Loading...
02-59��lGl�,�:� Presented Refeaed To Committee Date 1 BE TT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saitnt Paul hereby certifies and approves the 7anuary 8 and 2 9, 2002, decisions of the Legislafive Heariug Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 addresses: 4 Pro�erty Ap�ealed RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA council File # p Z- Sq Green Sheet # 113665 �a Appellant 5 555 Wvoming Street East Cazl Schwagmeyer 6 Decision: Laid over to the Apri123, 2002, Property Code Enforcement meeting. 7 670 Universitv Avenue West (Laid over from 12-18-01) Russ Battisto, 666 University Avenue Partnership 8 Appeal withdrawn. 9 741 Holly Avenue Peter E. Fooshe, Jr. 10 Appeal withdrawn; filing fee to be returned. 11 1630 Marshall Avenue Daniel Erickson, Evergreen Management Company 12 Decision: Appeal granted on the nonconforming doors on the following condirions: 1) If the nonconfomvng 13 doors ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated door assemblies, 2) The 14 building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with a11 applicable codes and ordinances. 15 2097 Marshall Avenue Zachery Coelius 16 Decision: Appeal denied. oa-59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ��� � , -, ' ' i� �__ ��__ ��__ : - . . �__ ��__ :� . �__ ��__ _ 8 9 10 Adoptecl by Council: Date: oo � il 12 Adoptio Certified by Council Secretary 13 By: `� _.__ � _ � ,,,�� _ 14 Approved by 15 Date: _� 16 B ..1_�-� Requested by Department o£ s Form Approved by City Attorney By: Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � a bZ.54 DEPARTMENT/OFfICE/CWNCIL, DA7E7NRwTeu _ ' — • City Council Offices January 10, 200 GREEN SHEET No 113665 CONTAGf PQ290N & PIiONE InIUaYDt� wtwlD�e Gerry Strathman, 266-8560 , Q „ R1B1 � a ,,.� MUST BE ON COUNCIIAGHJQ4 BY (DAT� AStIGx NUYB9tPoR UIYAiTO1BEY p1YCliY1t RWRBIG � qY111L1Y.EE1tNCFtOR AI�IIC111LfFR1HISCf6 � wmrtt��srwnl ❑ TOTAL # QF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) C710N RC-0UESTm - Approving the January 8 and 9, 2002, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 555 Wyoming Street East, 670 University Avenue West, 741 Holly Avenue, 1630 Marshall Avenue, and 2097 Marshall Avenue. RECOMMENDATION APPfOVE (A) Of EJBM (R) PERSONAL SERViCE CONTRACfS MUSTANSWERTNE FOLLOWiNG QUESiIONS: 1. FlasthispersoNfifmaverworkeAunderacontiacttorthisdeparfmeM'7 PLANNINGCOMMISSION YES NO CIB CAMMITTEE 2. Fias this pe�sairfirm eva been a cily empbyee? CIVILSERVICECAMMISSION YES NO 3. Dces this personlfirtn posaess a sitill not namallypoesessetl by any wrtent city empbyce7 YES NO 4. Is thfa peisaMrtn a tarpeted verwofl YES NO E+�lain all yes ans�ers on separate she� and aUach W 9� �t INITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (Who, What, When, WhCre, Why) ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED /a � is�'�.� S'T���°gw�� f ���''�v�' u ��,� .-, �� ��a� DISADVAPRAGES IF APPROVED . DISADVANTAGESIFNOTAPPROVED TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S COS7/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE� YES NO FUNDIN6 SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER FlNANCIAL INFORMHiION (EXPWN) o-Z �� NOTES OF Tf� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING January 8 and 9, 2002 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 131 p.m. on January 8, 2002. STAFF PRESENT: Latry Ackerman, Public Works-Sewer Utility; Brian Krawiecki, LIEP (License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection); Paula Seeley, Code Enforcement 555 Wyomine Street East Tara Steenblock, 555 Wyoming Street East, appeazed representing Cazl Schwagmeyer, her fiance and owner. Ms. Steenblock stated the home was purchased in 1995. The property went up for sale a few months ago, and then they received a letter from Tom LeClair (LIEP) that the property had to be hooked up to the City sewer system. They laiew the properiy has a septic system, but they did not lrnow about this issue. The sewer available is about 350 feet away from the home on Stickney Street. The bid she received to do this work was about $35,000. Gerry Strathman asked if Stickney was above, below, or on the same level as the house. Ms. Steenblock responded it is a gradual uphill from her properiy to Sticlrney. Mr. Strathman asked her price for the property. Ms. Steenblock responded $198,000. She brought photographs with her of the home. They bought the home, demolished everything except the foundation, and built another house on the property. Mr. Strathman asked what she is seeking. Ms. Steenblock responded she is seeking fairness; $35,000 is out of her budget. Her neighbors told her the street was redone in that area a number of years ago; sidewalks and sewers were installed, but Wyoming Street was never completed. Srickney Street cuts through the middle of Wyoming Street. The west side of Wyoming Street is black topped and has sidewalks. On her side, it is a Class 5 gravel road. To the best of her lrnowledge, there should have been work done there and sewers put in at that tnne. Two of her neighbors have sepric systems. There is an individual on Annapolis Street who has three lots that he plans to develop and they would be accessible to Wyoming Street. Installing a City sewer would benefit other neighbors in the area as well as herself. (Lany Ackerman submitted to Mr. Strathman a map of the azea.) Assuming the City does not plan to put a sewer main on Wyoming, asked Mr. Strathman, what would she propose to do. Ms. 5teenblock responded she would appeal that decision. She does not have the money to hook up to the sewer. She does not understand why a sewer would not be installed on that slreet. Mr. Strathxnan asked is the $18,000 bid attached to her appeal application for installing a new septic system. Ms. Steenberg responded it is, and she would propose doing that as an alternative to hooking up to the City system. �Z--�� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JANUARY 8& 9, 2002 Page 2 Brian Krawiecki reported that he is representing Tom LeClair (LIEP), who sent the letter requiriug the properry be �connected to the City sewer. Larry Ackerman reported there aze a couple of options. The property is 200 feet from Sticl�ey and there is a 12 foot rise. He received an independent bid from the Cazella Company. They quoted him $21,000 to go to Stickney and that includes a pump in the basement. The street is Class 5, which means it is unimproved so there is no street restoration involved in that price, but there is $3,200 in fees added to the bid bringing the total bill to probably $24,000. The second option is for the owner to petition the City Council to install a sewer. The neighbors that ha�e septic tauks in compliance would probably not be interested in doing this. The property on Annapolis Street with three undeveloped lots would probably be interested. Her signature and that developer would be enough to push it through City Council. Mr. Strathman asked would the owners be assessed who have nonfailing sepfic systems. Mr. Ackerman responded he is not certain of that, but when they do hook up, they would be assessed. For 555 Wyoming to hook up to the City sewer if one is installed on Wyoming would still come to about $23,000. It takes about nine months for the engineering, the bid process, and the City Council to approve it. The City would construct the stub from the properiy line to the main foz $3,000. The estimate of $23,000 is very much a ballpazk figure. Mr. Strathman stated it would appear the last inspecfion was done in June. The inspector did not forwazd that result to the Caty until September, and the City did not take acfion until December. He asked why this matter is being dealt with now. Mr. Krawiecki responded there was some confusion as to if the property was occupied. The inspectar's notes read that it is vacant. Mr. Strathman stated there have been instances in the past where failing systems haue been allowed to continue to operate as long as they do not create an immediate health hazazd. He asked what would be the hann in allowing the system to continue until the City sewer line is auailable or the system fails. Mr. Krawiecki responded the system is marked as discharging to the ground surface in the June inspection report. The inspector who did that report said it was not discharging to the surface when he was there, but there was evidence that it had overflowed to the ground surface in the past. It may be failing and discharging to the ground surface on occasion if it is not puxnped properly, misused, contains too much water, or some other thing that caused it to fail. It is only engineered to last a certain amount of time. Mr. Strathman asked the vintage of this system. Ms. Steenblock responded she did not have any disclosure in her paperwork on the system. The previous house was built in the eazly 1900's. Mr. Strathtnan stated these matters are always difficult from a nuxnber of perspectives: 1) there is a public health issue. Septic systems aze suboptimal even when working properly. When they aze not working as designed, it gets into public health issues and contamination of ground water, 2) It is a lot of money for the homeowner to spend, 3) He is reluctant to say it is okay far the owner to install a new septic system. It may not be long before a developer wants to install a sewer in that street. If an owner just invested $18,000 into a septic system, that owner is not c�z �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JANUARY 8& 9, 2002 Page 3 going to be interested in hooking up to the City sewer. It is in everyone's interest to hook up if it is there. Ms. Steenblock stated she called everyone on the list that she received from the City and was only able to get two bids. Carella either told her they were booked or were unwilling to do the work. Mr. Ackerson responded this bid was based on doing it in the spring when the price is lower. She has to contact contractors as if she is going to do the work. Otherwise, they will not come. The house is on the market, stated Mr. Strathman, and he is concemed about a new owner discovering this large expense. Ms. Steenblock responded she has disclosed this information to the party interested in purchasing her home. Her realtor is also awaze of this situation. She thought she had to go to this hearing first and then petition the neighbors. Mr. Ackerman responded the petition is simple. She has to make the neighbors aware and let them know they will eventually have to connect to the City sewer anyway. Preferably, 50% would sign it, and the City Council will review it. They decide if the City will go ahead with it. Ms. Steenblock stated her neighbor went through this process eight yeazs ago, and was able to install a new septic system. He wants no part of hooking up to a main sewer system. Mr. Strathman asked did she have any conversations with the owner of the undeveloped property. Ms. Steenblock responded they want to split their lots in the future for building homes and would go ahead with that if a sewer was installed on Wyoming Street. Mr. Strathman asked does Public Works have any plans to install a City sewer there. Mr. Ackerman responded no. Mr. Strathman stated he does not like any of the solutions auailable. He does not like $18,000 for a new septic system, nor going through the petition process and spending $23,000 to hook up to the City sewer. Mr. Ackerman added that the stub and the assessment for the main can be assessed on their tases over a 10 year period. If their septic systems aze in compliance, they do not ha�e to hook up to the sewer unfil they need to. Mr. Strathman stated in the Highwood azea, the City installed a sewer and people were not chazged until they were connected to it. Mr. Ackerxnan responded that was a special circumstance. The norxn is that people pay when the sewer system is installed. Mr. Strathman stated he would anticipate that the neighbors will be unwilling to hook up to a sewer they don't need, Ms. Steenblock may be hard pressed to get the necessary signatures, and the City Council will be hard pressed to approve it. Mr. Ackerman responded there are two properties that his office has been idenfified recently that have septic systems: 750 Concord and 764 Concord. These two properties would benefit from the sewer. These two homeowners have not been contacted by LIEP to notify them of the condition of their septic systems. They have not been inspected yet. o s� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JANUARY 8& 9, 2002 Page 4 Mr. Strathman asked is her pending sale contingent on the resolution of this sewer situation. Ms. Steenblock responded they have not talked about it. The realtor said the buyer would enter into a proposal for the home as long as there is somethiug in writing from the City and from the owner that it would be taken caze of. Mr. Strathman responded therein lies the problem. He is considering allowing more time for the City to inspect those two septic systems and allow someone time to put together a petition to see if the City will install a sewer line down Wyoming. The buyer may not want to wait. It would be spring before the City would begin construction. It could be a year before this matter is resolved. Ms. Steenblock responded they aze building a new home and currenfly living at 555 Wyoming. The new home will be completed in the spring. She does not know if the buyer will wait that long. Mr. Strathman responded the best option is to see if a sewer line can be installed in VJyoming, which would reduce the cost and perhaps solve some problems for other people in the neighborhood as well. The logical thing is for the City to determiue what is going on with these other two systems, send them a notification, and then Ms. Steenblock could get a petition for a sewer line. He asked how long it would be for them to assess the situation with the other two properties. Mr. Krawiecki responded the letter that was sent said to connect to the sewer by June 2002. It is a problem getting inspections done when the ground is frozen. When snow is on the ground, it is hard to tell where the septic system is located and what is wrong with it. The City does not have records of the system. Ms. Steenblock stated a two to three month lay over would be better. Mr. Strathman laid over this matter to the Apri123, 2002, Properiy Code Enforcement Meeting to see if a workable solution can be found. The best plan would be to get the City to install a sewer line on Wyoming. They aze not opposed to doing, but to get it done she will need the support of her neighbors. Mr. Ackerman added that the owner can have any nuxnber of signatures on the pefition. The more there are, the more likely the City Council will accept it. Also, the inspectors should keep Ms. Steenblock informed. 670 Universitv Avenue West (Laid over from 12-18-01) (Appeal is withdrawn. Michael Urmann, Fire Prevention, stated the appellant is fine with Fire Prevention's suggested solutions to the problem. The ceiling n�eeds only a minor repair.) 741 Hollv Avenue (Appeal is withdrawn. Michael Urmann, Fire Prevenfion, staxed the inspector made a mistake in the interpretaxion of the code. The building owner has been notified. The filing fee will be returned.) 1630 Marshail Avenue Note: Daniel Erickson, Evergreen Management Company, received a letter from Gerry Strathman with this decision: Appeal granted on the nonconforming doors on the following c�Z SG PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOT'ES OF JANUARY 8& 9, 2002 Page 5 conditions: 1) If the nonconforming doors ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated door assemblies, 2) The building will othercvise be maintained in compliance with all applicable codes and ordinauces. The meeting was adjourned at 2:13 p.m. fi��1 The meeting was called to order at 1:33 pm. on Wednesday, January 9, 2002. 2097 Marshall Avenue (Note: two issues are being appealed: a summary abatement order and a correction notice) Nathan Franzen, 1888 Feronia Avenue, representing Zachery Coelius, appeazed. Mr. Franzen stated that Mr. Coelius had a death in his family and was not able to appear today. Gerry Strathman stated he became aware that the clerk in the Cifizen Service Office accepted this appeal with the imderstanding that it met the city's requirement for financial hardship. That was a mistake and the fee should have been collected; however, the application was accepted, the matter was scheduled, everyone is here, and he will not try to collect that fee. Mr. Franzen stated the storm windows are being repaired at the moment and that is why they are off. He asked is it under the code to haue storm windows. Paula Seeley responded that Chapter 34 and state energy codes read that storm windows haue to be on the porch and the house. This porch was built as an enclosed porch. Some of the older homes had open porches with the decking slanted so the elements would run off. Mr. Franzen stated the beer case has been removed. The flower gazden takes up most of the yard up to the street. Ms. Seeley responded they aze perennial flowers that need to be cut back so that it is not rank plant growth. The boulevazd limit is 24 inches tall. Some perennials grow tailer than that and are okay as long as it is not a screening or safety issue. Mr. Franzen stated the neighbors resurveyed their properiy, found the line was off, and removed a planter. Mr. Coelius is going to be reinstall it in the spring. He would rather not remove it because it is made out of railroad ties. Ms. Seeley responded if he is going to use them in the spring, he should stack them neatly so the nails are not exposed. Mr. Franzen stated Mr. Coelius is still using the scaffolding. Ae does not want to take them down. Ae has to replace a lot of rotten boazds up there. Mr. Strathxnan asked when the scaffolding went up. Ms. Seeley responded 1998. OZ 5�i PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JANUARY 8& 9, 2002 Page 6 Mr. Strathman asked does Mr. Coelius have any building permits. Mr. Franzen responded he does not think so and asked are permits needed for scaffolding. Mr. Strathman responded not necessarily, but it is required for most work that involves scaff'olding. Mr. Franzen stated the refrigerator in the truck bed is used as a weight for lus truck. Ms. Seeley responded the refrigerator is not secured in the truck. The doors aze still on the refrigerator. (Ms. Seeley showed photographs to Mr. Strathman.) Mr. Franzen stated Mr. Coelius did not know what she was talking about witth respect to trash. Ms. Seeley responded she thought she was specific on the simunary abatement order to "Remove case of beer from the front porch roof and rocks." Mr. Franzen responded the rocks are to hold the ladder off from the roof. That is not a problem; Mr. Coelius can get rid of those. Ms. Seeley stated she also wrote on the suuunary abatement order to "Also remove wood timbers on the side of the house, tires, plus box of trash neaz the boat." (Mr. Franzen was shown the photographs also.) Ms. Seeley stated there is concrete rubble that needs to be removed. Mr. Strathmau asked what is under the tarQ. Ms. Seeley responded a vehicle, but she does not think he is appealing that. Mr. Strathxnan stated the applicafion for appeal does not mention a vehicle to be removed. Mr. Strathman stated he will sutnmarize: the beer case has been removed, the rocks need to be removed from the porch, railroad ties can stay as long as the nails are removed and they are stacked orderly, the tires t�ave to go, the refrigerator has to go. The issue there may be disagreement about is the scaffolding. Mr. Strathman cannot fmd any justificafion for scaffolding to be in place for three yeazs, particularly in view of the fact that Mr. Coelius has no pernuts to do work on the building that would justify scaffolding. Mr. Franzen stated there has been a conflict between him and the neighbars for a long fime. The fact that the City is making Mr. Coelius do these repairs seems contradictory. Mr. Strathman responded there may or may not be a dispute between him and the neighbors. It is possible a disagreement with the neighbors triggered a complaint. Ms. Seeley went out there on her own or in response to a complaint. Mr. Franzen stated he needs the scaffolding and ladders for the third floor storm windows. If he takes the scaffolding down, he'll have to put them back up to do it. Ms. Seeley responded he has scaffolding on the front porch roof, a ladder on the back porch roof, and a ladder and huge scaffolding on the east side. If the window is on order and it takes a few weeks, they can work with that. The city attorney is invoived with orders on painting and fi�ng the soffits. Mr. aZ �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JANUARY 8& 9, 2002 Page 7 Coelius was suppose to be in compliance three months ago. There is a warrant out for him. Also, Mr. Coelius has never called her about the orders. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal. The arders from the inspector to have the scaffolding removed aze reasonable and appropriate. There are no pernuts for any work that would ji�stify scaffolding. Permits are only good for a year so any permits would have expired anyway. This wili be on the City Council agenda for January 16 or 23. If the City Council approves his decision, Ms. Seeley will be in a position to take enforcement acrion. He does not heaz from her that she plans to be unreasonable about that. The other items ha�e to be taken care of soon. The meeting was adjourned at appro�cimately 2:09 p.m. � ��lGl�,�:� Presented Refeaed To Committee Date 1 BE TT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saitnt Paul hereby certifies and approves the 7anuary 8 and 2 9, 2002, decisions of the Legislafive Heariug Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 addresses: 4 Pro�erty Ap�ealed RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA council File # p Z- Sq Green Sheet # 113665 �a Appellant 5 555 Wvoming Street East Cazl Schwagmeyer 6 Decision: Laid over to the Apri123, 2002, Property Code Enforcement meeting. 7 670 Universitv Avenue West (Laid over from 12-18-01) Russ Battisto, 666 University Avenue Partnership 8 Appeal withdrawn. 9 741 Holly Avenue Peter E. Fooshe, Jr. 10 Appeal withdrawn; filing fee to be returned. 11 1630 Marshall Avenue Daniel Erickson, Evergreen Management Company 12 Decision: Appeal granted on the nonconforming doors on the following condirions: 1) If the nonconfomvng 13 doors ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated door assemblies, 2) The 14 building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with a11 applicable codes and ordinances. 15 2097 Marshall Avenue Zachery Coelius 16 Decision: Appeal denied. oa-59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ��� � , -, ' ' i� �__ ��__ ��__ : - . . �__ ��__ :� . �__ ��__ _ 8 9 10 Adoptecl by Council: Date: oo � il 12 Adoptio Certified by Council Secretary 13 By: `� _.__ � _ � ,,,�� _ 14 Approved by 15 Date: _� 16 B ..1_�-� Requested by Department o£ s Form Approved by City Attorney By: Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � a bZ.54 DEPARTMENT/OFfICE/CWNCIL, DA7E7NRwTeu _ ' — • City Council Offices January 10, 200 GREEN SHEET No 113665 CONTAGf PQ290N & PIiONE InIUaYDt� wtwlD�e Gerry Strathman, 266-8560 , Q „ R1B1 � a ,,.� MUST BE ON COUNCIIAGHJQ4 BY (DAT� AStIGx NUYB9tPoR UIYAiTO1BEY p1YCliY1t RWRBIG � qY111L1Y.EE1tNCFtOR AI�IIC111LfFR1HISCf6 � wmrtt��srwnl ❑ TOTAL # QF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) C710N RC-0UESTm - Approving the January 8 and 9, 2002, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 555 Wyoming Street East, 670 University Avenue West, 741 Holly Avenue, 1630 Marshall Avenue, and 2097 Marshall Avenue. RECOMMENDATION APPfOVE (A) Of EJBM (R) PERSONAL SERViCE CONTRACfS MUSTANSWERTNE FOLLOWiNG QUESiIONS: 1. FlasthispersoNfifmaverworkeAunderacontiacttorthisdeparfmeM'7 PLANNINGCOMMISSION YES NO CIB CAMMITTEE 2. Fias this pe�sairfirm eva been a cily empbyee? CIVILSERVICECAMMISSION YES NO 3. Dces this personlfirtn posaess a sitill not namallypoesessetl by any wrtent city empbyce7 YES NO 4. Is thfa peisaMrtn a tarpeted verwofl YES NO E+�lain all yes ans�ers on separate she� and aUach W 9� �t INITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (Who, What, When, WhCre, Why) ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED /a � is�'�.� S'T���°gw�� f ���''�v�' u ��,� .-, �� ��a� DISADVAPRAGES IF APPROVED . DISADVANTAGESIFNOTAPPROVED TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S COS7/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE� YES NO FUNDIN6 SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER FlNANCIAL INFORMHiION (EXPWN) o-Z �� NOTES OF Tf� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING January 8 and 9, 2002 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 131 p.m. on January 8, 2002. STAFF PRESENT: Latry Ackerman, Public Works-Sewer Utility; Brian Krawiecki, LIEP (License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection); Paula Seeley, Code Enforcement 555 Wyomine Street East Tara Steenblock, 555 Wyoming Street East, appeazed representing Cazl Schwagmeyer, her fiance and owner. Ms. Steenblock stated the home was purchased in 1995. The property went up for sale a few months ago, and then they received a letter from Tom LeClair (LIEP) that the property had to be hooked up to the City sewer system. They laiew the properiy has a septic system, but they did not lrnow about this issue. The sewer available is about 350 feet away from the home on Stickney Street. The bid she received to do this work was about $35,000. Gerry Strathman asked if Stickney was above, below, or on the same level as the house. Ms. Steenblock responded it is a gradual uphill from her properiy to Sticlrney. Mr. Strathman asked her price for the property. Ms. Steenblock responded $198,000. She brought photographs with her of the home. They bought the home, demolished everything except the foundation, and built another house on the property. Mr. Strathman asked what she is seeking. Ms. Steenblock responded she is seeking fairness; $35,000 is out of her budget. Her neighbors told her the street was redone in that area a number of years ago; sidewalks and sewers were installed, but Wyoming Street was never completed. Srickney Street cuts through the middle of Wyoming Street. The west side of Wyoming Street is black topped and has sidewalks. On her side, it is a Class 5 gravel road. To the best of her lrnowledge, there should have been work done there and sewers put in at that tnne. Two of her neighbors have sepric systems. There is an individual on Annapolis Street who has three lots that he plans to develop and they would be accessible to Wyoming Street. Installing a City sewer would benefit other neighbors in the area as well as herself. (Lany Ackerman submitted to Mr. Strathman a map of the azea.) Assuming the City does not plan to put a sewer main on Wyoming, asked Mr. Strathman, what would she propose to do. Ms. 5teenblock responded she would appeal that decision. She does not have the money to hook up to the sewer. She does not understand why a sewer would not be installed on that slreet. Mr. Strathxnan asked is the $18,000 bid attached to her appeal application for installing a new septic system. Ms. Steenberg responded it is, and she would propose doing that as an alternative to hooking up to the City system. �Z--�� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JANUARY 8& 9, 2002 Page 2 Brian Krawiecki reported that he is representing Tom LeClair (LIEP), who sent the letter requiriug the properry be �connected to the City sewer. Larry Ackerman reported there aze a couple of options. The property is 200 feet from Sticl�ey and there is a 12 foot rise. He received an independent bid from the Cazella Company. They quoted him $21,000 to go to Stickney and that includes a pump in the basement. The street is Class 5, which means it is unimproved so there is no street restoration involved in that price, but there is $3,200 in fees added to the bid bringing the total bill to probably $24,000. The second option is for the owner to petition the City Council to install a sewer. The neighbors that ha�e septic tauks in compliance would probably not be interested in doing this. The property on Annapolis Street with three undeveloped lots would probably be interested. Her signature and that developer would be enough to push it through City Council. Mr. Strathman asked would the owners be assessed who have nonfailing sepfic systems. Mr. Ackerman responded he is not certain of that, but when they do hook up, they would be assessed. For 555 Wyoming to hook up to the City sewer if one is installed on Wyoming would still come to about $23,000. It takes about nine months for the engineering, the bid process, and the City Council to approve it. The City would construct the stub from the properiy line to the main foz $3,000. The estimate of $23,000 is very much a ballpazk figure. Mr. Strathman stated it would appear the last inspecfion was done in June. The inspector did not forwazd that result to the Caty until September, and the City did not take acfion until December. He asked why this matter is being dealt with now. Mr. Krawiecki responded there was some confusion as to if the property was occupied. The inspectar's notes read that it is vacant. Mr. Strathman stated there have been instances in the past where failing systems haue been allowed to continue to operate as long as they do not create an immediate health hazazd. He asked what would be the hann in allowing the system to continue until the City sewer line is auailable or the system fails. Mr. Krawiecki responded the system is marked as discharging to the ground surface in the June inspection report. The inspector who did that report said it was not discharging to the surface when he was there, but there was evidence that it had overflowed to the ground surface in the past. It may be failing and discharging to the ground surface on occasion if it is not puxnped properly, misused, contains too much water, or some other thing that caused it to fail. It is only engineered to last a certain amount of time. Mr. Strathman asked the vintage of this system. Ms. Steenblock responded she did not have any disclosure in her paperwork on the system. The previous house was built in the eazly 1900's. Mr. Strathtnan stated these matters are always difficult from a nuxnber of perspectives: 1) there is a public health issue. Septic systems aze suboptimal even when working properly. When they aze not working as designed, it gets into public health issues and contamination of ground water, 2) It is a lot of money for the homeowner to spend, 3) He is reluctant to say it is okay far the owner to install a new septic system. It may not be long before a developer wants to install a sewer in that street. If an owner just invested $18,000 into a septic system, that owner is not c�z �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JANUARY 8& 9, 2002 Page 3 going to be interested in hooking up to the City sewer. It is in everyone's interest to hook up if it is there. Ms. Steenblock stated she called everyone on the list that she received from the City and was only able to get two bids. Carella either told her they were booked or were unwilling to do the work. Mr. Ackerson responded this bid was based on doing it in the spring when the price is lower. She has to contact contractors as if she is going to do the work. Otherwise, they will not come. The house is on the market, stated Mr. Strathman, and he is concemed about a new owner discovering this large expense. Ms. Steenblock responded she has disclosed this information to the party interested in purchasing her home. Her realtor is also awaze of this situation. She thought she had to go to this hearing first and then petition the neighbors. Mr. Ackerman responded the petition is simple. She has to make the neighbors aware and let them know they will eventually have to connect to the City sewer anyway. Preferably, 50% would sign it, and the City Council will review it. They decide if the City will go ahead with it. Ms. Steenblock stated her neighbor went through this process eight yeazs ago, and was able to install a new septic system. He wants no part of hooking up to a main sewer system. Mr. Strathman asked did she have any conversations with the owner of the undeveloped property. Ms. Steenblock responded they want to split their lots in the future for building homes and would go ahead with that if a sewer was installed on Wyoming Street. Mr. Strathman asked does Public Works have any plans to install a City sewer there. Mr. Ackerman responded no. Mr. Strathman stated he does not like any of the solutions auailable. He does not like $18,000 for a new septic system, nor going through the petition process and spending $23,000 to hook up to the City sewer. Mr. Ackerman added that the stub and the assessment for the main can be assessed on their tases over a 10 year period. If their septic systems aze in compliance, they do not ha�e to hook up to the sewer unfil they need to. Mr. Strathman stated in the Highwood azea, the City installed a sewer and people were not chazged until they were connected to it. Mr. Ackerxnan responded that was a special circumstance. The norxn is that people pay when the sewer system is installed. Mr. Strathman stated he would anticipate that the neighbors will be unwilling to hook up to a sewer they don't need, Ms. Steenblock may be hard pressed to get the necessary signatures, and the City Council will be hard pressed to approve it. Mr. Ackerman responded there are two properties that his office has been idenfified recently that have septic systems: 750 Concord and 764 Concord. These two properties would benefit from the sewer. These two homeowners have not been contacted by LIEP to notify them of the condition of their septic systems. They have not been inspected yet. o s� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JANUARY 8& 9, 2002 Page 4 Mr. Strathman asked is her pending sale contingent on the resolution of this sewer situation. Ms. Steenblock responded they have not talked about it. The realtor said the buyer would enter into a proposal for the home as long as there is somethiug in writing from the City and from the owner that it would be taken caze of. Mr. Strathman responded therein lies the problem. He is considering allowing more time for the City to inspect those two septic systems and allow someone time to put together a petition to see if the City will install a sewer line down Wyoming. The buyer may not want to wait. It would be spring before the City would begin construction. It could be a year before this matter is resolved. Ms. Steenblock responded they aze building a new home and currenfly living at 555 Wyoming. The new home will be completed in the spring. She does not know if the buyer will wait that long. Mr. Strathman responded the best option is to see if a sewer line can be installed in VJyoming, which would reduce the cost and perhaps solve some problems for other people in the neighborhood as well. The logical thing is for the City to determiue what is going on with these other two systems, send them a notification, and then Ms. Steenblock could get a petition for a sewer line. He asked how long it would be for them to assess the situation with the other two properties. Mr. Krawiecki responded the letter that was sent said to connect to the sewer by June 2002. It is a problem getting inspections done when the ground is frozen. When snow is on the ground, it is hard to tell where the septic system is located and what is wrong with it. The City does not have records of the system. Ms. Steenblock stated a two to three month lay over would be better. Mr. Strathman laid over this matter to the Apri123, 2002, Properiy Code Enforcement Meeting to see if a workable solution can be found. The best plan would be to get the City to install a sewer line on Wyoming. They aze not opposed to doing, but to get it done she will need the support of her neighbors. Mr. Ackerman added that the owner can have any nuxnber of signatures on the pefition. The more there are, the more likely the City Council will accept it. Also, the inspectors should keep Ms. Steenblock informed. 670 Universitv Avenue West (Laid over from 12-18-01) (Appeal is withdrawn. Michael Urmann, Fire Prevention, stated the appellant is fine with Fire Prevention's suggested solutions to the problem. The ceiling n�eeds only a minor repair.) 741 Hollv Avenue (Appeal is withdrawn. Michael Urmann, Fire Prevenfion, staxed the inspector made a mistake in the interpretaxion of the code. The building owner has been notified. The filing fee will be returned.) 1630 Marshail Avenue Note: Daniel Erickson, Evergreen Management Company, received a letter from Gerry Strathman with this decision: Appeal granted on the nonconforming doors on the following c�Z SG PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOT'ES OF JANUARY 8& 9, 2002 Page 5 conditions: 1) If the nonconforming doors ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated door assemblies, 2) The building will othercvise be maintained in compliance with all applicable codes and ordinauces. The meeting was adjourned at 2:13 p.m. fi��1 The meeting was called to order at 1:33 pm. on Wednesday, January 9, 2002. 2097 Marshall Avenue (Note: two issues are being appealed: a summary abatement order and a correction notice) Nathan Franzen, 1888 Feronia Avenue, representing Zachery Coelius, appeazed. Mr. Franzen stated that Mr. Coelius had a death in his family and was not able to appear today. Gerry Strathman stated he became aware that the clerk in the Cifizen Service Office accepted this appeal with the imderstanding that it met the city's requirement for financial hardship. That was a mistake and the fee should have been collected; however, the application was accepted, the matter was scheduled, everyone is here, and he will not try to collect that fee. Mr. Franzen stated the storm windows are being repaired at the moment and that is why they are off. He asked is it under the code to haue storm windows. Paula Seeley responded that Chapter 34 and state energy codes read that storm windows haue to be on the porch and the house. This porch was built as an enclosed porch. Some of the older homes had open porches with the decking slanted so the elements would run off. Mr. Franzen stated the beer case has been removed. The flower gazden takes up most of the yard up to the street. Ms. Seeley responded they aze perennial flowers that need to be cut back so that it is not rank plant growth. The boulevazd limit is 24 inches tall. Some perennials grow tailer than that and are okay as long as it is not a screening or safety issue. Mr. Franzen stated the neighbors resurveyed their properiy, found the line was off, and removed a planter. Mr. Coelius is going to be reinstall it in the spring. He would rather not remove it because it is made out of railroad ties. Ms. Seeley responded if he is going to use them in the spring, he should stack them neatly so the nails are not exposed. Mr. Franzen stated Mr. Coelius is still using the scaffolding. Ae does not want to take them down. Ae has to replace a lot of rotten boazds up there. Mr. Strathxnan asked when the scaffolding went up. Ms. Seeley responded 1998. OZ 5�i PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JANUARY 8& 9, 2002 Page 6 Mr. Strathman asked does Mr. Coelius have any building permits. Mr. Franzen responded he does not think so and asked are permits needed for scaffolding. Mr. Strathman responded not necessarily, but it is required for most work that involves scaff'olding. Mr. Franzen stated the refrigerator in the truck bed is used as a weight for lus truck. Ms. Seeley responded the refrigerator is not secured in the truck. The doors aze still on the refrigerator. (Ms. Seeley showed photographs to Mr. Strathman.) Mr. Franzen stated Mr. Coelius did not know what she was talking about witth respect to trash. Ms. Seeley responded she thought she was specific on the simunary abatement order to "Remove case of beer from the front porch roof and rocks." Mr. Franzen responded the rocks are to hold the ladder off from the roof. That is not a problem; Mr. Coelius can get rid of those. Ms. Seeley stated she also wrote on the suuunary abatement order to "Also remove wood timbers on the side of the house, tires, plus box of trash neaz the boat." (Mr. Franzen was shown the photographs also.) Ms. Seeley stated there is concrete rubble that needs to be removed. Mr. Strathmau asked what is under the tarQ. Ms. Seeley responded a vehicle, but she does not think he is appealing that. Mr. Strathxnan stated the applicafion for appeal does not mention a vehicle to be removed. Mr. Strathman stated he will sutnmarize: the beer case has been removed, the rocks need to be removed from the porch, railroad ties can stay as long as the nails are removed and they are stacked orderly, the tires t�ave to go, the refrigerator has to go. The issue there may be disagreement about is the scaffolding. Mr. Strathman cannot fmd any justificafion for scaffolding to be in place for three yeazs, particularly in view of the fact that Mr. Coelius has no pernuts to do work on the building that would justify scaffolding. Mr. Franzen stated there has been a conflict between him and the neighbars for a long fime. The fact that the City is making Mr. Coelius do these repairs seems contradictory. Mr. Strathman responded there may or may not be a dispute between him and the neighbors. It is possible a disagreement with the neighbors triggered a complaint. Ms. Seeley went out there on her own or in response to a complaint. Mr. Franzen stated he needs the scaffolding and ladders for the third floor storm windows. If he takes the scaffolding down, he'll have to put them back up to do it. Ms. Seeley responded he has scaffolding on the front porch roof, a ladder on the back porch roof, and a ladder and huge scaffolding on the east side. If the window is on order and it takes a few weeks, they can work with that. The city attorney is invoived with orders on painting and fi�ng the soffits. Mr. aZ �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JANUARY 8& 9, 2002 Page 7 Coelius was suppose to be in compliance three months ago. There is a warrant out for him. Also, Mr. Coelius has never called her about the orders. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal. The arders from the inspector to have the scaffolding removed aze reasonable and appropriate. There are no pernuts for any work that would ji�stify scaffolding. Permits are only good for a year so any permits would have expired anyway. This wili be on the City Council agenda for January 16 or 23. If the City Council approves his decision, Ms. Seeley will be in a position to take enforcement acrion. He does not heaz from her that she plans to be unreasonable about that. The other items ha�e to be taken care of soon. The meeting was adjourned at appro�cimately 2:09 p.m. �