Loading...
02-24co,���i F�ie # oa. ay Green Sheet # l� �."3 4{� Presented By Refened To RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 4� Committee: Date 2 4 5 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 WHEREAS, 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 wrecking and removal of a single family, wood frame dwelling and wood frame shed located on property hereinafter refened to as the "Subject Property" and commonly known as 2114 Margaret Street. This property is legally described as follows, to wit: The East 39.6 feet of the South 44 feet of the North 150 feet of Lot 3 and all of Lot 3lying South of the North 150 feet, except the Westerly 50 feet thereof, Block 3, Robert L. Ware's Eastern Heights Acre Lots, together with an easement for egress and ingress for the vendor and vendee herein, their servants, licensees and agents, their assigns and successars in interest over the East 10 feet of the North 106 feet of Lot 3, except the West 50 feet thereof. WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before 3uly 25, 2001, the following are the now lrnown interested or responsible parties for the Subject Property: Jeffrey Lichtenburg, 2114 Mazgaret Street, St. Paul, NIN 55119; Goldberg Bonding Inc., 444 South 4`� Street, Mpls., MN 55415 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 October 24, 2001; and WHEREAS, this order informed the then known interested or 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 Properly by November 8, 2001; and WHEREAS, the enfarcement officer has posted a placard on the Subject Property declaring this building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and WI3EREAS, this nuisance condirion has not been conected and Division of Code Enforcement requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings before the Legislarive 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 ai-•��l C� 10 il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City Council on Tuesday, December 18, 2001 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and evidence, made the Xecommendation 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 welfaze and remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure 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 of the structure to be completed within five (5) days after the date of the Council Hearing; and WF�REAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, 7anuary 2, 2002 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 2114 Margaret Street: 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 Property. 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 condition subject to demolition. That this building has been routinely monitored by the Citizen Service Offices, Division of Code Enforcement, VacanUNuisance Buildings. That the known interested partaes and owners are as previously stated in this resolufion and Yhat the notification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilied. ORDER ?. The Saint Paul City Councii hereby makes the following order: The above referenced interested or responsible parties sha11 make the Subject Properiy safe and not detrimental to the publ3c peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure 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 altemative by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ardinances. The rehabilitation ar demolition and removal of the structure must be completed within five (5) days after the date of the Council Hearing. If the above corrective action is not completed within this period of tnne the Citizen Service Office, o�.�� 1 Aivision of Code Enforcement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps are necessary to 2 demolish and remove this shucture, fill the site and chazge the costs incurred against the Subject 3 Property pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, a11 personal property or fistures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shall be removed from the properry by the responsible parties by the end of this tnne period. If all personal properiy is not removed, it shall be considered to be abandoned and the Ciry of Saint Paul shall remove and dispose of such properry 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. Requested by Departrnent of: Adopted by Council: Date �,�_r�o � . Adoption Certified by Council Secretary B Y� `� �--.� � - n� Approved by Ma�y�r: Date I: ' � Citizen Service Office: Code Enforcement By: \ w--t � � ��-^--�w Form Approved by City Attorney By: � � by Mayor for Submission to Council By: Division of Code Eriforcement -•._.,, � ��«���,e���, Wednesday, January 2, 2002 TOTAL � OF SIC�NATURE PAGES GREEN �..,.� 1 � oa-�y T No 102366 � m.�.. ❑ �„� �..�.���o.. ❑A„�,�.�.,a �.,,�w.,.a..�.n __t� (CL]P ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) City Council to pass this resolution which will order the owner(s) to remove or repair the referenced buildiug(s). If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the buiiding. The subj ect property is located at 2114 lVIargaret Street. PLANNING COMMiSSION CIB COMMITTEE CML SERVICE CAMMIS: Has mis personrArm everwarired unne� a contract rwmie aepartmeim VES IJO Flas iha Pe�aan(firm ewr 6ee� a ciry emPbYee? YES NO ,,q ��a °� Dces this pe�soruTrm 0� a s1611 nd norm���YPOa �'�Ffl✓k c�� e�inqoyee? a YES NO 6A� is this P�soNfirm a taroetetl venaort � �� F3�i"9' � YES NO i�?''y � � �} This building(s) is a nuisance building(s) as defined in Chapter 45 and a vacant building as defined in Chapter 43 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. The owners, interested parties and responsible parties known to the �s�foreement Officer were given an order to repair ar remove the building at 2114 Margaret Street liy November 8, 2001, and have failed to complywith those orders. The City will eliminate a nuisance. ��C 0 4 ZQ�1 �l�� �T�ORI funds to wreck and remove this building(s). These costs will be assessed to the property, collected as a special assessment against the property tasces. A nuisance condition will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will confinue to blight the community. .�� . •�• SOURCE NnisanrP Hnncin$ Ahatamr�nt MFORMATION (IXPWN) 11/26/Ol �::3 � COST/REVEN�EBUDOETED�CIRCLEON� ( VE3/ NO ACTNIttNUTABER ��7�i1 �i o�_�y REPORT Date: December 18, 2001 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Room 330 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevard LEGISLATIVE HEARING Gerry Strathman Legislative Hearing Officer Appeal of Suzmnary Abatement Order for 407 Bav Street. (Laid over from 12-4-01) Legislative Hearing Officer recommends denying the appeal. 2. Resolurion ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 2114 Margaret Street. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislarive Hearing Officer recommends approval. 3. Resolurion ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 1148 Minnehaha Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Hearing Officer recoxnmends approval. �1 CITIZEN SERVICE OFF(CE Fred Owusu, Ciry Clerk CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norns Calemnn, Mayar DIVISION OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMEti'T Michae! R Morehead, Prograin Manager Q�. �,. t+ Nuisance Building Cade Enforcement IS LY. KelloggBlvd. ILn.790 Tel: 651-266-8440 SaintPau/,MN55l02 Fax:657-266-5926 n F � n��° n3YP� `�� `: � �� ��� ~ tl v [vC:� _� B � � ,_ i , �. : November 26, 2001 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS.. _ . _... . Council President and Members of the City Council Citizen Service Office, VacantlNuisance Buildings Enforcement Division has requested the City Council schedule public hearings to consider a resolution ordering the repair or removal of the nuisance building(s) located at: 2114 Margaret Street The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearings as follo�vs: Legislative T-Iearing - Tuesday, December 18, 2001 City Council Hearing - Wednesday, January 2, 2002 The owners and responsible parties of record are: Name and Last Known Address Jeffrey Lichtenburg 2114 Margaret Street St. Paul, MN SSll9 Interest Fee Owner Goldberg Bonding Inc. 444 South 4` Street Mpls., NIN 55415 The legal description of this property is: Mortgagee The East 39.6 feet of the South 44 feet of the North 150 feet of Lot 3 and all of Lot 3lying South of the North 150 feet, except the Westerly 50 feet thereof, Block 3, Robert L. Ware's Eastern Heights Acre Lots, together with an easement for egress and ingress for the vendor and vendee herein, the'u servants, licensees and agents, their assigns and successors in interest over the East 10 feet of the North 106 feet of Lot 3, except the West 50 feet thereof. 2114 Margaret Street November 26, 2Q01 Page 2 0 Z, ��-� Division of Code Enforcement has declazed this buiiding(s) to constitute a"nuisance" as defined by Legislative Code, Ghapter 45. Division of Code Enforcement has issued an order to the then known responsible parties to eliminate this nuisance condition by cozrecting the deficiencies or by razin� 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 taxes. Sincerely, �teve �a�er Steve Magner Vacant Buildings Supervisor Division of Code Enforcement Citizen Service Office SM:mI ca Frank Berg, Building Inspection and Design Meghan Riley, City Attomeys Office Nancy Anderson, Assistant Secretary to the Council Laurie Kaplan, PED-Housing Division ccnph 02 Z�{- MINiJTES OF TI� LEGISLATIVE HEARING Tuesday, December 18, 200I Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Heazing Officer The meeting was called to order at 10:02 a.m. STAFF PRESENT: Steve,Magner, Code Enforcement; Mike Morehead, Code Enforcement Appeal of Summary Abatement Order for 407 Bav Street (Laid over from 12-4-01) Gerry Strathman stated a summary abatement order was issued to Tenence Tessmer on November 15, in wluch he was told to remove refuse on his property and all improperly stored materials. Mr. Tessmer filed an appeal to this order. Tenence Tessmer, owner, appeazed and stated he was asked politely by Mike Morehead to clean up the property. Even though the conditions were not favorable, he got quite a bit of work done. Mr. Mozehead was there this morning and said it looks a lot better. Mr. Tessmer told Yum that he did as much as he could to comply and would meet their expectations if he had the opportwuty. Mr. Strathman asked how much longer it would take to bring the property into compliance. Mr. Tessmer responded he was hoping he could put if off until spring. He has been lucky with the weather and has spent hours outside days at a time. It has been a burden physically and financially because he is not able to do anything else. He spent the majority of lus time working on the yard. Mr. Strathman asked what is yet to be removed. Mr. Tessmer responded Mr. Morehead toid him he cannot have any storage unit other than a garage and shed. He is self employed. His property, yard, and vekucles aze part of his business, although it is a residential properry. He has appro�mately 45% of his groperty cflosed off by a privacy fence, which is where he kept some of the items. Mr. Strathman asked what kind of items aze they. Mr. Tessmer responded merchandise he buys and sells. He threw a lot of it away that was worth money just to get to the point he is at right now. They want him to do it faster than what he finds feasible. Mr. Strathman stated they were out there undoubtedly because someone complained. Mr. Tessmer responded he is in a blue collar neighborhood and has a lot of noisey aeighbors. He does not know why his stuff is bothering his neighbors. He does not see how he is doing any hazm to anyone. Mike Morehead asked how long he owned this house. Mr. Tessmer responded since 1983. Mr. Morehead reported there is an extensive file on this property going back to Uae middle 1970's. A compiaint was received from someone in the neighborhood who said that Code Enforcement had not been doing their job in respect to ttus properry. The area inspector is somewhat intixnidated by Mr. Tessmer, who is rather anunated, but a nice man. The properiy is being used as an outdoor storage azea. It appears to be used goods. Mr. Morehead knocked on the door, and Mr. Tessmer OZZ.� MINUTES OF THE LEC3ISLATIVE HEARING, December 18, 2001 Page 2 asked him to leave the property; however, he did work with Mr. Morehead. They had a lengthy conversation. Mr. Morehead took photographs, orders were issued on the properry, and Mr. Tessmer appealed the orders. Mr_ Morehead staxed he went to the property again this moming by appointrnent, met with Mr. Tessmer, and took three more photographs. The properry is zoned residential. Mr. Tessmer has no permits nor licenses to run a business at the properiy according to LIEP (License, Inspections, Environmental Protection). He has extensive outdoor storage and asked for an ea�tension to the spring to erect temporary storage to stack the items higher. Mr. Morehead's contention is that Mr. Tessmer cannot have any outdoor storage. He has made progress from several weeks ago: he has made room in the garage and restacked items along the fence. (Mr. Morehead showed Mt. Strathman photographs. They were shown to Mr. Tessmer also.) Mr. Tessmer asked are they before and after photographs. Mr. Morehead responded yes. The house is in good condition. The cars aze legal. Mr. Morehead stated he asked Mr. Tessmer on several occasions to move lus operations to another place. Mr. Tessmer responded he was never asked that; rather, he was asked did he have friends that could store some things. Mr. Strathman asked what is his recommendation. Mr. Morehead responded that Mr. Stratlunan concurs with Code Enforcement's request to summary abate the nuisance and deny the appeal. Mr. Strathman asked does Mr. Tessmer understand whax is a summary abatement. Mr. Morehead responded he believes they have covered that. (Mr. Tessmer showed Mr. Strathman a"sales tax card.") Mr. Strathman asked did he have a license to conduct a used business from that location. Mr. Tessmer responded he did not know he needed one. IvSr. Tessmer stated when the inspector Mr. Schiller started coming over, it was about one particular azea: tabs had, to be put on one van, which Mr. Tessmer was in the process of getting off the property. Then, he was asked to clean an area azound the trailer, wluch Mr. Tessmer complied with. Mr. Sciuller taped this on his door. (He showed Mr. Strathman several documenis.) Mr. Schiller sent a document later about the van, which read to remove debris azound the reaz door of the house. It said nothing abaut the whole backyazd. Mr. Tessmer stated he complied with that. A week later, Mr. Morehead showed up. • Mr. Tessmer called Mr. Schiller and told him that he complied and not to bother him anymote. Mr. Tessmer figures he is being harassed. Then, he gets a letter with all the items circled. Ae also got a letter from John Betz about some items. (Mr. Tessmer showed a letter and some papenvork to Mr. Strathman.) Mr. Tessmer stated Mr. Morehead is not being honest when he said there is a long lustory. Also, he did not ask Mr. Morehead to leave the property. He asked them to respect his right to private property, stated Mr. Tessmer. He would like to see the ordinance that gives them permission to c� Z Z� MINUTES OF TI� LEGISLATIVE HEARING, December 18, 2001 Page 3 come onto his property. Co mina on his property is being distespectful. In return, it will make him mbre resent£ui. There are plenty of businesses, including the Brewery, that have all kinds of siuff in the open, and Ivlr. Morehead said that does not matter because they can do it, stated Mr. Tessmer. The pitching mound on the piayground has a tarp with a dozen tires on it. Mr. Morehead told him that is okay, stated Mr. Tessmer. There is a doubie sKandard here. Mr. Strathman responded he has a right to look at the ordinance, but Code Enforcement has the authority to come onto his property. Mr. Morehead stated if Mr. Strathman niles that Code EnforcemenY can go forward, a police officer will go to the properry, remove a section of the fence, and take the van with everything in it. It will be towed to the Impound Lot. If he does not claim it, there will be an assessment on it. With the police officer will come a City abatement crew. They will clean all the properry down to the bare ground, and that wiil be a tax lien also. Mr. Morehead stated that Mr. Tessmer has made some effort and it is Code Enforcement policy to grant an e�ctension because of his effort. If the appeal is denied, Mr. Morehead will not send anyone to the property until after the first of the year. Mr. Tessmer stated Mr. Morehead came to the property this morning and he was nice. Now Mr. Tessmer is seeing the other side. Mr. Tessmer does not like to be intimidated and threatened, which is a natural response. He spent hours and days outside in adverse conditions in the last few weeks to comply. Mr. Tessmer stated he told Mr. Morehead that he had not licensed the van because he used it for tris business. Iie has another vehicle and he decided to use it as a metal shed. He told Mr. Morehead, if the van is a problem, he will license it. If the appeal is denied, he cannot comply with it. Mr. Strathman stated it is cleaz he has a lot of material improperly stored on the properly. There is no doubt it has to be removed. This is a residenrial azea. Mr. Tessmer asked do they work on the same side. Mr. Strathman responded they both work for the City, but Mr. Morehead works for the Adininistration and Mr. Strathman works for the City Council. Mr. Tessmer stated he does not Imow exactly what needs to be done. Mr. Morehead responded he will work with him. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal because he believe the Ciry inspectors acted within the law and Mr. Tessmer needs to comply with this order. If he wants to pursue the appeal fiu�ther, he needs to give Mr. Sirathman a letter by noon on Thursday. That letter can say whatever he wants it to say. The matter will go to the City Councii on January 2. If the City Councii agrees with his decision, Code Enforcement will take the action to abate the problem as Mr. Morehead described it. If there is a way for Mr. Tessmer to take care of getting rid of the materiai, he should do it. Othenuise, the City will take everything including the van, and charge him a high fee for removing it. The summary abatement may run into the thousands of dollazs. (Mr. Tessmer gave Mr. Strathman a letter disagreeing with the decision.) c�z z� MINUTES OF TI-IE LEGISLATIVE HEARING, December 18, 2001 Page 4 � Resolntion ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 2114 Margaret Street. If the owner faiLs to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (No one appeared to represent the properiy. Steve Magner submitted photographs.} Steve Magner reported this was condemned in September 2001, and it has been a vacant building since September 25, 2001. There have been two summary abatement noticss issued ta remove refuse and vehicles. On October 22, 2001, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photograpivs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on October 24, 2001, with a compliance date of November 8, 2001. As of this date, flus property remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. The vacant building fees aze due. Real estate taxes are uYtpaid of $1,910. Taacation placed an estimated market value of $14,200 on the land and $22,100 on the building. As of December ] 8, 2001, a code compliance inspection has not been applied for and a $2,000 bond has not been posted. The estimated cost to repair this properiy is $25,200; the estimated demolish, $7,000 to $8,000. Mr. Magner stated this property owner has a long history of having gross unsanitary and extensive storage issues. The City cleaned out the property and the shed. Gerry Strathman recommended approval. No one is here to represent the property. Resolutioa ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 1148 Minnehaha Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (No one appeared to represent the properry. Steve Magner submitted photographs.) Steve Magner reported this properly was condexnned December 2000 and has been vacant since January 8, 2001. The current owner is Nationscredit Financial 5ervices Corporation. Nine summary abatement notices have been issued to remove refuse, cut tall grass, secure building, remove snow and icz, remove vehicles. On October 3, 2001, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance conditian was developed, and photogxaphs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on October 23, 2001, with a compliance date of November 22, 2001. As of this date, this properiy remains in a cond'ation which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislafive code. The vacant building fees are due. Reai estate taYes aze unpaid of $3,264. Tacation has piaced an estimated market value of $12,00� on the land and $45,000 on the building. The estimated repairs are $60,000 to $80,000; estimated cost to demolish, $8,000 to $10,000. Gerry Strathman recommended approval. No one is here to reptesent the property. The meeting was adjourned at 10:43 a.m. �-�`f MTNUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEAItING Tuesday, December 18, 2001 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Heariug Officer The meeting was called to order at 10:02 a.m. STAFF PRESENT: Steve.Magner, Code Enforcement; Mike Morehead, Code Enforcement Appeal of Summary Abatement Order for 407 Bay Street. (Laid over from 12-4-01) Gerry Strathman stated a summary abatement order was issued to Terrence Tessmer on November 15, in which he was told to remove refuse on his property and all unproperly stored materials. Mr. Tessmer filed an appeal to tlus order. Tenence Tessmer, owner, appeazed and stated he was asked politely by Mike Marehead to clean up the properiy. Even though the conditions were not fauorable, he got quite a bit of work done. Mr. Morehead was there this morning and said it looks a lat better. Mr. Tessmer told him that he did as much as he could to comply and would meet their expectations if he had the opportiuiity. Mr. Strathman asked how much longer it would take to bring the property into compliance. Mr. Tessmer responded he was hoping he could put if off until spring. He has been lucky with the weather and has spent hours outside days at a tnne. It has been a burden physically and financially because he is not able to do anything eise. He spent the majority of his time working on the yard. Mr. Stratl�man asked what is yet to be removed. Mr. Tessmer responded Mr. Morehead told him he cannot have any storage unit other than a gazage and shed. He is self employed. His property, yard, and vehicles are part of his business, although it is a residential property. He has approximately 45% of his property closed off by a privacy fence, which is where he kept some of the items. Mr. Stratlunau asked what kind of items are they. Mr. Tessmer responded merchandise he buys and sells. He threw a lot of it away that was worth money just to get to the point he is at right now. They want him to do it faster than what he finds feasible. Mr. Strathman stated they were out there undoubtedly because someone complained. Mr. Tessmer responded he is in a blue collar neighborhood and has a lot of noisey neighbors. He does not lrnow why his stuff is bothering tus neighbors. He does not see how he is doing any harm to anyone. Mike Morehead asked how long he owned this house. Mr. Tessmer responded since 1983. Mr. Morehead reported there is an extensive file on this property going back to the middie 1970's. A complaint was received from someone in the neighborhood who said that Code Enforcement had not been doing their job in respect to this properry. The azea inspector as somewhat infimidated by Mr. Tessmer, who is rather auimated, but a nice man. The properry is being used as an outdoor storage area. It appears to be used goods. Mr. Morehead knocked on the door, and Mr. Tessmer ba-�,`f MINUTES OF TI� LEC3ISLATIVE E-IEARING, December 18, 2001 Page 2 asked him to leave the properiy; however, he did work with Mr. Morehead. They had a lengthy conversafion. Mr. Morehead took photographs, arders were issued on the properry, and Mr. Tessmer appealed the orders. Mr. Morehead stated he went to the properly again this morning by appointment, met with Mr. Tessmer, and took thtee more photogaphs. The properry is zoned residential. Mr. Tessmer has no permits nor licenses to run a business at the property according to LIEP (License, Inspections, Environmental Protection). He has e�ensive outdoar storage and asked for an ea-tension to the spring to erect temporary storage to stack the items higher. Mr. Morehead's contenfion is that Mr. Tessmer cannot have any outdoor storage. He has made progress from several weeks ago: he has made room in the garage and restacked items along the fence. (Mr. Morehead showed Mr. Strathman photographs. They were shown to Mr. Tessmer also.) Mr. Tessmer asked aze they before and after photographs. Mr. Morehead responded yes. The house is in good condition. The cars are legal. Mr. Morehead stated he asked Mr. Tessmer on several occasions to move his operations to another place. Mr. Tessmer responded he was never asked that; rather, he was asked did he have friends that could store some things. Mr. Strathman asked what is his recommendation. Mr. Marehead responded that Mr. Strathman concurs with Code Enforcement's request to smnmazy abate the nuisance and deny the appeal. Mr. Strathman asked does Mr. Tessmer understand what is a summary abatement Mr. Morehead responded he believes they have covered that. (Mr. Tessmer showed Mr. Strathman a"sales tax cazd.") Mr. Strathman asked did he have a license to conduct a used business from that location. Mr. Tessmer responded he did not know he needed one. Mr. Tessmer stated when the inspector Mr. Scluller started coming over, it was about one particular area: tabs had to be put on one van, which Mr. Tessmer was in the process of getring offthe properiy. Then, he was asked to clean an area around the trailer, which Mr. Tessmer complied with. Mr. Schiller taped this on his door. (He showed Mr. Strathman several docusnents.) Mr. Schiller sent a document later about the van, which read to remove debris around the rear door of the house. It said nothiug about the whole backyard. Mr. Tessmer stated he complied with that. A week later, Mr. Morehead showed up. Mr. Tessmer called Mr. Schiller and told him that he complied and not to bother him anymore. Mr. Tessmer figures he is being harassed. Then, he gets a letter with all the items circled. Ae also got a letter from John Betz about some items. (Mr. Tessmer showed a letter and some paperwork to Mr. Strathman.) Mr. Tessmer stated Mr. Morehead is not being honest when he said there is a long history. Also, he did not ask Mr. Morehead to leave the property. He asked them to respect his right to private properiy, stated Mr. Tessmer. He would like to see the ordinance that gives them permission to a�.-�`f NIINLTTES OF THE LEGISLA`I'IVE HEAItING, December 18, 2001 Page 3 come onto his properry. Coming on his property is being disrespeciful. In return, it will make Yrim more resentful. There are plenty of businesses, including the Brewery, that have all kinds of sttdf in the open, and Mr. Morehead said that does not matter because they can do it, stated Mr. Tessmer. The pitching mound on the playground has a tarp with a dozen tires on it. Mr. Morehead told him that is okay, stated Mr. Tessmer. There is a double standard here. Mr. Strathman responded he has a right to look at the ordinance, but Code Enforcement has the authority to come onto his property. Mr. Morehead stated if Mr. Strathman rules that Code Enforcement can go forward, a police officer will go to the properly, remove a section of the fence, and take the van with everything in it. It will be towed to the Impound Lot. If he does not claim it, there will be an assessment on it. With the police officer will come a Ciry abatement crew. They will clean all the properiy down to the bare ground, and that will be a tax lien also. Mr. Morehead stated that Mr. Tessmer has made some effort and it is Code Enforcement policy to grant an extension because of his effort. If the appeal is denied, Mr. Morehead will not send anyone to the properry until after the first of the year. Mr. Tessmer sta#ed Mr. Morehead casne to the property this morning and he was nice. Now Mr. Tessmer is seeing the other side. Mr. Tessmer does not like to be inrimidated and threatened, which is a natural response. He spent hours and days outside in adverse conditions in the last few weeks to comply. Mr. Tessmer stated he told Mr. Morehead that he had not licensed the van because he used it for his business. He has another vehicle and he decided to use it as a metal shed. He told Mr. Morehead, if the van is a problem, he will license it. If the appeal is denied, he cannot comply with it. Mr. Strathman stated it is clear he has a lot of material unpropexly stored on the property. There is no doubt it has to be removed. This is a residential area. Mr. Tessmer asked do they work on the same side. Mr. Strathman responded they both work for the City, but Mr. Morehead works for the Administration and Mr. Strathman works for the City Council. � Mr. Tessmer stated he does not lrnow exactly what needs to be done. Mr. Morehead responded he will work with him. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal because he believe the City inspectors acted within the law and Mr. Tessmer needs to comply with this order. If he wants to pursue the appeal further, he needs to give Mr. Strathman a letter by noon on Thursday. That letter can say whatever he wants it to say. The matter will go to the City Council on January 2. If the City Council agrees with his decision, Code Enforcement will take the action to abate Yhe problem as Mr. Morehead described it. If there is a way for Mr. Tessmer to take care of getting rid of the material, he should do it. Otherwise, the City will take eveiythiug including the van, and charge him a high fee for removing it. The swmnary abatement may run into the thousands of dollazs. (Mr. Tessmer gave Mr. Strathman a letter disagreeing with the decision.) a.� a�f MINLTTES OF TIIE LEGISLATIVE HEt1I2ING, December 18, 2001 Page 4 Resolution ordering the owner to remove ar repair the property at 2114 Margaret Street. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (No one appeared to represent the property. Steve Magner submitted photographs.) Steve Magner reported this was condemned in September 2001, and it has been a vacant building since September 25, 2001. There have been two siwunary abatement notices issued to remove refuse and vehicles. On October 22, 2001, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which consfitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on October 24, Z001, with a compliance date of November 8, 2001. As of this date, this property remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. The vacant building fees are due. Real estate t�es are unpaid of $1,910. Taxation placed an estimated market value of $14,200 on the land and $22,100 on the build'ang. As of December 18, 2001, a code compliance inspection has not been applied for and a $2,000 bond has not been posted. The estunated cost to repair this properiy is $25,200; the estamated demolish, $7,000 to $8,000. Mr. Magner stated this property owner has a long history of having gross unsanitary and extensive storage issues. The City cleaned out the property and the shed. Gerry Strathman recommended approval. No one is here to represent the properiy. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 1148 Minnehaha Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (No one appeared to represent the property. Steve Magner submitted photographs.) Steve Magner reported this property was condemned December 2000 and has been vacant since January 8, 2001. The current owner is Nationscredit Financial Services Corporation. Nine sununary abatement notices haue been issued to remove refuse, cut ta11 grass, secure building, remove snow and ice, remove vehicles. On October 3, 20Q 1, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An arder to abate a nuisance building was issued on October 23, 2001, with a compliance date ofNovember 22, 2001. As of this date, this properiy remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legisla6ve code. The vacant building fees aze due. Real estate t�es aze unpaid of $3,260. Taxation has placed an estimated mazket value of $12,000 on the land and $45,000 on the building. The estimated repairs are $60,�OQ to $80,OOQ; estimated cost to demolish, $8,000 to $10,000. Gerty Stratlunau recominended approval. No one is here to represent Che properry. The meeting was ad}oumed at 10:43 a.m. co,���i F�ie # oa. ay Green Sheet # l� �."3 4{� Presented By Refened To RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 4� Committee: Date 2 4 5 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 WHEREAS, 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 wrecking and removal of a single family, wood frame dwelling and wood frame shed located on property hereinafter refened to as the "Subject Property" and commonly known as 2114 Margaret Street. This property is legally described as follows, to wit: The East 39.6 feet of the South 44 feet of the North 150 feet of Lot 3 and all of Lot 3lying South of the North 150 feet, except the Westerly 50 feet thereof, Block 3, Robert L. Ware's Eastern Heights Acre Lots, together with an easement for egress and ingress for the vendor and vendee herein, their servants, licensees and agents, their assigns and successars in interest over the East 10 feet of the North 106 feet of Lot 3, except the West 50 feet thereof. WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before 3uly 25, 2001, the following are the now lrnown interested or responsible parties for the Subject Property: Jeffrey Lichtenburg, 2114 Mazgaret Street, St. Paul, NIN 55119; Goldberg Bonding Inc., 444 South 4`� Street, Mpls., MN 55415 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 October 24, 2001; and WHEREAS, this order informed the then known interested or 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 Properly by November 8, 2001; and WHEREAS, the enfarcement officer has posted a placard on the Subject Property declaring this building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and WI3EREAS, this nuisance condirion has not been conected and Division of Code Enforcement requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings before the Legislarive 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 ai-•��l C� 10 il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City Council on Tuesday, December 18, 2001 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and evidence, made the Xecommendation 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 welfaze and remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure 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 of the structure to be completed within five (5) days after the date of the Council Hearing; and WF�REAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, 7anuary 2, 2002 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 2114 Margaret Street: 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 Property. 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 condition subject to demolition. That this building has been routinely monitored by the Citizen Service Offices, Division of Code Enforcement, VacanUNuisance Buildings. That the known interested partaes and owners are as previously stated in this resolufion and Yhat the notification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilied. ORDER ?. The Saint Paul City Councii hereby makes the following order: The above referenced interested or responsible parties sha11 make the Subject Properiy safe and not detrimental to the publ3c peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure 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 altemative by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ardinances. The rehabilitation ar demolition and removal of the structure must be completed within five (5) days after the date of the Council Hearing. If the above corrective action is not completed within this period of tnne the Citizen Service Office, o�.�� 1 Aivision of Code Enforcement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps are necessary to 2 demolish and remove this shucture, fill the site and chazge the costs incurred against the Subject 3 Property pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, a11 personal property or fistures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shall be removed from the properry by the responsible parties by the end of this tnne period. If all personal properiy is not removed, it shall be considered to be abandoned and the Ciry of Saint Paul shall remove and dispose of such properry 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. Requested by Departrnent of: Adopted by Council: Date �,�_r�o � . Adoption Certified by Council Secretary B Y� `� �--.� � - n� Approved by Ma�y�r: Date I: ' � Citizen Service Office: Code Enforcement By: \ w--t � � ��-^--�w Form Approved by City Attorney By: � � by Mayor for Submission to Council By: Division of Code Eriforcement -•._.,, � ��«���,e���, Wednesday, January 2, 2002 TOTAL � OF SIC�NATURE PAGES GREEN �..,.� 1 � oa-�y T No 102366 � m.�.. ❑ �„� �..�.���o.. ❑A„�,�.�.,a �.,,�w.,.a..�.n __t� (CL]P ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) City Council to pass this resolution which will order the owner(s) to remove or repair the referenced buildiug(s). If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the buiiding. The subj ect property is located at 2114 lVIargaret Street. PLANNING COMMiSSION CIB COMMITTEE CML SERVICE CAMMIS: Has mis personrArm everwarired unne� a contract rwmie aepartmeim VES IJO Flas iha Pe�aan(firm ewr 6ee� a ciry emPbYee? YES NO ,,q ��a °� Dces this pe�soruTrm 0� a s1611 nd norm���YPOa �'�Ffl✓k c�� e�inqoyee? a YES NO 6A� is this P�soNfirm a taroetetl venaort � �� F3�i"9' � YES NO i�?''y � � �} This building(s) is a nuisance building(s) as defined in Chapter 45 and a vacant building as defined in Chapter 43 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. The owners, interested parties and responsible parties known to the �s�foreement Officer were given an order to repair ar remove the building at 2114 Margaret Street liy November 8, 2001, and have failed to complywith those orders. The City will eliminate a nuisance. ��C 0 4 ZQ�1 �l�� �T�ORI funds to wreck and remove this building(s). These costs will be assessed to the property, collected as a special assessment against the property tasces. A nuisance condition will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will confinue to blight the community. .�� . •�• SOURCE NnisanrP Hnncin$ Ahatamr�nt MFORMATION (IXPWN) 11/26/Ol �::3 � COST/REVEN�EBUDOETED�CIRCLEON� ( VE3/ NO ACTNIttNUTABER ��7�i1 �i o�_�y REPORT Date: December 18, 2001 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Room 330 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevard LEGISLATIVE HEARING Gerry Strathman Legislative Hearing Officer Appeal of Suzmnary Abatement Order for 407 Bav Street. (Laid over from 12-4-01) Legislative Hearing Officer recommends denying the appeal. 2. Resolurion ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 2114 Margaret Street. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislarive Hearing Officer recommends approval. 3. Resolurion ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 1148 Minnehaha Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Hearing Officer recoxnmends approval. �1 CITIZEN SERVICE OFF(CE Fred Owusu, Ciry Clerk CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norns Calemnn, Mayar DIVISION OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMEti'T Michae! R Morehead, Prograin Manager Q�. �,. t+ Nuisance Building Cade Enforcement IS LY. KelloggBlvd. ILn.790 Tel: 651-266-8440 SaintPau/,MN55l02 Fax:657-266-5926 n F � n��° n3YP� `�� `: � �� ��� ~ tl v [vC:� _� B � � ,_ i , �. : November 26, 2001 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS.. _ . _... . Council President and Members of the City Council Citizen Service Office, VacantlNuisance Buildings Enforcement Division has requested the City Council schedule public hearings to consider a resolution ordering the repair or removal of the nuisance building(s) located at: 2114 Margaret Street The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearings as follo�vs: Legislative T-Iearing - Tuesday, December 18, 2001 City Council Hearing - Wednesday, January 2, 2002 The owners and responsible parties of record are: Name and Last Known Address Jeffrey Lichtenburg 2114 Margaret Street St. Paul, MN SSll9 Interest Fee Owner Goldberg Bonding Inc. 444 South 4` Street Mpls., NIN 55415 The legal description of this property is: Mortgagee The East 39.6 feet of the South 44 feet of the North 150 feet of Lot 3 and all of Lot 3lying South of the North 150 feet, except the Westerly 50 feet thereof, Block 3, Robert L. Ware's Eastern Heights Acre Lots, together with an easement for egress and ingress for the vendor and vendee herein, the'u servants, licensees and agents, their assigns and successors in interest over the East 10 feet of the North 106 feet of Lot 3, except the West 50 feet thereof. 2114 Margaret Street November 26, 2Q01 Page 2 0 Z, ��-� Division of Code Enforcement has declazed this buiiding(s) to constitute a"nuisance" as defined by Legislative Code, Ghapter 45. Division of Code Enforcement has issued an order to the then known responsible parties to eliminate this nuisance condition by cozrecting the deficiencies or by razin� 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 taxes. Sincerely, �teve �a�er Steve Magner Vacant Buildings Supervisor Division of Code Enforcement Citizen Service Office SM:mI ca Frank Berg, Building Inspection and Design Meghan Riley, City Attomeys Office Nancy Anderson, Assistant Secretary to the Council Laurie Kaplan, PED-Housing Division ccnph 02 Z�{- MINiJTES OF TI� LEGISLATIVE HEARING Tuesday, December 18, 200I Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Heazing Officer The meeting was called to order at 10:02 a.m. STAFF PRESENT: Steve,Magner, Code Enforcement; Mike Morehead, Code Enforcement Appeal of Summary Abatement Order for 407 Bav Street (Laid over from 12-4-01) Gerry Strathman stated a summary abatement order was issued to Tenence Tessmer on November 15, in wluch he was told to remove refuse on his property and all improperly stored materials. Mr. Tessmer filed an appeal to this order. Tenence Tessmer, owner, appeazed and stated he was asked politely by Mike Morehead to clean up the property. Even though the conditions were not favorable, he got quite a bit of work done. Mr. Mozehead was there this morning and said it looks a lot better. Mr. Tessmer told Yum that he did as much as he could to comply and would meet their expectations if he had the opportwuty. Mr. Strathman asked how much longer it would take to bring the property into compliance. Mr. Tessmer responded he was hoping he could put if off until spring. He has been lucky with the weather and has spent hours outside days at a time. It has been a burden physically and financially because he is not able to do anything else. He spent the majority of lus time working on the yard. Mr. Strathman asked what is yet to be removed. Mr. Tessmer responded Mr. Morehead toid him he cannot have any storage unit other than a garage and shed. He is self employed. His property, yard, and vekucles aze part of his business, although it is a residential properry. He has appro�mately 45% of his groperty cflosed off by a privacy fence, which is where he kept some of the items. Mr. Strathman asked what kind of items aze they. Mr. Tessmer responded merchandise he buys and sells. He threw a lot of it away that was worth money just to get to the point he is at right now. They want him to do it faster than what he finds feasible. Mr. Strathman stated they were out there undoubtedly because someone complained. Mr. Tessmer responded he is in a blue collar neighborhood and has a lot of noisey aeighbors. He does not know why his stuff is bothering his neighbors. He does not see how he is doing any hazm to anyone. Mike Morehead asked how long he owned this house. Mr. Tessmer responded since 1983. Mr. Morehead reported there is an extensive file on this property going back to Uae middle 1970's. A compiaint was received from someone in the neighborhood who said that Code Enforcement had not been doing their job in respect to ttus properry. The area inspector is somewhat intixnidated by Mr. Tessmer, who is rather anunated, but a nice man. The properiy is being used as an outdoor storage azea. It appears to be used goods. Mr. Morehead knocked on the door, and Mr. Tessmer OZZ.� MINUTES OF THE LEC3ISLATIVE HEARING, December 18, 2001 Page 2 asked him to leave the property; however, he did work with Mr. Morehead. They had a lengthy conversation. Mr. Morehead took photographs, orders were issued on the properry, and Mr. Tessmer appealed the orders. Mr_ Morehead staxed he went to the property again this moming by appointrnent, met with Mr. Tessmer, and took three more photographs. The properry is zoned residential. Mr. Tessmer has no permits nor licenses to run a business at the properiy according to LIEP (License, Inspections, Environmental Protection). He has extensive outdoor storage and asked for an ea�tension to the spring to erect temporary storage to stack the items higher. Mr. Morehead's contention is that Mr. Tessmer cannot have any outdoor storage. He has made progress from several weeks ago: he has made room in the garage and restacked items along the fence. (Mr. Morehead showed Mt. Strathman photographs. They were shown to Mr. Tessmer also.) Mr. Tessmer asked are they before and after photographs. Mr. Morehead responded yes. The house is in good condition. The cars aze legal. Mr. Morehead stated he asked Mr. Tessmer on several occasions to move lus operations to another place. Mr. Tessmer responded he was never asked that; rather, he was asked did he have friends that could store some things. Mr. Strathman asked what is his recommendation. Mr. Morehead responded that Mr. Stratlunan concurs with Code Enforcement's request to summary abate the nuisance and deny the appeal. Mr. Strathman asked does Mr. Tessmer understand whax is a summary abatement. Mr. Morehead responded he believes they have covered that. (Mr. Tessmer showed Mr. Strathman a"sales tax card.") Mr. Strathman asked did he have a license to conduct a used business from that location. Mr. Tessmer responded he did not know he needed one. IvSr. Tessmer stated when the inspector Mr. Schiller started coming over, it was about one particular azea: tabs had, to be put on one van, which Mr. Tessmer was in the process of getting off the property. Then, he was asked to clean an area azound the trailer, wluch Mr. Tessmer complied with. Mr. Sciuller taped this on his door. (He showed Mr. Strathman several documenis.) Mr. Schiller sent a document later about the van, which read to remove debris azound the reaz door of the house. It said nothing abaut the whole backyazd. Mr. Tessmer stated he complied with that. A week later, Mr. Morehead showed up. • Mr. Tessmer called Mr. Schiller and told him that he complied and not to bother him anymote. Mr. Tessmer figures he is being harassed. Then, he gets a letter with all the items circled. Ae also got a letter from John Betz about some items. (Mr. Tessmer showed a letter and some papenvork to Mr. Strathman.) Mr. Tessmer stated Mr. Morehead is not being honest when he said there is a long lustory. Also, he did not ask Mr. Morehead to leave the property. He asked them to respect his right to private property, stated Mr. Tessmer. He would like to see the ordinance that gives them permission to c� Z Z� MINUTES OF TI� LEGISLATIVE HEARING, December 18, 2001 Page 3 come onto his property. Co mina on his property is being distespectful. In return, it will make him mbre resent£ui. There are plenty of businesses, including the Brewery, that have all kinds of siuff in the open, and Ivlr. Morehead said that does not matter because they can do it, stated Mr. Tessmer. The pitching mound on the piayground has a tarp with a dozen tires on it. Mr. Morehead told him that is okay, stated Mr. Tessmer. There is a doubie sKandard here. Mr. Strathman responded he has a right to look at the ordinance, but Code Enforcement has the authority to come onto his property. Mr. Morehead stated if Mr. Strathman niles that Code EnforcemenY can go forward, a police officer will go to the properry, remove a section of the fence, and take the van with everything in it. It will be towed to the Impound Lot. If he does not claim it, there will be an assessment on it. With the police officer will come a City abatement crew. They will clean all the properry down to the bare ground, and that wiil be a tax lien also. Mr. Morehead stated that Mr. Tessmer has made some effort and it is Code Enforcement policy to grant an e�ctension because of his effort. If the appeal is denied, Mr. Morehead will not send anyone to the property until after the first of the year. Mr. Tessmer stated Mr. Morehead came to the property this morning and he was nice. Now Mr. Tessmer is seeing the other side. Mr. Tessmer does not like to be intimidated and threatened, which is a natural response. He spent hours and days outside in adverse conditions in the last few weeks to comply. Mr. Tessmer stated he told Mr. Morehead that he had not licensed the van because he used it for tris business. Iie has another vehicle and he decided to use it as a metal shed. He told Mr. Morehead, if the van is a problem, he will license it. If the appeal is denied, he cannot comply with it. Mr. Strathman stated it is cleaz he has a lot of material improperly stored on the properly. There is no doubt it has to be removed. This is a residenrial azea. Mr. Tessmer asked do they work on the same side. Mr. Strathman responded they both work for the City, but Mr. Morehead works for the Adininistration and Mr. Strathman works for the City Council. Mr. Tessmer stated he does not Imow exactly what needs to be done. Mr. Morehead responded he will work with him. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal because he believe the Ciry inspectors acted within the law and Mr. Tessmer needs to comply with this order. If he wants to pursue the appeal fiu�ther, he needs to give Mr. Sirathman a letter by noon on Thursday. That letter can say whatever he wants it to say. The matter will go to the City Councii on January 2. If the City Councii agrees with his decision, Code Enforcement will take the action to abate the problem as Mr. Morehead described it. If there is a way for Mr. Tessmer to take care of getting rid of the materiai, he should do it. Othenuise, the City will take everything including the van, and charge him a high fee for removing it. The summary abatement may run into the thousands of dollazs. (Mr. Tessmer gave Mr. Strathman a letter disagreeing with the decision.) c�z z� MINUTES OF TI-IE LEGISLATIVE HEARING, December 18, 2001 Page 4 � Resolntion ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 2114 Margaret Street. If the owner faiLs to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (No one appeared to represent the properiy. Steve Magner submitted photographs.} Steve Magner reported this was condemned in September 2001, and it has been a vacant building since September 25, 2001. There have been two summary abatement noticss issued ta remove refuse and vehicles. On October 22, 2001, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photograpivs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on October 24, 2001, with a compliance date of November 8, 2001. As of this date, flus property remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. The vacant building fees aze due. Real estate taxes are uYtpaid of $1,910. Taacation placed an estimated market value of $14,200 on the land and $22,100 on the building. As of December ] 8, 2001, a code compliance inspection has not been applied for and a $2,000 bond has not been posted. The estimated cost to repair this properiy is $25,200; the estimated demolish, $7,000 to $8,000. Mr. Magner stated this property owner has a long history of having gross unsanitary and extensive storage issues. The City cleaned out the property and the shed. Gerry Strathman recommended approval. No one is here to represent the property. Resolutioa ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 1148 Minnehaha Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (No one appeared to represent the properry. Steve Magner submitted photographs.) Steve Magner reported this properly was condexnned December 2000 and has been vacant since January 8, 2001. The current owner is Nationscredit Financial 5ervices Corporation. Nine summary abatement notices have been issued to remove refuse, cut tall grass, secure building, remove snow and icz, remove vehicles. On October 3, 2001, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance conditian was developed, and photogxaphs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on October 23, 2001, with a compliance date of November 22, 2001. As of this date, this properiy remains in a cond'ation which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislafive code. The vacant building fees are due. Reai estate taYes aze unpaid of $3,264. Tacation has piaced an estimated market value of $12,00� on the land and $45,000 on the building. The estimated repairs are $60,000 to $80,000; estimated cost to demolish, $8,000 to $10,000. Gerry Strathman recommended approval. No one is here to reptesent the property. The meeting was adjourned at 10:43 a.m. �-�`f MTNUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEAItING Tuesday, December 18, 2001 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Heariug Officer The meeting was called to order at 10:02 a.m. STAFF PRESENT: Steve.Magner, Code Enforcement; Mike Morehead, Code Enforcement Appeal of Summary Abatement Order for 407 Bay Street. (Laid over from 12-4-01) Gerry Strathman stated a summary abatement order was issued to Terrence Tessmer on November 15, in which he was told to remove refuse on his property and all unproperly stored materials. Mr. Tessmer filed an appeal to tlus order. Tenence Tessmer, owner, appeazed and stated he was asked politely by Mike Marehead to clean up the properiy. Even though the conditions were not fauorable, he got quite a bit of work done. Mr. Morehead was there this morning and said it looks a lat better. Mr. Tessmer told him that he did as much as he could to comply and would meet their expectations if he had the opportiuiity. Mr. Strathman asked how much longer it would take to bring the property into compliance. Mr. Tessmer responded he was hoping he could put if off until spring. He has been lucky with the weather and has spent hours outside days at a tnne. It has been a burden physically and financially because he is not able to do anything eise. He spent the majority of his time working on the yard. Mr. Stratl�man asked what is yet to be removed. Mr. Tessmer responded Mr. Morehead told him he cannot have any storage unit other than a gazage and shed. He is self employed. His property, yard, and vehicles are part of his business, although it is a residential property. He has approximately 45% of his property closed off by a privacy fence, which is where he kept some of the items. Mr. Stratlunau asked what kind of items are they. Mr. Tessmer responded merchandise he buys and sells. He threw a lot of it away that was worth money just to get to the point he is at right now. They want him to do it faster than what he finds feasible. Mr. Strathman stated they were out there undoubtedly because someone complained. Mr. Tessmer responded he is in a blue collar neighborhood and has a lot of noisey neighbors. He does not lrnow why his stuff is bothering tus neighbors. He does not see how he is doing any harm to anyone. Mike Morehead asked how long he owned this house. Mr. Tessmer responded since 1983. Mr. Morehead reported there is an extensive file on this property going back to the middie 1970's. A complaint was received from someone in the neighborhood who said that Code Enforcement had not been doing their job in respect to this properry. The azea inspector as somewhat infimidated by Mr. Tessmer, who is rather auimated, but a nice man. The properry is being used as an outdoor storage area. It appears to be used goods. Mr. Morehead knocked on the door, and Mr. Tessmer ba-�,`f MINUTES OF TI� LEC3ISLATIVE E-IEARING, December 18, 2001 Page 2 asked him to leave the properiy; however, he did work with Mr. Morehead. They had a lengthy conversafion. Mr. Morehead took photographs, arders were issued on the properry, and Mr. Tessmer appealed the orders. Mr. Morehead stated he went to the properly again this morning by appointment, met with Mr. Tessmer, and took thtee more photogaphs. The properry is zoned residential. Mr. Tessmer has no permits nor licenses to run a business at the property according to LIEP (License, Inspections, Environmental Protection). He has e�ensive outdoar storage and asked for an ea-tension to the spring to erect temporary storage to stack the items higher. Mr. Morehead's contenfion is that Mr. Tessmer cannot have any outdoor storage. He has made progress from several weeks ago: he has made room in the garage and restacked items along the fence. (Mr. Morehead showed Mr. Strathman photographs. They were shown to Mr. Tessmer also.) Mr. Tessmer asked aze they before and after photographs. Mr. Morehead responded yes. The house is in good condition. The cars are legal. Mr. Morehead stated he asked Mr. Tessmer on several occasions to move his operations to another place. Mr. Tessmer responded he was never asked that; rather, he was asked did he have friends that could store some things. Mr. Strathman asked what is his recommendation. Mr. Marehead responded that Mr. Strathman concurs with Code Enforcement's request to smnmazy abate the nuisance and deny the appeal. Mr. Strathman asked does Mr. Tessmer understand what is a summary abatement Mr. Morehead responded he believes they have covered that. (Mr. Tessmer showed Mr. Strathman a"sales tax cazd.") Mr. Strathman asked did he have a license to conduct a used business from that location. Mr. Tessmer responded he did not know he needed one. Mr. Tessmer stated when the inspector Mr. Scluller started coming over, it was about one particular area: tabs had to be put on one van, which Mr. Tessmer was in the process of getring offthe properiy. Then, he was asked to clean an area around the trailer, which Mr. Tessmer complied with. Mr. Schiller taped this on his door. (He showed Mr. Strathman several docusnents.) Mr. Schiller sent a document later about the van, which read to remove debris around the rear door of the house. It said nothiug about the whole backyard. Mr. Tessmer stated he complied with that. A week later, Mr. Morehead showed up. Mr. Tessmer called Mr. Schiller and told him that he complied and not to bother him anymore. Mr. Tessmer figures he is being harassed. Then, he gets a letter with all the items circled. Ae also got a letter from John Betz about some items. (Mr. Tessmer showed a letter and some paperwork to Mr. Strathman.) Mr. Tessmer stated Mr. Morehead is not being honest when he said there is a long history. Also, he did not ask Mr. Morehead to leave the property. He asked them to respect his right to private properiy, stated Mr. Tessmer. He would like to see the ordinance that gives them permission to a�.-�`f NIINLTTES OF THE LEGISLA`I'IVE HEAItING, December 18, 2001 Page 3 come onto his properry. Coming on his property is being disrespeciful. In return, it will make Yrim more resentful. There are plenty of businesses, including the Brewery, that have all kinds of sttdf in the open, and Mr. Morehead said that does not matter because they can do it, stated Mr. Tessmer. The pitching mound on the playground has a tarp with a dozen tires on it. Mr. Morehead told him that is okay, stated Mr. Tessmer. There is a double standard here. Mr. Strathman responded he has a right to look at the ordinance, but Code Enforcement has the authority to come onto his property. Mr. Morehead stated if Mr. Strathman rules that Code Enforcement can go forward, a police officer will go to the properly, remove a section of the fence, and take the van with everything in it. It will be towed to the Impound Lot. If he does not claim it, there will be an assessment on it. With the police officer will come a Ciry abatement crew. They will clean all the properiy down to the bare ground, and that will be a tax lien also. Mr. Morehead stated that Mr. Tessmer has made some effort and it is Code Enforcement policy to grant an extension because of his effort. If the appeal is denied, Mr. Morehead will not send anyone to the properry until after the first of the year. Mr. Tessmer sta#ed Mr. Morehead casne to the property this morning and he was nice. Now Mr. Tessmer is seeing the other side. Mr. Tessmer does not like to be inrimidated and threatened, which is a natural response. He spent hours and days outside in adverse conditions in the last few weeks to comply. Mr. Tessmer stated he told Mr. Morehead that he had not licensed the van because he used it for his business. He has another vehicle and he decided to use it as a metal shed. He told Mr. Morehead, if the van is a problem, he will license it. If the appeal is denied, he cannot comply with it. Mr. Strathman stated it is clear he has a lot of material unpropexly stored on the property. There is no doubt it has to be removed. This is a residential area. Mr. Tessmer asked do they work on the same side. Mr. Strathman responded they both work for the City, but Mr. Morehead works for the Administration and Mr. Strathman works for the City Council. � Mr. Tessmer stated he does not lrnow exactly what needs to be done. Mr. Morehead responded he will work with him. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal because he believe the City inspectors acted within the law and Mr. Tessmer needs to comply with this order. If he wants to pursue the appeal further, he needs to give Mr. Strathman a letter by noon on Thursday. That letter can say whatever he wants it to say. The matter will go to the City Council on January 2. If the City Council agrees with his decision, Code Enforcement will take the action to abate Yhe problem as Mr. Morehead described it. If there is a way for Mr. Tessmer to take care of getting rid of the material, he should do it. Otherwise, the City will take eveiythiug including the van, and charge him a high fee for removing it. The swmnary abatement may run into the thousands of dollazs. (Mr. Tessmer gave Mr. Strathman a letter disagreeing with the decision.) a.� a�f MINLTTES OF TIIE LEGISLATIVE HEt1I2ING, December 18, 2001 Page 4 Resolution ordering the owner to remove ar repair the property at 2114 Margaret Street. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (No one appeared to represent the property. Steve Magner submitted photographs.) Steve Magner reported this was condemned in September 2001, and it has been a vacant building since September 25, 2001. There have been two siwunary abatement notices issued to remove refuse and vehicles. On October 22, 2001, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which consfitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on October 24, Z001, with a compliance date of November 8, 2001. As of this date, this property remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. The vacant building fees are due. Real estate t�es are unpaid of $1,910. Taxation placed an estimated market value of $14,200 on the land and $22,100 on the build'ang. As of December 18, 2001, a code compliance inspection has not been applied for and a $2,000 bond has not been posted. The estunated cost to repair this properiy is $25,200; the estamated demolish, $7,000 to $8,000. Mr. Magner stated this property owner has a long history of having gross unsanitary and extensive storage issues. The City cleaned out the property and the shed. Gerry Strathman recommended approval. No one is here to represent the properiy. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 1148 Minnehaha Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (No one appeared to represent the property. Steve Magner submitted photographs.) Steve Magner reported this property was condemned December 2000 and has been vacant since January 8, 2001. The current owner is Nationscredit Financial Services Corporation. Nine sununary abatement notices haue been issued to remove refuse, cut ta11 grass, secure building, remove snow and ice, remove vehicles. On October 3, 20Q 1, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An arder to abate a nuisance building was issued on October 23, 2001, with a compliance date ofNovember 22, 2001. As of this date, this properiy remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legisla6ve code. The vacant building fees aze due. Real estate t�es aze unpaid of $3,260. Taxation has placed an estimated mazket value of $12,000 on the land and $45,000 on the building. The estimated repairs are $60,�OQ to $80,OOQ; estimated cost to demolish, $8,000 to $10,000. Gerty Stratlunau recominended approval. No one is here to represent Che properry. The meeting was ad}oumed at 10:43 a.m.