07-134Council File # C7 /,3
Green Sheet # "j�
RESOLUTION
41pPT PAUL, MINNESOTA ��
Presented
1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the
2 December 19, 2006 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Correction Notices
and Conection Orders for the following address:
4
5 Pro�ertv Appealed
6
Appellant
7 1487 Summit Avenue Dale Neumann, owner
8 Aecision: Appeal denied on the Conection Notice dated December 5, 2006.
Requested by Department of:
�
Adoprion CeRified by Coun '1 Secretary
By: /
Approv� Date 7i 7�C� 07
By:
Form Approved by City Attomey
By:
Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
Adopted by Council: Date �f/��47
� Green Sheet Gteen Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
0 7 �3�
co -��
CoMact Person & Phone:
Marcia Moemwnd
266-8570
Doa Type: RESOLUTfON
E-Document Required: N
DocumentConWCt: RacquelNaylor
Contact Phone: 26Cr8573
o�-�e-m
y
Assign
Number
For
Routing
Order
Total # of Signature Pages _(qip All Locations for Signature)
Green Sheet NO: 3036834
0 oeacil
1 onncil { Deparbnem DireMOr i
2 "ty Clerk
3 i I
4
5
Approving tlte decision o£ the Legislative Hearing Officer on appeal of a Conecrion Notice at 1487 Summit Avenue.
iaanons: npprove �,v7 or r
Planning Commission
CIB Committee
Civil Service Commission
1. Has this person/firm everworked under a contract for this department?
Yes No
2. Has this person�rm ever been a city employee�
Yes No
3. Does this personffirm possess a skitl not normally possessed by any
curtent city empfoyee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
Advantages If Approved:
Disadvantages If Approvetl:
DisativanWges If NotApproved:
Transaction:
Funding Source:
Financial Information:
(Explain)
Activity Number:
CosURevenue Budgeted:
February 7, 2007 2:14 PM Page 1
o �-��
MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING
LETTERS OF DEFICIBNCY, CORRECTION NOTICES AND CORRECTION ORDERS
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Room 330 City Ha11, 15 West Kellogg Blvd.
Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer
The bearing was called to order at 135 p.m.
STAFF PRESENT: Kelly Booker, Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement (NfIPI)
Appeal of Dale and Sheran Neumann to a Correction Notice for property at 1487 Summit
Avenue.
Dale Neumann, owner and appellant, appeared.
Ms. Booker stated that she received a complaint regarding planters placed down the centerline of
a shared driveway at 1487 and 1489 Summit. She sent arders to the property owner at 1487
Summit to remove the planters from the driveway apron as being obsriuctions to the public right-
of-way.
Mz. Neumann stated that he had lived at this properiy for seven years. When the neighbors
moved in, there was a verbal agreement that they would use each other's driveway for coming
and going but not for parking. Mr. Neumann's garage got filled up on one side and they could
only get one car parked in the garage so they started parking in the driveway in the location
shown on Attachment B. The Neumanns had no intention of obstructing the neighbors'
driveway. The neighbors said that was not good enough and wonied about hitting the
Neumanns' house or car. The neighbors said they would give the Neumanns at least three feet.
Because the Neumanns would not comply with that demand, the neighbars said to never drive on
their driveway again. The Neumanns would normally use their own driveway, but if their
vehicle was parked, they would go around and come out in the neighbors' driveway. Now, the
neighbors did not want them to drive on their driveway at all. Mr. Neumann's attempt was to
separate the driveways because the neighbor did not want the Neumanns to drive on his
driveway and then the Neumanns said that the neighbors could not drive on their driveway
either. The neighbors continued to drive on the Neumaims' driveway. Mr. Neumann said he
would put a fence down tl�ere and they said they could live with that. Then, the Neumanns
decided not to do a fence and decided to place planters in the driveway. The only intent was to
separate the drivewa�s. If their driveway was eliminated right now, fhey would have the same
amount of room.
Ms. Moermond stated the concem was the three planters going from the sidewalk to the avenue
were in the public right-of-way. In the Ciry, you are not allowed to have a permanent fixture in
the public right-of-way. Mr. Neumann asked what determined if it were permanent. Ms.
Moermond responded bricks, stones, cement planters, and things likely to damage a snow plow
or emergency equipment traversing.
0���3�
LEGI5LATIVE AEARING MINCTTES OF DECEMBER 19, 2Q06 Page 2
Mr. Neumann asked what code this was under. Ms. Booker responded 106.01. She added that
there is a lot of foot iraffic on Summit and someone could choose to walk on the boulevard and
not know the planters were there. The main concern was obstruction if someone were riding a
bike, rollerblading or biking could irip over the planters.
Ms. Moermond stated it was aestherically pleasing. She suggested integrating them to tlae others
further up the driveway.
Mr. Neumann stated he was willing to remove all the planters if the neighbors would go back to
the original agreement. They were not likely to do that if there is not a favorable ruling here.
They wi11 see this as a victory to them. He wished he had known the code section beforehand so
that he could have prepared for that specific language. Ms. Moermond responded that she did
not see that the appellant could come up �vith something that would change her view on.
Mr. Neumann asked what he could do if he disagrees with this decision. Ms. Moermond
responded the next step would be to contact the Councilmember's Office and request this item be
removed from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration. If he was not happy with the City
CounciPs decision, he would need to appeal the matter to District Court. She indicated she was
making her decision based on Chapter 18 of the Legislative Code.
Ms. Moermond denied the appeal on the Correction Notice dated December 5, 2006.
The hearing adjoumed at 2:10 pm.
rrn