is unfort�mate, Mr. Caruso does not feel it is his responsibility when something is three feet off--not slightly off- -of the properry line. This is not a matter of a careless contractor, but two neighbors that have a dispute over where the fence should be placed. It is unfair for the contractor to provide legal surveys and the additional cost to the customer if 99% of the customers are comfortable where the fence line is located. Mr. Hegner stated the Saint Paul Legislative Code reads that fences should be completely within the boundary lines of such lot. It is Mr. Carusds responsibility to find that. Mr. Canxso responded the law does not clearly state it is his responsibility. That may be debatable. If a homeowner tells him where the properiy line is located, Mr. Canzso does not feel he should doubt the owner and instruct the owner the property must be surveyed before proceeding with the work. Mr. Strathman asked where Mr. Caruso is in seeking a resolution to tivs matter. Mr. Caruso responded he is waiting to hear from the owner. If the owner wants him to remove the fence, he will do it. Mr. Strathman asked how long he is intending to wait for the owner to snake a decision. Mr. Caruso responded three to four weeks. The City sent him the legisiative code after the fact and the instructions for a fence pemut says nothing about a survey or property corners. The City could do a better job describing that. Mr. Strathman stated if there aze construcfive suggestions for the City about communicating better with building contractors on such matters, Mr. Strathman is sure Mr. Riddering wouid be open to hearing those. With respect to this particular matter, it is cleaz it needs to be moved. � � r J� [� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JIJNE 5, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Caruso said Premier Fence does 30 to 40 permits that aze in progress. If there is a gray azea, he does not know the direction of future projects. Gerty Strathman laid over this matter to the July �8 24, 2001, Properly Code Enforcement meeting to allow Mr. Caruso time to reach a conclusion with the owner. If there are anaugements with the owner to move the fence, there is no need for anyone to attend the July �6 24 meeting. If the matter is not resolved by then, Mr. Strathman will make a decision at that time. There wiil be no enforcement action against Mr. Caruso while the matter is in continuance. (Note: 819 Holly Avenue will be continued on July 24 instead. The July 10 meefing has been canceled. Mr. Caruso and LIEP staff have been notified.) 609 Canitol Boulevard The following appeazed: Jeffrey Brooks Martin, owner, and Robert Casselman, friend and mentor. Mr. Martin stated this is about the opening height in the windows in his basement. They open up to 17 inches and the requirement is 24 inches. This is a two bedroom aparhnent. The windows are in a sleeping room. Mr. Strathman asked was he looking for a variance to aliow them to continue being used as a sleeping room. Mr. Martin responded yes. Michael Urmami reported the requirement is 24 inches opening height, which put the windows about 7 inches less than the need for the height. There is also a sill height problem. The sill height is more than 48 inches. Gerry Strathxnan asked the sill height. Mr. Urmann responded he did not get a chance to talk to the inspector, who is out today. Mr. Urmann was informed it was over 48 inches. Mr. Martin responded it was his understanding it was 48 inches. Mr. Casselman responded his paperwork reads it is suppose to be 44 inches. Mr. Strathman asked were there other windows in this room. Mr. Martin responded there aze two windows per bedroom, and they aze both 17 inches. Mr. Urmann stated there is no way he can allow less than 24 inches open because the person in the basement with the high sill height would not be able to get out in an emergency nor will a fire fighter be abie to access someone if they have to use the windows for ingress in a fire situation. Mr. Strathman asked how old this building is. Mr. Martin responded it was moved to this foundation appro�mately 20 to 30 years ago. He cannot find any additional paperwork on it. Iv3r. Sirathman asked has he looked at what would be required to make these windows larger. Mr. Casselman responded there are some addirional problems here that would exacerbate the problem. There is a giant pazking ramp to the south which is uphill. All the water spills off that o� �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NQTES OF .iUNE 5, 20� 1 Page 5 ramp. If the windows wells were installed, water would come off the pazking ramp, into those windows, and consequently into the basement. Are window wells there now, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Martin responded there are wutdow wells now, but to a lesser degree; they do not e�end as faz out from the building. Mr. Strathman stated Mr. Urmann is conect about the life safety issues because of the difficulty of someone getting in and access for fire officials. He is willing to grant additional time to work out a solution. Mr. Casseiman stated this issue has never come up before during an inspection. Mr. Strathman responded this happens with some frequency. There aze lots of things to look at and different inspectors see different things. Aiso, fire departments sometimes have particular items they are concerned about, and inspectors are instructed to look at a particular item in the future. Once the item is cited, the City has a responsibility, and could be liable if the problem is not corrected. Regarding the sill height, Mr. Casselman stated the inspector indicated he was going to back the variance. Mr. Strathman responded he could not grant a variance in tlus circumstance regardless of the inspector's support. Mr. Urmann stated there are also 19 violafions in the building that need to be addressed--storage, electrical problems--which could effect fare safety in the building and egress. He is willing to work with the building orvner as long as he could get some compliance on some of these other issues. Mr. Martin responded he is in compliance with all the violations except the windows. Some of the violations were fram tenants storing their bicycles and toys in front of the property. They have been removed. Mr. Strathman asked what would be a reasonable tune to take care of the windows. Mr. Martin responded a year. Mr. Urmann responded he believes the job can be done within sixty days because it is a singie window per bedroom that needs to be altered. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal, but extended the compliance date on the windows to December 5, 2001. 799 Smith Avenue South (David Cross presented photographs to Gerry Strathman. They were later retumed.) David Cross, owner, appeared and stated he recently purchased the properry in August. He wants to build a fence He is also going to have a survey done. There is a lot of front property that he can use for his gardens. He wants to place his fence 16 feet back from the street. It will be an additional seven feet from the sidewalk. Businesses in the azea are built up to the sidewalk. When he filed for a variance, it was denied. He wants to extend a six foot fence past the front of the house to capture the 700 squaze feet of land for his gazdens. He wants to build to the top of �� 'J \� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JUNE 5, 2001 Page 6 the four foot berm. He is not obstructing any view. He is not on the comer of the lot. The fence will be in alignment with the neighbor's tree, which is on the comer. This will cut down on the noise and extend the yazd all the way azound. People will still be able to get to his front door without traveling through a fence. Mr. Strathman asked why the fence needs to be six feet tall. Mr. Cross responded for privacy. He is an aquatic gardener, and he will be adding ponds and waterfalls. Thomas Riddering reported the code limits the height of a fence to six feet siY inches above the sidewalk or finished grade to any residential pazcel. This fence would stick out in front and it is on a berm so it will be higher than six feet six inches. Mr. Cross responded he would be installing a six foot fence. David Kenyon responded it will be ten feet above the sidewalk. Mr. Riddering stated he can grant a variance if the site or tenain conditions warrant a waiver of the height restricfions. In this case, he does not feei he has the authority to grant a variance. Also, it would be inconsistent with what he sees is the intent of the code: there is a setback so a person can look down the street and not have it blocked by a large fence. Mr. Cross is pursuing this because a person can only look down the block at the four houses where he is located. One of the neighbors has a hedge that is kugher than six feet. His neighbors haue no problem with him installing a six foot fence. Mr. Strathman stated his function is to see if Mr. Riddering's decision is in accordance with the law and reasonable. It seems it is reasonable. Mr. Strathman does not see anything in the code that says he can grant a variance because of traffic, noise, and other issues. The code just refers to tenain. He wi11 deny the appeal. Mr. Cross asked was it being denied because it is a privacy fence. Mr. Kenyon responded the code allows a six foot fence in the front yard as long as it is not obscuring. Mr. Cross asked if he put in a six foot fence and small bushes that grow like the neighbors that have an eight foot hedge, what is the compliance. Mr. Kenyon responded that is a way around the code. However, Mr. Stratkunan stated, it is safe to say that if there is a compiaint, the owner may have to correct that situafion. Mr. Cross asked about the buildings that obscure. Mr. Riddering responded it is an existing nonconforming situation; the building was already there. Mr. Strathman stated it is the City's pla.nning policy to encourage commercial buildings to be built at the street. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on the fence. The meeting was adjourned at 2:23 p.m. rrn