96-1535 " � �� � � � � � ��I�� �q� Council File# �G- IS�S
Green Sheet#�S(�
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 7�
Presented by
Referred To Committee Date
1 BE IT RESOLVED,that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the November 19,
2 1996 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer:
3 Propert,��gealed Ap eln lant
4 968 Burr Street Elvera Schneider
5 DeCislon: Deny appeal. Pub�ic Works Department is directed to make an extensive and
comprehensive scoping of all parts of the sewer before any work is done; Office of Public
Health is to delay enforcement until June 15, 1997.
6 FURTHER RESOLVED,that this action sha11 become effective immediately upon approval of the Mayor.
Yeas Na s Absent Requested by Department of:
Blakey ✓
Bostrom �.
Guerin ,%
Harris ✓�
Megard ✓ By:
Rettman
��e ✓ Form Approved by City Attorney
By:
Adopted by Council: Date Q 9..� ����Q�S�,
Adoptio Certified by Council Secretary Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By: ' - BY�
Approved by Mayor: Date � 3( r V
By: N
. �C�,-1535
crrY covivcu, " iaisi� ° GiR,EEN SHEET N_ 3 5 6 9 9
8 0 o�paan�M tm►c-croR Nm�a►� �cm cou�ca ' �"mwa�re
(3erry Strathman 266-$575 � �cirr�rror�ev �cm c�e�
co� � ��' �suooer aRC-c� ��.a�or s�avices ap. •
December 11, 1996 �" �►�u►voR toR nse�sT�rm �
TOTAL�OF SK3NA7URE PAOES (CLIP ALL LQCATIONS FOR SIQNATURFa
ACfION REGUEB'TED:
APPm�B the docision of tl�e I.egislative Hearing Officer on Property Cflde Enforcement Appeals for the November 19, 1946�ng.
REOOIYIMENDAIWN8:APwow(�l a Ry�a(!n PERSONAI.8ERVICE CONTRACTS MUBT Ati�YMER TNE fa.LOYIIINA CUES'1101is:
_PLANNNaO oOMAAISBION _CIVIL SERVICE oO�ON 1. Has this pasaUtirm ever work�d undsr a oontrect for 1hN d�p�Am�nt?
_Cls COIrMxTfEE _ YE8 �NO
_BTAFF _ 2. Has ihis panoMNrm e�b�M�a city employes?
YES NO
—��T�RT — 3. Do�s tMs peroon/Brm pos�sss a sklli n�normNfY PaMMed bY�Y a��Y�DbYes�
8UPPOR'f8 WMIp1 CWNCLL OBJECTIVE9 YE8 NO
Explaln NI yu�nsw�n on�shNt and Ktaoh to�n�n N�t
N�ITIATNrO PR08LEM.188UE.�PORTUNtTY(VWa.MIhN.WMn.WYrrs�WAf+):
ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
DISADVANTAflE8 IF APPROVED:
DISADNANTAR�EB�NCi APPROYEO:
TOTAL AMOUNT OF T11AN�ACTION = COST/REVENUE WDOETED{CIRCLB ON� YES NO
FUNDINO SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMdER
FlNANCIAL INFORMATION:(EXPLAIN)
�-� �'� I.�.
A��� ��� Council File �� ` �S� �
°"'� � � � � � ��`Z"l 1��i Green Sheet#�5�.9
7
RESOLUTION ,7'l
CI OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 7
Presented by
Referred To Committee Date
1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the November 19,
2 1996 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer:
3 Pro�erty Appealed • Appellant
4 968 Burr Street �� ��1'�- �� Elvera Schneider
5 Decision: Deny appeal. Q�c• 11� �al°� (�
c__ . � ,�,�,� _ ����.�lqs.
Q....��� .
6 645 Lafond Donald Hobbs
7 Decision: Condemnation order was removed by Public Health. � L.o"„� OnK,�, -�-p �e�c. ���\�l°lS�,
C.�''� C�v.Na•`� M�. — ���z9��{�
8 771 W. Hoyt Avenue �ichard Fleming
9 Decision: Grant extension to May 30, 1997 to make the necessary repairs to sewer.
10 41 Miller Crest Lane Lowell & Corinne Coulter
11 Decision: Grant appeal conditioned on re-occupancy of building within 90 days.
12 265 Dayton Avenue John and Patrice May
13 Decision: Grant three year variance.
14 596 Portland Avenue Richard Koplen
15 Decision: Deny appeal. Premises must be vacated by December 31, 1996.
16 935 Goodrich Ave. #10 Candace Booker
17 Decision: Deny appeal.
18 2230 Carter Avenue Milton Investments
19 Decision: Grant extension for 60 days to rebuild stairs for second exit for second floor. Grant extension to
20 April 1, 1997 to complete repairs to exterior and roof.
21 FURTHER RESOLVED, that this action shall become effective immediately upon approval of the Mayor.
�� --( s �s
.
( � I ` � ��, 6 ��,��'� �
1 ` ' . ,�..
Yeas Na s Absent Requested by Department of:
Blakey
Bostrom �
Guerin �
Harris ✓
Megard ✓ By:
Rettman �/
Thune Fortn Approved by City Attorney
By:
Adopted by Council: Date �� .�h _ `�q�
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By: ��.._�—� a . BY�
Approved by Mayor: Date
By:
DEPARTMENT/OfFICE/COUNC�L DATE INITtATED �� � �� � p v
CITY COUNCIL 11/19/96 GREEN SHEET N_ 3 � 6 9 7
CONTACT PERSON 8 PHONE INITIAL/DATE INITIAUDATE
�DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR �CITY COUNCIL
Gerry Strathman 266-8575 ASSI�N CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLEFK
MUST BE ON COUNCIL AOENDA BY(DATE) NUMBEN FOR � ❑
ROUTIN(i �BUDOET DIRECTOR O FIN.8 M�T.SERVICES DIR.
November 27, 1996 ORDER �MAYOR(OR ASSISTANT) �
TOTAL#OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
ACTION REOUESTED:
Approving the decision of the Legislative Heazing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the November 19, 1996 meeting.
RECOMMENDATIONS:Approve(A)or Re�ecl(R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING OUESTIONS:
_ PLANNINa COMMISSION _ CIVIL SERVICE COMMI3SION �• Has this person/firm ever worked under a coniract for this depertment4
_CIB COMMITfEE _ YES NO
2. Has this person/firm ever been a clty employee7
_STAFF
— YES NO
_ DISTRICT COURT _ 3. Does this person/firm possess a sklll not normally possessed by any current city employee4
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE7 YES NO
Explaln sll yes answen on ssparate sheet and sttech to yrssn shest
INITIATINO PROBLEM,ISSUE,OPPORTUNITY(Who,Whet,When,Where,Why):
ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
DISADVANTAOES IF APPROVED:
Gotmc�l R�:���t�h ��t�f�F
��1� � � 1��6
DISADVANTA(3ES IF NOT APPROVED:
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S COST/REVENUE BUDGETED(CIRCLE ONE) YES NO
FUNOIf�G SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBEH
FINANCIAL INFORMATION:(EXPLAIN)
�(C� -1S3�
Property Code Enforcement Meeting _ �
November 19, 1996
968 Burr Street
Elvera Schneider, property owner, appeared and stated that she had rat holes in the boulevard and she had
been informed that this was caused by a break in the sewer line. She explained that in 1991, she had the same
problem with rat holes in the boulevard which was caused by a break in the sewer.line. At that time, she did
not have the money to hire a contractor to do the work so she allowed the city to contract to have the sewer
line repaired. She was assessed $2,164.95 for this work which went against her property taxes and she
subsequently refinanced her mortgage to pay off the assessment. In 1993, she discovered rat holes in her
boulevard and a fog test determined that the problem was an open drain hole in the adjoining neighbor's
property. She had the sewer line video scoped at that time and was told that the sewer line had four bends
in it rather than a straight connection to the main sewer line in the street. Since it was this same area that had
been repaired in 1991 and now had a disconnection in the sewer line again, she believed that the contractor
that made the repairs in 1991 did not do a competent job. It was her opinion that the contractor should have
made a straight connection to the main line rather than repairing the bend that had separated. She did not
believe she should be liable for paying to have the sewer line repaired again.
Linda Schneider, daughter, appeared and stated that the inspector had indicated to her that sewer line had not
been repaired properly,however,the inspector now denied making the statement. Her mother could not afford
to have the sewer line repaired every five years at a cost of$3,000 each time.
Bill Awker, Public Works, stated that he was the inspector on this property and was present when Animal
Control conducted the recent fog test. The fog came tl�rough the main sewer line which indicated that there
was a break in the sewer line. The property owner questioned why the sewer line was not a straight
connection and why the contractor hadn't repaired all of the bends. He indicated to her that whoever
originally constructed flie sewer line when the house was built may have had to construct the bends because
of an obstruction in the boulevard. When the sewer line was repaired in 1991,the contractor only went down
where the rat holes appeared and repaired the bad joint. The contractor did not have the authority to dig up
the entire line for exploratory purposes to look for additional breaks. The sewer line was video scoped in
1993 and it was clear that the scope made it around four of the bends and it did not show that there were any
bad spots in the sewer line at that time.
Dave Dickhut, Public Works, stated that they were unsure as to where the break was located now as they had
not video scoped the sewer line and the rat holes were the only indication of where the break may be. The
current rat holes in the boulevard were not in the same location as the repair that was made in 1991. It was
his opinion that the construction of the sewer line was a contributing factor to the breaks in the line. If the
sewer line now was constructed in a straight line, this would be the cost equivalent of a new connection and
could cost from$1,500 to $4,000. The estimated cost to repair the area where the rat holes appear could be
$1,000 to $1,200. The contributing cost for the repair in 1991 was due to the fact that a retaining wall had
to be restored because of the construction.
Gerry Stratluna�l, Legislative Hearing Officer, stated that it was the property owner's responsibility to repair
any breaks in the sewer line since the original construction was not done by the city. Since the current break
was in a different location than the repair that was made in 1991, the city would not be responsible for
affording the cost to repair this break. He recommended denial of the appeal.
� � -I S `35
Property Code Enforcement Meeting
November 19, 1996 '
Page - 2 -
645 Lafond
Gloria Hobbs, property owner, appeared with her son Donald Hobbs. Mr. Hobbs stated that they were
appealing the condemnation as all of the repairs on the list from Public Health had been made.
Dick Lippert, FORCE Unit, stated that the property was condemned in association with a narcotics
investigation. He had inspected the property the previous day and all of the repairs had been made. The only
issue that was still a concern was overcrowding of the house. At one point in time, 14 people resided in the
home. In measuring the square footage of the house, the habitable living space would only accommodate
seven people. He was unsure as to how many people actually resided in the home.
Mr. Hobbs stated that only three people were living in the house as the present time. His sister, who lived
in the house, was in the process of regaining custody of her children. If she was successful,there would only
be seven people living in the house.
Mr. Strathman asked whether Public Health would be willing to remove the condemnation order since the
owner had complied with all of the violations. Mr. Lippert stated that he would recommend removing the
order for condemnation.
771 W. Hoyt Avenue
Richard Fleming,properiy owner,appeared and stated that he was appealing the order to repair his sewer line.
He discovered holes in his boulevard and after repeatedly filling them in and they would reappear, he
contacted Animal Control. They did a fog test and smoke came out of the main sewer line indicating that
there was a break somewhere in the line. He believed that the break could have occurred when sewer work
was done in 1993. He also did not believe that he was being given sufficient time to make the correction.
Dave Dickhut, Public Works, stated that the storm sewer was installed on the opposite side of the street in
1992. He did not believe that the present problem with the break in the line was due to the work which was
done in 1992. Considering the location of the holes,he believed that the break was in the boulevard,however,
the only way to determine this would be to video scope the sewer line. He did not believe that this was
necessary, however, since most likely the break was straight down from the location of the holes.
Maynard Vinge, Public Health, suggested that the owner contact Animal Control and they could inform him
how to bait the holes to temporarily get rid of the rats. He could then fill in the holes which should take care
of the problem until he was able to make the repairs in the spring.
Mr. Stratlunan recommended granting an extension to May 30, 1997 to make the repairs.
41 Miller Crest Lane
Lowell & Coriruie Coulter, property owners, appeared. Mr. Coulter stated that they were appealing the
registered vacant building fee. Although they did not reside in the home, he had maintained the property as
though it were occupied. He did not believe the building qualified as a vacant building and they should not
`�G --�s 3�
Property Code Enforcement Meeting � �
November 19, 1996
Page - 3 -
be required to pay the$200 fee. Mrs. Coulter stated that the reason the house was not occupied was because
they purchased the property before they sold their present home and had not been able to sell it to date. It was
their intention to move into the home once they sold their present property.
Steve Magner, Public Health, stated that the building was secured and had been vacant for nine years. There
had been two summary abatement orders issued against the property for nuisance violations. Since the
building had been unoccupied for more than one year, it met the code definition of a registered vacant
building.
Mr. Strathman granted the appeal conditioned on the re-occupancy of the building within 90 days.
265 Davton Avenue
John and Patrice May, property owners, appeared. Mr. May stated that they were appealing the order to
disconnect the rainleader from their apartment building. The building had a flat roof and because it was in
the historic preservation district, they were not allowed to construct a peaked roof which would allow for the
rainwater to run off the roof. The nearest storm sewer drain was located approximately 275 feet away from
the building. The building presently had one down spout which drained onto the driveway and not only
caused ice build-up but they experienced water flooding the basement apartments and disconnecting the
central drain would only cause further flooding. The drain they were being requested to disconnect ran
through the center of the building and would cause a hardship to plumb out since they would have to go
tl�rough closets in each unit in the building.
Don Stein, Public Works, presented pictures of the property. He stated that the nearest storm sewers were
located on St. Louis Street and Farrington. At the present time, there was no plan to construct a storm sewer
on Dayton Avenue. It was his opinion that the rainleader could be disconnected with the water draining to
the ground.
Mr. Strathman stated that federal law mandated that all storm sewers be separated from the sanitary sewer.
He did not have the authority to grant an appeal since the law did not allow for special circumstances. He
granted a three year variance and suggested that the owners try to find a way in wluch to address the situation.
596 Portland Avenue
Richard Koplen, a tenant in the building, appeared and stated that he filed the appeal for condemnation of the
building and order to vacate since the owner had not done so. He had resided in the building since January,
1996 and did not want to move as the rent was affordable and the location was convenient. He agreed that
the building should have a certificate of occupancy to ensure for safety, however, he did not want to move.
James Thoinas, a tenant in the building, appeared and stated that he did not want to move out of the building.
He contacted the Tenant's Union to find out if there was any remedy they could pursue in not having to vacate
the building and was informed that they could file an appeal on their own behalf.
Jay Karlovich,attorney representing the property owner, appeared with the owner's son, Harlan Heichel. Mr.
Karlovich stated that he did not believe the owner was competent in maintaining the property. Mr. Heichel
�tC� -1 s �S
Properiy Code Enforcement Meeting �� `. �
November 19, 1996
Page- 4 -
indicated to him that he did not believe the building needed a certificate of occupancy. He advised Mr.
� Heichel that it would be more advantageous to have a certificate of occupancy for the building and to work �
with Fire Prevention inspectors. He indicated that there was a similar situation with the building at 592
Portland and Harlan Heichel was working with the inspectors to have an inspection and obtain a certificate
of occupancy. He requested that the same consideration be given for this property.
Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that the building never had a certificate of occupancy and was condemned
in 1990. The condemnation had never been removed. The most significant problem with the property was
that the property was not zoned properly. The owner had requested a variance which had been denied and
was instructed to deconvert the building to a duplex. She was concerned that the building had never been
inspected and there were likely a number of deficiencies which would need to be corrected. She was unsure
as to whether Mr. Heichel would authorize his son to make the necessary repairs that would be required to`
bring the building up to code.
Mr. Strathman stated that since the building did not have a certificate occupancy, it was not allowed to be
occupied in this manner. Since this had been an on-going problem, he denied the appeal and recommended
a vacate date of December 31, 1996.
935 Goodrich Ave. #10
The property owner did not appear.
Pat Fish,Fire Prevention, stated that the apartment unit was condemned for gross unsanitary conditions. She
believed it was a health hazard for the tenant as well as the tenants in the building.
�.fT_c�t{,r,� �e���e�,°_�7°_`��T�'�c�e call fr��+he a�el[ant��the heazin�be rescheduled
�:�i����������. �� �::-���. `
2230 Carter Avenue
Mary Ann Milton,representing Milton Investments,appeared and stated that she was appealing the revocation
of the certificate of occupancy. They were in the process of making repairs to the building, however, the
contractor which they hired was not very expedient in finishing the work. They had removed the top story
stairwell and intended to build a balcony. The footings for the stairway were in place and she requested
additional time to be able to rebuild the stairs.
Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that this had been an on-going problem and that was why the certificate of
occupancy had been revoked. There was a tenant located on the second floor and the code required that there
be a second egress from the second floor. It was the inspector's opinion that this should have been completed
by this time.
Mr. Strathman granted a 60 day extension to repair the stairway and granted an extension to April 1, 1997 to
complete the exterior painting and repairs to the roof.
vms