Loading...
03-907Council Rile # 0 -3 — 907 Green Sheet # 3005916 Piesented Referred To Date BE IT RESOL'VED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the September 23, 2003, decisions of the Legislative Hearing OfFicer on appeals of fence variance denials for the following addresses: Propertv Appealed Aapellant 176 Richmond Street Steve and Michelle Alrier, owner Decision: The fence variance is ganted to allow a four foot high picket fence around the perimeter of the properry abutting the sidewalk provided that the following is done: the fence remain four feet back from the southwest and northwest corner property stakes in both direcfions and would, therefore, be installed diagonally at the comers which would allow visibility for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. 1883 Cottase Avenue East Scott Dorman Decision: the fence variance is granted to allow two eight foot long sections of the fence abutting the alley to be six feet in height. These secCions may be no closer to the sidewalk than eight feet in order to preserve visibility for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. AND RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul makes as a condition for the fence variance at 1883 Cottage Avenue East that a comer cut be made into the yard at least 4 feet, where the fence comer currently abuts the alley and sidewalk, to ensure adequate visibility. —�� '� .-,.,. ���I �e��l ' � � e��� . - ., e��i ��__ I .�� �__ I �___ II —� �� j Adopted by Council: Date �J�– X_ D�2 Ado� By: App� By: RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MlNNESOTA IZ Requested by Department of. � Form Appioved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � _ . _ . ..___ _ 03 - 907 � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � DepartrnenHOffice/council: Daffi Initiated: co -���� 29SEPd13 Green Sheet NO: 3005916 C �� PeSO � P fi �, Deoartment Sent To Person InitiaVDate Marcia Mcertnond � 0 ouncil I i 266-8560 p�iyn i Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 2 � For Routing 3 Order 4 5 Totsi # W Signature Pages _(Ciip Atl Locaiions for Signature) Action Requested: Approve the September 23, 2003, decisions of ffie Legislafive Hearing Officer on appeals of fence variance denials for the following addresses: 176 Richmond Street and 1883 Cottage Avenue East. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Rejed (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Followifg Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this depadmentl CIB Committee Yes' No Civil Service Commission 2- Has this person�rm ever been a ctty employee? � Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skiil not normalry possessed by a'ry current city empbyee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): � Advanqges If Approvetl: Disadvantages If Aparoved: Councit ���9��rch Ces�ts� DisadvanWqeslfNotApproved: SEP � j �� i . o �� Total Amount of CostlRevenue B�dgeted: � Trensaction: Funding Source: Activity Number: � - Financial IMOrmation: (Explain) ��.� \Z C�� NOTES OF TI� LEGISLATIVE HEARING LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES, CORRECTION ORDERS, FENCE VAI2IANCES Tuesday, September 23, 2003 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Boulevazd West Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 134 pm. STAFF PRESENT: David Kenyon, Office of License, Inspections, Environmental Protection (LIEP); Da�e P. Nelson, LIEP; Thomas 12iddering, LIEP h� 176 Richmond Street (appeal of fence variance denial) �'_ Steve and Michelle A16er, owners, appeazed. Dauid Kenyon reported that there was a request to build a 42 inch high picket fence with no regazd for the corner clearance requirement. The legislarive code does not a11ow him to grant this variance for the reason indicated. He recommended to Tom Riddering, Building Official, that the request be denied. Mazcia Moermond asked what he means by corner clearance. Mr. Kenyon responded that fences at the corner of streets can interfere with the vision when cars pu11 up. The code requires that those fences, between the front setback and required side yazd setback, cannot be higher than two feet. Ms. Moermond asked did they want four feet. Mr. Altier responded 42 inches. Mrs. Altier added thaf it is far child protection. Ms. Moermond asked did they want it to extend a right angle into the corner. Mr. Altier responded correct. Ms. Moermond asked are they flexible about that. Mr. Altier responded that they did not know about the corner cleazance necessary until LIEP said something. Their fencing contractor never said anything until later. Their yard is limited in size, and they would like to utilize as much of that space as they can. Cutting the corners wouId drasticaIly reduce the value of even having a fenced in yazd. That is why they wanted to go to the corner. Without knowing about a corner clearance, the fence they aze going to install would go to the corner. The streets and boulevards aze 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 cars stop at the sign and their viewpoint going down the street. Also, directly cross the street is a row of hedges that are about eight feet tall that overhang the corner for about a foot and a ha1f. Even with that, there is still no visibility obstruction down the street for tr�c. (Ms. Moermond viewed the photographs.) o� �o� NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEAFtING OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 Page 2 Mrs. Altier stated the photographs were taken yesterday. Ms. Moermond stated there are two corners shown in the photograph. Mr. Altier added that it is an unusual property. Mr. Altier described each photograph, and said the fence would have two inch gaps between the boards. Ms. Moermond stated she called Public Works because they aze the right-of-way deparfsnent. She told them she has an appiication 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 neighboxhood properties. He said there aze a couple of fences in the neighborhood that have a corner 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 corners of the fence. Mr. Kenyon stated they are in a R-2 zoned area 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'/z or 15 feet. They would be gaining four feet at the front which would be sliced back 15 feet. He does agree with them. In reality, they do not create a hardship. He denied it because the code does not a11ow 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 concern is strictly the corner. Mr. Altier stated if everyone could agree to cut the corner, they would haue 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 clearance. The corner clearance 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 azound, including the corner cuts, if there is some accommodation made for visibility on the corners. The fifteen foot setback on the front yazd is extreme. Mr. Altier asked for clarification on the corner cut. Mr. Kenyon responded a little corner would be cut at four feet. Ms. Moermond added that the fence would abut the sidewalk in a11 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 around the perimeter of the property abutting the sidewalk provided that the following is done: the fence remain four feet back from the southwest and northwest corner property stakes in both directions and would, U� NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 Page 3 therefore, be installed diagonally at the comers which would allow visibility for vehiculaz and pedestrian traffic. � 1883 Cottage Avenue East (appeal of fence variance denial) James Dorman, 1883 Cottage Avenue East, representing owner Scott Dorman, appeared. David P. Nelson stated the fence that was installed was in violation of the ordinance. The owner requested a six foot fence at the east property line along the alley. The owners wanted to go six feet all the way to the front where four feet is allowed. 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 consiructed without a permit. Mr. Nelson responded the owner applied for a fence variance and started to wark 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 toward the house are at six feet high. Mr. Dorman stated Scott Dorman made fhe 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. Nelson stated he talked to Scott Dorman. His father was saying the cazs puiling into those yards are a nuisance to him as far as noise. James Dorxnan added that the those yards are higher than his dad's. Mr. Nelson stated the lots are higher up on the other side of the alley. This is a side alley. There is an alley in the back, then a tease, then it goes along the side of the property, toa 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 azea, 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 towazds the house into the yard. (Mr. Nelson showed a diagram of the area.) 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 property line of the alley. There is no other sidewalk or boulevazd 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 two sections. They can get down to four feet. C���IU� NOTES OF 'I'HE LEGISLA'I`IVE HEARING OF SEPT'EMBER 23, 2003 Page 4 Ms. Nloermond stated that for those two sections, the sis feet shouid be fine. The variance should be granted for those sections. Four feet is too high at the corner. It would obstruct visibility for someone leaving the alley. Ms. Moermond told 7ames 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 corner cut there, but she wiil grant the variance on the two sections of six foot fence. Tbat seems quite reasonable. Ms. Moermond granted the fence variance to a11ow 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 vehicular and pedestrian traffic. 529 Sherburne Avenue Vaithianathan Nithiananda, owner, appeared. He showed photographs to Ms. Moermond. Marcia Moermond stated she understands that he has talked with Paula Seeley, inspector (Division of Neighborhood Housing and Property 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 parked 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 biack Chevrolet (as listed on the Conection 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. Moerxnond stated it looks like the car is parked on dirt and grass and not on pavement. Mr. Nithiananda 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 rear of his house. Ms. Moermond responded that she is not sure if the inspector looked at this surface carefully. In the conection 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 grauel 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 a11 taken caze of. o� NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEAR1NCr 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 care of these items already, except for the vehicle. There is disagreement right now as to whether it is an appropriate sutface 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 aze on the house. The owner should talk to Ms. Seeley about the surface the caz is parked on. (All the photographs were returned except for one.) The meeting was adjourned at 2:08 p.m. rtn