Loading...
08-578Council File # �� Green Sheet# 3054655 RESOLUTION �ENT PAUL, MINNESOTA � Presented by 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the May 6, 2 2008 decision of the Legislarive Hearing Offlcer on Appeal to a Fence Variance for the following address: 3 4 Pronertv Appealed Appellant(s) 5 6 305-345 Winifred Street East Christopher Rocco 7 8 Decision: Appeal denied for a 9 foot 5 inch fence variance and appeal granted for a 7 foot fence variance. 9 10 Requested by Department of � Form Approved by City Attomey By: Adopted by Council: Date ��/J</��7/JD� Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council AdopUOn Certified by Council Secretary g By: �� i _ Approv y a or D � Q� Approved by the Office of Financial Services By: gy. � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � bb'-��� co -���_�� Contact Person 8 Phone: Marcia Moermond s-as�a Must Be on Council Agen Doc.Type: RESOLUTION E-Document Required: Y Document Contact: Mai Vang Contact Phone: 6-8563 z�-Nwv-os � Assign Number For Routing Order Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Green Sheet NO: 3054655 0 oo�a 1 ounc� ar�ent Director 2 ' Clerk Cti Clerk 3 4 5 Resolution approving the May 6, 2008 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeal to a Fence Variance for proper[y at 305-345 Winifred Street East. or Must Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a conlract for this departmentl CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current ciry employee? Yes No Facplain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Transaction: Funding Source: Fi nancial Information: (Explain) Attivity Number: May 27, 2008 333 PM CostlRevenue Budgeted: Page 1 'y . 6 �-�� g MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES CORRECTION ORDERS AND LETTERS Thursday, May 6, 2008 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer Appeal of Christopher Rocco to a Fence Variance for property at 305-335 Winifred Street East. Ms. Moermond requested a staff report. Frank Berg introduced himself as a Staff Structural Engineer, but at the time of this action, he was the Acting Building Official, as Tom Riddering, Building Official Supervisor, was out recovering from surgery. Dave Kenyon was the Building Inspector assigned to this issue. The normal procedure is that the inspector takes the variance and submits his comments. Mr. Kenyon's comment on the appeal was that the request does not meet the requirements far a variance. Mr. Berg noted that he requested Mr. Kenyon to take additional pictures. Pictures were presented and explained to Ms. Moermond. Mr. Rocco noted that the retaining wali is 9 feet. The highest elevation is 9.6 feet and the lowest would be 6.6 feet. Mr. Berg stated that in the appeal, it was noted that the higher wall would provide protection from pedestrians crossing the bridge—homeless people, pranksters, drug users, etc., but, in essence, this would create a huuiel area. Mr. Berg added that he was looking far reasons that would make this unique to other situations and he was not seeing a reason why this situation was unique, but that he was not strongly opposed to it, and he feels that the tunnel-type effect would be a public safety consideration. He observed that his opinion is based on the pictures that Mr. Kenyon showed him. Mr. Rocco stated that if you look at the pictures and the diagram, there is nowhere between the fence and the pedestrian walkway where people could go, as this entire area consists of brush and slopes. He stated that when he applied for a permit for the fence, he was informed that the only way lte would receive a permit would be if he added a sentence about deer running through the property. Mr. Berg observed that he did notice that this was an additional sentence placed at the end of the Request For Fence Variance and that Mr. Kenyon did comment on that. Mr. Rocco expiained the "tunnel" issue while viewing the pictures with Ms. Moermond. Ms. Moermond queried him as to whether it is a privacy fence that he wants. Mr. Rocco answered that they have a problem with people doing drugs, littering, loitering, eta Kids are congregating at the gate; when police officer is suminoned and comes to the property, everyone scatters. Ms. Moermond inquired as to when the south wall was built; Mr. Rocco answered, "Probably forever," and stated that they moved into the property 3 years ago. Ms. Moermond cited certain parts of the Legislative Code which addresses fences. Discussion ensued regarding the fence abutting the right-of-way and the sidewalk as it fronts the public space, the line of feasibility. Mr. Rocco responded that even building the 6 foot 6 inches with a lattice would wark for tum. May 6, 2008 Property Code Minutes 305-355 Winifred Street East �� ��� f� Page 2 u Mr. Rocco noted that they have 8 feet sections of fence already and aze planning to put a lattice on the top or the bottom. Ms. Moermond inquired as to whether the building official would include the lattice work in the height calculations. This was responded to in the affirmative. Mr. Moermond noted that she will allow him up to 7 feet on this fence, including the lattice work. She added that the fact that the existing fence is 8 feet high does not make this okay, and she is not comfortable about allowing this fence to be any higher than 7 feet because of the abutting sidewalk.