Loading...
09-1080Council File # ('� Green Sheet # 3081176 � presented by RESOLUTION NT PAUL, MINNESOTA � BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the Ciry of Saint Paul, based on a review of the legislative hearing record and testimony heazd at public hearing on September 16, 2009 hereby memorializes its decision to certify and approve the August 25, 2009 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for the following address: 6 ADDRESS 8 603 Idaho Avenue East 9 /•�� 119•\►M_I Stephen Chapman 10 Decision: Appeal denied and extension granted to November 1, 2009 to remove the excessive wood; grant 11 the total amount of wood allowed on the property to be three and one-half cords. Requested by Department o£ � Form Approved by CiTy Attorney B Adopted by Council: Date t ��� f�� Adou Certified C unc' Secretary j_—r-- / ' By: Approve{i}��1I : Dat ��i �� (s � g C7� .� Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � �C,�—�O� DepartmgnUOfficelCouncil: ' Date Initiated: � ! co-�°°°��� �SEP2oo9 Green Sheet NO: 3081176 j Contact Person & Phone: � Marcia Moermond � 6-8570 Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Doc. Type: RESOLUTION E-Document Required: Y Document Contact: Mai Vang ConWCt Phone: 6-8563 �/ ; ��,,�....� 0 'Councii I council Assign I q (,yrvaerk Number 3 � For Routing � A 1 Order I 5 � ' ToWI # of Sign Pag es _( Clip A ll L for Signature) Action Requested: Resolufion memorializing City Cauncil acfion taken Septembez 16, 2009 denying the appeal and gcanting an extension for property at 603 Idaho Avenue East. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Planning Commission CIB Committee Civil Service Commission Personal Service Contracts Must Mswer the Following Questions: 1. Has this person/firtn ever worked under a contract for this department? Yes No 2. Has this person/frm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this personlflrm possess a skili not normally possessed by any current city employee� - Yes No Explain aIl yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunify (Whq What, When, Where, Why): AdvantageslfApproved: Disadvantages If Approved: Disativantages If Not Approved: ToWI Amount of Transaction: Funding Source: Financial Information: (Explain) CosURevenue Budgeted: Activity Number. September 23, 2009 9:27 AM Page 1 oc�- <o�c� GiTt On 4 _ � CITY OF SAINT PAUL ° ����� p � p �° CITY CLERK'S OFFICE August 17, 2009 Stephen Chapman 603 Idaho Ave. E St. Paul, MN 55130 RE: 603 Idaho Ave E Dear Mr. Chapman: Your application for an appeal has been received and processed. Please attend the public hearing before the Legislative Hearing Officer on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 at 12:00 p.m. in Room 330 City Hall and Courthouse to consider your appeal concerning the above referenced property. At that time the Legisiative Hearing Officerwili hear ail parties relative to this action. Failure to appear at the hearing may result in deniai of your appeal. Sinq�rely, �xf �� �� Shari Moore City Clerk cc: Mike Cassidy, DSI Code Enforcement Offcer Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer Jerry Hendrickson, Deputy City Attorney IS WEST KELLOGG BOULEVARD, SUIT'E 310 SAIIVT PAU[, MINNESOTA55102 Tel: 651-26f.8688 Fax: 651-266-8574 wwwstpassl.gov M Affirmatrve Act�on Equai Opportunity Employer C�- �U`�C� � 4C1'CI ^�� ����� APPI�IC.A`T'ION FOIZ AP�EAL l s�t p� c�ry c�� 15 VT. geIlogg BIvd., � 10 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 TeIephone: (6�1) 256-8688 ����1V�� AUG � T�Ul1g �fT����� l. Addsess of Properry being Appealea: 2. Number oi pwelliag Unifis: 3. Date of Leties Appealed: ��3 �ldho �- �_ Sa.P���� � ����U � . i�ti 53� 4. NazneofOwner: �e(��e`� �ihq�'mran _ Address: �' 3 1 <Ad ho /-� J�< �. City: �' ( State: M N �p. Sl 3a Phone Numbers: Business 5. Appellanf / AgpTieant (if bther than own'er}: Phone I�Iumbers: Business i2esidence CellularG � 6 `l� Zip: _ Cellular 6 State speci�ccally what is being appealed' and w�y (ITse an attachment if uecessary): -. �' F I�i�e C�SS;�'� �'o!� me �1u� �e w�«�Qe �c� The ( cvv-cQ ���n;�. cs� wa<P a� 1�P ' c�� be1'e� �. t,�.hu'{� L f �S �Yc2SS;�£e 12esidence , City: For NO?B: A$25.00 f�ling fee made payab2e Yo the Cityro£ Saint Paul must accompauy fhis application as a necessary condirion for filmg. You must attach a copy of the originaI ozders and any other eorrespoudence reiative to t}ris appeal. Affy person unsatisfied b3> the final decision �f tt�e City Council may obtain judicial review by hmely filing of an action as provided by law in Dishict Cour[. '' CITY OF SAINT PAUL DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND INSPECTIONS DIVTSION OF CODE ENFORCEMBNT ' 375 Jackson Street, Suite 220 Saint Paul,1YIN 55101-1806 SIIMIVIMMARY ABATEMEl�'T ORDER Auaust O5. �009 Inspe tio� ate Date M iled � Mailed B_ mit) 09 - zi��� % Y o� hais tias koj hais 1us Hmoob thiab koj uis to taub tsab ntawv no, hu rau tus ttihais lus ntawm (651) 266-8989. Nws yog nab dawb zwb.Si necessita un traductor, por favor llamanos al (651)266-8989. No costo. Stephen R Chapman 603 Idaho Ave E St Paul MN 55 1 30-3 022 6�-1�� As owner or person(s) responsible for: 603 IDAHO AVE E you are hereby ordered to eliminate all nuisance conditions which are in violation of Chapter 45 of Saint Paul Legislative Code. � Remove improperly stored or accumulated refuse inciuding: garbage, rubbish, discarded furnitnre, appliances, vehicle parts, scrap wood and metal, recycling materials, household items, building materials or rubble, tires, brusb, etc., from yard areas. � � � Cut and remove tall grass, weeds and rank plant growth. Remove and properly dispose of all animal feces from yard areas. IMMEDIATELY secure all buildings which are open to unauthorized entry, including: � Other. REMOVE EXCESSiVE FIREWOOD —LIMIT 1 CORD ALL WOOD MUST BE EL�VATED, NO MORE THAN 5 FEET IN HEIGHT OR CI�OSER THAN 10 FEET TO A HABITABLE BUILDING A!vD 6 FEET FROM PROPERTY' LINE. If you do not conect the nuisance or file an appeal before August 17, 2009, the City will correct the nuisance and chu�ge all costs, including boazding costs, against the property. as a special assessment to be wllected in the same way as properry taxes. Charees: If the Ciry corrects the nuisance, the charges will include the cost of correction, inspection, vavel time, equipment, etc. The rate will be approximately $260.00 per hour plus expenses for abatement. You must maintain the premises in a clean condition and provide proper and adequate refuse storage at all times FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY RESULT IN A CRIMINAL CiTATION Issued by: Mike Cassidv Badge Numbex 330 Phone Nurnber 651-266-1903 If you have any quesfions about this order, the requirements or the deadline, � ou shauld contact the Inspector tisted above, Monday through Friday. Aooeals You may appeal this order and obtam a hearing before the City Council by deadline noted above or seven (7) days afte�� the date mailed, whichever comes fi�st. an appeal application with ihe City Clerk before the appeal Coirwtion Order with vour apnea� anol'ca[ on. Date: August 28, 2009 HP DistriM: �'l ���� File #: 09 - 217777 Property Name: Folder Name: 603 IDAHO AVE E Survey InFo: PIN: 202922120049 Date: File #: Folder Name: PIN: August 28, 2009 09 - 217777 603 IDAHO AVE E 202922120049 HP District: Property Name: Survey Info: � �G�C Date: File #: Folder Name: PIN: August 28, 2009 99 - 217777 603 IDAHO AVE E 202922120049 ,�� �-u� ��-�� � �� � � �g5�� � � � � ��' . s°�"� ' y'��:��. �$�� ,�,. ax "�"�y.. �' S'� p' `` 5 �: � .�� � [ ''� i �{fi ' 1�4 ., �'�"r � . �"E:� f . � � f : t � �; . ..: kfi ,.: �: . . . :�fi::r .. -" . . � ......_.- HP District: Property Name: Survey Info: C�r to� C� September 1, 2009 Legislative Hearing Minutes Page 7 3. Appeal of Stephen Chapman to a Smnmary Abatement Order for property at 603 Idaho Avenue East. (Rescheduled from August 25) Jeffry Martin, attomey with Martin Law Offices, appeared with the appellant, Stephen Chapman. Ms. Seeley stated that Inspector Cassidy received a complaint regarding a large amount of fire wood being stored on the property and inspected the property on July 28, 2009. He issued a correction norice indicating that all firewood must be elevated off the ground with a compliance date of August 3. He re-inspected the property on August 5 and found that the wood had been elevated off the ground; however, he issued a summary abatement arder for the following: remove all excessive firewood with a limit of one cord; all wood must be elevated, no more than five feet in height or closer than 10 feet to a habitable building and six feet from the property line with a compliance date of August 17. The arders were issued pursuant to Chapter 45 and the Zoning Code regarding setback requirements which covered the elevation, the height and location near a dwelling unit and property line. She and the inspector were unable to find where in the code the amount of allowable wood on a property was addressed and said she believed it was there somewhere, perhaps in the Fire Code. Inspector Cassidy then asked his supervisor, Steve Magner, what the limit on the amount of wood should be and Mr. Magner indicated it should be limited to one cord. She inspected the property on August 28 to measure the piles of wood and presented pictures. Mr. Martin stated that Mr. Chapman had contacted him after he received the order to remove the excessive firewood on the property as he was unable to find any definition in the code of the term "excessive." He said Mr. Chapman was in the tree business and had a wood burning stove had installed under permit and used the wood to heat his home. He presented photographs of the wood in question which was reviewed by all of the parties. Mr. Martin stated that a neighbor had left a note on Mr. Chapman's door indicating that they had complained to the Pollution Control Agency and to the City concerning the wood burning stove. Mr. Chapman wanted to be in compliance with the orders the inspector had issued but did not want to remove any of the wood until he had clarification of the orders which was why he filed the appeal. Ms. Moermond stated that there was a heck of a lot of wood as indicated in the photos. She asked Mr. Chapman how deep the screened structure was. Mr. Chapman responded that he believed it was four feet deep, 20 feet in length and 10 feet in width. He believed the wood was stacked to five feet. Ms. Seeley responded that she had measured the height to be six feet tall. Ms. Moermond stated that a cord of wood was four feet wide by four feet in height and eight feet in length. She asked Mr. Chapman how much wood he believed he had stared. Mr. Chapman responded that he believed he had six to seven cords of wood. Ms. Moermond asked how much wood he used to heat his home during the winter. Mr. Chapman responded that he had purchased the stove during mid-winter and was unsure. The person he had bought the stove from told him that he used about four cords of wood during the winter months. Ms. Moermond responded that she believed that was an awful lot of wood to burn during a winter and believed Mr. Chapman had at least two winters worth of wood. She recommended denying the appeal and granting an extension to November 1 to remove the excessive wood; she recommended granting the total amount of wood allowed on the property to be three and one-half cords.