The URL can be used to link to this page

01-1199� � � � P'd � : ` � � 3 +..� 1\ '.J l i �. e a�.—. Council File # pt — I�g9, / Green Sheet # �O� RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �� Referred To Presented By Committee: Date 1 WHEREAS, Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement has requested the City Council 2 to hold public hearings to consider the advisability and necessity of ordering the repair or wrecking and 3 removal of a two-story, wood frame, single family dwelling and the detached, two-stall, wood frame garage 4 located on property hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly known as 667 5 Magnolia Avenue East. This property is legally described as follows, to wit: 6 7 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 Lot 23, Block 4, Evans Addition to the Cityof Saint Paul. WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before June 12, 2001, the following aze the now known interested or responsible parties for the Subject Property:Vicki Adams/Knight, 1765 Donegal Drive, Woodbury, MN 55126; Matrix Financial Services Corp., 201 W. Coolidge Street, #100, Phoenix, AZ 85013, Loan # 1715341; American Accounts & Advisers Inc., 3904 Cedarvale Drive, Eagan, MN 55122 WHEREAS, Division of Code Enforcement has served in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code an order identified as an "Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s)" dated August 10, 2001; and WI�EREAS, this order informed the then known interested or responsible parties that the structure located on the Subject Properiy 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 September 10, 2001; and WHBREAS, 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 conected 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 Pau1 City Council; and WHEREAS, the interested and responsible parties have been served notice in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the time, date, place and purpose of the public hearings; and WHEREAS, a hearing was held befare the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City Council on Tuesday, October 16, 2001 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and 1 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City �� i �� 2 Council on Tuesday, October 16, 2001 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and 3 evidence, made the recommendation to approve the request to arder the interested or responsible parties to 4 make the Subject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfaze and 5 remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure in accordance with all 6 applicable codes and ordinances, or in the alternarive by demolishing and removing the siructure in 7 accordance with all appiicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to be 8 completed within five (5) days after the date of the Council Hearing; and 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 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, November 7, 2001 and the testimony and evidence including the action taken by the Legislative Hearing Officer was considered by the Council; now therefore BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the above referenced public hearings, the Saint Paul City Council hereby adopts the following Findings and Order concerning the Subject Property at 667 Magnolia Avenue East: 1. That the Subject Properry comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 45. 2. That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). 2. 3. That there now exists and has existed multiple Housing or Building code violations at the Subject Property. 4. That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then l�own responsible parties to correct the deficiencies or to demolish and remove the building(s). GQ 7 That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition haue not been corrected. That Division of Code Enforcement has posted a placard on the Subj ect Property which declares it to be a nuisance condition subject to demolition. That this building has been routinely monitored by the Citizen Service Offices, Division of Code Enforcement, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings. 8. That the known interested parties and owners are as previously stated in this resolution and that the notification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled. ORDER The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the following order: The above referenced interested or responsibie parties shall make the Subject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this shucture and correcting all deficiencies as prescribed in the above referenced Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition and removal of the structure must be completed within five (5) days after the date of the Council Hearing. If the above corrective action is not completed within this period of time the Citizen Service Office, < -� �, ° � a..' a . : _ � . � .`-'• � �� t � 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 o t_1t19. Division of Code Enforcement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps aze necessary to demolish and remove this structure, fill the site and charge the costs incurred against the Subject Property pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, ali personal property or 5xtures 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 ali 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. Requested by Department of: B 1 N�R�- Adopted by Council: Date ��.� a.00 � � r Adoption Certified by Council Secretary BY� � �� (� �-.� -,-- � Approved by Mayor: Date "� 9 �� g <� lC�////,�� `C +��w- �� Form Approved by City Attomey By: Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council , By: ' Division of Code Enforcement �T.'�Y�i'] November 7, 2001 TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE a�� o9izvoi GREEN SHEET � 0 1 �11�q No102355 m.�.o. � � m..� ❑ m„� o ,�.�.� ❑..�,� wvde WRNmrwrn _,��❑ L_ (CL1P ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) City Council to pass this resolution which will order the owner(s) to remove or repair � 1 . If the owner fails to comply with the resolurion, the Citizen Service Office, Division of o n is d to remove the building. The subject property is located at 667 Magnolia Avenue East. SEP 2 8 2��r � � ' i �' ' PLANNING CAMMISSION CIB COMMITTEE CML SERVICE CAMMISSION r� m� ce�� . �a ��. a� raa� a�re��n rES rio tms mis ce� ever heen a aly empbyee? , YES NO Ocec fhis P�rm popees a sldl nut mmalHP�eeeU EY �Y curteM ciry emPbY�? YES NQ Ic�hisP��rmalarge[edvendoYt . YES NO This building(s) is a nuisance building(s) as defined in Chapter 45 and a vacant building as defned in Chapter 43 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. The owners, interested parties and responsible parties known to the Enforcement Officer were given, an order,to repair or remove the building at 667 Magnolia Avenue East by September 10, 2001; and have failed to comply with those orders. The Ciry 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 a�ainst the nronertv taaces. A nuisance condition will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to blight the community. oFrwwsacnw+t � �>vvv - ,no,vvv \ .1 ' • � � �. "1�"1 iNFOrtAanow (ocxaM COET/REVENUEBUO6EfED(GRCLEONE! � NC _.'___ _ ' _' _ ACTIVfTYNUMBER ��L�l� •" � _ _ ��d;�3 4"�RtEf #I ; ": ' }i' , , a: �. � , ..__� : , � ............... � •�-\�1t REPORT Date: October 16, 2001 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Room 330 City Hall 15 VJest Kellogg Boulevazd LEGISLATIVE HEARING Gerry Strathman Legislative Hearing Officer Appeal of summary abatement order for 697 Surrev Avenue. (City Counci] referred ttris matter back to the Legislafive Hearing Officer.) Legislative Hearing Officer recommends denying the appeal. 2. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 393 Sidney Street East. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Laid over from 10-2-01) Legislative Heazing 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 October 24, 2001. � 3. Resolufion ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 667 Maenolia Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval of the resolution. 4. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 299 Arlin�ton Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends withdrawing the resolufion. 5. Resolution 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 buiiding. (Laid over from 9-25-01) Legislafive Hearing Officer recommends approval of the resolution. 0 MINLJTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING 6 �� , �� Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Room 330 City Hall Gerry Sirathman, Legislative Hearing Officer STAFF PRESENT: Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Mike Morehead, Code Enfarcement The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. Appeal of summary abatement order for 697 Surrey Avenue. (City Council referred this matter back to the Legislative Hearing Officer.) Gerry Strathman stated this is an appeal of an order issued to Sharon Anderson in September. The order was to remove improperly stored refuse, cut and remove tall grass, weeds, rank plant growth, and remove portion of fence. Ms. Anderson filed an appeal and the City Council sent this matter back to Mr. Strathman for a recommendation. Bill Dahn, 240 Baker Street East, representing Shazon Anderson, appeared and stated he does not know where the City got the list of items on the summary abatement arder. Mr. Strathman asked are there tall weeds and grass. Mr. Dahn responded no. If there are, they have grown since he was there. He supports the paperwork that Sharon Anderson has submitted. The last time she was before the City Council, they did not have the paperwork. She wants to lrnow who are the complaining parties. Under state law, responded Mr. Strathinan, the City is prohibited from disclosing the complainants. Mr. Strathman stated he needs some evidence that the order is improper, for example, photographs showing there aze no tall weeds, videotape, etc. Mr. Dahn responded he does not have anything with him at this time. The $250 for this assessment is too high and even attomeys do not make that much. It seems he and Ms. Anderson are being hazassed and harassment is a bigger chazge than tall weeds. Mr. Strathman asked are there any photographs showing the properiy. Steve Magner responded it would be best to have Mr. Dahn or the owner meet with the enforcement officer ar the supervisor at the location so they can go over the issues because Mr. Magner does not have photographs. In order to grant the appeal, stated Mr. Strathman, he would need some evidence to show the property is cleaned up, and he does not have that. Mr. Dahn responded that Mr. Strathtnan also does not have any evidence showing it is bad. Gerry Strathman recommends denying the appeal. He suggested Mr. Dahn or Ms. Anderson make arrangements for the supervisor and inspector to look at the properiy. If they look at the properiy and find there is no reason for this order, then they will withdraw the order and the matter will be closed. This matter will go before the City Council. Mr. Dahn responded Ms. Anderson wants it to go before the City Council. �-1 �91 LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINI JTES OF OCTOBER 16, 2001 Page 2 Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the properiy at 393 Sidney Street East. If the owner faiLs to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Laid over from 10-2-01) (Steve Magner submitted photographs.) Steve Magner stated this has been laid over twice. The property was suppose to have gone through a closing, and the new owners were suppose to post a bond. A code compliance inspection has been done, but the bond and closing have not occurred. They may be trying to haue these things done by the City Council meeting on October 24. Gerry Strathman recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rek�abilitation of the property on condition that a$2,000 bond is posted by noon of October 24, 2001. Mr. Magner stated he will notify George Borer, the attorney. � Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 667 Magnolia Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Steve Magner submitted photographs.) Steve Magner stated this properiy has been vacant since December 5, 2000. The current owner is Vicki Adams, also Irnown as Vicki Knight. Six suminary abatement notices were issued to secure doors, cut tall grass, remove refuse, remove snow and ice, and abate vehicles. On August 2, 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 10, 2001, with a compliance date of September 10. As of this date, the property remains in a condifion which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. The vacant building fees aze due. Real estate taxes are paid. T�ation has estimated the market value of the land as $12,200; estimated mazket value of the building prior to the fire, $47,900. A code compliance inspection nor bond have been applied for. Demolition is between $7,000 and $8,000. The owner has contacted Code Enforcement. Her last ca11 to the area inspector was that she was not going to fight the demolition of the building. Gerry Strathman recommends approved the resolution based on Mr. Magner's testimony and the fact that the owner is not here to represent the property. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 299 Arlington Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. The following appeared: Marjorie Frahs (owner Richard Spreigl's niece) and Reneya Mayberry (Ms. Frahs' niece and Mr. Spreigl's great niece). Mike Morehead reported this property has a long history. Many yeazs ago when Highway 35 was run through, this family was relocated by the state. The City granted the new location a nonconforming use status. This property was used as a landscaping business. The business went d�-t199 LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINLJTES OF OCTOBER 16, 2001 Page 3 defunct a few yeazs ago. Landscaping equipment itexns were left to accumulate on the property so long that trees were growing through the tires. A number of buildings on the properiy fell down from lack of uiaiutenance. It was determined that the properly was not used for commercial purposes; therefore, it reverted to residential zoning status. At that point, all the miscellaneous materials on the property were no longer fit for residential applications. Last year, stated Mr. Morehead, Code Enforcement started dealing with the Spreigl family. The principle owner Richard is elderly and has not been able to accomplish the cleanup. Code Enforcement issued orders and gaue the owners a deadline to get the properry cleaned up. The owners were not able to get rid of the big equipment. The City brought in a lazge abatement crew. They were 1'united to $3,000, which is the summary abatement limit, but they ran up a bill of $3,500. Mr. Marehead stated he knows he cannot assess that much; therefore, he will assess $3,000. Seventy-Five percent of the problems were eliminated. Mr. Marehead went on to say he started the paperwork to e�end the abatement work beyond the $3,000 limit. That paperwork will not be on the City Council agenda until November. The owners have until eazly November to finish cleaning up the property. The owners have been given verbal orders and Code Enforcement is going to follow up this week with formal written orders. With the bulk of the big stuff removed, it is possible the family can clean up the little stuf£ The $3,000 assessed greatly improved the value of their land. Gerry Strathman stated the order before him today is a resolurion to remove or repair the property. Steve Magner responded there were two or three accessory structures, numerous vehicles, metal machinery, and other related items that were there. Mr. Morehead stated the buildings aze gone, but the remnants and things underneath the building are still sticking up. Mr. Strathman asked what Code Enforcement is seeking today. Mr. Morehead responded before he can do a substanfial abatement, owners of the property aze to appear before Mr. Strathman. Code Enforcement wants Mr. Strathman to determine that the need to finish up this abatement is proper. Mr. Morehead needs a recommendation from Mr. Strathman that if the properiy is not cleaned up by November 7 or 8, then Code Enforcement can finish it. Therefore, he needs authority from the City Council to levy more than a$3,000 lien on the properry. Code Enforcement is continuing to work with this family. What is left is light work; the heavy stuff has been taken out. By the time the City Council heazs this matter, there is a good chance it will be cleaned up. This is just an insurance policy that if they cannot get it done, Code Enforcement will finish the job so the file can be closed. Mr. Strathxnan stated the paperwork before him is for removai of buildings that have already been removed. Regazdless of the paperwork, what is being discussed here is an order to conduct a substantial abatement at this property if the owners do not clean up the property by a specified date. When they originally looked at this property, stated Mr. Magner, to do the cleanup would have been beyond $10,000, which included the buildings. Since the owners have removed some of the buildings or broken down the buildings, Code Enforcement has removed them under the standazd sununary abatement. What is primarily left is to clean up the site, grade it, seed it, and o �_ ��. LEGISLATIVE HEAFtING MINLJTES OF OCTOBER 16, 2001 Page 4 straw it until it grows. If the owners can accomplish that task, Code Enforcement would not spend any more money there. What is really being asked, stated Mr. Strathman, is approval by the City Council to do a substaufial abatement at this properry if the owners have not taken care of it prior to October 24. Mr. Magner added that after the Mayor signs it, it would probably be the first week of November before they could send someone out to finish the work on the property. Mr. Morehead stated the big deadline is winter. If the owners can make substantial progress, he will let them finish it. Ms. Frahs stated they took photographs. There is some brush that has to be cleazed behind the house. There is a little patch in the middle of the property. There are some trees that have to come down. Along the fence, dirt that has to be brought down to grade. They fixed the hole in the gazage. Mr. Morehead responded they do not have to take the trees down. Next to the base of the trees is a hole with items sticking out of the ground. The items are considered hazardous waste. Anyone that hauls these items out has to be informed of this. (Ms. Frahs showed photographs to everyone.) Mr. Strathman asked are they alright with what Mr. Morehead wants to do. Ms. Frahs responded yes, but was concerned about liens on the house. Mr. Magner responded assessments can go on the t�es. There can be another hearing when the family gets the assessment or Taxation can be called and asked to space it out. All tases and assessments haue to be paid before a property is sold. Gerry Strathxnan recommends withdrawing the resolution before him today and approval of the authority to conduct a substantial abatement at this property if necessary. The City Council will need the proper paperwork developed. If the City Council approves it, Mr. Morehead will have the authority to do more work at the property. Resolution 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. (Laid over from 9-25-01) (Mr. Magner submitted photographs.) Steve Magner reported this property was condemned in May 2000. It has been vacant since August 21, 2000. The current owners are Michael and Becky Ramstad. There ha�e been two sununary abatement notices for removing refuse. On Mazch 7, 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 March 19, 2001, with a compliance date of April 18. As of this date, this properry remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. Ta�cation Y�as placed an O�_11R� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINi7TES OF OCTOBER 16, 2001 Page 5 estimated mazket value of $20,000 on the land and $16,700 on the building. On August 30, 2001, a code compliance inspection was done. On April 13, 2001, the $2,000 bond was posted. Mr. Magner stated he contacted Don Wagner (License, Inspection, Environmental Protection), who indicated an inspector was sent to the properry yesterday and there was not enough work completed. Also, a plumbing and heating permit has not be pulled by a license contractor. There is no heat in this building. The owners will forfeit that bond as of today, and a new bond has not been posted. Mr. Strathxnan stated he received a phone call this morning from apparently the owner who requested this hearing be delayed so Mr. Wagner could look at the building. Obviously, that is not necessary. Mr. Magner responded the owners aze hying to say that they made sheet rock and painting repairs and that is more than 50°l0 of the work. Mr. Wagner's opinion is that is not the case. Gerry Strathman recommends approval of the resolufion. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 a.m. rrn CITIZEN SERVICE OFFICE Frut O�xrsu, City Clerk DNISION OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT Michael R Morehead, Program Manager CTTY OF SAIIVT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor September 21, 2001 SEP 2 8 20�� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARI�� TTO R IV EY Council President and Members of the City Council � Citizen Service Office, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings Enforcement Division has requested the City � Council schedule public hearings to consider a resolution ordering the repair or removal of the nuisazice building(s) located at: 667 Magnolia Avenue East The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearings'as follows: Legislative Hearing - Tuesday, October 16, 2001 City Council Hearing - Wednesday, November 7, 2001 The owners and responsible parties of record are: Name and Last Known Address Vicki Adams/Knight 1765 Donegal Drive Woodbury, MN 55126 Matrix Financial Services Corp. 201 W. Coolidge Street, #100 Phoenix, AZ 85013 = Loan � 1715341 American Accounts & Advisers Inc. 3904 Cedarvale Drive Eagan, MN 55122 The legal description of this properiy is: Nu'uance Building Code Enforcement IS W. Ke[[oggBlvd Rm 190 Tel: ¢5�-Z66-S140 SaintPaul,MN55102 F¢x:651-266-8426 a 1 -1��. I � ... Interest Fee Owner Mortgagee Judgment Creditor Lot 23, Block 4, Evans Addition to the City of Saint Paul. i�-�191 667 Magnolia Avenue East September 21, 2001 Pa�e 2 _., _ . Division of Code Enforcement has declared this buildin?(s) to constitute a"nuisance" as defined by Legislative Code, Chapter 45. Division of Code Enforcement has issued an order to the then laiown responsible parties to eliminate this nuisance condition by correcting the deficiencies or by razing and removing this building(s). Inasmuch as this Order to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition remains . unabated, the community continues to suffer the blighting influence of this property. It is the recommendation of the Division of Code Enforcement that the City Council pass a resolution ordering the responsible parties to either repair, or demolish and remove this building in a tunely manner, and failing that, anthorize the Division of Code Enforcement to proceed to demolition and removal, and to assess the costs incurred against the real estate as a special assessment to be collected in the same manner as taxes. 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 Desi� Meghan Riley, City Attomeys Office Nancy Anderson, Assistant Secretary to the Council Laurie Kaplan, PED-Housing Division ccnph � � � � P'd � : ` � � 3 +..� 1\ '.J l i �. e a�.—. Council File # pt — I�g9, / Green Sheet # �O� RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �� Referred To Presented By Committee: Date 1 WHEREAS, Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement has requested the City Council 2 to hold public hearings to consider the advisability and necessity of ordering the repair or wrecking and 3 removal of a two-story, wood frame, single family dwelling and the detached, two-stall, wood frame garage 4 located on property hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly known as 667 5 Magnolia Avenue East. This property is legally described as follows, to wit: 6 7 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 Lot 23, Block 4, Evans Addition to the Cityof Saint Paul. WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before June 12, 2001, the following aze the now known interested or responsible parties for the Subject Property:Vicki Adams/Knight, 1765 Donegal Drive, Woodbury, MN 55126; Matrix Financial Services Corp., 201 W. Coolidge Street, #100, Phoenix, AZ 85013, Loan # 1715341; American Accounts & Advisers Inc., 3904 Cedarvale Drive, Eagan, MN 55122 WHEREAS, Division of Code Enforcement has served in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code an order identified as an "Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s)" dated August 10, 2001; and WI�EREAS, this order informed the then known interested or responsible parties that the structure located on the Subject Properiy 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 September 10, 2001; and WHBREAS, 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 conected 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 Pau1 City Council; and WHEREAS, the interested and responsible parties have been served notice in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the time, date, place and purpose of the public hearings; and WHEREAS, a hearing was held befare the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City Council on Tuesday, October 16, 2001 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and 1 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City �� i �� 2 Council on Tuesday, October 16, 2001 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and 3 evidence, made the recommendation to approve the request to arder the interested or responsible parties to 4 make the Subject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfaze and 5 remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure in accordance with all 6 applicable codes and ordinances, or in the alternarive by demolishing and removing the siructure in 7 accordance with all appiicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to be 8 completed within five (5) days after the date of the Council Hearing; and 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 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, November 7, 2001 and the testimony and evidence including the action taken by the Legislative Hearing Officer was considered by the Council; now therefore BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the above referenced public hearings, the Saint Paul City Council hereby adopts the following Findings and Order concerning the Subject Property at 667 Magnolia Avenue East: 1. That the Subject Properry comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 45. 2. That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). 2. 3. That there now exists and has existed multiple Housing or Building code violations at the Subject Property. 4. That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then l�own responsible parties to correct the deficiencies or to demolish and remove the building(s). GQ 7 That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition haue not been corrected. That Division of Code Enforcement has posted a placard on the Subj ect Property which declares it to be a nuisance condition subject to demolition. That this building has been routinely monitored by the Citizen Service Offices, Division of Code Enforcement, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings. 8. That the known interested parties and owners are as previously stated in this resolution and that the notification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled. ORDER The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the following order: The above referenced interested or responsibie parties shall make the Subject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this shucture and correcting all deficiencies as prescribed in the above referenced Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition and removal of the structure must be completed within five (5) days after the date of the Council Hearing. If the above corrective action is not completed within this period of time the Citizen Service Office, < -� �, ° � a..' a . : _ � . � .`-'• � �� t � 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 o t_1t19. Division of Code Enforcement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps aze necessary to demolish and remove this structure, fill the site and charge the costs incurred against the Subject Property pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, ali personal property or 5xtures 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 ali 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. Requested by Department of: B 1 N�R�- Adopted by Council: Date ��.� a.00 � � r Adoption Certified by Council Secretary BY� � �� (� �-.� -,-- � Approved by Mayor: Date "� 9 �� g <� lC�////,�� `C +��w- �� Form Approved by City Attomey By: Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council , By: ' Division of Code Enforcement �T.'�Y�i'] November 7, 2001 TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE a�� o9izvoi GREEN SHEET � 0 1 �11�q No102355 m.�.o. � � m..� ❑ m„� o ,�.�.� ❑..�,� wvde WRNmrwrn _,��❑ L_ (CL1P ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) City Council to pass this resolution which will order the owner(s) to remove or repair � 1 . If the owner fails to comply with the resolurion, the Citizen Service Office, Division of o n is d to remove the building. The subject property is located at 667 Magnolia Avenue East. SEP 2 8 2��r � � ' i �' ' PLANNING CAMMISSION CIB COMMITTEE CML SERVICE CAMMISSION r� m� ce�� . �a ��. a� raa� a�re��n rES rio tms mis ce� ever heen a aly empbyee? , YES NO Ocec fhis P�rm popees a sldl nut mmalHP�eeeU EY �Y curteM ciry emPbY�? YES NQ Ic�hisP��rmalarge[edvendoYt . YES NO This building(s) is a nuisance building(s) as defined in Chapter 45 and a vacant building as defned in Chapter 43 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. The owners, interested parties and responsible parties known to the Enforcement Officer were given, an order,to repair or remove the building at 667 Magnolia Avenue East by September 10, 2001; and have failed to comply with those orders. The Ciry 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 a�ainst the nronertv taaces. A nuisance condition will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to blight the community. oFrwwsacnw+t � �>vvv - ,no,vvv \ .1 ' • � � �. "1�"1 iNFOrtAanow (ocxaM COET/REVENUEBUO6EfED(GRCLEONE! � NC _.'___ _ ' _' _ ACTIVfTYNUMBER ��L�l� •" � _ _ ��d;�3 4"�RtEf #I ; ": ' }i' , , a: �. � , ..__� : , � ............... � •�-\�1t REPORT Date: October 16, 2001 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Room 330 City Hall 15 VJest Kellogg Boulevazd LEGISLATIVE HEARING Gerry Strathman Legislative Hearing Officer Appeal of summary abatement order for 697 Surrev Avenue. (City Counci] referred ttris matter back to the Legislafive Hearing Officer.) Legislative Hearing Officer recommends denying the appeal. 2. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 393 Sidney Street East. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Laid over from 10-2-01) Legislative Heazing 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 October 24, 2001. � 3. Resolufion ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 667 Maenolia Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval of the resolution. 4. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 299 Arlin�ton Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends withdrawing the resolufion. 5. Resolution 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 buiiding. (Laid over from 9-25-01) Legislafive Hearing Officer recommends approval of the resolution. 0 MINLJTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING 6 �� , �� Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Room 330 City Hall Gerry Sirathman, Legislative Hearing Officer STAFF PRESENT: Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Mike Morehead, Code Enfarcement The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. Appeal of summary abatement order for 697 Surrey Avenue. (City Council referred this matter back to the Legislative Hearing Officer.) Gerry Strathman stated this is an appeal of an order issued to Sharon Anderson in September. The order was to remove improperly stored refuse, cut and remove tall grass, weeds, rank plant growth, and remove portion of fence. Ms. Anderson filed an appeal and the City Council sent this matter back to Mr. Strathman for a recommendation. Bill Dahn, 240 Baker Street East, representing Shazon Anderson, appeared and stated he does not know where the City got the list of items on the summary abatement arder. Mr. Strathman asked are there tall weeds and grass. Mr. Dahn responded no. If there are, they have grown since he was there. He supports the paperwork that Sharon Anderson has submitted. The last time she was before the City Council, they did not have the paperwork. She wants to lrnow who are the complaining parties. Under state law, responded Mr. Strathinan, the City is prohibited from disclosing the complainants. Mr. Strathman stated he needs some evidence that the order is improper, for example, photographs showing there aze no tall weeds, videotape, etc. Mr. Dahn responded he does not have anything with him at this time. The $250 for this assessment is too high and even attomeys do not make that much. It seems he and Ms. Anderson are being hazassed and harassment is a bigger chazge than tall weeds. Mr. Strathman asked are there any photographs showing the properiy. Steve Magner responded it would be best to have Mr. Dahn or the owner meet with the enforcement officer ar the supervisor at the location so they can go over the issues because Mr. Magner does not have photographs. In order to grant the appeal, stated Mr. Strathman, he would need some evidence to show the property is cleaned up, and he does not have that. Mr. Dahn responded that Mr. Strathtnan also does not have any evidence showing it is bad. Gerry Strathman recommends denying the appeal. He suggested Mr. Dahn or Ms. Anderson make arrangements for the supervisor and inspector to look at the properiy. If they look at the properiy and find there is no reason for this order, then they will withdraw the order and the matter will be closed. This matter will go before the City Council. Mr. Dahn responded Ms. Anderson wants it to go before the City Council. �-1 �91 LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINI JTES OF OCTOBER 16, 2001 Page 2 Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the properiy at 393 Sidney Street East. If the owner faiLs to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Laid over from 10-2-01) (Steve Magner submitted photographs.) Steve Magner stated this has been laid over twice. The property was suppose to have gone through a closing, and the new owners were suppose to post a bond. A code compliance inspection has been done, but the bond and closing have not occurred. They may be trying to haue these things done by the City Council meeting on October 24. Gerry Strathman recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rek�abilitation of the property on condition that a$2,000 bond is posted by noon of October 24, 2001. Mr. Magner stated he will notify George Borer, the attorney. � Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 667 Magnolia Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Steve Magner submitted photographs.) Steve Magner stated this properiy has been vacant since December 5, 2000. The current owner is Vicki Adams, also Irnown as Vicki Knight. Six suminary abatement notices were issued to secure doors, cut tall grass, remove refuse, remove snow and ice, and abate vehicles. On August 2, 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 10, 2001, with a compliance date of September 10. As of this date, the property remains in a condifion which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. The vacant building fees aze due. Real estate taxes are paid. T�ation has estimated the market value of the land as $12,200; estimated mazket value of the building prior to the fire, $47,900. A code compliance inspection nor bond have been applied for. Demolition is between $7,000 and $8,000. The owner has contacted Code Enforcement. Her last ca11 to the area inspector was that she was not going to fight the demolition of the building. Gerry Strathman recommends approved the resolution based on Mr. Magner's testimony and the fact that the owner is not here to represent the property. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 299 Arlington Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. The following appeared: Marjorie Frahs (owner Richard Spreigl's niece) and Reneya Mayberry (Ms. Frahs' niece and Mr. Spreigl's great niece). Mike Morehead reported this property has a long history. Many yeazs ago when Highway 35 was run through, this family was relocated by the state. The City granted the new location a nonconforming use status. This property was used as a landscaping business. The business went d�-t199 LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINLJTES OF OCTOBER 16, 2001 Page 3 defunct a few yeazs ago. Landscaping equipment itexns were left to accumulate on the property so long that trees were growing through the tires. A number of buildings on the properiy fell down from lack of uiaiutenance. It was determined that the properly was not used for commercial purposes; therefore, it reverted to residential zoning status. At that point, all the miscellaneous materials on the property were no longer fit for residential applications. Last year, stated Mr. Morehead, Code Enforcement started dealing with the Spreigl family. The principle owner Richard is elderly and has not been able to accomplish the cleanup. Code Enforcement issued orders and gaue the owners a deadline to get the properry cleaned up. The owners were not able to get rid of the big equipment. The City brought in a lazge abatement crew. They were 1'united to $3,000, which is the summary abatement limit, but they ran up a bill of $3,500. Mr. Marehead stated he knows he cannot assess that much; therefore, he will assess $3,000. Seventy-Five percent of the problems were eliminated. Mr. Marehead went on to say he started the paperwork to e�end the abatement work beyond the $3,000 limit. That paperwork will not be on the City Council agenda until November. The owners have until eazly November to finish cleaning up the property. The owners have been given verbal orders and Code Enforcement is going to follow up this week with formal written orders. With the bulk of the big stuff removed, it is possible the family can clean up the little stuf£ The $3,000 assessed greatly improved the value of their land. Gerry Strathman stated the order before him today is a resolurion to remove or repair the property. Steve Magner responded there were two or three accessory structures, numerous vehicles, metal machinery, and other related items that were there. Mr. Morehead stated the buildings aze gone, but the remnants and things underneath the building are still sticking up. Mr. Strathman asked what Code Enforcement is seeking today. Mr. Morehead responded before he can do a substanfial abatement, owners of the property aze to appear before Mr. Strathman. Code Enforcement wants Mr. Strathman to determine that the need to finish up this abatement is proper. Mr. Morehead needs a recommendation from Mr. Strathman that if the properiy is not cleaned up by November 7 or 8, then Code Enforcement can finish it. Therefore, he needs authority from the City Council to levy more than a$3,000 lien on the properry. Code Enforcement is continuing to work with this family. What is left is light work; the heavy stuff has been taken out. By the time the City Council heazs this matter, there is a good chance it will be cleaned up. This is just an insurance policy that if they cannot get it done, Code Enforcement will finish the job so the file can be closed. Mr. Strathxnan stated the paperwork before him is for removai of buildings that have already been removed. Regazdless of the paperwork, what is being discussed here is an order to conduct a substantial abatement at this property if the owners do not clean up the property by a specified date. When they originally looked at this property, stated Mr. Magner, to do the cleanup would have been beyond $10,000, which included the buildings. Since the owners have removed some of the buildings or broken down the buildings, Code Enforcement has removed them under the standazd sununary abatement. What is primarily left is to clean up the site, grade it, seed it, and o �_ ��. LEGISLATIVE HEAFtING MINLJTES OF OCTOBER 16, 2001 Page 4 straw it until it grows. If the owners can accomplish that task, Code Enforcement would not spend any more money there. What is really being asked, stated Mr. Strathman, is approval by the City Council to do a substaufial abatement at this properry if the owners have not taken care of it prior to October 24. Mr. Magner added that after the Mayor signs it, it would probably be the first week of November before they could send someone out to finish the work on the property. Mr. Morehead stated the big deadline is winter. If the owners can make substantial progress, he will let them finish it. Ms. Frahs stated they took photographs. There is some brush that has to be cleazed behind the house. There is a little patch in the middle of the property. There are some trees that have to come down. Along the fence, dirt that has to be brought down to grade. They fixed the hole in the gazage. Mr. Morehead responded they do not have to take the trees down. Next to the base of the trees is a hole with items sticking out of the ground. The items are considered hazardous waste. Anyone that hauls these items out has to be informed of this. (Ms. Frahs showed photographs to everyone.) Mr. Strathman asked are they alright with what Mr. Morehead wants to do. Ms. Frahs responded yes, but was concerned about liens on the house. Mr. Magner responded assessments can go on the t�es. There can be another hearing when the family gets the assessment or Taxation can be called and asked to space it out. All tases and assessments haue to be paid before a property is sold. Gerry Strathxnan recommends withdrawing the resolution before him today and approval of the authority to conduct a substantial abatement at this property if necessary. The City Council will need the proper paperwork developed. If the City Council approves it, Mr. Morehead will have the authority to do more work at the property. Resolution 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. (Laid over from 9-25-01) (Mr. Magner submitted photographs.) Steve Magner reported this property was condemned in May 2000. It has been vacant since August 21, 2000. The current owners are Michael and Becky Ramstad. There ha�e been two sununary abatement notices for removing refuse. On Mazch 7, 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 March 19, 2001, with a compliance date of April 18. As of this date, this properry remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. Ta�cation Y�as placed an O�_11R� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINi7TES OF OCTOBER 16, 2001 Page 5 estimated mazket value of $20,000 on the land and $16,700 on the building. On August 30, 2001, a code compliance inspection was done. On April 13, 2001, the $2,000 bond was posted. Mr. Magner stated he contacted Don Wagner (License, Inspection, Environmental Protection), who indicated an inspector was sent to the properry yesterday and there was not enough work completed. Also, a plumbing and heating permit has not be pulled by a license contractor. There is no heat in this building. The owners will forfeit that bond as of today, and a new bond has not been posted. Mr. Strathxnan stated he received a phone call this morning from apparently the owner who requested this hearing be delayed so Mr. Wagner could look at the building. Obviously, that is not necessary. Mr. Magner responded the owners aze hying to say that they made sheet rock and painting repairs and that is more than 50°l0 of the work. Mr. Wagner's opinion is that is not the case. Gerry Strathman recommends approval of the resolufion. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 a.m. rrn CITIZEN SERVICE OFFICE Frut O�xrsu, City Clerk DNISION OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT Michael R Morehead, Program Manager CTTY OF SAIIVT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor September 21, 2001 SEP 2 8 20�� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARI�� TTO R IV EY Council President and Members of the City Council � Citizen Service Office, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings Enforcement Division has requested the City � Council schedule public hearings to consider a resolution ordering the repair or removal of the nuisazice building(s) located at: 667 Magnolia Avenue East The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearings'as follows: Legislative Hearing - Tuesday, October 16, 2001 City Council Hearing - Wednesday, November 7, 2001 The owners and responsible parties of record are: Name and Last Known Address Vicki Adams/Knight 1765 Donegal Drive Woodbury, MN 55126 Matrix Financial Services Corp. 201 W. Coolidge Street, #100 Phoenix, AZ 85013 = Loan � 1715341 American Accounts & Advisers Inc. 3904 Cedarvale Drive Eagan, MN 55122 The legal description of this properiy is: Nu'uance Building Code Enforcement IS W. Ke[[oggBlvd Rm 190 Tel: ¢5�-Z66-S140 SaintPaul,MN55102 F¢x:651-266-8426 a 1 -1��. I � ... Interest Fee Owner Mortgagee Judgment Creditor Lot 23, Block 4, Evans Addition to the City of Saint Paul. i�-�191 667 Magnolia Avenue East September 21, 2001 Pa�e 2 _., _ . Division of Code Enforcement has declared this buildin?(s) to constitute a"nuisance" as defined by Legislative Code, Chapter 45. Division of Code Enforcement has issued an order to the then laiown responsible parties to eliminate this nuisance condition by correcting the deficiencies or by razing and removing this building(s). Inasmuch as this Order to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition remains . unabated, the community continues to suffer the blighting influence of this property. It is the recommendation of the Division of Code Enforcement that the City Council pass a resolution ordering the responsible parties to either repair, or demolish and remove this building in a tunely manner, and failing that, anthorize the Division of Code Enforcement to proceed to demolition and removal, and to assess the costs incurred against the real estate as a special assessment to be collected in the same manner as taxes. 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 Desi� Meghan Riley, City Attomeys Office Nancy Anderson, Assistant Secretary to the Council Laurie Kaplan, PED-Housing Division ccnph � � � � P'd � : ` � � 3 +..� 1\ '.J l i �. e a�.—. Council File # pt — I�g9, / Green Sheet # �O� RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �� Referred To Presented By Committee: Date 1 WHEREAS, Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement has requested the City Council 2 to hold public hearings to consider the advisability and necessity of ordering the repair or wrecking and 3 removal of a two-story, wood frame, single family dwelling and the detached, two-stall, wood frame garage 4 located on property hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly known as 667 5 Magnolia Avenue East. This property is legally described as follows, to wit: 6 7 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 Lot 23, Block 4, Evans Addition to the Cityof Saint Paul. WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before June 12, 2001, the following aze the now known interested or responsible parties for the Subject Property:Vicki Adams/Knight, 1765 Donegal Drive, Woodbury, MN 55126; Matrix Financial Services Corp., 201 W. Coolidge Street, #100, Phoenix, AZ 85013, Loan # 1715341; American Accounts & Advisers Inc., 3904 Cedarvale Drive, Eagan, MN 55122 WHEREAS, Division of Code Enforcement has served in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code an order identified as an "Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s)" dated August 10, 2001; and WI�EREAS, this order informed the then known interested or responsible parties that the structure located on the Subject Properiy 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 September 10, 2001; and WHBREAS, 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 conected 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 Pau1 City Council; and WHEREAS, the interested and responsible parties have been served notice in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the time, date, place and purpose of the public hearings; and WHEREAS, a hearing was held befare the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City Council on Tuesday, October 16, 2001 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and 1 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City �� i �� 2 Council on Tuesday, October 16, 2001 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and 3 evidence, made the recommendation to approve the request to arder the interested or responsible parties to 4 make the Subject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfaze and 5 remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure in accordance with all 6 applicable codes and ordinances, or in the alternarive by demolishing and removing the siructure in 7 accordance with all appiicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to be 8 completed within five (5) days after the date of the Council Hearing; and 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 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, November 7, 2001 and the testimony and evidence including the action taken by the Legislative Hearing Officer was considered by the Council; now therefore BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the above referenced public hearings, the Saint Paul City Council hereby adopts the following Findings and Order concerning the Subject Property at 667 Magnolia Avenue East: 1. That the Subject Properry comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 45. 2. That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). 2. 3. That there now exists and has existed multiple Housing or Building code violations at the Subject Property. 4. That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then l�own responsible parties to correct the deficiencies or to demolish and remove the building(s). GQ 7 That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition haue not been corrected. That Division of Code Enforcement has posted a placard on the Subj ect Property which declares it to be a nuisance condition subject to demolition. That this building has been routinely monitored by the Citizen Service Offices, Division of Code Enforcement, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings. 8. That the known interested parties and owners are as previously stated in this resolution and that the notification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled. ORDER The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the following order: The above referenced interested or responsibie parties shall make the Subject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this shucture and correcting all deficiencies as prescribed in the above referenced Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition and removal of the structure must be completed within five (5) days after the date of the Council Hearing. If the above corrective action is not completed within this period of time the Citizen Service Office, < -� �, ° � a..' a . : _ � . � .`-'• � �� t � 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 o t_1t19. Division of Code Enforcement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps aze necessary to demolish and remove this structure, fill the site and charge the costs incurred against the Subject Property pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, ali personal property or 5xtures 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 ali 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. Requested by Department of: B 1 N�R�- Adopted by Council: Date ��.� a.00 � � r Adoption Certified by Council Secretary BY� � �� (� �-.� -,-- � Approved by Mayor: Date "� 9 �� g <� lC�////,�� `C +��w- �� Form Approved by City Attomey By: Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council , By: ' Division of Code Enforcement �T.'�Y�i'] November 7, 2001 TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE a�� o9izvoi GREEN SHEET � 0 1 �11�q No102355 m.�.o. � � m..� ❑ m„� o ,�.�.� ❑..�,� wvde WRNmrwrn _,��❑ L_ (CL1P ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) City Council to pass this resolution which will order the owner(s) to remove or repair � 1 . If the owner fails to comply with the resolurion, the Citizen Service Office, Division of o n is d to remove the building. The subject property is located at 667 Magnolia Avenue East. SEP 2 8 2��r � � ' i �' ' PLANNING CAMMISSION CIB COMMITTEE CML SERVICE CAMMISSION r� m� ce�� . �a ��. a� raa� a�re��n rES rio tms mis ce� ever heen a aly empbyee? , YES NO Ocec fhis P�rm popees a sldl nut mmalHP�eeeU EY �Y curteM ciry emPbY�? YES NQ Ic�hisP��rmalarge[edvendoYt . YES NO This building(s) is a nuisance building(s) as defined in Chapter 45 and a vacant building as defned in Chapter 43 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. The owners, interested parties and responsible parties known to the Enforcement Officer were given, an order,to repair or remove the building at 667 Magnolia Avenue East by September 10, 2001; and have failed to comply with those orders. The Ciry 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 a�ainst the nronertv taaces. A nuisance condition will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to blight the community. oFrwwsacnw+t � �>vvv - ,no,vvv \ .1 ' • � � �. "1�"1 iNFOrtAanow (ocxaM COET/REVENUEBUO6EfED(GRCLEONE! � NC _.'___ _ ' _' _ ACTIVfTYNUMBER ��L�l� •" � _ _ ��d;�3 4"�RtEf #I ; ": ' }i' , , a: �. � , ..__� : , � ............... � •�-\�1t REPORT Date: October 16, 2001 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Room 330 City Hall 15 VJest Kellogg Boulevazd LEGISLATIVE HEARING Gerry Strathman Legislative Hearing Officer Appeal of summary abatement order for 697 Surrev Avenue. (City Counci] referred ttris matter back to the Legislafive Hearing Officer.) Legislative Hearing Officer recommends denying the appeal. 2. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 393 Sidney Street East. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Laid over from 10-2-01) Legislative Heazing 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 October 24, 2001. � 3. Resolufion ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 667 Maenolia Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval of the resolution. 4. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 299 Arlin�ton Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends withdrawing the resolufion. 5. Resolution 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 buiiding. (Laid over from 9-25-01) Legislafive Hearing Officer recommends approval of the resolution. 0 MINLJTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING 6 �� , �� Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Room 330 City Hall Gerry Sirathman, Legislative Hearing Officer STAFF PRESENT: Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Mike Morehead, Code Enfarcement The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. Appeal of summary abatement order for 697 Surrey Avenue. (City Council referred this matter back to the Legislative Hearing Officer.) Gerry Strathman stated this is an appeal of an order issued to Sharon Anderson in September. The order was to remove improperly stored refuse, cut and remove tall grass, weeds, rank plant growth, and remove portion of fence. Ms. Anderson filed an appeal and the City Council sent this matter back to Mr. Strathman for a recommendation. Bill Dahn, 240 Baker Street East, representing Shazon Anderson, appeared and stated he does not know where the City got the list of items on the summary abatement arder. Mr. Strathman asked are there tall weeds and grass. Mr. Dahn responded no. If there are, they have grown since he was there. He supports the paperwork that Sharon Anderson has submitted. The last time she was before the City Council, they did not have the paperwork. She wants to lrnow who are the complaining parties. Under state law, responded Mr. Strathinan, the City is prohibited from disclosing the complainants. Mr. Strathman stated he needs some evidence that the order is improper, for example, photographs showing there aze no tall weeds, videotape, etc. Mr. Dahn responded he does not have anything with him at this time. The $250 for this assessment is too high and even attomeys do not make that much. It seems he and Ms. Anderson are being hazassed and harassment is a bigger chazge than tall weeds. Mr. Strathman asked are there any photographs showing the properiy. Steve Magner responded it would be best to have Mr. Dahn or the owner meet with the enforcement officer ar the supervisor at the location so they can go over the issues because Mr. Magner does not have photographs. In order to grant the appeal, stated Mr. Strathman, he would need some evidence to show the property is cleaned up, and he does not have that. Mr. Dahn responded that Mr. Strathtnan also does not have any evidence showing it is bad. Gerry Strathman recommends denying the appeal. He suggested Mr. Dahn or Ms. Anderson make arrangements for the supervisor and inspector to look at the properiy. If they look at the properiy and find there is no reason for this order, then they will withdraw the order and the matter will be closed. This matter will go before the City Council. Mr. Dahn responded Ms. Anderson wants it to go before the City Council. �-1 �91 LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINI JTES OF OCTOBER 16, 2001 Page 2 Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the properiy at 393 Sidney Street East. If the owner faiLs to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Laid over from 10-2-01) (Steve Magner submitted photographs.) Steve Magner stated this has been laid over twice. The property was suppose to have gone through a closing, and the new owners were suppose to post a bond. A code compliance inspection has been done, but the bond and closing have not occurred. They may be trying to haue these things done by the City Council meeting on October 24. Gerry Strathman recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rek�abilitation of the property on condition that a$2,000 bond is posted by noon of October 24, 2001. Mr. Magner stated he will notify George Borer, the attorney. � Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 667 Magnolia Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Steve Magner submitted photographs.) Steve Magner stated this properiy has been vacant since December 5, 2000. The current owner is Vicki Adams, also Irnown as Vicki Knight. Six suminary abatement notices were issued to secure doors, cut tall grass, remove refuse, remove snow and ice, and abate vehicles. On August 2, 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 10, 2001, with a compliance date of September 10. As of this date, the property remains in a condifion which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. The vacant building fees aze due. Real estate taxes are paid. T�ation has estimated the market value of the land as $12,200; estimated mazket value of the building prior to the fire, $47,900. A code compliance inspection nor bond have been applied for. Demolition is between $7,000 and $8,000. The owner has contacted Code Enforcement. Her last ca11 to the area inspector was that she was not going to fight the demolition of the building. Gerry Strathman recommends approved the resolution based on Mr. Magner's testimony and the fact that the owner is not here to represent the property. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 299 Arlington Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. The following appeared: Marjorie Frahs (owner Richard Spreigl's niece) and Reneya Mayberry (Ms. Frahs' niece and Mr. Spreigl's great niece). Mike Morehead reported this property has a long history. Many yeazs ago when Highway 35 was run through, this family was relocated by the state. The City granted the new location a nonconforming use status. This property was used as a landscaping business. The business went d�-t199 LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINLJTES OF OCTOBER 16, 2001 Page 3 defunct a few yeazs ago. Landscaping equipment itexns were left to accumulate on the property so long that trees were growing through the tires. A number of buildings on the properiy fell down from lack of uiaiutenance. It was determined that the properly was not used for commercial purposes; therefore, it reverted to residential zoning status. At that point, all the miscellaneous materials on the property were no longer fit for residential applications. Last year, stated Mr. Morehead, Code Enforcement started dealing with the Spreigl family. The principle owner Richard is elderly and has not been able to accomplish the cleanup. Code Enforcement issued orders and gaue the owners a deadline to get the properry cleaned up. The owners were not able to get rid of the big equipment. The City brought in a lazge abatement crew. They were 1'united to $3,000, which is the summary abatement limit, but they ran up a bill of $3,500. Mr. Marehead stated he knows he cannot assess that much; therefore, he will assess $3,000. Seventy-Five percent of the problems were eliminated. Mr. Marehead went on to say he started the paperwork to e�end the abatement work beyond the $3,000 limit. That paperwork will not be on the City Council agenda until November. The owners have until eazly November to finish cleaning up the property. The owners have been given verbal orders and Code Enforcement is going to follow up this week with formal written orders. With the bulk of the big stuff removed, it is possible the family can clean up the little stuf£ The $3,000 assessed greatly improved the value of their land. Gerry Strathman stated the order before him today is a resolurion to remove or repair the property. Steve Magner responded there were two or three accessory structures, numerous vehicles, metal machinery, and other related items that were there. Mr. Morehead stated the buildings aze gone, but the remnants and things underneath the building are still sticking up. Mr. Strathman asked what Code Enforcement is seeking today. Mr. Morehead responded before he can do a substanfial abatement, owners of the property aze to appear before Mr. Strathman. Code Enforcement wants Mr. Strathman to determine that the need to finish up this abatement is proper. Mr. Morehead needs a recommendation from Mr. Strathman that if the properiy is not cleaned up by November 7 or 8, then Code Enforcement can finish it. Therefore, he needs authority from the City Council to levy more than a$3,000 lien on the properry. Code Enforcement is continuing to work with this family. What is left is light work; the heavy stuff has been taken out. By the time the City Council heazs this matter, there is a good chance it will be cleaned up. This is just an insurance policy that if they cannot get it done, Code Enforcement will finish the job so the file can be closed. Mr. Strathxnan stated the paperwork before him is for removai of buildings that have already been removed. Regazdless of the paperwork, what is being discussed here is an order to conduct a substantial abatement at this property if the owners do not clean up the property by a specified date. When they originally looked at this property, stated Mr. Magner, to do the cleanup would have been beyond $10,000, which included the buildings. Since the owners have removed some of the buildings or broken down the buildings, Code Enforcement has removed them under the standazd sununary abatement. What is primarily left is to clean up the site, grade it, seed it, and o �_ ��. LEGISLATIVE HEAFtING MINLJTES OF OCTOBER 16, 2001 Page 4 straw it until it grows. If the owners can accomplish that task, Code Enforcement would not spend any more money there. What is really being asked, stated Mr. Strathman, is approval by the City Council to do a substaufial abatement at this properry if the owners have not taken care of it prior to October 24. Mr. Magner added that after the Mayor signs it, it would probably be the first week of November before they could send someone out to finish the work on the property. Mr. Morehead stated the big deadline is winter. If the owners can make substantial progress, he will let them finish it. Ms. Frahs stated they took photographs. There is some brush that has to be cleazed behind the house. There is a little patch in the middle of the property. There are some trees that have to come down. Along the fence, dirt that has to be brought down to grade. They fixed the hole in the gazage. Mr. Morehead responded they do not have to take the trees down. Next to the base of the trees is a hole with items sticking out of the ground. The items are considered hazardous waste. Anyone that hauls these items out has to be informed of this. (Ms. Frahs showed photographs to everyone.) Mr. Strathman asked are they alright with what Mr. Morehead wants to do. Ms. Frahs responded yes, but was concerned about liens on the house. Mr. Magner responded assessments can go on the t�es. There can be another hearing when the family gets the assessment or Taxation can be called and asked to space it out. All tases and assessments haue to be paid before a property is sold. Gerry Strathxnan recommends withdrawing the resolution before him today and approval of the authority to conduct a substantial abatement at this property if necessary. The City Council will need the proper paperwork developed. If the City Council approves it, Mr. Morehead will have the authority to do more work at the property. Resolution 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. (Laid over from 9-25-01) (Mr. Magner submitted photographs.) Steve Magner reported this property was condemned in May 2000. It has been vacant since August 21, 2000. The current owners are Michael and Becky Ramstad. There ha�e been two sununary abatement notices for removing refuse. On Mazch 7, 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 March 19, 2001, with a compliance date of April 18. As of this date, this properry remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. Ta�cation Y�as placed an O�_11R� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINi7TES OF OCTOBER 16, 2001 Page 5 estimated mazket value of $20,000 on the land and $16,700 on the building. On August 30, 2001, a code compliance inspection was done. On April 13, 2001, the $2,000 bond was posted. Mr. Magner stated he contacted Don Wagner (License, Inspection, Environmental Protection), who indicated an inspector was sent to the properry yesterday and there was not enough work completed. Also, a plumbing and heating permit has not be pulled by a license contractor. There is no heat in this building. The owners will forfeit that bond as of today, and a new bond has not been posted. Mr. Strathxnan stated he received a phone call this morning from apparently the owner who requested this hearing be delayed so Mr. Wagner could look at the building. Obviously, that is not necessary. Mr. Magner responded the owners aze hying to say that they made sheet rock and painting repairs and that is more than 50°l0 of the work. Mr. Wagner's opinion is that is not the case. Gerry Strathman recommends approval of the resolufion. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 a.m. rrn CITIZEN SERVICE OFFICE Frut O�xrsu, City Clerk DNISION OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT Michael R Morehead, Program Manager CTTY OF SAIIVT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor September 21, 2001 SEP 2 8 20�� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARI�� TTO R IV EY Council President and Members of the City Council � Citizen Service Office, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings Enforcement Division has requested the City � Council schedule public hearings to consider a resolution ordering the repair or removal of the nuisazice building(s) located at: 667 Magnolia Avenue East The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearings'as follows: Legislative Hearing - Tuesday, October 16, 2001 City Council Hearing - Wednesday, November 7, 2001 The owners and responsible parties of record are: Name and Last Known Address Vicki Adams/Knight 1765 Donegal Drive Woodbury, MN 55126 Matrix Financial Services Corp. 201 W. Coolidge Street, #100 Phoenix, AZ 85013 = Loan � 1715341 American Accounts & Advisers Inc. 3904 Cedarvale Drive Eagan, MN 55122 The legal description of this properiy is: Nu'uance Building Code Enforcement IS W. Ke[[oggBlvd Rm 190 Tel: ¢5�-Z66-S140 SaintPaul,MN55102 F¢x:651-266-8426 a 1 -1��. I � ... Interest Fee Owner Mortgagee Judgment Creditor Lot 23, Block 4, Evans Addition to the City of Saint Paul. i�-�191 667 Magnolia Avenue East September 21, 2001 Pa�e 2 _., _ . Division of Code Enforcement has declared this buildin?(s) to constitute a"nuisance" as defined by Legislative Code, Chapter 45. Division of Code Enforcement has issued an order to the then laiown responsible parties to eliminate this nuisance condition by correcting the deficiencies or by razing and removing this building(s). Inasmuch as this Order to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition remains . unabated, the community continues to suffer the blighting influence of this property. It is the recommendation of the Division of Code Enforcement that the City Council pass a resolution ordering the responsible parties to either repair, or demolish and remove this building in a tunely manner, and failing that, anthorize the Division of Code Enforcement to proceed to demolition and removal, and to assess the costs incurred against the real estate as a special assessment to be collected in the same manner as taxes. 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 Desi� Meghan Riley, City Attomeys Office Nancy Anderson, Assistant Secretary to the Council Laurie Kaplan, PED-Housing Division ccnph