The URL can be used to link to this page

00-271a��a� /S Council File # 00 � � Green Sheet # �07Z11 Presented By Referred To RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Committee: Date 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 dwelling with a detached, two-stall, wood frame 4 garage and metal storage shed located on properry hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property" and 5 commonly known as 783 Como Avenue. This property is legally described as follows, to wit: 6 Lot 3, in Block 1, in Royal Oaks, an Addition to the City of St. Paul. 9 WFIEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information 10 obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before October 27, 1999, the following are the now ll known interested or responsible parCies for the Subject Property: Estate of John R. Murdock, c/o Burton 12 A. Murdock, 2082 Kenwood Drive E., Maplewood, MN 55ll 7-2234 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 WHEREAS, Division of Code Enforcement has served in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code an order identified as an"Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s)" dated December 22, 1999; and WHEREAS, this order informed the then known interested or responsible parties that the structure located on the Subject Property is a nuisance buiiding(s) pursuant to Chapter 45; and WIIEREAS, this order in£ormed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair or demolish the structure located on the Subject Property by January 24, 2000; and WfIEREAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placard on the Subject Property declazing this building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and WIIEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Division of Code Enforcement requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the City Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and WHEREAS, the interested and xesponsible parties have been served notice in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the time, date, place and purpose of the public hearings; and 2 4 5 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 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 4A 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 oe . �.�11 WI�REAS, a heazing was held before the Legislative Hearing O�cer of the Saint Paul City Council on Tuesday, March 7, 2000 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and evidence, made the recommendation to approve the request to order 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 ordinances, or in the altemative by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to be completed within fifteen (15) days a$er the date of the Council Hearing; and WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, Mazch 22, 200� and the testixnony and evidence including the action taken by the Legislative Aearing Officer was considered by the Council; now theLefore BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the above referenced public hearings, the Saint Paul City Council hereby adopts the foliowing Findings and Order concerning the Subject Property at 783 Como Avenue: 1. � � fIl That the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 45. 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 lrnown 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 subyect to demolition. That this bLUlding has been routinely monitared by the Citizen Service Offices, Division of Code Enforcement, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings. 8. That the Imown interested parties and owners are as previously stated in this resolution and that the notification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled. ORDER The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the foliowing order: The above referenced interested or responsible parties shall make the Subject Properry 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 conecting all deficiencies as prescribed in the above referenced Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) in accordance 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 after the date of the Councii Hearing. Sr:�+kcsti (\5> ORIGINAL 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 00 .�� 2. If the above corrective action is not completed within this period of time the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps aze necessary to demolish and remove tYus structure, fill the site and charge the costs incurred against the Subject Properiy pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all personal properry or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shall be removed from the properry by the responsible parties by the end of this time period. If all personal properiy is not removed, it shall be considered to be abandoned and the City of Saint Paul shall remove and dispose of such properry as provided by law. 4. It is fiuther 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. Yeas Navs Absent Benanav � Blakev ✓ Bostrom ✓ Coleman ✓ ` Harris ✓ Lantrv ,/ _ Reiter _� _ S � Adopted by Councii: Date `T �y � or Adoption Certified by Comicil Secretary I: �.. �� Requested by Department of: Citizen Service Office: Code Enforcement By: ��`'^dJV-✓�.� �y�� 1�� i { C�� Form Approved by City Attorney By: ,�.0 Approve yor for Submission to Council B � �2�� Division of Code Enforcement 266-8439 IUST BE ON CqJNCI�AGENOq BY @4T� Mazch 22_ 2000 TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES a2niioo GREEN SHEET No 1 C2c77 MM�IDeb InNWIDffie � �..�� „�. Do.� � wYeFR FaR � �v�nouEY ❑ G1YaEtK ��.�.��. �.«�.��,.�.a �wvat(ulwassrY+*1 � / ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) � City Council to pass this resolution which will order the owner(s) to remove or repair the referenced building(s). If the owner fails to compiy with the resolution, the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. The subject property is located at 783 Como Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB CAMMITfEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION Has this persorJfi�m everworked under a canhact tor ihis departmeM? YES NO Has thie persoNfirtn e+er heen a cily empbyee4 YES NO Oons th� qersnNfi�m posaeas a sltlll not iw�mallypoeaeased hy a�ry curterd city employee? YES NO Is this peisoMrtn a tarpeted �endoY! 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 and responsible parties known to the Enfarcement Officer were given an order to,repair or remove the building at 783 Como Avenue by January Z4, 2000, and have failed to comply with those orders. ��,� �� _ ""Lit The City wIll eliminate a nuisance. s :SIFAPPROVED will spend funds to wreck and remove this building(s). These costs will be assessed to the properly, collected as a special assessment against the property t�es. IF NOT APPROVED condition will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to blight the communiry. AMOUN7 OF TRANSACTION S Nuisance Housing Abatement COET/FlEYENUE BUD6E7m (GRCLE ONE) 33261 ncrnm t+uMSac 0 (EXPWN) , � ,, �� g gy p+ p �Qiai �e34 t l�Jw�i�H61 4�v°"a�i� REPORT Date: Mazch 7, 2000 Time: 10:00 am. Place: Room 330 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevazd LEGISLATIVE HEARING Gerry Strathman Legislative Hearing Officer oo-�� 1. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 783 Como Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the June 6, 2000, Legislative Hearing on the following condition: the owner pays the vacant building fee by Mazch 15, 2000. 2. Resolurion ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 294 Charles Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Gerry Strathman recommended approval. 3. Appeal of Summary Abatement Order at 55 Atwater Street. Gerry Strathman recommended denying the appeal, but amending the date to remove the vehicle to April 15, 2000. � MINiJTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING Tuesday, March 7, 2000 �� Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing O�cer The meeting was called to order at 10:02 am. STAFF PRESENT: Mike Kalis, Code Enforcement; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 783 Como Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Steve Magner gave photographs to Gerry Strathman; they were returned at the end of the meeting.} Steve Magner reported this building is a two story dwelling with a garage and a metal storage shed. It has been vacant since September 1997. An inspection was conducted on I 1-24-97, and a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed and photographs were taken. Vacant building fees aze due. Real estate taxes aze unpaid in the aznount of $2,939.27. The estunated mazket value of the property is $75,3QQ. A code compliance inspection has not been applied for and a bond has not been posted. The estimated cost to repair is $40,000; estimated cost to demolish, $8,000 to $9,000. Burton Murdock, owner, appeazed and stated he has a plan to install a new roof. A roofer was too busy to install one last yeaz. He had trouble with squirrels last year. He uses the properiy as part of his business. Mr. Murdock plans to sell the property after the roof is installed. The only thing wrong with the building is the roof, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Murdock responded that is conect. This is a residence, but it is used as part of a business, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Murdock responded his father purchased the property in 1946 and it is used as a storage facility for their plumbing business. It has been rented at various 6mes over the yeazs. The Ciry found out it wasn't rented and has been bothering him ever since. Mr. Strathman asked why the building is a nuisance. Because of the overall condition of the e�cterior, responded Mr. Magner. There aze concerns about the deterioration of the roof and rodent infestation. If the roof is repaired, would that address the nuisance condition, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Magner responded the owner would need to obtain a code compliance inspection, post a bond, obtain the pemuu, and repair all the itetns. The owner claims the interior is fine, but he is reluctant to let anyone in. Mr. Murdock responded he was never asked. If the ownet chooses to leave the building vacant and pays the vacant building fee, is there anything that requires him to get a code compliance inspection, asked Mr. Strathman. To obtain a code compliance certificate, responded Mr. Magner, an inspection has to be done. If the building was to 00 -� 1 LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINLJTES OF 3-7-00 Page 2 remain vacant, the inspection would not have to be done. However, the emphasis of the program is to get the properties rehabilitated. The exterior violations constitute a nuisance or violation of the law wluch is subject by ttris action or criminal action. The deficiency list includes other exterior violations, such as the eaves, some deterioration on the siding, and the garage needs painting. Mr. Murdock stated if he is left alone for six months, he will be out of the property and it will be soid. Mr. Magner stated Mr. Murdock has been asked repeatedly what his plans are, and he has given the same answers that he is providing now. Code Enforcement is not disputing that he does not want to do these items, but would like a time line when it will happen. Mr. Strathman stated the owner has the right to leave the building vacant if that is what he chooses to do as long as he maintains the e�cterior. Mr. Magner suggested setting up a time frame to obtain a code compliance inspection, obtain a $2,000 bond, which is going to be required to post the pernuts, make the eaterior repairs, and then revisit this issue as a layover. Or the owner could sell the properry. He would need to have the code compliance inspection to sell the property as required by ordinance. IYs cheaper to have the code compliance inspection done than a truth-in-housing inspection. One or the other document is needed for anyone to live in the properry and to bring the building into compliance. The owner would need a perxnit to put a roof on the building and do the other repairs. Mr. Strathman asked when the roof will be done. Mr. Murdock responded it may be done in the next 30 to 60 days. Mr. Strathman stated the vacant building fee is due and will have to be paid, and the exterior repairs will have to be done. He is not sure that the code compliance nvspection will have to be done if the owner does not intend to occupy the building, nor is he sure how the building will be sold without the code compliance inspection. Mr. Murdock responded he has no problem with getting a code compliance inspection after the roof is done. He will bring a check in tomonow to pay the vacant building fee. What would be the problem if he paid the vacant building fee and got the code compliance inspection done at some point in the future, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Magner responded they will not issue a permit for his roof until a bond and code compliance inspection aze done. That is a set policy by the building department. Mr. Magner does not see the reason why the inspecrion cannot be done. Mr. Murdock responded he does not want an inspector in his home because he does not trust them and he has been lied to before. He should not have to feel guilty because it is vacant. Gerry Strathman recommended this matter be laid over to the June 6, 2000, Legisiative Hearing on the following condition: the owner pays the vacant building fee by Mazch 15, 2000. Hopefully, the roof will be installed in three months, and the building will be ready for sale. Mr. Magner added Mr. Murdock will need to be here on June 6 or send a representative. oo-s'ti\ LEGISLATTVE HEARING MINUTES QF 3-7-00 Page 3 Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 294 Charles Avenue. If the owner faiLs to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the bnilding. (Steve Magner gave photographs to Gerry Strathman.) Steve Ivlagner reported the building has been vacant since Apri11498. Five summary abatement notices have been issued to remove refuse, cut tall grass, and remove snow from the public sidewalk. An inspection was conducted on 12-16-99, and a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed and photographs were taken. Vacant building fees aze due. Real estate taxes aze unpaid in the amount of $2,219.25. The estimated mazket value of the properry is $65,600. A code compliance inspection has not been applied for and a bond has not been posted. The estimated cost to repair is $25,000; estimated cost to demolish, $8,000 to $9,000. The owner is Agnes Wall. The person in control of this building is Michael R. Dauis. He has disappeazed in the last year and is a member of the armed services. Mr. Strathman asked about the }ugh mazket value of the properry. Mr. Magner responded that seems uncharacteristically high, but the value comes from Ramsey County Taxation. Gerry Strathxnan recommended approval. Appeal of Summary Abatement Order at 55 Atwater Street. William 7ohnson, owner, appeazed and stated he was not aware that there was a law or code that he could not have a vehicle on his propercy. FIe got into an accident and it runs, but he does not want to drive it in its condition. He would like an additional month to get it repaired. In answer to questions, Mr. 7ohnson responded the vehicle does not fii in his gazage and he will remove it in 30 days, licensed, and operable. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal, but amended the date to repair the vehicle to April 15, 2000. The meeting was adjourned at 1031 a.m. rrn CLTIZEN SERVICE OFFTCE Fred Owvsu, City C[erk 00 •�� DMSION OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT Mlchael R Morehead Pro,¢ram.�lanager CTIY OF SAINT PAiJL Nuisarsce Bui7ding Code Ersforcement NormColeman,lvlayor ISW.KelloggBlvdRm.790 Tel: 6.i1-266-8440 SaintPauZ,M•Y55102 Faz:6�1-266-8426 , �i i�;�.�>�C'�.`� t, February 11, 20Q0 NOTICE OF PL7BLIC HEARINGS �' � �' �° �� Council President and Members of the City Council Citizen Service Of£ice, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings Enforcement Division has requested the City Council schedule public hearings to consider a resolution orderin� the repair or removal of the nuisance buildin�{s) located at: 783 Como Avenue The Gity Gouncil has scheduled the date of these hearings as follows: Legislative Hearing - Tuesday, March 7, 2000 City Council Hearing - Wednesday, March 22, 2000 The owners and responsible parties of record are: Name and Last Known Address Interest Estate of John R. Murdock Fee Owner c/o Bm A. Murdock 2052 Kenwood Drive E. Maplewood, MN 55117-2234 The legal description of this properry is: Lot 3, in Block l, in Royal Oaks, an Addition to the City of St. Paul. Division of Code Enforcement has declazed this building(s) to constitute 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 conectina the deficiencies or by razin� and removin� this buildin�(s). 00 -�'� 1 783 Como Avenue February 11, 2000 Page 2 Inasmuch as this Oxder to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition remains unabated, the communiry continues to suffer the bli�hting 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 builc�in� in a timely manner, and failin� that, authorize the Division of Code Enforcement to proceed to demolition and removal, and to assess the costs incurred a�ainst the real estate as a special assessment to be collected in the same manner as taxes. Sincerely, Steve 1Vlagne� Steve Ma�er Vacant Buildings Supervisor Division of Code Enforcement Citizen Service Office SM:mI cc: Frank Berg, Building Inspection and Design Meghan Riley, City Attomeys Office Nancy Anderson, Assistant Secretary to the Council Paul Mordorski, PED-Housing Division ccnph c�c�- ti�_ MINUTES OF'I'I� LEGISLATIVE HEARING Tuesday, June 6, 2000 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 10:01 a.m. STAFF PRESENT: Roxanna Flink, Real Estate; Doris Lesny, Real Estate; Dick Lippert, Code Enforcement; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Rich Singerhouse, Code Enforcement; Maynard Vinge, Code Enforcement; Joe Yannazelly, Code Enforcement Resolufion ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 783 Como Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Laid over from 3-7-00) Burton Murdock, owner, appeared and stated the issue to fix the roof is null and void because he cannot be issued a pernut for the roof only. Mr. Strathman asked is he still intending to sell the properry. Mr. Murdock responded not necessarily. He used it for business storage. Renters and squirrels caused him problems. Steve Magner reported the code compliance application came through yesterday. Nothing has been done to the building until recenUy. The last inspection was June 1 in preparation far today's meeting. This was laid over to today with the recommendation that the owner would repair his roof, and it seems the owner had time to get that done. The owner started the wark on the roof but did not apply for permits nor a code compliance inspecfion. Mr. Magner would like the resolution to go forwazd to repair or remove. Pvlr. Strathman asked when the code compliance inspection will be done. Mr. Murdock responded he has to call Don Wagner from LIEP (License, Inspections, Environmental Protection) to have the inspection done. Gerry Strathman recommends granting six months to complete rehabilitation of the properCy on condition that a$2,000 bond is posted by noon of June 14, 2000. Mr. Magner added that if the bond is not posted by then with LIEP, the resolution would go forward to repair or remove the building in 15 days. Summary Abatements: File JOOOlAl Snow and or ice removal during January and February 2000, File JO�O1C Demolifion of vacant buildings during January 2000, File J0002A Property clean-up during March 2000, File J0002B Boarding up of vacant buildings during February 2000. 921 Al onquin Avenue (JOOOlAl) (No one appeared to represent the property.) � �. \ LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF JI TNE 6, 2�00 Page 2 Gerry Strathman read a letter from Bill Cullen, President of Cullen Homes, who wrote he disputes owing the amount because this incident happened in February and he purchased the properry in April. Gerty Strathman recommends approval of the assessment. The assessment is against the property, and the current owner is responsible. If the owner has issues about not being properly informed, he needs to discuss it with the seller. Mz. Magner stated he expressed this to Mr. Cullen and advised him to contact his tiUe company. 1350 Laurel Avenue (JOOQIAI) (No one appeazed to represent the properry.) Gerry Strathman recommends approval of the assessment. 38 Delos Street West (J0002A) Edward Luna, owner, appeared. Dick Lippert reported there was a complaint on 3-15-00 about furnihue and refuse in the yazd. On 3-16-00, Code Enforcement made an inspection and found couches in the front yard, and a summary abatement order was issued. A work order was issued to have it removed by 3-22-00. The debris was removed by the City on 3-27-00. (A videotape was shown.) Mr. Luna stated he lived in Illinois at the time, and did not get the notices until the forwarded mail got to him, which was too late. He had already called for the items to be picked up, but they did not make it out in time. There were tables and other items seen on the videotape that were someone's property, and now they aze thrown away. The only things that were garbage were the couches and the tire. Mr. 5trathman stated the abatement order is about cleaning up the two couches and the tires. There is no question that a legally required notice was sent. If it is Mr. Luna's view that the City improperly took personal properly, a claim can be filed against the City. That cannot be dealt with here. Gerry Strathman recommends approval of the assessment. Mr. Luna stated he would like a copy of the videotape. 609 Maenolia Avenue East (J0002A) The following appeared: Chris Nissen, owner, and Herbert Henson, renter. a�=z--� \ LEGISLA'ITVE HEAR.INCz MINUTES OF JUNE 6, 2000 Page 3 Dick Lippert reported there was a complaint on 3-15-00 about a trailer pazked on a lot. On 3-16-00, an inspector verified an unsightly trailer on the property and issued a summary abatement notice to Pvlr. Nissen and the State of Minnesota Tax Exempt with a compliance date of 3-23-00. On 3-24-00, the work was done. Gerry Strathman stated he is confused about ownership. Mr. Nissen responded he purchased the property last fall. Mr. Lippert responded the ta�� records show that in Mazch it was owned by Mr. Nissen. The State was notified because they came up as a fee owner. (A videotape was shown.) Mr. Nissen asked did Mr. Lippert have his correspondence. Mr. Lippert responded he has two letters from Mr. Nissen dated Mazch 25 and May 20. (Mr. Nissen asked to take a few minutes. This address was discussed later in the meeting.) 1120 Sixth Street East (J0002A) The following appeared: Donald Folske, owner; his son; and his daughter-in-law. (A videotape was shown.) Mr. Folske stated the original summary abatement order was for gazbage, rubbish, etc. He was out of town, but his son and daughter-in-law removed the following before the City did the work: two mattresses, two couches, carpet, 12 tires, aYle, and miscellaneous rubbish. Many of the items in the back were from the next door neighbor. Gerry Strathman stated he saw scrap wood, trash, tires on the videotape. Son responded those were materials for building. He took a day off of work to clean up the properiy. He did not clean the items under the deck because he was going to use it. The trash on the left hand side is the neighbors property. Mr. Strathman responded that was not proper storage for the materials. The daughter-in-law stated that she ran into the inspector at a different location. The inspector knew that Don Folske was going to be out of town and that she would be there to take caze of the property. She cleaned up what she could, and her husband took a day off work to help her with the heavy items. Over the weekend, she could not do anything with the trailer because the NRG (where she takes her refuse) was closed. On Tuesday, they emptied the bigger items. 5he was going to come back and finish the items, but the City came before she could finish. Dick Lippert reported the inspector met Mr. Folske on 2-29-00, which is the day after the original inspecUon, and Mr. Folske agreed to have all the refuse out by 3-6-00. Mr. Folske responded he did say that, but he could not unload the trailer on the Saturday before the 6�', and he went out of town on the 5�'. He did the ne� best thing which is to call Code Enforcement and let them lrnow that he planned to do it. He did the vast majority of it. It cost him $51 to unload the trailer, and it normally costs $23. He does not feel the City should have done the work. c��=�--1 � LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF JLINE 6, 2000 Page 4 The son stated big ruts were left in the gtound. Also, he does not understand why the City complained about the fence, but left it there. He also does not understaud why a bobcat was used. Mr. Strathman responded he did see the ruts on the videotape. Mr. Strathman asked did they request addifional time. Daughter-in-law responded she and Guy Willits were talking on a daily basis, there was already an agreement, and the City did the work anyway. Did the files show anytl�ing about those conversafions, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Lippert responded they do not. It does show there is a long history with this property. Tags have been issued. It was probably the feeling of the inspector that enough is enough. Gerry Strathxnan recommends reducing the assessment from $757.50 to $500 plus the $45 service fee, for a total assessment of $545. There is no question that City staff followed the rules: the owner was notified and given an opportunity to correct the problem. The owner made an effort to make the corrections, but it was not completed in time. 605 Sttyker Avenue (J�0�2A) Khaffak Ansari, owner, appeazed and stated the City sent him a letter about a freezer. He was in the process of changing gazbage companies in order to get better service. He was also in the process of remodeling and planned to dump the freezer when finished. Gerry Strathman stated the owner had 12 days: he was notified 3-1-00, and the work was done on 3-13-00 by the City. He asked were there any questions about whether the work was done because there is a videotape. Mr. Ansari responded it is not necessary to view it. Dick Lippert reported that the inspector noted this was the 4`� complaint on this property in the last yeaz; therefore, tags were issued for continued noncompliance. Gerry Strathman recommends approval of the assessment citing the owner was notified and given a longer than usual time to remove the items. 777 to 779 Smith Avenue South (30001A1) Rose Gunness, owner, appeared and stated she did not receive the notice an time because she does not live at that property. The tenant is her granddaughter who maintains the property. The noflce was received at 777 Smith, but it got set aside because it was addressed to Ms. Gunness and her granddaughter did not thnik it was important. Gerry Strathman asked is this a commercial residence. Ms. Gunness responded it is combined. The tenant lives upstairs, and the store is on the ground level. Mr. Strathman asked why her granddaughter did not shovel the walk. Ms. Gunness responded she did. She may not have been aware of the ice that runs off the roof. �-�.yt � LEGISLATIVE HEt1RING MINUTES OF JL)NE 6, 2000 (A videotape was shown.) Page 5 Mr. Strathman stated it did not look like the granddaughter shoveled at all. The inspector noted, stated Dick Lippert, that it looked at if there was no attempt at snow and ice removal. Mr. Gunness stated she would have taken caze of it if she was norified. Mr. Strathman responded the City notifies the person on the properry taac records. Ms. Gunness responded she wrote a letter quite a while ago to correct the address. Gerry Strathman recommends approval of the assessment. 437 View Street (J0002A) Edna Spedevick, owner, appeazed and stated she received a notice. She had remodeling items in the back yard that were cleaned up by her. Three dumpsters full of items were removed prior to the City doing the work. Six bags of leaves were left. (A videotape was shown.) Cserry Strathman stated it appeazed that what Ms. Spedevick said is correct. Dick Lippert reported the inspector viewed the tape and thought the bags were included in what was there originally. Gerry Strathman recommends deleting the assessment citing plasfic bags are not acceptable storage, but it seems clear the clean up was done. 961 Edmund Avenue (J0002A) (No one appeazed to represent the property.) Gerry Strathman recommends approval of the assessment. Conrinuation of 609 Maenolia Avenue East (J0002A) Chris Nissen stated his calcularions show the hourly rate at appro�cimately $250 an hour and asked how is the rate detennined. Dick Lippert responded it is more like $225 an hour plus administrative fees. There are special costs for tires, appliances, and using special equipment. The rate is determmed by the crew that does the work. Gerry Strathman stated there is a study done periodically by the City in which they docuxnent a11 of their labor costs, overhead, equipment, transportation, and disposal costs, wluch is the basis for that rate. He is uncleaz how often that is redone. �=�--� 1 LEGISLA'IIVE HEARING MINUTES OF 7L7NE 6, 2000 �._-. Mr. Nissen asked was there a phone number on the letter that he sent to Code Enforcement. Mr. Lippert responded the letter dated March 25 does not ha�e a phone number. The inspector noted that an attempt was made to get a phone nuuiber and he was unable to get one. Mr. Nissen withdrew his appeal. What he saw on the videotape was different than what he saw a few days before with a burned out trailer. He went to considerable effort to find the owner of the trailer. What he saw on the videotape was done as an act of vandalism. Mr. Nissen will be contacting legal authorities and going through a civil proceeding. Appeal of summary abatement order at 15 Annapolis Street West. (Photographs were presented by staff: They were later returned.) Jo An M. Mullins, owner, appeazed and stated the inspector came out and said she has to clean up the space that is her neighbor's properry. This neighbor claims that their property goes to the fence. The neighbor installed a fence on the other side of their hedge because they did not want to take the hedge out. A lot of tree limbs, grass clippings, leaves, tarp, window well covers, junk have been thrown over the fence and left on Ms. Mullins side of the fence, but it is not on her properiy. Ms. Mullins has been told to clean up that part of the properry, but there is no reason why she should have to clean it up. Part of the problem is that her chicken wire fence is not a permanent fence, stated Ms. Mullins. It is at the rear of the properCy on her side of the property line. She was told she was not allowed to put up a permanent fence there. Gerry Strathman asked what is the problem with the fence. According to Code Enforcement, Ms. Mullins responded, it did not prevent them from saying she had to take caze of the property that is on her side of the permanent fence. Ms. Mullins went on to say that she lives in the middle of a hill on a busy stzeet. Trucks and buses accelerate at the bottom of the hill as they go up. Ms. Mullins uses a hedge as a barrier far noise, especially since she found a deer carcass on her properry. She cuts down her bushes by the 4�` of July. If she cuts them down before then, she gets too much trash. Because her land slants, the best way to keep water from mm�ing off is to haue ground cover. She has planted various flowers. She has high trees because there aze two all night lights about 20 feet above the land, said Ms. Mullins. They glare into her bedroom windows, and she is not comfortable having drapes pulled on a hot sunuuer night. The inspectors do not like her high trees. Ms. Mullins stated one of the inspectors okayed the way she had stored a yeazs worth of wood. Now she is told she is not allowed to keep any wood. The inspectors have been good about giving her a chance to take care of the wood that has fallen. She is late getting the last part in the back of the house because the wind over Memorial Day caused a brauch to fall. N5P had to come out to drop the line so the trees could be cut. � 2--� ` LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF JUNE 6, 2000 Page 7 Mr. Strathu�an asked has that been taken care of now. Ms. Mullins responded a lot has to be removed. Joe Yannarelly reported there is a pennanent cyclone fence separating 5 Anuapolis from 15 Annapolis. Everydung is well taken caze on the 5 Annapolis side. The 15 Annapolis side has rubbish accumulating. Ms. Mullins has installed chicken wire and maintained that is not her property and will not take caze of it. Mr. Strathman asked is there a way to detemrine the locafion of the property line. Ms. Mullins responded she laiows where the property line is located, and it is mazked on her appeal applicafion. Maynard Vinge reported this is a heavily wooded lot. There aze no regulations against tall trees, but there are problems with branches, trees, and shrubs blocking public right of ways. There aze also problems with rank plant growkh, insect and rodent hazborage. Code Enforcement has been out there more than once and has discussed this more than once. There is wood and other debris on Ms. Mullins' side of the fence. Mr. Strathman asked aze there mazkers to establish the properry line. When she had it surveyed, responded Ms. Mullins, she measured 23 inches up from the line on the sidewalk. She does not have paperwark from the survey. Dick Lippert stated the City has been dealing with this properiy since 1970 in regazd to the properry line and the fence. Adverse possession and presumptive possession would probably make her responsible for that piece of land even though it is not platted like that. Mr. Strathman asked have they made any effort to have the neighbar clean that area. Mr. Vinge responded no. The neighbor's yazd is maintained. Mr. Strathxnan asked about the growth along the sidewalk. Mr. Yannazelly responded she cut it down but left the debris along the boulevazd. She was suppose to have it done after numerous extensions. Mr. Strathman asked the location of the wood storage. Mr. Yannarelly responded there is dead wood laying azound the yazd. Ms. Mullins responded she had a wood pile that was destroyed by the work being down, but she plans to repile it. The way she stored it was approved by an inspector a number of years ago. The other issue they are worried about is rocks. Mr. Yauuazelly responded he spoke to the previous inspector that Ms. Mullins is referring to and he said he okayed fire logs, 12-18 inches off the ground. Ms. Mullins responded they aze. Mr. Yannazelly stated he is worried about the dead wood on the ground, not logs for a fireplace. Also, there is the matter of not providing a licensed trash hauler. CO=Z,� \ LEGISLATTVE HEARING MINUTES OF JLTNE 6, 2000 � Mr. Strathman stated with respect to the fence, it seems that the debris on her side of the fence is probably from her property. If she can demonstrate from a survey that it is not her properry, it can be dealt with differently. The presump6on that it is her propezry is reasonable. She has cleared the sidewalk obstruction, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Yannarelly responded yes. Mr. Strathman stated she will have to clean up the debris on the boulevazd and in the yard. She also has to provide the inspector with the name of a licensed trash hauler. Gerry Stratlunan denied the appeal in all respects. The actions of the City officials aze appropriate with the exception of the sidewalk obstruction, which is moot because the owner has taken care of it. Appeal of summary abatement order at 1183 Arkwright Street. Appeal of two vehicle abatement orders at 1183 Arkwri�t Street. Appeal of vacant building registration notice at 1183 Arkwright Street. The following appeazed: Donald Drouin, owner, and Roxanne Heinrich, attomey. Ms. Heinrich stated she has been in court since December and the cases were dismissed by William Brown regarding the vacant building. She does not know how Code Enforcement can proceed when it has been dismissed. This building is not vacant; it is occupied. Gerry Strathman asked about the vehicle. Ms. Heinrich responded they aze all operable except for the red vehicle. The last time she was here, over $957 of inerchandise was taken. She was told to file a claun form by Mr. Strathman. Your position is, asked Mr. Strathman, the vehicles are licensed and operable. Mr. Drouin responded the exception is the red Dodge because the City took the wheel and tires. Mr. Strathman asked did the City take them off the vehicle. Mr. Drouin responded they were not on a vehicle because he was working on it. They were $110 each plus the parts that go on them. Rich Singerhouse reported he wrote a summary abatement on the sIx vehicles that were in the yard. Ms. Heinrich responded there are only three there now: her caz, his truck, and the Dodge. Mr. Strathxnan asked is the cleanup regazding rubbish, vehicle parts, scrap wood, metal recycling materials, etc. been cleaned up. Ms. Heinrich responded yes. Mr. Singerhouse responded he can check on that. Ms. Heinrich asked where she could submit her attomey fees for this process. Mr. Drouin has been harassed several times and that is why Mr. Brown has dismissed it. Steve Magner stated the reason Mr. Singerhouse opened a registered vacant building file was due to the fact that it was referred to Code Enforcement because the building was condemned. Mr. Magner asked who is Mr. Brown. Ms. Heinrich responded William Brown is a city aitomey. This case was brought before a judge in December. The judge gave them six months and there OC� 2 � LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINiJTES OF JIJNE 6, 2000 Page 9 was an agreement to suspend the matter. Mike Morehead (of Code Enforcement) was there. Mr. Lippert responded that refers to a case regazding charges about animals. That does not relate to the status of this building being vacanx or condemned. If the testimony here is that the building is occupied, then there is a problem because that building is condexnned and ordered vacate. Code Enforcement will be checking on that status. Mr. Strathman asked when it was condemned. Mr. Singerhouse responded 12-13-99 was the vacate date. The inspectors have been working with Don Wagner (of LIEP) throughout that time. Mr. Drouin was asked numerous times was it vacated and he answered that he is not staying there any longer. Mr. Drouin responded that does not mean the properry is not occupied because he still has to maintain it and his belongings are there. Mr. Singerhouse responded he can go to the building and wark but he cannot live there. Mr. Magner asked was there any documentarion that the condemnation was lifted or any documentation from Mr. Brown that the condemnation was not substantiated. Ms. Heinrich responded he could get no help. As for the suuunary abatement order, stated Mr. Strathman, it is Ms. Heinrich's representation that the correcrions haue been made. Therefore, the appeal will be denied if there is nothing more to deal with. With respect to the six vehicles, he is being told there are only three vehicles there now, and the one that is not operable is being retained as evidence in a claim. As for the parking surface, started Mr. Stratkunan. Mr. Drouin responded that has been the driveway on that lot for 80 years. Just because there is no garage any longer and vegetation is popping up here and there, it is still a driveway. Mr. Magner stated the photographs will show the vegetation. The owner said last yeaz that he would submit a site plan and that he planned to put down Class 5 rock. Mr. Drouin responded he never said he was going to put anything down. Mr. Strathman stated it is clearly an unapproved parking surface. Mr. Drouin responded it has always been that way. Back in 1919, they did not require paved driveways. Mr. Strathman responded if something is legal in 1919 that does not mean it is legal in the year 2000. Mr. Drouin asked since when did government force people to change their property retrospectively. Mr. Strathman responded all the time. Anyone that stores vehicles in a lot has to have an approved surface. Ms. Heinrich stated they were in here before regarding the unapproved parldng surface, and Mr. Strathman dismissed that case. They were here last May and now they are here again, and she believes this is harassxnent. She would like to lrnow how she can address the City Council. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal with respect to the vacant building fee, and explained the process for addressing the City Council. Mr. Drouin stated if Code Enfoxcement cannot provide specific criteria on how to lift the condemnation, how can he meet nonexistent criteria. Mr. Strathman responded in order to do dc� -�-- � LEGISLATTVE HEARING MINUT'ES OF JIJNE 6, Z000 Page 10 that, a code compliance inspection should be done, the owner should do atl the items required in the inspection, and then the condemnation will be removed. Mr. Stratbman asked have they had a code compliance inspection done. Ms. Heinrich responded an inspector has been to the property eight times, and each time they have changed something. Mr. Drouin stated there aze photographs of the driveway showing gravel, concrete, and sand. He asked does it have to be perfectly crushed rock and is this an aesthetic issue. Mr. Strathman responded there is a definition in the code regarding what is suitable storage. Gerry Strathman denied the appeals on the following: the suumiary abatement order dated 5-8- 00, the two vehicle abatement orders dated 5-8-00, and the vacant building registration notice dated 5-9-00. 1108 Sixth Street East (J0002A) The owner appeared. (The owner did not send in a green cazd; therefore, there were no records available at this hearing.) Gerry Strathman recommends laying over to the June 20, 2000, Legislative Hearing. 1185 Burns Avenue (JOOOlAl) (The owner did not send in a gteen card; therefore, there were no records available at this hearing.) Diane Gamm, owner, appeared and stated tkus abatement is about snow removal. She is confused and wanted to see the records and the videotape. She called and said she was taking care of it. It is a duplex and there is an agreement that the tenants take caze of snow shoveling. Mr. Strathman suggested that she make arrangements to view the videotape. If she still wants to be heard, she can come to the legislative hearing on June 20. Ms. Guvm asked was there record of a call made by her. Dick Lippert responded no. Gerry Strathman recommends laying over to the June 20, 2000, Legislative Hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 11:44 a.m. rrn a��a� /S Council File # 00 � � Green Sheet # �07Z11 Presented By Referred To RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Committee: Date 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 dwelling with a detached, two-stall, wood frame 4 garage and metal storage shed located on properry hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property" and 5 commonly known as 783 Como Avenue. This property is legally described as follows, to wit: 6 Lot 3, in Block 1, in Royal Oaks, an Addition to the City of St. Paul. 9 WFIEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information 10 obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before October 27, 1999, the following are the now ll known interested or responsible parCies for the Subject Property: Estate of John R. Murdock, c/o Burton 12 A. Murdock, 2082 Kenwood Drive E., Maplewood, MN 55ll 7-2234 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 WHEREAS, Division of Code Enforcement has served in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code an order identified as an"Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s)" dated December 22, 1999; and WHEREAS, this order informed the then known interested or responsible parties that the structure located on the Subject Property is a nuisance buiiding(s) pursuant to Chapter 45; and WIIEREAS, this order in£ormed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair or demolish the structure located on the Subject Property by January 24, 2000; and WfIEREAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placard on the Subject Property declazing this building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and WIIEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Division of Code Enforcement requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the City Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and WHEREAS, the interested and xesponsible parties have been served notice in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the time, date, place and purpose of the public hearings; and 2 4 5 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 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 4A 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 oe . �.�11 WI�REAS, a heazing was held before the Legislative Hearing O�cer of the Saint Paul City Council on Tuesday, March 7, 2000 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and evidence, made the recommendation to approve the request to order 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 ordinances, or in the altemative by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to be completed within fifteen (15) days a$er the date of the Council Hearing; and WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, Mazch 22, 200� and the testixnony and evidence including the action taken by the Legislative Aearing Officer was considered by the Council; now theLefore BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the above referenced public hearings, the Saint Paul City Council hereby adopts the foliowing Findings and Order concerning the Subject Property at 783 Como Avenue: 1. � � fIl That the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 45. 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 lrnown 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 subyect to demolition. That this bLUlding has been routinely monitared by the Citizen Service Offices, Division of Code Enforcement, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings. 8. That the Imown interested parties and owners are as previously stated in this resolution and that the notification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled. ORDER The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the foliowing order: The above referenced interested or responsible parties shall make the Subject Properry 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 conecting all deficiencies as prescribed in the above referenced Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) in accordance 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 after the date of the Councii Hearing. Sr:�+kcsti (\5> ORIGINAL 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 00 .�� 2. If the above corrective action is not completed within this period of time the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps aze necessary to demolish and remove tYus structure, fill the site and charge the costs incurred against the Subject Properiy pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all personal properry or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shall be removed from the properry by the responsible parties by the end of this time period. If all personal properiy is not removed, it shall be considered to be abandoned and the City of Saint Paul shall remove and dispose of such properry as provided by law. 4. It is fiuther 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. Yeas Navs Absent Benanav � Blakev ✓ Bostrom ✓ Coleman ✓ ` Harris ✓ Lantrv ,/ _ Reiter _� _ S � Adopted by Councii: Date `T �y � or Adoption Certified by Comicil Secretary I: �.. �� Requested by Department of: Citizen Service Office: Code Enforcement By: ��`'^dJV-✓�.� �y�� 1�� i { C�� Form Approved by City Attorney By: ,�.0 Approve yor for Submission to Council B � �2�� Division of Code Enforcement 266-8439 IUST BE ON CqJNCI�AGENOq BY @4T� Mazch 22_ 2000 TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES a2niioo GREEN SHEET No 1 C2c77 MM�IDeb InNWIDffie � �..�� „�. Do.� � wYeFR FaR � �v�nouEY ❑ G1YaEtK ��.�.��. �.«�.��,.�.a �wvat(ulwassrY+*1 � / ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) � City Council to pass this resolution which will order the owner(s) to remove or repair the referenced building(s). If the owner fails to compiy with the resolution, the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. The subject property is located at 783 Como Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB CAMMITfEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION Has this persorJfi�m everworked under a canhact tor ihis departmeM? YES NO Has thie persoNfirtn e+er heen a cily empbyee4 YES NO Oons th� qersnNfi�m posaeas a sltlll not iw�mallypoeaeased hy a�ry curterd city employee? YES NO Is this peisoMrtn a tarpeted �endoY! 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 and responsible parties known to the Enfarcement Officer were given an order to,repair or remove the building at 783 Como Avenue by January Z4, 2000, and have failed to comply with those orders. ��,� �� _ ""Lit The City wIll eliminate a nuisance. s :SIFAPPROVED will spend funds to wreck and remove this building(s). These costs will be assessed to the properly, collected as a special assessment against the property t�es. IF NOT APPROVED condition will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to blight the communiry. AMOUN7 OF TRANSACTION S Nuisance Housing Abatement COET/FlEYENUE BUD6E7m (GRCLE ONE) 33261 ncrnm t+uMSac 0 (EXPWN) , � ,, �� g gy p+ p �Qiai �e34 t l�Jw�i�H61 4�v°"a�i� REPORT Date: Mazch 7, 2000 Time: 10:00 am. Place: Room 330 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevazd LEGISLATIVE HEARING Gerry Strathman Legislative Hearing Officer oo-�� 1. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 783 Como Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the June 6, 2000, Legislative Hearing on the following condition: the owner pays the vacant building fee by Mazch 15, 2000. 2. Resolurion ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 294 Charles Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Gerry Strathman recommended approval. 3. Appeal of Summary Abatement Order at 55 Atwater Street. Gerry Strathman recommended denying the appeal, but amending the date to remove the vehicle to April 15, 2000. � MINiJTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING Tuesday, March 7, 2000 �� Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing O�cer The meeting was called to order at 10:02 am. STAFF PRESENT: Mike Kalis, Code Enforcement; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 783 Como Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Steve Magner gave photographs to Gerry Strathman; they were returned at the end of the meeting.} Steve Magner reported this building is a two story dwelling with a garage and a metal storage shed. It has been vacant since September 1997. An inspection was conducted on I 1-24-97, and a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed and photographs were taken. Vacant building fees aze due. Real estate taxes aze unpaid in the aznount of $2,939.27. The estunated mazket value of the property is $75,3QQ. A code compliance inspection has not been applied for and a bond has not been posted. The estimated cost to repair is $40,000; estimated cost to demolish, $8,000 to $9,000. Burton Murdock, owner, appeazed and stated he has a plan to install a new roof. A roofer was too busy to install one last yeaz. He had trouble with squirrels last year. He uses the properiy as part of his business. Mr. Murdock plans to sell the property after the roof is installed. The only thing wrong with the building is the roof, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Murdock responded that is conect. This is a residence, but it is used as part of a business, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Murdock responded his father purchased the property in 1946 and it is used as a storage facility for their plumbing business. It has been rented at various 6mes over the yeazs. The Ciry found out it wasn't rented and has been bothering him ever since. Mr. Strathman asked why the building is a nuisance. Because of the overall condition of the e�cterior, responded Mr. Magner. There aze concerns about the deterioration of the roof and rodent infestation. If the roof is repaired, would that address the nuisance condition, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Magner responded the owner would need to obtain a code compliance inspection, post a bond, obtain the pemuu, and repair all the itetns. The owner claims the interior is fine, but he is reluctant to let anyone in. Mr. Murdock responded he was never asked. If the ownet chooses to leave the building vacant and pays the vacant building fee, is there anything that requires him to get a code compliance inspection, asked Mr. Strathman. To obtain a code compliance certificate, responded Mr. Magner, an inspection has to be done. If the building was to 00 -� 1 LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINLJTES OF 3-7-00 Page 2 remain vacant, the inspection would not have to be done. However, the emphasis of the program is to get the properties rehabilitated. The exterior violations constitute a nuisance or violation of the law wluch is subject by ttris action or criminal action. The deficiency list includes other exterior violations, such as the eaves, some deterioration on the siding, and the garage needs painting. Mr. Murdock stated if he is left alone for six months, he will be out of the property and it will be soid. Mr. Magner stated Mr. Murdock has been asked repeatedly what his plans are, and he has given the same answers that he is providing now. Code Enforcement is not disputing that he does not want to do these items, but would like a time line when it will happen. Mr. Strathman stated the owner has the right to leave the building vacant if that is what he chooses to do as long as he maintains the e�cterior. Mr. Magner suggested setting up a time frame to obtain a code compliance inspection, obtain a $2,000 bond, which is going to be required to post the pernuts, make the eaterior repairs, and then revisit this issue as a layover. Or the owner could sell the properry. He would need to have the code compliance inspection to sell the property as required by ordinance. IYs cheaper to have the code compliance inspection done than a truth-in-housing inspection. One or the other document is needed for anyone to live in the properry and to bring the building into compliance. The owner would need a perxnit to put a roof on the building and do the other repairs. Mr. Strathman asked when the roof will be done. Mr. Murdock responded it may be done in the next 30 to 60 days. Mr. Strathman stated the vacant building fee is due and will have to be paid, and the exterior repairs will have to be done. He is not sure that the code compliance nvspection will have to be done if the owner does not intend to occupy the building, nor is he sure how the building will be sold without the code compliance inspection. Mr. Murdock responded he has no problem with getting a code compliance inspection after the roof is done. He will bring a check in tomonow to pay the vacant building fee. What would be the problem if he paid the vacant building fee and got the code compliance inspection done at some point in the future, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Magner responded they will not issue a permit for his roof until a bond and code compliance inspection aze done. That is a set policy by the building department. Mr. Magner does not see the reason why the inspecrion cannot be done. Mr. Murdock responded he does not want an inspector in his home because he does not trust them and he has been lied to before. He should not have to feel guilty because it is vacant. Gerry Strathman recommended this matter be laid over to the June 6, 2000, Legisiative Hearing on the following condition: the owner pays the vacant building fee by Mazch 15, 2000. Hopefully, the roof will be installed in three months, and the building will be ready for sale. Mr. Magner added Mr. Murdock will need to be here on June 6 or send a representative. oo-s'ti\ LEGISLATTVE HEARING MINUTES QF 3-7-00 Page 3 Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 294 Charles Avenue. If the owner faiLs to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the bnilding. (Steve Magner gave photographs to Gerry Strathman.) Steve Ivlagner reported the building has been vacant since Apri11498. Five summary abatement notices have been issued to remove refuse, cut tall grass, and remove snow from the public sidewalk. An inspection was conducted on 12-16-99, and a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed and photographs were taken. Vacant building fees aze due. Real estate taxes aze unpaid in the amount of $2,219.25. The estimated mazket value of the properry is $65,600. A code compliance inspection has not been applied for and a bond has not been posted. The estimated cost to repair is $25,000; estimated cost to demolish, $8,000 to $9,000. The owner is Agnes Wall. The person in control of this building is Michael R. Dauis. He has disappeazed in the last year and is a member of the armed services. Mr. Strathman asked about the }ugh mazket value of the properry. Mr. Magner responded that seems uncharacteristically high, but the value comes from Ramsey County Taxation. Gerry Strathxnan recommended approval. Appeal of Summary Abatement Order at 55 Atwater Street. William 7ohnson, owner, appeazed and stated he was not aware that there was a law or code that he could not have a vehicle on his propercy. FIe got into an accident and it runs, but he does not want to drive it in its condition. He would like an additional month to get it repaired. In answer to questions, Mr. 7ohnson responded the vehicle does not fii in his gazage and he will remove it in 30 days, licensed, and operable. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal, but amended the date to repair the vehicle to April 15, 2000. The meeting was adjourned at 1031 a.m. rrn CLTIZEN SERVICE OFFTCE Fred Owvsu, City C[erk 00 •�� DMSION OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT Mlchael R Morehead Pro,¢ram.�lanager CTIY OF SAINT PAiJL Nuisarsce Bui7ding Code Ersforcement NormColeman,lvlayor ISW.KelloggBlvdRm.790 Tel: 6.i1-266-8440 SaintPauZ,M•Y55102 Faz:6�1-266-8426 , �i i�;�.�>�C'�.`� t, February 11, 20Q0 NOTICE OF PL7BLIC HEARINGS �' � �' �° �� Council President and Members of the City Council Citizen Service Of£ice, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings Enforcement Division has requested the City Council schedule public hearings to consider a resolution orderin� the repair or removal of the nuisance buildin�{s) located at: 783 Como Avenue The Gity Gouncil has scheduled the date of these hearings as follows: Legislative Hearing - Tuesday, March 7, 2000 City Council Hearing - Wednesday, March 22, 2000 The owners and responsible parties of record are: Name and Last Known Address Interest Estate of John R. Murdock Fee Owner c/o Bm A. Murdock 2052 Kenwood Drive E. Maplewood, MN 55117-2234 The legal description of this properry is: Lot 3, in Block l, in Royal Oaks, an Addition to the City of St. Paul. Division of Code Enforcement has declazed this building(s) to constitute 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 conectina the deficiencies or by razin� and removin� this buildin�(s). 00 -�'� 1 783 Como Avenue February 11, 2000 Page 2 Inasmuch as this Oxder to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition remains unabated, the communiry continues to suffer the bli�hting 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 builc�in� in a timely manner, and failin� that, authorize the Division of Code Enforcement to proceed to demolition and removal, and to assess the costs incurred a�ainst the real estate as a special assessment to be collected in the same manner as taxes. Sincerely, Steve 1Vlagne� Steve Ma�er Vacant Buildings Supervisor Division of Code Enforcement Citizen Service Office SM:mI cc: Frank Berg, Building Inspection and Design Meghan Riley, City Attomeys Office Nancy Anderson, Assistant Secretary to the Council Paul Mordorski, PED-Housing Division ccnph c�c�- ti�_ MINUTES OF'I'I� LEGISLATIVE HEARING Tuesday, June 6, 2000 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 10:01 a.m. STAFF PRESENT: Roxanna Flink, Real Estate; Doris Lesny, Real Estate; Dick Lippert, Code Enforcement; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Rich Singerhouse, Code Enforcement; Maynard Vinge, Code Enforcement; Joe Yannazelly, Code Enforcement Resolufion ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 783 Como Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Laid over from 3-7-00) Burton Murdock, owner, appeared and stated the issue to fix the roof is null and void because he cannot be issued a pernut for the roof only. Mr. Strathman asked is he still intending to sell the properry. Mr. Murdock responded not necessarily. He used it for business storage. Renters and squirrels caused him problems. Steve Magner reported the code compliance application came through yesterday. Nothing has been done to the building until recenUy. The last inspection was June 1 in preparation far today's meeting. This was laid over to today with the recommendation that the owner would repair his roof, and it seems the owner had time to get that done. The owner started the wark on the roof but did not apply for permits nor a code compliance inspecfion. Mr. Magner would like the resolution to go forwazd to repair or remove. Pvlr. Strathman asked when the code compliance inspection will be done. Mr. Murdock responded he has to call Don Wagner from LIEP (License, Inspections, Environmental Protection) to have the inspection done. Gerry Strathman recommends granting six months to complete rehabilitation of the properCy on condition that a$2,000 bond is posted by noon of June 14, 2000. Mr. Magner added that if the bond is not posted by then with LIEP, the resolution would go forward to repair or remove the building in 15 days. Summary Abatements: File JOOOlAl Snow and or ice removal during January and February 2000, File JO�O1C Demolifion of vacant buildings during January 2000, File J0002A Property clean-up during March 2000, File J0002B Boarding up of vacant buildings during February 2000. 921 Al onquin Avenue (JOOOlAl) (No one appeared to represent the property.) � �. \ LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF JI TNE 6, 2�00 Page 2 Gerry Strathman read a letter from Bill Cullen, President of Cullen Homes, who wrote he disputes owing the amount because this incident happened in February and he purchased the properry in April. Gerty Strathman recommends approval of the assessment. The assessment is against the property, and the current owner is responsible. If the owner has issues about not being properly informed, he needs to discuss it with the seller. Mz. Magner stated he expressed this to Mr. Cullen and advised him to contact his tiUe company. 1350 Laurel Avenue (JOOQIAI) (No one appeazed to represent the properry.) Gerry Strathman recommends approval of the assessment. 38 Delos Street West (J0002A) Edward Luna, owner, appeared. Dick Lippert reported there was a complaint on 3-15-00 about furnihue and refuse in the yazd. On 3-16-00, Code Enforcement made an inspection and found couches in the front yard, and a summary abatement order was issued. A work order was issued to have it removed by 3-22-00. The debris was removed by the City on 3-27-00. (A videotape was shown.) Mr. Luna stated he lived in Illinois at the time, and did not get the notices until the forwarded mail got to him, which was too late. He had already called for the items to be picked up, but they did not make it out in time. There were tables and other items seen on the videotape that were someone's property, and now they aze thrown away. The only things that were garbage were the couches and the tire. Mr. 5trathman stated the abatement order is about cleaning up the two couches and the tires. There is no question that a legally required notice was sent. If it is Mr. Luna's view that the City improperly took personal properly, a claim can be filed against the City. That cannot be dealt with here. Gerry Strathman recommends approval of the assessment. Mr. Luna stated he would like a copy of the videotape. 609 Maenolia Avenue East (J0002A) The following appeared: Chris Nissen, owner, and Herbert Henson, renter. a�=z--� \ LEGISLA'ITVE HEAR.INCz MINUTES OF JUNE 6, 2000 Page 3 Dick Lippert reported there was a complaint on 3-15-00 about a trailer pazked on a lot. On 3-16-00, an inspector verified an unsightly trailer on the property and issued a summary abatement notice to Pvlr. Nissen and the State of Minnesota Tax Exempt with a compliance date of 3-23-00. On 3-24-00, the work was done. Gerry Strathman stated he is confused about ownership. Mr. Nissen responded he purchased the property last fall. Mr. Lippert responded the ta�� records show that in Mazch it was owned by Mr. Nissen. The State was notified because they came up as a fee owner. (A videotape was shown.) Mr. Nissen asked did Mr. Lippert have his correspondence. Mr. Lippert responded he has two letters from Mr. Nissen dated Mazch 25 and May 20. (Mr. Nissen asked to take a few minutes. This address was discussed later in the meeting.) 1120 Sixth Street East (J0002A) The following appeared: Donald Folske, owner; his son; and his daughter-in-law. (A videotape was shown.) Mr. Folske stated the original summary abatement order was for gazbage, rubbish, etc. He was out of town, but his son and daughter-in-law removed the following before the City did the work: two mattresses, two couches, carpet, 12 tires, aYle, and miscellaneous rubbish. Many of the items in the back were from the next door neighbor. Gerry Strathman stated he saw scrap wood, trash, tires on the videotape. Son responded those were materials for building. He took a day off of work to clean up the properiy. He did not clean the items under the deck because he was going to use it. The trash on the left hand side is the neighbors property. Mr. Strathman responded that was not proper storage for the materials. The daughter-in-law stated that she ran into the inspector at a different location. The inspector knew that Don Folske was going to be out of town and that she would be there to take caze of the property. She cleaned up what she could, and her husband took a day off work to help her with the heavy items. Over the weekend, she could not do anything with the trailer because the NRG (where she takes her refuse) was closed. On Tuesday, they emptied the bigger items. 5he was going to come back and finish the items, but the City came before she could finish. Dick Lippert reported the inspector met Mr. Folske on 2-29-00, which is the day after the original inspecUon, and Mr. Folske agreed to have all the refuse out by 3-6-00. Mr. Folske responded he did say that, but he could not unload the trailer on the Saturday before the 6�', and he went out of town on the 5�'. He did the ne� best thing which is to call Code Enforcement and let them lrnow that he planned to do it. He did the vast majority of it. It cost him $51 to unload the trailer, and it normally costs $23. He does not feel the City should have done the work. c��=�--1 � LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF JLINE 6, 2000 Page 4 The son stated big ruts were left in the gtound. Also, he does not understand why the City complained about the fence, but left it there. He also does not understaud why a bobcat was used. Mr. Strathman responded he did see the ruts on the videotape. Mr. Strathman asked did they request addifional time. Daughter-in-law responded she and Guy Willits were talking on a daily basis, there was already an agreement, and the City did the work anyway. Did the files show anytl�ing about those conversafions, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Lippert responded they do not. It does show there is a long history with this property. Tags have been issued. It was probably the feeling of the inspector that enough is enough. Gerry Strathxnan recommends reducing the assessment from $757.50 to $500 plus the $45 service fee, for a total assessment of $545. There is no question that City staff followed the rules: the owner was notified and given an opportunity to correct the problem. The owner made an effort to make the corrections, but it was not completed in time. 605 Sttyker Avenue (J�0�2A) Khaffak Ansari, owner, appeazed and stated the City sent him a letter about a freezer. He was in the process of changing gazbage companies in order to get better service. He was also in the process of remodeling and planned to dump the freezer when finished. Gerry Strathman stated the owner had 12 days: he was notified 3-1-00, and the work was done on 3-13-00 by the City. He asked were there any questions about whether the work was done because there is a videotape. Mr. Ansari responded it is not necessary to view it. Dick Lippert reported that the inspector noted this was the 4`� complaint on this property in the last yeaz; therefore, tags were issued for continued noncompliance. Gerry Strathman recommends approval of the assessment citing the owner was notified and given a longer than usual time to remove the items. 777 to 779 Smith Avenue South (30001A1) Rose Gunness, owner, appeared and stated she did not receive the notice an time because she does not live at that property. The tenant is her granddaughter who maintains the property. The noflce was received at 777 Smith, but it got set aside because it was addressed to Ms. Gunness and her granddaughter did not thnik it was important. Gerry Strathman asked is this a commercial residence. Ms. Gunness responded it is combined. The tenant lives upstairs, and the store is on the ground level. Mr. Strathman asked why her granddaughter did not shovel the walk. Ms. Gunness responded she did. She may not have been aware of the ice that runs off the roof. �-�.yt � LEGISLATIVE HEt1RING MINUTES OF JL)NE 6, 2000 (A videotape was shown.) Page 5 Mr. Strathman stated it did not look like the granddaughter shoveled at all. The inspector noted, stated Dick Lippert, that it looked at if there was no attempt at snow and ice removal. Mr. Gunness stated she would have taken caze of it if she was norified. Mr. Strathman responded the City notifies the person on the properry taac records. Ms. Gunness responded she wrote a letter quite a while ago to correct the address. Gerry Strathman recommends approval of the assessment. 437 View Street (J0002A) Edna Spedevick, owner, appeazed and stated she received a notice. She had remodeling items in the back yard that were cleaned up by her. Three dumpsters full of items were removed prior to the City doing the work. Six bags of leaves were left. (A videotape was shown.) Cserry Strathman stated it appeazed that what Ms. Spedevick said is correct. Dick Lippert reported the inspector viewed the tape and thought the bags were included in what was there originally. Gerry Strathman recommends deleting the assessment citing plasfic bags are not acceptable storage, but it seems clear the clean up was done. 961 Edmund Avenue (J0002A) (No one appeazed to represent the property.) Gerry Strathman recommends approval of the assessment. Conrinuation of 609 Maenolia Avenue East (J0002A) Chris Nissen stated his calcularions show the hourly rate at appro�cimately $250 an hour and asked how is the rate detennined. Dick Lippert responded it is more like $225 an hour plus administrative fees. There are special costs for tires, appliances, and using special equipment. The rate is determmed by the crew that does the work. Gerry Strathman stated there is a study done periodically by the City in which they docuxnent a11 of their labor costs, overhead, equipment, transportation, and disposal costs, wluch is the basis for that rate. He is uncleaz how often that is redone. �=�--� 1 LEGISLA'IIVE HEARING MINUTES OF 7L7NE 6, 2000 �._-. Mr. Nissen asked was there a phone number on the letter that he sent to Code Enforcement. Mr. Lippert responded the letter dated March 25 does not ha�e a phone number. The inspector noted that an attempt was made to get a phone nuuiber and he was unable to get one. Mr. Nissen withdrew his appeal. What he saw on the videotape was different than what he saw a few days before with a burned out trailer. He went to considerable effort to find the owner of the trailer. What he saw on the videotape was done as an act of vandalism. Mr. Nissen will be contacting legal authorities and going through a civil proceeding. Appeal of summary abatement order at 15 Annapolis Street West. (Photographs were presented by staff: They were later returned.) Jo An M. Mullins, owner, appeazed and stated the inspector came out and said she has to clean up the space that is her neighbor's properry. This neighbor claims that their property goes to the fence. The neighbor installed a fence on the other side of their hedge because they did not want to take the hedge out. A lot of tree limbs, grass clippings, leaves, tarp, window well covers, junk have been thrown over the fence and left on Ms. Mullins side of the fence, but it is not on her properiy. Ms. Mullins has been told to clean up that part of the properry, but there is no reason why she should have to clean it up. Part of the problem is that her chicken wire fence is not a permanent fence, stated Ms. Mullins. It is at the rear of the properCy on her side of the property line. She was told she was not allowed to put up a permanent fence there. Gerry Strathman asked what is the problem with the fence. According to Code Enforcement, Ms. Mullins responded, it did not prevent them from saying she had to take caze of the property that is on her side of the permanent fence. Ms. Mullins went on to say that she lives in the middle of a hill on a busy stzeet. Trucks and buses accelerate at the bottom of the hill as they go up. Ms. Mullins uses a hedge as a barrier far noise, especially since she found a deer carcass on her properry. She cuts down her bushes by the 4�` of July. If she cuts them down before then, she gets too much trash. Because her land slants, the best way to keep water from mm�ing off is to haue ground cover. She has planted various flowers. She has high trees because there aze two all night lights about 20 feet above the land, said Ms. Mullins. They glare into her bedroom windows, and she is not comfortable having drapes pulled on a hot sunuuer night. The inspectors do not like her high trees. Ms. Mullins stated one of the inspectors okayed the way she had stored a yeazs worth of wood. Now she is told she is not allowed to keep any wood. The inspectors have been good about giving her a chance to take care of the wood that has fallen. She is late getting the last part in the back of the house because the wind over Memorial Day caused a brauch to fall. N5P had to come out to drop the line so the trees could be cut. � 2--� ` LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF JUNE 6, 2000 Page 7 Mr. Strathu�an asked has that been taken care of now. Ms. Mullins responded a lot has to be removed. Joe Yannarelly reported there is a pennanent cyclone fence separating 5 Anuapolis from 15 Annapolis. Everydung is well taken caze on the 5 Annapolis side. The 15 Annapolis side has rubbish accumulating. Ms. Mullins has installed chicken wire and maintained that is not her property and will not take caze of it. Mr. Strathman asked is there a way to detemrine the locafion of the property line. Ms. Mullins responded she laiows where the property line is located, and it is mazked on her appeal applicafion. Maynard Vinge reported this is a heavily wooded lot. There aze no regulations against tall trees, but there are problems with branches, trees, and shrubs blocking public right of ways. There aze also problems with rank plant growkh, insect and rodent hazborage. Code Enforcement has been out there more than once and has discussed this more than once. There is wood and other debris on Ms. Mullins' side of the fence. Mr. Strathman asked aze there mazkers to establish the properry line. When she had it surveyed, responded Ms. Mullins, she measured 23 inches up from the line on the sidewalk. She does not have paperwark from the survey. Dick Lippert stated the City has been dealing with this properiy since 1970 in regazd to the properry line and the fence. Adverse possession and presumptive possession would probably make her responsible for that piece of land even though it is not platted like that. Mr. Strathman asked have they made any effort to have the neighbar clean that area. Mr. Vinge responded no. The neighbor's yazd is maintained. Mr. Strathxnan asked about the growth along the sidewalk. Mr. Yannazelly responded she cut it down but left the debris along the boulevazd. She was suppose to have it done after numerous extensions. Mr. Strathman asked the location of the wood storage. Mr. Yannarelly responded there is dead wood laying azound the yazd. Ms. Mullins responded she had a wood pile that was destroyed by the work being down, but she plans to repile it. The way she stored it was approved by an inspector a number of years ago. The other issue they are worried about is rocks. Mr. Yauuazelly responded he spoke to the previous inspector that Ms. Mullins is referring to and he said he okayed fire logs, 12-18 inches off the ground. Ms. Mullins responded they aze. Mr. Yannazelly stated he is worried about the dead wood on the ground, not logs for a fireplace. Also, there is the matter of not providing a licensed trash hauler. CO=Z,� \ LEGISLATTVE HEARING MINUTES OF JLTNE 6, 2000 � Mr. Strathman stated with respect to the fence, it seems that the debris on her side of the fence is probably from her property. If she can demonstrate from a survey that it is not her properry, it can be dealt with differently. The presump6on that it is her propezry is reasonable. She has cleared the sidewalk obstruction, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Yannarelly responded yes. Mr. Strathman stated she will have to clean up the debris on the boulevazd and in the yard. She also has to provide the inspector with the name of a licensed trash hauler. Gerry Stratlunan denied the appeal in all respects. The actions of the City officials aze appropriate with the exception of the sidewalk obstruction, which is moot because the owner has taken care of it. Appeal of summary abatement order at 1183 Arkwright Street. Appeal of two vehicle abatement orders at 1183 Arkwri�t Street. Appeal of vacant building registration notice at 1183 Arkwright Street. The following appeazed: Donald Drouin, owner, and Roxanne Heinrich, attomey. Ms. Heinrich stated she has been in court since December and the cases were dismissed by William Brown regarding the vacant building. She does not know how Code Enforcement can proceed when it has been dismissed. This building is not vacant; it is occupied. Gerry Strathman asked about the vehicle. Ms. Heinrich responded they aze all operable except for the red vehicle. The last time she was here, over $957 of inerchandise was taken. She was told to file a claun form by Mr. Strathman. Your position is, asked Mr. Strathman, the vehicles are licensed and operable. Mr. Drouin responded the exception is the red Dodge because the City took the wheel and tires. Mr. Strathman asked did the City take them off the vehicle. Mr. Drouin responded they were not on a vehicle because he was working on it. They were $110 each plus the parts that go on them. Rich Singerhouse reported he wrote a summary abatement on the sIx vehicles that were in the yard. Ms. Heinrich responded there are only three there now: her caz, his truck, and the Dodge. Mr. Strathxnan asked is the cleanup regazding rubbish, vehicle parts, scrap wood, metal recycling materials, etc. been cleaned up. Ms. Heinrich responded yes. Mr. Singerhouse responded he can check on that. Ms. Heinrich asked where she could submit her attomey fees for this process. Mr. Drouin has been harassed several times and that is why Mr. Brown has dismissed it. Steve Magner stated the reason Mr. Singerhouse opened a registered vacant building file was due to the fact that it was referred to Code Enforcement because the building was condemned. Mr. Magner asked who is Mr. Brown. Ms. Heinrich responded William Brown is a city aitomey. This case was brought before a judge in December. The judge gave them six months and there OC� 2 � LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINiJTES OF JIJNE 6, 2000 Page 9 was an agreement to suspend the matter. Mike Morehead (of Code Enforcement) was there. Mr. Lippert responded that refers to a case regazding charges about animals. That does not relate to the status of this building being vacanx or condemned. If the testimony here is that the building is occupied, then there is a problem because that building is condexnned and ordered vacate. Code Enforcement will be checking on that status. Mr. Strathman asked when it was condemned. Mr. Singerhouse responded 12-13-99 was the vacate date. The inspectors have been working with Don Wagner (of LIEP) throughout that time. Mr. Drouin was asked numerous times was it vacated and he answered that he is not staying there any longer. Mr. Drouin responded that does not mean the properry is not occupied because he still has to maintain it and his belongings are there. Mr. Singerhouse responded he can go to the building and wark but he cannot live there. Mr. Magner asked was there any documentarion that the condemnation was lifted or any documentation from Mr. Brown that the condemnation was not substantiated. Ms. Heinrich responded he could get no help. As for the suuunary abatement order, stated Mr. Strathman, it is Ms. Heinrich's representation that the correcrions haue been made. Therefore, the appeal will be denied if there is nothing more to deal with. With respect to the six vehicles, he is being told there are only three vehicles there now, and the one that is not operable is being retained as evidence in a claim. As for the parking surface, started Mr. Stratkunan. Mr. Drouin responded that has been the driveway on that lot for 80 years. Just because there is no garage any longer and vegetation is popping up here and there, it is still a driveway. Mr. Magner stated the photographs will show the vegetation. The owner said last yeaz that he would submit a site plan and that he planned to put down Class 5 rock. Mr. Drouin responded he never said he was going to put anything down. Mr. Strathman stated it is clearly an unapproved parking surface. Mr. Drouin responded it has always been that way. Back in 1919, they did not require paved driveways. Mr. Strathman responded if something is legal in 1919 that does not mean it is legal in the year 2000. Mr. Drouin asked since when did government force people to change their property retrospectively. Mr. Strathman responded all the time. Anyone that stores vehicles in a lot has to have an approved surface. Ms. Heinrich stated they were in here before regarding the unapproved parldng surface, and Mr. Strathman dismissed that case. They were here last May and now they are here again, and she believes this is harassxnent. She would like to lrnow how she can address the City Council. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal with respect to the vacant building fee, and explained the process for addressing the City Council. Mr. Drouin stated if Code Enfoxcement cannot provide specific criteria on how to lift the condemnation, how can he meet nonexistent criteria. Mr. Strathman responded in order to do dc� -�-- � LEGISLATTVE HEARING MINUT'ES OF JIJNE 6, Z000 Page 10 that, a code compliance inspection should be done, the owner should do atl the items required in the inspection, and then the condemnation will be removed. Mr. Stratbman asked have they had a code compliance inspection done. Ms. Heinrich responded an inspector has been to the property eight times, and each time they have changed something. Mr. Drouin stated there aze photographs of the driveway showing gravel, concrete, and sand. He asked does it have to be perfectly crushed rock and is this an aesthetic issue. Mr. Strathman responded there is a definition in the code regarding what is suitable storage. Gerry Strathman denied the appeals on the following: the suumiary abatement order dated 5-8- 00, the two vehicle abatement orders dated 5-8-00, and the vacant building registration notice dated 5-9-00. 1108 Sixth Street East (J0002A) The owner appeared. (The owner did not send in a green cazd; therefore, there were no records available at this hearing.) Gerry Strathman recommends laying over to the June 20, 2000, Legislative Hearing. 1185 Burns Avenue (JOOOlAl) (The owner did not send in a gteen card; therefore, there were no records available at this hearing.) Diane Gamm, owner, appeared and stated tkus abatement is about snow removal. She is confused and wanted to see the records and the videotape. She called and said she was taking care of it. It is a duplex and there is an agreement that the tenants take caze of snow shoveling. Mr. Strathman suggested that she make arrangements to view the videotape. If she still wants to be heard, she can come to the legislative hearing on June 20. Ms. Guvm asked was there record of a call made by her. Dick Lippert responded no. Gerry Strathman recommends laying over to the June 20, 2000, Legislative Hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 11:44 a.m. rrn a��a� /S Council File # 00 � � Green Sheet # �07Z11 Presented By Referred To RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Committee: Date 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 dwelling with a detached, two-stall, wood frame 4 garage and metal storage shed located on properry hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property" and 5 commonly known as 783 Como Avenue. This property is legally described as follows, to wit: 6 Lot 3, in Block 1, in Royal Oaks, an Addition to the City of St. Paul. 9 WFIEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information 10 obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before October 27, 1999, the following are the now ll known interested or responsible parCies for the Subject Property: Estate of John R. Murdock, c/o Burton 12 A. Murdock, 2082 Kenwood Drive E., Maplewood, MN 55ll 7-2234 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 WHEREAS, Division of Code Enforcement has served in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code an order identified as an"Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s)" dated December 22, 1999; and WHEREAS, this order informed the then known interested or responsible parties that the structure located on the Subject Property is a nuisance buiiding(s) pursuant to Chapter 45; and WIIEREAS, this order in£ormed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair or demolish the structure located on the Subject Property by January 24, 2000; and WfIEREAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placard on the Subject Property declazing this building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and WIIEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Division of Code Enforcement requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the City Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and WHEREAS, the interested and xesponsible parties have been served notice in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the time, date, place and purpose of the public hearings; and 2 4 5 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 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 4A 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 oe . �.�11 WI�REAS, a heazing was held before the Legislative Hearing O�cer of the Saint Paul City Council on Tuesday, March 7, 2000 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and evidence, made the recommendation to approve the request to order 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 ordinances, or in the altemative by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to be completed within fifteen (15) days a$er the date of the Council Hearing; and WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, Mazch 22, 200� and the testixnony and evidence including the action taken by the Legislative Aearing Officer was considered by the Council; now theLefore BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the above referenced public hearings, the Saint Paul City Council hereby adopts the foliowing Findings and Order concerning the Subject Property at 783 Como Avenue: 1. � � fIl That the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 45. 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 lrnown 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 subyect to demolition. That this bLUlding has been routinely monitared by the Citizen Service Offices, Division of Code Enforcement, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings. 8. That the Imown interested parties and owners are as previously stated in this resolution and that the notification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled. ORDER The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the foliowing order: The above referenced interested or responsible parties shall make the Subject Properry 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 conecting all deficiencies as prescribed in the above referenced Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) in accordance 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 after the date of the Councii Hearing. Sr:�+kcsti (\5> ORIGINAL 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 00 .�� 2. If the above corrective action is not completed within this period of time the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps aze necessary to demolish and remove tYus structure, fill the site and charge the costs incurred against the Subject Properiy pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all personal properry or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shall be removed from the properry by the responsible parties by the end of this time period. If all personal properiy is not removed, it shall be considered to be abandoned and the City of Saint Paul shall remove and dispose of such properry as provided by law. 4. It is fiuther 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. Yeas Navs Absent Benanav � Blakev ✓ Bostrom ✓ Coleman ✓ ` Harris ✓ Lantrv ,/ _ Reiter _� _ S � Adopted by Councii: Date `T �y � or Adoption Certified by Comicil Secretary I: �.. �� Requested by Department of: Citizen Service Office: Code Enforcement By: ��`'^dJV-✓�.� �y�� 1�� i { C�� Form Approved by City Attorney By: ,�.0 Approve yor for Submission to Council B � �2�� Division of Code Enforcement 266-8439 IUST BE ON CqJNCI�AGENOq BY @4T� Mazch 22_ 2000 TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES a2niioo GREEN SHEET No 1 C2c77 MM�IDeb InNWIDffie � �..�� „�. Do.� � wYeFR FaR � �v�nouEY ❑ G1YaEtK ��.�.��. �.«�.��,.�.a �wvat(ulwassrY+*1 � / ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) � City Council to pass this resolution which will order the owner(s) to remove or repair the referenced building(s). If the owner fails to compiy with the resolution, the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. The subject property is located at 783 Como Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB CAMMITfEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION Has this persorJfi�m everworked under a canhact tor ihis departmeM? YES NO Has thie persoNfirtn e+er heen a cily empbyee4 YES NO Oons th� qersnNfi�m posaeas a sltlll not iw�mallypoeaeased hy a�ry curterd city employee? YES NO Is this peisoMrtn a tarpeted �endoY! 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 and responsible parties known to the Enfarcement Officer were given an order to,repair or remove the building at 783 Como Avenue by January Z4, 2000, and have failed to comply with those orders. ��,� �� _ ""Lit The City wIll eliminate a nuisance. s :SIFAPPROVED will spend funds to wreck and remove this building(s). These costs will be assessed to the properly, collected as a special assessment against the property t�es. IF NOT APPROVED condition will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to blight the communiry. AMOUN7 OF TRANSACTION S Nuisance Housing Abatement COET/FlEYENUE BUD6E7m (GRCLE ONE) 33261 ncrnm t+uMSac 0 (EXPWN) , � ,, �� g gy p+ p �Qiai �e34 t l�Jw�i�H61 4�v°"a�i� REPORT Date: Mazch 7, 2000 Time: 10:00 am. Place: Room 330 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevazd LEGISLATIVE HEARING Gerry Strathman Legislative Hearing Officer oo-�� 1. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 783 Como Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Gerry Strathman recommended laying over to the June 6, 2000, Legislative Hearing on the following condition: the owner pays the vacant building fee by Mazch 15, 2000. 2. Resolurion ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 294 Charles Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Gerry Strathman recommended approval. 3. Appeal of Summary Abatement Order at 55 Atwater Street. Gerry Strathman recommended denying the appeal, but amending the date to remove the vehicle to April 15, 2000. � MINiJTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING Tuesday, March 7, 2000 �� Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing O�cer The meeting was called to order at 10:02 am. STAFF PRESENT: Mike Kalis, Code Enforcement; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 783 Como Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Steve Magner gave photographs to Gerry Strathman; they were returned at the end of the meeting.} Steve Magner reported this building is a two story dwelling with a garage and a metal storage shed. It has been vacant since September 1997. An inspection was conducted on I 1-24-97, and a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed and photographs were taken. Vacant building fees aze due. Real estate taxes aze unpaid in the aznount of $2,939.27. The estunated mazket value of the property is $75,3QQ. A code compliance inspection has not been applied for and a bond has not been posted. The estimated cost to repair is $40,000; estimated cost to demolish, $8,000 to $9,000. Burton Murdock, owner, appeazed and stated he has a plan to install a new roof. A roofer was too busy to install one last yeaz. He had trouble with squirrels last year. He uses the properiy as part of his business. Mr. Murdock plans to sell the property after the roof is installed. The only thing wrong with the building is the roof, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Murdock responded that is conect. This is a residence, but it is used as part of a business, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Murdock responded his father purchased the property in 1946 and it is used as a storage facility for their plumbing business. It has been rented at various 6mes over the yeazs. The Ciry found out it wasn't rented and has been bothering him ever since. Mr. Strathman asked why the building is a nuisance. Because of the overall condition of the e�cterior, responded Mr. Magner. There aze concerns about the deterioration of the roof and rodent infestation. If the roof is repaired, would that address the nuisance condition, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Magner responded the owner would need to obtain a code compliance inspection, post a bond, obtain the pemuu, and repair all the itetns. The owner claims the interior is fine, but he is reluctant to let anyone in. Mr. Murdock responded he was never asked. If the ownet chooses to leave the building vacant and pays the vacant building fee, is there anything that requires him to get a code compliance inspection, asked Mr. Strathman. To obtain a code compliance certificate, responded Mr. Magner, an inspection has to be done. If the building was to 00 -� 1 LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINLJTES OF 3-7-00 Page 2 remain vacant, the inspection would not have to be done. However, the emphasis of the program is to get the properties rehabilitated. The exterior violations constitute a nuisance or violation of the law wluch is subject by ttris action or criminal action. The deficiency list includes other exterior violations, such as the eaves, some deterioration on the siding, and the garage needs painting. Mr. Murdock stated if he is left alone for six months, he will be out of the property and it will be soid. Mr. Magner stated Mr. Murdock has been asked repeatedly what his plans are, and he has given the same answers that he is providing now. Code Enforcement is not disputing that he does not want to do these items, but would like a time line when it will happen. Mr. Strathman stated the owner has the right to leave the building vacant if that is what he chooses to do as long as he maintains the e�cterior. Mr. Magner suggested setting up a time frame to obtain a code compliance inspection, obtain a $2,000 bond, which is going to be required to post the pernuts, make the eaterior repairs, and then revisit this issue as a layover. Or the owner could sell the properry. He would need to have the code compliance inspection to sell the property as required by ordinance. IYs cheaper to have the code compliance inspection done than a truth-in-housing inspection. One or the other document is needed for anyone to live in the properry and to bring the building into compliance. The owner would need a perxnit to put a roof on the building and do the other repairs. Mr. Strathman asked when the roof will be done. Mr. Murdock responded it may be done in the next 30 to 60 days. Mr. Strathman stated the vacant building fee is due and will have to be paid, and the exterior repairs will have to be done. He is not sure that the code compliance nvspection will have to be done if the owner does not intend to occupy the building, nor is he sure how the building will be sold without the code compliance inspection. Mr. Murdock responded he has no problem with getting a code compliance inspection after the roof is done. He will bring a check in tomonow to pay the vacant building fee. What would be the problem if he paid the vacant building fee and got the code compliance inspection done at some point in the future, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Magner responded they will not issue a permit for his roof until a bond and code compliance inspection aze done. That is a set policy by the building department. Mr. Magner does not see the reason why the inspecrion cannot be done. Mr. Murdock responded he does not want an inspector in his home because he does not trust them and he has been lied to before. He should not have to feel guilty because it is vacant. Gerry Strathman recommended this matter be laid over to the June 6, 2000, Legisiative Hearing on the following condition: the owner pays the vacant building fee by Mazch 15, 2000. Hopefully, the roof will be installed in three months, and the building will be ready for sale. Mr. Magner added Mr. Murdock will need to be here on June 6 or send a representative. oo-s'ti\ LEGISLATTVE HEARING MINUTES QF 3-7-00 Page 3 Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 294 Charles Avenue. If the owner faiLs to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the bnilding. (Steve Magner gave photographs to Gerry Strathman.) Steve Ivlagner reported the building has been vacant since Apri11498. Five summary abatement notices have been issued to remove refuse, cut tall grass, and remove snow from the public sidewalk. An inspection was conducted on 12-16-99, and a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed and photographs were taken. Vacant building fees aze due. Real estate taxes aze unpaid in the amount of $2,219.25. The estimated mazket value of the properry is $65,600. A code compliance inspection has not been applied for and a bond has not been posted. The estimated cost to repair is $25,000; estimated cost to demolish, $8,000 to $9,000. The owner is Agnes Wall. The person in control of this building is Michael R. Dauis. He has disappeazed in the last year and is a member of the armed services. Mr. Strathman asked about the }ugh mazket value of the properry. Mr. Magner responded that seems uncharacteristically high, but the value comes from Ramsey County Taxation. Gerry Strathxnan recommended approval. Appeal of Summary Abatement Order at 55 Atwater Street. William 7ohnson, owner, appeazed and stated he was not aware that there was a law or code that he could not have a vehicle on his propercy. FIe got into an accident and it runs, but he does not want to drive it in its condition. He would like an additional month to get it repaired. In answer to questions, Mr. 7ohnson responded the vehicle does not fii in his gazage and he will remove it in 30 days, licensed, and operable. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal, but amended the date to repair the vehicle to April 15, 2000. The meeting was adjourned at 1031 a.m. rrn CLTIZEN SERVICE OFFTCE Fred Owvsu, City C[erk 00 •�� DMSION OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT Mlchael R Morehead Pro,¢ram.�lanager CTIY OF SAINT PAiJL Nuisarsce Bui7ding Code Ersforcement NormColeman,lvlayor ISW.KelloggBlvdRm.790 Tel: 6.i1-266-8440 SaintPauZ,M•Y55102 Faz:6�1-266-8426 , �i i�;�.�>�C'�.`� t, February 11, 20Q0 NOTICE OF PL7BLIC HEARINGS �' � �' �° �� Council President and Members of the City Council Citizen Service Of£ice, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings Enforcement Division has requested the City Council schedule public hearings to consider a resolution orderin� the repair or removal of the nuisance buildin�{s) located at: 783 Como Avenue The Gity Gouncil has scheduled the date of these hearings as follows: Legislative Hearing - Tuesday, March 7, 2000 City Council Hearing - Wednesday, March 22, 2000 The owners and responsible parties of record are: Name and Last Known Address Interest Estate of John R. Murdock Fee Owner c/o Bm A. Murdock 2052 Kenwood Drive E. Maplewood, MN 55117-2234 The legal description of this properry is: Lot 3, in Block l, in Royal Oaks, an Addition to the City of St. Paul. Division of Code Enforcement has declazed this building(s) to constitute 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 conectina the deficiencies or by razin� and removin� this buildin�(s). 00 -�'� 1 783 Como Avenue February 11, 2000 Page 2 Inasmuch as this Oxder to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition remains unabated, the communiry continues to suffer the bli�hting 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 builc�in� in a timely manner, and failin� that, authorize the Division of Code Enforcement to proceed to demolition and removal, and to assess the costs incurred a�ainst the real estate as a special assessment to be collected in the same manner as taxes. Sincerely, Steve 1Vlagne� Steve Ma�er Vacant Buildings Supervisor Division of Code Enforcement Citizen Service Office SM:mI cc: Frank Berg, Building Inspection and Design Meghan Riley, City Attomeys Office Nancy Anderson, Assistant Secretary to the Council Paul Mordorski, PED-Housing Division ccnph c�c�- ti�_ MINUTES OF'I'I� LEGISLATIVE HEARING Tuesday, June 6, 2000 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 10:01 a.m. STAFF PRESENT: Roxanna Flink, Real Estate; Doris Lesny, Real Estate; Dick Lippert, Code Enforcement; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Rich Singerhouse, Code Enforcement; Maynard Vinge, Code Enforcement; Joe Yannazelly, Code Enforcement Resolufion ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 783 Como Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Laid over from 3-7-00) Burton Murdock, owner, appeared and stated the issue to fix the roof is null and void because he cannot be issued a pernut for the roof only. Mr. Strathman asked is he still intending to sell the properry. Mr. Murdock responded not necessarily. He used it for business storage. Renters and squirrels caused him problems. Steve Magner reported the code compliance application came through yesterday. Nothing has been done to the building until recenUy. The last inspection was June 1 in preparation far today's meeting. This was laid over to today with the recommendation that the owner would repair his roof, and it seems the owner had time to get that done. The owner started the wark on the roof but did not apply for permits nor a code compliance inspecfion. Mr. Magner would like the resolution to go forwazd to repair or remove. Pvlr. Strathman asked when the code compliance inspection will be done. Mr. Murdock responded he has to call Don Wagner from LIEP (License, Inspections, Environmental Protection) to have the inspection done. Gerry Strathman recommends granting six months to complete rehabilitation of the properCy on condition that a$2,000 bond is posted by noon of June 14, 2000. Mr. Magner added that if the bond is not posted by then with LIEP, the resolution would go forward to repair or remove the building in 15 days. Summary Abatements: File JOOOlAl Snow and or ice removal during January and February 2000, File JO�O1C Demolifion of vacant buildings during January 2000, File J0002A Property clean-up during March 2000, File J0002B Boarding up of vacant buildings during February 2000. 921 Al onquin Avenue (JOOOlAl) (No one appeared to represent the property.) � �. \ LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF JI TNE 6, 2�00 Page 2 Gerry Strathman read a letter from Bill Cullen, President of Cullen Homes, who wrote he disputes owing the amount because this incident happened in February and he purchased the properry in April. Gerty Strathman recommends approval of the assessment. The assessment is against the property, and the current owner is responsible. If the owner has issues about not being properly informed, he needs to discuss it with the seller. Mz. Magner stated he expressed this to Mr. Cullen and advised him to contact his tiUe company. 1350 Laurel Avenue (JOOQIAI) (No one appeazed to represent the properry.) Gerry Strathman recommends approval of the assessment. 38 Delos Street West (J0002A) Edward Luna, owner, appeared. Dick Lippert reported there was a complaint on 3-15-00 about furnihue and refuse in the yazd. On 3-16-00, Code Enforcement made an inspection and found couches in the front yard, and a summary abatement order was issued. A work order was issued to have it removed by 3-22-00. The debris was removed by the City on 3-27-00. (A videotape was shown.) Mr. Luna stated he lived in Illinois at the time, and did not get the notices until the forwarded mail got to him, which was too late. He had already called for the items to be picked up, but they did not make it out in time. There were tables and other items seen on the videotape that were someone's property, and now they aze thrown away. The only things that were garbage were the couches and the tire. Mr. 5trathman stated the abatement order is about cleaning up the two couches and the tires. There is no question that a legally required notice was sent. If it is Mr. Luna's view that the City improperly took personal properly, a claim can be filed against the City. That cannot be dealt with here. Gerry Strathman recommends approval of the assessment. Mr. Luna stated he would like a copy of the videotape. 609 Maenolia Avenue East (J0002A) The following appeared: Chris Nissen, owner, and Herbert Henson, renter. a�=z--� \ LEGISLA'ITVE HEAR.INCz MINUTES OF JUNE 6, 2000 Page 3 Dick Lippert reported there was a complaint on 3-15-00 about a trailer pazked on a lot. On 3-16-00, an inspector verified an unsightly trailer on the property and issued a summary abatement notice to Pvlr. Nissen and the State of Minnesota Tax Exempt with a compliance date of 3-23-00. On 3-24-00, the work was done. Gerry Strathman stated he is confused about ownership. Mr. Nissen responded he purchased the property last fall. Mr. Lippert responded the ta�� records show that in Mazch it was owned by Mr. Nissen. The State was notified because they came up as a fee owner. (A videotape was shown.) Mr. Nissen asked did Mr. Lippert have his correspondence. Mr. Lippert responded he has two letters from Mr. Nissen dated Mazch 25 and May 20. (Mr. Nissen asked to take a few minutes. This address was discussed later in the meeting.) 1120 Sixth Street East (J0002A) The following appeared: Donald Folske, owner; his son; and his daughter-in-law. (A videotape was shown.) Mr. Folske stated the original summary abatement order was for gazbage, rubbish, etc. He was out of town, but his son and daughter-in-law removed the following before the City did the work: two mattresses, two couches, carpet, 12 tires, aYle, and miscellaneous rubbish. Many of the items in the back were from the next door neighbor. Gerry Strathman stated he saw scrap wood, trash, tires on the videotape. Son responded those were materials for building. He took a day off of work to clean up the properiy. He did not clean the items under the deck because he was going to use it. The trash on the left hand side is the neighbors property. Mr. Strathman responded that was not proper storage for the materials. The daughter-in-law stated that she ran into the inspector at a different location. The inspector knew that Don Folske was going to be out of town and that she would be there to take caze of the property. She cleaned up what she could, and her husband took a day off work to help her with the heavy items. Over the weekend, she could not do anything with the trailer because the NRG (where she takes her refuse) was closed. On Tuesday, they emptied the bigger items. 5he was going to come back and finish the items, but the City came before she could finish. Dick Lippert reported the inspector met Mr. Folske on 2-29-00, which is the day after the original inspecUon, and Mr. Folske agreed to have all the refuse out by 3-6-00. Mr. Folske responded he did say that, but he could not unload the trailer on the Saturday before the 6�', and he went out of town on the 5�'. He did the ne� best thing which is to call Code Enforcement and let them lrnow that he planned to do it. He did the vast majority of it. It cost him $51 to unload the trailer, and it normally costs $23. He does not feel the City should have done the work. c��=�--1 � LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF JLINE 6, 2000 Page 4 The son stated big ruts were left in the gtound. Also, he does not understand why the City complained about the fence, but left it there. He also does not understaud why a bobcat was used. Mr. Strathman responded he did see the ruts on the videotape. Mr. Strathman asked did they request addifional time. Daughter-in-law responded she and Guy Willits were talking on a daily basis, there was already an agreement, and the City did the work anyway. Did the files show anytl�ing about those conversafions, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Lippert responded they do not. It does show there is a long history with this property. Tags have been issued. It was probably the feeling of the inspector that enough is enough. Gerry Strathxnan recommends reducing the assessment from $757.50 to $500 plus the $45 service fee, for a total assessment of $545. There is no question that City staff followed the rules: the owner was notified and given an opportunity to correct the problem. The owner made an effort to make the corrections, but it was not completed in time. 605 Sttyker Avenue (J�0�2A) Khaffak Ansari, owner, appeazed and stated the City sent him a letter about a freezer. He was in the process of changing gazbage companies in order to get better service. He was also in the process of remodeling and planned to dump the freezer when finished. Gerry Strathman stated the owner had 12 days: he was notified 3-1-00, and the work was done on 3-13-00 by the City. He asked were there any questions about whether the work was done because there is a videotape. Mr. Ansari responded it is not necessary to view it. Dick Lippert reported that the inspector noted this was the 4`� complaint on this property in the last yeaz; therefore, tags were issued for continued noncompliance. Gerry Strathman recommends approval of the assessment citing the owner was notified and given a longer than usual time to remove the items. 777 to 779 Smith Avenue South (30001A1) Rose Gunness, owner, appeared and stated she did not receive the notice an time because she does not live at that property. The tenant is her granddaughter who maintains the property. The noflce was received at 777 Smith, but it got set aside because it was addressed to Ms. Gunness and her granddaughter did not thnik it was important. Gerry Strathman asked is this a commercial residence. Ms. Gunness responded it is combined. The tenant lives upstairs, and the store is on the ground level. Mr. Strathman asked why her granddaughter did not shovel the walk. Ms. Gunness responded she did. She may not have been aware of the ice that runs off the roof. �-�.yt � LEGISLATIVE HEt1RING MINUTES OF JL)NE 6, 2000 (A videotape was shown.) Page 5 Mr. Strathman stated it did not look like the granddaughter shoveled at all. The inspector noted, stated Dick Lippert, that it looked at if there was no attempt at snow and ice removal. Mr. Gunness stated she would have taken caze of it if she was norified. Mr. Strathman responded the City notifies the person on the properry taac records. Ms. Gunness responded she wrote a letter quite a while ago to correct the address. Gerry Strathman recommends approval of the assessment. 437 View Street (J0002A) Edna Spedevick, owner, appeazed and stated she received a notice. She had remodeling items in the back yard that were cleaned up by her. Three dumpsters full of items were removed prior to the City doing the work. Six bags of leaves were left. (A videotape was shown.) Cserry Strathman stated it appeazed that what Ms. Spedevick said is correct. Dick Lippert reported the inspector viewed the tape and thought the bags were included in what was there originally. Gerry Strathman recommends deleting the assessment citing plasfic bags are not acceptable storage, but it seems clear the clean up was done. 961 Edmund Avenue (J0002A) (No one appeazed to represent the property.) Gerry Strathman recommends approval of the assessment. Conrinuation of 609 Maenolia Avenue East (J0002A) Chris Nissen stated his calcularions show the hourly rate at appro�cimately $250 an hour and asked how is the rate detennined. Dick Lippert responded it is more like $225 an hour plus administrative fees. There are special costs for tires, appliances, and using special equipment. The rate is determmed by the crew that does the work. Gerry Strathman stated there is a study done periodically by the City in which they docuxnent a11 of their labor costs, overhead, equipment, transportation, and disposal costs, wluch is the basis for that rate. He is uncleaz how often that is redone. �=�--� 1 LEGISLA'IIVE HEARING MINUTES OF 7L7NE 6, 2000 �._-. Mr. Nissen asked was there a phone number on the letter that he sent to Code Enforcement. Mr. Lippert responded the letter dated March 25 does not ha�e a phone number. The inspector noted that an attempt was made to get a phone nuuiber and he was unable to get one. Mr. Nissen withdrew his appeal. What he saw on the videotape was different than what he saw a few days before with a burned out trailer. He went to considerable effort to find the owner of the trailer. What he saw on the videotape was done as an act of vandalism. Mr. Nissen will be contacting legal authorities and going through a civil proceeding. Appeal of summary abatement order at 15 Annapolis Street West. (Photographs were presented by staff: They were later returned.) Jo An M. Mullins, owner, appeazed and stated the inspector came out and said she has to clean up the space that is her neighbor's properry. This neighbor claims that their property goes to the fence. The neighbor installed a fence on the other side of their hedge because they did not want to take the hedge out. A lot of tree limbs, grass clippings, leaves, tarp, window well covers, junk have been thrown over the fence and left on Ms. Mullins side of the fence, but it is not on her properiy. Ms. Mullins has been told to clean up that part of the properry, but there is no reason why she should have to clean it up. Part of the problem is that her chicken wire fence is not a permanent fence, stated Ms. Mullins. It is at the rear of the properCy on her side of the property line. She was told she was not allowed to put up a permanent fence there. Gerry Strathman asked what is the problem with the fence. According to Code Enforcement, Ms. Mullins responded, it did not prevent them from saying she had to take caze of the property that is on her side of the permanent fence. Ms. Mullins went on to say that she lives in the middle of a hill on a busy stzeet. Trucks and buses accelerate at the bottom of the hill as they go up. Ms. Mullins uses a hedge as a barrier far noise, especially since she found a deer carcass on her properry. She cuts down her bushes by the 4�` of July. If she cuts them down before then, she gets too much trash. Because her land slants, the best way to keep water from mm�ing off is to haue ground cover. She has planted various flowers. She has high trees because there aze two all night lights about 20 feet above the land, said Ms. Mullins. They glare into her bedroom windows, and she is not comfortable having drapes pulled on a hot sunuuer night. The inspectors do not like her high trees. Ms. Mullins stated one of the inspectors okayed the way she had stored a yeazs worth of wood. Now she is told she is not allowed to keep any wood. The inspectors have been good about giving her a chance to take care of the wood that has fallen. She is late getting the last part in the back of the house because the wind over Memorial Day caused a brauch to fall. N5P had to come out to drop the line so the trees could be cut. � 2--� ` LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF JUNE 6, 2000 Page 7 Mr. Strathu�an asked has that been taken care of now. Ms. Mullins responded a lot has to be removed. Joe Yannarelly reported there is a pennanent cyclone fence separating 5 Anuapolis from 15 Annapolis. Everydung is well taken caze on the 5 Annapolis side. The 15 Annapolis side has rubbish accumulating. Ms. Mullins has installed chicken wire and maintained that is not her property and will not take caze of it. Mr. Strathman asked is there a way to detemrine the locafion of the property line. Ms. Mullins responded she laiows where the property line is located, and it is mazked on her appeal applicafion. Maynard Vinge reported this is a heavily wooded lot. There aze no regulations against tall trees, but there are problems with branches, trees, and shrubs blocking public right of ways. There aze also problems with rank plant growkh, insect and rodent hazborage. Code Enforcement has been out there more than once and has discussed this more than once. There is wood and other debris on Ms. Mullins' side of the fence. Mr. Strathman asked aze there mazkers to establish the properry line. When she had it surveyed, responded Ms. Mullins, she measured 23 inches up from the line on the sidewalk. She does not have paperwark from the survey. Dick Lippert stated the City has been dealing with this properiy since 1970 in regazd to the properry line and the fence. Adverse possession and presumptive possession would probably make her responsible for that piece of land even though it is not platted like that. Mr. Strathman asked have they made any effort to have the neighbar clean that area. Mr. Vinge responded no. The neighbor's yazd is maintained. Mr. Strathxnan asked about the growth along the sidewalk. Mr. Yannazelly responded she cut it down but left the debris along the boulevazd. She was suppose to have it done after numerous extensions. Mr. Strathman asked the location of the wood storage. Mr. Yannarelly responded there is dead wood laying azound the yazd. Ms. Mullins responded she had a wood pile that was destroyed by the work being down, but she plans to repile it. The way she stored it was approved by an inspector a number of years ago. The other issue they are worried about is rocks. Mr. Yauuazelly responded he spoke to the previous inspector that Ms. Mullins is referring to and he said he okayed fire logs, 12-18 inches off the ground. Ms. Mullins responded they aze. Mr. Yannazelly stated he is worried about the dead wood on the ground, not logs for a fireplace. Also, there is the matter of not providing a licensed trash hauler. CO=Z,� \ LEGISLATTVE HEARING MINUTES OF JLTNE 6, 2000 � Mr. Strathman stated with respect to the fence, it seems that the debris on her side of the fence is probably from her property. If she can demonstrate from a survey that it is not her properry, it can be dealt with differently. The presump6on that it is her propezry is reasonable. She has cleared the sidewalk obstruction, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Yannarelly responded yes. Mr. Strathman stated she will have to clean up the debris on the boulevazd and in the yard. She also has to provide the inspector with the name of a licensed trash hauler. Gerry Stratlunan denied the appeal in all respects. The actions of the City officials aze appropriate with the exception of the sidewalk obstruction, which is moot because the owner has taken care of it. Appeal of summary abatement order at 1183 Arkwright Street. Appeal of two vehicle abatement orders at 1183 Arkwri�t Street. Appeal of vacant building registration notice at 1183 Arkwright Street. The following appeazed: Donald Drouin, owner, and Roxanne Heinrich, attomey. Ms. Heinrich stated she has been in court since December and the cases were dismissed by William Brown regarding the vacant building. She does not know how Code Enforcement can proceed when it has been dismissed. This building is not vacant; it is occupied. Gerry Strathman asked about the vehicle. Ms. Heinrich responded they aze all operable except for the red vehicle. The last time she was here, over $957 of inerchandise was taken. She was told to file a claun form by Mr. Strathman. Your position is, asked Mr. Strathman, the vehicles are licensed and operable. Mr. Drouin responded the exception is the red Dodge because the City took the wheel and tires. Mr. Strathman asked did the City take them off the vehicle. Mr. Drouin responded they were not on a vehicle because he was working on it. They were $110 each plus the parts that go on them. Rich Singerhouse reported he wrote a summary abatement on the sIx vehicles that were in the yard. Ms. Heinrich responded there are only three there now: her caz, his truck, and the Dodge. Mr. Strathxnan asked is the cleanup regazding rubbish, vehicle parts, scrap wood, metal recycling materials, etc. been cleaned up. Ms. Heinrich responded yes. Mr. Singerhouse responded he can check on that. Ms. Heinrich asked where she could submit her attomey fees for this process. Mr. Drouin has been harassed several times and that is why Mr. Brown has dismissed it. Steve Magner stated the reason Mr. Singerhouse opened a registered vacant building file was due to the fact that it was referred to Code Enforcement because the building was condemned. Mr. Magner asked who is Mr. Brown. Ms. Heinrich responded William Brown is a city aitomey. This case was brought before a judge in December. The judge gave them six months and there OC� 2 � LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINiJTES OF JIJNE 6, 2000 Page 9 was an agreement to suspend the matter. Mike Morehead (of Code Enforcement) was there. Mr. Lippert responded that refers to a case regazding charges about animals. That does not relate to the status of this building being vacanx or condemned. If the testimony here is that the building is occupied, then there is a problem because that building is condexnned and ordered vacate. Code Enforcement will be checking on that status. Mr. Strathman asked when it was condemned. Mr. Singerhouse responded 12-13-99 was the vacate date. The inspectors have been working with Don Wagner (of LIEP) throughout that time. Mr. Drouin was asked numerous times was it vacated and he answered that he is not staying there any longer. Mr. Drouin responded that does not mean the properry is not occupied because he still has to maintain it and his belongings are there. Mr. Singerhouse responded he can go to the building and wark but he cannot live there. Mr. Magner asked was there any documentarion that the condemnation was lifted or any documentation from Mr. Brown that the condemnation was not substantiated. Ms. Heinrich responded he could get no help. As for the suuunary abatement order, stated Mr. Strathman, it is Ms. Heinrich's representation that the correcrions haue been made. Therefore, the appeal will be denied if there is nothing more to deal with. With respect to the six vehicles, he is being told there are only three vehicles there now, and the one that is not operable is being retained as evidence in a claim. As for the parking surface, started Mr. Stratkunan. Mr. Drouin responded that has been the driveway on that lot for 80 years. Just because there is no garage any longer and vegetation is popping up here and there, it is still a driveway. Mr. Magner stated the photographs will show the vegetation. The owner said last yeaz that he would submit a site plan and that he planned to put down Class 5 rock. Mr. Drouin responded he never said he was going to put anything down. Mr. Strathman stated it is clearly an unapproved parking surface. Mr. Drouin responded it has always been that way. Back in 1919, they did not require paved driveways. Mr. Strathman responded if something is legal in 1919 that does not mean it is legal in the year 2000. Mr. Drouin asked since when did government force people to change their property retrospectively. Mr. Strathman responded all the time. Anyone that stores vehicles in a lot has to have an approved surface. Ms. Heinrich stated they were in here before regarding the unapproved parldng surface, and Mr. Strathman dismissed that case. They were here last May and now they are here again, and she believes this is harassxnent. She would like to lrnow how she can address the City Council. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal with respect to the vacant building fee, and explained the process for addressing the City Council. Mr. Drouin stated if Code Enfoxcement cannot provide specific criteria on how to lift the condemnation, how can he meet nonexistent criteria. Mr. Strathman responded in order to do dc� -�-- � LEGISLATTVE HEARING MINUT'ES OF JIJNE 6, Z000 Page 10 that, a code compliance inspection should be done, the owner should do atl the items required in the inspection, and then the condemnation will be removed. Mr. Stratbman asked have they had a code compliance inspection done. Ms. Heinrich responded an inspector has been to the property eight times, and each time they have changed something. Mr. Drouin stated there aze photographs of the driveway showing gravel, concrete, and sand. He asked does it have to be perfectly crushed rock and is this an aesthetic issue. Mr. Strathman responded there is a definition in the code regarding what is suitable storage. Gerry Strathman denied the appeals on the following: the suumiary abatement order dated 5-8- 00, the two vehicle abatement orders dated 5-8-00, and the vacant building registration notice dated 5-9-00. 1108 Sixth Street East (J0002A) The owner appeared. (The owner did not send in a green cazd; therefore, there were no records available at this hearing.) Gerry Strathman recommends laying over to the June 20, 2000, Legislative Hearing. 1185 Burns Avenue (JOOOlAl) (The owner did not send in a gteen card; therefore, there were no records available at this hearing.) Diane Gamm, owner, appeared and stated tkus abatement is about snow removal. She is confused and wanted to see the records and the videotape. She called and said she was taking care of it. It is a duplex and there is an agreement that the tenants take caze of snow shoveling. Mr. Strathman suggested that she make arrangements to view the videotape. If she still wants to be heard, she can come to the legislative hearing on June 20. Ms. Guvm asked was there record of a call made by her. Dick Lippert responded no. Gerry Strathman recommends laying over to the June 20, 2000, Legislative Hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 11:44 a.m. rrn