Loading...
04-726Council File # ��� �+ Green Sheet #���p Presented Referred To �� Committee Date BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the June 22, 2004, decisions of the Legislative Heazing O�cer on Appeals for Letters of Deficiency, Conection Notices, and Correction Orders for the following addresses: Propertv Ap eo aled RESOLUTION OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Appellant 457 Charles Avenue Carol M. Rueb for Mildred Nieszner Decision: Extension granted to September 30, 2004 to scrape and repaint exterior trim of the house and the garage; to scrape and repaint gazage vehicle door; and to replace house window sills as listed on the Correction Notice dated May 19, 2004. 405 Jessamine Avenue East Ken Johnson and Steven Johnson for Market Group and Properties Decision: Appeal denied on Correction Notice dated June 4, 2004. 574 Edmund Avenue Marty Thao, Owner Decision: Extension granted to September 30, 2004 to repair the garage; to scrape and repaint exterior of house and garage; and to remove the gutters from the house as listed on the Correction Notice dated June 3, 2004. S65 Winslow Avenue Russell A. Wahl for Holy TrinityfSan Martin Lutheran Church Decision: Appeal denied except for 7. a That any portion of soffit (overhang) be removed from the church property, should the church make this request in writing to the property owner. Benanav Bostrom Harris Helgen Lantry Montgomery T7tune Yeas � ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Absa°t ,I Requested Uy Department of: � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: Adoptad by Council: Date Adoc By. . Appr By: � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � ��lZ� I DeparfinenUoffice/council: Date Initiated: - � co -�a�,�� 2�,��-� � Green Sheet NO: 3020696 � Deoartment Sent To Person InitiaVDate � Contact Person & Phone: � , Marda Mcemwnd I � 0 uncil I i � 266-8570 � qssiQn 1 ouncil e artmen Director I Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 2 � C1erk I 2S-JUL-04 For Routing 3 Order 4 � 5 ToWI # of Signature Pages ! (Clip All Locations for Signature) Aotion Requestetl: AppTOVing the June 22, 2004 decisions of the I.egisla6ve Hearing Officer on Appeals foz Letteis of Deficiency, Correction Nofices, and I Correcrion Orders for: 457 Charles Avenue, 405 Jessamine Avenue E., 574 7essaznine Avenue E., 574 Edmnnd Avenue, and 565 Winslow Avenue. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the followin9 <luestions: Planning Commission 1. Has thfs Rersonlfirm ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this personlfirm 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 answers on separate sheet and artach to green sheet InitiaGng Prohlem, issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): - � Advamtapes ff Appraved: f Disadvantaqes If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of CosURevenue Budgeted: Trensaction: Fundinst Source: AcYrviN Number: Financial Information: (Explain) ��� NOTES OF TI� LEGISLATNB HEARING LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTTON NOTICES & CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, June 22, 2004 -1:15 p.m. Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Boulevard West Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Heating Officer The hearing was called order at 1:17 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Paula Seeley, Code Enforcement O�cer; Kelly Booker, Code Enforcement Officer; Joe Ehrlich, Senior Building Inspector, LIEP; and Jean Birkholz, City Council Offices. OTHERS PRESENT: Carol and John Rueb, 60 East Sandralee Drive; Steve Johnson, 576 Bay Street and Ken Johnson; Mariy Thao, 574 Edmund Avenue; Russell Wahl, 242 East Emerson Avenue, West Saint Paul and Jim Nelson. Marcia Moermond introduced herself and explained that these informal afternoon hearings tend to be appeals of Orders that the City has written for something to be repaired. The goal of these hearings is to develop a recommendation for the City Council. By resolution, the City Council will adopt the findings; there will be no public heazing at City Council. 457 Charles Avenue Carol and John Rueb appeared. A staff report was provided by Code Enforcement Officer, Paula Seeley. She explained that the day she issued tlus order, they did a-sweep in Frogtown. At the above address, she noticed excessive peeling paint on the trim of the house and the gazage. Some of the window sills were rotted, also. Mr. Rueb called in requesting an extension of time. Ms. Seeley suggested that he get a written bid from a painter and send it in. That gave him until the end of July. Mr. Rueb provided more background. Miidred Nieszner, who owns this house and is Carol Rueb's mother, is 93 years old. She is legaliy blind, in overall poor health and has limited mobility. He noted that he and Carol are not appealing the findings. The house is 110 years oid and needs paint. It also needs a lot of repairs inside. He explained that they are requesting a waiver because of Ms. Nieszner's situaYion. She lives on approximately $12,000 per year. The family has tried to encourage her to go into some type of elder housing; however she has not embraced that suggestion. She knows her way azound the house, and it is relatively low cost for her to stay there. She has been in the hospital three (3) times this year. At the current time, she is living with Carol and John Rueb because of her frailty, and is scheduled for ga11 biadder surgery this coming Friday. Ms. Nieszner has agreed to go into an assisted living facility when she is able. After she has done that, the house will be sold. Ms. Seeley had suggested that they prepare the house for sale befare Ms. Nieszner enters an assisted living facility. Carol and 3ohn do not want to do that because they think that the house is in bad condition far selling. They prefer to wait and seil the house "as is." Mr. Rueb added that only one (1) painting bid has been ���� LEGISLATNE HEARING - TUESDAY, JLJNE 22, 1:15 PM Page 2 received for $3,700, but doesn't include the wood, which is a 1ot of money for her. They would prefer that the new owner take caze of this Order. Mr. Rueb stated that they aze hoping that the City could help them out by waiving this Order for Ms. Nieszner so that they could help her get adjusted and get the house sold. Ms. Moermond stated that she is not inclined to grant a waiver. 5he is willing to talk about time lines. Ms. Moermond asked the Ruebs what repairs are needed on the inside of the house. Mr. Rueb replied that it definitely needs replastering and repainting. The walls of the foundation are crumbling. The fixrnace and the windows need to be repiaced. He feels that a reasonable condition of sale would be to conect these items within a certain period of time. He thinks that doing the repairs now would not increase the value of the house. Ms. Moermond noted that the house will probably be vacant for a while, and they could possibly be candidates far the Vacani Building Program, contact Steve Magner, 651/266-1428. This program would a warantee a very cheap comprehensive inspection of the building called a Code Compliance Tnspection. It's a $120 inspection and is more thorough than any Truth and Housing Inspection. All four (4) trades go through the building and provide you with a list of things that need to be taken caze of. Ms. Moermond added that she didn't think they could go wrong by painting it now. It can only heip the investment prospects. She noted that the neighborhood is hurt by one building that is not properly maintained. And, right now, iYs a code violation. There's a 1ot of peeling paint and a lot of rotting trim wood. Mr. Rueb said that he didn't understand why it is so time critical now. The house has been there a very long time, and now, all of a sudden, it becomes very time criticaL Ms. Moermond pointed out that they already had been given a couple of months. Ms. Moermond stated that this Correction Notice gaue them a deadline of July 15, 2004; she is willing to grant them extra time until September 30, 2004, which mare than doubles the original time given. She explained that an alternative would be to get the building into the Vacant Building Program which would get the comprehensive inspecfion done and also provide for some monitoring of the building. Mr. Rueb asked why it isn't reasonable to put these items in the same category of an accurate description of the condition of the house to be corrected after sale? Ms. Moermond zeplied that would be absolutely O.K if they were to seil the house tomorrow. The problem is that it would be a private transaction between you and whoever is buying the properiy. Today, it is a Code violation that needs to be corrected. If this goes to the Vacant Building Program, they could talk again about a possible better way to handle this. Ms. Moermond added that by September 30, 2004, Carol and John Rueb should haue a better idea about things. Ms. Moermond recommended granfing an extension to September 30, 2004. 405 Jessamine Avenue East Ken and Steven Johnson, Market Group and Properties, appeared. Ms. Moermond asked Kelly Booker, Code Enforcement Officer, to provide a brief staff report. c�• LEGISLATIVE HEARING - T'I TESDAY, JLTNE 22, 1:15 PM Page 3 Ms. Booker stated that at the property, she observed a lot of heavy erosion onto the sidewalk coming down from the pazking pad, causing a hazazd for pedestrians, bicycles, etc. She sent a Correction Notice on June 7, 2004 to have it cleaned up by June 14, 2004. The property has been cleaned up. She added that the erosion will be a continuing problem unless it is monitored very closely. One of the Johnson brothers asked Ms. Moermond what the weather conditions were like on the day of inspection. Then he asked her if it was raining on the day of inspection. Ms. Moernond replied that it didn't matter if it was raining. The Johnson brothers insisted that it did matter and kept repeating the quesfion, "Was it raining?" They interrupted Ms. Moermond with this question each time she tried to speak. Ms. Moermond recommended that the appeal be denied. Ms. Moermond declazed a recess and called for Ramsey County offacers to escort the Johnson brothers out of the hearing room. 565 Winslow Avenue Russell A. Wahl appeared. Mr. Joseph Ehrlich, Senior Building Inspector, provided a staff report. Mr. Ehrlich suggested following his letter of April 26, 2004. On May 2, 2003, Dave Kenyon, the area builidng inspectar, approved the forming for a new gazage slab st 565 Winslow Avenue. Mr. Kenyon approved the location of the garage for two reasons. First, the site plan submitted indicated that the garage was over three (3) feet from the properry line. Second, the garage was being placed exactly where the previous garage had been. At that time, Mr. Kenyon had no concerns about the location of the garage. Later, it came to Mr. Kenyon's attention that the site plan provided in May was in enor. At that time, Mr. Kenyon wrote a letter to the owner of 565 Winslow Avenue requiring a new survey to locate the property line. Mr. Ehrlich said that he took over this issue in 7anuary 2004 when Aave Kenyon was on vacation. At that time, he had information that the survey had been performed. He contacted the owner of the properiy to locate the survey stakes that were covered by snow. He wanted to verify the location of the garage to the proximity of the property line. His main concem was to make sure that the fire rating on the garage wa11 was constructed if it was needed. It was determined that the gazage was within three (3) feet of the properry line. On February 11, 2004, Mr. Ehrlich wrote a letter to the owner confirming that the one-hour fire rating was required. On February 18, 2004, Mr. Ehrlich inspected the property and approved the required fire-protection. At that time, he and the owner discussed the gutter, which was over the properry line. Mr. Elulich informed the owner that the City would not require removal of the gutter, but if the neighbor objected, the gutter would have to come down. The City's reasoning was that the gutter was essential for water control for that portion of the property. If the neighbor had no objections, the City would like to see the gutter remain. The northwest corner is �{-��o LEGISLATIVE HEAI2ING - TUESDAY, .TIJNE 22, 1:15 PM Page 4 appro�mately 1 foot, 1 inch from the boundary at its closest point. The roof overhang is 1 foot. That places the gutter and downspout over the property line. The garage itself is not over the property line. The slab is larger than the previous slab; it extends farther to the east. The language of the Zoning Code has changed. The previous Zoning Code required that the slab remain in order to put a new gazage where the previous gazage had been. The new Zoning Code allows the removal of the old slab completely and you have one year to rebuild in the exact location. The new Zoning Code had not yet been adopted at the time of Mr. Ehrlich and Mr. Kenyon's determination. The City's concem has been to have the required fire protection implemented. Had the owner known that the garage was going to be this close to the properry line, he may haue built the garage in a different location. Enforcing the Building Code to its extreme would require removing the soffit on the west portion of the garage, which would not have accomplished any greater fire protection than the one-hour wall that was required. Mr. Wahl stated that he did not receive all of the reports of the inspections; as faz as he's concerned, inspections were never done. Mr. Kenyon did not submit al1 of the information that he had requested. He had indicated in his letter all of the problems he has had since last September. Regarding the City Code, his statement is that it can be built on an existing slab or on an existing foundation, if Mr. Ehrlich is correct. His interpretation of that would be: if the garage burnt down and the slab was there - fine. If a house burnt down and they removed the house - they can build on an existing foundation. It does not say you can put a new slab over an existing slab or a new foundation over an existing foundation. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Wahl what he is looking for in filing an appeal. Mr. Wahl said that it was stated in his letter. Ms. Moermond referred to Mr. WahPs letter of December 15, 2003. She said that it looks like he came close to saying what he was looking for on the second page of that letter. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Wahl directly, what he was looking for. Mr, Wahl stated that in his appeal letter dated June 10, 2004, on the second page, is listed what he is looking for: a. A new survey be done as the previous survey stakes have been removed. b. That the survey include what projection of the soffit (overhang) projects onto the church property. a That any portion of soffit (overhang) be removed from the church property. d. A Maintenance Easement Agreement is recorded on the Deeds of all affected properties. Mr. Wahl reported that Mr. Ehrlich said that a Maintenance Easement Agreement was not needed. He feels that it is important. Some day the church would like to put up a senior apartment building. The church could build right on that property line. It is a hindrance to the church for the overhang to be on the church's property. That is really why the church is appealing this decision by Mr. Ehrlich. �-�2� LEGISLATNE HEARING - TUE5DAY, .TiJNE 22, 1:15 PM Page 5 Regarding the fue-rated wall: Mr. Ehrlich did the inspection on February 18, 2004. Mr. Wahl went on Februaty 22 and took pictures. No way does this wall meet the fire-rated wall required by code. Mr. Ehrlich responded to Mr. Wahl's comments. The new Zoning Cade (5-29-�4), under Section C on Non-conforsning structures with Confomung Uses would apply to this garage. When a new code is anticipated as being adopted and someone comes in to construct a building, the City goes with the new regulations. It would not be reasonable to require someone to move or remove a building that in one month would be legal by the new Zoning Code. That would be unreasonable and unenforceable, and the City is not willing to do that. Mr. Wahl asked ihat the four (4) requests of his June 10, 20041etter be considered. Mr. Ehrlich responded to more of Mr. Wahl's comments. He noted that all along the way, the City has tried to comply with Mr. Wahl's requests for information. Sometimes the requests were a little confusing. The City sent him what they thought he was requesting and he has not always been satisfied. In some cases, it seemed that he was looking for things the City didn't have. Mr. Ehrlich went on to say that the requirement for a Maintenance Easement would not apply to this situation (a non-conforming structure with a conforming ase). The Maintenance Easement would be an encumberance to the neighboring property. If the church is willing to provide a Maintenance Easement on their deed, that would be wonderful, but the City does not require the church to do that. Regazding the fire rating on the wall: Mr. Ehrlich stated that he was there on Apri123, 2004 to check the wall again, and the wall was acceptable. Mr. Wahl asked why the church should be required to have an Easement Agreement when it is the other property thaYs encroaching upon the church property. Ms. Moermond repeated that there is not a requirement for an Easement Agreement. Mr. Ehrlich interjected that the option of a Maintenance Easement could be used if there were no other way that you could put the gazage in that location. If the owner of the neighboring property was willing to place a Maintenance Easement on their deed, that would allow three (3) feet open azound the garage in orcier to maintain it. ThaY s not needed here because you're continuing on a legai nonconforming use. The garage is being built on the same spot where the original gazage was located. Mr. Wahl continued to azgue. He said that the church could have put up a fence on the line, and if the siding on the gazage would have needed to be replaced, they would haue had one heck of a time getting in between the garage and the fence. He still feels that the church should not be required to put on a Maintenance Agreement because the church did not create the problem The other party created the problem by putting the garage within one (1) foot of the properry line. He also stated that he doesn't believe the garage was that close originally. He had twenty-three (23) afFadavits signed by members of the church verifying that they didn't believe that the original garage was that close to the properiy line either. �� 1 � LEGISLATIVE HEARING - TUESDAY, JLTNE 22, 1:15 PM Page 6 Ms. Moermond said that she would like to hear from some of the others in the room. Mr. Chazles Stroggem, general contractor and owner of CSC, Inc. provided some information. When he bought the house, it was completely in shambles and the gazage was falling over because of a lazge tree growing in the back of the garage and through the slab. They put in close to $40,000 rehabbing the house. They tore down the gazage (it would've come down either way because of the tree). When they went to get the pians approved for the garage, based on the measurements from where the old garage slab was to the house, they also wanted them to keep 10 feet between the gazage and the house. With the size of the garage that they buiit, if they weren't able to keep in accordance with the 10 feet, they obviously would haue had to shrink the garage or push it further back, which the City would not have approved. When they set the forms to put up the guage, Mr. Kenyon came out twice and inspected what we were doing. They tried to do whatever they needed to do to put this issue to rest. They didn't want any neighborly feuds. At the closing of the property, it was said fhat it was 103 feet from the sidewalk to the back of the propetty; after getting the survey, it was 101 feet from the sidewalk to the back of the properry. They weren't trying to pull a fast one to gain two (2) feet. They used the originai slab to hase the rest of the plans for the garage. Mr. Jim Nelsen, a member of the church, asked Mr. Stroggem who "they" was in the statement, "They didn't want the garage closer to the house." Mr. Stroggem replied that it was the City. Mr. Nelsen asked, "Why?" Mr. Wahl asked if they considered attaching the garage to the house instead of being so close to the church line. Mr. Stroggem responded that ]s wasn't an issue because it was going to be built on the original slab. Mr. Wahl asked why it had to be built on the original slab. Ms. Moermond interjected that staff would probably be better able to answer these questions. Mr. Ehrlich stated that the original site plan was accepted for a number of reasons, the most obvious being that it showed they met all the setbacks. They had the three (3) feet at the rear of the property line and the side yard, and the distance to the house. They were going to be building the gazage in a legal portion of the lot. It was later discovered that the lot is not 103 feet long as the site plan showed, but 101 feet. At that point, the City accepted the location of the gazage as being placed in the same location as the previous garage, therefore, the location would be legal according to Zoning Code 62105, a nonconforming structure with a conforming use. Even at 1 foot 1 inch from the property 1ine, it is a legal nonconforming structure. It's nonconforming because it doesn't conform with the 3 foot setback, but iYs legal because it's a continuation of a previously accepted locafion far the structure. After a structure is removed, they have one year to rebuild as long as they don't make the new structure any less conforming than the old structure. Ms. Moermond noted that she will speak with the City Attorney on this issue to confirm her opinion, which is that staff acted correctly. The only item that she thinks can be dealt with at this hearing is item c. in the letter of June 10, 2004: c. That any portion of so�t (overhang) be removed from the church property. ���� LEGISLATIVE HEARING - TITESDAY, Ji.TNE 22, 1:15 PM Page 7 According to Mr. Ehrlich, only the gutter of the overhang (soffit) is over the property line. Ms. Moermond concluded that only the gutter could be required to be removed based on the request of the church. 5he asked Mr. Wahl if that was his request. He answered that it was. But to make sure that this is correct, he would prefer that a. and b. in his letter determine it. He reported that Mr. Ehrlich did admit to him and a witness, who did not speak up, that the gutter was 5'/2 inches over the property line. ThaYs why in his letter he stated If the neighbar complains, any portion would have to be removed, and the drainage be maintained on that property. Ms. Moermond asked who removed the survey stakes. Mr. Ehrlach reported that the stakes were still there on his visit of February 10, 2004. Mr. Wahl reported that the stakes were gone when he was going to check on the distances. Ms. Moermond recommended that the Ciry Council grant the appeal in part; that part being item c. That any portion of soffit (gutter) be removed from the church property. She suggested that, p ven the history here, that the church put it in writing, send it to the property owner and ask that it (gutter) be removed. Give the property owner a time certain to haue it removed. She suggested that the property owner work out some erosion solutions, perhaps with LIEP's help. Ms. Moermond stated that she will trust the City inspector's read on where the survey stakes were after the last survey was done and not ask that another survey be done. There was a survey done; the City inspector was out there to review the situarion and came up with measurements that are valid for her purposes. She added that if the church wanted to contest this recommendation at another level, in district court, for example, it could have another survey done, but she doesn't think that iYs merited in this situation. Mr. Wahl responded that he doesn't want to go that faz, but he also didn't want to go this far. He continued to say that Mr. Bhrlich did indicate that 5'/a inches are over on the church properry. Ms. Moermond stated that she did not see that in writing. She understood that Mr. Wahl had a conversation and a witness to that effect. She does see the statement, "That the gutter could project onto....." and she will go with the rvriting that is in front of her. Mr. Wahl said that in one of his letters, he did state the 5'h inches, and Mr. Ehrlich does not contest that. Mr. Ehrlich interjected that he does contest it, and that he contested it in writing. Mr. Ehrlich added that throughout this entire incident, Mr. Wahl has been misquoting City staff, even after they have conected him in writing, and he continues to do it to this day. Mr. Ehrlich stated that he is very tired of it. The 5%z inches that Mr. Ehrlich had refened to was the gutter; the gutter is 5'/z inches over the properiy line, according to his measurements. No part of the garage is over the property line. He put it in writing; he doesn't understand why Mr. Wahl insists on repeating the 5'/2 inches (that he misunderstood) to be the garage. Ms. Moermond wiil recommend that the City Council grant the appeal in part; that part being item c. That any portion of so�t (gutter) be removed from the church property. She added that . if the church decides to make that request of the property owner, it will be right and proper. �{-�� LEGISLATIVE HEARING - TTJESDAX, JCTNE 22, 1:15 PM Page 8 574 Edmund Avenue Ms. Mariy Thao appeazed. Ms. Moermond noted that the Correction Notice on this address cites peeling paint on the house and gazage, garage eaves and soffits in disrepair, and gutters on the house that need to be removed. The deadline for getting the painting done is July 30, 2004. The appeal is for an extension of time. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Thao how much mare time she will need to complete the repairs. (There seemed to be a language barrier, so Ms. Moermond asked for a translator.) The transiator stated that Ms. Thao would like to have an extra month to complete the painting; until August 30, 2004. Ms. Moermond said that she will recommend to the City Council that Ms. Thao be granted an extension of time—to September 30, 2004 to make sure the painting will be completed. The heazing was adjourned at 3:15 p.m. jab MARKET GROUP AND PROPERTIES ���� 576 BAYSTREET SAINT PAUL, MN 55102 Phone fb51) 225-4b25 or 1b51) 221-4496 Fax (651J 221-07/3 LEGISLATIVE HEARING In session hearing June 22, 2�04, 1:30 pm, in regards to property correction notice at 405 E. Jessamine. The violation was heavy sand and grave{ on sidewalk. The hearing officer Marcia Moermond on many occasions refuses to allow us any submitting of evidence. But this hearing not only could we speak on our behalf and present evidence to show cause of inspector error, we were escorted out of the hearing by the sheriffs, ordered by the hearing officer Marcia Moermond. The time allowed for our presentation was around 2 minutes or less. The prior citizen was allowed 15 minutes or more to present there appeal information. Our request is that we wish to be heard properly by civil rights, constitutionally, state statue is our right not to be discriminated against. In the situation the hearing officer dislikes us, because of our legal persistency for justice to stop selective harassment on many property owners such as myself. We are in plea of the city to be fair not unjust, so we request another hearing with representation by someone other than Marcia Moermond because she is so prejudicial to any cases regarding myself or dismiss all correction order charges. The alley during this citation violation, appearance was a mess, furniture, thru out but overlooked as always. 1'1�/ CITY OF SAT�'�tT.PAUL - NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING & PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT 1600 White Bear Avenue St. Paui, MN 55106 CORRECTION NOTICE (r -�i-O�I -� � �� � - - Date MaIled M ed By Yog hais tias koj hais lus Hmoob tluab koj tsis to taub tsab ntawv no, hu rau ws txha9s lus ntawm (651) 266-1918. Nws yog pab dawb zwb. Si usted habla e] Espanol y no enriende esta nota, llazna (651)266-6008 para un traductor. No costo. To: ��'e,�� �hnse�� To: �e� ���� � � �-� ��� ,`�1'1-t� ;�� l0a Y If you have any questions / L �i � FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY RESULT IN COURT ACTION Badge Number: ���___ Phone Number (651) p� 4* �6 "� 1 7�� this order, the requirements or the deadlme, you should contact the Inspector tisted above, Monday through Friday. Aooeals You may appeal [hi�er and obtain a hearmg before Ihe City Council by comple[ing an appeal applica[ion with the City Clerk before the appeal deadline noted above or seven (7) days aRer the date rttailed, whichever comes first. No apneals mav be filed after that date You mav obtain an aopeal aovlication from [he CiN Clerk's Offce Roo l70 C'N Hall St Pa 1 MN 55102 The teleohone umber is (6511266-8989 You must submit a coov of this Correction Nohce wi[h vour aoneal aonlication. * WARNING Code inspec[ion and enforcement trips cost the [zepayers money. If the violations aro not coaected within ihe time period required in this noticq the city's cosis in Conduchng a remspection aRer Ne due date for compliance will be CollecteA from the owner ra[her than being paid by the tupayers of the ciry. If additional new violations are discovered within [he next following 12 months, Ihe ciry's costs in conducting additional mspections a[ this same loCation Within Such L2 months will bs collec[ed from [he ovmer rather than being paid by the taxpayers of [he ciry. Any such future costs wili be collected by assusment against the reai property and aro in addition to any o[her fines or assessmen[s wh�ch may be Ievied agams[ you and your property. �� y ` �{ � you are-hereby As oruner,lessee,agent�ar occupant of: y����_SSC�fYlifl.� notified to eliminate the following Code Violations (s): � ���Q � � � ������� � c� .���� ��� ,N� � � � � ��,D C� �1/� ������� ���� r��� �`�-� � � (� � . �� � � � ����' C ��� �� � � � D� � � � � � ��� ���� O � ��� � � l � ��� � � Q� � � �� � ��y C �� � � ���� ��� ���� � �� � � �� � rn y o 1 � � � / � r� : . ,. � m 0 H C � _ � z �� °�o � � m y "� Q ' � y N N I� 5t0 � `G � ' �1� L1 a� (/� .. �� (D O N Q � 7 <n ao w3�,.'-.�m o � . yi� � a � �=a < � � �• � � M �� p -��' m �� � A. m ± � � � w J y �G. w o � m E-' � G w m � a � �� ��� � d� � a � �� �� n� � n �� �� ro �� � a -�, � �N c �'s � �� �. � � � � � w � `t w Q . Q � � an m � y O a � � v-� K � y �. � � � �� � O y � �' w tib � b � � � � � � � � � `�� -� �� � � � � � O � --( L 7 n��� � �� � � i ""TZ � I l '� �I � � � � Q � '"_j�.._ � � /�i O � ' I � � �, � � �j � � ��� `0 � �� i� � � � � 5!; �� -� �.�� ������ � O C �� � � � � O � �� � /v � V ' �( ' � ) � � � U� 1 ���� �"'f ,' I) o m b , ���� ��� �� � � � � � p O �� ��1�� C �-'1 � � f�� ��(� `��. �� �� � �� Ci � � � (D � S O 5 � � m Q z N � y � � � v :°_ �� � � -� � "O 'O � n d �j � �' -- � � �. � � m � N �� � � 0 � a N� o� � � � 'n Y Z Q � N � � � � � y � G � � \\ " I � � - a � N :. � � �� � m. � N N N � b 'V o � � � � w .� V Q - ' � OQ 'O y � � '- " �n ^ -o 0 � b .� . �. �. z � .� , y O W� � �� � -- . b H O � � n a � �� � �o �- m o �'-'� m w ° � � �� �; - � � �zx � rn cn �-' t � �,.�� � � O y � N � � a N � � � �-�d� � � H 4 � � � 1 � i � �� ��o��e���( �-p��� �-a i����`��� S, c��s��rcZ� C�� ��LL c c��2 � �� � � �_ � � c �vt �e' S � �-'�2� �� �- 7 /� � �---� F A