09-1006Council File # — DU�
Green Sheet # 3079316
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
%
;� CITY OF
Presented by
BE IT RESOLVE�Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the August
25, 2009 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals to Letters of Certificate of Occupancy
Deficiency Lists far the following addresses:
PropertV ApAealed
336 Baker Street East
Decision: Deny the appeal.
Appellant
Henry Smerud
� �.. . .....
PAllL, MlNNESOTA ��
Requested by Department of:
:�
Form Approved by City Attomey
By:
Adopted by Council: Date �f,�' /�fr'q
Adoption Certified by Counc Secretary
By __ 1,��, � �
Approv d b a Datd� e / L 3
BY� /�Ad llp.t ���
..
Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
Approved by the Office of Financial Services
By:
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
0%-IDOtv
j DepartmenUOffice/Council: ; Date Initiated: � �± y � L i[A __ - _ - - - - - - - _ _
— � CO- Council _ _ - ; - .. -- ��- - �ti7���� - 571��iL'niV:..�3��_..,._ _..._-----
_.�_..._.__ . _ -�- --- �-- - - - �-- - � - � -U&SEP �2009- -
__._ - �
I Conqct person & Phone:
! Marcia Moertnond
Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date):
Doc. Type: RESOLUTION
E-Document Requiretl: Y
Document ConWCt:
ConWM Phone:
� !
Assign
Number
Por
Routing �
Order
0 'COUncil ;
1 Councii DenartmentDirector i
2 I(tity Cleck G5N Clerk j
3
!
4 i ��
5 � I
Total # of Signature PageS _(Clip All Locations for SignatUre)
Action Requested:
Reso]ution approving the decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on an Appeal of a Conecrion Notice for property at 336 Baker
SReet East.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Rejed (R):
Planni�g Commission
CIB Gommittee
Civil Service Commission
Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions:
1. Has this personffirm ever worked under a contract for this department?
Yes No
2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person�rm possess a skill not normally possessed by any
Current city employee?
Yes No
E�cplain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet.
Initiating Problem, issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
Ativantages If Approved:
Disadvantages If Approved:
DiSadvantages If Not Approved:
Total Amount of
Transaction:
Funding Source:
Financiai lnformation:
(Explain)
CosVRevenue Budgeted:
Acfivity Num6er:
September 9, 2009 10:04 AM Page 1
August 25, 2009 Properry Code Minutes d y��a �� Page 8
11. Appeal of Henry Smerud to a Correcrion Notice for property at 336 Baker Street East.
(Rescheduled from August 18)
Appellant Henry Smerud (336 East Baker Street, St. Paul 55107) and Linda Gervais, property
owner appeared.
Ms. Moermond asked for a staff report. Mr. Essling stated that the appeal was for a correction
notice originally issued on July 22, 2009 and reissued on July 31 regarding a commercial vehicle
parked on residenrial property. He said the vehicle met the defuurions of a commercial vehicle and
the property was zoned RTl and RC4, which was river corridor and had more specific limitations
than just a residentially zoned area. The property was owned by the appellanYs daughter and was
on a dead-end alley that ended at a ciiff. There were complaints on the commercial vehicle issue
going back to 2001 and he had informed Mr. Smerud that he would begin assessing excessive
consumption fees on a weekly basis until the property was in compliance. He said there were also
orders to supply an approved parking surface and site plan approval for the numerous trailers and
equipment parked at the end of the alley.
Ms. Moermond asked for a clarification of the appeal. Mr. Smerud stated that there had been a fire
at 326 Baker two years befare and he had a dump truck and his Bobcat parked behind that property
while he was getting it finished and inspected. At the same time, he had petitioned to have the alley
put in and had put in Class 5 at all four buildings down to the end of the alley. The lot at the end of
the alley was Class 7. He provided a photograph. He was told at the time that it was fine to use
Class 5 or Class 7. He said he parked the dump truck and Bobcat on the lot at the end of the alley.
He said the dump truck was an old grain tnxck he inherited from his father and used for snow
removaL It was not registered as a commercial vehicle, he did not use it as a commercial vehicle,
and he had nowhere else to keep it. He said was told previously that as long as it was on Class 5 or
Class 7, it would be allowed but that he couldn't find documentation of the decision from the earlier
hearing. Ms. Moermond responded that she had the record.
Ms. Gervais stated that Mr. Smerud had obtained a permit to put up a fence on the Class 5 and was
being asked to make a concrete parking surface. She said it didn't make sense that he should be
required to have cement when all of the cars and vehicles on the block were on Class 5 or Class 7.
Mr. Smerud listed the vehicles and trailers he kept stored behind the fence which was not visible to
the neighbors. Ms. Gervais acknowledged that the area had looked "honendous" but said that Mr.
Smerud had done a lot of work to clean it up. She said it seemed that Mr. Essling wanted
everything to be gone.
Ms Moermond stated that the records from a year and a half ago didn't seem to be on point with the
current issue. She asked whether all of the units were occupied. Mr. Smerud said they were.
Ms. Moermond noted that parking between the buildings had been a problem in the past; she asked
whether there had been any evidence of that. Mr. Essling said there was not.
Ms. Moexxnond stated that she wanted to look at aerial photographs and drive by the property. She
said she would have her decision by the end of the week. After the hearing, Ms. Moermond
recommended denying the appeal.