Loading...
03-905Council File # /�.3 — 7 � s Sheet # 3005915 RESOLUTION CITY OF, SAINT P,AUa, MI Presented Refened To � Date BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the September 23, 2003, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals for Letters of Deficiency, Correction Notices, and Correction Orders for the following address: Propertv Appealed Apnellant 529 Sherburne Avenue Vaithianathan Nithiananda, owner Decision: Appeal denied on the Conection Notice dated September 8, 2003. Yeas Nays Absent Benanav � Blakey , Bostrom „� Coleman � Harris ' � Lantry ,/ �eii��- d Adopted by Council: Date /� � d� Ado� By: Appi By: Requested by Department oE � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � � Green Sheet Csreen Sheet D�-9o� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � oepartmeM/otficelcounca: oate tnit;atea: co -���il Z�EP-03 � Green Sheet NO: 3005915 Coatact Person & Phnne: Deoartment Sent To Person Initial/Date Marcia Moermond � 0 ouncil 2 ��� � Assign 1 Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number z � For Routing 3 Ortler 4 i 5 Total p of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Approve the September 23, 2003, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters of Deficiency, Conection IQotices, and Conection Orders for ffie following address: 529 Sherburne Avenue. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): � Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this personffirtn ever worked under a contrect for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firtn ever Deen a city employee? Yes No - 3. Does this personffirm possess a skill not normally possessed 6y a�y curreM city employee? , Yes No Euplain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to.green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: DisadvanWgeslfApproved: ' c.c.�=i� ,� . Disadvantages If Not Approved: SEP 2 � 2003 ToWI Amount of CosNRevenue Budgeted: +..-.-s � �'• � i Transaction: "°", .^°�°-` �.- f Funding Source: Activity Number: Fi nancial Infortnation: (Explain) S�e� \C� C��-�10� NOTES OF TI� LEGISLATIVE HEARING LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES, CORRECTION ORDERS, FENCE VARIANCES Tuesday, September 23, 2003 Room 330 City Ha11, 15 Kellogg Boulevazd West Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 134 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: David Kenyon, Office of License, Inspections, Environmental Protection (LIEP); Dave P. Nelson, LIEP; Thomas Riddering, LIEP 176 Richmond Street (appeal of fence variance denial) Steve and Michelle Altier, owners, appeazed. David Kenyon reported that there was a request to build a 42 inch high picket fence with no regazd for the corner clearance requirement. The legislative code does not allow him to grant this vaziance for the reason indicated. He recommended to Tom Riddering, Building Official, that the request be denied. Marcia Moermond asked what he means by corner cleatance. Mr. Kenyon responded that fences at the corner of streets can interFere with the vision when cazs pull up. The code requires that those fences, between the front setback and required side yard setback, cannot be higher than two feet. Ms. Moermond asked did they want four feet. Mr. Altier responded 42 inches. Mrs. Altier added that it is for child protection. Ms. Moermond asked did they want it to extend a right angle into the corner. Mr. Altier responded correct. Ms. Moermond asked aze they flexibie about that. Mr. Alfier responded that they did not know about the corner clearance necessary until LIEP said something. Their fencing contractor never said anything until later. Their yazd is limited in size, and they would like to utilize as much of that space as they can. Cutting the corners would drastically reduce the value of even l�aving a fenced in yazd. That is why they wanted to go to the corner. Without knowing about a corner cleazance, the fence they are going to instali would go to the corner. The streets and boulevards are wide compazed to other ones in the City. It is more than ten feet of clearance in both directions. He took some photographs and watched where cazs stop at the sign and their viewpoint going down the street. Also, directly cross the street is a row of hedges that aze about eight feet tall that overhang the corner for about a foot and a half. Even with that, there is still no visibility obstruction down the street for traffic. (Ms. Moermond viewed the photographs.) C�� �os NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 Mrs. Altier stated the photographs were taken yesterday. Page 2 Ms. Moermond stated there are two comers shown in the photograph. Mr. Altier added that it is an unusual proper[y. Mr. Altier described each photograph, and said the fence wouid have two inch gaps between the boazds. Ms. Moermond stated she called Public Works because they are the right-of-way deparhnent. She told them she has an application for a fence variance and asked their concerns from a right- of-way perspective. Don Sobania, Public Works, looked at the property and some of the neighborhood properties. He said there are a couple of fences in the neighborhood that have a comer cut. That would decrease the amount of play area. He said the cuts were visually attractive the way they were landscaped. Shrubs do obscure the view. Ms. Moermond is inclined to say the shrubs are more of a problem. She asked would they be willing to literally cut the comers of the fence. Mr. Kenyon stated they aze in a R-2 zoned azea meaning the owners have a four foot setback on the side property lines. Their house is the only house on the block. It is back 14'/2 or 15 feet. They would be gaining four feet at the front which would be sliced back I S feet. He does agree with them. In reality, they do not create a hardship. He denied it because the code does not allow him to grant it. Mr. Kenyon said he was there today. If he had the power to grant the variance, he would because he does not see it as a problem. Ms. Moermond stated her concem is strictly the corner. Mr. Altier stated if everyone could agree to cut the corner, they would have no problem with that. Ms. Moermond asked how much they would normally allow for a fence for side and front yard. Mr. Kenyon responded the front and side of the house can be up to four feet. The whole thing has to do with the corner cleazance. The corner cleazance says it has to be down to two feet; if it is brought back and an angle is cut, then it can remain at four feet. Ms. Moermond stated she is fine with the four feet all the way around, including the comer cuts, if thexe is some accommodation made for visibility on the corners. The fifteen foot setback on the front yard is extreme. Mr. Altier asked for clarification on the comer cut. Mr. Kenyon responded a little corner wouid be cut at four feet. Ms. Moermond added that the fence would abut the sidewaik in all the other places. Mrs. Altier responded that she could work with that. Ms. Moermond granted the appeal to allow a four foot high picket fence azound the perimeter of the properry abutting the sidewalk provided that the foliowing is done: the fence remain four feet back from the southwest and northwest corner property stakes in both directions and would, o� �� s NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 Page 3 therefore, be installed diagonally at the comers which would allow visibility for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. 1883 Cottage Avenue East (appeal of fence variance denial) James Dorman, 1883 Cottage Avenue East, representing owner Scott Dorman, appeazed. David P. Neison stated the fence that was installed was in violation of the ordinance. The owner requested a six foot fence at the east properiy line along the alley. The owners wanted to go six feet all the way to the front where four feet is aliowed. Mr. Nelson had to deny it because there was no criteria to look at to say this variance could pass with the ordinances. Ms. Moermond asked was the fence constructed without a permit. Mr. Nelson responded the owner applied for a fence variance and started to work on it. There aze three eight foot sections of fence, but the last section closest to the street was cut down to four feet or built at four feet high. The last two sections going towazd the house aze at six feet high. Mr. Dorman stated Scott Dorman made the last couple of feet by the end of the alley low enough to see. James Dorman stated he does not know what the problem is. Mr. Neison stated he talked to Scott Dorman. His father was saying the cars pulling into those yazds aze a nuisance to him as faz as noise. James Dorman added that the those yards are higher than his dad's. Mr. Nelson stated the lots aze higher up on the other side of the alley. This is a side ailey. There is an alley in the back, then a tease, then it goes along the side of the property, too. His concerns were the sight issue and bringing the fence six feet all the way out to the street. A person cannot see the intersection there. Although it is not in the corner clearance area, the law says it should be four feet or less. His idea was to cut it down to eight feet and leave 16 feet going towards the house into the yazd. (Mr. Nelson showed a diagram of the azea.) Ms. Moermond asked for a staff recommendation. Mr. Nelson responded he would like to allow visual so that when people come through the alley, they can see people on the sidewalk. It is eight feet now. He is not sure if that is enough. It is more congested because it is right on the properry line of the alley. There is no other sidewalk or boulevard there. Ms. Moermond stated she would be happy if there was a corner cut like the previous address because kids aze under four feet. Mr. Nelson responded that six feet may be too high for those iwo sections. They can get down to four feet. O� G� � NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 Page 4 Ms. Moermond stated that for those two sections, the siac feet should be fine. The variance should be granted for those secfions. Four feet is too high at the corner. It would obstruct visibility for someone leaving the alley. Ms. Moermond told James Dorman that he should talk to his dad about that. He does not need a variance to have it be four feet, but it is something that could make it safer. She would like to see a comer cut there, but she wili grant the variance on the two sections of six foot fence. That seems quite reasonable. Ms. Moermond granted the fence variance to allow two eight foot long sections of the fence abutting the alley to be six feet in height. These sections may be no closer to the sidewalk than eight feet in order to preserve visibility for velaiculaz and pedestrian traffic. 529 5herbume Avenue Vaithianathan Nithiananda, owner, appeared. He showed photographs to Ms. Moermond. Mazcia Moermond stated she understands that he has talked with Paula Seeley, inspector (Division of Neighborhood Housing and Properry Improvement). Mr. Nithiananda responded he was on vacation. He did not speak to her. Mr. Moermond stated she understands that Public Works removed the chest from the alley. Mr. Nithiananda responded this is his home. The car is pazked on concrete gravel and not on grass. Ms. Moermond asked did the inspector say it was a problem or that he needed to correct the tabs on it. Mr. Nithiananda responded they didn't tell him anything like that. It is not a black Chevrolet (as listed on the Correction Order); it is a gray Chevrolet. Ms. Moermond asked when the photographs were taken. Mr. Nithiananda responded just after he received this Correction Order. Ms. Moermond stated it looks like the caz is pazked on dirt and grass and not on pavement. Mr. I3ithiananda responded it is on concrete gravel. Ms. Moermond asked why he is appealing the correction order. Mr. Nithiananda asked why he cannot park in the reaz of his house. Ms. Moermond responded that she is not sure if the inspector looked at this surface cazefully. In the correction order, she says clearly to remove the black Chevrolet from the grass. It does look like grass in the photograph. There seems to be plant growth among the graveL Ms. Moermond can see why the inspector did not think this was a gravel or cement surface. Ms. Moermond asked has he taken caze of the tall grass and weeds. Mr. Nithiananda responded there is no grass. It is all taken caze of. o� �o� NOT'ES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 Page 5 Ms. Moermond stated there is scattered trash in the alley. Ms. Seeley wanted Ms. Moermond to mention that the center of the alley back to his house is his responsibility to maintain. That piece of the alley is his even if trash is dumped there by someone. It would be his job to pick it up. It seems that he has taken caze of these items already, except for the vehicle. There is disagreement right now as to whether it is an appropriate surface to pazk on. Ms. Moermond denied the appeal on the Correction Notice dated September 8, 2003, as the work has already been done. Public Works removed the chest, the tall grass and weeds aze cut, and the numbers are on the house. The owner should talk to Ms. Seeley about the surface the caz is parked on. (AIl the photographs were rehuned except for one.) The meeting was adjourned at 2:08 p.m. rtn