The URL can be used to link to this page

96-1211 � a ;-�. � � �, � � �M�� D � �` � . � �� ' � i � '�' �° 9 �as �g�, Council File # ��o�� Green Sheet # �K RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �� Presented By Referred To Committee: Date 1 WHEREAS, Public Health has requested the City Council to hold public hearings to consider 2 the advisability and necessity of ordering the repair or wrecking and removal of a two-story, wood 3 frame dwelling located on property hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly 4 known as 955 Aurora Avenue. This property is legally described as follows, to wit: 5 6 Lot 22, Block 1, Slater & Rileys Addition. 7 8 WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and 9 information obtained by Public Health on or before May 30, 1996, the following are the now known 10 interested or responsible parties for the Subject Property: Raymond D. Rossini, 5353 Gamble Drive 11 #150, Mpls., MN 55416-1539; Twin Cities Habitat for Humaniry, 3001 SE 4th Street, Mpls., 12 55414; Aurora - St. Anthony NDC, 770 University Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55104, Attn: Frank; Lee 13 Gill & Gabrielle Higgins, 955 Aurora Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55104 Sprandl; Northern States 14 Power Company, 414 Nicollett Avenue, Mpls., MN 55401, Re: Judgment vs. Gabrielle Higgins; 15 Frank R. Faulhaber, 2845 Hamline Avenue North, Roseville, MN 55113, Re: Judgment vs. 16 Gabrielle Higgins. 17 18 19 WHEREAS, Public Health has served in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the 20 Saint Paul Legislative Code an order identified as an "Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s)" dated 21 June 14, 1996; and 22 23 WHEREAS, this order informed the then known interested or responsible parties that the 24 structure located on the Subject Property is a nuisance building(s) pursuant to Chapter 45; and 25 26 WHEREAS, this order informed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair or 27 demolish the structure located on the Subject Property by July 15, 1996; and 28 29 WHEREAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placard on the Subject Property declazing 30 this building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and 31 32 WHEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Public Health requested that 33 the City Clerk schedule public hearings before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the City Council 34 and the Saint Paul City Council; and 35 36 WHEREAS, the interested and responsible parties have been served notice in accordance 37 with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the time, date, place and 38 purpose of the public hearings; and 39 �_.,� ; . �. � �� p... � '. 4F �'4F%_.i � ��-1z��. 1 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City 2 Council on Tuesday, September 17, 1996 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving 3 testimony and evidence, made the recommendation to approve the request to order the interested or 4 responsible parties to make the Subject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, 5 safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this 6 structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances, or in the alternative by 7 demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. 8 The rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to be completed within-€i�eefr{}�-days after the 9 date of the Council Hearing; and �-��'v c.(S�� 10 11 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, 12 September 25, 1996 and the testimony and evidence including the action taken by the Legislative 13 Hearing Officer was considered by the Council; now therefore 14 15 BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the above 16 referenced public hearings, the Saint Paul Ciry Council hereby adopts the following Findings and 17 Order concerning the Subject Property at 955 Aurora Avenue: 18 19 1. That the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul 20 Legislative Code, Chapter 45. 21 22 2. That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed 23 three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). 24 25 3. That there now exists and has existed multiple Housing or Building code violations at 26 the Subject Property. 27 28 4. That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then known responsible 29 parties to correct the deficiencies or to demolish and remove the building(s). 30 31 5. That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition have not been corrected. 32 33 6. That Public Health has posted a placard on the Subject Property which declares it to 34 be a nuisance condition subject to demolition. 35 36 7. That this building has been routinely monitored by the Vacant/Nuisance Buildings 37 Code Enforcement Program. 38 39 8. That the known interested parties and owners are as previously stated in this 40 resolution and that the noti�cation requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled. 41 42 43 ORDER 44 45 The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the following order: 46 �( . ,� 4 �v�. . • . .. . r < � roo � ` 1 �1 • r 1 1. The above referenced interested or responsible parties shall make the Subject Property safe 2 and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting 3 influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure and correcting all deficiencies as 4 prescribed in the above referenced Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) in accordance with 5 all applicable codes and ordinances, or in the altemative by demolishing and removing the 6 structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or 7 demolition and removal of the structure must be completed within�ex-(�3}-days after the 8 date of the Council Hearing. -��v e-(.�� 9 10 2. If the above corrective action is not completed within this period of time the Public Health, 11 Code Enforcement Program is hereby authorized to take whatever steps are necessary to 12 demolish and remove this structure, fill the site and charge the costs incurred against the 13 Subject Property pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. 14 15 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all 16 personal property or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal 17 shall be removed from the property by the responsible parties by the end of this time period. 18 If all personal property is not removed, it shall be considered to be abandoned and the City 19 of Saint Paul shall remove and dispose of such property as provided by law. 20 21 4. It is further ordered, that a copy of this resolution be mailed to the owners and interested 22 parties in accordance with Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. Y� Navs Absent Requested by Department of: a e ostrom � uerin arris � e ar _J` �!`�LN`� G' ettman � une By' Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date � ;,,��,5��(�, Adoption Certified by Council Secretary gy: ^ „�� BY� � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council Approved by Ma or: D t q q` By: /G /�l,� <J��.�� By: � . q�� a�� Health o8=2 ,96"mA �REEN SHEET N_ 3 2 5 4 9 Char ea Vote 298-4153 o��ENTOnaecr��F��'�Di1� cmcouNCi� -�m�� M CITV MTORNEY CITY CLERK IL ( pp�� BUDQET DIRECTai �flN.a MOT.8ERVICEB WR. September 25, 1996 °"0!" �►�+t�+��s'��+*�T► ❑ TOTAL N OF SIONATURE PAQEg ' (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR 81GNATUR� AcraN�sreo: City Council to pase this resolution whfcti will order the owner(s) to remove or repair the referenced building(s) . If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Public Health is ordered to remove the building. The subject property is located at �55 Aurora Avenue. ��'��°'��R� PERSON/tL SERYICE CONTRACTS MUST ANiWER TMB FOLLOWINO QUEBTION=: �r+uwNq�O CorxrlS8i0N :�CrvI1.8ERVI6E c�BroN 1. Hae this pareonlNrm a�ror warked unde�e conaact fo►Mds d�� _pB COMMAITrEE � YES "NO 2. Has 1hb YEP�� NO r bssn a dty empbyss,F S EP 0 4 .1�6 —� — —��T��T — 3. Does this per�nMirm pos�eas s skiN not rarrtiaNY Poss�d bY a�Y�u►roM cNY e�s� BUPPOMR8 wMK�i I�UNC�oBJECTIVE9 YES NO � exp�a�n an y...�.w...oA..p.r.a.n..e.�a.ea�n�A��FF�Cf �iis u�'�ng e)• s a n°u�s�n�c��ui"�'�3ng(s) as defined in Chapter 45 and a vacant building as defined. in Chapter 43 of the Saint Paul Legielative Code. The owners, interested partiea and responsible partiea known to the Enforcement Officer w�ra given.an order to repair or remove the building at 955 Aurora Avenue by July 15, 1996, and have failed to comply with �hose orders. ,►�r,utr�s��nov�o: The City will eliminate a nuisance. cow,�a t��► r�rr REtEIV�D - 5EN �� r� . AUG 27 �� --- ��'ITY AfifflRNEY OISADVANTAOE8IF APPRONED: The City will spend funda to wreck and remove this building(s) . These costs will be asseased to the pmperty, collected as a_special assessment against the property taxea. 0�18AOAINiTA3E8 IF NQ�APPRONED: A nuisance condition will remain' unabated in the City. Thie building(s) will continue t� blight the community. $5,000 - $7,000 TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANlACTlON i COST/REYCNUE dt1D0ETE0(CIRCL@ ONE) YE NO Nuisance Housing Abatement 33261 FUNDINd�OURCE ACTIVITY NUM9ER FII�IAPICIAL INFORMATION:(EXPLAIN) NOTE: COMPLETE DIRECTIONS ARE INCIUDEIl fN'THE QREEM�uHEET IIOSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL AVAiIABLf IN THE PURCWI.SIN(3 C}FFICE(PHONE NO. _ ,��1• Rour�o aROea: ?� , . Below are comect roudngs for ths iive moM frequant types of documents: GONTRACTS(assumes authoNzed budpet exists) . COUNCIL RE90LUTlON(Mwnd Budp�WAco�pt.Gcr,Ms) . . _ , ._.. : . . _ L Outside Ayency . t Depa�rt�ent QirecOor � i 2. Department Directo� 2. &xipet Diroctor 3. Gy Attorney 3. Ciy AtEomey _ 4. Mayor(ta aonn6�Cts over 515,000) 4. MayarMssisiant ' a. Human Riqhts(for contrscls o�ret t50,000) 5. City Cair� 8. Flnance a�d Management$ervicea Director . . .6.. .Chief.A�qurr�tant.F�anae u�d ManepemeM_Servioes. , , 7.' Flnartce/icxounking ADMINISTRATIVE ORDEqS(Budget RevisMtt) COUNCIL RE30tUT10N(�ll ulhers,�!Qir�dhwioM)� � 1. Activity Manager � L Deputmen#ENroctor 2. Department Accountant 2. City Aqorney ' : 3. Department Oi►ector _ 3. .M�ror Aaa�tant 4. Budget Direetor 4. City Cout�il , 5. City Clerk � . , 6. Chief Accountant, Financs and Managsmsnt Ssrvices ADMINI3TRATtVE�RDERS(aH others) t. Department Director 2. Ciy Attomey 3. Finan�and Management Servk:es Director 4. Ciry Gerk TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNATURE PAGES Indicate ths#�oi pages on which signatures are requfred and papsrclip or�p s�ch of thess pp�s. ACTION REDUES'FED Osacribe.what ths pn�ject/request saeka to accompiish in eithsr ahronolopi- cal order or order oRNnporfan�,whichever is most sppropriate tor ths issue.Do not write c�omp�lsts aentences.Begin each Nem in your pst with a verb. • RECOMMENDATIONS � Complste if the lasue in questlon has been presented bstore any body,pubiic or private. ' SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? Indicate which Councll obl��)Y�f P�eeU►e4uest supports by Usting the key word(a)(HOUSIt�3.REGREATtOFt,NE1fiNBORHOODS,ECONOMIC DEVEl01'MENT, BUDGET,SEWER SEPAR�ITION).(SEE COMP�EtE LIST IN INSTRRUCTIONAL MANUAL.) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS: This intormatbn wiq be used to detsrmine the ciryh IiabNity lor wwkers compsnaatbn clai+ns,tax�a and propsr oivN s�rvics l�np ndss. INITtATIN(3 PROBLEM, ISSUE,OPPORTUNITY Expiain the situsUon or condiilons that created a n�ed tor your proJect w request. ADVANTACiES IF APPROYED • Indicate whether this is simply an annual budget procedure roquired by Isw/ charte�or whether there aro specNic ways in which tt�City of Saint Paul end ks citizens wlli beneflFfrom this proqeWactb�. DISADVANTAt3ES IF APPROVED What negaNw effecta or maJor changes to existing or past processes m�ht thia projecf/request produce ii it is pass�{e.g.,tralTNc delays,noise, tax increas�s or asasssments)?To Whom?1Nhen?For how long? DISADVANTAQES IF NOT APPROVED What wili be the negative ca�tsequences if the promised action is not approved?MeWliy to dellver aervlce?C,onti�usd hdgh traflic,rroise, accident rate4 Loss of revenue? FINANCtAL IkAPACT Altfrough you muat taiimr the information you provide here to the issueyou are,addreasing�in generei you mt�at answer two c�ee�tions:How much is ft , . going to cost?Who is g�ng to pay? • , SAINT PAUL PUBLIC HEALTH Neal Noltan, :tl.D., M.P.H., Director �� - 111�. CITY OF SAINT PAUL NG7SA�VCE BL7LD/NGS CODE 6/2-298-�t/53 Norin Coleman, Alnyor EN'FORCE,�IE.VT S.i.i Cedar Streel Saint Paul. �Ln"SSIO/-1260 � August 23, 1996 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Counc� R�►s��r�h Cert Council President and �� Members of the City Council p�� ,� �� Saint Paul Public Health, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings Enforcement Unit has�,�ec�,uested the '��tl y _ } Ty,µ,a City Council schedule public hearings to consider a resolution ordering the�repair or -�� ' removal of the nuisance building(s) located at: 955 Aurora Avenue The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearings as follows: Legislative Hearing - Tuesday, September 17, 1996 City Council Hearing - Wednesday, September 25, 1996 The owners and responsible parties of record are: Name and Last Known Address Intere'st Raymond D. Rossini Previous Fee Owner 5353 Gamble Drive #150 Mpls., NIN 55416-1539 Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity Interested Party 3001 SE 4th Street Mpls., 55414 - . . 0� ` . � a.�� 955 Aurora .Avenue August 23, 1996 Page 2 Name and Last Known Address Interest Aurora - St. Anthony NDC Fee Owner 770 University Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 Attn: Frank Sprandl Lee Gill & Gabrielle Higgins Contract for Deed Holder 955 Aurora Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 Northern States Power Company Judgment Creditor of Higgins 414 Nicollett Avenue Mpls., MN 55401 Re: Judgment vs. Gabrielle Higgins Frank R. Faulhaber Judgment Creditor of Higgins 2845 Hamline Avenue North Roseville, MN 55113 ' Re: Judgment vs. Gabrielle Higgins The legal description of this property is: Lot 22, Block 1, Slater & Rileys Addition. Saint Paul Public Health has declared this building(s) to constitute a "nuisance" as defined by Legislative Code, Chapter 45. Public Health has issued an order to the then known responsible parties to eliminate this nuisance condition by correcting the deficiencies or by razing and removing this building(s). �� 955 Aurora Avenue August 23, 1996 Page 3 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 Public Health 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 Public Health 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. Si rely, ��' �� n� �� Reneta Weiss Program Supervisor Vacant/Nuisance Building Unit Saint Paul Public Health RW:mI � cc: Jan Gasterland, Building Inspection and Design Philip Miller, City Attorneys Office Nancy Anderson, Assistant Secretary to the Council �Steve Zaccard, Fire Marshall Dan Pahl, PED-Housing Division . . �1 l��Z�� MINUTES OF LEGISLATIVE HEARING September 17, 1996 Room 330, City Hall Gerry Strathman, Legislative I3earing Officer STAFF PRESENT: Chuck Votel, Public Health; Guy Willits, Public Health; Roxanna Flink, Real Estate; Cathy Ries, Real Estate Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer, called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. 1. Resolutions ratifying assessment af benefits, costs and expenses for summary abatements for the following: J9609A--Property clean up for May through mid July, 1996 J9609TDBC--Property clean up for May through mid July, 1996 J9609B--Boarding up of vacant buildings for May, 1996 J9609C--Demolition of vacant buildings for June, 1996 J9610B--Boarding up of vacant buildings for June, 1996 J9610C--Demolition of vacant buildings for July, 1996 SSA9609--Repair of sanitary sewer connections by Public Works for 1995 323 Case Avenue Guy Willits, Public Health, reviewed the staff report and showed a video tape of the property. Paul Vogelgesang, property owner, appeared and stated that he had purchased the property on June 7, 1996. The previous owner had provided hun with a summary abatement notice to clean up the property which was dated June 5. He did not believe he was responsible for the assessment since the property had been cleaned up. Mr. Strattunan stated that the assessment for the property clean up was done on May 1, 1996 which was previous to the date that he had purchased the property. It was the previous owner's responsibility to disclose the pending assessment prior to or at the closing. Since the work had been done, he recommended approval of the assessment. He suggested that he seek reimbursement for the assessment from th�previous owner. 72 Concord Street Mr. Willits reviewed the staff report and presented pictures of the property. Thomas Lloyd, property owner, appeared and presented pictures as well as blue prints of the property. He contended that he had complied with the original orders issued on Apri130, 1996 to remove graffiti. The remaining graffiti was on the rear of the building and was not visible to anyone, yet not even a half of a block from his property, several buildings had graff'iti which still rernained. He believed he was selectively targeted by Public Health since they were not enforcing clean up of other graffiti in this neighborhood. When the inspector rechecked the property for gra�ti, he believed that new orders should have been issued. Chuck Votel, Public Health, reviewed the inspector's field notes. The order specifically stated to remove graffiti on the east and south walls of the building. The graffiti on the south wall had not been removed by the property owner so a work order was sent to have this graffiti removed. . qC� � ��Zl 1 Minutes of Legislative Hearing September 17, 1996 Page - 2 - Mr. Strathman stated that since the work had been done, he recommended approval and reducing the assessment to $100. Q97 Farring.�on Street Mr. Willits reviewed the staff report and showed a video tape of the property. Cherrie Martin, property owner, appeared and stated that she had hired someone to remove the refuse and they were in the process of cleaning out the garage when the City cleaned up the property. She stated that they had also removed new siding which was to be installed on the house. Mr. Strathman stated that the building was posted on May 10 and orders were mailed on May 13 to have the refuse removed by May 18, 1996. The City did not remove the refuse until May 23 and he believed that there had been adequate time to comply with the order. He recommended approval of the assessment. 218 ('�ndrich Avenue Jim Sazevich and Thomas DesLauriers, property owners, appeared. Mr. Sazevich stated that the lime rock sewer collapsed which ran from the house to the street. It was his contention that the City and/or State of Minnesota were negligent in reconstructing the sewer on Smith Avenue as high-charged blasting was done within a few feet from the sewer on Goodrich. He believed this blasting severely weakened the lime rock sewer and that the City should have been aware of the problem after the sidewalk in front of his property collapsed, however, they failed to explore the possible source of this collapse. When it was discovered that the sewer line had collapsed, the City contacted them and recommended that the line be repaired immediately. The City suggested a contractor, the only contractor qualified to do the work, and this contractor provided an estimate of $5,000 to $9,000 to repair the sewer. This contractor began the reconstruction and approximately half way through the project, increased the amount of the bill to over $20,000. The total amount, after reduction of engineering fees, was $18,039.35. They believed this was outrageous and that the City should be responsible for the damage that had been caused. Cecily Dewing, Public Works, stated that the contractor discovered that the drift, which goes from the property to the street, had collapsed and it was necessary to hand-dig a new drift and drill a new drill hole. They then had to reconnect the sewer from approximately 10 feet deep. She did not believe that the previous sewer work done on Smith Avenue had been the cause of this collapse. Mr. Strathman stated that this matter was more of a legal claim and he suggested that they either pursue this matter by filing a claim with the City Attorney's Office or pursue it through other court action. Since the work had been done, he recommended approval of the assessment. 1028 Lawson Avenue E. No one appeared; recommended approving the assessment. 116 Lawson Avenue W. No one appeared; recommended approving the assessment. q�- �2 � I Minutes of Legislative Hearing September 17, 1996 Page - 3 - 1254 Minnehaha Avenue W. • Mr. Willits reviewed the staff report. Brent Herman, property owner, appeared and stated that he did not dispute that the work had been done. Mr. Strathman recommended approval of the assessment. 1318 Minnehaha Avenue W. No one appeared; recommended approving the assessment. 329 Summit Avenue No one appeared; recommended approving the assessment. 846 Universitv Avenue W. Mr. Willits reviewed the staff report and showed a video of the properry. Fitzgerald Steele, property owner, appeared and stated that a tenant in the building was in the process of moving out and had left the refuse. He had made arrangements with his trash hauler to remove the refuse. He did not believe that there was a large amount of debris and that the cost to remove it by the City was too excessive. Mr. Strathman stated that the owner had 20 days from the date that the order was issued to the date the City cleaned up the property to remove the debris. Within that time, a trash hauler should have picked up the trash at least twice. He recommended approval and reducing the amount of the assessment to $140. 1759 York Avenue No one appeared; recomrnended approving the assessment. Mr. Willits recommended laying over the following properties to the October l, 1996 Legislative Hearing: 1129 E. Minnehaha and 328 Lexington Parkway. 2. Summary abatement appeal for 699 Blair Avenue; Jeff Gardner, property owner. Mr. VVillits stated that the work had been done, however, a record of the assessment was not available. Jeff Gardner, property owner, appeared and stated that the work had been done by the City, however, he failed to receive timely notice of the order. He presented a copy of the envelope which had been improperly addressed and he did not receive it until three days prior to the compliance date. He phoned the inspector and the inspector allowed him three additional days to clean up the property. He was unable to complete the clean up within three days and the City removed the refuse. Mr. Votel stated that the order to clean up the property had been posted and the inspector had talked to the owner indicating when the work needed to be completed. The owner failed to remove the debris and the City then cleaned up the property. g� - � z � ► Minutes of Legislative Hearing September 17, 1996 Page - 4 - Mr. Strathman stated that even though the envelope had been improperly addressed notifying the owner of the order, the City had contacted the owner and the work had been done. He recommended denying the appeal. 3. Summary abatement appeal for 459 Lafond Avenue; Ber Xiung, property owner. The matter was resolved prior to the hearing. 4. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the referenced building, located at 55 Aurora Avenue. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Public Health is ordered to remove the building. Mr. Votel reviewed the staff report. He had received communication from Ron Pauline, representing the Aurora St. Anthony Development Company, and it was their desire to have the building demolished. Mr. Votel recommended amending the order to have the building removed within five days. The property owner did not appear. Mr. Strathman recommended approval and amending the order to have the building removed within five days. 5. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the referenced building, located at � Butternut Street. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Pubtic Health is ordered to remove the building. Mr. Votel reviewed the staff report. The current owner of the properry was the Veteran's Administration and there had been no communication from them as to their intentions for the property. He noted that a code compliance inspection had been done on September 10, 1996. The estimated cost to repair the building was $30,000. � The property owner did not appear. A2r. Strathman recommended approval of the order to demolish. 6. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the referenced building, located at $� Jessamine Avenue. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Public Health is ordered to remove the building. NIr. Votel reviewed the staff report. The building was condemned in August, 1995 and had been vacant since that time. A code compliance inspection had been done in November, 1995 and a bond had been posted on November 17, 1995. That bond expired in May, 1996 since the project had not been completed and no new bond had been posted. Robert Liebman, attorney representing the property owner, Mark Babcock, appeared and stated that the owner had made $15,000 worth of repairs to the building. Tenants had done a significant amount of . q� - �z� � Minutes of I,egislative Hearing September 17, 1996 Page - 5 - . damage to the property and the owner warked with Public Health to have the property condemned in order to remove the tenants in August, 1995. Since that time, the owner had diligently worked at repairing the building. He did, however, suffer a family crisis during which time he was unable to devote time towards repairing the building. When the inspector met with the owner to discuss a timeline for completing the remaining work, the owner indicated that he believed he could have the wark completed within one month. When the work was not completed within that month, the inspector declared the property a nuisance. It was the property owner's intention to have one of the units completely repaired within 30 days and the second unit repaired within 90 days. Mr. Babcock, property owner, stated that he had never posted a $2,000 bond to make the repairs. Mr. Votel reviewed his records and stated that he had no record of a bond being posted. Mr. Strathman stated that if the $2,000 bond was posted and valid permits obtained by September 25, 1996, he would recommend the owner be given 90 days to complete the necessary repairs. 7. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the referenced building, located at 241. Payne Avenue. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Public FIealth is ordered to remove the building. Mr. Votel reviewed the staff report. The building had suffered major fire damage and it was the neighborhoods desire to have the building removed. He requested that the resolution be amended to have the building removed within five days. The property owner did not appear. Mr. Strathman recommended approval and amended the order to have the building removed within five days. 8. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the referenced building, located at 75 Reanev Avenue. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Public Health is ordered to remove the buzlding. Mr. Votel reviewed the staff report. He stated that there had been no communication from the property owner as to their intentions concerning the property. He pointed out that a code compliance inspection had been done in June, 1996. The property owner did not appear. Mr. Strathman recommended approval of the order to demolish. 9. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the referenced building, located at $75 Marion Street. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Public Health is ordered to remove the building. Mr. Votel reviewed the staff report. There had not been any current contact with the owner as to her . �� -� � � i Minutes of Legislative Hearing September 17, 1996 Page - 6 - intentions concerning the property. It was his opinion that the building was not worth repairing. The property owner did not appear. Mr. Strathman recommended approval of the order to demolish. 10. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the referenced building, located at $44 Edmund Avenue. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Public Health is ordered to remove the building. Mr. Votel reviewed the staff report. The building had been condemned in 1994 and had been vacant since that time. There had been eight summary abatement orders issued against the property. The registered vacant building fee had not been paid and the $2,000 bond had not been posted. A code compliance inspection was done on July 5, 1996. The estimated cost to repair the building was $25,000. Paul Yang, property owner, appeared and stated that he had purchased the building from the Veteran's Administration and had been unaware that the building had been condemned. He was in the process of obtaining bids to repair the roof and planned to complete repairs to the building. Mr. Strathman recommended the owner be granted 180 days to complete the repairs to the building if the $2,000 bond was posted, the registered vacant building fee was paid and the ne essary pemuts were obtained by September 25, 1996. Meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m. y Stra , Legislative Heazing Officer �