Loading...
CR 93-148 Grace Kline ~ ~--\ ~-..... . C I T Y 0 F H'O P K I N S MEMORANDUM DATE: April 30, 1993 TO: Jim Gesse1.e FROM: Jerre A. Miller RE: Grace Kline I have reviewed my notes and contemplated our conversation concerning the dilemma with the Grace Kline house which presently is without city water or sewer. The septic system partially encroaches upon a neighbors property as well as the public right of way. An easement giving Grace Kline the right to occupy apart of the neighbors property for that purpose has a Sunset Clause for September 1, 1993. To further complicate the matter the house sits on a '. small non-conforming' inside lot and is only worth about ,. $20,000.00. Installation ofc:ityCservices is possible but expensive and would approximate 50% of the value of the home the result of which could be a failure to meet the benefit test to support a Special Assessment. The obvious solution is to raze the house and sell the property to neighbors to extend their back yards to the alleyway. , ' Anothe'rconsideration on-_thebasis of health and safety ~is- to acquire the home by the city, relocate Grace Kline and either sell the property to the neighbors or use th~ property for some city purpose. I don't have many bright ideas on this one. JAM .- _.. . 1010 First Street South, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 612/935-8474 An Equal Opportunity Employer , " ~ "0", ~ <S"( ~~~ ~ ~\.-~'\'0LI\'-j C":>~~(~)~ ; ~ d- -r<\ '\ '" \'\ \J... Q S-\."~ ~ O,S\ '^- ~ ""'CO> 'D~~(''(f\''\ ~ . ~h~ ~~<:}.C,\"ol\'~~ ~ --==-~"~~ ~ c,-\'\ v&.~. ,~<S~~J<..<:J \. Y\ Ca..s~ -L~\S'f\ ('C~'0 -T\:) ~ ... -:t. "'-<:;),,>~ ~ Q~-'<. '" \ \ \J \ n':J ~ --\,V,\ \s CI.\) ~ ~S ~.", ~?; ~~OPS -Ii Y\~~-'t ~,,';\~\:,\~'V -'I::""'~ <;I:~(C S'-Y~~..-<\ '3) v.-" '\\~ ""'\ ~ \"7 ~\ \N\'<- · ... .\?\ Q\"~-=\\'\-\-\~ m~ '(\~\~\:)x-s) ~~~<'-\~.... ,~\ '(\~ ~~-(""' ~ G \\ ~ ~ ~ ~~-.Q.. CJ ~ Y\~ ("' <:::> \'l \,)~ '0 \ 1'\ m~ 'v\~~ ~\-) \\~ 'o~, \~\~~ -\~ \~~'t, \r\w..S'(: , .-CIr\ €- '" ~\ c.. S '-j<v-1 {(,Vf\ ~~ ':> '0",-\ t- it:, SQ.,.\) \C.-e.. ':0", -\ '" \r\ '01,).5.J<. S ~ -\\r)~ c:::A,lJ iI-t \"'::> '\- .. \-\ \ -::, \.. occx.t ~{) 0\"\ -\-"'~ \.0..",<>:::"",- ho, '-'9"<1 s IX """?~'~ · l....:l~.Q.." --\ \1\ ~ ,,-., \.~ \ V\'5k W ~ ~ ~-c:- "",::>* "'-*" A.- d \ ~ ~ 0\,\ n 't"l'l.l; t"'6h \\0'<..~'^--\ ~~ c,f\ \~S\",f~ . ~ ... \ V\"<.. \ o..~~ \I~s~ ~-{JD '-"- \( -\ '" c.., ~ S"'-i"\) ~ C,:~ '\\\.' D \ ~-\ I{'I\~ "'~-<L -th "<.. CX\~ c:N'\ -It '0S \ nJ ~\, ~ ~~ '<.\ \ '- <S~ ~{'(\ ~ vY\~ ~~ \\ ~~ .. . ~~ ,,~ \'\'J6 '(\'\C. '" ~ {' \3~-->c '() C::l-. ,,~b \~ VY\ t\.f\ t I ~ ~ C'''' ) \)\:J'-.}..) I W ~~ ~'""~ ~0-.."'\~ V,\ CAJ-.J \,\-.Q.f' Q;"""" \ ~:'J~ "'CJ'--'-S~ ~\'\ \~ \ ~ 0~'L ~ \\'\..Q.., ~~~ s ?e d\ \J'Z \)~~ ~("- ~a...~-D -\'" \ou.. \ \ d d.. ~ CA. 0::\.~ ~ "'"' ,~,,\~~~ ~~\"\~ ~ ~ri Q~ W'~~~~\.J\, , ~~""2) \j~ rl~~ '-\ ~\--Q- S~ .( ~ Cj-:f~-\:-'~ 'fY\ \ S \ 0 ~ (},\-Q.~ 0- . . mc;..\\'h~~ ~~~C::S~r-()~~\()V\ \ f\ ~\\\S '\\~~~(:' -' .1J~""'~ · Q3\~AC ~ \\. h \ ;\ V\~ ":r~ _~jjj1&~;mmEmGi:1"')iS,J;"_:":",;;,,,,, 1i;;'H::,;f':i'":'";,,~:il!0:~Hi,~~IWJ~r>,)j,,"',,,,<-,,,,;;,. .,.-",~.,.",.."-,,._~~-,. . . - COST ESTIMATE SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SERVICES For 1711 First street North '. project No. 91--15 Cost Estimate April 24, 1993 Unit unit Item Quantitv Price Total 1- 6" PVC Sewer Pipe with 2 Clean 173 L.F. 12.00 2,076.00 Outs (1 street, 1 Boulevard) 1 L.S. 200.00 200.00 2. 1" Copper Water Line UfO L~F. ' 8roo 1,440;00 3. Connect to Existing 8" Sanitary 1 L.S. 500.00 500.00 Sewer Main 4. 1" Service Tap Into 6" Water Main 1 L.S. 500.00 500.00 (Inc. Corp, stop Box, Curb stop) 5. Saw Cut Bituminous Pavement 66 L.F. 2.00 132.00 6. Saw cut Concrete Curb & Gutter 3 L.F. 7.00 21. 00 T.- -Remove Bttuminous Pavement,-- Including Disposal 55 S.Y. 1.75 96.25 .. Remove Concrete Curb and Gutter, Including Disposal 20 L.F. 5.00 100.00 9. 6"Class 5 Aggregate Base 55 S.Y. 3.50 195.50 (100% crushed) ~- ---- 10. 2" MnDOT 2331, Type 31, Bituminous Base Course, Incl. Bituminous Material For Mix 55 S.Y. 4.00 220.00 11. MnDOT 2357 Bituminom;;, 'Material for Tack coa..t 11 Gal. 1.50 16.50 12. 1-1/2" MnDOT 2331, Type 41 - BiYuminous~Wear Course, I-ncl.- --- Bituminous Material For Mix 55 S.Y. 3.00 165.00 13. B-618 Concrete Curb and Gutter, Complete in Place 20 L.F. 15.00 300.00 14.; Topsoil Borrow (Loose Volume) 105 C.Y. 10.00 1,050.00 ,-15. sodding, Complete in Place 250 S.Y. 2.50 625.00 , 16. Septic Tank Dry and Fill 1 L.S. 2,500~Oo-" 2,500.00 "e Remove hedge & Replace hedge "__/- 7. 95 EACH 10.00 950.00 at property line ESTIMATE TOTAL $11,084.25 -. ./ I / I I I, L _. -J /- / .. E I I I I I ~ 0 I I I .s en! Z 0 I l- 5/ ~ I J I IN ~: c I-- I>> I It It Q) () f<DJ ' <0 ex) > I (/) = .s E <(.... () /<( / - - I (I I .!l 0; ..c: 0 . . &1- Jj ........ ( ) I i ~ ~ ~ ! /Ii 7111 I J I L (I) _J L ~.'.'~-- - ( r--=- - - ----H- . --.rY , ,~ ...- r- ----...--... ~-t-' I) , Proposed Service Connections 1- 1 st Street North I - i -- l i- II / I Proposed Water & Sewer Services for 1111 1 st Street. South · Figure 1 "'Il!t1illml!;,~~'i~i"",~""':":'c.;.;.~;:..'.,w;~'~:. "':)::;';""""'-,'i;~i;;;,,::.;tt"),:;i;i'i:;;''ONl~~''''-'~'.HA".'" ,..,c,,,-,. .'..,......,...." ,. ,~, ~..). '.' with its private well and septic system. rf the septic system ever needed repair,or replacement, present standards would preclude that happening. As an example, separation of private wells from septic systems requires 75 feet. That is an unlikely feat on this very small lot. Proposal. staff proposes an improvement project as shown on the attached Figure 1. Sewer and water service connections would be made in 18th Avenue to existing utilities and service pipes installed within the 1st Street North boulevard to the 1711 address. Staff also recommends that interior plumbing modifications be considered as part of the project. A major element and cost in this proposal is the'evacuation and removal of the septic tank. If not a bona fide code requirement, such removal is nevertheless .,,+-...."'n,..,.1 'T ....o,.."'mmonnon .wI.....-'-- ""44~""'~. .... ___.............._....___.. Construction costs are estimated at approximately $11,000. Permits and connection charges (WAC and SAC) are an additional $1,100 and inside plumbing is estimated to be $350. The total cost, is approximately $12,450 and does not include contingencies. Funding for the project is proposed through special assessments levied against the affected. property~ (~. Conclusion. From an engineering aspect this proposal is feasible. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Lee Gustafson, P.E. - - - City Engineer -- - '-'--,-_.,----"---'---------~-~---- -----~-- ~----"- --- _____ _n_ _~_ _un" ___ -' . ..~~~,.". ~..-.,.,~..,> ,...... -. - - .~ , ... Feasibility Report . ""Sani tary Sewer and Water Main services 1711 1st Street North Project 91-15 July 28, 1993 Introduction. This feasibility report has been prepared and is submitted in accordance with council action taken to respond to a resident's petition. The report outlines the utility improvements required at 1711 1st street North to disconnect or remove an existing underground septic system and to provide city sanitary sewer and water service connections. ~.. ".' ...~..~ . Existinq Conditions. The residence at 1711 1st Street North is not served by City sanitary sewer or water. A septic system, originally installed to serve the above address as well as the house located at 101 18th Avenue North, now provides sanitary service solely to the 1711 address. The septic "tank", of log construction, is at minimum partially located on the 18th Avenue property and its condition is undetermined. The owner of the 18th Avenue property -- has granted a temporary easement over a portion of his property . to address the encroachment of the septic tank. This easement is scheduled to expire September 1, 1993, and the grantor has requested removal of the syst~m from his property after that date. The tank also appears to be located within public right-of-way. A private well provides water service to the residence. The residence, built in 1930, is a small one-story stucco structure on a 3800 sq~are foot lot approximately 32 feet x 120 feet. A detached garage at the rear appears to be built over alley right-of-way. The property is clear of any mortgages according to the "owner . Its market value was reduced from $39,600 to $20,000 in 1989 upon petition from the owner to the City and Hennepin County for tax relief in the form of abatement. Although the present structure may not meet current set-back regulations and the lot size falls be~ow present minimum square footage of 4000 feet, new standards cannot be enforced unless the home were 50% destroyed or damaged. If the home ever needed replacement it is uncertain the lot would be puildable without a City variance. There is no sanitary sewer or water main in 1st street North adjacent to this site. Facilities are available in 18th Avenue, a distance of approximately 175 feet. The owner canno~ be -, ' . compelled to connect to the remote 18th Avenue facilities under present City Code. Technically this property can be sold as-is ~.~~"~n~Qlr1i~~''tj!,~,:.1t~~_:~,,,:: ~-.;':,~,h\"Y';~" .,.. ,....,-\"";'jc,,,.~w,",.."'.%.,'",m;,,,.,"'..-,, ,,,..',, "':t. re- 17LLlstSt. N. Rpt. 93-148 page 5 o Purchase the property, demolish the structures and sell to adjoining property owners, allowing the present owner to receive preference in a subsidized housing development. o Amend the current assessment standards or Rehabilitation Program guidelines to acconunodate Ms. Kline'srequestfora reduction in her financial liability. ' .0 Do nothing at this time and allow the issue to be resolved as a civil matter between neighbors. I~. -, . ~-~~'-..:..-. ~_.-" ...._~"_. ..,._-~._--~_. ,.... --~~~~~'--" : .-:-.~,._-~._""",,-: -.-- ~',-_._= ~.--- -...~ ~~- ,,",,- 1711 1st St. N. . Rpt. 93-148 page 4 Staffhas not discussed this option with the homeowner, as there is very little doubt that this would be a desirable alternative for her. Staffis not recommending this use offunds largely due to the fact that she has not proven need and has indicated herself that she can afford to make some repayment. Additionally, using CDBG funds on this project would be promoting a use which does not meet current set-back requirements or minimum lot size requirements, and is in substandard condition. If this option is chosen, the 1993 CDBG budget would have to be amended decreasing the amount allocated to housing rehabilitation or the Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association. o What option(s) does the homeowner support? The homeowner has indicated she would like to attempt to address the problem through mediation. She would like to continue to use the septic system rather than incur the costs of installing City sewer and water. Failing to resolve the issue through mediation, Ms. Kline has indicated a special assessment at a . reduced interest rate (possibly 3%) would be desirable. Initially, Ms. Kline showed interest in selling her property and moving to subsidized housing. However, she has since indicated some reservations in moving from her home. o What are the specifics of the property? The residence, built in 1930, is a 396 square foot, one-story stucco structure built on a 32 'x 120' lot. The lot is not buildable according to the City's Zoning Ordinance because it does not meet the minimum lot size requirements. The structure does not meet current set-back requirements and a detached garage at the rear of the property appears to be built over alley right-of-way. The house contains a kitchen, living area and one bedroom and bathroom both located in the basement. The basement ceilings are approximately 5'.5" in height. According to Assessing Department records, the structure exhibits deferred mainte~ance and extreme functional obsolescence. Alternatives The Council has the following options regarding this issue: ,0 Agree with staffs recommendation of facilitating mediation between the property . owners. If mediation fails and the owner is unwilling to sell the property, order the project as detailed in the feasibility study. ._,,-,~- ------------- _.~- ~ ....---:; ", '':ii . 171115t S1. N. Rpt.93-148 page 3 should be kept in mind, however, that reducing the interest rate or paying a portion of the costs would be deviating from City policy and setting a precedent which may result in requests for similar terms on other special assessment projects. There is also the option of deferring the assessment, however, the deferral only delays the payment while accumulating interest charges. DeferraLis limited to ten years at which time the assessment is due and payable in full. Nel:wtiate Sale of Property to Adioining Property Owners' Staff has discussed the possibility of negotiating the sale of the property to the adjoining property owners. If the City purchased the property on behalf of the adjoining owners, Ms. Kline would be eligible for a "federal preference", allowing her to go to the top of any public housing waiting list. Her rent would then be based on her ability to pay. Staffhas provided Ms. Kline with a tour ofDow Towers and a listing of other subsidized housing in the area. Under this scenario, Ms. Kline would receive the proceeds from the sale and the adjoining I.'" property owners would share the cost of demolition, capping well, etc... There appears to be some interest on the part of the adjacent owners in this property, however, it is believed that they , would only be willing to pay a minimal amount for the property given the need to pay for demolition and related expenses. In fact, even with a cleared site, capped weIland septic system the adja(;ent property owners may only be willing to pay a nominal amount for the property. As a result, with this option it may be necessary for the City to pay the cost of demolition, etc... Mediation Because Ms. Kline would like to continue to use the septic system and well rather than connecting to City water and sewer, staff discussed the possibility of using mediation services through West Suburban Mediation Center. She has indicated a desire to try mediation with the possibility of developing an easement agreement satisfactory to both parties. Staffhas contacted the adjoining property owners, Katherine and Philip Gonzales, and although they did 'not rule out mediation service~.they were not sure what could be resolved as their goal is to remove the septic system from their property. CnBG Funds for Assessment Abatement An eligible ,activity under the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) is the abatement of special assessments for low income residents. Since the CDBG guidelines, specify . income guidelines but do not have an asset limit, Ms. Kline would qualify for these funds. - . ""'- . "..-...., ,'.'~ ,~,""". ----,--- ,-'" .'~' -_..,I._"'....~~. ._ .;. . .....' - -,.",.,.- 1711 1st St. N. .' Rpt. 93-148 page 2 Analvsis of Issues o What are the options identified by staff? The following are the options which have been identified and explored by staff, followed by a summary of the major issues relating to each option. Residential Rehabilitation Loan/Grant Pro2ram Ms. Kline completed an application for the City's loan/grant program and based on the information she provided, it appears she would be eligible for a loan at 3% interest over a 12 year term. She would prefer a grant which would be forgiven over a six year period with no repayment required, however, she does not qualifY under program guidelines. A potential problem with this alternative lies in the program requirement that all health or safety violations must be able to be corrected with the funds available ($15,000) or the project cannot be undertaken at all. Based on conversations with Ms. Kline and other City staff, it is very likely that other improvements to the property would be required and that the total cost of the project . - would greatly exceed the funds available. Additionally, because Ms. Kline qualifies for a loan but not a grant, she indicated she is not interested in making other improvements to her property that would add to her loan payment and debt against the property. In evaluating this option, staffhas applied all applicable program guidelines. The Council does . have the option of waiving all or a portion of those guidelines in order accommodate Ms. Kline's request. However, it is staffs opinion that the guidelines should not be amended due to the number of similar requests which have been denied in the past and that based on Ms. Kline's income and assets she has not demonstrated a need for a grant. Special Assessment Standard special assessment terms are 8% interest over a ten year period. This would result in a first year payment of approximately $2,600 based on a project cost of$13,000. Ms. Kline has indicated she cannot afford this and has asked for a reduction in the interest rate and possibly an extension of the term, if this option is chosen. Staff discussed a 3% interest, 12 year assessment term with Ms. Kline which would result in a first year payment of approximately $1,570. This approach would essentially give h~r tbesame terms as under the rehabilitation program without the requirement of improving the entire . structure. Ms. Kline's debt could also be reduced by assessing only a portion of the costs. It :;~~~ri\:,:r;it:;;W'~'-:-~'~~-:-~~'="~ i"" ~ -.-,- ' -;hfm,',f,,,,'-,,i;;~,....,.,,,.",n',",,,,,,,,',''''~'''>>' '--~..,. ---' '-,-,-, ~. """