Loading...
Sidewalk Inspect 2452 Stafford i5~ ~*~ MEMORANDUM November 10, 2004 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager SUBJECT: Sidewalk Inspection - 2542 Stafford In response to an anonymous complaint about a defective sidewalk at 2542 Stafford, the City Engineering Department inspected the property and defects were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Paul Scheideberg were notified to perform the necessary repairs by November 10, 2004. Mr. Scheideberg is requesting permission to remove the sidewalk in question instead of repairing it. Acting Public Works Director/City Engineer Gus Psihoyos recommends that Mr. and Mrs. Scheideberg be required to repair their sidewalk this year. I concur with the recommendation and respectfully request Mayor and City Council approval. /JtJcA ~ fllJA ¿ Michael C. Van Milligen MCVM/jh Attachment cc: Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager Gus Psihoyos, Acting Public Works Director/City Engineer .... . ec.- /'f),Vf'1 ~~ 2542 Stafford Street Dubuque, IA 52001 10 November 2004 I'D: ' íi,\';il: ! to , ;ice Mayor and City Council Members c/o City Clerk, City Hall 50 West 13th Street Dubuque, IA 52001 I am requesting permission to remove the sidewalk abutting my property at 2542 Stafford Street. This sidewalk was inspected by the Public Works Department and we have not been able to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement as to either its condition or repair. Several fàctors have caused me to make this request for removal: 1. Much of the damaged caused to the sidewalk is due to the presence of five (5) large, old trees. To be perfectly ftank, the trees are more valuable than the sidewalk. Their size and age give them significant aesthetic value, particularly as they are the only concentration of such large sidewalk trees in the neighborhood. They also have obvious residential and enviromnental value as shade trees, natural habitat and pollution control. I value the trees fur more than the sidewalk and emphatically do not want to see them cut down. I hope the City will also concur with this sentiment, given the econoßÙc and usage factors I will cite below. 2. If the sidewalk is repaired as the Public Works Department demands, the City will incur a 5 year warranty to repair the sidewalk at its expense should the trees cause any further damage. I think the probability of this occurring is fàirly certain. Neither do I want to be personally responsible for that expense a second time at the six or seven year mark. Nor do I want to see the trees removed. The removal of the sidewalk would save both the City and myself multiple rounds of expensive repairs while preserving a valuable natural asset that cannot be replaced. 3. The sidewalk is little used. Stafford Street dead ends at the next house above mine, at 2616. The street stops at the rear of Linwood Cemetery, where a tall chain link fence prevents any access. There is no road or trail network on the adjacent Linwood property, only grave sites. 2616 Stafford does not have any sidewalks on its property. My sidewalk then starts below 2616 Stafford, approximately 40 feet below the StaffordlHennipen intersect on the other side of the street. Given this dead end location, the fenced presence of Linwood Cemetery, and the small number of houses in the area, very few people use the sidewalk. 4. This is an old, established neighborhood with no open spaces for either expansion or future development. The removal of the sidewalk would not comproßÙse any future expansion or necessitate any future re-installation. 5. Sidewalk removal would not impose hardship on anyone. As noted above, the dead end location surrounded by Linwood Cemetery means the area is little used. Sidewalks on the other side of Stafford provide more than adequate sidewalk access. They also have the additional advantage of physically connecting with the sidewalks on both Hennipen and Ries, which does not happen on my side of the street. Anyone coming offHennipen has to diagonally cross Stafford, go past the nonexistent sidewalks of2616 and walk another 40 or more feet befure my sidewalk actually begins. In contrast, the other side of the street provides continuous sidewalk access without having to cross a street. 6. Both myself and the neighbors have had to contend with the children attending Jefferson Middle School trespassing on and vandalizing our properties. There have been constant and recurring problems. I have had my house and car repeatedly vandalized with thrown eggs, paint ball pellets and spray can graffiti. My wife and I have been verbally abused by these children; my pets have been physically abused. I have had to spend a great deal of time, effort and expeuse to clean up after these incidents of vandalism. I have also made the appropriate complaints to the Police Department, which has forced them to expend time and resources on the problem. I feel that removing these dead end sidewalks would encourage the children to use the sidewalks on the other side of the street. Not only would this be safer fur the children, because of the continuous access that my sidewalks do not afford, but I believe it would greatly decrease the opportunity for conflict and vandalism, not only to my property but also to my neighbors. 7. Finally, the inspection of my sidewalks by the Public Works Department was precipitated by an anonymous phone call. This is a method I know the City approves of, but about which I have deep ethical and moral misgivings. Without trying to appear paranoid, I am convinced that the call was not made for any reason of safety or repair but in retaliation for my efforts to prevent further trespass and vandalism to my property. If the sidewalk is only repaired, I am convinced that a second and a third and a fourth call will be made to continue the harassment. I do not want to spend the required thousands of dollars to fix the sidewalks only to have to endure a continuing series of anonymous phone calls and inspections by the Public Works Department, who have told me they are obligated to investigate every complaint, anonymous or not. I am, therefore, asking that you authorize the removal of the sidewalks as the OIùy sure and permanent solution to this problem. Coupled with the other cogent reasons given above, I think it represents the best solution for both myself, the neighbors and the City. I will also attend the Council meeting to present additional evidence ifnecessary and to be available for any questions the Council may have. Sincerely, f~ S~~ PAUL SCHEIDEBERG "r5~ ~*~ MEMORANDUM November 9, 2004 TO: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager FROM: Gus Psihoyos, Acting Public Works DirectorQ.~-1I\'¡¡ SUBJECT: Sidewalk Inspection - 2542 Stafford INTRODUCTION This is in response to a request from Mr. 'and Mrs. Paul Scheideberg to remove the existing sidewalk at his property at 2542 Stafford. BACKGROUND The City Engineering Department received an anonymous complaint about a defective sidewalk at 2542 Stafford. There was an inspection made at this property on September 28, 2004, and defects were noted. In conjunction with the Sidewalk Inspection Program, we notified the abutting property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Paul Scheideberg, to perform the necessary repairs within 30 days after receipt of notice. DISCUSSION City of Dubuque Code of Ordinances Section 41-101 requires a property owner to maintain abutting public sidewalks free from cracks, holes and unevenness so that the sidewalk does not constitute a safety hazard. Property owners are required to replace or reconstruct defects within 30 days of receipt of notice of the defective sidewalk. If the property owner fails to complete repairs or replacements, the work will be performed by the City and the cost assessed against the abutting property. The original notice sent to Mr. Scheideberg on September 28, 2004 indicated he had 30 days to complete the repairs. After further conversation with Mr. Scheideberg, staff sent another letter on October 11, 2004, responding to Mr. Scheideberg's questions and request for information; in addition, Mr. Scheideberg was provided a revised completion date of November 10, 2004. Engineering Department inspectors receive requests each year from property owners requesting to remove their sidewalks rather than make repairs. Subsequent to the inspection on September 28, City staff including Acting Public Works Director/City Engineer Gus Psihoyos, Sidewalk Inspector Kelly Ambrosy, City Forester Steve Pregler and Assistant City Manager Cindy Steinhauser have discussed with Mr. Scheideberg on the telephone and in meetings his concerns related to his sidewalk inspection. During these conversations, Mr. Scheideberg has raised a number of issues regarding his sidewalk and the City's Sidewalk Inspection process. Two of the issues specifically . related to his sidewalk replacement include: 1) why portions of his sidewalk were marked and how much needs to be replaced; and 2) can he simply remove his sidewalk. It has been Engineering Department policy to enforce the time period for repairs or reconstruction of sidewalks. For safety reasons, it is important to require that the repairs or reconstruction be completed quickly. Also, once a sidewalk inspector observes defects in a sidewalk, the City may be liable for injuries sustained by a pedestrian using the sidewalk. Requests for sidewalk removal are referred to City Council for consideration. RECOMMENDA nON The Engineering Department recommends that Mr. Scheideberg be required to repair or reconstruct his sidewalk this year. Sidewalks are made available for the general public, not just for residents in the area. The City should be consistent with respect to requiring sidewalks repairs or construction to be fair and accountable to those property owners who have complied with the requirements. The Engineering Department often receives requests to extend the time period for repairs. In fairness to those who have complied with the time requirements, as well as potential liability concerns, it is no longer our policy to allow extensions. cc: Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel Ronald Turner, PLS Jane Smith, Engineering Assistant Kelly Ambrosy, Sidewalk Inspector Requested Removal ~ . cI'~ 2542 Stafford Street Dubuque, IA 52001 10 November 2004 Hi:: 1 Q ~r. ¡I: : '. Mayor and City Council Members c/o City Clerk, City Hall 50 West 13th Street Dubuque, IA 52001 I am requesting permission to remove the sidewalk abutting my property at 2542 Stafford Street. This sidewalk was inspected by the Public Works Department and we have not been able to reach a mutual1y satisfactory agreement as to either its condition or repair. Several fåctors have caused me to make this request for removal: 1. Much of the damaged caused to the sidewalk is due to the presence offive (5) large, old trees. To be perfectly ftank, the trees are more valuable than the sidewalk. Their size and age give them significant aesthetic value, particularly as they are the only concentration of such large sidewalk trees in the neighborhood. They also have obvious residential and enviromnental value as shade trees, natural habitat and pollution control. I value the trees fur more than the sidewalk and emphatically do not want to see them cut down. I hope the City will also concur with this sentiment, given the econoßÙc and usage factors I will cite below. 2. If the sidewalk is repaired as the Public Works Department demands, the City will incur a 5 year warranty to repair the sidewalk at its expense should the trees cause any further damage. I think the probability of this occurring is fàirly certain. Neither do I want to be personal1y responsible for that expense a second time at the six or seven year mark. Nor do I want to see the trees removed. The removal of the sidewalk would save both the City and myself multiple rounds of expensive repairs while preserving a valuable natural asset that cannot be replaced. 3. The sidewalk is little used. Stafford Street dead ends at the next house above ßùne, at 2616. The street stops at the rear of Linwood Cemetery, where a tall chain link fence prevents any access. There is no road or trail network on the adjacent Linwood property, only grave sites. 2616 Stafford does not have any sidewalks on its property. My sidewalk then starts below 2616 Stafford, approximately 40 feet below the StaffordlHennipen intersect on the other side of the street. Given this dead end location, the fenced presence of Linwood Cemetery, and the small number of houses in the area, very few people use the sidewalk. 4. This is an old, established neighborhood with no open spaces for either expansion or future development. The removal of the sidewalk would not compromise any future expansion or necessitate any future re-installation. 5. Sidewalk removal would not impose hardship on anyone. As noted above, the dead end location surrounded by Linwood Cemetery means the area is little used. Sidewalks on the other side of Stafford provide more than adequate sidewalk access. They also have the additional advantage of physically connecting with the sidewalks on both Hennipen and Ries, which does not happen on my side ofthe street. Anyone coming offHennipen has to diagonally cross Stafford, go past the nonexistent sidewalks of2616 and walk another 40 or more feet befure my sidewalk actually begins. In contrast, the other side of the street provides continuous sidewalk access without having to cross a street. 6. Both myself and the neighbors have had to contend with the children attending Jefferson Middle School trespassing on and vandalizing our properties. There have been constant and recurring problems. I have had my house and car repeatedly vandalized with thrown eggs, paint ball pellets and spray can graffiti. My wife and I have been verbally abused by these children; my pets have been physically abused. I have had to spend a great deal of time, effort and expense to clean up after these incidents of vandalism. I have also made the appropriate complaints to the Police Department, which has forced them to expend time and resources on the problem. I feel that removing these dead ena sidewalks would encourage the children to use the sidewalks on the other side of the street. Not only would this be safer fur the children, because of the continuous access that my sidewalks do not afford, but I believe it would greatly decrease the opportunity for conflict and vandalism, not only to my property but also to my neighbors. 7. Finally, the inspection of my sidewalks by the Public Works Department was precipitated by an anonymous phone call. This is a method I know the City approves of; but about which I have deep ethical and moral misgivings. Without trying to appear paranoid, I am convinced that the call was not made for any reason of safety or repair but in retaliation for my efforts to prevent further trespass and vandalism to my property. If the sidewalk is only repaired, I am convinced that a second and a third and a fourth call will be made to continue the harassment. I do not want to spend the required thousands of dollars to fix the sidewalks only to have to endure a continuing series of anonymous phone calls and inspections by the Public Works Department, who have told me they are obligated to investigate every complaint, anonymous or not. I am, therefore, asking that you authorize the removal of the sidewalks as the only sure and permanent solution to this problem. Coupled with the other cogent reasons given above, I think it represents the best solution for both myself, the neighbors and the City. I will also attend the Council meeting to present additional evidence ifnecessary and to be available for any questions the Council may have. Sincerely, f~ S~~ PAUL SCHEIDEBERG