Loading...
09-594Council File #�-� Green Sheet # 3070956 RESOLUTION OF S�41NT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented by 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 /7 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul, based on a review of the legislative hearing record and testimony heard at public hearing on May 20, 2009 hereby memorializes its decision to certify and approve the May 5, 2009 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for the following address: ADDRESS 575 McKni�ht Road South APELLANT Steven A. Danner Decision: Appeal denied and extension granted to June 1 to come into compliance. Carter Boshom Harris Helgen Stark Thune Requested by Deparhnento£ � Form Approved by City Attomey By: Adopted by Council: Date Adoption Certified by CounciL Secretary BY � _____�� / t/ / Approv� or. Date 1 By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �9_��1�� � DepartmenUOfficelCouncil: Date Initiated: co-°°°^��� 2�-�Y-09 Green Sheet NO: 3070756 Contact Person 8 Phone- Deqartment Sent To Person InitiaUDate Marcia Moermond 0 onoc� 0 6-8570 1 ounnl De artmentD'vecror �� 2 ' Clerk (S Clerk Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 3 0 For a 0 Routing Doc. Order 5 O E-Document Required: Y Document ContaM: Mai Vang CoMaci Phone: 6-8563 ToWI # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: ResoluUOn memorializing City Council action taken May 2Q 2009 denying the appeal and granting an extensio� to 7une 1, 2009 for property at 575 McKnight Road South to come into compliance, per the recommendation of the Legislative Hearing Officer. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commissipn 7. Has Mis personlfirm everworked under a coMrad for ihis deparimenl? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person�rm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answero on separete sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: Disadvantages H Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of TransaGtion: CosURevenue Budgeted: FUnding Source: Activity Number: Finantial Infortnation: (Explain) May 26, 2009 2:08 PM Page 1 tiY a p b , a a � CITY OF SAINT PAUL ��f —�j jL� �°� CITY CLERK'S OFFICE April 20, 2009 Steven A. Darmer 575 S. McKnight Road St. Paul, MN 55119 RE: 575 S. McKnight Dear Mr. Darmer: Your application for an appeal has been received and processed. P{ease attend the public hearing before the Legislative Hearing Officer on Tuesday, May 5, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. in Room 330 City Hall and Courthouse to consider your appeal concerning the above referenced property. At that time the Legislative Hearing Officerwill hear all parties relative to this action. Failure to appear at the hearing may result in denial of your appeal. Sincerely, ��� �� Shari Moore City Clerk cc: Joel Essling, Code Enforcement Officer Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer Jerry Hendrickson, Deputy City Attorney 15 WEST KELLOGG BOULEVARD, SUITE 310 SAINT PAUI, MINNESOTA55102 Tel: 651-266-8688 FaY: 651-266-8574 wwwstpassl.gov An A�rtnatrve Acuon Equal Opportumty Employer APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Saint Paul City C1erk 15 W. Kellogg Blvd., 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota >j 102 Telephone: (6�1) 266-8688 Cellulaz 1. Address of Ptoperry being Appealed: 2. Number of Dwelliirg Units: 3. Date of L,etter Appealed: �5 7.5� �S� i%7�l<�%I�r-{T y � �-�"/-�� 4. Name of Owner: s��� �� /� - ����2 /ZJ�'( Address: �� �.S J . �G �������,; �S � Phone Numbers: Busin ss �� 3 7 2 �� �Residence %�///i✓ � Cellulaz�SS /'�: �'�� �/Z Appellant / Applicant (if other than owner): City: State: Zip: Phone Nurnbers: Business Residence 6 State specifically wha{ is being appealed'and w,hy (Use a� attachment if necessarg): — 77�L- 1�, {� C Ic I S �-7 /-J � e�E���C C� i�227¢6 [,-' —L��'' �� s?�//� %Z�/f� L� /�1�� `� f-�j�ic l� Cs� dor� �� ___���r� �(:� C��4 i.�r �� �S�f= T fi�do G� v�, c??� r� c� GL ` `�C�. L b� -�y� ��,,�'� F� ���� 1 � �€��� �L NOTE: A$25.00 filing fee made payable to the City of Saint Paul must accompany this application as a necessary condirion for filing. You must attach a copy of the original orders and any other correspondence relative to this appeal. Any person unsaflsfied by the final decision of the City Councii may obtain judicial review by IImely fifing of an acrion as provided by law in District Court. For O�fice Use Only ` Received: Fee Received: Receipt Number: ��°"� �lv�� Date of Heari�g: C/�� �- 11: � CITY OF SAINT PAUL DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND INSPECTIONS DNISION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT 375 Jackson Street, Suite 220 �/����(� Saint Paul, NIN 55101-1806 SUMMARY ABATEMENT ORDER March 31. 2009 Inspection Date L _ _�� Date M `� ua��ea ey �intc� 09 - 049991 Yog hais tias koj t�ais lus Hmoob thiab koj tsis to taub tsab ntawv oo, hu rau tus trhais lus ntawm (6�1) 266-8989. Nws yog pab dawb zwb.Si necessita un traductor, por favor ]lamanos al (651)266-8989. No costo. Steven A Dazmer 575 McKnight Rd S St Paul MN 55119-6911 I As owner or person(s) responsible for: 575 MCKNIGHT RdAD S you are hereby ordered to eliminate �a[I nuisance condifions which are in violafion oi Chapter 45 of Saint Paul Leb slarive Code. I� Remove improperly stored or accumulated refuse including: garbage, rubbish, discarded 8usniture, u appliances, vehicle parts, scrap wood and metal, recycling materials, household items, building materials or rubble, tires, brush, etc., from yard areas. INCLUDING: PILE OF REFUSE, BUII.DING MATERIAI., METAL, WOOD AND TIRES. .', -�i - � Cut and remove tall grass, weeds and rank plant growth. Remove and properly dispose of all animal feces from yard areas. I1�Il14EDIATELY secure all buildings which are open to unauthorized entry, including: Other: METAL STORAGE SHELVES AND STORAGE ON SHELVES. If you do not correct the nuisance or file an appeal before April 24, 2009, the City will correct the nuisance and charge all costs, including boazding costs, against the property as a special assessment to be collected in the same way as property taxes. Charees: If the City corrects the nuisance, the charges will include the cost of correction, inspection, travel time, equipment, eta The rate wil] be approximately $260.00 per hour plus expenses for abatement. You must maintain the premises in a clean condirion and provide proper and adequate refuse storage at all times FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY RESULT IN A CRIIVIINAL CITi A 1 ION I Issued by: Joel Essline Badge Number 322 Phone Number 651-266-1904 If you have any qaestions about this order, the requirements or the deadline, you shouid ' contact the Inspector listed above, Monday through Friday. AnoeaLs: You may appeal this order and obtain a hearing before the CiTy Council by complet'vig an appeal applicarion with the City Clerk before che appeal deadline noted above or seven (7) days after [he date mailed, whichevtt comes first. No ppeaLs ttta be filed aft that date You mav obtain an ooeal �1'c tion from tf�e C N Clerk's Office Roo 310 Ciry Hall St Paul MN 55102 The telepho e number is (651) 266-8688 Yo must s bmit a cop of this Corzection Order with yow anoeal arrol�cahon. *WARNING Code inspection and �forcement 4ips cost the taxpayers money. If the violations are no[ corsected within the time penod required m this notice, the c�Ty's costs in conductiug a reinspection after Ihe due da[e for wmpliance will be collected from Ihe ovmer rather than beuig paid by tk�e taYpayecs of the city. If additional new vioffit�ons are discovered within the n�t following 12 months, the city's cosrs m conducting additional uispections at this same loca[ion within such 12 months wi0 be collected from the owner rather than being paid by the Caxpayers of the ciTy. Any such Suture costs will be coliected by assessment agauist the real property and are in addition to avy other fines or assessmerrts which may be levied against you and your property. Sa2 p2 60158 03/09 May 5, 2009 Legislative Hearing Minutes 6� _�/� � Page 16 / 4. Appeal of Steven Darmer to a Summary Abatement Order for property at 575 McKni�ht Road South Steven Darmer, appellant, appeared. Mr. Dazmer stated that he had attempted to bring up a sample of one of his "inventions" to the hearing; however, the guard/deputy would not allow him to bring it up as he believed it could be used as a weapon. He claimed it was approximately 325 pop cans melted down into a thick, rectangular apparatus which he had created from recyclable materials he had on his property. Ms. Moermond asked for a staff report. Mr. Essling stated that orders were issued on April 9, 2009 to remove a pile of refuse on the ground and nuisance storage (shelving and contents) with a compliance date of Apri124. He said that he also issued a correction order at the same time to repair or replace the siding on the house. Mr. Darmer then filed the appeal on the summary abatement order. He presented photos and stated that the issues concerning the pond were a separate action which the DNR was undertaking. His concern was the refuse, shelving, contents, and storage which were located on the edge of the pond. These items were considered a"nuisance" under Chapter 45 of the St. Paul Legislative Code. Ms. Moermond asked how the violations were discovered. Mr. Essling responded that a complaint was received and the property was inspected. Mr. Darmer presented a history of the property and why he did not believe this should be considered a violation under Chapter 45 of the Code. He said that in his neighborhood, this was a neighbarhood community standard. He said it may be sad that this was the way they chose to live, but they do; therefore, he believed this was a"selective prosecution." He said the procedures under Chapter 45, specifically, 45.11 were not followed as currently, there was no access to this area so the clean up was questionable. He also wanted to discuss the "poor" management of the complaint. He said he had owned this property for over 20 yeazs. During this time, the value of the property has quadrupled and was now worth about $350,000. He had never had a code violation; he also said he had made 75 improvements to the property and that his house was his life, as pathetic as that may sound, he spent all of his time working on it rather than taking vacations. He said he usually worked on his house from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. every evening and when he was not working on his house, he worked on his yard or worked on his inventions. He said it was his goal that when he died, he would leave something behind that somebody would enjoy. He said when he bought the house, the area was totally wooded. From his house, only one other house could partially be seen; everything else was undeveloped; there were no houses across the street in either direction; there were no houses to the south; and no houses were visible from the west. He presented aerial photos of the azea showing that the area had been developed. He said that from the "rack" he had in the back, the only person's house he had been able to see was Lenny Anderson's. He said when one individual had moved into the area, they soon after cut down all of the trees because "they liked to see his pond" After they cut down all the trees, "they decided tl�ey didn't like the way he treated his land" and since then, they had been complaining about it. He said he would like to see things back to the way they were 20 years ago when he didn't have to look at any of "those" houses. He believed Chapter 45 would only apply if: 1) it is accessible to people and they may conjugate there; the nearest house was 250 feet away; the nearest road was 600 feet away; and to get there was an extremely hazardous trip as it was at a 45 degree angle, was covered with woods and buckthom. He said he believed when Mr. Essling inspected the property, he had to go through someone else's property as there was no access from most of the other lots onto his property. He said he was May 5, 2009 Legislative Hearing Minutes (� �� �j� 1� Page 17 OSHA trained and was a 3M trained designated rep so he knew about safety and there were no safety violations with the rack or with this properry. The only issue he could possibly see was that it was "a blight; ' however, hecause he was hying to consolidate everything in the "rack area," he had moved everything over to that area when the pond was frozen. He said that he planned on winning the "wetland" thing because it was considered an"incidental" wetland and because he had budgeted $40,000 for 2010 for the lawsuit. Once the road was done, he would have access to this area. The stuff on the ground consisted of building materials that were going back into his house which he used in has projects. The other items were recyclable materials. At the time of the inspection, the pallets were frozen to the ground and he couldn't get those over to that area as his goal was to put everything on pallets so it would be off the ground. These things were used for the consriuction of various things; the latest being an"invention" he created which was being used at the U of M Vet Hospital to put tubes down the throats of cats and small dogs and he had a patent pending for this creation. He presented a petition signed by his neighbors agreeing that what he had on his lot was not a nuisance and that they understood he would organize in a reasonable a manner within a reasonable amount of time. He said there were six properties located around the pond; four of those owners do not see this as a problem. One of the property owners was on vacation so their signature was not on the petition; the other person was the "complaining" person. He also had pictures of the neighborhood and as pathetic as it may seem, this was the standard of living in this neighborhood. He presented the pictures and explained them to Ms. Moermond. He said most of the people owned one to ten acres of land and to buy that much land, there would be a reason to do so. One was to pay the taxes on it and this was the way they lived in their "pathetic little area." He said he could personally write complaints about all of the properties; however, he did not believe he needed to influence other peoples' lives. It was his understanding Lenny Anderson's property was being dealt with separately and was going to be resolved. He said that under Chapter 45.11, if the expected cost of abatement was over $5,000, different procedures must be followed: there would need to be a basis for the nuisance, which was not listed on the summary abatement order; there must be an estimate of the cost, and he estimated that what he had was approximately $10,000 worth of materials. It was his also his opinion that in order to remove the stuff, it would have to be hand carried approximately 250 feet through very difficult terrain, and would take two people approximately two weeks to remove everything to haul it away. Since there was no access on his land, they would likely have to go onto Lenny Anderson's property to get onto his land. He said he estimated it would cost approximately $20,000 to do the clean up; to remove the rack would cost $5,000; and he estimated the cost of the materials alone to be about $10,000. He said he had many backup pictures to show what he could build with this stuff. Ms. Moermond interrupted Mr. Darmer and said he was estimating the value of the cost of the items which she did not believe was relevant. She asked Mr. Darmer to explain. Mr. Danner responded that "if you take it off the property, you reduce the value of the property." If he were to sell the house with the materials, he would get more for the bome than if he sold the house without the materials. He said that before he put up the rack, he spoke with Dave Nelson about putting up a rack and a windmill. Dave Nelson told him that there were no issues in the building code about this and he would not need a permit. Then he was told that if he got a permit it might be okay. Then he received a letter from Tom Redding (sic) inviting him to come to discuss the matter to resolve it. He was then told that they wanted to have a meeting; the meeting was then delayed; he requested a "code violation" from Steve Magnus (sic) before he even knew what the code violation was; then he wrote Steve Magnus (sic) on what "market waste" definition was and received no answer. What he had planned on was that all of the materials on the ground would be put under or in the rack. He was then going to enclose the rack when he had time or would just cover it with tarp which would May 5, 2009 Legislative Hearing Minutes p� -�j�LJ Page 18 then be within code. He estimated that approximately 20 percent of the stuff in the pile was just recyclable materials. He had planned to put down a couple of pallets with tents to store recyclables. He said that in the last year, he had two near fatal accidents workin� on his property. On June 6, he fell off the roof when he was re-shingling it and had a concussion and broke four vertebrae in his neck and back. This greatly delayed his work on the property. On December 6, he had an accident on his ATV when the brakes went out when he was riying to get down to this area. He had a major hematoma on his brain and it broke almost all of the bones in his face. This also delayed his progress. He said whatever he did, it would never be good enough for the one neighbor as she wanted it back into a natural resource or back when she first bought her house. She won't put her trees back as she refused when he asked her. Over the last three years, he claimed he planted over 400 trees because his neighbor's property looked so bad. He cleaned up his property as well as two of his other neighbors' properties because they had let them run down so Uad. He said he didn't see the rack as being an issue as it contained valuable materials; all of the garbage on the ground, he did see as an issue and it should either put in the rack or elsewhere. He would like to enclose the rack if the City would give him a permit do so. Ms. Moermond stated that she needed to review the code and would likely give Mr. Danner a decision in writing. The Council public hearing would be scheduled for May 20. Ms. Moermond stated that there were no specific neighborhood nuisance standards; these were citywide standards which were enforced uniformly across the city. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Essling to address Chapter 45 and how it applied to this situation. Mr. Essling responded that Chapter 45 also encompassed the zoning code and exterior was not permitted in residential areas and could not be within 300 feet of any other residence. It was an attractive nuisance because children could play on it and become injured; it was also a blighting influence and threatened the peace of the neighborhood. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting an extension to June 1 to come into compliance. tiy-��-� Steven Darmer 575 S. McKnight Road St. Paul, MN 5�119 Nuisance Complaints We, the undersigned, agree with Steven Darmer that the rack storage system and the materials he has on his lot are not a nuisance to the neighborhood. We trust that Steve Darmer will get these materials organized and stored in a reasonable manner in a reasonable amount of time. Date: April Ol, 2009 HP District: D G1,� y L' File #: 09 - 049991 Property Name: Folder Name: 575 MCKNIGHT ROAD S Survey Info: ' PIN: 112822410028 Date: Apri101, 2009 HP DistriM: File #: 09 - 049991 Prop yrty Name: Da � y � Folder Name: 575 MCKNIGHT ROAD S Surve Info: � PIN: 112822410028 Date: File #: Folder Name: PIN: Apri101, 2009 09 - 049991 575 MCI�VIGHT ROAD S 112822410028 HP District: Property Name: Survey Info: � "�� `�� Date: Apri{ Ol, 2009 HP District: File #: 09 - 049991 Property Name: h(/ �[i��f !� Folder Name: 575 MCKNIGHT ROAD S Survey Info: U� PIN: 112822410028 Date: Apri101, 2009 HP District: File #: 09 - 049991 Property Name: �(� ��� � Folder Name: 575 MCKIVIGHT ROAD S Survey Info: PIN: 112822410028 , . . . �. . .. . ��.:�: :� Sro , ., h .... .rk.. Date: April 01, 2�09 HP District: File #: 09 - 049991 Property Name: /��' + Folder Name: 575 MCI�VIGHT ROAD S Survey Info: 6� "I PIN: 112822410028 Date: April Ol, 2009 File #: 09 - 049991 Folder Name: 575 MCKNIGHT ROAD S HP District: Property Name: Survey Info: PIN: 112822410028 Date: Apri101, 2009 HP District: File #: 09 - 049991 Property Name: 4 � ��� 1 Folder Name: 575 MCKNIGHT ROAA S Survey Info: ��� PIN: 112822410028 � .. ��, �` ` �' �� ��a -�� e-- �� . � �d �� .s, � � � �� ��:; ��.; Date: April Ol, 2009 HP District: File #: 09 - 049991 Property Name: � Y �� Folder Name: 575 MCKNiGHT ROAD S Survey Info: '% PIN: 112822410028 Date: Apri101, 2009 HP District: File #: 09 - OA9991 Property Name: �-�� U Folder Name: 575 MCI�VIGHT ROAD S Survey Info: � PIN: 112822410028 Date: Apri101, 2009 HP District: File #: 09 - 049991 Properly Name: Folder Name: 575 MCKIVIGFTT ROAD S Survey Info: (���y L) PIN: 112822410028 Date: Apri101, 2009 HP District: File #: 09 - 049991 Property Name: D � ���( Folder Name: 575 MCKIVIGHT ROAD S Survey Info: ��� PIN: 112822410028 Date: April Ol, 2009 File #: 09 - 049991 Folder Name: 575 MCKNSGHT ROAD S HP District: Property Name: Survey Info: 0� -�i�1 � PIN: 112822410028 Date: Aprit Ol, 2009 HP District: File #: 09 - 049991 Property Name: b � `� � Folder Name: 575 MCKNIGHT ROAD S Survey Info: "��� PIN: 112822410028 69-��i�-} Sec. 33.03. Permits--When required. (a) Building and general construction. No person shall construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure without first obtaining a building permit from the building official, Permits for building or general constnxction aze not required for repairs for maintenance only or for minor alterations provided they aze not required under the state building code, this chapter or other pertinent provisions of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, and provided the cost of such repairs and minor alterations does not exceed the present mazket value of five hundred dollazs ($500.00). Sec. 34.08. Exterior propesty areas. The owner of any premises regulated by this section, as specified in section 34.03, shall comply with the following requirements: (1) Sanitation. All exterior property areas shall be maintained free from any accumulation of garbage, mixed mu�icipal solid waste, animal feces or refuse. (2) Grading and drainage. Ali premises shall be graded and maintained so as to drain water away from occupied structures and minimize the accumulation of water on such premises. (3) Ground cover. Every residential premises shall be maintained in a condition to control erosion, dust and mud by suitable landscaping with grass, trees, shrubs or other planted ground cover, or by paving with asphalt, concrete or by such other suitable means as shall be approved by the enforcement officer. (4) Insect and rodent infestations. It shall be the responsibility of the owner to control and/or eliminate a�y infestation of insects, rodents or other pests in all exterior areas and accessory structures on the premises. (5) Accessory structures. All accessory structures including, but not limited to, detached garages, sheds and fences, shall be maintained structurally sound and in good repair. AIf exterior wood surFaces, other than decay-resistant woods, shall be protected from the elements and decay by paint which is not lead-based paint or by other protective covering or treatment. Service doors to accessory structures shall be provided with securing locks. �6) Sfored materials. It shall be unlawf�l to accumulate and store building material, lumber, boxes, caRons, portable storage containers, inter modal cargo containers or other containers, machinery, scrap metal, junk, raw material, fabricated goods and other items in such manner as to constitute a nuisance or rodent harborage. (7) Parked or stored vehicles. All parking spaces shall be paved with asphalt, concrete or other durable, dustless surfacing, or with crushed rock as determined by the enforcement officer. Before any existing spaces may be paved, site plan approval must be obtained as specified in the Saint Paul Zoning Code and the lot must be developed in conformance with such approval. (8) Refrigerators and accessible containers. It shall be unlawful to permit a refrigerator or other container, sufficiently large to retain a child and with doors which fasten automatically when closed, to be exposed and accessible to children without removing the doors, lids, hinges or latches. (9} Exterior �ighting. Exterior lighting at garages and surface parking areas of buildings containing three (3) or more dwelling units shall be illuminated an average of one (1) footcandle at the pavement. Exterior lighting shall be in conformance with city ordinances and codes. (10) Exferior sidewalks, walkways and sfairs. All sidewalks, walkways and exterior stairs shall be maintained in a safe, sound condition, free of defects and hazards. b�-���I (C.F. No. 05-740, § 1, 9-14-OS) Sec.45.02. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this chapter: Aftractive nuisance: A condition such as a dangerous structure, an unsecured vacant or condemned building, or other condition which in the opinion of the enforcement officer may attract nonowner(s} or other unauthorized person(s) and which would expose them to risk, perii or danger. Sec.45.03. Nuisance. A"nuisance" shal{ mean any substance, matter, emission or thing which creates a dangerous or unhealthy condition or which threatens the public peace, health, safety or sanitary condition of the city or which is offensive or has a blighting influence on the community and which is found upon, in, being discharged or flowing from any street, alley, highway, railroad right-of-way, vehicle, railroad car, water, excavation, building, erection, lot, grounds or other property located within the city. Nuisances shall include, but not be limited to, those set forth in this section. (1) Dangerous structure. A structure which is potentially hazardous to persons or property including, but not limited to: a. A structure which is in danger of partial or complete collapse; or b. A structure with any exterior parts which are foose or in danger of fafling; or c. A structure with any parts such as floors, porches, railings, stairs, ramps, balconies or roofs which are accessible and which are either collapsed, in danger of collapsing, or unable to support the weight of normally imposed loads. Sec.45.03. Nuisance. (8) Hazards. Any thing or condition on the property which, in the opinion of the enforcement offcer, may contribute to injury of any person present on the property. Hazards, which shali include, but not be limited to, open holes, open foundations, open wells, dangerous trees or limbs, abandoned refrigerators or trapping devices. Sec.45.03. Nuisance. (23) Vermin harborage. Conditions which, in the opinion of the enforcement officer, are conducive to the harborage or breeding of vermin.