Loading...
06-758Council File # � �8 Green Sheet # '; 3 �a2 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented � 1 BE TT IiESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the July 18 2� 2006, decisions of the Legislarive Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Conection Notices, and 3 Conection Orders foz the following addresses: 4 5 Property Appealed Appellant 6 7 949 Jenks Avenue East Stephen and Shelly Brown 8 Decision: Appeal granted for a six (6) foot fence vaziance Benanav Bostrom ✓ Thune -�4doptc�c}by Council: Date Adoption Certified by Council Secretary ay: �/�,1�.G' � �.�.�sv�. Approved by Mayor: Date Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council !•�'! 0 • � �-Green SMeet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � CX_-75� DepartrnenUoffice/council: Date initiated: ; co -���;� ,���-� Green Sheet NO: 3031425 Deoartmsnt SentToPerson InitiaVDate �� Contact Person & Phone: � � Marcia Moe�mond � 0 o cil � � ��� h.sign 1 ounc De a eotD'vector 1 MustBeonCoundlAgendaby(Date): Number Z ��� i lerk For � Routi�vg 3 I Order 4 I 5 I i i Total#ofSignaturePages_(CIipNlLocationsforSignature) I Action Requested: � Resolurion approving the July 18, 2006 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Coaecrion Norices and Cosection Ordexs for property at 949 Jenks Avenue East. � Recommendations: Appro�e (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contrects Must Mswerthe Following Questions: Planning Gommission 1. Has this persoNfirm e�er worked under a contract for this departmeM? CIB Committee Yes No Ciul Senice Gommission 2. Has this persoNfirtn e�er 6een a city empbyeel i Yes No 3. Dces this persoNfirtn possess a skill rrot nortnaliy possessed by any i current city employee? Yes No Expiain ai{ yes answers on separate sheet and attach to g�een sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): I I AdvanpgeslfApproved: Disadvantages IfApproved: DisadvantaAes If NotApproved: V I Total Amount of CostlRevenue Budgeted: j Transaction: Funding Source: Activity Number: Financial lntormation: (Explain) July 18, 2006 6:23 PM Page � � /, � -� �. cz, � C_;�-'ls� MINUTES OF `I`HE LEGISLATIVE HEARING � LEGISLATNE HEARING FOR LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES, AND CORRECTTON ORDERS Tuesday, November 1, 2005 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Boulevard West Marcia Moermond, Legislarive Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 1:34 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Tom Riddering, Office of License, Inspection and Environmental Protection; License, Inspection and Environmental Protection (LIEP); and Jean Birkholz, City Council Offices. OTHERS PRESENT: Stephen and Shelly Brown, 949 Jenks Avenue and Erica Roy-Nyline for 325 Dayton Avenue, Intemational Academy of Minnesota. Appeal of Fence Variance Denial at 949 Jenks Avenue; appellant: Stephen and Shelly Brown. (LIEP) Stephen and Shelly Brown appeared. Ms. Moermond stated that she will come up with a recommendation for the City Council that will be ratified by a resolution, probably two (2) or three (3) weeks from now. If the outcome today is not satisfactory, the first place to take it is to the City Council Office. After that, write a letter to the City Council; next, it would be court. Tom Riddering, LIEP, provided a staff report. This fence variance request was based on a desire to protect children from Leve13 Sex Offenders in the neighborhood. The Code, however, only gives authority to approve a fence variance for site, tenain and nuisance animal conditions. If LIBP considered this to be a site condition of some sort, there would be no variance in the City that couldn't be justified on those grounds. Not being familaar with level3 sex offenders, Mr. Riddering said that he checked the state website. They have ten (10) tips for parents and none of them involve fences, so, this variance was denied for lack of adequate justification. Mrs. Brown stated that their desire to put up a higher fence is to protect their children. The level 3 sex offenders are the only ones required to register with the state, and there a two (2) of them living very close to them who have assaulted four (4) to sixteen (16) year olds and four (4) to eleven (ll) year olds, both male and female. The Browns have three (3) little boys. There is also a property two (2) doors down from them that houses people who they find questionable. They are looking to help protect their properiy and belongings as well as their children. They have looked at other properties around Saint Paul that have high fences in the front yard as weli as those that have very high hedges in the front yard; so, they feel that they would not be out of place having a six (6) foot fence. They would like to put up the wooden dog-eared fence that has marginal gaps between the wood pieces. Ms. Moermond stated that she is very sympathetic with the Brown's reasoning; she sees what they are hying to do. However, it's a real rarity to see a six (6) foot privacy fence in the front yard, especially a closed fence. Ms. Moermond said that she would recommend that the City Council allow up to only four (4} feet around the front of the yard; she recommends denial of erecting a siz (6) foot high wooden dog-eared fence in the front of the yard. She understands their issue about safety; however, in working with the Police Department on safety issues, Ms. Moermond lrnows that putting up a barrier as this wouid be, as opposed to a chain link fence, is not lrnown as being a safety enhancement. In fact, it can be worse because it can be a place for people to be camouflaged. If it were an open fence so that people could see through it, it would actually be a much better safety deterrent. N1rs. Brown introduced a number of pictures that were taken of homes with either sis (6) foot high fences or very high hedges in the front yard. Ms. Moermond guessed that some of these high fenced-in front yards were probably violations. Ms. Moermond added that they could certainly put in vegetation or a combination of a fence and obscuring vegetarion. 5he suggested that the Browns talk with someone who specializes in landscape design and safety concerns. She also suggested that the Police FORCE unit (651- 266-5712) might be contacted because they have people who are quite good at looking at physical space and safety issues, and could probably give them advice. Perhaps Officer Parsons or another officer there could help. Mr. Brown added that the safety of their children is paramount and the fact that a school is located oniy two (2) blocks from their house means that their neighborhood is drawing the level 3s, level2s and level 1 s, which is another reason why they want to erect a fence that is taller than four (4) feet. They do not want the sex offenders to be able to look into the yard and see the boys. Ms. Moermond reiterated that she will recommend denial; however, she will speak with Councilmember Dan Bostrom and if he disagrees with her recommendation, she will change the resolution. ot�� MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING � LETTBRS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES, AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, July 18, 2006 Room 330 Ciry Hall, 15 Kellogg Boulevard West Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to ozder at 1:30 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Michael Urnlanu, Division of Fire Prevention. 1. Appeal of MB7 Development Corporarion to a Deficiency List for properiy at 2111 Gordon Avenue and 2400 Mvrtle Avenue. Mr. Urmann explained what he termed a"Chicago PiY" style door wherein a galvanized steel plate was placed over a wooden door so that it would be classified a 20-minute rated fire door. This had been grandfathered in since the Fire Code had been revised approximately 10 years ago. There were three doors at this property which did not meet Code and needed to be replaced. Joseph Oladipo, property owner, stated tenants had taken the pins out of the doors when they were moving out when the inspector was at the properly. Those pins have since been replaced and the doors are now in compliance. He requested the supervisar of the inspector come back to the property to see that the doors are now in compliance. Ms. Moermond recommended laying over her decision on this matter until Mr. Urmann can re-inspect Yhe property. 2. Appeal of Stephen and Shelly Brown for denial of a fence variance request for property at 949 Jenks Avenue East. Shelly Brown, property owner, stated there was a hill at the front of her property which she considered a safety issue for her three children, ages 1, 2 and 4. Since the hill was so high, a four foot chain link fence would be too easy for her children to escape. Therefore, she was requesting a variance for a six foot chain link fence. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Brown to provide a picture or drawing of where the fence would be placed. Ms. Brown said her neighbor had a fence and they planned to connect to the neighbor's fence. She also would have a chain link gate at the front entrance of the sidewalk to the house. She also said she had contacted the Police Department and requested an officer conduct a safety inspection of her property, however, she had not received a return call as of today's date. Ms. Brown also said she had previously requested a variance for a six foot privacy fence which had been denied, however, it was suggested she apply for a variance for a six foot chain link fence. Ms. Moermond recommended granting the appeal for a variance six foot chain link fence. The hearing was adjoumed at 1:45 p.m.