96-1212 , , �_, � � �l� I� I�► � r�-� T�
, . --- �
`� � � 1 a � �o���� File # -��.�a.
Green Sheet # e�S�'
RESOLUTION
INT P UL, MINNESOTA 7�
Presented By
Referred To Committee: Date
1 WHEREAS, Public Health has requested the City Council to hold public hearings to consider
2 the advisabiliry and necessity of ordering the repair or wrecking and removal of a two-story, wood
3 frame dwelling and two detached, wood frame garages joined by walkway and roof located on
4 property hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly known as 795 Butternut
5 Street. This property is legally described as follows, to wit:
6
7 Lot 24, Block 2, River Side Addition to St. Paul.
8
9 WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey Counry Recorder's Office and
10 information obtained by Public Health on or before June 20, 1996, the following are the now known
11 interested or responsible parties for the Subject Properry: Vere M. Henning, 795 Buttemut Avenue,
12 St. Paul, MN 55102; Donna Kapaun, 2499 Rice Street #120, St. Paul, MN 55113; Veteran's
13 Administration, Loan Guaranty Division, Whipple Federal Bldg., #8, St. Paul, MN 55111; G.E.
14 Capital Mortgage, 901 Roosevelt Pkwy, Chesterfield, MO 63017-2066; Olson, Usset &
15 Weingarden P.L.L.P., Attn: Paul A. Weingarden, 4500 Park Glen Rd. #310, Mpls., MN 55416.
16
17 WHEREAS, Public Health has served in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the
18 Saint Paul Legislative Code an order identi�ed as an "Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s)" dated
19 June 13, 1996; and
20
21 WHEREAS, this order informed the then known interested or responsible parties that the
22 structure located on the Subject Property is a nuisance building(s) pursuant to Chapter 45; and
23
24 WHEREAS, this order informed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair or
25 demolish the structure located on the Subject Property by July 15, 1996; and
26
27 WHEREAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placard on the Subject Property declaring
28 this building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and
29
30 WHEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Public Health requested that
31 the City Clerk schedule public hearings before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the City Council
32 and the Saint Paul City Council; and
33
34 WHEREAS, the interested and responsible parties have been served notice in accordance
35 with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the time, date, place and
36 purpose of the public hearings; and
37
��� f � � �� �1`- � a � �.
k ,
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 fifteen (15) days after the
9 date of the Council Hearing; and
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 City Council hereby adopts the following Findings and
17 Order concerning the Subject Property at 795 Butternut Street:
18
19 l. 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 notification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled.
41
42
43 ORDER
44
45 The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the following order:
46
� � � Ia� � �
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 alternative by demolishing and removing the
6 structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. �'he�litatirnr�or
7 demoiitiorr�reY�e�aa�e€t�e�r�et��e�ttst be�g��i�-€�e�r��-�}da3�s��t�-
8 �at�ofrth��aYZncir�-i�earing-
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.
5. Based on the property owner posting a bond and obtaining permits to correct the
deficiencies, the implementation of this order is stayed for 90 days. If the
corrective action is not 60 percent complete within this period of time, the
matter will be reviewed by the City Council for potential additional action.
Y� Navs Absent Requested by Department of:
a e
os trom _�
uerin �
arris
e ar
e tman �
une BY� %
Adopted by Council: Date �,�� _�,� Form Approved by City Attorney
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary gy, ���v�„
BY� Approved by Mayor for Submission to
�_ � �,, Council
Approved by Mayor: Date /�/ �/ �/(,
� �� �� gy: ���� <<Y��u%�
By: ��,�1��� r�,��
q �. -��,��.,,�.
���� Health 08-2 96��" �`REEN SHEET N°-: 3 �54$
Char es Vote 298-4153 A- / °E�►r�NT`an�cro�N��— cmcouNC�� �N���
V1/ � cm�rroRNer cm c��uc
( �F� I�ET OIIiECTOR �FM�1.8 MIGT.SERVICE8 DIR.
September 25, 1996 °RO�W *��+(�+��*1 �
TOTAL+IE OF 81QN�TUR�P�RdE8 ' (CLIP ALL LOCAt10NS FOR SICiNATURE7
�cr�a+neeuesrEn:
City Council to pase this resolution whiah will order the owner(s) to remove or repair the
referenced buflding(s) . If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Public Health
i� ordered to remove the building. TMe subject property is located �t 795 Butternut
Street.
���T�:�°M°(�)°��(pl PER80NAL SE#YICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSIII�R TN8 FOI.LONIIN�
_w.ArxrM+a coMM18810N �c�vn.bepviCE cowtMlssl�l �. ►�a�m�s panorinirm ever worked undsr e coneract tor dNs dep�nnNnt� -
_CI�COMMf�TEE _ YES �NO
2, Maa dd4 p�nonJfirm swr bsen a cky empbyee4 S EP 0 4 �
—�� — YES NO
_D1a7'RICT COURT — 3. DOes this pArson/Nrn1 p0ss�es a ckHl not nonnaNY P�bY+�����Ipl�
8UPPORT6 wMK�M COUNCII oBJECT�vE4 YES NO !I�'
Facplale ell ya�nsw�n on ap��tM�t�nd�tt�ol�t0�wn�hMt
M�1P1UrTNiO PROBLHd.18SlJE.OPPORTUNi1'Y Mllw.VNut.V�ANn�1Nhxs,WhY).
This building(s) is a nuisance building(s} as defiaed in Chapter 45 and a vacant building
as defined in Chapter 43 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. The ov�iera, interested
parties and reaponsible partiea known to the Enforcement Officer wer.e given an order to
repair or remove the building at 795 Butternut Street by July 15, 1996, and have failed to
cQmply with those orders. ,
nov�wrnc�a��o:
The City will eliminate a nuisance. ��a ������ �� ����
� � � RECE
s � a
AUG 27 �'
_ _...... ��ORN�Y
_ _ _
D18ADYANTAAE8IF APPFiONED: .
The City will a�aend funds to wreck and remove this building(s) . These costs will be
assessed to the property, collected as a special assessment against the property taxes.
WBADVANTAOEB IF NOT APPtiO'VED:
A nuisance condition will remain unabated in the City. This building{s? will continue to
blight the community.
T�TAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTtON i � COST/REYENUE dUD�iETEO.(CIRCLE ONL) YES NO -
FUNWiiO�OURCE Nuisance Housin� Abatement ACTIVITY NUMBER 33261
FMiA1�lAL INFORMATION:(EXPLAIN)
� . . . . �
NOTE: COMPIETE�iRECTIONS ARE 1f�E3LWE�IN ThE CiRE�N SHEET II�1S7Rt1GTtONAL
MANUAL AVAiLABIE 1N THE PURCWA:3INC�OfFICE IPFIONE NO•�• �` �
R�UTING ORDER:
Below aro correct rouUnqs for ths five most irequertt typss of doeumsnis: _
CONTRACTS(assumes authorized budpet exfata) COUNCII RE8QLUTION(Am�nd BudpNs/Aoc�pt,aranb) .
1. Outside AgenCy 1 Departrnent Direc�or . ,
2. Department Director 2. Budpet Di[ec6or
3. Ciry Altorney 3. Ciry Attomey
5. H mu�an�Righ�trs�(tor cont►acta ovet 3SO.OQO) 5. ��Councd t .
8. Finance and Management Ssrvkssa Diroctor 6. C1ue[.Accau�ta�tL.Einar�ae and.l�A�rier�t Serviaes.
7. Financ:e Accou�Unp •
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS(Budget Revisbn) COUNGiI RESOLUTI4F1(Mf oth���nd Ekdkw�oN)
t. AcNvity Maneger , t. Depsrtm�t Diroctor _ .
2. Department Accountant 2. CNy Attomey
3. Depsftment Dirocto� 3. Mayor J�aaistant
4. Budget Diroctor 4. City CounCN
5. City Cleric �
6. Chiei Account�nt,Finence and Msnagement Services
ADMINtSTRATIVE ORDERS(aN others)
t. Department Diroctor
2. Clty Attor�y
3. Finance and ManagemeM Se�s Director
4. City Clerk
TOTAI NUMBER OF&IGNATURE PACiES
Indicata the�oi pages on which signa�res are requfred and papacNp or fl�p •
Nah ot tMs�paqes.
ACTION REDUESTEO
Describs what the prnjecUrequest aseks W accomplish in either ch�orroloyh .
cal ader or o►der of Miportance.whfchsver�most spp►op►late for the ,.
fssue.Do rwt write complete sentarrces.Bsgin each item in your Ust with -
a verb. -
RECOMMENDATIONS
Complete ii the issue in question hes been presented betorA a�Y body,public
or private.
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE?
Indlcate whiah CouncN oWectWe(s1 Yoar P►o�sct/reque¢f supports by Nstfng
ths ksy word(s)(NOUSiNd,RECAEATIQN,NEIGH80RHOODS,ECONOMIC DEVfiLOPMENT,
BUD(3ET,SEWEfl SEPARATtON).(SEE CQMPIETE UST IN INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL.) ,
PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS:
This Infom�ation will be used to determine ihs ciy�s Nabpiiy tor worksrs compsnsstion clalms.taxsa a�d propsr�ril sKVbs hkin�niNs.
INITIATINO PROBLEM,ISSUE,OPPORTUNITY
Explain ths situation or condltiona Mat croated a need t�your project
or request -
ADVANTA4ES IF APPFiOVED
Indicate whether this ie sfmpty an ennual budget proce�iure requirod by law/
d►aner or whether there are speciflc ways in which the City of SaMt Paul
a�its citiYens wfll bene�t trom this projecVactbn:
DiSADVANTA(3ES IF APPROVE�
What negative effects or major charpos to existing or past procssses might
this project/request produce N it is passed(e.g.,traRfc delays,noise,
tax incroases or asaesaments)�To wnomT When4 wr how�ong?
DISADVANTAOES IF NOT APPROVEO
VYhat wili be the ne�tNe�.nsequences ii the promised action Is not
approved?InabHiy to deliver servk�?ContMued h�h traHic,noise,
acddent rate4 Loss of revenue?
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Although you must tailor the information you provide hero to the issue you
a�e,addressing,in general you must anawer two quesdot�s:How much is h
goi�to coat4 Who is gang to pay�
�----�
i r {--Z i �-- � �4 R �� � �� / '
� , � � . � � . � . �W q � � �a � a.
1. The above referenced interested or responsible parties shall make the Subject Property safe
� 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 alternative 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 fifteen (15) days after the
8 date of the Council Hearing.
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.
� � � ,
'" �ji�C 1-�-\L�t >�:�,/ i1'� L� � f��/,� �'lJ✓z�G�i /, c5 '.�,1� °C�� �l
� ' J , /'
I (/
� �� �ic'�b)Lt ��Z i"� G 2-��`'� l S /'n.� Cc (.� ' 7 r,�
�����
L . L /
-c�u���L (�`°�-/�f'�7° -, �l�i , .��z,���' �i�-�c �.2� ���'� G�✓•/`
17�, yls;L U--�„� � �� C��-..�-, G+�I �R � �h 7,� �C�tI�/% �� ��� �.
Yeas Navs Absent Requested by Department of:
at
os om
ue in
ar is
e r
et man
u e BY� '
Form Approved by City Attorney
Adopte by Council: Date
Adopt' n Certified by Council Secretary gY; �, ,i� �v4�a��
BY� Approved by Mayor for Submission to
Council
Approv d by Mayor: Date
By: `�-�L ����
By:
/X,�.la.� �i� ���-�j 0�.�-fi+-� �s'�%� � ���-�--� C? � Gl��i-a����'��
v�
� ���1L�.1��� � �L-'�L,Y\G.�G�� ,�!..�. C�� � �. i-���-1G!ti s
� � � � �
. �'�
�
�� . � �, �
�� �►� _
°1 �, -�a�a�
DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL DATE INITIATED N� 3 2 5 4 8
Pub��� Health o8-2 -96 GREEN SHEET -
INITIAUDATE INITIAUDATE
CONTACT PERSON 8 PHONE � DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL
Charles VOt21 298-4153 ASSIGN CITYATfORNEY r CITYCLERK
MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA BY(DATE) ROUT G�OR
UDGET DIRECTOR �FIN.8 MGT.SERVICES DIR.
September 25� 1996 ORDER MAYOR(OR ASSISTANn O
TOTAL#OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
ACTION RE�UESTED:
City Council to pass this resolution which will order the owner(s) to remove or repair the
referenced building(s) . If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Public Health
is ordered to remove the building. The subject property is located at 795 Butternut
Street.
RECOMMENDATIONS:Apprave(A)or Reject(R) pERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING�v�&l��1�3
_ PLANNING COMMISSION _ CIVIL SERVICE COMMtSSION �• Has this persori/firm ever worked under a contract for this department7
_CIB COMMITTEE _ YES NO S EP 0
2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? 4 1996
_STAFF — YES NO
_ D�STRICT COUaT _ 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by� u ren pl9 �,e
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE7 YES NO "��U������i''
Explain all yes answera on separate sheet and ettach to green sheet •
INITIATING PROBLEM,ISSUE,OPPORTUNITY(Who,What,When,Where,Why):
This building(s) is a nuisance building(s) as defined in Chapter 45 and a vacant building
as defined in Chapter 43 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. The owners, interested
parties and responsible parties known to the Enforcement Officer were given an order to
repair or remove the building at 795 Butternut Street by July 15, 1996, and have failed to
comply with those orders.
ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
T�I�1"��i� T'Ya� .-�,�T�!� �7� �;Y �+
The City will eliminate a nuisance. � �����'�,�! �`�
t�3La �1 i� k:��i�
AUG 27 19g6
_ ----� �,������� - :
�
DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
The City will spend funds to wreck and remove this building(s) . These costs will be
assessed to the property, collected as a special assessment against the property taxes.
DISADVANTAOES IF NOTAPPROVED:
A nuisance condition will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to
blight the community.
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S COST/REVENUE BUDGETED(CIRCLE ONE) YES NO �
� � ,
FUNDING SOURCE Nuisance Housing Abatement ACTIVITY NUMBER 33261
�FINANCUL INFORMATION:(�%PLAIN)
` ' . . .
i SAINT PAUL PUBLIC HEALTH
� Nea!HoGan, M.D., M.P.N., Direc�or
' �� � I�1�
CITY OF SAINT PAUL NUISANCE BUILDINGS CODE 6/2-198-4/53
Norm Coleman, Mayor = ENFORCEME/VT
SSS Cedar Streer
Saint Paul, MN 55101-2160
�
August 23, 1996
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Council President and
Members of the City Council
Saint Paul Public Health, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings Enforcement Unit has requested the
City Council schedule public hearings to consider a resolution ordering the repair or
removal of the nuisance building(s) located at:
795 Butternut Street
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 Interest ��e� ����� ����
��� 2"� 199�
Vere M. Henning Fee Owner
795 Butternut Avenue �
St. Paul, MN 55102 -�
Donna Kapaun Assignee of Mortgage
2499 Rice Street #120
St. Paul, MN 55113
Veteran's Administration Assignee of Mortgage
Loan Guaranty Division
Whipple Federal Bldg., #8
St. Paul, MN 55111
�l � - �ai''
795 Butternut Street
August 23, 1996 =
Page 2
G.E. Capital Mortgage Mortgagee �
901 Roosevelt Pkwy
Chesterfield, MO 63017-2066
Olson, Usset & Weingazden P.L.L.P. Foreclosure Attorney
Attn: Paul A. Weingarden
4500 Park Glen Rd. #310
Mpls., MN 55416
The legal description of this property is:
Lot 24, Block 2, River Side Addition to St. Paul.
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).
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 :ecommendation 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.
S' erely,
"`"�.J 0
tr9 � A �
e�J �
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 Zaccazd, Fire Marshall ,
Dan Pahl, PED-Housing Division
��. �z��
MINUTES OF LEGISLATIVE HEARING
September 17, 1996
Room 330, City Hall
Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer
STAFF PRESENT: Chuck Votel, Public Health; Guy Willits, Public Health; Roxanna Flink, Real Estate;
Cathy Ries, Real Estate
Gerry Strathman, I,�gislative Hearing O�cer, called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.
1. Resolutions ratifying assessment of benefits, costs and expenses for summary abatements for
the foltowing:
J9609A--Property ctean 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 Ave_n_»P
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 him 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. Strathman 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 StrePt
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 April 30, 1996 to remove gra�ti.
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 graffiti which still remained. 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 graffiti, 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. .
Minutes of Legislative Hearing
`�1�--� 2���-
September 17, 1996
Page - 2 -
Mr. Strathman stated that since the work had been done, he recommended approval and reducing the
assessment to $100.
997 FarrinQton 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 Goodrich Avenue
Jim Sazevich and Thomas DesLauriers, properry 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 estunate 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
properry 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.
Minutes of Le islative Hearin C� � ����
g g
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 property.
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; recommended approving the assessment.
Mr. Willits recommended laying over the following properties to the October 1, 1996 Legislative Hearing:
1129 E. Minnehaha and 328 Lexington Parkway.
2. Summary abatement appeal for 699 Blair Avenue; Jeff Gardner, property owner.
Mr. Willits 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 properry 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.
Minutes of Legislative Hearing � �- 1�`�
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 255
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. Strattunan 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 72�
Butternut Street. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Public Iiealth is ordered
to remove the building.
Mr. Votel reviewed the staff report. The current owner of the property was the Veteran's Administration
and there had been no communication from them as to their intentions for the properry. He noted that a
code compliance inspection had been done on September 10, 1996. The estimated cost to repair the
buildin� was $30,000.
�
The property owner did not appear.
Mr. Strathman recommended approval of the order to demolish.
6. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the referenced building, located at $�
,Iessamine 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 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
Minutes of Legislative Hearing �� �- �3��
September 17, 1996
Page - 5 -
damage to the property and the owner worked 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 tinne 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 work 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, h� 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 24.1.
pavne 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 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 752
�
Reanev 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 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
Minutes of Legislative Hearing C.� �-�a'��
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
�dmund 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 permits were
obtained by September 25, 1996.
Meeting adjoumed at 11:45 a.m.
Stra , Legislative Hearing Officer
.