The URL can be used to link to this page

01-1026Q�!GI�AL Presented By Referred To Council File # p� � 10.1� Green Sheet # �OAS �.9 Committee: Date 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 44 WHEREAS, Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement has requested the City Council to hold public hearings to consider the advisability and necessity of ordering the repair or wrecldng and removal of a one and one-half story, wood frazne, single family and wood frame shed located on property hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly lrnown as 473 Hatch Avenue. This properiy is legally described as follows, to wit: Lot 34, Block 1, Neuru and Wailraffs Addition to Saint Paul. W�IEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before June 7, 2001, the following are the now known interested or responsible parties for the Subj ect Property:Richard Cooper, 493 Blair Avenue, St.Paul, MN 55103; TMS Mortgage Inc., 7401 Metro Blvd., Ste. 310, Edina, MN 55439, Loan # 0083448464; Chrysler First Financial Services Corp., 1105 Hamilton Street, Allentown, PA 18101, CT Corporation Systems Inc., c/o CT Corporarion, 405 2" Avenue South, Mpls., NIN 55401 WHEREAS, Division of Code Enforcement has served in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code an arder identified as an"Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s)" dated August 6, 2001; and WHEREAS, this order informed the then known interested or responsible parties that the structure located on the Subject Property is a nuisance building(s) pursuant to Chapter 45; and WHEREAS, this order informed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair or demolish the structure located on the Subject Property by August 21, 2001; and WHEREAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placard on the Subject Property declaring this building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and WHEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Division of Code Enforcement requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the City Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and WHEREAS, the interested and responsible parties have been served notice in accardance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paui Legislarive Code, of the time, date, place and purpose of the public hearings; and WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City Council on Tuesday, September 25, 2001 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 Properiy safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this shucture in accordance with all applicable codes and ardinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all applicabie codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to be completed within five (5) days after the date of the Council Hearing; and RESOLUTION SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 36 o�-��w 1 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, October 3, 2001 2 and the testimony and evidence including the action taken by the Legislative Hearing Officer was 3 considered by the Council; now therefore 4 5 BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the above referenced 6 public hearings, the Saint Paul City Council hereby adopts the following Findings and Order concerning 7 the Subject Property at 473 Hatch Avenue: 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 34 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1. 2. 3. � � 7 � That the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul Legislarive 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 Properiy. That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then laiown responsible parties to correct the deficiencies or to demolish and remove the building(s). That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition haue not been corrected. That Division of Code Enforcement has posted a placard on the Subject Property which declares it to be a nuisance condition subject to demolirion. That this building has been routinely monitored by the Citizen Service Offices, Division of Code Enforcement, VacantlNuisance Buildings. That the known interested parties and owners aze as previously stated in this resolution and that the notification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilied. ••� • The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the following order: The above referenced interested or responsible parties shall 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 and correcting all deficiencies as prescribed in the above referenced Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) in accordance with all applicable codes and ardinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the shucture in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition and removai of the structure must be completed within five (5) days after the date of the Council Hearing. 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 are necessary to demolish and remove this structure, fill the site and charge the costs incurred against the Subject O t -1o�C Property pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislafive Code. 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all personal property or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shall be removed from the property by the responsible parties by the end of this time period. If all personal property is not removed, it shall be considered to be abandoned and the City of Saint Paul shall remove and dispose of such properiy 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. Adopted by Council: Date ��. Z. a o o\ Adoption Certified by Council Secretary I: ` � � . . � - � � : � � : - I/�, / /J �: t��/�1 �//L !.i Requested by Department of: Cirizen Service Office; Code Enforcement By� a ?„��`'� Form Approved by City Attorney By: Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: GCJZ'1�aw(�(. O�-[es�. - utrnrtimtrvuvrn�.nwurr.a ` Division of Co�e Enforcement ..T�� N�,� �� 0$l24/0l � October 3, 2001 ° �i'G �'�'�� ■w�e��e ROUTING ` `�� TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET � No��a��z9 � e�Y arcwnon�r � JC I' V`=-- L7 �..N,�,�,� �T�""`1��f9 � WratlalumsrYrt� ❑ (CUP 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 comply with the resolution, the Cirizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is ordered ' to remove the building. The subject property is located at 473 Hatch Avenue. PLANNING C� 'CIB CAMMITTEE � CIVI� SERVICE CAMMISSION RSONALSERVICE CONTRAG75 MUSTANSWER7XE FOLLOWING QUESTSONS: Hes Uris P�Mrtn eVe! NorkeA unde� a CoMfeC[ fafllli6 tlepartmeM? VES NO Fias dus ceBONfirm ever been a ply empbvee7 YES NO Ooes this pe�soMim possese a slall rwt normailYP�sees� bY any artent ctitY emWoyeeT YES NQ Ic tliis P��rtn a targe[ed �eiMoR , YFS 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 P�ul �,�gislative Code. The owners, interested parties and responsible parties known to the Enforcement Officer were'giv0n'an order torepair or remove the building at 473 Hatch Avenue by August 21 2001; and haue failedtabdmpTy�vi�ifh�thoseorders. � � � The City will eliminate a nuisance. The City will spend funds to wreck and remove this building(s). These costs will be assessed to the property, collected as a snecial assessment aeainst the nroperty tases. will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to blight the community. AhTOUNTOFTRAN5AC71CN� 'D� � CpyTIREVENUEBI icsourecE.. •Ni�isance Housing Abatement �mmNUwa�c �LINFORMNTON (EXPWftj (CIRCLEON� / YES/ "NO `/ 33261 COl.�rec� F�S�arch Ces�gEf �� 12�Q1 REPORT Date: September 25, 2001 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Room 330 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevazd LEGISLATIVE HEARING Gerry Strathman Legislative Hearing Officer 1. Summary Abatement Order Appeal for 1598 Hazel Street North. (Laid over from 9-4-01) Legislative Hearing Officer recommends denying the appeal. 0\-1o�fo 2. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 2257 Hillside Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Laid over from 4-17-01) Legislative Hearing Officer recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rehabilitation of the property on condition that a$2,000 bond is posted by noon of Wednesday, October 3, 2001. Laid Over Summary Abatement: JOl O5V Towing of abandoned vehicle at 376 Maryland Avenue East. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends reducing the assessment to $105 plus the $45 service fee for a total assessment of $150. 4. Summary Abatement Order appeal for 697 Surrey Avenue. Legislative Hearing Offieer recommends denying the appeal. 5. Resolurion ordering the owner to remove or repair Yhe property at 850 Sims Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends laying over to fihe October 16, 2001, Legislative Hearing. 6. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 715 Preble Street. If the owner fails to compiy, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rehabilitarion of the property on condition that the following is done by noon of Wednesday, October 3, 2001: 1) Pay the vacant building fee, 2) Get a code compliance inspection, 3) Post a$2,000 bond. Ol-�o�'' LEGISLATIVE HEARING REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 page 2 Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the properry at 397 Aldine Street. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Case is closed.) 8. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the properry at 473 Hatch Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval. � CIITZEN SERVICE OFFICE Fred Owusu, Ciry Clerk DIVISION OF PROPERTY WDE ENFORCEMENT Michael R. Marehead, Program Marsager Interest CITY OF SAINT PAiJL NuisanceBuildingCodeEnforcement Norm Coleman, Mayor IS W. Kellogg Blvd Rm 190 Te1: 651-266-8440 Saint Paul, MIJ55702 Fax: 651-26b-8426 August 25, 2001 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Council President and . Members of the City Councii - Citizen Service Office, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings Enforcement Division has requested the City Council schedule public hearings to consider a resolurion ordering the repair or removal of the nuisance building(s) located at: 473 Hatch Avenue The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearings as follows: � Legislative Hearing - Tuesday, September 25, 2001 City Council Hearing - Wednesday, October 3, 2001 The owners and responsible parties of record are: Name and Last Known Address Richard Cooper 493 Blair Avenue St.Paul, MN 55103 TMS Mortgage Inc. 7401 Metro Bivd., Ste. 310 Edina, MN 55439 Loan # 0083448464 - Chrysler First Financial Services Corp. 1105 Hamilton Street Allentown, PA 18101 CT Corporation Systems Inc. c/o CT Corporation 405 2" Avenue South Mpls., MN 55401 Fee Owner Mortgagee 0 � - i0i� Mortgagee/Successor Registered Agent o�-�o� 473 Hatch Avenue August 24, 2001 Pa�e 2 The legal description of this property is: Lot 34, Block 1, Neuru and Wallraffs Addition to Saint Paul. - S�P--0 4 20�9 RECEI�iED CITY ATTORNEY Division of Code Enforcement has declared 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 lrnown responsible parties to eliminate this nuisance condition by correcting the deficiencies or by razing and removing this buiiding(s). Inasmuch as this Order to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition remains unabated, the community continues to suffer the blightin� influence of this - property. It is the recommendation of the Division of Code Enforcement that the City Council pass a resolution ordering the responsible parties to either repair, or demolish and �° remove this building in a timely manner, and failing that, authorize the Division of Code Enforcement to proceed fo demolition and removal, and to assess the costs incurred against the real estate as a special assessment to be collected in the same manner as taxes. Sincerely, �teve �a�n.er Steve Magner Vacant Buildings Supervisor Division of Code Enforcement Citizen Service Office SM:mI cc: Frank Berg, Building Inspection and Design Meghan Riley, City Attorneys Office Nancy Anderson, Assistant Secretary to the Council Laurie Kaplan, PED-Housing Division ccnph � MINUTES OF Tf� LEGISLATIVE HEARING Tuesday, September 25, 2001 Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer Room 330 Courthouse The meeting was called to order at 10:04 a.m. o\-�oZb ��. STAFF PRESENT: Roxanna Flink, Real Estate; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Hazold Robinson, Code Enforcement; Summary Abatement Order Appeal for 1598 Hazel Street North. (Laid over from 9-4-01) Gerry Stratiunan stated that the appellant was going to consult with City staff and others as to whether the garden was consistent with the City's ordinance with respect to natural gardens, prairie growth, etc. He asked did the owner haue time to do that. Walt Montpetit, owner, appeared and stated a City representative called him last Friday and left a voice mail. He was out of town and just returned Sunday evening. He has not had a chance to have a conversation with City inspectors as faz as what was a landscape design versus weeds and tall grass. Hazold Robinson reported he could not find a specific ordinance to cover these things. The ordinance does read grass and weeds over 8 inches high must be cut. "There aze some specific plants and landscape designs that aze excluded from tlris. It is not composting because it is not a contained azea. It is not covered under the grass and weed ordinance beeause it is tall grass that has been allowed to grow. He cannot exempt it. Mr. Strathman asked is there someone in the City that knows plants well enough to make a determination as to if these plants aze accepted under state law. Mr. Robinson responded he has been on the property, and it is basically tall grass and weeds. Mr. Strathman asked what malces the owner think it is some#hing other than tall grass and weeds. Mr. Montperit responded �e area is set aside from the rest of the yard. He looks at it as part of his landscape scheme. It is a woaded lot adjacent to the rest of the lot that is groomed, even though it is a small area. He does not know anyone who cuts weeds and tall grass out of a wooded lot. He asked is his yard designated as a yazd or as a wooded lot. Mr. Robinson responded that specifically a wooded lot has to haue a tree, and this backyazd does not have a tree. Mr. Montpetit responded there aze trees back in the corner. Mr. Robinson stated this properry is defuutely not a wooded lot. From the description he included with his appeal, stated Mr. Strathman, there is a map that shows the nature gazden is belund the garage and surrounded by a six foot privacy fence. He asked how this came to the City's attention. Mr. Robinson responded it was a complaint based inspection. Mr. Montpetit stated he belongs to the yacht club and a member complained to the City about weeds and tall grass on Harriet Island. This member was told it was part of the landscape scene. C� \-1�Z(� LEGISLATIVE FiEARING MINiJTES FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Page 2 It is no different than his weeds and tall grass, said Mr. Montpetit. He does not know what species needs to be cut and which species he can plant to conform. (Mr. Robinson gave Mr. Montpetit documents about a company that specializes in this subject.) Gerry Strathman recommends denying the appeal. It does not appeaz that what Mr. Montpetit wants to do is provided for under the City ordinance. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 2257 Hillside Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Laid over from 4-17-01) The following appeazed: Kim McCallum, 929 Selby Avenue, and Steve Gibbs, Western National, 41 12th Avenue North, Hopkins. Steve Magner reported this building has been vacant since December 3, 1999. There have been five summary abatement notices to secure the dwelling, cut tall grass, remove refuse, remove snow and/or ice. On October 19, 2000, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on October 24, 200Q with a compliance date of November 27. As of this date, the property remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. The real estates taYes aze unpaid of $6,333. Tasation has placed an estimated market value of $56,600 on the land, and $5,000 on the building. On July 25, 2001, a code compliance inspection was done. A$2,000 bond has not been posted. Estimated cost to repair is $100,000 to $150,000; estimated cost to demolish, $12,000 to $15,000. This was originally before the Legislarive Hearing Officer in Mazch, said Mr. Magner. It was laid over because the second mortgage company was going through a foreclosure process, wanted to clear the tifle, pay off the insurance company, and then sell it. The second mortgage company has beea paid ofF and is no longer involved with this properry. The original owner has physical control of the building, but there is still an issue with the insurance company for the first mortgage company. Mr. McCalluxn stated he plans to take the next week and decide to sell the property, rehabilitate it, or tear it down and rebuild. As of yesterday, there was a settlement. Mr. Gibbs stated Western Nafional will be satisfied with the agreement. They aze now in the middle of foreclosure on the property. Th$y will be out of the picture when that happens and the McCallums can take whatever action they would like. Mr. Strathman asked is he prepazed to post the $2,000 bond. Mr. McCallum responded he is. Gerry Strathman recommends granring the owner six months to complete the rehabilitation of the property on condition that a$2,000 bond is posted by noon of Wednesday, October 3, 2001. LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Laid Over Summary Abatement: JOlOSV Towing of abandoned vehicle at 376 Maryland Avenue East. O � �oZ� Page 3 Franciso Jazamillo, owner, appeazed and stated this is about a vehicle he parked on the side of his gazage. He received an order to remove it. He called a towing company, and was told they would not remove it until April. The City removed it in March. He called the Impound Lot. He was told that he woutd not have to pay anything and he could sign over the title. The vehicle was leftthere. Hazold Robinson reported the vehicie was abated on January 25 and towed in Mazch. It had no current license plates. It was a proper tow. In answer to questions, Mr. Jazamillo responded the vehicle was a 1981 Honda Civic, and it did not run. Gerry Strathman recommends reducing the assessment to $105 plus the $45 service fee for a total assessment of $150. The owner should have taken caze of the matter as soon as he got the notice. The City towed the vehicle, stored it, and sold it when they got the title. There aze costs involved. Summary Abatement Order appeal for 697 Surrey Avenue. (Sharon Anderson, appellant, sent Gerry Strathman an e-mail saying that she is unable to attend today's meeting.) Gerry Strathman recommends denying the appeal. Resointion ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 850 Sims Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Steve Magner presented photographs. They were later returued.) Steve Magner reported the property was condexnned May 2000. It has been a vacant building since August 21, 2000. Two summary abatement notices have been issued to remove refuse. On Mazch 7, 2001, an inspecfion of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on March 19, 2001, with a compliance date of April 18. As of this date, the properry remains in a condition that comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. The vacant building fees aze due. Estimated market value of property is $36,700; es#imated cost to repair, $80,000 to $100,000, estimated cost to demolish, $7,500 to $8,000. A code compliance inspection was done on August 30, 2000. On April 13, 2001, stated Mr. Magner, a third party posted a$2,000 bond. His reasoning was that he was in expectation of obtaining title after the original owners--Michael and Becky Ramstad--cancelled the contract with Samantha Mathews. That bond expires by October 15. G � \ vZ� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MIN [JTES FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Strathman asked what happened with the citation that was issued for failure to pay the vacant building fee. Mr. Maguer responded he does not have the file with him, but he assumes the citation was never settled. The owner is no longer in Minnesota. In September, Ms. Mathews paid the vacant building fee. Code Enforcement made an agreement with Ms. Mathews to give her six months to rehabilitate the properiy and she would not have to post the bond, but would have to obtain a code compliance inspecrion. She obtained the code compiiance inspection, but failed to act in a timely manner to rehabilitate the structure. Code Enforcement continually receives complaints of illegal activities and occupancy at the dwelling. There have been numerous inspections. Mr. Magner had a conversation with Don Wagner (License, Inspections, Environmentai Protecrion) who said he has not been called to inspect the properry. There are still outstanding permits that need to be pulled before a code compliance can be signed off. Samantha Mathews, owner, appeared and stated she had a code compliance inspection. The six months were up, and Rich Singerhouse (Code Enforcement) and another inspector came out on Mazch 7. She received an order to abate dated March 19 and was given until April 18 to clear the deficiencies. This is a different list than the original that she had six months to do. Shortly thereafter, a$2,000 bond was posted. The man who posted the $2,000 bond was under the assumption that he was going to get the house, and Mr. Ramstad had agreed to sell it to him after the foreclosure proceedings against her. Ms. Mathews also came up with $5,000, took the matter to district court, and saved her house. Three hours after she won the court case, there was a legis2ative hearing notice from Mr. Magner. Throughout this whole time, she has left several messages and has never had her calls returned. On her last visit with Mr. Magner, he said he was fuushed with this matter and would put Mike Morehead (Code Enforcement) in charge of it. Her house is more than 50% done. Ms. Mathews has photographs and �dauits from her neighbors. One of the people complaining would be a neighbor right next door to her who would like to obtain her property. Ms. Mathews received two summary abatement notices: one was for a dog and one to clean up the property. The bond expires on October 13. Don Wagner would like to inspect the properry to see what has been done. Gerry Strathman recommends laying over to the October 16, 2001, Legisla6ve Hearing. He does not think the City should movs on this properry while the current bond is still in effect, but that is only for approximately hvo more weeks. There needs to be an inspection of the properry before the bond is expired to determine if it can be extended another six months. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 715 Preble Street. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Steve Magner submitted photographs.) Catherine Davis, 1453 Arkwright Avenue #301, owner's daughter, appeazed. Gerry Strathman stated the document in front of him has Gilbert Castilla as the fee owner, Long Beach Mortgage Company as the mortgagee, and Katherin and Michael Davis as interested parties. Ms. Davis responded she is not sure how her name got onto the paperwork other than the fact that Gilbert is her dad. He purchased the house in August. He is disabled and Ms. Da�is U\� 1�� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Page 5 handles most of his business. They had done the work on the house and moved in unaware that it was a vacant house. Steve Magner reported this building has been vacant since June 10, 1999. There have been seven summary abatement notices issued to remove refuse, cut tall grass, secure structure. On August 1, 2001, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on August 6, 2001, with a compliance date of August 21, 2001. As of this date, this properry remains in a condition wluch comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. The vacant building fees are due. Real estate taxes aze unpaid in the amount of $1,073.99. Prior to the fire, Taatation had placed an estimated mazket value of $11,000 on the land and $38,400 on the building. The estimated cost to repair this structure is $50,000 to $60,000; estunated cost to demolish, $7,000 to $8,000. On August 3, 2000, a code compliance inspection was done. No bond has been posted. Mr. Magner stated this was a registered vacant building, and vacant building placards were on it. The owner was put on notice not to occupy this building. There were two citations issued for illegal occupancy. They were occupying a registered vacant building when the fire occurred. Mr. Strathman stated the photographs do not indicate a fire. Mr. Magner responded the fire was contained in the interior of the dwelling. There was heavy smoke damage throughout. There was no bum through to the outside; it is a stucco exterior. Mr. Strathman asked was the eactent of the damage cosmetic or structural. Mr. Magner responded there was heavy smoke and water damage throughout. The building has been abandoned since that time. There may have been more eactensive water damage since then. Ms. Davis stated she takes care of her father; he is not well. He purchased the property on August 9, 2ti00, &om the grevious owner. She does not haue legal control over his decisions. Ms. Davis was not awaze the properry was a registered vacant house. It was obvious there were things that needed to be done to the property. Every pipe in the basemeut was busted. There was no running water nor electricity. She knew it had to meet certain codes before it could be legally occupied. She hired a company to replace the plumbing in the basement, and an outside spigot that leaked. The connection to the water heater had to be replaced. They laid carpet and painted. After she dad ttne work, she moved in and was unaware that she coulrin't. In September, a rnan came to the house and ee�lained to her husband that they could not live there because the property was registered as being legally vacant. When she found this out, she had just given birth to her daughter. When she was able to, she contacted various peaple in the City. The fire that occurred on June 12 has rendered the condition of the house worse. Long Beach Mortgage holds $30,000 of insurance settlement on the fire to have it repaired. Ms. Davis went on to say she came into possession of a code compliance inspection dated August 3. After talking to Mr. Magner, he explained their contractor could walk through the house with the list, and he would know if it has been done. They could obtain a pernut for the code compliance issues and a permit for the fire damage. Her contractor did a walk through. She d � �� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES ROR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Page 6 cannot get the code compiiance issues done until the fire damage is cleaned up to see what she is left with, but she cannot get the fire damage taken caze of until she gets the code compliance issues taken care of. Mr. Strathman asked was she aware that the repair cost may be between $50,000 to $60,000. Ms. Davis responded over half the list has been fiYed. VJith the fire damage, there is additional work to be done. The mortgage company is holding $30,000. Mr. Strathman asked is the August 3, 2000, code compliance inspection an accurate representation of what needs to be done. Mr. Magner responded Don Wagner (License, Inspections, Environmental Protecrion) would have to go through the building and make a determination as to what has to be completed, was it done under permit, and can it be signed off. If not, it has to be done under permit. Most likely, Mr. Wagner will not give a code compliance certificate without including the fire damage items. Another code compliance inspection is needed, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Magner responded vacant building fees need to be paid, a code compliance inspection completed, and a bond needs to be posted. Also, the building should be unoccupied and secured. Gerry Strathman recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rehabilitation of the property on condition tiiat the foliowing is done by noon of Wednesday, October 3, 2001: 1) Pay the vacant building fee, 2j Get a code compliance inspection, 3) Post a$2,000 bond. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 397 Aldiae Street. If the owner fails to comply, Code Eaforcement is ordered to remove the bnilding. Steve Magner reported the house has been moved to another location. (Case is clflsed.) � Resolufion ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 473 Ha#ch Avenue. If the owner fails #o comply, Code Enforeement is ordered to remove the building. (Steve Magner submitted photographs.) Steve Magner reported tlus property has been condemned and vacani since November 2000. Five summary abatement notices have been issued to cut tali grass and remove refuse. On August 1, 2001, an inspection of ihe b�ding was conducted, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nnisance r,flndition was developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance condition was issued on August 6 with a compliance date of August 21. As of this date, this properiy remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. The City has boarded the building against trespass. The vacant building fees aze due. Real estate taxes aze unpaid of $209038. Ta�cation has placed an estnnated mazket value of $6,500 on the land. Before the fire, the estimated mazket value of the building was $34,800. As LEGISLATI VE HEARING REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 C�\—\c�Z� Page 7 of today, a code compliance inspection has not been applied for and a bond has not been posted. The estimated cost to repair is $40,000 to $50,000; estimated cost to demolish, $6,000 to $7,000. Mr. Magner stated the owner has tried to sell the property with no luck due to the small size of the structure, low ceilings, and numerous problems with the building. About a month ago, the owner asked Mr. Magner what would happen if the City demolished the structure. Mr. Magner ea�plained the lot would remain his properiy, and the cost of the demolition would be assessed on the taxes. Gerry Strathman recommends approval. The meeting was adjourned at 11:02 a.m. � Q�!GI�AL Presented By Referred To Council File # p� � 10.1� Green Sheet # �OAS �.9 Committee: Date 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 44 WHEREAS, Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement has requested the City Council to hold public hearings to consider the advisability and necessity of ordering the repair or wrecldng and removal of a one and one-half story, wood frazne, single family and wood frame shed located on property hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly lrnown as 473 Hatch Avenue. This properiy is legally described as follows, to wit: Lot 34, Block 1, Neuru and Wailraffs Addition to Saint Paul. W�IEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before June 7, 2001, the following are the now known interested or responsible parties for the Subj ect Property:Richard Cooper, 493 Blair Avenue, St.Paul, MN 55103; TMS Mortgage Inc., 7401 Metro Blvd., Ste. 310, Edina, MN 55439, Loan # 0083448464; Chrysler First Financial Services Corp., 1105 Hamilton Street, Allentown, PA 18101, CT Corporation Systems Inc., c/o CT Corporarion, 405 2" Avenue South, Mpls., NIN 55401 WHEREAS, Division of Code Enforcement has served in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code an arder identified as an"Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s)" dated August 6, 2001; and WHEREAS, this order informed the then known interested or responsible parties that the structure located on the Subject Property is a nuisance building(s) pursuant to Chapter 45; and WHEREAS, this order informed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair or demolish the structure located on the Subject Property by August 21, 2001; and WHEREAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placard on the Subject Property declaring this building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and WHEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Division of Code Enforcement requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the City Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and WHEREAS, the interested and responsible parties have been served notice in accardance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paui Legislarive Code, of the time, date, place and purpose of the public hearings; and WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City Council on Tuesday, September 25, 2001 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 Properiy safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this shucture in accordance with all applicable codes and ardinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all applicabie codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to be completed within five (5) days after the date of the Council Hearing; and RESOLUTION SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 36 o�-��w 1 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, October 3, 2001 2 and the testimony and evidence including the action taken by the Legislative Hearing Officer was 3 considered by the Council; now therefore 4 5 BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the above referenced 6 public hearings, the Saint Paul City Council hereby adopts the following Findings and Order concerning 7 the Subject Property at 473 Hatch Avenue: 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 34 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1. 2. 3. � � 7 � That the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul Legislarive 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 Properiy. That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then laiown responsible parties to correct the deficiencies or to demolish and remove the building(s). That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition haue not been corrected. That Division of Code Enforcement has posted a placard on the Subject Property which declares it to be a nuisance condition subject to demolirion. That this building has been routinely monitored by the Citizen Service Offices, Division of Code Enforcement, VacantlNuisance Buildings. That the known interested parties and owners aze as previously stated in this resolution and that the notification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilied. ••� • The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the following order: The above referenced interested or responsible parties shall 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 and correcting all deficiencies as prescribed in the above referenced Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) in accordance with all applicable codes and ardinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the shucture in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition and removai of the structure must be completed within five (5) days after the date of the Council Hearing. 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 are necessary to demolish and remove this structure, fill the site and charge the costs incurred against the Subject O t -1o�C Property pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislafive Code. 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all personal property or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shall be removed from the property by the responsible parties by the end of this time period. If all personal property is not removed, it shall be considered to be abandoned and the City of Saint Paul shall remove and dispose of such properiy 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. Adopted by Council: Date ��. Z. a o o\ Adoption Certified by Council Secretary I: ` � � . . � - � � : � � : - I/�, / /J �: t��/�1 �//L !.i Requested by Department of: Cirizen Service Office; Code Enforcement By� a ?„��`'� Form Approved by City Attorney By: Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: GCJZ'1�aw(�(. O�-[es�. - utrnrtimtrvuvrn�.nwurr.a ` Division of Co�e Enforcement ..T�� N�,� �� 0$l24/0l � October 3, 2001 ° �i'G �'�'�� ■w�e��e ROUTING ` `�� TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET � No��a��z9 � e�Y arcwnon�r � JC I' V`=-- L7 �..N,�,�,� �T�""`1��f9 � WratlalumsrYrt� ❑ (CUP 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 comply with the resolution, the Cirizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is ordered ' to remove the building. The subject property is located at 473 Hatch Avenue. PLANNING C� 'CIB CAMMITTEE � CIVI� SERVICE CAMMISSION RSONALSERVICE CONTRAG75 MUSTANSWER7XE FOLLOWING QUESTSONS: Hes Uris P�Mrtn eVe! NorkeA unde� a CoMfeC[ fafllli6 tlepartmeM? VES NO Fias dus ceBONfirm ever been a ply empbvee7 YES NO Ooes this pe�soMim possese a slall rwt normailYP�sees� bY any artent ctitY emWoyeeT YES NQ Ic tliis P��rtn a targe[ed �eiMoR , YFS 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 P�ul �,�gislative Code. The owners, interested parties and responsible parties known to the Enforcement Officer were'giv0n'an order torepair or remove the building at 473 Hatch Avenue by August 21 2001; and haue failedtabdmpTy�vi�ifh�thoseorders. � � � The City will eliminate a nuisance. The City will spend funds to wreck and remove this building(s). These costs will be assessed to the property, collected as a snecial assessment aeainst the nroperty tases. will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to blight the community. AhTOUNTOFTRAN5AC71CN� 'D� � CpyTIREVENUEBI icsourecE.. •Ni�isance Housing Abatement �mmNUwa�c �LINFORMNTON (EXPWftj (CIRCLEON� / YES/ "NO `/ 33261 COl.�rec� F�S�arch Ces�gEf �� 12�Q1 REPORT Date: September 25, 2001 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Room 330 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevazd LEGISLATIVE HEARING Gerry Strathman Legislative Hearing Officer 1. Summary Abatement Order Appeal for 1598 Hazel Street North. (Laid over from 9-4-01) Legislative Hearing Officer recommends denying the appeal. 0\-1o�fo 2. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 2257 Hillside Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Laid over from 4-17-01) Legislative Hearing Officer recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rehabilitation of the property on condition that a$2,000 bond is posted by noon of Wednesday, October 3, 2001. Laid Over Summary Abatement: JOl O5V Towing of abandoned vehicle at 376 Maryland Avenue East. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends reducing the assessment to $105 plus the $45 service fee for a total assessment of $150. 4. Summary Abatement Order appeal for 697 Surrey Avenue. Legislative Hearing Offieer recommends denying the appeal. 5. Resolurion ordering the owner to remove or repair Yhe property at 850 Sims Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends laying over to fihe October 16, 2001, Legislative Hearing. 6. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 715 Preble Street. If the owner fails to compiy, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rehabilitarion of the property on condition that the following is done by noon of Wednesday, October 3, 2001: 1) Pay the vacant building fee, 2) Get a code compliance inspection, 3) Post a$2,000 bond. Ol-�o�'' LEGISLATIVE HEARING REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 page 2 Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the properry at 397 Aldine Street. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Case is closed.) 8. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the properry at 473 Hatch Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval. � CIITZEN SERVICE OFFICE Fred Owusu, Ciry Clerk DIVISION OF PROPERTY WDE ENFORCEMENT Michael R. Marehead, Program Marsager Interest CITY OF SAINT PAiJL NuisanceBuildingCodeEnforcement Norm Coleman, Mayor IS W. Kellogg Blvd Rm 190 Te1: 651-266-8440 Saint Paul, MIJ55702 Fax: 651-26b-8426 August 25, 2001 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Council President and . Members of the City Councii - Citizen Service Office, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings Enforcement Division has requested the City Council schedule public hearings to consider a resolurion ordering the repair or removal of the nuisance building(s) located at: 473 Hatch Avenue The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearings as follows: � Legislative Hearing - Tuesday, September 25, 2001 City Council Hearing - Wednesday, October 3, 2001 The owners and responsible parties of record are: Name and Last Known Address Richard Cooper 493 Blair Avenue St.Paul, MN 55103 TMS Mortgage Inc. 7401 Metro Bivd., Ste. 310 Edina, MN 55439 Loan # 0083448464 - Chrysler First Financial Services Corp. 1105 Hamilton Street Allentown, PA 18101 CT Corporation Systems Inc. c/o CT Corporation 405 2" Avenue South Mpls., MN 55401 Fee Owner Mortgagee 0 � - i0i� Mortgagee/Successor Registered Agent o�-�o� 473 Hatch Avenue August 24, 2001 Pa�e 2 The legal description of this property is: Lot 34, Block 1, Neuru and Wallraffs Addition to Saint Paul. - S�P--0 4 20�9 RECEI�iED CITY ATTORNEY Division of Code Enforcement has declared 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 lrnown responsible parties to eliminate this nuisance condition by correcting the deficiencies or by razing and removing this buiiding(s). Inasmuch as this Order to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition remains unabated, the community continues to suffer the blightin� influence of this - property. It is the recommendation of the Division of Code Enforcement that the City Council pass a resolution ordering the responsible parties to either repair, or demolish and �° remove this building in a timely manner, and failing that, authorize the Division of Code Enforcement to proceed fo demolition and removal, and to assess the costs incurred against the real estate as a special assessment to be collected in the same manner as taxes. Sincerely, �teve �a�n.er Steve Magner Vacant Buildings Supervisor Division of Code Enforcement Citizen Service Office SM:mI cc: Frank Berg, Building Inspection and Design Meghan Riley, City Attorneys Office Nancy Anderson, Assistant Secretary to the Council Laurie Kaplan, PED-Housing Division ccnph � MINUTES OF Tf� LEGISLATIVE HEARING Tuesday, September 25, 2001 Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer Room 330 Courthouse The meeting was called to order at 10:04 a.m. o\-�oZb ��. STAFF PRESENT: Roxanna Flink, Real Estate; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Hazold Robinson, Code Enforcement; Summary Abatement Order Appeal for 1598 Hazel Street North. (Laid over from 9-4-01) Gerry Stratiunan stated that the appellant was going to consult with City staff and others as to whether the garden was consistent with the City's ordinance with respect to natural gardens, prairie growth, etc. He asked did the owner haue time to do that. Walt Montpetit, owner, appeared and stated a City representative called him last Friday and left a voice mail. He was out of town and just returned Sunday evening. He has not had a chance to have a conversation with City inspectors as faz as what was a landscape design versus weeds and tall grass. Hazold Robinson reported he could not find a specific ordinance to cover these things. The ordinance does read grass and weeds over 8 inches high must be cut. "There aze some specific plants and landscape designs that aze excluded from tlris. It is not composting because it is not a contained azea. It is not covered under the grass and weed ordinance beeause it is tall grass that has been allowed to grow. He cannot exempt it. Mr. Strathman asked is there someone in the City that knows plants well enough to make a determination as to if these plants aze accepted under state law. Mr. Robinson responded he has been on the property, and it is basically tall grass and weeds. Mr. Strathman asked what malces the owner think it is some#hing other than tall grass and weeds. Mr. Montperit responded �e area is set aside from the rest of the yard. He looks at it as part of his landscape scheme. It is a woaded lot adjacent to the rest of the lot that is groomed, even though it is a small area. He does not know anyone who cuts weeds and tall grass out of a wooded lot. He asked is his yard designated as a yazd or as a wooded lot. Mr. Robinson responded that specifically a wooded lot has to haue a tree, and this backyazd does not have a tree. Mr. Montpetit responded there aze trees back in the corner. Mr. Robinson stated this properry is defuutely not a wooded lot. From the description he included with his appeal, stated Mr. Strathman, there is a map that shows the nature gazden is belund the garage and surrounded by a six foot privacy fence. He asked how this came to the City's attention. Mr. Robinson responded it was a complaint based inspection. Mr. Montpetit stated he belongs to the yacht club and a member complained to the City about weeds and tall grass on Harriet Island. This member was told it was part of the landscape scene. C� \-1�Z(� LEGISLATIVE FiEARING MINiJTES FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Page 2 It is no different than his weeds and tall grass, said Mr. Montpetit. He does not know what species needs to be cut and which species he can plant to conform. (Mr. Robinson gave Mr. Montpetit documents about a company that specializes in this subject.) Gerry Strathman recommends denying the appeal. It does not appeaz that what Mr. Montpetit wants to do is provided for under the City ordinance. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 2257 Hillside Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Laid over from 4-17-01) The following appeazed: Kim McCallum, 929 Selby Avenue, and Steve Gibbs, Western National, 41 12th Avenue North, Hopkins. Steve Magner reported this building has been vacant since December 3, 1999. There have been five summary abatement notices to secure the dwelling, cut tall grass, remove refuse, remove snow and/or ice. On October 19, 2000, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on October 24, 200Q with a compliance date of November 27. As of this date, the property remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. The real estates taYes aze unpaid of $6,333. Tasation has placed an estimated market value of $56,600 on the land, and $5,000 on the building. On July 25, 2001, a code compliance inspection was done. A$2,000 bond has not been posted. Estimated cost to repair is $100,000 to $150,000; estimated cost to demolish, $12,000 to $15,000. This was originally before the Legislarive Hearing Officer in Mazch, said Mr. Magner. It was laid over because the second mortgage company was going through a foreclosure process, wanted to clear the tifle, pay off the insurance company, and then sell it. The second mortgage company has beea paid ofF and is no longer involved with this properry. The original owner has physical control of the building, but there is still an issue with the insurance company for the first mortgage company. Mr. McCalluxn stated he plans to take the next week and decide to sell the property, rehabilitate it, or tear it down and rebuild. As of yesterday, there was a settlement. Mr. Gibbs stated Western Nafional will be satisfied with the agreement. They aze now in the middle of foreclosure on the property. Th$y will be out of the picture when that happens and the McCallums can take whatever action they would like. Mr. Strathman asked is he prepazed to post the $2,000 bond. Mr. McCallum responded he is. Gerry Strathman recommends granring the owner six months to complete the rehabilitation of the property on condition that a$2,000 bond is posted by noon of Wednesday, October 3, 2001. LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Laid Over Summary Abatement: JOlOSV Towing of abandoned vehicle at 376 Maryland Avenue East. O � �oZ� Page 3 Franciso Jazamillo, owner, appeazed and stated this is about a vehicle he parked on the side of his gazage. He received an order to remove it. He called a towing company, and was told they would not remove it until April. The City removed it in March. He called the Impound Lot. He was told that he woutd not have to pay anything and he could sign over the title. The vehicle was leftthere. Hazold Robinson reported the vehicie was abated on January 25 and towed in Mazch. It had no current license plates. It was a proper tow. In answer to questions, Mr. Jazamillo responded the vehicle was a 1981 Honda Civic, and it did not run. Gerry Strathman recommends reducing the assessment to $105 plus the $45 service fee for a total assessment of $150. The owner should have taken caze of the matter as soon as he got the notice. The City towed the vehicle, stored it, and sold it when they got the title. There aze costs involved. Summary Abatement Order appeal for 697 Surrey Avenue. (Sharon Anderson, appellant, sent Gerry Strathman an e-mail saying that she is unable to attend today's meeting.) Gerry Strathman recommends denying the appeal. Resointion ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 850 Sims Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Steve Magner presented photographs. They were later returued.) Steve Magner reported the property was condexnned May 2000. It has been a vacant building since August 21, 2000. Two summary abatement notices have been issued to remove refuse. On Mazch 7, 2001, an inspecfion of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on March 19, 2001, with a compliance date of April 18. As of this date, the properry remains in a condition that comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. The vacant building fees aze due. Estimated market value of property is $36,700; es#imated cost to repair, $80,000 to $100,000, estimated cost to demolish, $7,500 to $8,000. A code compliance inspection was done on August 30, 2000. On April 13, 2001, stated Mr. Magner, a third party posted a$2,000 bond. His reasoning was that he was in expectation of obtaining title after the original owners--Michael and Becky Ramstad--cancelled the contract with Samantha Mathews. That bond expires by October 15. G � \ vZ� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MIN [JTES FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Strathman asked what happened with the citation that was issued for failure to pay the vacant building fee. Mr. Maguer responded he does not have the file with him, but he assumes the citation was never settled. The owner is no longer in Minnesota. In September, Ms. Mathews paid the vacant building fee. Code Enforcement made an agreement with Ms. Mathews to give her six months to rehabilitate the properiy and she would not have to post the bond, but would have to obtain a code compliance inspecrion. She obtained the code compiiance inspection, but failed to act in a timely manner to rehabilitate the structure. Code Enforcement continually receives complaints of illegal activities and occupancy at the dwelling. There have been numerous inspections. Mr. Magner had a conversation with Don Wagner (License, Inspections, Environmentai Protecrion) who said he has not been called to inspect the properry. There are still outstanding permits that need to be pulled before a code compliance can be signed off. Samantha Mathews, owner, appeared and stated she had a code compliance inspection. The six months were up, and Rich Singerhouse (Code Enforcement) and another inspector came out on Mazch 7. She received an order to abate dated March 19 and was given until April 18 to clear the deficiencies. This is a different list than the original that she had six months to do. Shortly thereafter, a$2,000 bond was posted. The man who posted the $2,000 bond was under the assumption that he was going to get the house, and Mr. Ramstad had agreed to sell it to him after the foreclosure proceedings against her. Ms. Mathews also came up with $5,000, took the matter to district court, and saved her house. Three hours after she won the court case, there was a legis2ative hearing notice from Mr. Magner. Throughout this whole time, she has left several messages and has never had her calls returned. On her last visit with Mr. Magner, he said he was fuushed with this matter and would put Mike Morehead (Code Enforcement) in charge of it. Her house is more than 50% done. Ms. Mathews has photographs and �dauits from her neighbors. One of the people complaining would be a neighbor right next door to her who would like to obtain her property. Ms. Mathews received two summary abatement notices: one was for a dog and one to clean up the property. The bond expires on October 13. Don Wagner would like to inspect the properry to see what has been done. Gerry Strathman recommends laying over to the October 16, 2001, Legisla6ve Hearing. He does not think the City should movs on this properry while the current bond is still in effect, but that is only for approximately hvo more weeks. There needs to be an inspection of the properry before the bond is expired to determine if it can be extended another six months. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 715 Preble Street. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Steve Magner submitted photographs.) Catherine Davis, 1453 Arkwright Avenue #301, owner's daughter, appeazed. Gerry Strathman stated the document in front of him has Gilbert Castilla as the fee owner, Long Beach Mortgage Company as the mortgagee, and Katherin and Michael Davis as interested parties. Ms. Davis responded she is not sure how her name got onto the paperwork other than the fact that Gilbert is her dad. He purchased the house in August. He is disabled and Ms. Da�is U\� 1�� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Page 5 handles most of his business. They had done the work on the house and moved in unaware that it was a vacant house. Steve Magner reported this building has been vacant since June 10, 1999. There have been seven summary abatement notices issued to remove refuse, cut tall grass, secure structure. On August 1, 2001, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on August 6, 2001, with a compliance date of August 21, 2001. As of this date, this properry remains in a condition wluch comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. The vacant building fees are due. Real estate taxes aze unpaid in the amount of $1,073.99. Prior to the fire, Taatation had placed an estimated mazket value of $11,000 on the land and $38,400 on the building. The estimated cost to repair this structure is $50,000 to $60,000; estunated cost to demolish, $7,000 to $8,000. On August 3, 2000, a code compliance inspection was done. No bond has been posted. Mr. Magner stated this was a registered vacant building, and vacant building placards were on it. The owner was put on notice not to occupy this building. There were two citations issued for illegal occupancy. They were occupying a registered vacant building when the fire occurred. Mr. Strathman stated the photographs do not indicate a fire. Mr. Magner responded the fire was contained in the interior of the dwelling. There was heavy smoke damage throughout. There was no bum through to the outside; it is a stucco exterior. Mr. Strathman asked was the eactent of the damage cosmetic or structural. Mr. Magner responded there was heavy smoke and water damage throughout. The building has been abandoned since that time. There may have been more eactensive water damage since then. Ms. Davis stated she takes care of her father; he is not well. He purchased the property on August 9, 2ti00, &om the grevious owner. She does not haue legal control over his decisions. Ms. Davis was not awaze the properry was a registered vacant house. It was obvious there were things that needed to be done to the property. Every pipe in the basemeut was busted. There was no running water nor electricity. She knew it had to meet certain codes before it could be legally occupied. She hired a company to replace the plumbing in the basement, and an outside spigot that leaked. The connection to the water heater had to be replaced. They laid carpet and painted. After she dad ttne work, she moved in and was unaware that she coulrin't. In September, a rnan came to the house and ee�lained to her husband that they could not live there because the property was registered as being legally vacant. When she found this out, she had just given birth to her daughter. When she was able to, she contacted various peaple in the City. The fire that occurred on June 12 has rendered the condition of the house worse. Long Beach Mortgage holds $30,000 of insurance settlement on the fire to have it repaired. Ms. Davis went on to say she came into possession of a code compliance inspection dated August 3. After talking to Mr. Magner, he explained their contractor could walk through the house with the list, and he would know if it has been done. They could obtain a pernut for the code compliance issues and a permit for the fire damage. Her contractor did a walk through. She d � �� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES ROR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Page 6 cannot get the code compiiance issues done until the fire damage is cleaned up to see what she is left with, but she cannot get the fire damage taken caze of until she gets the code compliance issues taken care of. Mr. Strathman asked was she aware that the repair cost may be between $50,000 to $60,000. Ms. Davis responded over half the list has been fiYed. VJith the fire damage, there is additional work to be done. The mortgage company is holding $30,000. Mr. Strathman asked is the August 3, 2000, code compliance inspection an accurate representation of what needs to be done. Mr. Magner responded Don Wagner (License, Inspections, Environmental Protecrion) would have to go through the building and make a determination as to what has to be completed, was it done under permit, and can it be signed off. If not, it has to be done under permit. Most likely, Mr. Wagner will not give a code compliance certificate without including the fire damage items. Another code compliance inspection is needed, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Magner responded vacant building fees need to be paid, a code compliance inspection completed, and a bond needs to be posted. Also, the building should be unoccupied and secured. Gerry Strathman recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rehabilitation of the property on condition tiiat the foliowing is done by noon of Wednesday, October 3, 2001: 1) Pay the vacant building fee, 2j Get a code compliance inspection, 3) Post a$2,000 bond. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 397 Aldiae Street. If the owner fails to comply, Code Eaforcement is ordered to remove the bnilding. Steve Magner reported the house has been moved to another location. (Case is clflsed.) � Resolufion ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 473 Ha#ch Avenue. If the owner fails #o comply, Code Enforeement is ordered to remove the building. (Steve Magner submitted photographs.) Steve Magner reported tlus property has been condemned and vacani since November 2000. Five summary abatement notices have been issued to cut tali grass and remove refuse. On August 1, 2001, an inspection of ihe b�ding was conducted, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nnisance r,flndition was developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance condition was issued on August 6 with a compliance date of August 21. As of this date, this properiy remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. The City has boarded the building against trespass. The vacant building fees aze due. Real estate taxes aze unpaid of $209038. Ta�cation has placed an estnnated mazket value of $6,500 on the land. Before the fire, the estimated mazket value of the building was $34,800. As LEGISLATI VE HEARING REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 C�\—\c�Z� Page 7 of today, a code compliance inspection has not been applied for and a bond has not been posted. The estimated cost to repair is $40,000 to $50,000; estimated cost to demolish, $6,000 to $7,000. Mr. Magner stated the owner has tried to sell the property with no luck due to the small size of the structure, low ceilings, and numerous problems with the building. About a month ago, the owner asked Mr. Magner what would happen if the City demolished the structure. Mr. Magner ea�plained the lot would remain his properiy, and the cost of the demolition would be assessed on the taxes. Gerry Strathman recommends approval. The meeting was adjourned at 11:02 a.m. � Q�!GI�AL Presented By Referred To Council File # p� � 10.1� Green Sheet # �OAS �.9 Committee: Date 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 44 WHEREAS, Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement has requested the City Council to hold public hearings to consider the advisability and necessity of ordering the repair or wrecldng and removal of a one and one-half story, wood frazne, single family and wood frame shed located on property hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly lrnown as 473 Hatch Avenue. This properiy is legally described as follows, to wit: Lot 34, Block 1, Neuru and Wailraffs Addition to Saint Paul. W�IEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before June 7, 2001, the following are the now known interested or responsible parties for the Subj ect Property:Richard Cooper, 493 Blair Avenue, St.Paul, MN 55103; TMS Mortgage Inc., 7401 Metro Blvd., Ste. 310, Edina, MN 55439, Loan # 0083448464; Chrysler First Financial Services Corp., 1105 Hamilton Street, Allentown, PA 18101, CT Corporation Systems Inc., c/o CT Corporarion, 405 2" Avenue South, Mpls., NIN 55401 WHEREAS, Division of Code Enforcement has served in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code an arder identified as an"Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s)" dated August 6, 2001; and WHEREAS, this order informed the then known interested or responsible parties that the structure located on the Subject Property is a nuisance building(s) pursuant to Chapter 45; and WHEREAS, this order informed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair or demolish the structure located on the Subject Property by August 21, 2001; and WHEREAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placard on the Subject Property declaring this building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and WHEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Division of Code Enforcement requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the City Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and WHEREAS, the interested and responsible parties have been served notice in accardance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paui Legislarive Code, of the time, date, place and purpose of the public hearings; and WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City Council on Tuesday, September 25, 2001 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 Properiy safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this shucture in accordance with all applicable codes and ardinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all applicabie codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to be completed within five (5) days after the date of the Council Hearing; and RESOLUTION SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 36 o�-��w 1 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, October 3, 2001 2 and the testimony and evidence including the action taken by the Legislative Hearing Officer was 3 considered by the Council; now therefore 4 5 BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the above referenced 6 public hearings, the Saint Paul City Council hereby adopts the following Findings and Order concerning 7 the Subject Property at 473 Hatch Avenue: 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 34 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1. 2. 3. � � 7 � That the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul Legislarive 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 Properiy. That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then laiown responsible parties to correct the deficiencies or to demolish and remove the building(s). That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition haue not been corrected. That Division of Code Enforcement has posted a placard on the Subject Property which declares it to be a nuisance condition subject to demolirion. That this building has been routinely monitored by the Citizen Service Offices, Division of Code Enforcement, VacantlNuisance Buildings. That the known interested parties and owners aze as previously stated in this resolution and that the notification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilied. ••� • The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the following order: The above referenced interested or responsible parties shall 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 and correcting all deficiencies as prescribed in the above referenced Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) in accordance with all applicable codes and ardinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the shucture in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition and removai of the structure must be completed within five (5) days after the date of the Council Hearing. 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 are necessary to demolish and remove this structure, fill the site and charge the costs incurred against the Subject O t -1o�C Property pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislafive Code. 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all personal property or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shall be removed from the property by the responsible parties by the end of this time period. If all personal property is not removed, it shall be considered to be abandoned and the City of Saint Paul shall remove and dispose of such properiy 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. Adopted by Council: Date ��. Z. a o o\ Adoption Certified by Council Secretary I: ` � � . . � - � � : � � : - I/�, / /J �: t��/�1 �//L !.i Requested by Department of: Cirizen Service Office; Code Enforcement By� a ?„��`'� Form Approved by City Attorney By: Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: GCJZ'1�aw(�(. O�-[es�. - utrnrtimtrvuvrn�.nwurr.a ` Division of Co�e Enforcement ..T�� N�,� �� 0$l24/0l � October 3, 2001 ° �i'G �'�'�� ■w�e��e ROUTING ` `�� TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET � No��a��z9 � e�Y arcwnon�r � JC I' V`=-- L7 �..N,�,�,� �T�""`1��f9 � WratlalumsrYrt� ❑ (CUP 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 comply with the resolution, the Cirizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is ordered ' to remove the building. The subject property is located at 473 Hatch Avenue. PLANNING C� 'CIB CAMMITTEE � CIVI� SERVICE CAMMISSION RSONALSERVICE CONTRAG75 MUSTANSWER7XE FOLLOWING QUESTSONS: Hes Uris P�Mrtn eVe! NorkeA unde� a CoMfeC[ fafllli6 tlepartmeM? VES NO Fias dus ceBONfirm ever been a ply empbvee7 YES NO Ooes this pe�soMim possese a slall rwt normailYP�sees� bY any artent ctitY emWoyeeT YES NQ Ic tliis P��rtn a targe[ed �eiMoR , YFS 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 P�ul �,�gislative Code. The owners, interested parties and responsible parties known to the Enforcement Officer were'giv0n'an order torepair or remove the building at 473 Hatch Avenue by August 21 2001; and haue failedtabdmpTy�vi�ifh�thoseorders. � � � The City will eliminate a nuisance. The City will spend funds to wreck and remove this building(s). These costs will be assessed to the property, collected as a snecial assessment aeainst the nroperty tases. will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to blight the community. AhTOUNTOFTRAN5AC71CN� 'D� � CpyTIREVENUEBI icsourecE.. •Ni�isance Housing Abatement �mmNUwa�c �LINFORMNTON (EXPWftj (CIRCLEON� / YES/ "NO `/ 33261 COl.�rec� F�S�arch Ces�gEf �� 12�Q1 REPORT Date: September 25, 2001 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Room 330 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevazd LEGISLATIVE HEARING Gerry Strathman Legislative Hearing Officer 1. Summary Abatement Order Appeal for 1598 Hazel Street North. (Laid over from 9-4-01) Legislative Hearing Officer recommends denying the appeal. 0\-1o�fo 2. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 2257 Hillside Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Laid over from 4-17-01) Legislative Hearing Officer recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rehabilitation of the property on condition that a$2,000 bond is posted by noon of Wednesday, October 3, 2001. Laid Over Summary Abatement: JOl O5V Towing of abandoned vehicle at 376 Maryland Avenue East. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends reducing the assessment to $105 plus the $45 service fee for a total assessment of $150. 4. Summary Abatement Order appeal for 697 Surrey Avenue. Legislative Hearing Offieer recommends denying the appeal. 5. Resolurion ordering the owner to remove or repair Yhe property at 850 Sims Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends laying over to fihe October 16, 2001, Legislative Hearing. 6. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 715 Preble Street. If the owner fails to compiy, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rehabilitarion of the property on condition that the following is done by noon of Wednesday, October 3, 2001: 1) Pay the vacant building fee, 2) Get a code compliance inspection, 3) Post a$2,000 bond. Ol-�o�'' LEGISLATIVE HEARING REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 page 2 Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the properry at 397 Aldine Street. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Case is closed.) 8. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the properry at 473 Hatch Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval. � CIITZEN SERVICE OFFICE Fred Owusu, Ciry Clerk DIVISION OF PROPERTY WDE ENFORCEMENT Michael R. Marehead, Program Marsager Interest CITY OF SAINT PAiJL NuisanceBuildingCodeEnforcement Norm Coleman, Mayor IS W. Kellogg Blvd Rm 190 Te1: 651-266-8440 Saint Paul, MIJ55702 Fax: 651-26b-8426 August 25, 2001 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Council President and . Members of the City Councii - Citizen Service Office, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings Enforcement Division has requested the City Council schedule public hearings to consider a resolurion ordering the repair or removal of the nuisance building(s) located at: 473 Hatch Avenue The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearings as follows: � Legislative Hearing - Tuesday, September 25, 2001 City Council Hearing - Wednesday, October 3, 2001 The owners and responsible parties of record are: Name and Last Known Address Richard Cooper 493 Blair Avenue St.Paul, MN 55103 TMS Mortgage Inc. 7401 Metro Bivd., Ste. 310 Edina, MN 55439 Loan # 0083448464 - Chrysler First Financial Services Corp. 1105 Hamilton Street Allentown, PA 18101 CT Corporation Systems Inc. c/o CT Corporation 405 2" Avenue South Mpls., MN 55401 Fee Owner Mortgagee 0 � - i0i� Mortgagee/Successor Registered Agent o�-�o� 473 Hatch Avenue August 24, 2001 Pa�e 2 The legal description of this property is: Lot 34, Block 1, Neuru and Wallraffs Addition to Saint Paul. - S�P--0 4 20�9 RECEI�iED CITY ATTORNEY Division of Code Enforcement has declared 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 lrnown responsible parties to eliminate this nuisance condition by correcting the deficiencies or by razing and removing this buiiding(s). Inasmuch as this Order to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition remains unabated, the community continues to suffer the blightin� influence of this - property. It is the recommendation of the Division of Code Enforcement that the City Council pass a resolution ordering the responsible parties to either repair, or demolish and �° remove this building in a timely manner, and failing that, authorize the Division of Code Enforcement to proceed fo demolition and removal, and to assess the costs incurred against the real estate as a special assessment to be collected in the same manner as taxes. Sincerely, �teve �a�n.er Steve Magner Vacant Buildings Supervisor Division of Code Enforcement Citizen Service Office SM:mI cc: Frank Berg, Building Inspection and Design Meghan Riley, City Attorneys Office Nancy Anderson, Assistant Secretary to the Council Laurie Kaplan, PED-Housing Division ccnph � MINUTES OF Tf� LEGISLATIVE HEARING Tuesday, September 25, 2001 Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer Room 330 Courthouse The meeting was called to order at 10:04 a.m. o\-�oZb ��. STAFF PRESENT: Roxanna Flink, Real Estate; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Hazold Robinson, Code Enforcement; Summary Abatement Order Appeal for 1598 Hazel Street North. (Laid over from 9-4-01) Gerry Stratiunan stated that the appellant was going to consult with City staff and others as to whether the garden was consistent with the City's ordinance with respect to natural gardens, prairie growth, etc. He asked did the owner haue time to do that. Walt Montpetit, owner, appeared and stated a City representative called him last Friday and left a voice mail. He was out of town and just returned Sunday evening. He has not had a chance to have a conversation with City inspectors as faz as what was a landscape design versus weeds and tall grass. Hazold Robinson reported he could not find a specific ordinance to cover these things. The ordinance does read grass and weeds over 8 inches high must be cut. "There aze some specific plants and landscape designs that aze excluded from tlris. It is not composting because it is not a contained azea. It is not covered under the grass and weed ordinance beeause it is tall grass that has been allowed to grow. He cannot exempt it. Mr. Strathman asked is there someone in the City that knows plants well enough to make a determination as to if these plants aze accepted under state law. Mr. Robinson responded he has been on the property, and it is basically tall grass and weeds. Mr. Strathman asked what malces the owner think it is some#hing other than tall grass and weeds. Mr. Montperit responded �e area is set aside from the rest of the yard. He looks at it as part of his landscape scheme. It is a woaded lot adjacent to the rest of the lot that is groomed, even though it is a small area. He does not know anyone who cuts weeds and tall grass out of a wooded lot. He asked is his yard designated as a yazd or as a wooded lot. Mr. Robinson responded that specifically a wooded lot has to haue a tree, and this backyazd does not have a tree. Mr. Montpetit responded there aze trees back in the corner. Mr. Robinson stated this properry is defuutely not a wooded lot. From the description he included with his appeal, stated Mr. Strathman, there is a map that shows the nature gazden is belund the garage and surrounded by a six foot privacy fence. He asked how this came to the City's attention. Mr. Robinson responded it was a complaint based inspection. Mr. Montpetit stated he belongs to the yacht club and a member complained to the City about weeds and tall grass on Harriet Island. This member was told it was part of the landscape scene. C� \-1�Z(� LEGISLATIVE FiEARING MINiJTES FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Page 2 It is no different than his weeds and tall grass, said Mr. Montpetit. He does not know what species needs to be cut and which species he can plant to conform. (Mr. Robinson gave Mr. Montpetit documents about a company that specializes in this subject.) Gerry Strathman recommends denying the appeal. It does not appeaz that what Mr. Montpetit wants to do is provided for under the City ordinance. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 2257 Hillside Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Laid over from 4-17-01) The following appeazed: Kim McCallum, 929 Selby Avenue, and Steve Gibbs, Western National, 41 12th Avenue North, Hopkins. Steve Magner reported this building has been vacant since December 3, 1999. There have been five summary abatement notices to secure the dwelling, cut tall grass, remove refuse, remove snow and/or ice. On October 19, 2000, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on October 24, 200Q with a compliance date of November 27. As of this date, the property remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. The real estates taYes aze unpaid of $6,333. Tasation has placed an estimated market value of $56,600 on the land, and $5,000 on the building. On July 25, 2001, a code compliance inspection was done. A$2,000 bond has not been posted. Estimated cost to repair is $100,000 to $150,000; estimated cost to demolish, $12,000 to $15,000. This was originally before the Legislarive Hearing Officer in Mazch, said Mr. Magner. It was laid over because the second mortgage company was going through a foreclosure process, wanted to clear the tifle, pay off the insurance company, and then sell it. The second mortgage company has beea paid ofF and is no longer involved with this properry. The original owner has physical control of the building, but there is still an issue with the insurance company for the first mortgage company. Mr. McCalluxn stated he plans to take the next week and decide to sell the property, rehabilitate it, or tear it down and rebuild. As of yesterday, there was a settlement. Mr. Gibbs stated Western Nafional will be satisfied with the agreement. They aze now in the middle of foreclosure on the property. Th$y will be out of the picture when that happens and the McCallums can take whatever action they would like. Mr. Strathman asked is he prepazed to post the $2,000 bond. Mr. McCallum responded he is. Gerry Strathman recommends granring the owner six months to complete the rehabilitation of the property on condition that a$2,000 bond is posted by noon of Wednesday, October 3, 2001. LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Laid Over Summary Abatement: JOlOSV Towing of abandoned vehicle at 376 Maryland Avenue East. O � �oZ� Page 3 Franciso Jazamillo, owner, appeazed and stated this is about a vehicle he parked on the side of his gazage. He received an order to remove it. He called a towing company, and was told they would not remove it until April. The City removed it in March. He called the Impound Lot. He was told that he woutd not have to pay anything and he could sign over the title. The vehicle was leftthere. Hazold Robinson reported the vehicie was abated on January 25 and towed in Mazch. It had no current license plates. It was a proper tow. In answer to questions, Mr. Jazamillo responded the vehicle was a 1981 Honda Civic, and it did not run. Gerry Strathman recommends reducing the assessment to $105 plus the $45 service fee for a total assessment of $150. The owner should have taken caze of the matter as soon as he got the notice. The City towed the vehicle, stored it, and sold it when they got the title. There aze costs involved. Summary Abatement Order appeal for 697 Surrey Avenue. (Sharon Anderson, appellant, sent Gerry Strathman an e-mail saying that she is unable to attend today's meeting.) Gerry Strathman recommends denying the appeal. Resointion ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 850 Sims Avenue. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Steve Magner presented photographs. They were later returued.) Steve Magner reported the property was condexnned May 2000. It has been a vacant building since August 21, 2000. Two summary abatement notices have been issued to remove refuse. On Mazch 7, 2001, an inspecfion of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on March 19, 2001, with a compliance date of April 18. As of this date, the properry remains in a condition that comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. The vacant building fees aze due. Estimated market value of property is $36,700; es#imated cost to repair, $80,000 to $100,000, estimated cost to demolish, $7,500 to $8,000. A code compliance inspection was done on August 30, 2000. On April 13, 2001, stated Mr. Magner, a third party posted a$2,000 bond. His reasoning was that he was in expectation of obtaining title after the original owners--Michael and Becky Ramstad--cancelled the contract with Samantha Mathews. That bond expires by October 15. G � \ vZ� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MIN [JTES FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Strathman asked what happened with the citation that was issued for failure to pay the vacant building fee. Mr. Maguer responded he does not have the file with him, but he assumes the citation was never settled. The owner is no longer in Minnesota. In September, Ms. Mathews paid the vacant building fee. Code Enforcement made an agreement with Ms. Mathews to give her six months to rehabilitate the properiy and she would not have to post the bond, but would have to obtain a code compliance inspecrion. She obtained the code compiiance inspection, but failed to act in a timely manner to rehabilitate the structure. Code Enforcement continually receives complaints of illegal activities and occupancy at the dwelling. There have been numerous inspections. Mr. Magner had a conversation with Don Wagner (License, Inspections, Environmentai Protecrion) who said he has not been called to inspect the properry. There are still outstanding permits that need to be pulled before a code compliance can be signed off. Samantha Mathews, owner, appeared and stated she had a code compliance inspection. The six months were up, and Rich Singerhouse (Code Enforcement) and another inspector came out on Mazch 7. She received an order to abate dated March 19 and was given until April 18 to clear the deficiencies. This is a different list than the original that she had six months to do. Shortly thereafter, a$2,000 bond was posted. The man who posted the $2,000 bond was under the assumption that he was going to get the house, and Mr. Ramstad had agreed to sell it to him after the foreclosure proceedings against her. Ms. Mathews also came up with $5,000, took the matter to district court, and saved her house. Three hours after she won the court case, there was a legis2ative hearing notice from Mr. Magner. Throughout this whole time, she has left several messages and has never had her calls returned. On her last visit with Mr. Magner, he said he was fuushed with this matter and would put Mike Morehead (Code Enforcement) in charge of it. Her house is more than 50% done. Ms. Mathews has photographs and �dauits from her neighbors. One of the people complaining would be a neighbor right next door to her who would like to obtain her property. Ms. Mathews received two summary abatement notices: one was for a dog and one to clean up the property. The bond expires on October 13. Don Wagner would like to inspect the properry to see what has been done. Gerry Strathman recommends laying over to the October 16, 2001, Legisla6ve Hearing. He does not think the City should movs on this properry while the current bond is still in effect, but that is only for approximately hvo more weeks. There needs to be an inspection of the properry before the bond is expired to determine if it can be extended another six months. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 715 Preble Street. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Steve Magner submitted photographs.) Catherine Davis, 1453 Arkwright Avenue #301, owner's daughter, appeazed. Gerry Strathman stated the document in front of him has Gilbert Castilla as the fee owner, Long Beach Mortgage Company as the mortgagee, and Katherin and Michael Davis as interested parties. Ms. Davis responded she is not sure how her name got onto the paperwork other than the fact that Gilbert is her dad. He purchased the house in August. He is disabled and Ms. Da�is U\� 1�� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Page 5 handles most of his business. They had done the work on the house and moved in unaware that it was a vacant house. Steve Magner reported this building has been vacant since June 10, 1999. There have been seven summary abatement notices issued to remove refuse, cut tall grass, secure structure. On August 1, 2001, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on August 6, 2001, with a compliance date of August 21, 2001. As of this date, this properry remains in a condition wluch comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. The vacant building fees are due. Real estate taxes aze unpaid in the amount of $1,073.99. Prior to the fire, Taatation had placed an estimated mazket value of $11,000 on the land and $38,400 on the building. The estimated cost to repair this structure is $50,000 to $60,000; estunated cost to demolish, $7,000 to $8,000. On August 3, 2000, a code compliance inspection was done. No bond has been posted. Mr. Magner stated this was a registered vacant building, and vacant building placards were on it. The owner was put on notice not to occupy this building. There were two citations issued for illegal occupancy. They were occupying a registered vacant building when the fire occurred. Mr. Strathman stated the photographs do not indicate a fire. Mr. Magner responded the fire was contained in the interior of the dwelling. There was heavy smoke damage throughout. There was no bum through to the outside; it is a stucco exterior. Mr. Strathman asked was the eactent of the damage cosmetic or structural. Mr. Magner responded there was heavy smoke and water damage throughout. The building has been abandoned since that time. There may have been more eactensive water damage since then. Ms. Davis stated she takes care of her father; he is not well. He purchased the property on August 9, 2ti00, &om the grevious owner. She does not haue legal control over his decisions. Ms. Davis was not awaze the properry was a registered vacant house. It was obvious there were things that needed to be done to the property. Every pipe in the basemeut was busted. There was no running water nor electricity. She knew it had to meet certain codes before it could be legally occupied. She hired a company to replace the plumbing in the basement, and an outside spigot that leaked. The connection to the water heater had to be replaced. They laid carpet and painted. After she dad ttne work, she moved in and was unaware that she coulrin't. In September, a rnan came to the house and ee�lained to her husband that they could not live there because the property was registered as being legally vacant. When she found this out, she had just given birth to her daughter. When she was able to, she contacted various peaple in the City. The fire that occurred on June 12 has rendered the condition of the house worse. Long Beach Mortgage holds $30,000 of insurance settlement on the fire to have it repaired. Ms. Davis went on to say she came into possession of a code compliance inspection dated August 3. After talking to Mr. Magner, he explained their contractor could walk through the house with the list, and he would know if it has been done. They could obtain a pernut for the code compliance issues and a permit for the fire damage. Her contractor did a walk through. She d � �� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES ROR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Page 6 cannot get the code compiiance issues done until the fire damage is cleaned up to see what she is left with, but she cannot get the fire damage taken caze of until she gets the code compliance issues taken care of. Mr. Strathman asked was she aware that the repair cost may be between $50,000 to $60,000. Ms. Davis responded over half the list has been fiYed. VJith the fire damage, there is additional work to be done. The mortgage company is holding $30,000. Mr. Strathman asked is the August 3, 2000, code compliance inspection an accurate representation of what needs to be done. Mr. Magner responded Don Wagner (License, Inspections, Environmental Protecrion) would have to go through the building and make a determination as to what has to be completed, was it done under permit, and can it be signed off. If not, it has to be done under permit. Most likely, Mr. Wagner will not give a code compliance certificate without including the fire damage items. Another code compliance inspection is needed, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Magner responded vacant building fees need to be paid, a code compliance inspection completed, and a bond needs to be posted. Also, the building should be unoccupied and secured. Gerry Strathman recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rehabilitation of the property on condition tiiat the foliowing is done by noon of Wednesday, October 3, 2001: 1) Pay the vacant building fee, 2j Get a code compliance inspection, 3) Post a$2,000 bond. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 397 Aldiae Street. If the owner fails to comply, Code Eaforcement is ordered to remove the bnilding. Steve Magner reported the house has been moved to another location. (Case is clflsed.) � Resolufion ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 473 Ha#ch Avenue. If the owner fails #o comply, Code Enforeement is ordered to remove the building. (Steve Magner submitted photographs.) Steve Magner reported tlus property has been condemned and vacani since November 2000. Five summary abatement notices have been issued to cut tali grass and remove refuse. On August 1, 2001, an inspection of ihe b�ding was conducted, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nnisance r,flndition was developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance condition was issued on August 6 with a compliance date of August 21. As of this date, this properiy remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. The City has boarded the building against trespass. The vacant building fees aze due. Real estate taxes aze unpaid of $209038. Ta�cation has placed an estnnated mazket value of $6,500 on the land. Before the fire, the estimated mazket value of the building was $34,800. As LEGISLATI VE HEARING REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 C�\—\c�Z� Page 7 of today, a code compliance inspection has not been applied for and a bond has not been posted. The estimated cost to repair is $40,000 to $50,000; estimated cost to demolish, $6,000 to $7,000. Mr. Magner stated the owner has tried to sell the property with no luck due to the small size of the structure, low ceilings, and numerous problems with the building. About a month ago, the owner asked Mr. Magner what would happen if the City demolished the structure. Mr. Magner ea�plained the lot would remain his properiy, and the cost of the demolition would be assessed on the taxes. Gerry Strathman recommends approval. The meeting was adjourned at 11:02 a.m. �