Loading...
06-1017CITY Presented by 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the October 2 3, 2006 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Correction Notices and 3 Correction Orders for the following address: 4 5 Propertv Appealed 6 7 1742-1770 Seventh Street West Appellant Susan Hustings 9 Decision: Grant the fence variance request with a modification in the plan to install decorative wrought 10 iron gate(s) at the entrance to the residence at 1770 Seventh Street West. Requested by Deparmient of. � Form Approved by City Attorney By: Adopted hy Council: Date l��y /(//� �—,� Adoption Certified by Coun '1 Secretary By: � Approve y layc : Date �'�i BY� Council File # � Green Sheet #y�� _/� RESOLUTION 41NT F�AUL, MINNESOTA ��, Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � �G� - /O/ � ueparvnenvomcwcounar. co -����� Contact Person 8 Phone: Marcia Moennond 6�570 Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date Doc. Type: RESOLUiION E-0ocumentRequired: Y DocumentContact YckiShefrer Contact Phone: 65561 Date initiatetl: 3,-�-� � Green Sheet NO: 3034170 � � Deoarfinent SentTOPerson ( 0 onncil Assgn I 1 onnca'1 De a entD: ector Num6er l Z �� C' Ctec For � Routing 3 OMer 4 5 Total # of Signature Pages ^ (Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Resolution approving the October 3, 2006 decisions of the Legislarive Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Correction Norices and Correction Orders for property at 1742-1770 Seventh Stree[ West. Recommendations: Appro�e (A) or Reject (R): Planning Commission CB Committee CiHI Service Commission 1. Has this person/firtn e�er worked under a contract for this depaAment? Yes No 2. Has this persoNfirtn e�er been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this persoNfirtn possess a skill not nottnally possessetl by any curtent city employee? , Yes No Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, OpporLu�ity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AdVanfages IfApp�oved: DisadvanWgeslfApDroved: Disadvantages If NotApproved: Total Amount of Transaction: Funding Source: Financial Infortnation: (Explain) CosURevenue Budgetetl: Activity Number. RECEIVE� PAT �-°.��'�R1S October 31, 2006 4:27 PM Page 1 O� -/o/ � MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING LETT`ERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES, AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, October 3, 2006 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 130 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Thomas Riddering, LIEP, Michael Urmann and Leanna Shaff, Fire Prevention 1. Appeal of Highland Nursery on a request for a Fence Variance for property at 1742- 1770 Seventh Street West. Mr. Riddering stated that the fence variance request was denied because there did not appear to be any site terrain or nuisance animal conditions that would precipitate granting the variance. The building inspector was somewhat ambivalent about whether this would be unamactive. It appeared that the small house on the corner would give the appearance of a prison with the high wrought iron fence around it. Susan Hustings, properry owner, state the proposed fence would match what is on the east side of the properiy. Terry Otterness, daughter of property owner, presented a PowerPoint presentation of the property and showed the location of the present fence and where the request for the new proposed fence would be located. Ms. Hustings stated that there was a 4 1/2 foot fence that was in complete disrepair and if someone wanted to get in, all tl�ey would have to do is pull it down and the whole thing would crumble. Members from the American Nursery Association had visited their property and she asked if they had any suggestions on preventing theft on the property. They suggested she remove the chain link fence and install something higher and more secure. Ms. Hustings stated that there had been a couple of break-ins over the past year and the police informed her that criminals were going to find whatever means to gain access to the property. Ms. Moermond questioned if there would be a gate for the adjoining residential property. Ms. Hustings stated that there was a gate and a walk going into the house from the front and tl�e current plans included a gate to the house. Ms. Moermond asked what their intended use for the residential property would be. Ms. Hustings responded that the property was currently occupied by a tenant for which her mother received the rental profits. The property was a life estate from her mother and she would become the beneficiary when something happened to her mother. It was her intention to sell the business and the residential properiy to her daughter, Terry. It would be up to her daughter as to the continued use of the residential property. Ms. Moermond stated that in reviewing the pictures, she believed an ornamental gate would be more aestherically pleasing and would be more characteristic of a residence rather than a O� /o/ � business. It was her understanding that residential wrought-iron fencing was usually something more decorarive, more curved and shorter. Ms. Moermond stated that rather than changing the plans completely, a compromise could be agreed to that would continue the residential chazacter of the house by putting in a decorative gate which could include some landscaping options. She recommended approving the variance for the fence with modificarions to the plan to include a decorative gate at the entrance to the residence.