The URL can be used to link to this page

01-939Council File # O 1— R3q � r� ` 1 i n �.. �;� � � s �: �E I�� CITY Presented By Refened RESOLUTION PAUL, MINNESOTA SG. GreenSheet# 1oa34G Committee: Date WF3EREAS, Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement has requested the City Council to hold public hearings to consider the advisability and necessity of ordering the repair or wrecldng and removal of a two-story, wood frame, duplex and a detached, oversized, one-stall, wood frame garage located on property hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly laiown as 63 Atwater Street. This properry is legally described as follows, to wit: Lot 21, Block 5, Lewis' Addition to St. Paul. 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 WHEREAS, based upon the recards in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before May 11, 2001, the following are the now known interested or responsible parties for the Subject Property: Atwater Inveshnent Co., c/o Robert Neeser, 1376 Bayard Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55116; Minnesota Federal Savings & Loan Assoc., 355 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 WHEREAS, Division of Code Enforcement has served in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code an arder 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 WHEREAS, 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 placud on the Subject Property declaring this building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and WHEREAS, this nuisance condirion has not been corrected and Division of Code Enforcement requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the City Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and WHEREAS, the interested and responsible parties have been served notice in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the time, date, place and purpose of the public hearings; and WHEREAS, a hearing was held 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 recommendarion to approve the request to order the interested or responsibie 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 coxnmunity by rehabilitating this shucture in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances, or in the alternative by demolislung and removing the struclure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to be completed within five (5) days after the date of the Council Hearing; and �1 � i "i ;�4 ;� � o�-9�q lm '�-' E `a '� �°- 1 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, September O5, 2 2001 and the testimony and evidence including the action taken by the Legislative Hearing Officer was 3 considered by the Council; now therefore 4 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 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 foliowing Findings and Order conceming the Subject Property at 63 Atwater Street: 1. 2. 3. L� That the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 45. That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). That there now exists and has existed multiple Housing or Building code violations at the Subject Properiy. That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then known responsible parties to correct the deficiencies or to demolish and remove the building(s). 5. That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition have not been conected. 6. That Division of Code Enforcement has posted a placard on the Subject Property which declares it to be a nuisance condition subject to demolition. 7. That this building has been routinely monitored by the Citizen Service Offices, Division of Code Enforcement, Vacant/Nuisance Buiidings. 8. That the lrnown interested parties and owners are as previously stated in this resolution and that the notification requirements of Chapter 45 haue been fuifilled. ••� ' 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 comxnunity by rehabilitating this shuchue 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 shucture must be completed within five (5) days after the date of the Council Hearing. 2. If the above corrective acrion is not completed within this period of time the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps are necessary to demolish and remove this structure, fill the site and charge the costs incurred against the 5ubject Property pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. t°q j'1 3/`� � e. � o r 1 .1st��i` , , , . : E �..�` f \ .` 'a,e `s : 'a : _ c� oi 1 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all personal 2 property or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shail be removed 3 from the property by the responsible parties by the end of this tune 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. 6 7 4. It is fiirther ordered, that a copy of this resolution be mailed to the owners and interested parties in accordance with Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislafive Code. Adopted by Council: Date o� Adoption Certified by Council Secretary � ` � I '��-�� .-/�% ��"� I � ��1�1 �/1/ i Requested by Deparhnent of: Citizen Service Office; Code Enforcement B P ��.---��.�-'� '"'�'_`"`�` cr Form Approved by City Attorney By: �V v Approved by Mayor far Submission to Council By: (�(��-- Code Enforcement a aFar� Morehead 266-8439 � � ICIL AGHm.4 BY (DA7Q , September O5, 2001 TOTAL � OF SIGNATURE ✓ o�,e wmn,� � � `� � � o�iz�ioi� �� GREEN SHEET� �� No 10�23�.�i FoR � an�7TO�eEr ❑ crtrCtHU( ❑ wuxciu�FSOw. ❑ wuwcw.. � r�raR WR�amr� � ❑ V ' (CLIP ALL LOCATfONS FOR SIGNATURE) City Council to pass this resolurion which will order the owner(s) to remove or repair the referenced building(s). Lf the owner fails to comply with the resolution, the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. The subject property is located at 63 Atwater Street. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB CAMMITfEE CML SERVICE CAMMISSION � u,�c a �o�� wo�a ��ae. a�n�,t ra�n� a�a�e�,rr YES NO Hes tbis peisoNfitm cxr heen a dty employee7 YES NO Daes t}+is P�+� P� a sld& not norme�NP� bY anY current citYemP�aNee? YES NO Is ihia pe�soNfi�m a tarpeted venOOYl YES NO '�lYi�'"��Q��fs °X�s'S'�I�@"{4ft3T$�n'g�'j `��i'ed in Chapter 45 and a vacant building as def"med ui Chapter 43 , of the Saint Paul Legislative Cade. The owners, interested parties and responsible parties known to the Enforcement Officer were given an order to repair or remove the building at 63 Atwater Street by 7uly 23, 2001, and have failed to comply with those orders. � ,, C,eticet �� ro,.,,n3:� �^c�u, . The City will eliminate a nuisance. ��i�. � � 2�� The City will spend funds to wreck and remove this building(s}. These costs wilibe assessed to the property, collected as a snecial assessment aeainst the vronertv taaces. nuisance condition will remain unabated in the City. This building{s) will continue to blight the comxnunity. 'AL AMOUNT CP TRANSACTION t � � COETRlEVENUE BUDfiETED (CIRCLE ONFa YES � NO � . 1 ' � � . I _ : � . " II ' 1 = (��M oi-9�q REPORT Date: August 21, 2001 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Room 330 City Aall 15 West Kellogg Boulevazd LEGISLATIVE HEARING Gerry Strathman Legislative Hearing Officer i. Laid Over Summary Abatement: 74144AAA Property Cleanup at 327 VJinifred Street East (Note: #he City Com�eil 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 property at 843 Rice Street. If the owner fails to comply with the Tesolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Laid over &om 7-17-Oi) Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval. 3. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 60 Rose Avenue East. if ihe owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove #he builsl�g. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rehabilitation of this property. �s- 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 3nriiding- Legisla#ive Hearing Officer recommends approval. �.� p � _ 4'39 MIN[TTES OF "TI-IE LEGISLATIVE HEARiNG Tuesday, August 21, 2001 Gerry Strathman, Legislative Heating Officer Room 330 Courthouse The meeting was called to order at 10:07 a.m. 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, appeazed. Gerry Sirathman asked what was her concem regarding this assessment. Ms. Kim responded she did not have any concern. Mr. Strathman stated this was a charge for a cleanup at this property. He understands that she called Councilmember Chris Coleman's office and raised an objection to this chazge. Ms. Kim responded she called Nancy Homans (Mr. Coleman's Legislative Aide) because she missed a daxe to attend a previous legislative hearing. Mr. Strathman asked did she understand this was an assessment for $448.50 and did she undsrstand what was done. Ms. Kim responded she did not understand. (A videotape was shown.) Mr. Strathman stated the charge levied 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 Strathman recommends approval of the assessment. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property 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) (No one appeazed to represent the owner.) Gerry Strathman stated he received a letter dated August 20, 2001; from Gina L. Bulloch, Xcel Energy, I}irector of Corporate Real Estate. Ms. Bulloch wrote that Xcel Energy is continuing to wark with the title insurance company to obtain a marketable title and continuing to work with North End Area Revitalization in execurion of a purchase agreement. a� _9�q LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 2 This matter has been before him for hearings on two previous occasions, stated Mr. Strathman. On both occasions, he recommended continuing the matter in order to allow Xcel Energy to cleaz up tifle probiems and complete the sell to this prospective buyer. This has gone on way too long. Xcel Energy should have been able to cleaz the title and should have been able to close this purchase agreement. Gerry Stratiunan recommended approval of the resolution. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 60 Rose Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. The following appeazed: David Cobb, owner, Charles Cox, attorney, 676A Bufler 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 building after the original fire. There has been one sucmnary abatement notice issued to remove refuse and secure the basement window. On 7-9-01, an inspecfion of the building was conducted and a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed and photographs were taken. This inspection occurred after a second fire in the begivning of July. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on 7-11-01 with a compiiance date of 7-23-01. The City has had to boazd the building. The vacant building registration fees have been paid. Estnnated market value on the structure is $52,300; estimated market value of the land, $9,900; estimated cost to demolish, $8,000 to $9,000. The cost of the repairs are in question. It will be high due to the damage. There was a code compliance inspection done on the building 7-23-01. The owner posted a$2,000 bond on 7-19-01. Mr. Cox stated that Mr. Cobb is in the business of rehabilitating distressed structures. He has over 20 years experience in the field and has rehabilitated a number of houses within the City. In the last five years, many of those haue been structures with fire damage. He has obtained bids for mechanical, elecirical, and pluxnbing work to be done on the property. He has worked with these contractors in the past. He has not yet obtained a structural engineer for this project because he is waiting to see if he is allowed to repair this 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 properry. 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 November. The balance will be done by February of next year. Last point, Mr. Cobb does intend to install a security system in the properiy while the rehabilitation is being done because of two fires tkiat haue been set on the properiy. Mr. Strathman asked were the two fires arson. Mr. Cobb responded yes. Mr. Cobb stated he has been in comxnunication with an engineering firm. They will do the structural engineering of the house. They have had prints made up, which will be submitted to the o� -'t�9 LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINIJTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 page 3 City after the engineer tias added changes as to what he wants done. Mr. Cobb has received bids for plumbing, heating, and elechical, wluch run approximately $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 Boazd 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 properiy and sell it. He purchased it 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 next door to this property. He called the fue department twice on this property. This properiy 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 soid again but they had to take a deep discount. The new buyers did nothing but destroy the building for 6'/z 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 tnne for the house to go, says Mr. Stuber. It does not fit into the area because it is the only 1870 building out there. Councilmember 7im 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 street. This property is right against the property line. The retaining wall was taken down in the last couple of days. (Mr. Stuber submitted photographs for the record.) The following appeared: Marie Wadell, 33 Langer Circle, West Saint Paui, and her sister Dorothy Stuber, 62 Rose Avenue East. Ms. Wadell read a statement from Ms. Stuber. Ms. Stuber wrote the properry is dangerous, unsound, and not repairable. The wa11s and ceiling have begtm to crack and fall. Stucco has been put on top of old asphalt siding. The basement has limestone walls that aze cracked and peeling. The floar joists have dry rot. It has been almost seven months since the first fire and not much has been done to the properry. Their property values have decreased. Ms. Wadell stated the Stubers have a lot of damage on their home from 60 Rose. Her concern is that a strict tune line is followed. (A copy of the perition plus photographs were submitted for the record.) Michael Swiflca, 61 Rose Avenue East, appeazed and stated that 60 Rose is a burned out shell. After the second fire, he asked Mr. Magner why the properiy was not demolished, and Mr. Magner said Mr. Cobb has the right to renovate the property. However, stated Mr. Swifka, Mr. o�-q19 LEGISLAITVE HEARING MINTJTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 4 Cobb does not live in the neighborhood. He is uying to make a profit after a struchue that is beyond salv2a ng. How he can make money on this property is beyond him. Mr. Cobb has owned the properly since mid March. There had been no improvements made to this properly before the second fire. The Siubers have a house that looks immaculate. During the second fire, it started melting the siding on the Stubers house. Mr. Swifka stated this eyesore should be demolished. Tun Mueller, 1568 Myrtle Street, appeared and stated he has been involved in the building trades for over 40 yeazs, and involved in rehabilitating homes and building new ones for over 30 years. His wife's pazents tried to keep the properiy up because the property was over 100 years old. The underside of that home had dry rot over 20 yeazs ago. There is an old cistern that is underneath 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 burnt wood, put that place together again, and have a good safe home that would be atiractive and reasonably complementary to the neighborhood. Ciarence Roban, 57 Geranium Avenue East, appeared and stated he agrees with the other comments from his neighbors. He is concerned about the Shxbers that live next door to 60 Rose. Mr. Strathman asked did Mr. Cobb haue 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 dollars. All wark 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 cistern under the building. Mr. Cobb responded all that will have to be removed during the rehabilitation of the structure. Also, this house has historic designafion due to its age and the front porch details. He is exploring the possibility of putting it on the tristoric register. Mr. Strathman asked is it in the historic preservation disirict. 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 garage electrical 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 wili be a motion sensor in the house. o ti_q19 LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Magner read a fire report into the record dated 7-20-01. T1us 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, elechical, heating up to m;nimum standards. If the fue 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 departmenPs belief and the subsequent inspection of the property, it was deemed that it was not an immediate hazard and not going to fall down; however, it created such a nuisance in the community, it was brought to this forum so the communiiy and the owner could bear any issues. In Mr. Magner's opinion, to rehabilitate this building is going to be cost prohibitive unless the owner is doing the majority of the work and is willing to consider his sweat equity as his profit out of the property. Mr. Strathman stated Mr. Cobb is a legitimate owner of the properry, and has plans to rehabilitate it. Mr. Strathman understands that people may have different opuuons about whether something is economically viable; however, he does not think the City can substitute his judgement and the City Council's judgement for someone's business judgement. If Mr. Cobb is mistaken in his assessment of the economics of tlus, he is the one that will beaz the consequence of that mistake. The owner is fully aware of the risks of this enterprise and the challenge before him. It is also clear 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 to do this, the City has to set a time line for him to accomplish this. Because he has met all the legal requirements--paid the vacant building fee, obtained a code compliance inspection, paid the $2,000 bond which could be forFeited if he does not fulfili his obligations--the Ciry does not have any choice but to a11ow 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 additionai six months. Gerry Strathman recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rehabilitation of this property. `�� "` Resolution 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 properiy.) Steve Magner reported this property was condexnned June 2001 and has been vacant since 6-26-01. The owner is Atwater Investment Company. Two sununary abatement notices have been issued to remove refuse, and secure the building. On 7-1-01, there was a fire that caused substantial damage to the property. Because of this fire, an inspection of the building was conducted on 7-9-01, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An ozder 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 tases are paid. Estunated market value is $43,2Q0 on the structure and $7,500 on the land; estimated cost to demolish, $8,000 to $9,000. The repairs are in excess of $100,000. 0�-��9 LEGISLATIVE HEt1RII3G MIN[JT'ES OF AUGt3ST 21, 2001 Page 6 Mr. Magner received a phone call from Bob Neeser from Atwater 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 papers personally concerning this legislative hearing and the City Council public hearing. A vacant building notice, order to abate the nuisance, and the stuvmary abatement have been posted on the properry, and were sti11 there the other day when the property was inspected. This has been a problem properiy for a number of years. Gerry Strathman 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 meeting was adjoumed at approximately 11:00 am. � CITTZEN SERVICE OFFICE Fred Owusn, City Clerk CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Caleman, Mayor July 27, 2001 DMSION OF PROPbRTY CODE ENFORCEMENT Michael R Morehe¢d, Prog'am Manager Nuirance Building Code Enforcement ISW.KelloggBlvd.Rm.790 Tel: 651-2668440 SairstPaul,MN55102 Fax:651-2658426 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Council President and Members of the City Council Oi-9�°I Citizen Service Office, VacantlNuisance 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: b3 Atwater Street The City Council has scheduled the date o£these hearings as follows: Legislative Hearing - Tuesday, August 21, 2001 City Council Hearing - Wednesday, September O5, 2001 The owners and responsible parties of record are: Name and Last Known Address Atwater Investment Co. cJo Robert Neeser 1376 Bayard Avenue St. Pau1, MN 55116 Minnesota Federal Savings & Loan Assoc. 355 Minnesota Street S�. Paul, MN 55101 The legal deseription of this properiy is: Interest Fee Owner Mortgagee Lot 21, Block 5, Lewis' Addition to St. Paul. o � �� 63 Atwater Street 7uly 27, 2001 Page 2 Division of Code Enforcement has declared this building(s) to constitute a"nuisance" as defined by Legislative Code, Chapter 45. Division of Code Enforcement has issued an order to the then laiown responsible parties to eliminate this nuisance condifion by correcting the deficiencies or by razing and removing this building(s). Inasmuch as this Order to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition remains unabated, the community continues to suffer the blighting influence of this property. It is the recommendation of the Division of Code Enforcement that the City Council pass a resolution ordering the responsible parties to either repair, or demolish and remove this building in a 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 tases. Sincerely, �teve �a��2er Steve Magner Vacant Buildings Supervisor Division of Code Enforcement Cirizen Service Office SM:mI cc: Frank Berg, Building Inspection and Design Meghan Riley, City Attorneys Office Nancy Anderson, Assistant Secretary to the Council Laurie Kaplan, PED-Housing Division ccnph Council File # O 1— R3q � r� ` 1 i n �.. �;� � � s �: �E I�� CITY Presented By Refened RESOLUTION PAUL, MINNESOTA SG. GreenSheet# 1oa34G Committee: Date WF3EREAS, Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement has requested the City Council to hold public hearings to consider the advisability and necessity of ordering the repair or wrecldng and removal of a two-story, wood frame, duplex and a detached, oversized, one-stall, wood frame garage located on property hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly laiown as 63 Atwater Street. This properry is legally described as follows, to wit: Lot 21, Block 5, Lewis' Addition to St. Paul. 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 WHEREAS, based upon the recards in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before May 11, 2001, the following are the now known interested or responsible parties for the Subject Property: Atwater Inveshnent Co., c/o Robert Neeser, 1376 Bayard Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55116; Minnesota Federal Savings & Loan Assoc., 355 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 WHEREAS, Division of Code Enforcement has served in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code an arder 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 WHEREAS, 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 placud on the Subject Property declaring this building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and WHEREAS, this nuisance condirion has not been corrected and Division of Code Enforcement requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the City Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and WHEREAS, the interested and responsible parties have been served notice in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the time, date, place and purpose of the public hearings; and WHEREAS, a hearing was held 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 recommendarion to approve the request to order the interested or responsibie 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 coxnmunity by rehabilitating this shucture in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances, or in the alternative by demolislung and removing the struclure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to be completed within five (5) days after the date of the Council Hearing; and �1 � i "i ;�4 ;� � o�-9�q lm '�-' E `a '� �°- 1 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, September O5, 2 2001 and the testimony and evidence including the action taken by the Legislative Hearing Officer was 3 considered by the Council; now therefore 4 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 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 foliowing Findings and Order conceming the Subject Property at 63 Atwater Street: 1. 2. 3. L� That the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 45. That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). That there now exists and has existed multiple Housing or Building code violations at the Subject Properiy. That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then known responsible parties to correct the deficiencies or to demolish and remove the building(s). 5. That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition have not been conected. 6. That Division of Code Enforcement has posted a placard on the Subject Property which declares it to be a nuisance condition subject to demolition. 7. That this building has been routinely monitored by the Citizen Service Offices, Division of Code Enforcement, Vacant/Nuisance Buiidings. 8. That the lrnown interested parties and owners are as previously stated in this resolution and that the notification requirements of Chapter 45 haue been fuifilled. ••� ' 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 comxnunity by rehabilitating this shuchue 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 shucture must be completed within five (5) days after the date of the Council Hearing. 2. If the above corrective acrion is not completed within this period of time the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps are necessary to demolish and remove this structure, fill the site and charge the costs incurred against the 5ubject Property pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. t°q j'1 3/`� � e. � o r 1 .1st��i` , , , . : E �..�` f \ .` 'a,e `s : 'a : _ c� oi 1 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all personal 2 property or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shail be removed 3 from the property by the responsible parties by the end of this tune 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. 6 7 4. It is fiirther ordered, that a copy of this resolution be mailed to the owners and interested parties in accordance with Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislafive Code. Adopted by Council: Date o� Adoption Certified by Council Secretary � ` � I '��-�� .-/�% ��"� I � ��1�1 �/1/ i Requested by Deparhnent of: Citizen Service Office; Code Enforcement B P ��.---��.�-'� '"'�'_`"`�` cr Form Approved by City Attorney By: �V v Approved by Mayor far Submission to Council By: (�(��-- Code Enforcement a aFar� Morehead 266-8439 � � ICIL AGHm.4 BY (DA7Q , September O5, 2001 TOTAL � OF SIGNATURE ✓ o�,e wmn,� � � `� � � o�iz�ioi� �� GREEN SHEET� �� No 10�23�.�i FoR � an�7TO�eEr ❑ crtrCtHU( ❑ wuxciu�FSOw. ❑ wuwcw.. � r�raR WR�amr� � ❑ V ' (CLIP ALL LOCATfONS FOR SIGNATURE) City Council to pass this resolurion which will order the owner(s) to remove or repair the referenced building(s). Lf the owner fails to comply with the resolution, the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. The subject property is located at 63 Atwater Street. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB CAMMITfEE CML SERVICE CAMMISSION � u,�c a �o�� wo�a ��ae. a�n�,t ra�n� a�a�e�,rr YES NO Hes tbis peisoNfitm cxr heen a dty employee7 YES NO Daes t}+is P�+� P� a sld& not norme�NP� bY anY current citYemP�aNee? YES NO Is ihia pe�soNfi�m a tarpeted venOOYl YES NO '�lYi�'"��Q��fs °X�s'S'�I�@"{4ft3T$�n'g�'j `��i'ed in Chapter 45 and a vacant building as def"med ui Chapter 43 , of the Saint Paul Legislative Cade. The owners, interested parties and responsible parties known to the Enforcement Officer were given an order to repair or remove the building at 63 Atwater Street by 7uly 23, 2001, and have failed to comply with those orders. � ,, C,eticet �� ro,.,,n3:� �^c�u, . The City will eliminate a nuisance. ��i�. � � 2�� The City will spend funds to wreck and remove this building(s}. These costs wilibe assessed to the property, collected as a snecial assessment aeainst the vronertv taaces. nuisance condition will remain unabated in the City. This building{s) will continue to blight the comxnunity. 'AL AMOUNT CP TRANSACTION t � � COETRlEVENUE BUDfiETED (CIRCLE ONFa YES � NO � . 1 ' � � . I _ : � . " II ' 1 = (��M oi-9�q REPORT Date: August 21, 2001 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Room 330 City Aall 15 West Kellogg Boulevazd LEGISLATIVE HEARING Gerry Strathman Legislative Hearing Officer i. Laid Over Summary Abatement: 74144AAA Property Cleanup at 327 VJinifred Street East (Note: #he City Com�eil 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 property at 843 Rice Street. If the owner fails to comply with the Tesolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Laid over &om 7-17-Oi) Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval. 3. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 60 Rose Avenue East. if ihe owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove #he builsl�g. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rehabilitation of this property. �s- 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 3nriiding- Legisla#ive Hearing Officer recommends approval. �.� p � _ 4'39 MIN[TTES OF "TI-IE LEGISLATIVE HEARiNG Tuesday, August 21, 2001 Gerry Strathman, Legislative Heating Officer Room 330 Courthouse The meeting was called to order at 10:07 a.m. 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, appeazed. Gerry Sirathman asked what was her concem regarding this assessment. Ms. Kim responded she did not have any concern. Mr. Strathman stated this was a charge for a cleanup at this property. He understands that she called Councilmember Chris Coleman's office and raised an objection to this chazge. Ms. Kim responded she called Nancy Homans (Mr. Coleman's Legislative Aide) because she missed a daxe to attend a previous legislative hearing. Mr. Strathman asked did she understand this was an assessment for $448.50 and did she undsrstand what was done. Ms. Kim responded she did not understand. (A videotape was shown.) Mr. Strathman stated the charge levied 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 Strathman recommends approval of the assessment. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property 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) (No one appeazed to represent the owner.) Gerry Strathman stated he received a letter dated August 20, 2001; from Gina L. Bulloch, Xcel Energy, I}irector of Corporate Real Estate. Ms. Bulloch wrote that Xcel Energy is continuing to wark with the title insurance company to obtain a marketable title and continuing to work with North End Area Revitalization in execurion of a purchase agreement. a� _9�q LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 2 This matter has been before him for hearings on two previous occasions, stated Mr. Strathman. On both occasions, he recommended continuing the matter in order to allow Xcel Energy to cleaz up tifle probiems and complete the sell to this prospective buyer. This has gone on way too long. Xcel Energy should have been able to cleaz the title and should have been able to close this purchase agreement. Gerry Stratiunan recommended approval of the resolution. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 60 Rose Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. The following appeazed: David Cobb, owner, Charles Cox, attorney, 676A Bufler 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 building after the original fire. There has been one sucmnary abatement notice issued to remove refuse and secure the basement window. On 7-9-01, an inspecfion of the building was conducted and a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed and photographs were taken. This inspection occurred after a second fire in the begivning of July. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on 7-11-01 with a compiiance date of 7-23-01. The City has had to boazd the building. The vacant building registration fees have been paid. Estnnated market value on the structure is $52,300; estimated market value of the land, $9,900; estimated cost to demolish, $8,000 to $9,000. The cost of the repairs are in question. It will be high due to the damage. There was a code compliance inspection done on the building 7-23-01. The owner posted a$2,000 bond on 7-19-01. Mr. Cox stated that Mr. Cobb is in the business of rehabilitating distressed structures. He has over 20 years experience in the field and has rehabilitated a number of houses within the City. In the last five years, many of those haue been structures with fire damage. He has obtained bids for mechanical, elecirical, and pluxnbing work to be done on the property. He has worked with these contractors in the past. He has not yet obtained a structural engineer for this project because he is waiting to see if he is allowed to repair this 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 properry. 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 November. The balance will be done by February of next year. Last point, Mr. Cobb does intend to install a security system in the properiy while the rehabilitation is being done because of two fires tkiat haue been set on the properiy. Mr. Strathman asked were the two fires arson. Mr. Cobb responded yes. Mr. Cobb stated he has been in comxnunication with an engineering firm. They will do the structural engineering of the house. They have had prints made up, which will be submitted to the o� -'t�9 LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINIJTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 page 3 City after the engineer tias added changes as to what he wants done. Mr. Cobb has received bids for plumbing, heating, and elechical, wluch run approximately $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 Boazd 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 properiy and sell it. He purchased it 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 next door to this property. He called the fue department twice on this property. This properiy 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 soid again but they had to take a deep discount. The new buyers did nothing but destroy the building for 6'/z 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 tnne for the house to go, says Mr. Stuber. It does not fit into the area because it is the only 1870 building out there. Councilmember 7im 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 street. This property is right against the property line. The retaining wall was taken down in the last couple of days. (Mr. Stuber submitted photographs for the record.) The following appeared: Marie Wadell, 33 Langer Circle, West Saint Paui, and her sister Dorothy Stuber, 62 Rose Avenue East. Ms. Wadell read a statement from Ms. Stuber. Ms. Stuber wrote the properry is dangerous, unsound, and not repairable. The wa11s and ceiling have begtm to crack and fall. Stucco has been put on top of old asphalt siding. The basement has limestone walls that aze cracked and peeling. The floar joists have dry rot. It has been almost seven months since the first fire and not much has been done to the properry. Their property values have decreased. Ms. Wadell stated the Stubers have a lot of damage on their home from 60 Rose. Her concern is that a strict tune line is followed. (A copy of the perition plus photographs were submitted for the record.) Michael Swiflca, 61 Rose Avenue East, appeazed and stated that 60 Rose is a burned out shell. After the second fire, he asked Mr. Magner why the properiy was not demolished, and Mr. Magner said Mr. Cobb has the right to renovate the property. However, stated Mr. Swifka, Mr. o�-q19 LEGISLAITVE HEARING MINTJTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 4 Cobb does not live in the neighborhood. He is uying to make a profit after a struchue that is beyond salv2a ng. How he can make money on this property is beyond him. Mr. Cobb has owned the properly since mid March. There had been no improvements made to this properly before the second fire. The Siubers have a house that looks immaculate. During the second fire, it started melting the siding on the Stubers house. Mr. Swifka stated this eyesore should be demolished. Tun Mueller, 1568 Myrtle Street, appeared and stated he has been involved in the building trades for over 40 yeazs, and involved in rehabilitating homes and building new ones for over 30 years. His wife's pazents tried to keep the properiy up because the property was over 100 years old. The underside of that home had dry rot over 20 yeazs ago. There is an old cistern that is underneath 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 burnt wood, put that place together again, and have a good safe home that would be atiractive and reasonably complementary to the neighborhood. Ciarence Roban, 57 Geranium Avenue East, appeared and stated he agrees with the other comments from his neighbors. He is concerned about the Shxbers that live next door to 60 Rose. Mr. Strathman asked did Mr. Cobb haue 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 dollars. All wark 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 cistern under the building. Mr. Cobb responded all that will have to be removed during the rehabilitation of the structure. Also, this house has historic designafion due to its age and the front porch details. He is exploring the possibility of putting it on the tristoric register. Mr. Strathman asked is it in the historic preservation disirict. 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 garage electrical 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 wili be a motion sensor in the house. o ti_q19 LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Magner read a fire report into the record dated 7-20-01. T1us 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, elechical, heating up to m;nimum standards. If the fue 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 departmenPs belief and the subsequent inspection of the property, it was deemed that it was not an immediate hazard and not going to fall down; however, it created such a nuisance in the community, it was brought to this forum so the communiiy and the owner could bear any issues. In Mr. Magner's opinion, to rehabilitate this building is going to be cost prohibitive unless the owner is doing the majority of the work and is willing to consider his sweat equity as his profit out of the property. Mr. Strathman stated Mr. Cobb is a legitimate owner of the properry, and has plans to rehabilitate it. Mr. Strathman understands that people may have different opuuons about whether something is economically viable; however, he does not think the City can substitute his judgement and the City Council's judgement for someone's business judgement. If Mr. Cobb is mistaken in his assessment of the economics of tlus, he is the one that will beaz the consequence of that mistake. The owner is fully aware of the risks of this enterprise and the challenge before him. It is also clear 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 to do this, the City has to set a time line for him to accomplish this. Because he has met all the legal requirements--paid the vacant building fee, obtained a code compliance inspection, paid the $2,000 bond which could be forFeited if he does not fulfili his obligations--the Ciry does not have any choice but to a11ow 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 additionai six months. Gerry Strathman recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rehabilitation of this property. `�� "` Resolution 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 properiy.) Steve Magner reported this property was condexnned June 2001 and has been vacant since 6-26-01. The owner is Atwater Investment Company. Two sununary abatement notices have been issued to remove refuse, and secure the building. On 7-1-01, there was a fire that caused substantial damage to the property. Because of this fire, an inspection of the building was conducted on 7-9-01, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An ozder 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 tases are paid. Estunated market value is $43,2Q0 on the structure and $7,500 on the land; estimated cost to demolish, $8,000 to $9,000. The repairs are in excess of $100,000. 0�-��9 LEGISLATIVE HEt1RII3G MIN[JT'ES OF AUGt3ST 21, 2001 Page 6 Mr. Magner received a phone call from Bob Neeser from Atwater 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 papers personally concerning this legislative hearing and the City Council public hearing. A vacant building notice, order to abate the nuisance, and the stuvmary abatement have been posted on the properry, and were sti11 there the other day when the property was inspected. This has been a problem properiy for a number of years. Gerry Strathman 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 meeting was adjoumed at approximately 11:00 am. � CITTZEN SERVICE OFFICE Fred Owusn, City Clerk CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Caleman, Mayor July 27, 2001 DMSION OF PROPbRTY CODE ENFORCEMENT Michael R Morehe¢d, Prog'am Manager Nuirance Building Code Enforcement ISW.KelloggBlvd.Rm.790 Tel: 651-2668440 SairstPaul,MN55102 Fax:651-2658426 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Council President and Members of the City Council Oi-9�°I Citizen Service Office, VacantlNuisance 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: b3 Atwater Street The City Council has scheduled the date o£these hearings as follows: Legislative Hearing - Tuesday, August 21, 2001 City Council Hearing - Wednesday, September O5, 2001 The owners and responsible parties of record are: Name and Last Known Address Atwater Investment Co. cJo Robert Neeser 1376 Bayard Avenue St. Pau1, MN 55116 Minnesota Federal Savings & Loan Assoc. 355 Minnesota Street S�. Paul, MN 55101 The legal deseription of this properiy is: Interest Fee Owner Mortgagee Lot 21, Block 5, Lewis' Addition to St. Paul. o � �� 63 Atwater Street 7uly 27, 2001 Page 2 Division of Code Enforcement has declared this building(s) to constitute a"nuisance" as defined by Legislative Code, Chapter 45. Division of Code Enforcement has issued an order to the then laiown responsible parties to eliminate this nuisance condifion by correcting the deficiencies or by razing and removing this building(s). Inasmuch as this Order to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition remains unabated, the community continues to suffer the blighting influence of this property. It is the recommendation of the Division of Code Enforcement that the City Council pass a resolution ordering the responsible parties to either repair, or demolish and remove this building in a 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 tases. Sincerely, �teve �a��2er Steve Magner Vacant Buildings Supervisor Division of Code Enforcement Cirizen Service Office SM:mI cc: Frank Berg, Building Inspection and Design Meghan Riley, City Attorneys Office Nancy Anderson, Assistant Secretary to the Council Laurie Kaplan, PED-Housing Division ccnph Council File # O 1— R3q � r� ` 1 i n �.. �;� � � s �: �E I�� CITY Presented By Refened RESOLUTION PAUL, MINNESOTA SG. GreenSheet# 1oa34G Committee: Date WF3EREAS, Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement has requested the City Council to hold public hearings to consider the advisability and necessity of ordering the repair or wrecldng and removal of a two-story, wood frame, duplex and a detached, oversized, one-stall, wood frame garage located on property hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly laiown as 63 Atwater Street. This properry is legally described as follows, to wit: Lot 21, Block 5, Lewis' Addition to St. Paul. 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 WHEREAS, based upon the recards in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before May 11, 2001, the following are the now known interested or responsible parties for the Subject Property: Atwater Inveshnent Co., c/o Robert Neeser, 1376 Bayard Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55116; Minnesota Federal Savings & Loan Assoc., 355 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 WHEREAS, Division of Code Enforcement has served in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code an arder 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 WHEREAS, 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 placud on the Subject Property declaring this building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and WHEREAS, this nuisance condirion has not been corrected and Division of Code Enforcement requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the City Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and WHEREAS, the interested and responsible parties have been served notice in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the time, date, place and purpose of the public hearings; and WHEREAS, a hearing was held 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 recommendarion to approve the request to order the interested or responsibie 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 coxnmunity by rehabilitating this shucture in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances, or in the alternative by demolislung and removing the struclure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to be completed within five (5) days after the date of the Council Hearing; and �1 � i "i ;�4 ;� � o�-9�q lm '�-' E `a '� �°- 1 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, September O5, 2 2001 and the testimony and evidence including the action taken by the Legislative Hearing Officer was 3 considered by the Council; now therefore 4 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 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 foliowing Findings and Order conceming the Subject Property at 63 Atwater Street: 1. 2. 3. L� That the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 45. That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). That there now exists and has existed multiple Housing or Building code violations at the Subject Properiy. That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then known responsible parties to correct the deficiencies or to demolish and remove the building(s). 5. That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition have not been conected. 6. That Division of Code Enforcement has posted a placard on the Subject Property which declares it to be a nuisance condition subject to demolition. 7. That this building has been routinely monitored by the Citizen Service Offices, Division of Code Enforcement, Vacant/Nuisance Buiidings. 8. That the lrnown interested parties and owners are as previously stated in this resolution and that the notification requirements of Chapter 45 haue been fuifilled. ••� ' 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 comxnunity by rehabilitating this shuchue 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 shucture must be completed within five (5) days after the date of the Council Hearing. 2. If the above corrective acrion is not completed within this period of time the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps are necessary to demolish and remove this structure, fill the site and charge the costs incurred against the 5ubject Property pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. t°q j'1 3/`� � e. � o r 1 .1st��i` , , , . : E �..�` f \ .` 'a,e `s : 'a : _ c� oi 1 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all personal 2 property or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shail be removed 3 from the property by the responsible parties by the end of this tune 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. 6 7 4. It is fiirther ordered, that a copy of this resolution be mailed to the owners and interested parties in accordance with Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislafive Code. Adopted by Council: Date o� Adoption Certified by Council Secretary � ` � I '��-�� .-/�% ��"� I � ��1�1 �/1/ i Requested by Deparhnent of: Citizen Service Office; Code Enforcement B P ��.---��.�-'� '"'�'_`"`�` cr Form Approved by City Attorney By: �V v Approved by Mayor far Submission to Council By: (�(��-- Code Enforcement a aFar� Morehead 266-8439 � � ICIL AGHm.4 BY (DA7Q , September O5, 2001 TOTAL � OF SIGNATURE ✓ o�,e wmn,� � � `� � � o�iz�ioi� �� GREEN SHEET� �� No 10�23�.�i FoR � an�7TO�eEr ❑ crtrCtHU( ❑ wuxciu�FSOw. ❑ wuwcw.. � r�raR WR�amr� � ❑ V ' (CLIP ALL LOCATfONS FOR SIGNATURE) City Council to pass this resolurion which will order the owner(s) to remove or repair the referenced building(s). Lf the owner fails to comply with the resolution, the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. The subject property is located at 63 Atwater Street. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB CAMMITfEE CML SERVICE CAMMISSION � u,�c a �o�� wo�a ��ae. a�n�,t ra�n� a�a�e�,rr YES NO Hes tbis peisoNfitm cxr heen a dty employee7 YES NO Daes t}+is P�+� P� a sld& not norme�NP� bY anY current citYemP�aNee? YES NO Is ihia pe�soNfi�m a tarpeted venOOYl YES NO '�lYi�'"��Q��fs °X�s'S'�I�@"{4ft3T$�n'g�'j `��i'ed in Chapter 45 and a vacant building as def"med ui Chapter 43 , of the Saint Paul Legislative Cade. The owners, interested parties and responsible parties known to the Enforcement Officer were given an order to repair or remove the building at 63 Atwater Street by 7uly 23, 2001, and have failed to comply with those orders. � ,, C,eticet �� ro,.,,n3:� �^c�u, . The City will eliminate a nuisance. ��i�. � � 2�� The City will spend funds to wreck and remove this building(s}. These costs wilibe assessed to the property, collected as a snecial assessment aeainst the vronertv taaces. nuisance condition will remain unabated in the City. This building{s) will continue to blight the comxnunity. 'AL AMOUNT CP TRANSACTION t � � COETRlEVENUE BUDfiETED (CIRCLE ONFa YES � NO � . 1 ' � � . I _ : � . " II ' 1 = (��M oi-9�q REPORT Date: August 21, 2001 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Room 330 City Aall 15 West Kellogg Boulevazd LEGISLATIVE HEARING Gerry Strathman Legislative Hearing Officer i. Laid Over Summary Abatement: 74144AAA Property Cleanup at 327 VJinifred Street East (Note: #he City Com�eil 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 property at 843 Rice Street. If the owner fails to comply with the Tesolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Laid over &om 7-17-Oi) Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval. 3. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 60 Rose Avenue East. if ihe owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove #he builsl�g. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rehabilitation of this property. �s- 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 3nriiding- Legisla#ive Hearing Officer recommends approval. �.� p � _ 4'39 MIN[TTES OF "TI-IE LEGISLATIVE HEARiNG Tuesday, August 21, 2001 Gerry Strathman, Legislative Heating Officer Room 330 Courthouse The meeting was called to order at 10:07 a.m. 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, appeazed. Gerry Sirathman asked what was her concem regarding this assessment. Ms. Kim responded she did not have any concern. Mr. Strathman stated this was a charge for a cleanup at this property. He understands that she called Councilmember Chris Coleman's office and raised an objection to this chazge. Ms. Kim responded she called Nancy Homans (Mr. Coleman's Legislative Aide) because she missed a daxe to attend a previous legislative hearing. Mr. Strathman asked did she understand this was an assessment for $448.50 and did she undsrstand what was done. Ms. Kim responded she did not understand. (A videotape was shown.) Mr. Strathman stated the charge levied 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 Strathman recommends approval of the assessment. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property 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) (No one appeazed to represent the owner.) Gerry Strathman stated he received a letter dated August 20, 2001; from Gina L. Bulloch, Xcel Energy, I}irector of Corporate Real Estate. Ms. Bulloch wrote that Xcel Energy is continuing to wark with the title insurance company to obtain a marketable title and continuing to work with North End Area Revitalization in execurion of a purchase agreement. a� _9�q LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 2 This matter has been before him for hearings on two previous occasions, stated Mr. Strathman. On both occasions, he recommended continuing the matter in order to allow Xcel Energy to cleaz up tifle probiems and complete the sell to this prospective buyer. This has gone on way too long. Xcel Energy should have been able to cleaz the title and should have been able to close this purchase agreement. Gerry Stratiunan recommended approval of the resolution. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 60 Rose Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. The following appeazed: David Cobb, owner, Charles Cox, attorney, 676A Bufler 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 building after the original fire. There has been one sucmnary abatement notice issued to remove refuse and secure the basement window. On 7-9-01, an inspecfion of the building was conducted and a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed and photographs were taken. This inspection occurred after a second fire in the begivning of July. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on 7-11-01 with a compiiance date of 7-23-01. The City has had to boazd the building. The vacant building registration fees have been paid. Estnnated market value on the structure is $52,300; estimated market value of the land, $9,900; estimated cost to demolish, $8,000 to $9,000. The cost of the repairs are in question. It will be high due to the damage. There was a code compliance inspection done on the building 7-23-01. The owner posted a$2,000 bond on 7-19-01. Mr. Cox stated that Mr. Cobb is in the business of rehabilitating distressed structures. He has over 20 years experience in the field and has rehabilitated a number of houses within the City. In the last five years, many of those haue been structures with fire damage. He has obtained bids for mechanical, elecirical, and pluxnbing work to be done on the property. He has worked with these contractors in the past. He has not yet obtained a structural engineer for this project because he is waiting to see if he is allowed to repair this 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 properry. 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 November. The balance will be done by February of next year. Last point, Mr. Cobb does intend to install a security system in the properiy while the rehabilitation is being done because of two fires tkiat haue been set on the properiy. Mr. Strathman asked were the two fires arson. Mr. Cobb responded yes. Mr. Cobb stated he has been in comxnunication with an engineering firm. They will do the structural engineering of the house. They have had prints made up, which will be submitted to the o� -'t�9 LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINIJTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 page 3 City after the engineer tias added changes as to what he wants done. Mr. Cobb has received bids for plumbing, heating, and elechical, wluch run approximately $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 Boazd 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 properiy and sell it. He purchased it 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 next door to this property. He called the fue department twice on this property. This properiy 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 soid again but they had to take a deep discount. The new buyers did nothing but destroy the building for 6'/z 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 tnne for the house to go, says Mr. Stuber. It does not fit into the area because it is the only 1870 building out there. Councilmember 7im 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 street. This property is right against the property line. The retaining wall was taken down in the last couple of days. (Mr. Stuber submitted photographs for the record.) The following appeared: Marie Wadell, 33 Langer Circle, West Saint Paui, and her sister Dorothy Stuber, 62 Rose Avenue East. Ms. Wadell read a statement from Ms. Stuber. Ms. Stuber wrote the properry is dangerous, unsound, and not repairable. The wa11s and ceiling have begtm to crack and fall. Stucco has been put on top of old asphalt siding. The basement has limestone walls that aze cracked and peeling. The floar joists have dry rot. It has been almost seven months since the first fire and not much has been done to the properry. Their property values have decreased. Ms. Wadell stated the Stubers have a lot of damage on their home from 60 Rose. Her concern is that a strict tune line is followed. (A copy of the perition plus photographs were submitted for the record.) Michael Swiflca, 61 Rose Avenue East, appeazed and stated that 60 Rose is a burned out shell. After the second fire, he asked Mr. Magner why the properiy was not demolished, and Mr. Magner said Mr. Cobb has the right to renovate the property. However, stated Mr. Swifka, Mr. o�-q19 LEGISLAITVE HEARING MINTJTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 4 Cobb does not live in the neighborhood. He is uying to make a profit after a struchue that is beyond salv2a ng. How he can make money on this property is beyond him. Mr. Cobb has owned the properly since mid March. There had been no improvements made to this properly before the second fire. The Siubers have a house that looks immaculate. During the second fire, it started melting the siding on the Stubers house. Mr. Swifka stated this eyesore should be demolished. Tun Mueller, 1568 Myrtle Street, appeared and stated he has been involved in the building trades for over 40 yeazs, and involved in rehabilitating homes and building new ones for over 30 years. His wife's pazents tried to keep the properiy up because the property was over 100 years old. The underside of that home had dry rot over 20 yeazs ago. There is an old cistern that is underneath 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 burnt wood, put that place together again, and have a good safe home that would be atiractive and reasonably complementary to the neighborhood. Ciarence Roban, 57 Geranium Avenue East, appeared and stated he agrees with the other comments from his neighbors. He is concerned about the Shxbers that live next door to 60 Rose. Mr. Strathman asked did Mr. Cobb haue 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 dollars. All wark 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 cistern under the building. Mr. Cobb responded all that will have to be removed during the rehabilitation of the structure. Also, this house has historic designafion due to its age and the front porch details. He is exploring the possibility of putting it on the tristoric register. Mr. Strathman asked is it in the historic preservation disirict. 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 garage electrical 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 wili be a motion sensor in the house. o ti_q19 LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Magner read a fire report into the record dated 7-20-01. T1us 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, elechical, heating up to m;nimum standards. If the fue 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 departmenPs belief and the subsequent inspection of the property, it was deemed that it was not an immediate hazard and not going to fall down; however, it created such a nuisance in the community, it was brought to this forum so the communiiy and the owner could bear any issues. In Mr. Magner's opinion, to rehabilitate this building is going to be cost prohibitive unless the owner is doing the majority of the work and is willing to consider his sweat equity as his profit out of the property. Mr. Strathman stated Mr. Cobb is a legitimate owner of the properry, and has plans to rehabilitate it. Mr. Strathman understands that people may have different opuuons about whether something is economically viable; however, he does not think the City can substitute his judgement and the City Council's judgement for someone's business judgement. If Mr. Cobb is mistaken in his assessment of the economics of tlus, he is the one that will beaz the consequence of that mistake. The owner is fully aware of the risks of this enterprise and the challenge before him. It is also clear 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 to do this, the City has to set a time line for him to accomplish this. Because he has met all the legal requirements--paid the vacant building fee, obtained a code compliance inspection, paid the $2,000 bond which could be forFeited if he does not fulfili his obligations--the Ciry does not have any choice but to a11ow 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 additionai six months. Gerry Strathman recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rehabilitation of this property. `�� "` Resolution 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 properiy.) Steve Magner reported this property was condexnned June 2001 and has been vacant since 6-26-01. The owner is Atwater Investment Company. Two sununary abatement notices have been issued to remove refuse, and secure the building. On 7-1-01, there was a fire that caused substantial damage to the property. Because of this fire, an inspection of the building was conducted on 7-9-01, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An ozder 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 tases are paid. Estunated market value is $43,2Q0 on the structure and $7,500 on the land; estimated cost to demolish, $8,000 to $9,000. The repairs are in excess of $100,000. 0�-��9 LEGISLATIVE HEt1RII3G MIN[JT'ES OF AUGt3ST 21, 2001 Page 6 Mr. Magner received a phone call from Bob Neeser from Atwater 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 papers personally concerning this legislative hearing and the City Council public hearing. A vacant building notice, order to abate the nuisance, and the stuvmary abatement have been posted on the properry, and were sti11 there the other day when the property was inspected. This has been a problem properiy for a number of years. Gerry Strathman 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 meeting was adjoumed at approximately 11:00 am. � CITTZEN SERVICE OFFICE Fred Owusn, City Clerk CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Caleman, Mayor July 27, 2001 DMSION OF PROPbRTY CODE ENFORCEMENT Michael R Morehe¢d, Prog'am Manager Nuirance Building Code Enforcement ISW.KelloggBlvd.Rm.790 Tel: 651-2668440 SairstPaul,MN55102 Fax:651-2658426 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Council President and Members of the City Council Oi-9�°I Citizen Service Office, VacantlNuisance 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: b3 Atwater Street The City Council has scheduled the date o£these hearings as follows: Legislative Hearing - Tuesday, August 21, 2001 City Council Hearing - Wednesday, September O5, 2001 The owners and responsible parties of record are: Name and Last Known Address Atwater Investment Co. cJo Robert Neeser 1376 Bayard Avenue St. Pau1, MN 55116 Minnesota Federal Savings & Loan Assoc. 355 Minnesota Street S�. Paul, MN 55101 The legal deseription of this properiy is: Interest Fee Owner Mortgagee Lot 21, Block 5, Lewis' Addition to St. Paul. o � �� 63 Atwater Street 7uly 27, 2001 Page 2 Division of Code Enforcement has declared this building(s) to constitute a"nuisance" as defined by Legislative Code, Chapter 45. Division of Code Enforcement has issued an order to the then laiown responsible parties to eliminate this nuisance condifion by correcting the deficiencies or by razing and removing this building(s). Inasmuch as this Order to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition remains unabated, the community continues to suffer the blighting influence of this property. It is the recommendation of the Division of Code Enforcement that the City Council pass a resolution ordering the responsible parties to either repair, or demolish and remove this building in a 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 tases. Sincerely, �teve �a��2er Steve Magner Vacant Buildings Supervisor Division of Code Enforcement Cirizen Service Office SM:mI cc: Frank Berg, Building Inspection and Design Meghan Riley, City Attorneys Office Nancy Anderson, Assistant Secretary to the Council Laurie Kaplan, PED-Housing Division ccnph