96-264(` l�� E^ €�` i (' I
.� � . . �...3 ! � ti. J ;;
.� .�
�/�'; s.�.�✓d� ��%''�G�
Council File # .��C y
Green Sheet # 31k�3
�
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented bv \
Referred To
Committee Date
1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the Mazch 5,1996
2 decision of the Legisiative Hearing Officer:
3 Pr�eriy A�ealed
4 243 Fulier Avenue
5 Decision: Deny appeal.
6 330 Sherburne Avenue
7 Decision: Deny appeal.
�
' *- �-
10 2225 Snowshoe Lane
11 Decision: Deny appeal.
Ap�ellant
Lonny Lindquist
Proceed Inc.
Marlin Schienbein
Laura Wakefield
12 FURTHER RESOLVED, that this action shall become effective immediately upon approval of the Mayar.
Requested by Department of:
By:
Form Approved by City Attomey
�
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
L'.�'
Approved J�y Mayq4j Date
�
Adopted by Council: ` ,g �le /3 /�//°�
Adopf n Certified by unci ecretary
`t � •ac.y i�
DEPARTMENIIOFFICE/COUNqL DATE INITIATED O
CITYCOUNCII, 3/5/96 GREEN SHEE N- 31823
CANTAGT PEqSpN & PH�NE INRIAUDATE INRIAVDATE
O �EPARTMENS �IREGTOR � qSY COUNCIL
Gerry Sffathman 266-8575 +usscn � cmanoaNEr � cm ci.erm
MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENOA BY (DAT� ��FOR a BUDGET DIflECTO O FIN. & MGT. SERVICES Dlq.
�rCk113� 1�6 OflDER �MAYOR(ORASSISTANT) �
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
ACTION REOUESTED:
Approving the decision of the I.egislative Hearing Officer on Property:Code Enforcement Appeals for the Mazch 5, 1996 meeting.
RECOMMENDA710N5: Approue (A) ar Rejeu (ip pEHSONAt SEHYICE CONTHACTS MUST AN5WEFi SHE FOLLOWfNG �UESTONS:
_ PLANNING COMMISSION _ CIVIL SERV�CE COMMi5510N 1. Has this persoNfirm aver worketl under a corArect for this tlepartment? �
_ CIB COMMfTTEE YES NO
_ SiAFF 2. Has Mis personffirm ever been a city empioyee?
— YES NO
_ D�57R�C7 CAUF7 _ 3. Does this person/Firm possess a skill not normall
y possessatl by any current city employee?
SUPPoRTS WHIGN COUNCIL O&IECTIVE7 YES NO
Explain all yes answero on seperate sheet antl attech to graen sheat
INITIAiING PROBLEM, ISSUE.OPPORTUNIN(Who, Wtiat When, Wher8.4My):
ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED.
DISADVANTAGES IFAPPROVED:
' . � �� ���h;.�""."��s PJ'ri� ..t..,_,
(:°Sn:J �'� -�. SC.}:^',
�...�.� G�. ._e..
DISADVAMAGES IF NOT APPROVED:
TOTAL AMOUNT Of TRANSACTION S COST/REVENUE BUDGE7ED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO
FUNDING SOURCE ACTIYITY NllMBER
FINANCIAL INGORMATION: (EXPLAIN)
°l�, . a �y
Progerty Code Enforcement Meeting
March 5,1996
243 Fuller Ave ue '
Lonny Lindquist, propezty owner, appeared and requested that he be given addifional time to paint the
exterior of his house. He completed painting half of the house, however, due to financial hazdslup, he
did not believe he would be able to complete the wozk by fhe ordered date of May 15, 1996.
Jun Prill, Public Health, presented pictures of the property.
Mr. Strathman denied the appeal.
330 Sherbume Avenue
No one appeazed.
Mr. Strathman denied the appeal.
95 W. Isabet
No one appeared.
Mr. Strathman denied the appeal.
2225 Snowshoe Lane
Laura Wakefield, property owner, appeared and stated that her existing septic tank was not in
conformance with the ciry code. She was appealing the order because she did not have the financiat
resources to replace the septic system. She was also concerned that the city intended to install water
and sanitary sewer system for this azea sometime in the neaz future which would make it unnecessary
to replace the septic system in that case.
Tom LeClair, LIEP, appeared and stated that the septic system was inspected and it had a drywell
which was not acceptable under the city code. The owner was given 90 days to submit a design for a
plan and 1$0 days to install a new system. He was uncertain as to whether this property could
accommodate a new system. In that case, the option would be to connect to the nearest existing
sanitary sewer system in that area.
Dave Dickhut, Public Works, appeazed and stated that petifions had been sent to properry owners in the
area concerning the installation of a sanitary sewer system. He suggested the property owner sign the
petifion indicating the desire for installation of a sanitary sewer system which would facilitate the
process_
Ms. Wakefield was concerned that Public Works previously had intended to widen the stxeet and install
lighting in addition to installing a sanitary sewer system. The neighborhood was very divided over this
issue and it was not her desire at that time to sign the petition if it meant improvements to the street.
Pete Kishel, LIEP, appeazed and stated that he believed Public Works did nof intend to improve the
street as they had before and would only install a sanitary sewer system.
o��_ aG�
Properly Code Euforceuient
Mazch 5, 1996
Page-2-
Mr. Strathman stated that he could not grant the appeal as the order was conect, reasonabie and legal.
He suggested the appellant continue negotiating with Public Works and LIEP to resolve this issue. He
denied the appeal. �
vms