The URL can be used to link to this page

01-938Council File # O \ — g'1g ��`\l��IV�L Green Sheet # !O a.3 �45 RESOLUTION Referred To ; Presented By ; � CITY , � � _ , PAUL, MINNESOTA � Committee: Date 1 WFIEREAS, Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement has requested the City Council 2 to hoid 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 a detached, oversized, one-stall, wood 4 frame garage located on property hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly lrnown as 5 60 Rose Avenue East. This properiy is legally described as follows, to wit: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 The East 59 feet of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 1, Pelzl's Subdivision of Lot 3 of Block 2, Saint Paul North Out Lots. WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before May 14, 2001, the following are the now lmown interested or responsible parties for the Sub}ect Property; David Cobb, 51920 Birch Avenue, Rush City, MN 55069 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 July 11, 2001; and WHEREAS, this order informed the then known interested ar responsible parties that the structure located on the Subject Property is a nuisance building(s) pursuant to Chapter 45; and WIIEREAS, this order informed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair or demolish the structure located on the Subject Property by July 23, 2001; and WHEREAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placard on the Subject Properry declaring this building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and WHEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Division of Code Enforcement requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the City Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and WHEREAS, the interested and responsible parties haue been served notice in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the rime, date, place and purpose of the public hearings; and WIIEREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City Council on Tuesday, August 21, 2001 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and evidence, made the recommendation to approve the request to order the interested or responsible parties to make the Subject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances, or in the alternarive by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation ar demolition of the structure to be completed within five (5) days after the date of the Council Hearing; and 2 C� 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 �� l��s�iA� b 1-11i' WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, September O5, 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 conceming the Subject Property at 60 Rose Avenue East: That the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 45. 2. � 5 � E� That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). That there now exists and has existed multiple Housing or Building code violations at the Subject Properiy. That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then known responsible parties to correct the deficiencies or to demolish and remove the building(s). That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition have not been corrected. That Division of Code Enforcement has posted a placard on the Subject Property which declares it to be a nuisance condirion subject to demolition. That this building has been routinely monitored by the Citizen Service Offices, Division of Code Enforcement, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings. That the lrnown interested parties and owners are as previously stated in this resolution and that the norification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled. ••� • The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the following order: 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 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. 2. If the above corrective action is not completed within this period of rime the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps are necessary to demolish and remove this stnxcture, 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. �'=`��I�AL o� -��' 1 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all personal 2 properiy or fiactures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shall be removed 3 from the property by the responsible parties by the end of this time period. If all personal property 4 is not removed, it shall be considered to be abandoned and the City of Saint Paul shall remove and 5 dispose of such property as provided by law. 4. It is further 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. AdoptedbyCouncil: Date �pp� Adoption Certified by Council Secretary : ` ` � � �� -� � � �. - ��i �J . � : /� %' ..11 t[...r Requested by Department o£ Citizen Service Office; Code Enfarcement By: (� � �u��---� Form Approved by City Attorney By: Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: � Division of Code Enforcement 266-8439 2001 TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE 5 �,��,m �1 -1�t' o7iz�ioi GREEN SHEET wo 10234� N�.. � �� / `� � �m..,,�.� ❑�«� ❑ wuwu��avurFSOw. ❑ wNwo��aumKCra � WYORI�Yfp�M/�l __J�/�❑ (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) 7 City Council to pass this resolution which will order the owner(s) to rexnove or repair the referenced building(s). If the owner fails to comply with the resolufion, the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. The subject property is located at 60 Rose Avenue East. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB CAMMIT�EE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION �tas mis aerso�rm eve. xnr�a ��aer e�sce ro.u� a�me�m ves ruo HasthiaPeBOMm�everhcenncityempbyee? , _ . YES NO Does this P�rm pmsesc a sidll not nOrmallypoc6essed by anY curteM dlY emplqlee? YES NQ Is thia perswJfi�m a taryeMd veiMon . YES NO iain all vrs ansvrefs m seoa2te sheet and atlach W areen shee[ '' '"PPfi'�'"6{igRl1€�(�'€s°R�I�@"B4tY1�'j"fi�`Q�ed in Chapter 45 and a vacant building as defined in Chapter 43 of . the Saint Paul Legislative Code. The owners, inter�sted parties and responsible parties known to the Enforcement Officer were given an order to repair or remove the building at 60 Rose Avenue East by July 23, 2001, and have , failed to comply with those orders. . � �_ P�..y.bl]Y � "G: � !-5 The City will eliminate a nuisance. ��v o 9 �� )ISADVAMAGESIFAPPROVED " ' x -_--- The City will spend funds to wreck and remove this building(-s): Tkese cos�s will be assessed to the property, collected as a special assessment against the properry tases. )ISADVANTAGESIFNOTAPPROVED � � � ' � A nuisance condition will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to blight the community. fOTAL AMOUNT �OF TRANSACTION � � � COST/REVENl1E BUIXiETED (qRCLE ON� � NO souRCe Nuisance Housine Abatement �crnirrNUxa�e 33261 wFwtna'rwN jo�viNM . . 81- �$� REPdRT LEGISLATIVE HEARING Date: August 21, 2001 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Room 330 City Hall 15 VJest Kellogg Boulevazd Gerry Strathman Legislative Hearing Officer Laid Over Sunnuary Abatement: J0104AAA Property Cleanup at 327 Winifred Street East (Note: the City Councii referred this address back to the Legislative Hearing Officer.) Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval of the assessment. 2. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the properry at 843 Rice Street. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Laid over from 7-17-01) Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval. � 3. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the properry at 60 Rose Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Heazing Officer recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rehabilitation of this property. 4. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 63 Atwater Street. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval. rrn MINUTES OF TI� LEGISLATIVE HEARING �� Tuesday, August 21, 2001 Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer Room 330 Courthouse The meeting was catled to order at 10:07 am. STAFF PRESENT: Roxanna Flink, Real Estate; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement Laid Over Summary Abatement: J0104AAA Property Cleanup at 327 Winifred Street East (Note: the City Council has referred this address back to the Legislative Hearing Officer.) Khala Kim, owner, aPPeared. Gerry Strathman asked what was her concem regarding this assessment. Ms. Kim responded she did not have any concem. Mr. Strathman stated this was a charge for a cleanup at this properiy. He understands that she called Councilmember Chris Coleman's office and raised an objection to this chazge. Ms. Kim responded she called Nancy I3omans (Mr. Coleman's Legislative Aide) because she missed a date to attend a previous legislative hearing. Mr. Strathman asked did she understand this was an assessment for $448.50 and did she understand what was done. Ms. Kim responded she did not understand. (A videotape was shown.) Mr. 3trathman stated the charge ievied is for the cost of the cleanup. She should have been notified beforehand to do it When it was not done, a City crew did it. He will recommend the assessment be approved, and she will be notified in a few weeks about how to pay the assessment. Ms. Kim asked does she have to pay right now. Mr. Strathman responded Roxanna Flink can explain to her how the payment options work. Gerry Strathmau recommeads appmval of the assessment. Resolufion ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 843 Itice Street. If the owner faiis to comply with the resolufion, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Laid over from 7-17-01) (No one appeazed to represent the owner.) Gerry Strathman stated he received a letter dated August 20, 2001; from Gina L. Bulloch, Xcel Energy, D'uector of Corporate Rea1 Estate. Ms. Bulloch wrote thax Xcel Energy is continuing to work with the tide insurance company to obtain a mazketable title and continuing to work with North End Area Revitalizarion in execution of a purchase agreement. o,_��r LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 2 This matter has been before him for hParings on two previous occasions, stated Mr. Strathman. On both occasions, he recommended continuing the matter in order to allow Xcel Energy to clear up title problems and complete the sell to tlus prospective buyer. This has gone on way too long. Xcel Energy should have been able to clear the tifle and should have been able to close this purchase agreement. Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the resolution. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 60 Rose Avenue East If the owner fails #o rnmply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. The following appeared: Da�id Cobb, owner, Charles Coac, attomey, 676A Butler Square, Minneapolis. Steve Magner reported this building has been vacant since 2-23-01, after there was a fire at the building. The current owner is David S. Cobb, who purchased the buiiding after the original fire. There has been one summary abatement notice issued to remove refuse and secure the basement window. On 7-9-01, an inspection of the building was conducted and a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed and photographs were taken. This inspecrion occurred after a second fire in the beginning of July. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on 7-11-4i with a compliance date of ?-23-01. The City has had to boazd the building. The vacant building registration fees have been paid. Estimated mazket value on the structure is $52,300; estimated mazket value of the land, $9,900; estimated cost to demolish, $8,000 to $9,000. The cost of the repairs aze in question. It will be high due to the damage. There was a code compliance inspecrion done on the buiiding 7-23-01. The owner posted a$2,000 bond on 7-19-01. Mr. Cox shated that Mr. Cobb is ia the business of rehabilitating distressed structures. He has over 20 yseazs exgerience in the field aud has rehabilitated a number of houses within the City. In the last five yeaYS, many of those have been structures with fire daznage. He has obtained bids for mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work to be done on the property. He has worked with these contractors in the past. He has not yet obtained a struchzral engineer for this project because he is waiting to see i#'he is allowed io repair tlus structure before money is laid out for a retainer, which is required by the structural engineer. He also has a financial package in place for the property. Mortgage has been approved for the amount of $65,000, which Mr. Cobb believes will cover the cost of the repairs. He believes he can have 90% of the necessary work done by the end of Novemi�er. The baIance will be dome by February of neact year. Last point, Mr. Cobb does intend to mstall a security system in the properiy while the rehabilitation is being done because of two fires ttiat I�ave been set on the property. Mr. Strathman asked were the two fires arson. Mr. Cobb responded yes. Mr. Cobb stated he has been in communication with an engineering firm. They will do the structural engineering of the house. They have had prints made up, which will be subxnitted to the 01-4�Y LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINiJTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 3 City after the engineer has added changes as to what he wants done. Mr. Cobb has received bids for plumbing, heating, and electricai, which run appro�rimately $6,000 each. He has been approved for a mortgage for the rehabilitation. He has worked with the City in the past, stated Mr. Cobb. He has been appointed by Mayor Coleman on the Overnight Shelter Board in 1994; he has a letter of endorsement from the chairman of that boazd. He has a letter from Wilder Foundation about the work he has done. He also has a letter from the Community Stabilization Project. Mr. Strathman asked what the long term plans aze. Mr. Cobb responded to rehabilitate the property and sell it. He purchased i2 for $12,000. He has with him photographs of previous properties he has rehabilitated. George Stuber, 62 Rose Avenue East, appeared and stated he lives neict door to this property. He called the fire department twice on this property. This property has been in his wife's family since the 1950's. It was sold in 1994. It had been in reasonably good condition. He could not get a first mortgage due to the dry rotted floor beams. It was sold on a contract for deed and sold again but #heg had to take a deep discount. The new buyers did nothing but destroy the building for 6%2 years. It burned on 2-1-01 from a faulty space heater. According to Code Enforcement, it was scheduled to be demolished when a new buyer came along. On 7-2-01, a huge fire burned through the complete house and through the roof. It is time for the house to go, says Mr. Stuber. It does not fit into the azea because it is the only 1870 building out there. Councilmember Jim Reiter said this would make a good vacant lot. Mr. Stuber stated he does not think someone can make this a decent property with $60,000. Other houses in the azea were built in the 1940's and set back from the streeY. This property is right against the properry line. The retaining wail was taken down in the last couple of days. (Mr_ Stuber submitted photographs for the record.) The following appeazed: Marie Wadell, 33 Langer Circle, West Saint Paul, and her sister Dorothy Stuber, 62 Rose Avenue East. Ms. Wadell read a statement from Ms. Stuber. Ms. Stuber wrote the property is dangerous, unsound, and not repairable. The wa11s and ceiling have begun to crack and fall. Stucco has been put on top of old asphalt siding. The basement has limestone walls that are cracked and peeling. The floor joists have dry rot. It has been almost seven months since the fust fire and noY much has been done to the properry. Their property values have decreased. Ms. Wadeli s¢ated €he Stubers have a lot of damage on their home from 60 Rose. Her concern is that a strict time line is followed. (A copy of the petition plus photographs were submitted for the record.) Michael Swifka, 61 Rose Avenue East, appeazed and stated that 60 Rose is a bumed out shell. After the second fire, he asked Mr. Magner why the properry was not demolished, and Mr. Magner said Mr. Cobb has the right to renovate the property. However, stated Mr. Swifka, Mr. o � -�t�Y LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 4 Cobb dces not live in the neighborhood. He is trying to make a profit after a structure that is beyond salvaging. How he can make money on this property is beyond him. Mr. Cobb has owned the properiy since mid March. There had been no improvements made to this property before the second fire. The Sivbers have a house that looks �*n*na�ulate. During the second fire, it stazted melting the siding on the Stubers house. Mr. Swifka stated this eyesore should be demolished. Tim Mueller, 1568 Myrtle Street, appeared and staxed he has been involved in the building �ades for over 40 years, and involved in rehabilitating homes and building new ones for over 30 years. His wife's pazents tried to keep the property up because the property was over 100 yeazs old. The underside of thaY home had dry rot over 20 years ago. There is an old cistem that is undemeath half of the basement. The stucco was installed poorly over the original siding. The house is truly a loss. He cannot believe a man can financially rehabilitate that house correctly, do it safely, take out the bumt wood, put that place together again, and have a good safe home that would be attractive and reasonably complementary to the neighborhood. Clazence Roban, 57 Geranium Avenue East, appeared and stated he agrees with the other comments from his neighbors. He is concemed about the Stubers that live next door to 60 Rose. Mr. Strathman asked did Mr. Cobb have any comments to make in response. Mr. Cobb responded that he also has a petition signed by five neighbors asking the City to allow him to rehabilitate the structure. He just got the petition going yesterday after hearing that Mr. Stuber had a petition. The work done so far is demolition work on the inside and getting rid of the fire damage on the outside. He tore down the porch and back 1/3 of the house, the damaged retaining wall is gone, the roof is off of the house, and he has plating material securing the walls of the house to the flooring so that the house is not damaged by wind racking the frame. He has not had a crew of carpenters redoing the house because he wants the hearing to give him indication that he can rehabilitate before he spends thousand of dollazs. All work will be done according to code. A large part of the cost of the rehabilitation is his labor. He is a licensed contractor and he has done many houses. Mr. Strathman asked about the dry rot and the cistem under the building. Mr. Cobb responded all that wftl have to be removed during the rehabilitation of the structure. Also, this house has historic designation due to its age and the front porch details. He is exploring the possibility of putting it on the historic register. Mr. Strathman asked is it in the lustoric preservation dishict. Mr. Magner responded it is not. Mr. Cobb stated he has a statement from a neighbor that there is a group in the area that wants the house burned down. Upon being asked how the security system will be installed, Mr. Cobb responded the gazage electricat system is intact. An electrician will energize the electrical system in the garage and he will bring one line of power to the house. There will be a motion sensor in the house. 0 1-`l�i' LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTgS OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Magner read a fire report into the record dated 7-20-01. This report is a supplement to the code compliance report dated 3-5-01. It stipulated what needed to be done. In addition, the owner will have to bring the plumbing, electrical, heating up to minimum standards. If the fire had not been put out at the time, the fire department would have had the building raised immediately at the time of the fire. Based on the fire department's belief and the subsequent inspection of the grope.rty, it was deemed that it was not an immediate ha�ard and not going to fall down; however, it created such a nuisance in the comm�mity, it was brought to this forum so the community and the owner could beaz any issues. In Mr. Magner's opinion, to rehabilitate tlus building is going to be cost prohibitive unless the owner is doing the majority of the work and is willing to consider lus sweat equity as ivs profit out of tlie property. Mr. Strathman stated Mr. Cobb is a legitimate owner of the property, and has plans to rehabilitate it. Mr. Strathman understands that people may have different opinions about whether something is economicaliy viable; however, he does not think the City can substitute his judgement and the City Covncil's judgement for someone's business judgement. If Mr. Cobb is mistaken in his assessment of ihe economics of this, he is the one that will beaz the consequence of that mistake. The owner is fully aware of the risks of tivs enterprise and the challenge before him. It is also cleaz the property is a disturbance to the neighbors. It will continue to be one because rehabilitation is not instantaneous. While Mr. Strathman believes that Mr. Cobb needs an opportunity Yo do this, the City has to set a time line for him to accomplish this. Because he has met all tlne Fegal requirements--paid the vacant building fee, obtained a code campliance inspection, paid the $2,000 bond which could be forfeited if he does not fulfill his obligations--the City does not have any choice but to allow him six months to complete his rehabilitation. As Mr. Cox referenced, if Mr. Cobb is more than 50% done within six months, he can apply for an additional six months. Gerry Strathman recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rehabilitation of this property. Resolatiou ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 63 Atwater Street. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (No one appeared to represent the property.) Steve Magner reported this property was condemned June 2001 and has been vacant since 6-26-01. The owner is Atwater Investment Company. Two summary abatement norices have been issued to remove refuse, and secure the building. On 7-1-01, there was a fire that caused substantiai da�age fo tine pro�eriy. Because of ttus fire, an inspecfion of the building was conducted on 7-9-01, a list of deficiencies wluch constitute a nuisance condition was developed and photographs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on 7-11-01 with a compliance date of 7-23-01. Vacant building fees are due. Real estate ta�ces aze paid. Estimated mazket value is $43,200 on the structure and $7,500 on the land; esrimated cost to demolish, $8,000 to $9,000. The repairs aze in excess of $100,000. O�_q'3Y LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINiJTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 6 Mr. Magner received a phone call from Bob Neeser from Aiwater Investment Company. His message was he would be at work and cannot attend the meeting. He is waiting to here from lus insurance company; they will repair the building or tear it down. Mr. Neeser did not leave a phone number. He was served papeis personally conceming this legislative hearing and the City Council public hearing. A vacant building notice, order to abate the nuisance, and the summary abatement have been posted on the pmperty, and were still there the other day when the property was inspected. Tlus has been a probiem property for a number of years. Gerry Sirathman recommended approval of the resolution based on the information provided by Code Enforcement, the review of the photographs, and absent any testimony from the owner. The meeiing was adj ourned at approa�imately 11:00 a.m. i�,�l �. CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor July 27, 2001 CIT[ZEN SERVICE OFFICE Fred Ow�au, Ciry Clerk DIVISION OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT Michae[ R Morehead, Program Mnnager Nuisance Building Code Enforcem.ent 15 W. KellaggBlvd Rm. 790 Tel: 651-2668440 SaintPaul,MN55102 Faz:651-266-8426 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Council President and Members of the City Councii o, 1�r Citizen Service Office, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings Enforcement Division has requested the City Council schedule public liearings to consider a resolution ordering the repair or removal of the nuisance building(s) located at: 60 Rose Avenue East The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearings as follows: Legisiative Hearing - Tuesday, August 21, 2001 City Council Hearing - Wednesday, September 05, 2001 The owners and responsible parties of record are: Name and Last Known Address David Cobb 51920 Birch Avenue Rush City, MN 55069 Interest Fee Owner The legal description of this properly is: The East 59 feet of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 1, Pelzl's Subdivision of Lot 3 of Block 2, Saint Paul North Out Lots. Division of Code Enforcement has declared this building(s) to consritute a"nuisance" as defined by Legislative Code, Chapter 45. Division of Code Enforcement has issued an order to the then laiown responsible parties to eluninate this nuisance condition by correcting the deficiencies or by razing and removing this building(s}. 60 Rose Avenue East July 27, 2001 Page 2 a�-�ar Inasmuch as this Order to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition remains unabatad, 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 timely manner, and failing that, authorize 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 ta�ces. Sincerely, �teve �CLC��22N Steve Magner Vacant Buildings Supervisor Division of Code Enforcement Citizen Service Office SM:mI cc: Frank Berg, Building Inspection and Design Meghan Riley, City Attorneys Office Nancy tlnderson, Assistant Secretary to the Co.uncil Laurie Kaplan, PED-Housing Division ccnph ■ :.,,. r :, _ �� + � � � t __ / . '4a n 'i'i .., q N p� � ,. y , ,� ,z . ' �� l a � � k � __ r � -r" t�� 1�'.. �' 1 �w ,. y ; .., . �Y m-°=.:-. y. y .: �. . Y .s_, _ M � '•. � ' :•� �:� ti' � �.�.°.� .., .;.-,. + C-� � �4_� . �� .. � k } , Ir` � Yq 1 ( � ` � + }1 � � �� • � t �� .) �"� �� ,� T �C � : �. § . �, S l. " � �j� °Y' /.: � q F � �.o- �` � �' 14 Y ��'` . .F ' ; � , � :.-v r ` . � Y�' Y.ti•; �,.. �T .. F � R " K v � . r� �.. �' . . y y,.: � n. � ` � � � � �� ` Y - � I... � !a_ . +Kaw. . . r• 3 _ � �� —_ r:_. � '-' . 1 q�w � / � . . f :: J N ;� �� {� ._. _'- -. --" �� "°' �. i'ia � - � ,::� . �" � . �. R°4�_, _ ' .. a''Y `� .':: �� ♦.� �ti � r��t 4;��y�, �'. :, `� ., __ . ;".;� G � _.._ \ � _. _. _. . __.. ..—_ ._ .._ __ �-�_,:� � •.,�� : m.,ij � u � %' F . . . . _ ;i.� "�.�i^a it 8 'J� 4 �'� �i��V�l �i� `� � � ; - F' w , . . � ; . _ � . 9 ��. r"�' Y �.: .. .... j � r .- T �� ♦ _. 'k��.'�m;� .". . �. ; y�'�z� , �. _ �y,. � � i` � � �, . t .a�-� ,�,� , a �, . �% � � `:� _ _ :: : � � �� ---� � ... ,� a� J �s _ - ., � - � � e -' �! � `:: < � f / � �� 4 �"�S . . Council File # O \ — g'1g ��`\l��IV�L Green Sheet # !O a.3 �45 RESOLUTION Referred To ; Presented By ; � CITY , � � _ , PAUL, MINNESOTA � Committee: Date 1 WFIEREAS, Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement has requested the City Council 2 to hoid 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 a detached, oversized, one-stall, wood 4 frame garage located on property hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly lrnown as 5 60 Rose Avenue East. This properiy is legally described as follows, to wit: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 The East 59 feet of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 1, Pelzl's Subdivision of Lot 3 of Block 2, Saint Paul North Out Lots. WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before May 14, 2001, the following are the now lmown interested or responsible parties for the Sub}ect Property; David Cobb, 51920 Birch Avenue, Rush City, MN 55069 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 July 11, 2001; and WHEREAS, this order informed the then known interested ar responsible parties that the structure located on the Subject Property is a nuisance building(s) pursuant to Chapter 45; and WIIEREAS, this order informed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair or demolish the structure located on the Subject Property by July 23, 2001; and WHEREAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placard on the Subject Properry declaring this building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and WHEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Division of Code Enforcement requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the City Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and WHEREAS, the interested and responsible parties haue been served notice in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the rime, date, place and purpose of the public hearings; and WIIEREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City Council on Tuesday, August 21, 2001 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and evidence, made the recommendation to approve the request to order the interested or responsible parties to make the Subject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances, or in the alternarive by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation ar demolition of the structure to be completed within five (5) days after the date of the Council Hearing; and 2 C� 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 �� l��s�iA� b 1-11i' WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, September O5, 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 conceming the Subject Property at 60 Rose Avenue East: That the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 45. 2. � 5 � E� That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). That there now exists and has existed multiple Housing or Building code violations at the Subject Properiy. That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then known responsible parties to correct the deficiencies or to demolish and remove the building(s). That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition have not been corrected. That Division of Code Enforcement has posted a placard on the Subject Property which declares it to be a nuisance condirion subject to demolition. That this building has been routinely monitored by the Citizen Service Offices, Division of Code Enforcement, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings. That the lrnown interested parties and owners are as previously stated in this resolution and that the norification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled. ••� • The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the following order: 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 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. 2. If the above corrective action is not completed within this period of rime the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps are necessary to demolish and remove this stnxcture, 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. �'=`��I�AL o� -��' 1 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all personal 2 properiy or fiactures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shall be removed 3 from the property by the responsible parties by the end of this time period. If all personal property 4 is not removed, it shall be considered to be abandoned and the City of Saint Paul shall remove and 5 dispose of such property as provided by law. 4. It is further 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. AdoptedbyCouncil: Date �pp� Adoption Certified by Council Secretary : ` ` � � �� -� � � �. - ��i �J . � : /� %' ..11 t[...r Requested by Department o£ Citizen Service Office; Code Enfarcement By: ��'^~�-^-X i� � Form Approved by City Attorney By: Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: � Division of Code Enforcement 266-8439 2001 TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE 5 �,��,m �1 -1�t' o7iz�ioi GREEN SHEET wo 10234� N�.. � �� / `� � �m..,,�.� ❑�«� ❑ wuwu��avurFSOw. ❑ wNwo��aumKCra � WYORI�Yfp�M/�l __J�/�❑ (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) 7 City Council to pass this resolution which will order the owner(s) to rexnove or repair the referenced building(s). If the owner fails to comply with the resolufion, the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. The subject property is located at 60 Rose Avenue East. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB CAMMIT�EE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION �tas mis aerso�rm eve. xnr�a ��aer e�sce ro.u� a�me�m ves ruo HasthiaPeBOMm�everhcenncityempbyee? , _ . YES NO Does this P�rm pmsesc a sidll not nOrmallypoc6essed by anY curteM dlY emplqlee? YES NQ Is thia perswJfi�m a taryeMd veiMon . YES NO iain all vrs ansvrefs m seoa2te sheet and atlach W areen shee[ '' '"PPfi'�'"6{igRl1€�(�'€s°R�I�@"B4tY1�'j"fi�`Q�ed in Chapter 45 and a vacant building as defined in Chapter 43 of . the Saint Paul Legislative Code. The owners, inter�sted parties and responsible parties known to the Enforcement Officer were given an order to repair or remove the building at 60 Rose Avenue East by July 23, 2001, and have , failed to comply with those orders. . � �_ P�..y.bl]Y � "G: � !-5 The City will eliminate a nuisance. ��v o 9 �� )ISADVAMAGESIFAPPROVED " ' x -_--- The City will spend funds to wreck and remove this building(-s): Tkese cos�s will be assessed to the property, collected as a special assessment against the properry tases. )ISADVANTAGESIFNOTAPPROVED � � � ' � A nuisance condition will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to blight the community. fOTAL AMOUNT �OF TRANSACTION � � � COST/REVENl1E BUIXiETED (qRCLE ON� � NO souRCe Nuisance Housine Abatement �crnirrNUxa�e 33261 wFwtna'rwN jo�viNM . . 81- �$� REPdRT LEGISLATIVE HEARING Date: August 21, 2001 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Room 330 City Hall 15 VJest Kellogg Boulevazd Gerry Strathman Legislative Hearing Officer Laid Over Sunnuary Abatement: J0104AAA Property Cleanup at 327 Winifred Street East (Note: the City Councii referred this address back to the Legislative Hearing Officer.) Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval of the assessment. 2. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the properry at 843 Rice Street. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Laid over from 7-17-01) Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval. � 3. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the properry at 60 Rose Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Heazing Officer recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rehabilitation of this property. 4. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 63 Atwater Street. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval. rrn MINUTES OF TI� LEGISLATIVE HEARING �� Tuesday, August 21, 2001 Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer Room 330 Courthouse The meeting was catled to order at 10:07 am. STAFF PRESENT: Roxanna Flink, Real Estate; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement Laid Over Summary Abatement: J0104AAA Property Cleanup at 327 Winifred Street East (Note: the City Council has referred this address back to the Legislative Hearing Officer.) Khala Kim, owner, aPPeared. Gerry Strathman asked what was her concem regarding this assessment. Ms. Kim responded she did not have any concem. Mr. Strathman stated this was a charge for a cleanup at this properiy. He understands that she called Councilmember Chris Coleman's office and raised an objection to this chazge. Ms. Kim responded she called Nancy I3omans (Mr. Coleman's Legislative Aide) because she missed a date to attend a previous legislative hearing. Mr. Strathman asked did she understand this was an assessment for $448.50 and did she understand what was done. Ms. Kim responded she did not understand. (A videotape was shown.) Mr. 3trathman stated the charge ievied is for the cost of the cleanup. She should have been notified beforehand to do it When it was not done, a City crew did it. He will recommend the assessment be approved, and she will be notified in a few weeks about how to pay the assessment. Ms. Kim asked does she have to pay right now. Mr. Strathman responded Roxanna Flink can explain to her how the payment options work. Gerry Strathmau recommeads appmval of the assessment. Resolufion ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 843 Itice Street. If the owner faiis to comply with the resolufion, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Laid over from 7-17-01) (No one appeazed to represent the owner.) Gerry Strathman stated he received a letter dated August 20, 2001; from Gina L. Bulloch, Xcel Energy, D'uector of Corporate Rea1 Estate. Ms. Bulloch wrote thax Xcel Energy is continuing to work with the tide insurance company to obtain a mazketable title and continuing to work with North End Area Revitalizarion in execution of a purchase agreement. o,_��r LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 2 This matter has been before him for hParings on two previous occasions, stated Mr. Strathman. On both occasions, he recommended continuing the matter in order to allow Xcel Energy to clear up title problems and complete the sell to tlus prospective buyer. This has gone on way too long. Xcel Energy should have been able to clear the tifle and should have been able to close this purchase agreement. Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the resolution. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 60 Rose Avenue East If the owner fails #o rnmply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. The following appeared: Da�id Cobb, owner, Charles Coac, attomey, 676A Butler Square, Minneapolis. Steve Magner reported this building has been vacant since 2-23-01, after there was a fire at the building. The current owner is David S. Cobb, who purchased the buiiding after the original fire. There has been one summary abatement notice issued to remove refuse and secure the basement window. On 7-9-01, an inspection of the building was conducted and a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed and photographs were taken. This inspecrion occurred after a second fire in the beginning of July. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on 7-11-4i with a compliance date of ?-23-01. The City has had to boazd the building. The vacant building registration fees have been paid. Estimated mazket value on the structure is $52,300; estimated mazket value of the land, $9,900; estimated cost to demolish, $8,000 to $9,000. The cost of the repairs aze in question. It will be high due to the damage. There was a code compliance inspecrion done on the buiiding 7-23-01. The owner posted a$2,000 bond on 7-19-01. Mr. Cox shated that Mr. Cobb is ia the business of rehabilitating distressed structures. He has over 20 yseazs exgerience in the field aud has rehabilitated a number of houses within the City. In the last five yeaYS, many of those have been structures with fire daznage. He has obtained bids for mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work to be done on the property. He has worked with these contractors in the past. He has not yet obtained a struchzral engineer for this project because he is waiting to see i#'he is allowed io repair tlus structure before money is laid out for a retainer, which is required by the structural engineer. He also has a financial package in place for the property. Mortgage has been approved for the amount of $65,000, which Mr. Cobb believes will cover the cost of the repairs. He believes he can have 90% of the necessary work done by the end of Novemi�er. The baIance will be dome by February of neact year. Last point, Mr. Cobb does intend to mstall a security system in the properiy while the rehabilitation is being done because of two fires ttiat I�ave been set on the property. Mr. Strathman asked were the two fires arson. Mr. Cobb responded yes. Mr. Cobb stated he has been in communication with an engineering firm. They will do the structural engineering of the house. They have had prints made up, which will be subxnitted to the 01-4�Y LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINiJTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 3 City after the engineer has added changes as to what he wants done. Mr. Cobb has received bids for plumbing, heating, and electricai, which run appro�rimately $6,000 each. He has been approved for a mortgage for the rehabilitation. He has worked with the City in the past, stated Mr. Cobb. He has been appointed by Mayor Coleman on the Overnight Shelter Board in 1994; he has a letter of endorsement from the chairman of that boazd. He has a letter from Wilder Foundation about the work he has done. He also has a letter from the Community Stabilization Project. Mr. Strathman asked what the long term plans aze. Mr. Cobb responded to rehabilitate the property and sell it. He purchased i2 for $12,000. He has with him photographs of previous properties he has rehabilitated. George Stuber, 62 Rose Avenue East, appeared and stated he lives neict door to this property. He called the fire department twice on this property. This property has been in his wife's family since the 1950's. It was sold in 1994. It had been in reasonably good condition. He could not get a first mortgage due to the dry rotted floor beams. It was sold on a contract for deed and sold again but #heg had to take a deep discount. The new buyers did nothing but destroy the building for 6%2 years. It burned on 2-1-01 from a faulty space heater. According to Code Enforcement, it was scheduled to be demolished when a new buyer came along. On 7-2-01, a huge fire burned through the complete house and through the roof. It is time for the house to go, says Mr. Stuber. It does not fit into the azea because it is the only 1870 building out there. Councilmember Jim Reiter said this would make a good vacant lot. Mr. Stuber stated he does not think someone can make this a decent property with $60,000. Other houses in the azea were built in the 1940's and set back from the streeY. This property is right against the properry line. The retaining wail was taken down in the last couple of days. (Mr_ Stuber submitted photographs for the record.) The following appeazed: Marie Wadell, 33 Langer Circle, West Saint Paul, and her sister Dorothy Stuber, 62 Rose Avenue East. Ms. Wadell read a statement from Ms. Stuber. Ms. Stuber wrote the property is dangerous, unsound, and not repairable. The wa11s and ceiling have begun to crack and fall. Stucco has been put on top of old asphalt siding. The basement has limestone walls that are cracked and peeling. The floor joists have dry rot. It has been almost seven months since the fust fire and noY much has been done to the properry. Their property values have decreased. Ms. Wadeli s¢ated €he Stubers have a lot of damage on their home from 60 Rose. Her concern is that a strict time line is followed. (A copy of the petition plus photographs were submitted for the record.) Michael Swifka, 61 Rose Avenue East, appeazed and stated that 60 Rose is a bumed out shell. After the second fire, he asked Mr. Magner why the properry was not demolished, and Mr. Magner said Mr. Cobb has the right to renovate the property. However, stated Mr. Swifka, Mr. o � -�t�Y LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 4 Cobb dces not live in the neighborhood. He is trying to make a profit after a structure that is beyond salvaging. How he can make money on this property is beyond him. Mr. Cobb has owned the properiy since mid March. There had been no improvements made to this property before the second fire. The Sivbers have a house that looks �*n*na�ulate. During the second fire, it stazted melting the siding on the Stubers house. Mr. Swifka stated this eyesore should be demolished. Tim Mueller, 1568 Myrtle Street, appeared and staxed he has been involved in the building �ades for over 40 years, and involved in rehabilitating homes and building new ones for over 30 years. His wife's pazents tried to keep the property up because the property was over 100 yeazs old. The underside of thaY home had dry rot over 20 years ago. There is an old cistem that is undemeath half of the basement. The stucco was installed poorly over the original siding. The house is truly a loss. He cannot believe a man can financially rehabilitate that house correctly, do it safely, take out the bumt wood, put that place together again, and have a good safe home that would be attractive and reasonably complementary to the neighborhood. Clazence Roban, 57 Geranium Avenue East, appeared and stated he agrees with the other comments from his neighbors. He is concemed about the Stubers that live next door to 60 Rose. Mr. Strathman asked did Mr. Cobb have any comments to make in response. Mr. Cobb responded that he also has a petition signed by five neighbors asking the City to allow him to rehabilitate the structure. He just got the petition going yesterday after hearing that Mr. Stuber had a petition. The work done so far is demolition work on the inside and getting rid of the fire damage on the outside. He tore down the porch and back 1/3 of the house, the damaged retaining wall is gone, the roof is off of the house, and he has plating material securing the walls of the house to the flooring so that the house is not damaged by wind racking the frame. He has not had a crew of carpenters redoing the house because he wants the hearing to give him indication that he can rehabilitate before he spends thousand of dollazs. All work will be done according to code. A large part of the cost of the rehabilitation is his labor. He is a licensed contractor and he has done many houses. Mr. Strathman asked about the dry rot and the cistem under the building. Mr. Cobb responded all that wftl have to be removed during the rehabilitation of the structure. Also, this house has historic designation due to its age and the front porch details. He is exploring the possibility of putting it on the historic register. Mr. Strathman asked is it in the lustoric preservation dishict. Mr. Magner responded it is not. Mr. Cobb stated he has a statement from a neighbor that there is a group in the area that wants the house burned down. Upon being asked how the security system will be installed, Mr. Cobb responded the gazage electricat system is intact. An electrician will energize the electrical system in the garage and he will bring one line of power to the house. There will be a motion sensor in the house. 0 1-`l�i' LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTgS OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Magner read a fire report into the record dated 7-20-01. This report is a supplement to the code compliance report dated 3-5-01. It stipulated what needed to be done. In addition, the owner will have to bring the plumbing, electrical, heating up to minimum standards. If the fire had not been put out at the time, the fire department would have had the building raised immediately at the time of the fire. Based on the fire department's belief and the subsequent inspection of the grope.rty, it was deemed that it was not an immediate ha�ard and not going to fall down; however, it created such a nuisance in the comm�mity, it was brought to this forum so the community and the owner could beaz any issues. In Mr. Magner's opinion, to rehabilitate tlus building is going to be cost prohibitive unless the owner is doing the majority of the work and is willing to consider lus sweat equity as ivs profit out of tlie property. Mr. Strathman stated Mr. Cobb is a legitimate owner of the property, and has plans to rehabilitate it. Mr. Strathman understands that people may have different opinions about whether something is economicaliy viable; however, he does not think the City can substitute his judgement and the City Covncil's judgement for someone's business judgement. If Mr. Cobb is mistaken in his assessment of ihe economics of this, he is the one that will beaz the consequence of that mistake. The owner is fully aware of the risks of tivs enterprise and the challenge before him. It is also cleaz the property is a disturbance to the neighbors. It will continue to be one because rehabilitation is not instantaneous. While Mr. Strathman believes that Mr. Cobb needs an opportunity Yo do this, the City has to set a time line for him to accomplish this. Because he has met all tlne Fegal requirements--paid the vacant building fee, obtained a code campliance inspection, paid the $2,000 bond which could be forfeited if he does not fulfill his obligations--the City does not have any choice but to allow him six months to complete his rehabilitation. As Mr. Cox referenced, if Mr. Cobb is more than 50% done within six months, he can apply for an additional six months. Gerry Strathman recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rehabilitation of this property. Resolatiou ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 63 Atwater Street. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (No one appeared to represent the property.) Steve Magner reported this property was condemned June 2001 and has been vacant since 6-26-01. The owner is Atwater Investment Company. Two summary abatement norices have been issued to remove refuse, and secure the building. On 7-1-01, there was a fire that caused substantiai da�age fo tine pro�eriy. Because of ttus fire, an inspecfion of the building was conducted on 7-9-01, a list of deficiencies wluch constitute a nuisance condition was developed and photographs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on 7-11-01 with a compliance date of 7-23-01. Vacant building fees are due. Real estate ta�ces aze paid. Estimated mazket value is $43,200 on the structure and $7,500 on the land; esrimated cost to demolish, $8,000 to $9,000. The repairs aze in excess of $100,000. O�_q'3Y LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINiJTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 6 Mr. Magner received a phone call from Bob Neeser from Aiwater Investment Company. His message was he would be at work and cannot attend the meeting. He is waiting to here from lus insurance company; they will repair the building or tear it down. Mr. Neeser did not leave a phone number. He was served papeis personally conceming this legislative hearing and the City Council public hearing. A vacant building notice, order to abate the nuisance, and the summary abatement have been posted on the pmperty, and were still there the other day when the property was inspected. Tlus has been a probiem property for a number of years. Gerry Sirathman recommended approval of the resolution based on the information provided by Code Enforcement, the review of the photographs, and absent any testimony from the owner. The meeiing was adj ourned at approa�imately 11:00 a.m. i�,�l �. CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor July 27, 2001 CIT[ZEN SERVICE OFFICE Fred Ow�au, Ciry Clerk DIVISION OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT Michae[ R Morehead, Program Mnnager Nuisance Building Code Enforcem.ent 15 W. KellaggBlvd Rm. 790 Tel: 651-2668440 SaintPaul,MN55102 Faz:651-266-8426 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Council President and Members of the City Councii o, 1�r Citizen Service Office, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings Enforcement Division has requested the City Council schedule public liearings to consider a resolution ordering the repair or removal of the nuisance building(s) located at: 60 Rose Avenue East The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearings as follows: Legisiative Hearing - Tuesday, August 21, 2001 City Council Hearing - Wednesday, September 05, 2001 The owners and responsible parties of record are: Name and Last Known Address David Cobb 51920 Birch Avenue Rush City, MN 55069 Interest Fee Owner The legal description of this properly is: The East 59 feet of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 1, Pelzl's Subdivision of Lot 3 of Block 2, Saint Paul North Out Lots. Division of Code Enforcement has declared this building(s) to consritute a"nuisance" as defined by Legislative Code, Chapter 45. Division of Code Enforcement has issued an order to the then laiown responsible parties to eluninate this nuisance condition by correcting the deficiencies or by razing and removing this building(s}. 60 Rose Avenue East July 27, 2001 Page 2 a�-�ar Inasmuch as this Order to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition remains unabatad, 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 timely manner, and failing that, authorize 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 ta�ces. Sincerely, �teve �CLC��22N Steve Magner Vacant Buildings Supervisor Division of Code Enforcement Citizen Service Office SM:mI cc: Frank Berg, Building Inspection and Design Meghan Riley, City Attorneys Office Nancy tlnderson, Assistant Secretary to the Co.uncil Laurie Kaplan, PED-Housing Division ccnph ■ :.,,. r :, _ �� + � � � t __ / . '4a n 'i'i .., q N p� � ,. y , ,� ,z . ' �� l a � � k � __ r � -r" t�� 1�'.. �' 1 �w ,. y ; .., . �Y m-°=.:-. y. y .: �. . Y .s_, _ M � '•. � ' :•� �:� ti' � �.�.°.� .., .;.-,. + C-� � �4_� . �� .. � k } , Ir` � Yq 1 ( � ` � + }1 � � �� • � t �� .) �"� �� ,� T �C � : �. § . �, S l. " � �j� °Y' /.: � q F � �.o- �` � �' 14 Y ��'` . .F ' ; � , � :.-v r ` . � Y�' Y.ti•; �,.. �T .. F � R " K v � . r� �.. �' . . y y,.: � n. � ` � � � � �� ` Y - � I... � !a_ . +Kaw. . . r• 3 _ � �� —_ r:_. � '-' . 1 q�w � / � . . f :: J N ;� �� {� ._. _'- -. --" �� "°' �. i'ia � - � ,::� . �" � . �. R°4�_, _ ' .. a''Y `� .':: �� ♦.� �ti � r��t 4;��y�, �'. :, `� ., __ . ;".;� G � _.._ \ � _. _. _. . __.. ..—_ ._ .._ __ �-�_,:� � •.,�� : m.,ij � u � %' F . . . . _ ;i.� "�.�i^a it 8 'J� 4 �'� �i��V�l �i� `� � � ; - F' w , . . � ; . _ � . 9 ��. r"�' Y �.: .. .... j � r .- T �� ♦ _. 'k��.'�m;� .". . �. ; y�'�z� , �. _ �y,. � � i` � � �, . t .a�-� ,�,� , a �, . �% � � `:� _ _ :: : � � �� ---� � ... ,� a� J �s _ - ., � - � � e -' �! � `:: < � f / � �� 4 �"�S . . Council File # O \ — g'1g ��`\l��IV�L Green Sheet # !O a.3 �45 RESOLUTION Referred To ; Presented By ; � CITY , � � _ , PAUL, MINNESOTA � Committee: Date 1 WFIEREAS, Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement has requested the City Council 2 to hoid 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 a detached, oversized, one-stall, wood 4 frame garage located on property hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly lrnown as 5 60 Rose Avenue East. This properiy is legally described as follows, to wit: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 The East 59 feet of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 1, Pelzl's Subdivision of Lot 3 of Block 2, Saint Paul North Out Lots. WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before May 14, 2001, the following are the now lmown interested or responsible parties for the Sub}ect Property; David Cobb, 51920 Birch Avenue, Rush City, MN 55069 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 July 11, 2001; and WHEREAS, this order informed the then known interested ar responsible parties that the structure located on the Subject Property is a nuisance building(s) pursuant to Chapter 45; and WIIEREAS, this order informed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair or demolish the structure located on the Subject Property by July 23, 2001; and WHEREAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placard on the Subject Properry declaring this building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and WHEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Division of Code Enforcement requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the City Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and WHEREAS, the interested and responsible parties haue been served notice in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the rime, date, place and purpose of the public hearings; and WIIEREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City Council on Tuesday, August 21, 2001 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and evidence, made the recommendation to approve the request to order the interested or responsible parties to make the Subject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances, or in the alternarive by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation ar demolition of the structure to be completed within five (5) days after the date of the Council Hearing; and 2 C� 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 �� l��s�iA� b 1-11i' WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, September O5, 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 conceming the Subject Property at 60 Rose Avenue East: That the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 45. 2. � 5 � E� That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). That there now exists and has existed multiple Housing or Building code violations at the Subject Properiy. That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then known responsible parties to correct the deficiencies or to demolish and remove the building(s). That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition have not been corrected. That Division of Code Enforcement has posted a placard on the Subject Property which declares it to be a nuisance condirion subject to demolition. That this building has been routinely monitored by the Citizen Service Offices, Division of Code Enforcement, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings. That the lrnown interested parties and owners are as previously stated in this resolution and that the norification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled. ••� • The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the following order: 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 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. 2. If the above corrective action is not completed within this period of rime the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps are necessary to demolish and remove this stnxcture, 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. �'=`��I�AL o� -��' 1 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all personal 2 properiy or fiactures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shall be removed 3 from the property by the responsible parties by the end of this time period. If all personal property 4 is not removed, it shall be considered to be abandoned and the City of Saint Paul shall remove and 5 dispose of such property as provided by law. 4. It is further 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. AdoptedbyCouncil: Date �pp� Adoption Certified by Council Secretary : ` ` � � �� -� � � �. - ��i �J . � : /� %' ..11 t[...r Requested by Department o£ Citizen Service Office; Code Enfarcement By: ��'^~�-^-X i� � Form Approved by City Attorney By: Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: � Division of Code Enforcement 266-8439 2001 TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE 5 �,��,m �1 -1�t' o7iz�ioi GREEN SHEET wo 10234� N�.. � �� / `� � �m..,,�.� ❑�«� ❑ wuwu��avurFSOw. ❑ wNwo��aumKCra � WYORI�Yfp�M/�l __J�/�❑ (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) 7 City Council to pass this resolution which will order the owner(s) to rexnove or repair the referenced building(s). If the owner fails to comply with the resolufion, the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. The subject property is located at 60 Rose Avenue East. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB CAMMIT�EE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION �tas mis aerso�rm eve. xnr�a ��aer e�sce ro.u� a�me�m ves ruo HasthiaPeBOMm�everhcenncityempbyee? , _ . YES NO Does this P�rm pmsesc a sidll not nOrmallypoc6essed by anY curteM dlY emplqlee? YES NQ Is thia perswJfi�m a taryeMd veiMon . YES NO iain all vrs ansvrefs m seoa2te sheet and atlach W areen shee[ '' '"PPfi'�'"6{igRl1€�(�'€s°R�I�@"B4tY1�'j"fi�`Q�ed in Chapter 45 and a vacant building as defined in Chapter 43 of . the Saint Paul Legislative Code. The owners, inter�sted parties and responsible parties known to the Enforcement Officer were given an order to repair or remove the building at 60 Rose Avenue East by July 23, 2001, and have , failed to comply with those orders. . � �_ P�..y.bl]Y � "G: � !-5 The City will eliminate a nuisance. ��v o 9 �� )ISADVAMAGESIFAPPROVED " ' x -_--- The City will spend funds to wreck and remove this building(-s): Tkese cos�s will be assessed to the property, collected as a special assessment against the properry tases. )ISADVANTAGESIFNOTAPPROVED � � � ' � A nuisance condition will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to blight the community. fOTAL AMOUNT �OF TRANSACTION � � � COST/REVENl1E BUIXiETED (qRCLE ON� � NO souRCe Nuisance Housine Abatement �crnirrNUxa�e 33261 wFwtna'rwN jo�viNM . . 81- �$� REPdRT LEGISLATIVE HEARING Date: August 21, 2001 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Room 330 City Hall 15 VJest Kellogg Boulevazd Gerry Strathman Legislative Hearing Officer Laid Over Sunnuary Abatement: J0104AAA Property Cleanup at 327 Winifred Street East (Note: the City Councii referred this address back to the Legislative Hearing Officer.) Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval of the assessment. 2. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the properry at 843 Rice Street. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Laid over from 7-17-01) Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval. � 3. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the properry at 60 Rose Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Heazing Officer recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rehabilitation of this property. 4. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 63 Atwater Street. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval. rrn MINUTES OF TI� LEGISLATIVE HEARING �� Tuesday, August 21, 2001 Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer Room 330 Courthouse The meeting was catled to order at 10:07 am. STAFF PRESENT: Roxanna Flink, Real Estate; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement Laid Over Summary Abatement: J0104AAA Property Cleanup at 327 Winifred Street East (Note: the City Council has referred this address back to the Legislative Hearing Officer.) Khala Kim, owner, aPPeared. Gerry Strathman asked what was her concem regarding this assessment. Ms. Kim responded she did not have any concem. Mr. Strathman stated this was a charge for a cleanup at this properiy. He understands that she called Councilmember Chris Coleman's office and raised an objection to this chazge. Ms. Kim responded she called Nancy I3omans (Mr. Coleman's Legislative Aide) because she missed a date to attend a previous legislative hearing. Mr. Strathman asked did she understand this was an assessment for $448.50 and did she understand what was done. Ms. Kim responded she did not understand. (A videotape was shown.) Mr. 3trathman stated the charge ievied is for the cost of the cleanup. She should have been notified beforehand to do it When it was not done, a City crew did it. He will recommend the assessment be approved, and she will be notified in a few weeks about how to pay the assessment. Ms. Kim asked does she have to pay right now. Mr. Strathman responded Roxanna Flink can explain to her how the payment options work. Gerry Strathmau recommeads appmval of the assessment. Resolufion ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 843 Itice Street. If the owner faiis to comply with the resolufion, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Laid over from 7-17-01) (No one appeazed to represent the owner.) Gerry Strathman stated he received a letter dated August 20, 2001; from Gina L. Bulloch, Xcel Energy, D'uector of Corporate Rea1 Estate. Ms. Bulloch wrote thax Xcel Energy is continuing to work with the tide insurance company to obtain a mazketable title and continuing to work with North End Area Revitalizarion in execution of a purchase agreement. o,_��r LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 2 This matter has been before him for hParings on two previous occasions, stated Mr. Strathman. On both occasions, he recommended continuing the matter in order to allow Xcel Energy to clear up title problems and complete the sell to tlus prospective buyer. This has gone on way too long. Xcel Energy should have been able to clear the tifle and should have been able to close this purchase agreement. Gerry Strathman recommended approval of the resolution. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 60 Rose Avenue East If the owner fails #o rnmply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. The following appeared: Da�id Cobb, owner, Charles Coac, attomey, 676A Butler Square, Minneapolis. Steve Magner reported this building has been vacant since 2-23-01, after there was a fire at the building. The current owner is David S. Cobb, who purchased the buiiding after the original fire. There has been one summary abatement notice issued to remove refuse and secure the basement window. On 7-9-01, an inspection of the building was conducted and a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed and photographs were taken. This inspecrion occurred after a second fire in the beginning of July. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on 7-11-4i with a compliance date of ?-23-01. The City has had to boazd the building. The vacant building registration fees have been paid. Estimated mazket value on the structure is $52,300; estimated mazket value of the land, $9,900; estimated cost to demolish, $8,000 to $9,000. The cost of the repairs aze in question. It will be high due to the damage. There was a code compliance inspecrion done on the buiiding 7-23-01. The owner posted a$2,000 bond on 7-19-01. Mr. Cox shated that Mr. Cobb is ia the business of rehabilitating distressed structures. He has over 20 yseazs exgerience in the field aud has rehabilitated a number of houses within the City. In the last five yeaYS, many of those have been structures with fire daznage. He has obtained bids for mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work to be done on the property. He has worked with these contractors in the past. He has not yet obtained a struchzral engineer for this project because he is waiting to see i#'he is allowed io repair tlus structure before money is laid out for a retainer, which is required by the structural engineer. He also has a financial package in place for the property. Mortgage has been approved for the amount of $65,000, which Mr. Cobb believes will cover the cost of the repairs. He believes he can have 90% of the necessary work done by the end of Novemi�er. The baIance will be dome by February of neact year. Last point, Mr. Cobb does intend to mstall a security system in the properiy while the rehabilitation is being done because of two fires ttiat I�ave been set on the property. Mr. Strathman asked were the two fires arson. Mr. Cobb responded yes. Mr. Cobb stated he has been in communication with an engineering firm. They will do the structural engineering of the house. They have had prints made up, which will be subxnitted to the 01-4�Y LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINiJTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 3 City after the engineer has added changes as to what he wants done. Mr. Cobb has received bids for plumbing, heating, and electricai, which run appro�rimately $6,000 each. He has been approved for a mortgage for the rehabilitation. He has worked with the City in the past, stated Mr. Cobb. He has been appointed by Mayor Coleman on the Overnight Shelter Board in 1994; he has a letter of endorsement from the chairman of that boazd. He has a letter from Wilder Foundation about the work he has done. He also has a letter from the Community Stabilization Project. Mr. Strathman asked what the long term plans aze. Mr. Cobb responded to rehabilitate the property and sell it. He purchased i2 for $12,000. He has with him photographs of previous properties he has rehabilitated. George Stuber, 62 Rose Avenue East, appeared and stated he lives neict door to this property. He called the fire department twice on this property. This property has been in his wife's family since the 1950's. It was sold in 1994. It had been in reasonably good condition. He could not get a first mortgage due to the dry rotted floor beams. It was sold on a contract for deed and sold again but #heg had to take a deep discount. The new buyers did nothing but destroy the building for 6%2 years. It burned on 2-1-01 from a faulty space heater. According to Code Enforcement, it was scheduled to be demolished when a new buyer came along. On 7-2-01, a huge fire burned through the complete house and through the roof. It is time for the house to go, says Mr. Stuber. It does not fit into the azea because it is the only 1870 building out there. Councilmember Jim Reiter said this would make a good vacant lot. Mr. Stuber stated he does not think someone can make this a decent property with $60,000. Other houses in the azea were built in the 1940's and set back from the streeY. This property is right against the properry line. The retaining wail was taken down in the last couple of days. (Mr_ Stuber submitted photographs for the record.) The following appeazed: Marie Wadell, 33 Langer Circle, West Saint Paul, and her sister Dorothy Stuber, 62 Rose Avenue East. Ms. Wadell read a statement from Ms. Stuber. Ms. Stuber wrote the property is dangerous, unsound, and not repairable. The wa11s and ceiling have begun to crack and fall. Stucco has been put on top of old asphalt siding. The basement has limestone walls that are cracked and peeling. The floor joists have dry rot. It has been almost seven months since the fust fire and noY much has been done to the properry. Their property values have decreased. Ms. Wadeli s¢ated €he Stubers have a lot of damage on their home from 60 Rose. Her concern is that a strict time line is followed. (A copy of the petition plus photographs were submitted for the record.) Michael Swifka, 61 Rose Avenue East, appeazed and stated that 60 Rose is a bumed out shell. After the second fire, he asked Mr. Magner why the properry was not demolished, and Mr. Magner said Mr. Cobb has the right to renovate the property. However, stated Mr. Swifka, Mr. o � -�t�Y LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 4 Cobb dces not live in the neighborhood. He is trying to make a profit after a structure that is beyond salvaging. How he can make money on this property is beyond him. Mr. Cobb has owned the properiy since mid March. There had been no improvements made to this property before the second fire. The Sivbers have a house that looks �*n*na�ulate. During the second fire, it stazted melting the siding on the Stubers house. Mr. Swifka stated this eyesore should be demolished. Tim Mueller, 1568 Myrtle Street, appeared and staxed he has been involved in the building �ades for over 40 years, and involved in rehabilitating homes and building new ones for over 30 years. His wife's pazents tried to keep the property up because the property was over 100 yeazs old. The underside of thaY home had dry rot over 20 years ago. There is an old cistem that is undemeath half of the basement. The stucco was installed poorly over the original siding. The house is truly a loss. He cannot believe a man can financially rehabilitate that house correctly, do it safely, take out the bumt wood, put that place together again, and have a good safe home that would be attractive and reasonably complementary to the neighborhood. Clazence Roban, 57 Geranium Avenue East, appeared and stated he agrees with the other comments from his neighbors. He is concemed about the Stubers that live next door to 60 Rose. Mr. Strathman asked did Mr. Cobb have any comments to make in response. Mr. Cobb responded that he also has a petition signed by five neighbors asking the City to allow him to rehabilitate the structure. He just got the petition going yesterday after hearing that Mr. Stuber had a petition. The work done so far is demolition work on the inside and getting rid of the fire damage on the outside. He tore down the porch and back 1/3 of the house, the damaged retaining wall is gone, the roof is off of the house, and he has plating material securing the walls of the house to the flooring so that the house is not damaged by wind racking the frame. He has not had a crew of carpenters redoing the house because he wants the hearing to give him indication that he can rehabilitate before he spends thousand of dollazs. All work will be done according to code. A large part of the cost of the rehabilitation is his labor. He is a licensed contractor and he has done many houses. Mr. Strathman asked about the dry rot and the cistem under the building. Mr. Cobb responded all that wftl have to be removed during the rehabilitation of the structure. Also, this house has historic designation due to its age and the front porch details. He is exploring the possibility of putting it on the historic register. Mr. Strathman asked is it in the lustoric preservation dishict. Mr. Magner responded it is not. Mr. Cobb stated he has a statement from a neighbor that there is a group in the area that wants the house burned down. Upon being asked how the security system will be installed, Mr. Cobb responded the gazage electricat system is intact. An electrician will energize the electrical system in the garage and he will bring one line of power to the house. There will be a motion sensor in the house. 0 1-`l�i' LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTgS OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Magner read a fire report into the record dated 7-20-01. This report is a supplement to the code compliance report dated 3-5-01. It stipulated what needed to be done. In addition, the owner will have to bring the plumbing, electrical, heating up to minimum standards. If the fire had not been put out at the time, the fire department would have had the building raised immediately at the time of the fire. Based on the fire department's belief and the subsequent inspection of the grope.rty, it was deemed that it was not an immediate ha�ard and not going to fall down; however, it created such a nuisance in the comm�mity, it was brought to this forum so the community and the owner could beaz any issues. In Mr. Magner's opinion, to rehabilitate tlus building is going to be cost prohibitive unless the owner is doing the majority of the work and is willing to consider lus sweat equity as ivs profit out of tlie property. Mr. Strathman stated Mr. Cobb is a legitimate owner of the property, and has plans to rehabilitate it. Mr. Strathman understands that people may have different opinions about whether something is economicaliy viable; however, he does not think the City can substitute his judgement and the City Covncil's judgement for someone's business judgement. If Mr. Cobb is mistaken in his assessment of ihe economics of this, he is the one that will beaz the consequence of that mistake. The owner is fully aware of the risks of tivs enterprise and the challenge before him. It is also cleaz the property is a disturbance to the neighbors. It will continue to be one because rehabilitation is not instantaneous. While Mr. Strathman believes that Mr. Cobb needs an opportunity Yo do this, the City has to set a time line for him to accomplish this. Because he has met all tlne Fegal requirements--paid the vacant building fee, obtained a code campliance inspection, paid the $2,000 bond which could be forfeited if he does not fulfill his obligations--the City does not have any choice but to allow him six months to complete his rehabilitation. As Mr. Cox referenced, if Mr. Cobb is more than 50% done within six months, he can apply for an additional six months. Gerry Strathman recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rehabilitation of this property. Resolatiou ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 63 Atwater Street. If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (No one appeared to represent the property.) Steve Magner reported this property was condemned June 2001 and has been vacant since 6-26-01. The owner is Atwater Investment Company. Two summary abatement norices have been issued to remove refuse, and secure the building. On 7-1-01, there was a fire that caused substantiai da�age fo tine pro�eriy. Because of ttus fire, an inspecfion of the building was conducted on 7-9-01, a list of deficiencies wluch constitute a nuisance condition was developed and photographs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on 7-11-01 with a compliance date of 7-23-01. Vacant building fees are due. Real estate ta�ces aze paid. Estimated mazket value is $43,200 on the structure and $7,500 on the land; esrimated cost to demolish, $8,000 to $9,000. The repairs aze in excess of $100,000. O�_q'3Y LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINiJTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 6 Mr. Magner received a phone call from Bob Neeser from Aiwater Investment Company. His message was he would be at work and cannot attend the meeting. He is waiting to here from lus insurance company; they will repair the building or tear it down. Mr. Neeser did not leave a phone number. He was served papeis personally conceming this legislative hearing and the City Council public hearing. A vacant building notice, order to abate the nuisance, and the summary abatement have been posted on the pmperty, and were still there the other day when the property was inspected. Tlus has been a probiem property for a number of years. Gerry Sirathman recommended approval of the resolution based on the information provided by Code Enforcement, the review of the photographs, and absent any testimony from the owner. The meeiing was adj ourned at approa�imately 11:00 a.m. i�,�l �. CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor July 27, 2001 CIT[ZEN SERVICE OFFICE Fred Ow�au, Ciry Clerk DIVISION OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT Michae[ R Morehead, Program Mnnager Nuisance Building Code Enforcem.ent 15 W. KellaggBlvd Rm. 790 Tel: 651-2668440 SaintPaul,MN55102 Faz:651-266-8426 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Council President and Members of the City Councii o, 1�r Citizen Service Office, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings Enforcement Division has requested the City Council schedule public liearings to consider a resolution ordering the repair or removal of the nuisance building(s) located at: 60 Rose Avenue East The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearings as follows: Legisiative Hearing - Tuesday, August 21, 2001 City Council Hearing - Wednesday, September 05, 2001 The owners and responsible parties of record are: Name and Last Known Address David Cobb 51920 Birch Avenue Rush City, MN 55069 Interest Fee Owner The legal description of this properly is: The East 59 feet of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 1, Pelzl's Subdivision of Lot 3 of Block 2, Saint Paul North Out Lots. Division of Code Enforcement has declared this building(s) to consritute a"nuisance" as defined by Legislative Code, Chapter 45. Division of Code Enforcement has issued an order to the then laiown responsible parties to eluninate this nuisance condition by correcting the deficiencies or by razing and removing this building(s}. 60 Rose Avenue East July 27, 2001 Page 2 a�-�ar Inasmuch as this Order to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition remains unabatad, 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 timely manner, and failing that, authorize 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 ta�ces. Sincerely, �teve �CLC��22N Steve Magner Vacant Buildings Supervisor Division of Code Enforcement Citizen Service Office SM:mI cc: Frank Berg, Building Inspection and Design Meghan Riley, City Attorneys Office Nancy tlnderson, Assistant Secretary to the Co.uncil Laurie Kaplan, PED-Housing Division ccnph ■ :.,,. r :, _ �� + � � � t __ / . '4a n 'i'i .., q N p� � ,. y , ,� ,z . ' �� l a � � k � __ r � -r" t�� 1�'.. �' 1 �w ,. y ; .., . �Y m-°=.:-. y. y .: �. . Y .s_, _ M � '•. � ' :•� �:� ti' � �.�.°.� .., .;.-,. + C-� � �4_� . �� .. � k } , Ir` � Yq 1 ( � ` � + }1 � � �� • � t �� .) �"� �� ,� T �C � : �. § . �, S l. " � �j� °Y' /.: � q F � �.o- �` � �' 14 Y ��'` . .F ' ; � , � :.-v r ` . � Y�' Y.ti•; �,.. �T .. F � R " K v � . r� �.. �' . . y y,.: � n. � ` � � � � �� ` Y - � I... � !a_ . +Kaw. . . r• 3 _ � �� —_ r:_. � '-' . 1 q�w � / � . . f :: J N ;� �� {� ._. _'- -. --" �� "°' �. i'ia � - � ,::� . �" � . �. R°4�_, _ ' .. a''Y `� .':: �� ♦.� �ti � r��t 4;��y�, �'. :, `� ., __ . ;".;� G � _.._ \ � _. _. _. . __.. ..—_ ._ .._ __ �-�_,:� � •.,�� : m.,ij � u � %' F . . . . _ ;i.� "�.�i^a it 8 'J� 4 �'� �i��V�l �i� `� � � ; - F' w , . . � ; . _ � . 9 ��. r"�' Y �.: .. .... j � r .- T �� ♦ _. 'k��.'�m;� .". . �. ; y�'�z� , �. _ �y,. � � i` � � �, . t .a�-� ,�,� , a �, . �% � � `:� _ _ :: : � � �� ---� � ... ,� a� J �s _ - ., � - � � e -' �! � `:: < � f / � �� 4 �"�S . .