The URL can be used to link to this page

99-998QRIGINAL Council File # � � � l Green Sheet # (O�a55 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By Referred To Committee: Date y3 1 WHEREAS, Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement has requested the City 2 Council to hold public hearings to consider the advisability and necessity of ordering the repair or 3 wrecking and removal of a two-story, wood frame single family dwelling located on property hereinafter 4 referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly lmown as 851 Magnolia Avenue East. This 5 properiy is legally described as follows, to wit: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Lot 24, Block 16, Eastville Heights. WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before June 30, 1999, the following are the now known interested or responsible parties for the Subject Property: Ronald T. Bell & Mary Ann Bell, 1722 Sherwood Avenue, St. Pau1, MN 55106; Knykole Sandoval, 351 Burgess Street, St. Paul, MN 55117; Ronald Bell, c/o Cheryl Ellingson, 5987 Egg Lake Rd, Hugo, MN 55038 WHEREAS, Division of Code Enforcement has served in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 ofthe Saint Paul Legislative Code an order identified as an"Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s)" dated July 21, 1999; and WHEREAS, this order informed the then known interested or responsible parties that the structure located on the Subject Property is a nuisance building(s) pursuant to Chapter 45; and WHEREAS, this order informed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair or demolish the shucture located on the Subject Property by August 20, 1999; and WHEREAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placazd on the Subject Property declaring this building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and WHEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Division of Code Enforcement requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings befare the Legislative Hearing Officer of the City Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and WIIEREAS, the interested and responsible parties have been served notice in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the rime, date, place and purpose of the public hearings; and 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 9R•99Y WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City Council on Tuesday, October 5, 1999 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and evidence, made the recommendation to approve the request to arder the interested or responsible parties to make the Subject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfaze and remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure in accordance with all applicable codes and otdinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the structute in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to be completed withiu fifteen (15) days after the date of the Council Hearing; and WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, October 13, 1999 and the testimony and evidence including the action taken by the Legislative Hearing Officer was considered by the Council; now therefore BE TT RESOLVED, that based upon the testixnony and evidence presented at the above referenced public hearings, the Saint Paul City Council hereby adopts the following Findings and Order concerning the Subject Property at 851 Magnolia Avenue East: That the Subject Properry comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul Legislafive Code, Chapter 45. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). That there now exists and has existed multiple Housing or Building code violations at the Subject Property. That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then known responsible parties to correct the deficiencies or to demolish and remove the building(s). That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition have not been corrected. That Division of Code Enforcement has posted a placard on the Subject Property which declares it to be a nuisance condition subject to demolition. That this building has been routinely monitored by the Citizen Service Offices, Division of Code Enforcement, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings. 8. That the known interested parties and owners aze as previously stated in this resolution and that the notification xequirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled. ORDER The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the following order: The above referenced interested or responsible parties shall make the Sabject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure and correcting all deficiencies as prescribed in the above referenced Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) in accardance with all applicable codes and ordinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition and removal of the structure must be completed within fifteen (15) days after the date of the Council Heazing. c�q.9qY 2 2. If the above corrective acrion is not completed within this period of time the Citizen Service 3 Office, Division of Code Enforcement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps aze necessary 4 to demolish and remove this structure, fill the site and chazge the costs incurred against the 5 Subject Properry pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislafive Code. 10 11 12 13 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all personal property or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shail be removed from the properiy by the responsible parties by the end of this time period. If all personal property is not removed, it shall be considered to be abandoned and the City of Saint Paul shall remove and dispose of such property as provided by law. 4. It is further ordered, that a copy of this resolution be mailed to the owners and interested parties in accordance with Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. Requested by Department oE: Adoption Certified by Council Secretary Cit'zen Servic fi e• e Enf cement B : For By: BY : —�� c�� „�,`�2ti,a — - Approved by Mayor: Date 0�� By : '��.fi'� /�Cl'i'v9� m A r ved by City Attorney " . � Adopted by Council: Date o�_``3 �� Approved by Mayor for Submission to „_.._ _: , qQ. �� v GREEN SHEET Warren R. Bostrom IMII@B�IGIt � ORO9t TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES �•_;,_ ;,�•� �_, � qIVAT1WOEY No 102?�5 �� ❑ AYNL1�LiFRYY31eR ❑ NMMlJ�LiFR1LISf6 � wraRl��rc� ❑ (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) City Council to pass this resolufion which will order the owner(s) to remove or repair the referenced building(s). If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. The subject property is located at 851 Magnolia Avenue East. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB COMMITTEE CML SERVICE CAMMISSION ri� tnis a��m everv�orlam unae.a �a�Lau w.enis aepartme�rcr YES NO Has tlxs v��s«Jfirm evc heen a dtv emnbyee? ,. PIx.��. � Dcec tius pe�soMirm poccecs a sldll nat namalA'0�� M�Y aareM city emObYee7 1'.��?i i5�i iT^A'di �^i 1•.`I H9' �1��^7 lathis pe�saKirm alaigeted vendoYt VES NO This building(s) is a nuisance building(s) as defined in Chapter 45 and a vacant building as defined in Chapter 43 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. The owners, interested parties arid responsible parties lrnown to the Enforcement Officer were given an order to repair or remove the building at 851 Magnolia Avenue East by August 20, 1999, and have failed to comply with those orders. _. -... .. . The City will eliminate a nuisance. The City will spend funds to wreck and remove this building(s). These costs will be assessed to the pxoperty, A nuisance condition will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to blight the community. MIOUNTOFTRANSACTIONt $7,000-$8,000 Nuisance Housing Abatement SOURCE � . _. COST/REVENUEBUDfiETED(GRCLEONE) �YES � NO 33261 ACTMTY NUMBER (�WM �ifl1�^s�z2 i�.��?�.5��3 vi.`��cP �e � � r �i .. ._. _;��:: °.�.:,:�'�:�; CITTZEN SERVICE OFFICE Fred Owusu, C+ty Clerk a9-9q� DIVLSION OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENf Wmren R Bastrom ProXram Manazer �. L QI S pA�., Nuism+ce Bui[ding Code Enforcement � Norm Colemmr, Mayar IS W. KelloggBlvd Rm. 190 Tel: 651-266�440 � SaintPaul,MNSS702 Fax:651-2668426 i F September 10, 1999 C �� n �'� �� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS `�� 3 �� Council President and Members ofthe City Council Citizen Service Office, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings Enforcement Division has requested the City Council schedule public hearings to consider a resolution ordering the repau or removal of the nuisance building(s) located at: 851 Magnolia Avenue East The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearings as follows: Legislarive Hearing - Tuesday, October 5,1999 City Council Hearing - Wednesday, October 13,1999 The owners and responsible parties of record are: Name and Last Known Address Ronald T. Bell & Mary Ann Bell 1722 Sherwood Avenue St. Paul, NIN 55106 Knykole Sandoval 351 Burgess Street St. Paul, MN 5� 117 Ronald Bell c!o Cheryl Ellin�son 5987 Egg Lake Rd Hugo, MN 55038 Fee Owner Tas Payer Fee Owner Interest 851 Magnolia Avenue East September 10, 1999 Page 2 The legal description of this property is: Lot 24, Block 16, Eastville Heights. aq.qq r Division of Code Enforcement has declazed this building(s) to constiiute a"nuisance" as defined by Legislative Code, Chapter 45. Division of Code Enforcement has issued an order to the then known responsible parties to eliminate this nuisance condition by coaectin� the deficiencies or by razing and removing this building(s). � Inasmuch as this Order to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition remains unabated, the community continues to suffer the blighting influence of this property. It is the recommendation of the Division of Code Enforcement that the CiTy Council pass a resolution ordering the responsible parties to either repair, or demolish and remove this building in a timely manner, and failing that, authorize the Division of Code Enforcement to proceed to demolition and removal, and to assess the costs incurred against the real estate as a special assessment to be collected in the same manner as taxes. //" ��. _.�.._- ��Itz�- . Steve Magner Vacant Buildings Supervisor Division of Code Enforcement Citizen Service Office SM:mI cc: Frank Berg, Buildina Inspection and Design Rachel Young, City Attomeys Office Nancy Anderson, Assistant Secretary to the Council Steve Zaccazd, Fire Mazshall Paul Mordorski, PED-Housing Division ccnph qq .q9 � REPORT LEGISLATIVE HEARING Date: October 5, 1999 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Room 330 City Hall 15 West Keliogg Boulevazd Gerry Strathman Legislative Hearing O�cer 1. 1707 Jefferson Avenue; Christopher and Carol Jorgensen. (SSA9901A) (Per City Councff meeting of 9-22-99) Gerry Strathman recommended reducing the assessment to $1,500 plus the $40 service fee, which brings the assessment to a total of $1,540. 2. 430 Case Avenue; Richard and Audrey Russ. (J9905A1) (Per City Council meeting of 9-22-99) Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. 3. Summary Abatements: File J9904V Towing of abandoned vehicles during April and May 1999; File J9906A Property clean-up or grass cutting during July 1999; File J9906B Boarding-up of vacant properties during June 1999; File J9906C Demolition of vacant buildings during July 1999. 631 Thomas Avenue (J9906A) Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. 1834 Mar�and Avenue East (J9906B) Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the November 2, 1999, Legislative Hearing. 875 Palace Avenue (J9904V) Gerry Strathman recommended reducing the assessment to $202.50 plus the $40 service fee, which brings the assessment to a total of $242.50. 531 Edmund Avenue (79904V) Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. 1885 Seventh Street East (J9904� Gerry Strathman recommended reducing the assessment to $335 plus the $65 service fee, which brings the assessment to a total of $400. a9•99Y LEGISLATIVE HEARING REPORT OF 10-5-99 Page 2 1895 Maenolia Avenue East (79906A) Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the October 19, 1999, Legislafive Hearing. 917 Euclid Street (J9906A) Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the October 19, 1999, Legislative Hearing. 559 McKnight Road South (J9904V) Gerry Strathman recommended deleting the assessment. 4. Summary Abatements: File J9907A Property clean-up or grass cutting during the last week of July and during August 1999; File J9907B Boarding up of vacant buildings during July 1999; File J9907C Demolition of vacant buildings for September 1999; File J99GRASS Grass cutting by contractor during July through mid August 1999. 81 Winnipee Avenue (J9907B) Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. 270 Seventh Street West (J9907C) Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. ll 83 Arkwrieht Street (J9907A) Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the October 19, 1999, Legislative Hearing. ll 99 Ross Avenue (J9907A) Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. 5. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 559 Lawson Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the January 4, 2000, Legislative Hearing. 6. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 851 Ma�nolia Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Gerry Strathman recommended approval. rrn � ` �l� � �3 MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING Tuesday, October 5, 1999 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 10:03 am. STAFF PRESENT: Roxanne Flink, Real Estate; Peter Gallagher, Public Works-Sewer Utility; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Guy Willits, Code Enforcement 1707 Jefferson Avenue; Christopher and Carol Jorgensen. (SSA9901A) (Per City Council meeting of 9-22-99) Christopher Jorgensen, owner, appeared. Approximately two yeazs ago, a hole developed in the boulevazd next to the street. An inspector said he found some rat pilings in the bottom of the hole. Mr. Jorgensen paid Cazlson Sewer Company $1,850 to fix the problem. Mr. Jorgensen had his sewer photographed, and there were no breaks in his sewer line. The next summer, there was another hole in the same spot. Mr. Jorgensen called the City again. The street and the sewer line were dug up. Instead of using the pre-cut holes in the main, it was found that someone chopped a hole 2 to 3 times bigger than what was needed in the connection. That is where the rats were coming from. Mr. Jorgensen's sewer service was fine. The pipe replaced was the middle section of the sewer line, a part that was not broken at all. He got assessed $7,57233 for the work that was done by the second contractor. It would not have been so expensive, but the street restoration chazges doubled the bill. Carlson Sewer Company replaced about 15 feet of pipe from a foot behind the properiy line to the edge of the pavement. Peter Gallagher reported there was a fog test done on 9-25-97 which showed positive for rat infestation at the site. His question would be why 15 feet of pipe was replaced the first time. Code Enforcement got a contractor to do the work. Sewer maintenance televised the main and determined the pipe had not been put in one of the manufactured y's in the pipe, tapped into the main, mortared with brick and concrete, and it appears the pipe had fallen one joint off--about two feet--back from the main. If Mr. Gallagher feels it was a problem on the main, that is a judgement call. Mr. Jorgensen stated everyone was amazed how lazge the hole was in the main. It was an improper insulation. He does not understand why a precut hole was not used. A person does not cut a hole lazger than what is needed to connect another pipe. Gerry Strathman asked when this connection was made. Mr. Gallagher responded 192Q. Mr. Strathman stated in 1920 when the original connection was made, in all likelihood the connection was not done correctly at the main. Over the yeazs, that connection deteriorated, and gradually became large enough that rats went through it, and hence there is a problem. The question is where does the responsibility for that lie. Mr. Strathman asked when an installation is �� g LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF 10-5-99 � page 2 being done, does the City haue any role in tlus. Mr. Gallagher responded the City provides the records of where things aze located. The policy is the company should be using premanufactured openings to take the cover off. However, they are given the opfion for attaching to the main in otherfashionsinstead ofchopping holes. Does the City inspect the work, asked Ivlr. Strathman. Mr. Gallagher responded the work is inspected in an open �ench. He could not say 100% of the work was seen in 1920. Gerry Strathman reduced the assessment to $1,500 plus the $40 service fee, which brings the assessment to a total of $1,540. From the legal position, it is the homeowner's responsibility. However, there is some question as to whether the City has some culpability going back 79 yeazs in allowing this connection to be done in an improper fashion. It seems the homeowner has acted in a reasonable and responsible way, and was consulting with City officials. It seems exhaordinarily burdensome to have the homeowner face $1,850 plus an additional assessment of $7,500 for a xnistake made by someone 79 years ago. 430 Case Avenue; Richard and Audrey Russ. (J9905A1) (Per City Council meeting of 4-22-94) Dorothy Kullney, accountant for Richazd and Audrey Russ, appeared. The owners were sent a bill for clean up. She was not sure what was on the property at the time. Since then, Ms. Kullney has cleaned the properry. (A videotape was shown.) Mr. Strathman stated it looks like the City mowed the lawn, cut down the trees, and picked up debris. Ms. Kullney responded the boys said they took care of this, but it looks like they didn't. Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. Summary Abatements: File J9904V Towing of abandoned vehicles during April and May 1999; File J9906A Property clean-up or grass cutting during July 1999; File J9906B Boarding-up of vacant properties during June 1999; File J9906C Demolition of vacant buildings during July 1999. File J9907A Property clean-up or grass cutting during the last week of July and during August 1999; File J9907B Boarding up of vacant buildings during July 1999; File J9907C Demolition of vacant bnildings during September 1999; File J99GRASS Grass curiing by contractor during July through mid August 1999. ��` 1�c� LEGISLATIVE HEARIIVG MINUTES OF 10-5-99 631 Thomas Avenue f79906A� Allan Ige, owner, appeazed. (A videotape was shown.) Page 3 Mr. Ige stated there was a blue caz in the videotape. They aze suppose to notify him to take caze of the veh9cle. Guy Willits reported orders were mailed on 7-1-99 to Mazk Pierce on 4�' Street, Alan Ige on Laurel, and the occupant. The door was posted. No mail has been returned to lus office. His records show that the property owner called and asked for an extension of time to take caze of the problem. Mr. Ige responded he does not know who called. Code Enforcement should have written down the naxne of that person. Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment citing he cannot find any fault. The records show that owners were notified, the property was posted, and an extension of time given. Code Enforcement is required to mail to the legal address of the owner of the properties. In this case, they posted the property and even gave an extension. It seems the City did more than what was required. 81 Winnipeg Avenue (J9907B) No one appeazed representing the property. Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. 270 Seventh Street West (J9907C) Janie Berg, speaking on behalf of the owner, appeazed and stated this property has been in front of the Council and legislative hearings for 15 yeazs. The Bergs have initiated for the demolition of this building. They aze pleased that it is no longer standing. However, it was a surprise to the Bergs that a motion was made by Councilmember Coleman that there would be a hearing on July 6 as to whether the building would be repaired or demolished. The Bergs were unaware that this action was being taken, and no one called them to say that an assessment of the property was needed. An azchitectural fum was hired to give an account of the situation. Had anybody notified the properry owners, this $3,115,71 assessment could have been eliminated because this already was done in 1990 at the request of the City. Gerry Strathman asked did that report include the cost of rehabilitation. Ms. Berg responded yes. Steve Magner reported the issue is the assessment of two things: the azchitechual report for $2,060 and the asbestos report of $1,055.77. He will touch on the asbestos report first. In the aa �� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF 10-5-99 Page 4 process of going to demolition they needed a hard cost figure of the demolition costs. That was only obtainable through having the building surveyed because bids were from $10,000 to $50,000 to demolish this building. It was prudent to spend this money so the demolition contractors could come up with the actual cost. At ffie time of public hearings, Code Enforcement wanted to give the City Council information they would require to make their decision. This was not an ordinary building to tear down. The asbestos was more extensive than first noted. Even ffiough the owner did the demolition, the owner would have been required to have the asbestos report done. The report was given to the owner so they could have their own contractor do the work. . Steve Magner reported the second issue is the azchitectural report. A letter was received from David Berg. (Mr. Magner read this letter.) The letter indicated Mr. Berg was awaze that this was being worked on. Mr. Berg called Mr. Magner periodically that things were not happening fast enough. After the building deficiency inspection report was compiled, a re-use study of the building needed to be done by a historical azchitect, which would show the condition of the building, the historical content, whether it could be restored historically, and whether the cost would over exceed that amount. Mr. Magner contacted a number of fums, and there was only one response. Code Enforcement contracted with that fum to have a report done, and that was the report that was used for the public hearings. Mr. Strathman asked the date of that report. Mr. Magner responded the invoice date is 5-26-99. He has no knowledge of the report referred to by Ms. Berg. With regazd to the asbestos, Mr. Strathman stated, it is reasonable for the City to incur that cost as part of preparing for action on this property in respect to demolition. The owner received the value of that report which they would have had to do anyway. With regard to the assessment of the historical significance of the property, that was essential and called for by the State to make the proper assessment of the historical significance of this building. It was not just figuring out the cost of rehabilitating it, but also whether it could be rehabilitated. It is cleaz from the letter Mr. Magner read, Mr. Berg was aware that the City was actively engaged in assessing this properiy. He could have offered the 1990 report if he had wanted to. Even if he had, it would have been nine yeazs old, and the condition of the building may have changed in nine yeazs. It would not have been prudent for the City to rely on an assessment done nine yeazs ago. Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. 1834 Marvland Avenue East (J9906B) Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the November 2, 1999, Legislative Hearing per the owner's request. � i �� O LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF 10-5-99 1183 Arkwrieht Street (J9907A) Page 5 Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the October 19, 1999, Legisiative Hearing per the owner's request. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 559 Lawson Avenue East. If the owner faiLs to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Photographs were shown and later retumed to Steve Magner.) The following appeazed: Pat Olowsky, First Preston, Rich Lemcke, HUD (Housing and Urban Development). Steve Magner reported tlus building was condemned on 9-30-98 and has been vacant since 9-28- 98. The current owner is HUD. It is being managed by the local contractor, Fust Preston. Two sununary abatement notices have been issued to remove refuse and cut tall gass. On 1-27-98 an inspection was conducted, and a list of deficiencies were found that constitute a nuisance condition as developed. As of this date, the properry remains in the same.condition. Vacant building fees aze due. Real estates taxes aze paid. The mazket value is approximately $38,300. A bond has not been posted. Mr. Olowsky stated there is a gurchase agreement on the property, and he requested a postponement. Mr. Strathman asked were there any active problems with this properly. Mr. Magner responded there have been some issues with the building being hroken into. HUB has attempted to keep it secure. Mr. Magner suggested any new owners be notified of all the requirements as follows: a $2,000 performance bond would need to be posted, permits obtained, and the $200 vacant building fee paid at time of closing. Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the January 4, 2000, Legislative Hearing. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 851 Magnolia Avenue � East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (No one appeared representing the properry.) (Photographs were shown.) Steve Magner reported this property was condemned on 10-15-97. Two summary abatement notices have been issued to remove refuse and cut tall grass. The vacant building fees aze paid. �� g LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF 10-5-99 Page 6 Real estate ta�ces aze paid. A code compliance inspection was done. A$2,000 bond has not been posted. The property has been sold on an unrecorded contract The conttact ptuchaser had made attempts to do things on the property, but has since let the building be stagnant. Gerry Strathmazi recommended approval of the resolution. 875 Palace Avenue (J9904� Cazolyn Madison got a car for her son. He worked on it and installed new parts, but the cost got way out of hand. The car was never moved. Parts were taken off of it for another vehicle. Then she received a certified letter that it was towed. She works two jobs and cannot afford this assessment. Mr. Strathman stated six orders were mailed to Ms. Madison. Ms. Madison responded she got at least two of those. The caz was not abandoned. Gerry Strathman recommended reducing the assessment to $202.50 plus the $40 service fee, which brings the assessment to a total of $242.50. 531 Edmund Avenue (J9904V) Linda Moua, 531 Edmund Avenue, appeazed and stated she rents the house, and this involves her husband's car. According to the records, stated Mr. Strathman, a notice was sent on 3-3-99 to Vue Lee Leenhiawe and it was posted on the door. The car was not removed until two months later. Mr. Willits reported the vehicles were posted, orders were never returned, and there were no phone calls from the property owner. Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. 1885 Seventh Street East (J9904� Owner appeazed and stated these are not his cazs. Gerry Strathman responded it is the owner of the properry that is assessed. The owner responded he became the owner 1'/z yeazs ago. When something is bought contract of deed, it sometimes gets lost in the paperwork. If he had vehicles to tow, he would tow it himself. Mr. Strathman stated Donald Johnson is recorded as the owner of the property and he is the one the notices were sent to. Roxanne Flink reported George Lowe is recorded as the owner. Gerry Strathxnan recommended reducing the assessment to $335 plus the $65 service fee, which brings the assessment to a total of $400. �� LEGISLA"I`IVE HEARING REPORT OF 10-5-99 1895 Masnolia Avenue Fast (J9906A) Page 7 The following appeazed: Holly Zschokke, former owner, Floyd, realtor who sold the property. Guy Willits reported he does not have the videotape with him because this properiy was not scheduled for today. Ms. Zschokke stated she closed on the property on 8-4-99. The notice was received in early July. Cleanup was done by that time. Floyd said he talked to the buyer about this. Personal items were removed: lawn mowers, freezer, tools, and equipment Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the October 19, 1999, Legislative Hearing in order to view the videotape. 917 Euclid Street (J9906A) Floyd (from the previous address) stated he would like to see the videotape on this address as well. Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the October 19, 1999, Legislative Heazing in order to view the videotape. 559 McKnieht Road South (J9904� Leonard Anderson owner, and Win Borden, his attorney, appeazed. Mr. Borden stated this assessment is apparently for an additional vehicle that was towed and not included in the previous assessment for this address. This vehicle was properly licensed. There was damage done to the vehicle when it was towed and in storage. They are asking for the assessment of $1,072.80 to be set aside. Roxanne Flink reported she has two buses listed in her records. Mr. Borden responded it may be labeled as a bus, but it is a trailer and licensed as such with a license number of T8699F. Gerry Strathman recommended deleting the assessment for the following two reasons: 1) there is already a assessment of approximately $12,000 pending on this properry, 2) the attorney claims the assessment for these vehicles is included in the earlier assessment. 1199 Ross Avenue (J9907A) Donald Conroy, owner, appeared Gerry Stratl�man stated orders were mailed on 2-23-99 to the owner's address in Oakdale. The order was to remove improperly stored refuse. Mr. Willits reported the owner was also calied. ��t �� LEGISLATIVE HEARING REPORT OF 10-5-99 (Mr. Willits presented photograph to Mr. Conroy.) � Gerry Strathman recommended approval citing the $145 seems reasonable and is lower than usual for an assessment. The meeting was adjoumed at 11:48 a.m. � QRIGINAL Council File # � � � l Green Sheet # (O�a55 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By Referred To Committee: Date y3 1 WHEREAS, Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement has requested the City 2 Council to hold public hearings to consider the advisability and necessity of ordering the repair or 3 wrecking and removal of a two-story, wood frame single family dwelling located on property hereinafter 4 referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly lmown as 851 Magnolia Avenue East. This 5 properiy is legally described as follows, to wit: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Lot 24, Block 16, Eastville Heights. WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before June 30, 1999, the following are the now known interested or responsible parties for the Subject Property: Ronald T. Bell & Mary Ann Bell, 1722 Sherwood Avenue, St. Pau1, MN 55106; Knykole Sandoval, 351 Burgess Street, St. Paul, MN 55117; Ronald Bell, c/o Cheryl Ellingson, 5987 Egg Lake Rd, Hugo, MN 55038 WHEREAS, Division of Code Enforcement has served in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 ofthe Saint Paul Legislative Code an order identified as an"Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s)" dated July 21, 1999; and WHEREAS, this order informed the then known interested or responsible parties that the structure located on the Subject Property is a nuisance building(s) pursuant to Chapter 45; and WHEREAS, this order informed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair or demolish the shucture located on the Subject Property by August 20, 1999; and WHEREAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placazd on the Subject Property declaring this building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and WHEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Division of Code Enforcement requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings befare the Legislative Hearing Officer of the City Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and WIIEREAS, the interested and responsible parties have been served notice in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the rime, date, place and purpose of the public hearings; and 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 9R•99Y WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City Council on Tuesday, October 5, 1999 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and evidence, made the recommendation to approve the request to arder the interested or responsible parties to make the Subject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfaze and remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure in accordance with all applicable codes and otdinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the structute in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to be completed withiu fifteen (15) days after the date of the Council Hearing; and WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, October 13, 1999 and the testimony and evidence including the action taken by the Legislative Hearing Officer was considered by the Council; now therefore BE TT RESOLVED, that based upon the testixnony and evidence presented at the above referenced public hearings, the Saint Paul City Council hereby adopts the following Findings and Order concerning the Subject Property at 851 Magnolia Avenue East: That the Subject Properry comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul Legislafive Code, Chapter 45. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). That there now exists and has existed multiple Housing or Building code violations at the Subject Property. That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then known responsible parties to correct the deficiencies or to demolish and remove the building(s). That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition have not been corrected. That Division of Code Enforcement has posted a placard on the Subject Property which declares it to be a nuisance condition subject to demolition. That this building has been routinely monitored by the Citizen Service Offices, Division of Code Enforcement, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings. 8. That the known interested parties and owners aze as previously stated in this resolution and that the notification xequirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled. ORDER The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the following order: The above referenced interested or responsible parties shall make the Sabject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure and correcting all deficiencies as prescribed in the above referenced Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) in accardance with all applicable codes and ordinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition and removal of the structure must be completed within fifteen (15) days after the date of the Council Heazing. c�q.9qY 2 2. If the above corrective acrion is not completed within this period of time the Citizen Service 3 Office, Division of Code Enforcement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps aze necessary 4 to demolish and remove this structure, fill the site and chazge the costs incurred against the 5 Subject Properry pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislafive Code. 10 11 12 13 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all personal property or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shail be removed from the properiy by the responsible parties by the end of this time period. If all personal property is not removed, it shall be considered to be abandoned and the City of Saint Paul shall remove and dispose of such property as provided by law. 4. It is further ordered, that a copy of this resolution be mailed to the owners and interested parties in accordance with Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. Requested by Department oE: Adoption Certified by Council Secretary Cit'zen Servic fi e• e Enf cement B : For By: BY : —�� c�� „�,`�2ti,a — - Approved by Mayor: Date 0�� By : '��.fi'� /�Cl'i'v9� m A r ved by City Attorney " . � Adopted by Council: Date o�_``3 �� Approved by Mayor for Submission to „_.._ _: , qQ. �� v GREEN SHEET Warren R. Bostrom IMII@B�IGIt � ORO9t TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES �•_;,_ ;,�•� �_, � qIVAT1WOEY No 102?�5 �� ❑ AYNL1�LiFRYY31eR ❑ NMMlJ�LiFR1LISf6 � wraRl��rc� ❑ (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) City Council to pass this resolufion which will order the owner(s) to remove or repair the referenced building(s). If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. The subject property is located at 851 Magnolia Avenue East. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB COMMITTEE CML SERVICE CAMMISSION ri� tnis a��m everv�orlam unae.a �a�Lau w.enis aepartme�rcr YES NO Has tlxs v��s«Jfirm evc heen a dtv emnbyee? ,. PIx.��. � Dcec tius pe�soMirm poccecs a sldll nat namalA'0�� M�Y aareM city emObYee7 1'.��?i i5�i iT^A'di �^i 1•.`I H9' �1��^7 lathis pe�saKirm alaigeted vendoYt VES NO This building(s) is a nuisance building(s) as defined in Chapter 45 and a vacant building as defined in Chapter 43 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. The owners, interested parties arid responsible parties lrnown to the Enforcement Officer were given an order to repair or remove the building at 851 Magnolia Avenue East by August 20, 1999, and have failed to comply with those orders. _. -... .. . The City will eliminate a nuisance. The City will spend funds to wreck and remove this building(s). These costs will be assessed to the pxoperty, A nuisance condition will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to blight the community. MIOUNTOFTRANSACTIONt $7,000-$8,000 Nuisance Housing Abatement SOURCE � . _. COST/REVENUEBUDfiETED(GRCLEONE) �YES � NO 33261 ACTMTY NUMBER (�WM �ifl1�^s�z2 i�.��?�.5��3 vi.`��cP �e � � r �i .. ._. _;��:: °.�.:,:�'�:�; CITTZEN SERVICE OFFICE Fred Owusu, C+ty Clerk a9-9q� DIVLSION OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENf Wmren R Bastrom ProXram Manazer �. L QI S pA�., Nuism+ce Bui[ding Code Enforcement � Norm Colemmr, Mayar IS W. KelloggBlvd Rm. 190 Tel: 651-266�440 � SaintPaul,MNSS702 Fax:651-2668426 i F September 10, 1999 C �� n �'� �� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS `�� 3 �� Council President and Members ofthe City Council Citizen Service Office, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings Enforcement Division has requested the City Council schedule public hearings to consider a resolution ordering the repau or removal of the nuisance building(s) located at: 851 Magnolia Avenue East The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearings as follows: Legislarive Hearing - Tuesday, October 5,1999 City Council Hearing - Wednesday, October 13,1999 The owners and responsible parties of record are: Name and Last Known Address Ronald T. Bell & Mary Ann Bell 1722 Sherwood Avenue St. Paul, NIN 55106 Knykole Sandoval 351 Burgess Street St. Paul, MN 5� 117 Ronald Bell c!o Cheryl Ellin�son 5987 Egg Lake Rd Hugo, MN 55038 Fee Owner Tas Payer Fee Owner Interest 851 Magnolia Avenue East September 10, 1999 Page 2 The legal description of this property is: Lot 24, Block 16, Eastville Heights. aq.qq r Division of Code Enforcement has declazed this building(s) to constiiute a"nuisance" as defined by Legislative Code, Chapter 45. Division of Code Enforcement has issued an order to the then known responsible parties to eliminate this nuisance condition by coaectin� the deficiencies or by razing and removing this building(s). � Inasmuch as this Order to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition remains unabated, the community continues to suffer the blighting influence of this property. It is the recommendation of the Division of Code Enforcement that the CiTy Council pass a resolution ordering the responsible parties to either repair, or demolish and remove this building in a timely manner, and failing that, authorize the Division of Code Enforcement to proceed to demolition and removal, and to assess the costs incurred against the real estate as a special assessment to be collected in the same manner as taxes. //" ��. _.�.._- ��Itz�- . Steve Magner Vacant Buildings Supervisor Division of Code Enforcement Citizen Service Office SM:mI cc: Frank Berg, Buildina Inspection and Design Rachel Young, City Attomeys Office Nancy Anderson, Assistant Secretary to the Council Steve Zaccazd, Fire Mazshall Paul Mordorski, PED-Housing Division ccnph qq .q9 � REPORT LEGISLATIVE HEARING Date: October 5, 1999 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Room 330 City Hall 15 West Keliogg Boulevazd Gerry Strathman Legislative Hearing O�cer 1. 1707 Jefferson Avenue; Christopher and Carol Jorgensen. (SSA9901A) (Per City Councff meeting of 9-22-99) Gerry Strathman recommended reducing the assessment to $1,500 plus the $40 service fee, which brings the assessment to a total of $1,540. 2. 430 Case Avenue; Richard and Audrey Russ. (J9905A1) (Per City Council meeting of 9-22-99) Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. 3. Summary Abatements: File J9904V Towing of abandoned vehicles during April and May 1999; File J9906A Property clean-up or grass cutting during July 1999; File J9906B Boarding-up of vacant properties during June 1999; File J9906C Demolition of vacant buildings during July 1999. 631 Thomas Avenue (J9906A) Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. 1834 Mar�and Avenue East (J9906B) Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the November 2, 1999, Legislative Hearing. 875 Palace Avenue (J9904V) Gerry Strathman recommended reducing the assessment to $202.50 plus the $40 service fee, which brings the assessment to a total of $242.50. 531 Edmund Avenue (79904V) Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. 1885 Seventh Street East (J9904� Gerry Strathman recommended reducing the assessment to $335 plus the $65 service fee, which brings the assessment to a total of $400. a9•99Y LEGISLATIVE HEARING REPORT OF 10-5-99 Page 2 1895 Maenolia Avenue East (79906A) Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the October 19, 1999, Legislafive Hearing. 917 Euclid Street (J9906A) Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the October 19, 1999, Legislative Hearing. 559 McKnight Road South (J9904V) Gerry Strathman recommended deleting the assessment. 4. Summary Abatements: File J9907A Property clean-up or grass cutting during the last week of July and during August 1999; File J9907B Boarding up of vacant buildings during July 1999; File J9907C Demolition of vacant buildings for September 1999; File J99GRASS Grass cutting by contractor during July through mid August 1999. 81 Winnipee Avenue (J9907B) Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. 270 Seventh Street West (J9907C) Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. ll 83 Arkwrieht Street (J9907A) Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the October 19, 1999, Legislative Hearing. ll 99 Ross Avenue (J9907A) Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. 5. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 559 Lawson Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the January 4, 2000, Legislative Hearing. 6. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 851 Ma�nolia Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Gerry Strathman recommended approval. rrn � ` �l� � �3 MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING Tuesday, October 5, 1999 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 10:03 am. STAFF PRESENT: Roxanne Flink, Real Estate; Peter Gallagher, Public Works-Sewer Utility; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Guy Willits, Code Enforcement 1707 Jefferson Avenue; Christopher and Carol Jorgensen. (SSA9901A) (Per City Council meeting of 9-22-99) Christopher Jorgensen, owner, appeared. Approximately two yeazs ago, a hole developed in the boulevazd next to the street. An inspector said he found some rat pilings in the bottom of the hole. Mr. Jorgensen paid Cazlson Sewer Company $1,850 to fix the problem. Mr. Jorgensen had his sewer photographed, and there were no breaks in his sewer line. The next summer, there was another hole in the same spot. Mr. Jorgensen called the City again. The street and the sewer line were dug up. Instead of using the pre-cut holes in the main, it was found that someone chopped a hole 2 to 3 times bigger than what was needed in the connection. That is where the rats were coming from. Mr. Jorgensen's sewer service was fine. The pipe replaced was the middle section of the sewer line, a part that was not broken at all. He got assessed $7,57233 for the work that was done by the second contractor. It would not have been so expensive, but the street restoration chazges doubled the bill. Carlson Sewer Company replaced about 15 feet of pipe from a foot behind the properiy line to the edge of the pavement. Peter Gallagher reported there was a fog test done on 9-25-97 which showed positive for rat infestation at the site. His question would be why 15 feet of pipe was replaced the first time. Code Enforcement got a contractor to do the work. Sewer maintenance televised the main and determined the pipe had not been put in one of the manufactured y's in the pipe, tapped into the main, mortared with brick and concrete, and it appears the pipe had fallen one joint off--about two feet--back from the main. If Mr. Gallagher feels it was a problem on the main, that is a judgement call. Mr. Jorgensen stated everyone was amazed how lazge the hole was in the main. It was an improper insulation. He does not understand why a precut hole was not used. A person does not cut a hole lazger than what is needed to connect another pipe. Gerry Strathman asked when this connection was made. Mr. Gallagher responded 192Q. Mr. Strathman stated in 1920 when the original connection was made, in all likelihood the connection was not done correctly at the main. Over the yeazs, that connection deteriorated, and gradually became large enough that rats went through it, and hence there is a problem. The question is where does the responsibility for that lie. Mr. Strathman asked when an installation is �� g LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF 10-5-99 � page 2 being done, does the City haue any role in tlus. Mr. Gallagher responded the City provides the records of where things aze located. The policy is the company should be using premanufactured openings to take the cover off. However, they are given the opfion for attaching to the main in otherfashionsinstead ofchopping holes. Does the City inspect the work, asked Ivlr. Strathman. Mr. Gallagher responded the work is inspected in an open �ench. He could not say 100% of the work was seen in 1920. Gerry Strathman reduced the assessment to $1,500 plus the $40 service fee, which brings the assessment to a total of $1,540. From the legal position, it is the homeowner's responsibility. However, there is some question as to whether the City has some culpability going back 79 yeazs in allowing this connection to be done in an improper fashion. It seems the homeowner has acted in a reasonable and responsible way, and was consulting with City officials. It seems exhaordinarily burdensome to have the homeowner face $1,850 plus an additional assessment of $7,500 for a xnistake made by someone 79 years ago. 430 Case Avenue; Richard and Audrey Russ. (J9905A1) (Per City Council meeting of 4-22-94) Dorothy Kullney, accountant for Richazd and Audrey Russ, appeared. The owners were sent a bill for clean up. She was not sure what was on the property at the time. Since then, Ms. Kullney has cleaned the properry. (A videotape was shown.) Mr. Strathman stated it looks like the City mowed the lawn, cut down the trees, and picked up debris. Ms. Kullney responded the boys said they took care of this, but it looks like they didn't. Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. Summary Abatements: File J9904V Towing of abandoned vehicles during April and May 1999; File J9906A Property clean-up or grass cutting during July 1999; File J9906B Boarding-up of vacant properties during June 1999; File J9906C Demolition of vacant buildings during July 1999. File J9907A Property clean-up or grass cutting during the last week of July and during August 1999; File J9907B Boarding up of vacant buildings during July 1999; File J9907C Demolition of vacant bnildings during September 1999; File J99GRASS Grass curiing by contractor during July through mid August 1999. ��` 1�c� LEGISLATIVE HEARIIVG MINUTES OF 10-5-99 631 Thomas Avenue f79906A� Allan Ige, owner, appeazed. (A videotape was shown.) Page 3 Mr. Ige stated there was a blue caz in the videotape. They aze suppose to notify him to take caze of the veh9cle. Guy Willits reported orders were mailed on 7-1-99 to Mazk Pierce on 4�' Street, Alan Ige on Laurel, and the occupant. The door was posted. No mail has been returned to lus office. His records show that the property owner called and asked for an extension of time to take caze of the problem. Mr. Ige responded he does not know who called. Code Enforcement should have written down the naxne of that person. Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment citing he cannot find any fault. The records show that owners were notified, the property was posted, and an extension of time given. Code Enforcement is required to mail to the legal address of the owner of the properties. In this case, they posted the property and even gave an extension. It seems the City did more than what was required. 81 Winnipeg Avenue (J9907B) No one appeazed representing the property. Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. 270 Seventh Street West (J9907C) Janie Berg, speaking on behalf of the owner, appeazed and stated this property has been in front of the Council and legislative hearings for 15 yeazs. The Bergs have initiated for the demolition of this building. They aze pleased that it is no longer standing. However, it was a surprise to the Bergs that a motion was made by Councilmember Coleman that there would be a hearing on July 6 as to whether the building would be repaired or demolished. The Bergs were unaware that this action was being taken, and no one called them to say that an assessment of the property was needed. An azchitectural fum was hired to give an account of the situation. Had anybody notified the properry owners, this $3,115,71 assessment could have been eliminated because this already was done in 1990 at the request of the City. Gerry Strathman asked did that report include the cost of rehabilitation. Ms. Berg responded yes. Steve Magner reported the issue is the assessment of two things: the azchitechual report for $2,060 and the asbestos report of $1,055.77. He will touch on the asbestos report first. In the aa �� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF 10-5-99 Page 4 process of going to demolition they needed a hard cost figure of the demolition costs. That was only obtainable through having the building surveyed because bids were from $10,000 to $50,000 to demolish this building. It was prudent to spend this money so the demolition contractors could come up with the actual cost. At ffie time of public hearings, Code Enforcement wanted to give the City Council information they would require to make their decision. This was not an ordinary building to tear down. The asbestos was more extensive than first noted. Even ffiough the owner did the demolition, the owner would have been required to have the asbestos report done. The report was given to the owner so they could have their own contractor do the work. . Steve Magner reported the second issue is the azchitectural report. A letter was received from David Berg. (Mr. Magner read this letter.) The letter indicated Mr. Berg was awaze that this was being worked on. Mr. Berg called Mr. Magner periodically that things were not happening fast enough. After the building deficiency inspection report was compiled, a re-use study of the building needed to be done by a historical azchitect, which would show the condition of the building, the historical content, whether it could be restored historically, and whether the cost would over exceed that amount. Mr. Magner contacted a number of fums, and there was only one response. Code Enforcement contracted with that fum to have a report done, and that was the report that was used for the public hearings. Mr. Strathman asked the date of that report. Mr. Magner responded the invoice date is 5-26-99. He has no knowledge of the report referred to by Ms. Berg. With regazd to the asbestos, Mr. Strathman stated, it is reasonable for the City to incur that cost as part of preparing for action on this property in respect to demolition. The owner received the value of that report which they would have had to do anyway. With regard to the assessment of the historical significance of the property, that was essential and called for by the State to make the proper assessment of the historical significance of this building. It was not just figuring out the cost of rehabilitating it, but also whether it could be rehabilitated. It is cleaz from the letter Mr. Magner read, Mr. Berg was aware that the City was actively engaged in assessing this properiy. He could have offered the 1990 report if he had wanted to. Even if he had, it would have been nine yeazs old, and the condition of the building may have changed in nine yeazs. It would not have been prudent for the City to rely on an assessment done nine yeazs ago. Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. 1834 Marvland Avenue East (J9906B) Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the November 2, 1999, Legislative Hearing per the owner's request. � i �� O LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF 10-5-99 1183 Arkwrieht Street (J9907A) Page 5 Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the October 19, 1999, Legisiative Hearing per the owner's request. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 559 Lawson Avenue East. If the owner faiLs to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Photographs were shown and later retumed to Steve Magner.) The following appeazed: Pat Olowsky, First Preston, Rich Lemcke, HUD (Housing and Urban Development). Steve Magner reported tlus building was condemned on 9-30-98 and has been vacant since 9-28- 98. The current owner is HUD. It is being managed by the local contractor, Fust Preston. Two sununary abatement notices have been issued to remove refuse and cut tall gass. On 1-27-98 an inspection was conducted, and a list of deficiencies were found that constitute a nuisance condition as developed. As of this date, the properry remains in the same.condition. Vacant building fees aze due. Real estates taxes aze paid. The mazket value is approximately $38,300. A bond has not been posted. Mr. Olowsky stated there is a gurchase agreement on the property, and he requested a postponement. Mr. Strathman asked were there any active problems with this properly. Mr. Magner responded there have been some issues with the building being hroken into. HUB has attempted to keep it secure. Mr. Magner suggested any new owners be notified of all the requirements as follows: a $2,000 performance bond would need to be posted, permits obtained, and the $200 vacant building fee paid at time of closing. Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the January 4, 2000, Legislative Hearing. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 851 Magnolia Avenue � East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (No one appeared representing the properry.) (Photographs were shown.) Steve Magner reported this property was condemned on 10-15-97. Two summary abatement notices have been issued to remove refuse and cut tall grass. The vacant building fees aze paid. �� g LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF 10-5-99 Page 6 Real estate ta�ces aze paid. A code compliance inspection was done. A$2,000 bond has not been posted. The property has been sold on an unrecorded contract The conttact ptuchaser had made attempts to do things on the property, but has since let the building be stagnant. Gerry Strathmazi recommended approval of the resolution. 875 Palace Avenue (J9904� Cazolyn Madison got a car for her son. He worked on it and installed new parts, but the cost got way out of hand. The car was never moved. Parts were taken off of it for another vehicle. Then she received a certified letter that it was towed. She works two jobs and cannot afford this assessment. Mr. Strathman stated six orders were mailed to Ms. Madison. Ms. Madison responded she got at least two of those. The caz was not abandoned. Gerry Strathman recommended reducing the assessment to $202.50 plus the $40 service fee, which brings the assessment to a total of $242.50. 531 Edmund Avenue (J9904V) Linda Moua, 531 Edmund Avenue, appeazed and stated she rents the house, and this involves her husband's car. According to the records, stated Mr. Strathman, a notice was sent on 3-3-99 to Vue Lee Leenhiawe and it was posted on the door. The car was not removed until two months later. Mr. Willits reported the vehicles were posted, orders were never returned, and there were no phone calls from the property owner. Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. 1885 Seventh Street East (J9904� Owner appeazed and stated these are not his cazs. Gerry Strathman responded it is the owner of the properry that is assessed. The owner responded he became the owner 1'/z yeazs ago. When something is bought contract of deed, it sometimes gets lost in the paperwork. If he had vehicles to tow, he would tow it himself. Mr. Strathman stated Donald Johnson is recorded as the owner of the property and he is the one the notices were sent to. Roxanne Flink reported George Lowe is recorded as the owner. Gerry Strathxnan recommended reducing the assessment to $335 plus the $65 service fee, which brings the assessment to a total of $400. �� LEGISLA"I`IVE HEARING REPORT OF 10-5-99 1895 Masnolia Avenue Fast (J9906A) Page 7 The following appeazed: Holly Zschokke, former owner, Floyd, realtor who sold the property. Guy Willits reported he does not have the videotape with him because this properiy was not scheduled for today. Ms. Zschokke stated she closed on the property on 8-4-99. The notice was received in early July. Cleanup was done by that time. Floyd said he talked to the buyer about this. Personal items were removed: lawn mowers, freezer, tools, and equipment Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the October 19, 1999, Legislative Hearing in order to view the videotape. 917 Euclid Street (J9906A) Floyd (from the previous address) stated he would like to see the videotape on this address as well. Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the October 19, 1999, Legislative Heazing in order to view the videotape. 559 McKnieht Road South (J9904� Leonard Anderson owner, and Win Borden, his attorney, appeazed. Mr. Borden stated this assessment is apparently for an additional vehicle that was towed and not included in the previous assessment for this address. This vehicle was properly licensed. There was damage done to the vehicle when it was towed and in storage. They are asking for the assessment of $1,072.80 to be set aside. Roxanne Flink reported she has two buses listed in her records. Mr. Borden responded it may be labeled as a bus, but it is a trailer and licensed as such with a license number of T8699F. Gerry Strathman recommended deleting the assessment for the following two reasons: 1) there is already a assessment of approximately $12,000 pending on this properry, 2) the attorney claims the assessment for these vehicles is included in the earlier assessment. 1199 Ross Avenue (J9907A) Donald Conroy, owner, appeared Gerry Stratl�man stated orders were mailed on 2-23-99 to the owner's address in Oakdale. The order was to remove improperly stored refuse. Mr. Willits reported the owner was also calied. ��t �� LEGISLATIVE HEARING REPORT OF 10-5-99 (Mr. Willits presented photograph to Mr. Conroy.) � Gerry Strathman recommended approval citing the $145 seems reasonable and is lower than usual for an assessment. The meeting was adjoumed at 11:48 a.m. � QRIGINAL Council File # � � � l Green Sheet # (O�a55 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By Referred To Committee: Date y3 1 WHEREAS, Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement has requested the City 2 Council to hold public hearings to consider the advisability and necessity of ordering the repair or 3 wrecking and removal of a two-story, wood frame single family dwelling located on property hereinafter 4 referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly lmown as 851 Magnolia Avenue East. This 5 properiy is legally described as follows, to wit: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Lot 24, Block 16, Eastville Heights. WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before June 30, 1999, the following are the now known interested or responsible parties for the Subject Property: Ronald T. Bell & Mary Ann Bell, 1722 Sherwood Avenue, St. Pau1, MN 55106; Knykole Sandoval, 351 Burgess Street, St. Paul, MN 55117; Ronald Bell, c/o Cheryl Ellingson, 5987 Egg Lake Rd, Hugo, MN 55038 WHEREAS, Division of Code Enforcement has served in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 ofthe Saint Paul Legislative Code an order identified as an"Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s)" dated July 21, 1999; and WHEREAS, this order informed the then known interested or responsible parties that the structure located on the Subject Property is a nuisance building(s) pursuant to Chapter 45; and WHEREAS, this order informed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair or demolish the shucture located on the Subject Property by August 20, 1999; and WHEREAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placazd on the Subject Property declaring this building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and WHEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Division of Code Enforcement requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings befare the Legislative Hearing Officer of the City Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and WIIEREAS, the interested and responsible parties have been served notice in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the rime, date, place and purpose of the public hearings; and 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 9R•99Y WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City Council on Tuesday, October 5, 1999 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and evidence, made the recommendation to approve the request to arder the interested or responsible parties to make the Subject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfaze and remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure in accordance with all applicable codes and otdinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the structute in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to be completed withiu fifteen (15) days after the date of the Council Hearing; and WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, October 13, 1999 and the testimony and evidence including the action taken by the Legislative Hearing Officer was considered by the Council; now therefore BE TT RESOLVED, that based upon the testixnony and evidence presented at the above referenced public hearings, the Saint Paul City Council hereby adopts the following Findings and Order concerning the Subject Property at 851 Magnolia Avenue East: That the Subject Properry comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul Legislafive Code, Chapter 45. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). That there now exists and has existed multiple Housing or Building code violations at the Subject Property. That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then known responsible parties to correct the deficiencies or to demolish and remove the building(s). That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition have not been corrected. That Division of Code Enforcement has posted a placard on the Subject Property which declares it to be a nuisance condition subject to demolition. That this building has been routinely monitored by the Citizen Service Offices, Division of Code Enforcement, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings. 8. That the known interested parties and owners aze as previously stated in this resolution and that the notification xequirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled. ORDER The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the following order: The above referenced interested or responsible parties shall make the Sabject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure and correcting all deficiencies as prescribed in the above referenced Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) in accardance with all applicable codes and ordinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition and removal of the structure must be completed within fifteen (15) days after the date of the Council Heazing. c�q.9qY 2 2. If the above corrective acrion is not completed within this period of time the Citizen Service 3 Office, Division of Code Enforcement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps aze necessary 4 to demolish and remove this structure, fill the site and chazge the costs incurred against the 5 Subject Properry pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislafive Code. 10 11 12 13 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all personal property or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shail be removed from the properiy by the responsible parties by the end of this time period. If all personal property is not removed, it shall be considered to be abandoned and the City of Saint Paul shall remove and dispose of such property as provided by law. 4. It is further ordered, that a copy of this resolution be mailed to the owners and interested parties in accordance with Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. Requested by Department oE: Adoption Certified by Council Secretary Cit'zen Servic fi e• e Enf cement B : For By: BY : —�� c�� „�,`�2ti,a — - Approved by Mayor: Date 0�� By : '��.fi'� /�Cl'i'v9� m A r ved by City Attorney " . � Adopted by Council: Date o�_``3 �� Approved by Mayor for Submission to „_.._ _: , qQ. �� v GREEN SHEET Warren R. Bostrom IMII@B�IGIt � ORO9t TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES �•_;,_ ;,�•� �_, � qIVAT1WOEY No 102?�5 �� ❑ AYNL1�LiFRYY31eR ❑ NMMlJ�LiFR1LISf6 � wraRl��rc� ❑ (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) City Council to pass this resolufion which will order the owner(s) to remove or repair the referenced building(s). If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. The subject property is located at 851 Magnolia Avenue East. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB COMMITTEE CML SERVICE CAMMISSION ri� tnis a��m everv�orlam unae.a �a�Lau w.enis aepartme�rcr YES NO Has tlxs v��s«Jfirm evc heen a dtv emnbyee? ,. PIx.��. � Dcec tius pe�soMirm poccecs a sldll nat namalA'0�� M�Y aareM city emObYee7 1'.��?i i5�i iT^A'di �^i 1•.`I H9' �1��^7 lathis pe�saKirm alaigeted vendoYt VES NO This building(s) is a nuisance building(s) as defined in Chapter 45 and a vacant building as defined in Chapter 43 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. The owners, interested parties arid responsible parties lrnown to the Enforcement Officer were given an order to repair or remove the building at 851 Magnolia Avenue East by August 20, 1999, and have failed to comply with those orders. _. -... .. . The City will eliminate a nuisance. The City will spend funds to wreck and remove this building(s). These costs will be assessed to the pxoperty, A nuisance condition will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to blight the community. MIOUNTOFTRANSACTIONt $7,000-$8,000 Nuisance Housing Abatement SOURCE � . _. COST/REVENUEBUDfiETED(GRCLEONE) �YES � NO 33261 ACTMTY NUMBER (�WM �ifl1�^s�z2 i�.��?�.5��3 vi.`��cP �e � � r �i .. ._. _;��:: °.�.:,:�'�:�; CITTZEN SERVICE OFFICE Fred Owusu, C+ty Clerk a9-9q� DIVLSION OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENf Wmren R Bastrom ProXram Manazer �. L QI S pA�., Nuism+ce Bui[ding Code Enforcement � Norm Colemmr, Mayar IS W. KelloggBlvd Rm. 190 Tel: 651-266�440 � SaintPaul,MNSS702 Fax:651-2668426 i F September 10, 1999 C �� n �'� �� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS `�� 3 �� Council President and Members ofthe City Council Citizen Service Office, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings Enforcement Division has requested the City Council schedule public hearings to consider a resolution ordering the repau or removal of the nuisance building(s) located at: 851 Magnolia Avenue East The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearings as follows: Legislarive Hearing - Tuesday, October 5,1999 City Council Hearing - Wednesday, October 13,1999 The owners and responsible parties of record are: Name and Last Known Address Ronald T. Bell & Mary Ann Bell 1722 Sherwood Avenue St. Paul, NIN 55106 Knykole Sandoval 351 Burgess Street St. Paul, MN 5� 117 Ronald Bell c!o Cheryl Ellin�son 5987 Egg Lake Rd Hugo, MN 55038 Fee Owner Tas Payer Fee Owner Interest 851 Magnolia Avenue East September 10, 1999 Page 2 The legal description of this property is: Lot 24, Block 16, Eastville Heights. aq.qq r Division of Code Enforcement has declazed this building(s) to constiiute a"nuisance" as defined by Legislative Code, Chapter 45. Division of Code Enforcement has issued an order to the then known responsible parties to eliminate this nuisance condition by coaectin� the deficiencies or by razing and removing this building(s). � Inasmuch as this Order to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition remains unabated, the community continues to suffer the blighting influence of this property. It is the recommendation of the Division of Code Enforcement that the CiTy Council pass a resolution ordering the responsible parties to either repair, or demolish and remove this building in a timely manner, and failing that, authorize the Division of Code Enforcement to proceed to demolition and removal, and to assess the costs incurred against the real estate as a special assessment to be collected in the same manner as taxes. //" ��. _.�.._- ��Itz�- . Steve Magner Vacant Buildings Supervisor Division of Code Enforcement Citizen Service Office SM:mI cc: Frank Berg, Buildina Inspection and Design Rachel Young, City Attomeys Office Nancy Anderson, Assistant Secretary to the Council Steve Zaccazd, Fire Mazshall Paul Mordorski, PED-Housing Division ccnph qq .q9 � REPORT LEGISLATIVE HEARING Date: October 5, 1999 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Room 330 City Hall 15 West Keliogg Boulevazd Gerry Strathman Legislative Hearing O�cer 1. 1707 Jefferson Avenue; Christopher and Carol Jorgensen. (SSA9901A) (Per City Councff meeting of 9-22-99) Gerry Strathman recommended reducing the assessment to $1,500 plus the $40 service fee, which brings the assessment to a total of $1,540. 2. 430 Case Avenue; Richard and Audrey Russ. (J9905A1) (Per City Council meeting of 9-22-99) Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. 3. Summary Abatements: File J9904V Towing of abandoned vehicles during April and May 1999; File J9906A Property clean-up or grass cutting during July 1999; File J9906B Boarding-up of vacant properties during June 1999; File J9906C Demolition of vacant buildings during July 1999. 631 Thomas Avenue (J9906A) Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. 1834 Mar�and Avenue East (J9906B) Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the November 2, 1999, Legislative Hearing. 875 Palace Avenue (J9904V) Gerry Strathman recommended reducing the assessment to $202.50 plus the $40 service fee, which brings the assessment to a total of $242.50. 531 Edmund Avenue (79904V) Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. 1885 Seventh Street East (J9904� Gerry Strathman recommended reducing the assessment to $335 plus the $65 service fee, which brings the assessment to a total of $400. a9•99Y LEGISLATIVE HEARING REPORT OF 10-5-99 Page 2 1895 Maenolia Avenue East (79906A) Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the October 19, 1999, Legislafive Hearing. 917 Euclid Street (J9906A) Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the October 19, 1999, Legislative Hearing. 559 McKnight Road South (J9904V) Gerry Strathman recommended deleting the assessment. 4. Summary Abatements: File J9907A Property clean-up or grass cutting during the last week of July and during August 1999; File J9907B Boarding up of vacant buildings during July 1999; File J9907C Demolition of vacant buildings for September 1999; File J99GRASS Grass cutting by contractor during July through mid August 1999. 81 Winnipee Avenue (J9907B) Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. 270 Seventh Street West (J9907C) Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. ll 83 Arkwrieht Street (J9907A) Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the October 19, 1999, Legislative Hearing. ll 99 Ross Avenue (J9907A) Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. 5. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 559 Lawson Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the January 4, 2000, Legislative Hearing. 6. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 851 Ma�nolia Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Gerry Strathman recommended approval. rrn � ` �l� � �3 MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING Tuesday, October 5, 1999 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 10:03 am. STAFF PRESENT: Roxanne Flink, Real Estate; Peter Gallagher, Public Works-Sewer Utility; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Guy Willits, Code Enforcement 1707 Jefferson Avenue; Christopher and Carol Jorgensen. (SSA9901A) (Per City Council meeting of 9-22-99) Christopher Jorgensen, owner, appeared. Approximately two yeazs ago, a hole developed in the boulevazd next to the street. An inspector said he found some rat pilings in the bottom of the hole. Mr. Jorgensen paid Cazlson Sewer Company $1,850 to fix the problem. Mr. Jorgensen had his sewer photographed, and there were no breaks in his sewer line. The next summer, there was another hole in the same spot. Mr. Jorgensen called the City again. The street and the sewer line were dug up. Instead of using the pre-cut holes in the main, it was found that someone chopped a hole 2 to 3 times bigger than what was needed in the connection. That is where the rats were coming from. Mr. Jorgensen's sewer service was fine. The pipe replaced was the middle section of the sewer line, a part that was not broken at all. He got assessed $7,57233 for the work that was done by the second contractor. It would not have been so expensive, but the street restoration chazges doubled the bill. Carlson Sewer Company replaced about 15 feet of pipe from a foot behind the properiy line to the edge of the pavement. Peter Gallagher reported there was a fog test done on 9-25-97 which showed positive for rat infestation at the site. His question would be why 15 feet of pipe was replaced the first time. Code Enforcement got a contractor to do the work. Sewer maintenance televised the main and determined the pipe had not been put in one of the manufactured y's in the pipe, tapped into the main, mortared with brick and concrete, and it appears the pipe had fallen one joint off--about two feet--back from the main. If Mr. Gallagher feels it was a problem on the main, that is a judgement call. Mr. Jorgensen stated everyone was amazed how lazge the hole was in the main. It was an improper insulation. He does not understand why a precut hole was not used. A person does not cut a hole lazger than what is needed to connect another pipe. Gerry Strathman asked when this connection was made. Mr. Gallagher responded 192Q. Mr. Strathman stated in 1920 when the original connection was made, in all likelihood the connection was not done correctly at the main. Over the yeazs, that connection deteriorated, and gradually became large enough that rats went through it, and hence there is a problem. The question is where does the responsibility for that lie. Mr. Strathman asked when an installation is �� g LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF 10-5-99 � page 2 being done, does the City haue any role in tlus. Mr. Gallagher responded the City provides the records of where things aze located. The policy is the company should be using premanufactured openings to take the cover off. However, they are given the opfion for attaching to the main in otherfashionsinstead ofchopping holes. Does the City inspect the work, asked Ivlr. Strathman. Mr. Gallagher responded the work is inspected in an open �ench. He could not say 100% of the work was seen in 1920. Gerry Strathman reduced the assessment to $1,500 plus the $40 service fee, which brings the assessment to a total of $1,540. From the legal position, it is the homeowner's responsibility. However, there is some question as to whether the City has some culpability going back 79 yeazs in allowing this connection to be done in an improper fashion. It seems the homeowner has acted in a reasonable and responsible way, and was consulting with City officials. It seems exhaordinarily burdensome to have the homeowner face $1,850 plus an additional assessment of $7,500 for a xnistake made by someone 79 years ago. 430 Case Avenue; Richard and Audrey Russ. (J9905A1) (Per City Council meeting of 4-22-94) Dorothy Kullney, accountant for Richazd and Audrey Russ, appeared. The owners were sent a bill for clean up. She was not sure what was on the property at the time. Since then, Ms. Kullney has cleaned the properry. (A videotape was shown.) Mr. Strathman stated it looks like the City mowed the lawn, cut down the trees, and picked up debris. Ms. Kullney responded the boys said they took care of this, but it looks like they didn't. Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. Summary Abatements: File J9904V Towing of abandoned vehicles during April and May 1999; File J9906A Property clean-up or grass cutting during July 1999; File J9906B Boarding-up of vacant properties during June 1999; File J9906C Demolition of vacant buildings during July 1999. File J9907A Property clean-up or grass cutting during the last week of July and during August 1999; File J9907B Boarding up of vacant buildings during July 1999; File J9907C Demolition of vacant bnildings during September 1999; File J99GRASS Grass curiing by contractor during July through mid August 1999. ��` 1�c� LEGISLATIVE HEARIIVG MINUTES OF 10-5-99 631 Thomas Avenue f79906A� Allan Ige, owner, appeazed. (A videotape was shown.) Page 3 Mr. Ige stated there was a blue caz in the videotape. They aze suppose to notify him to take caze of the veh9cle. Guy Willits reported orders were mailed on 7-1-99 to Mazk Pierce on 4�' Street, Alan Ige on Laurel, and the occupant. The door was posted. No mail has been returned to lus office. His records show that the property owner called and asked for an extension of time to take caze of the problem. Mr. Ige responded he does not know who called. Code Enforcement should have written down the naxne of that person. Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment citing he cannot find any fault. The records show that owners were notified, the property was posted, and an extension of time given. Code Enforcement is required to mail to the legal address of the owner of the properties. In this case, they posted the property and even gave an extension. It seems the City did more than what was required. 81 Winnipeg Avenue (J9907B) No one appeazed representing the property. Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. 270 Seventh Street West (J9907C) Janie Berg, speaking on behalf of the owner, appeazed and stated this property has been in front of the Council and legislative hearings for 15 yeazs. The Bergs have initiated for the demolition of this building. They aze pleased that it is no longer standing. However, it was a surprise to the Bergs that a motion was made by Councilmember Coleman that there would be a hearing on July 6 as to whether the building would be repaired or demolished. The Bergs were unaware that this action was being taken, and no one called them to say that an assessment of the property was needed. An azchitectural fum was hired to give an account of the situation. Had anybody notified the properry owners, this $3,115,71 assessment could have been eliminated because this already was done in 1990 at the request of the City. Gerry Strathman asked did that report include the cost of rehabilitation. Ms. Berg responded yes. Steve Magner reported the issue is the assessment of two things: the azchitechual report for $2,060 and the asbestos report of $1,055.77. He will touch on the asbestos report first. In the aa �� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF 10-5-99 Page 4 process of going to demolition they needed a hard cost figure of the demolition costs. That was only obtainable through having the building surveyed because bids were from $10,000 to $50,000 to demolish this building. It was prudent to spend this money so the demolition contractors could come up with the actual cost. At ffie time of public hearings, Code Enforcement wanted to give the City Council information they would require to make their decision. This was not an ordinary building to tear down. The asbestos was more extensive than first noted. Even ffiough the owner did the demolition, the owner would have been required to have the asbestos report done. The report was given to the owner so they could have their own contractor do the work. . Steve Magner reported the second issue is the azchitectural report. A letter was received from David Berg. (Mr. Magner read this letter.) The letter indicated Mr. Berg was awaze that this was being worked on. Mr. Berg called Mr. Magner periodically that things were not happening fast enough. After the building deficiency inspection report was compiled, a re-use study of the building needed to be done by a historical azchitect, which would show the condition of the building, the historical content, whether it could be restored historically, and whether the cost would over exceed that amount. Mr. Magner contacted a number of fums, and there was only one response. Code Enforcement contracted with that fum to have a report done, and that was the report that was used for the public hearings. Mr. Strathman asked the date of that report. Mr. Magner responded the invoice date is 5-26-99. He has no knowledge of the report referred to by Ms. Berg. With regazd to the asbestos, Mr. Strathman stated, it is reasonable for the City to incur that cost as part of preparing for action on this property in respect to demolition. The owner received the value of that report which they would have had to do anyway. With regard to the assessment of the historical significance of the property, that was essential and called for by the State to make the proper assessment of the historical significance of this building. It was not just figuring out the cost of rehabilitating it, but also whether it could be rehabilitated. It is cleaz from the letter Mr. Magner read, Mr. Berg was aware that the City was actively engaged in assessing this properiy. He could have offered the 1990 report if he had wanted to. Even if he had, it would have been nine yeazs old, and the condition of the building may have changed in nine yeazs. It would not have been prudent for the City to rely on an assessment done nine yeazs ago. Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. 1834 Marvland Avenue East (J9906B) Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the November 2, 1999, Legislative Hearing per the owner's request. � i �� O LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF 10-5-99 1183 Arkwrieht Street (J9907A) Page 5 Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the October 19, 1999, Legisiative Hearing per the owner's request. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 559 Lawson Avenue East. If the owner faiLs to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Photographs were shown and later retumed to Steve Magner.) The following appeazed: Pat Olowsky, First Preston, Rich Lemcke, HUD (Housing and Urban Development). Steve Magner reported tlus building was condemned on 9-30-98 and has been vacant since 9-28- 98. The current owner is HUD. It is being managed by the local contractor, Fust Preston. Two sununary abatement notices have been issued to remove refuse and cut tall gass. On 1-27-98 an inspection was conducted, and a list of deficiencies were found that constitute a nuisance condition as developed. As of this date, the properry remains in the same.condition. Vacant building fees aze due. Real estates taxes aze paid. The mazket value is approximately $38,300. A bond has not been posted. Mr. Olowsky stated there is a gurchase agreement on the property, and he requested a postponement. Mr. Strathman asked were there any active problems with this properly. Mr. Magner responded there have been some issues with the building being hroken into. HUB has attempted to keep it secure. Mr. Magner suggested any new owners be notified of all the requirements as follows: a $2,000 performance bond would need to be posted, permits obtained, and the $200 vacant building fee paid at time of closing. Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the January 4, 2000, Legislative Hearing. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 851 Magnolia Avenue � East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (No one appeared representing the properry.) (Photographs were shown.) Steve Magner reported this property was condemned on 10-15-97. Two summary abatement notices have been issued to remove refuse and cut tall grass. The vacant building fees aze paid. �� g LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF 10-5-99 Page 6 Real estate ta�ces aze paid. A code compliance inspection was done. A$2,000 bond has not been posted. The property has been sold on an unrecorded contract The conttact ptuchaser had made attempts to do things on the property, but has since let the building be stagnant. Gerry Strathmazi recommended approval of the resolution. 875 Palace Avenue (J9904� Cazolyn Madison got a car for her son. He worked on it and installed new parts, but the cost got way out of hand. The car was never moved. Parts were taken off of it for another vehicle. Then she received a certified letter that it was towed. She works two jobs and cannot afford this assessment. Mr. Strathman stated six orders were mailed to Ms. Madison. Ms. Madison responded she got at least two of those. The caz was not abandoned. Gerry Strathman recommended reducing the assessment to $202.50 plus the $40 service fee, which brings the assessment to a total of $242.50. 531 Edmund Avenue (J9904V) Linda Moua, 531 Edmund Avenue, appeazed and stated she rents the house, and this involves her husband's car. According to the records, stated Mr. Strathman, a notice was sent on 3-3-99 to Vue Lee Leenhiawe and it was posted on the door. The car was not removed until two months later. Mr. Willits reported the vehicles were posted, orders were never returned, and there were no phone calls from the property owner. Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. 1885 Seventh Street East (J9904� Owner appeazed and stated these are not his cazs. Gerry Strathman responded it is the owner of the properry that is assessed. The owner responded he became the owner 1'/z yeazs ago. When something is bought contract of deed, it sometimes gets lost in the paperwork. If he had vehicles to tow, he would tow it himself. Mr. Strathman stated Donald Johnson is recorded as the owner of the property and he is the one the notices were sent to. Roxanne Flink reported George Lowe is recorded as the owner. Gerry Strathxnan recommended reducing the assessment to $335 plus the $65 service fee, which brings the assessment to a total of $400. �� LEGISLA"I`IVE HEARING REPORT OF 10-5-99 1895 Masnolia Avenue Fast (J9906A) Page 7 The following appeazed: Holly Zschokke, former owner, Floyd, realtor who sold the property. Guy Willits reported he does not have the videotape with him because this properiy was not scheduled for today. Ms. Zschokke stated she closed on the property on 8-4-99. The notice was received in early July. Cleanup was done by that time. Floyd said he talked to the buyer about this. Personal items were removed: lawn mowers, freezer, tools, and equipment Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the October 19, 1999, Legislative Hearing in order to view the videotape. 917 Euclid Street (J9906A) Floyd (from the previous address) stated he would like to see the videotape on this address as well. Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the October 19, 1999, Legislative Heazing in order to view the videotape. 559 McKnieht Road South (J9904� Leonard Anderson owner, and Win Borden, his attorney, appeazed. Mr. Borden stated this assessment is apparently for an additional vehicle that was towed and not included in the previous assessment for this address. This vehicle was properly licensed. There was damage done to the vehicle when it was towed and in storage. They are asking for the assessment of $1,072.80 to be set aside. Roxanne Flink reported she has two buses listed in her records. Mr. Borden responded it may be labeled as a bus, but it is a trailer and licensed as such with a license number of T8699F. Gerry Strathman recommended deleting the assessment for the following two reasons: 1) there is already a assessment of approximately $12,000 pending on this properry, 2) the attorney claims the assessment for these vehicles is included in the earlier assessment. 1199 Ross Avenue (J9907A) Donald Conroy, owner, appeared Gerry Stratl�man stated orders were mailed on 2-23-99 to the owner's address in Oakdale. The order was to remove improperly stored refuse. Mr. Willits reported the owner was also calied. ��t �� LEGISLATIVE HEARING REPORT OF 10-5-99 (Mr. Willits presented photograph to Mr. Conroy.) � Gerry Strathman recommended approval citing the $145 seems reasonable and is lower than usual for an assessment. The meeting was adjoumed at 11:48 a.m. �