Loading...
03-697Council File # d3 Green Sheet # �� RESOLUTION C1TY PAUL, MINNESOTA Z �� �� 3 Presented By Referred To Committee: Date WI�REAS, 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 one story, wood frame, single family dwelling and attached, one car, wood frame and concrete block garage located on property hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly known as 1819 Sheridan Avenue. This properiy is legally described as follows, to wit: The East 23 feet of Lot 13, Block 2, Homecroft Addition to the City of Saint Paul WI3EREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recarder's Office and information obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before December 25, 2002, the following are the now known interested or responsible parties for the Subject Properly: Scott A. Wa1z, 1819 Sheridan Avenue, St. Paul, MN 5 5 1 1 6-273 1, fee owner; Scott A. Walz, 505 North Highway 169, iJnit 500, Minneapolis, MN 55441-6420, fee owner; Florence E. Walz, 9052 West Bush Lake Road, Minneapolis, MN 55438-1454, life estate owner; Minnesota Department of Human Services, 444 Lafayette Road North, St_ Paul, MN 55155, lien holder. WE-IEREAS, 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 April 24, 2003; and WIIEREAS, 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 Property by May 27, 2003; and WHEREAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placard on the Subject Property declaring this building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and WIIEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Division of Code Enforcement requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the City Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and WHEREAS, the interested and responsible parties 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 03 - ��'] WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearmg Officer of the Saint Paul City Council on Tuesday, July 8, 2003 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and evidence, made the recoxiiinendation to approve the request to order the interested or responsible parties to make the Subject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the con�ii�unity by rehabilitating this structure in accordance with all appiicable 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 (15) fifteen days after the date ofthe Council Hearing; and W�IEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 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 concerning the Subject Property at 1819 Sheridan Avenue: 1_ That the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 45. 2. That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). 3. That there now exists and has existed multiple Housing or Building code violations at the 5ubject Property. 4. 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 corrected. 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 Buildings. 8. That the known interested parties and owners are as previously stated in this resolution and that the notification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled. ��7:7� 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 mfluence 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 alternative by d 3 -��7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition and removal of the structure must be completed within (15) fifteen days after the date of the Council Hearing_ 2. If the above corrective action is not completed within this period of time the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enfarcement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps are necessary to demolish and remove this structure, fiil the site and charge the costs incurred against the Subject Property pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code_ 3_ In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all personal properiy or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shall be removed from the property by the responsible parties by the end of this time period. If all personal property is not removed, it shall be considered to be abandoned and the City of Saint Paul shall remove and dispose of such property as provided by law. 4. It is further ordered, that a copy of this resolution be mailed to the owners and interested parties in accordance with Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. .cil Secretary Requested by Department of: Code Enforcement Division BY: �!� �Lt/I��N l Adopted by Council: Date _��// �� Form Approved by City Attorney b3 - Co9� � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � DepartmenUoffice/council: Date Initiated: cs ��ti��� 'I3-JUN-03 Green Sheet NO: 3001480 Contad Person 8 Phone• �oartrnent SeM To Person InitiaUDate Andy Dawkins � 0 itizen Services .. ��/ 266-1927 pujgp 1 itizenServices De arementDirector //1�0'O Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 2 � �� 23-JUL-03 pp� Routing 3 vor's Office MsvodAssistaut Order 4 ouneil - 5 itv Clerk Ci Clerk ToWI # of Signature Pages _(Clip AII Locations for Signature) Action Requested: City Council to pass flus resolu6on which will orer the owner(s) to remove or repair the referenced builcling(s). If the owner fails to comply with the resolurion, the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. The subject property is located at 1819 Sheridan Avenue. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contrects Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contrad for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Ezplain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunfty (Who, What, When, Where, Why): This building(s) is a nuisance Uuflding(s) as defined in Chapter 45 and a vacant building as defined in Chapter 43 of the Saint Paul Legislarive Code. The owners, interested parties and responsible parties laiown to the Enforcement Officer were given an order to repair or remove the building at 1819 Sheridan Avenue by OS/29/2003, and have failed to comply with those orders. AdvanWges If Approved: The City will eliruinate a nuisance. DisadvantageslfApproved: The City will spend funds to wreck and remove ttris building(s). These costs will be assessed to the proper[y, collected as a special assessment against the property tazes. Disadvantages If Not Approved: � A nuisance condirion will retnain unabated in ihe City. Tlus building(s) will continue to blight ffie co�unity. COF9t� ��?'C�i C+�f1�i' ToWI Amount of �000 CostlRevenue Budgeted: y �[! � s� � n Transaction: ;R , z -� ���� Fundingsource: p01-00258 .4cttviriNumber: SummaryNuisanceAbatement Financial I nformation: (Explain) �� ��� ���� Date: 7uly 8, 2003 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Room 330 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevazd LBGISLATIVE HEARING FOR ORDERS TO REMOVE/REPAIR, CONDEMNATIONS, SUMMARY ABATEMENT ORDERS, ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS Mazcia Moermond Legisiative Hearing Officer 1. Laid over summaxy abatements J0303A1 Property Cieanup during March 2003 at 595 Edmund Avenue; J0303A3 Property Cleanup during March 2003 at 422 Jessamine Avenue East. 595 Edi;iund Avenue I,egislative Hearing Officer recommends reducing the assessment from $297 to $152 plus the $45 administrative fees for a total assessment of $197. 422 Jessamine Avenue East I,egislarive Hearing Officer recommends approval of the assessment. 2. J03TRASHIQ Provide zveekly garbage hauling service for the first quarter of 2003; Jfl304A Property clean-up £ar part of Apri12003. 483 Arlington Avenue East (J0304A) Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval of the assessment. 104 Laruenteur Avenue West (J03TRASHI Q) Legislative Hearing Officer recommends reducing the assessment from $120 to $50 plus the $20 service fee for a total assessment of $70. l Ofi Manitoba Avenue �70304A) Legislative Hearing Off cer recommends approval of the assessment. 876 Rice Street (J0304A) Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval of the assessment. 1a94 Ross Avenne (J0304A) I.egisla#ive Hearing f?fficer re.coffimends approval of the assessment. 3. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 837 Fourth Street East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Recommendation is forthcoming.) b 3 - �o`l�l LEGISLATIVE HEARING REPORT OF NLY 8, 2003 Page 2 � 4. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 1819 Sheridan Avenue. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval of the resolution. 5. Laid over summary abaYement: J0302AA Prnperiy cleanap during February 2003 at 1004 Bush Avenue. L,egislative Hearing Officer recommends approval of the assessment. rrn 03-l�9� CITIZEDi SERVICE OFFICE Donaldl. Lursa, CityClerk DNIS[ON OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEYtED+T C ll l �i' Jtillv�pAVL NuisarsceBuildingCodeEnjorcement RandyC.Kelly, Sfay'ar 1600Wh1teBzarAvenueNonh Tel. 651-166-1900 SainiPauf,bL�"5�l06 F¢r:6�b266-1926 June 13, 2003 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Council President and Members of the City Council Citizen Service Office, VacanbNuisance Buildin�s Enforcement Division has requested the City Council schedule public hearin�s to consider a resolution orderin� the repair or removal of the nuisance building(s) located at: 1819 Sheridan Avenue The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearin�s as follows: Legislative Hearing - Tuesday, July 8, 2003 City Council Hearing - Wednesday, July 23, 2003 The owners and responsible parties of record are: Name and Last Known Address Interest Scott A. Walz Fee Owner 1819 Sheridan Avenue St. Paul, ivL'�T 5 5 1 1 6-273 1 AA-ADA-EEO Emptoyer 1819 Sheridan Avenue June 13, 2003 Pa�e 2 Scott A. �Valz 505 North Hi�h�va;� 169, L3ni"t 500 Minneapolis, NN 55441-6420 Florence E. Walz 90�2 West Bush Lake Road b4inneapolis, NN 5�433-1454 Nlinnesota Department of Human Services 44� Lafayette Road North St. Paul, IvN 55155 Fee Owner Life Estate O�vner Lien Holder 03-��� The le�al description of this property is: the East 23 feet of Lot 13, Block 2, Homecroft Addition to the City of Saint Paul. Division of Code Enforcement has declazed this buildin�(s) to constitute a"nuisance" as defined by Legislative Code, Chapter 45. Division of Code Enforcement has issued an order to the then known responsible parties to eliminate this nuisance condition by correcting the deficiencies or by razin� and removin� this buildin�(s). Inasmuch as this Order to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition remains unabated, the community continues to suffer the blightin� 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 buildin� in a timely manner, and failing that, authorize the Division ofCode 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, 1✓ ii Steve Ma�er Vacant Buildin�s Supervisor Division of Code Enforcement Citizen Service Office Si1�1:pm cc: Frank Berg, Buildina Inspection and Desi� �Sea�za t2ilee. Cin� �?to�e�� O�ce \anc�� Aaderson. Assistant Secretarv to t�e Councii Laurie Kaplan, PED-Housin� Di��sion AA-ADA-EEO Employer �� ��-(9c1`� MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING ORDERS TO REMOVE/REPAIl2, CONDEMNATIONS SUMMARY ABATEMENT ORDERS, ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS Tuesday, July 8, 2003 Room 330 City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevazd Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 10:03 a.m. STAFF PRESENT: Steve Magner, Tony Novak, and Hazold Robinson, Code Enforcement Marcia Moermond stated she wiil work on recommendaiions for the City Council on how to handie all ofthz maiters can The agenda today_ AIl oft�ese issues wi11 have a public heazing in front of the City Council because they aII involve money or property rights. Laid over summary abatement: J0302AA Property cteanup at 100� Bush Avenne (No one appeared. This issue was discussed at the end of the hearing after the owner arrived.) Laid over summary abatements J0303A1 Property Cleanup at 595 Edmund Avenue J0303�13 Progesty cleanup at 422 Jessamiue Avenue East {City Council referred this ma#ter back to the Legislative Hearing Officer) 422 .Tessamine Avenue East (No one appeazed. This issue was discussed at the end of the heazing after the owner arrived.) 595 Edmund Avenue (Laid over from 6-10-03) Marcia Moermond stated the City did a property cleanup at this address for bags of yard waste and debris in T�e yard. The owner wroYe a]etter to Andy Dawkins (Code Enforceffientj on June 10. The assessment is $252 plus $45 administrative costs. (A videotape was shown.) Ms_ Moermo�d sfated �rders were a�aaiied �n i�arch 21 with a coanpliance date of March 26. The foIlowing appearedd �aa�a �a�nson� os��a, and Mr. Reynolds, friend. Ms. Johnson stated she received a lettes om is�� 22. �he called Lisa Martin (Code Enforcement) on March 24. Ms. Io�n.��u �orks three jobs and is a great grandmother. Mr. Reynolds, who is staying at her house, is a recovered heart surgery patient. He cut the grass and 4rimmed the hedges. That is why the bags were by the sides of the garage. He did everything he could physically do. She asked for an extension from Ms. Martin. Ms. Johnson thought it was very short notice from Saturday morning to Wednesday to do the cleanup. O� co�L LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF NLY 8, 2003 Page 2 Ms. Moermond asked about any indication of a phone call. Harold Robinson responded it was after the work was done. Ms. Johnson responded she called the inspector from work on Monday moming. Mr. Robinson stated that on Apri12, there was a voice mail and the inspector spoke to the property owner regarding the work order. The owner was not sure what day her yard was cleaned up, but she thought it was Saturday. The owner felt that the City was targeting her, and the work was done. Ms. Johnson stated she 1aIlcad to t3ae inspecior l�ionday moming. She also talked to Mr. Dawkins because the inspector said she had to have screens on the windows. There was snow on the ground, so she did not need screens on the windows. Ms. Moermond responded the City Code is not season-specifia The City Code requues the screens regardless. Ms. Johnson stated she called the inspector on Monday, March 31, because the bags were gone on Friday. The inspector said that she had no knowledge of any of this. If the CiTy picked up the bags, it is unclear how the inspector did not know about it. Mr. Robinson responded the work order was sent on Mazch 27. Parks cleaned the yazd on March 28. The summary abatement was mailed on the 21s`. This was complaint-based, and the inspection was done on Mazch 20. Ms. Mcersnand asked about a history of this property. Mr. Robinson responded there was an order issued on May 1, 2000, for exterior maintenance. There were no orders for refuse or debris. Ms. Maermond stated she is hearing Ms. Johnson say that she had asked for an extension. Ms. Johnson's letter says that she talked to Ms. Martin, who said she would go to the property on March 26 to see how it was going. She did that, did not see enough progress, and had the work order issued. It is a matter of miscommunication. Ms. Johnson responded the work was done. It just needed to be hauled away. She works Two jobs. She physically cannot do it, and Mr. Reynolds did the best he couid. He trimmed #he bushes and t3ie hecige on ihe properry liue and cut tiie grass, but she told him the notice said nothing about that. Ms. Moermond asked what is on the smmnary abatement order and what needed to be cleaned up. Mr. Robinson responded the suznmary abatement order says to "Remove improperly stored or ace�ulat� refuss including: garbage, rubbish, disaarded f�mitau�e, agg�iances, vehicle parts, scrag wood and metai, recycling materials, household items, building materials or rubble, tires, brush, etc. from yard areas." Mr. Reynolds stated the City picked up the bags that he placed by the garage to be hauled off the next day. Ms. Johnson stated she got the letter on a Saturday, she called the inspector on a Monday. She assumed everything was understood. The following Saturday, they planned to dispose of everything. Everyday there was more progress. The hedges were trimmed, the yazd was cut. She cannot do it with the hours that she works. Ms. Moermond responded the line of azguxnent LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF NLY 8, 2003 � Page 3 that "she cannot do it" says that she is not responsible for maintaining the property. What Ms. Moermond is wiiling to do is take $100 offthe assessment. It is reasonable that Ms. Johnson was confused about what was agreed upon and may have been vague when she called on Monday. There is no record of that call, but there aze records of other calls that she made. Ms. Johnson asked about the her rocks. Ms. Moermond responded she can go to Risk Management for help with that. Ms. Moermond aecommends reducing the assessment from $297 to $152 plus the $AS administrative fees €or a total assessmenT of $197. J03TRASHIQ Provide weekly garbage hauling service for the first quarter of 2003; J0304A Property ciean-up for part of Apri12003. 483 Arlinglon Avenue East (J0304A) (No one appeared.) Marcia Moermond recommends approval of the assessment. 104 Larpenteur Avenue West (J033'RASHIQ) Paul Testor, owner, appeared and stated he ordered trash pickup service the first of the year. He was usang his barrel and nat using the Ciiy barrel anymore. They City picked up their barrel on January IO or 15. He was chazged for two extra weeks. He called the City once or twice. Marcia Moermond responded that the City turns off their service once they have a record of the owner calling and proving there is private garbage service at the property. Hazold Robins4n reported they started garbage service about September 27, 2002. BFI was called on 3anuary 10, 2fl03, and the City container was removed on January 10. Ms. Moermond asked whether he used the garbage container those last two weeks. Mr. "Iestor responded that he did. Steve �Iagmer repc�tted the Sununary Abatement Ord�r says the City sequires a written noYice mailed Yo their office indicaTang Yl�e carriea, '��� F�as to be confirxnation to stop the service. They do aot driue bp� � a w�cekl� l��is_ Ms. Mcrermond stated that when Mr. Testor's sister was here at a previous legislative hearing, they talked about the assessment for the other garbage service for the third quarter of 2002. The City incurred the cost of providing the gazbage service. Ms. Moermond could do one of two things: 1) divide the assessment over five yeazs; 2) push hack the payment of the assessment until he sells the property because of his disability. He would not have to pay it all until the property is sold. The interest chazged is 4.75%. ����� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINLITES OF JULY 8, 2003 Page 4 Mr. Testor stated his sister was holding his paycheck. She would not make payment when he wanted her to, and it took ten weeks for him to talk her into getting trash service. She was also mismanaging his checkbook, so he took the checkbook back. He is going to pay his assessment in full today or next week. He just does not want to pay for that last week. Ms. Robinson stated the inspector said to give notice to Parks on January 10 to cease pickup. The notice does take sometime to get through. They e-mail and send regulaz mail to Pazks. Ms. Moermond stated her notice says tlie charge is $120. She asked how many pickups that would entail. Ms. Robinson responded twa. Ms. Moermond stated she will reduce the assessment from $120 to $50 plus the $20 service fee for a total assessment of $70. The owner should not be chazged for the last week of gazbage service. 106 Manitoba Avenue (J0304A) Mazcia Moermond stated her notice says that there are discarded furniture, appliances, vehicles parts, household items, refuse, and debris on the property. She asked if this property has been at a legisiative hearing previously. Steve Magner responded it was torn down by the City a long rime ago. Nura Hassan, mw appeared and stated she has garbage service with BFI. They told her to get everything out, and said they would haul the next day, but it was a week before they came out. They charged her $400 for hauling things. (A videotape was shown.) Ms. Moermond stated those items were not picked up by her garbage service. She asked if those items were ieft by the garbage service. Ms. Hassan responded she does not know. This was regular garbage that overflowed. She asked if the caz is considered gazbage. Mr. Robinson respanded that it was not; the car was not abated. Ms. Moermond aslzed whether sfie caiied the CiTy to let them icnow she had garbage service and she would like them to pick up t�ese items. Ms. Hassan responded the garbage was picked up prior to the deadline. She did not think it was necessary to call the City. Ms. Moermond stated there were items she picked up after the deadline. It looks like the City did the work. She can offer spreading the assessment over five yeazs so it is more affordable. Ms_ Hassan responded she did not understand what the City picked up. Ms. Moermond asked if she would like to see the videotape again. Ms. Hassan responded yes. (The videotape was shown again.) o3-�,a� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF 7tTLY 8, 2003 Page 5 Mr. Robinson stated the inspector did note that some of the items were removed and some remained. She should go after the BFI hauler for a rebate. Ms. Hassan responded she is disappointed because BFI shouldn't have left anything behind. She will pay the assessment all at once. She requested a note saying that the City picked up things after BFI came out. Mr. Robinson responded they can work something out. Ms. Mcermond recommends approval of the assessment. 876 Rice Street (J0304A) (No one appeared.) Marcia Moermond recommends approval of the assessment. 1094 Ross Avenue (J0304A) Marcia Moermond stated this case is about "rubbish, oil/fuel tank, discarded furniture, grill, mattress, wood, etc." and the owner was notified March 27. The City asked that it be taken care of within a week, but the work was not done until Apri125. Hazold Robinson reported they spoke to the property owner on Apri] 3, who requested an extension, which was granTed. The recheck was done April 17. Some of the items were gone; others were stili there. Maselino L. Tavale, owner, appeared and stated he talked to Mr. Vang. Mr. Tavale ardered a dumpster to pick up everything. He moved the aluminum cans in back to recycle them. He was going to use the shingles for the porch. Everything else was cleaned up. The City picked up the aluminum cans which he was going to take to the recycling on Friday. He needs the money. He cannoi do all ihe work at once, and he cannot afford a contractoi, so he does a little bit at a time. It was stacked neatly. (A videotape was shown.) Ms. Ivioer�aond stated it lesoked like he did some cieamu}j. i�S�_ TavaTe responded the only thing the crew picked up �as the recycling. 13�e �ity left ihe �ingles covered with boards. Ms. Moermand respandecl it looked la`1�e Yfie Cit3� �ick�d �p more than recycling. Mr. Robinson responded the City left the new shingles. Ms. Moermond reported the City did the work a month later. The owner should have known it needed to be done. It looked like he had plenty of opporiunity to complete the cleanup. He can file with Risk Management to claim money for the shingles and the recyciing. She can recommend that the assessment be paid over five years. Mr. Tavale responded the recycling was going to be taken during that day, and the City came in the moming to pick it up. Ms. Moermond responded it had been a month since he was told to pick it up and a week after he had negotiated an extension. Also, Mr. Tavale couid have let the City know he needed another 4�lflci� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF NLY 8, 2003 Page 6 extension. Mr. Robinson added that the recycling materials aze clearly stated on the summary abatement order. Mr. Tavale stated it does not cost $250 to remove recycling and materials. He paid $250 for the dumpster. Ms. Moermond responded it is a lot cheaper for an owner to remove it. The owner did not keep up his end by having these things taken care of by the new deadline. Also, he did not call the City to let them know he could not finish in time. Mr. Tavale stated ihat the inspector did not send a letter saying the deadline was a certain date. Ms. Moermond responded he did not need to do that. It was clear Mr. Tavale had called and arranged that later date. Mr. Tavale stated it was not fair that he paid for a dumpster, and then the City charged him $250 to take away the recycling and the shingles. He put in a new garage for $12,000 last yeaz. There are other neighbors that have worse yards. Ms. Moermond asked if this was a complaint-based inspection or part of a sweep. Mr. Robinson responded it was complaint-based. Mr. Tavale stated he did his part. Ms. Moermond responded the City does not think he did his parL He has some options: 1} fie can have the assessment spread over five years, 2) he can file a form witFi the Ciry and explain his disability, which will postpone the payment of this until he seils the property, or 3) he can go fo the City Couacil on July 23 and ask them to decrease or eliminate the assessme�. Mr. Tavale responded he wilt appeal on 7uly 23. Ms. Moermond recommends approval of the assessment. Resolution ordering the owner to remave or repair the properiy at 837 Fourth Street East. If the owner faiis to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. (Steve Magner submitted photographs.) Steve Magner reported the building was condemned July 2002 and it has been vacant since then. The current owner is Rachel A. Lyons, who has been deceased since April lb, 1991. There have been six summary abate�ent norices issued to securE the garage ��e�sicle door, remove abandoned vehicle, r�nave saow andlor ice from Yhe g�a�lic sirlewalk, aud cut tall grass. On Apri130, 2003, an inspection of the buiiding was conducteel, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on May 8, 2003, with a compliance date of June 9. As of this date, this property remains zn a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the Legislative Code. The vacant building fees are due. A citation was issued chazging the owner with failure to pay the annual vacant building fee. Real estate tases aze unpaid in the amount of $1,198 total for the years 2002 and 2003. Taxation has placed an estimated market value of $12,300 on the land and $54,300 on the building. A Code Compiiance Inspection was applied for on June 16, 2003. A ���� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINiJTES OF JULY 8, 2003 Page 7 bond has not been posted as of today. Code Enforcement estimates the repairs to be $80,000 to $90,000. The estimated cost to demolish is $7,000 to $8,000. This is a resolution for a 15 day order to repair or remove this structure. The following appeazed Dorothy Lyons and William Lyons, Ms. Lyons' son. Ms. Lyons responded she wants to repair it because it is repairable. Ms. Moermond stated she sees a lot of problems with the history ofthis hovse. The City had to boazd this building, the vacant building fees have not been paid, a citation has been written for that, and real estate taxes aze owed of $1,198 for the yeazs 2002 and 2003. All these things tell Ms. Moermond that the owners will have trouble completing the repair plan. She will want to see these issues addressed before she will consider a recommendation to the City Council for more time. Ms. Lyons stated there was an inspection in 1992 and 1994. Every[hing was done except the electrical. They put on a new roof, painted the house, and put in new storm windows and screens in 1992 and 1994. Ms. Lyons stated she has been keeping the taxes up-to-date. She intends to get a code compliance inspection. Ail that she is asking today is to table it until another reading until she gets the code compliance report from Jim Seeger (License, Inspections, Environxnental Protection [LIEP]). Ms. Moermond stated this issue is set to go to public hearing before the City Councii on July 23. She would Iike to iay this over to fihe July 22 Legislative Hearing. Within rivo weeks, there should be a code compiiance inspection report. Also, she would like to see the taa�es paid by then, and a$2,000 bond posted. Ms. Lyons stated someone told her it had been vacant for a while, but that is enoneous. Her furniture is still in there. Ms. Mcermond responded what is in front of her now is the order to remove or repair. Staff has said it was condemned in July 2002. It does noY matter whether it was occupied when it was condemned. It is the condirion ofthe building thaY merited the condemnation. The wndemnarion is not in front of her right now. They did not appeai the condemnation or the appeal was not successful. This is the way it has come to her right now. Ms. Lyons stated she was upset when she saw a sign posted that i# was vacated. It has always been occugied. She is taking care of the groperry. It is in the historical area. She could not get the electrical done pins she needed �oney to repair the house. Ms. Maermond stated if it is not possible to have everything done, she will try to work with Ms. Lyons, but she would like to see a good faith effort put forth to get things done. The public hearing before the City Council will be the following day. Ms. Moermond asked whether they have enough help in terms of programs and assistance. Mr. Lyons responded they will look into it. Ms. Moermond stated they wiil talk about this in two weeks if they cannot find the assistance they need. LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF NLY 8, 2003 a z�- Page 8 Ms. Lyons stated the properiy is in probate and that puts a blockage on the issue to a certain extent. If the properry was in her name, it would be a different story. Ms. Moermond recommends laying over to the July 22, 2003, L,egislative Hearing for the followina to be done: 1) a Code Compliance Inspection completed, 2) a work plan indicating how all the items on the Code Compliance Inspection Report will be completed, 3) a financial pian showing evidence of financial ability to complete the items on the Code Compliance Inspection Report, 4) real estate ta��es paid, 5) a$2,000 perforsnance bond posted, 6) vacant building fees paid, and 6) the citation for failure to pay the vaca�i building fees should be taken caze of. � �/ Resolufion ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 1819 Sheridan Avenue. ���r If the owner fails to comply wiYh the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the buildiag. (Steve Magner submitted photographs.) The following appeared: Diane and Bob Trudrowski, 9052 Bush Lake Road, Bloomington. Ms. Trudrowski stated she is the stepdaughter of Florence E. Walz, and has power-of-attorney over Ms. Walz's persomal matters; however, she does not have power-of-attorney over the house. Ms. Walz is indigent. She was placed in a nursing home in about 1997. The property was signed over by a quick claim deed to her grandson Scott Walz in 1989. He resided at that property from 1987 to present Ms. Trudrowski found out Mr. Walz had not paid the taxes. She paid the taxes and the assessment, even though Ms. Waiz had vacated the building. Ms. Trudrowski ceased paying in 2001. At this point, she does not know what her options are. There is a remote chance Ms. Walz wili go back to the house. It is Ms. Trudrowski's understanding that if the property wexe sold, 51°/u would go to the State and 49% would go to Scott Walz. Mr. Trudrowski stated they have the means zo fix up Yhe property. Ms. Moermond asked who is Scoit Walz. Ms. Trudrowski responded he is gainfully employed. Mr. Magner responded they have a mailing address for him. Ms. Truda�owsld stated she saw Mr. Magner when she was there geTtiug some personal things inside the bnild'ang foa �'lorence Waiz. She woaald lika to �now her options. She cannot rent it out because it 1� be�n grdad£athered in. Steve Magner reported the building was condemned April 2003 and has been vacant since May 1, 2003. The current property owner is Scott A.Walz. There have been six summary abatement notices issued to remove gazbage, cut tall grass, remove roofing material, and repair or remove the gutter #hat is partially blocking public sidewaik. On Apri121, 2003, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on April 24, 2003, with a compliance date of May 27, 2003. The property remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. Vacant building fees are due for o�-c�9� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF JULY 8, 2003 Page 9 2002 and 2003. Real estate tases of $3,070 for the years 2001, 2002,and 2003 aze unpaid. Tasation has placed an estimated market value of $11,700 on the land and $54,100 on the building. Neither a Code Compliance Inspection nor bond have been obtained or appiied for as of today. Code Enforcement is seeking a resolution to repair or remove this structure. Mr. Magner stated he met Ms. Trudrowski at the properry. The building has suffered from severe lack of maintenance. The major problem is the roof has failed and is ailowing moisture to enter. He advised Ms. Tmdrowski that it is not a good idea to be in the buiiding because of the extensive mold grawth and tiie hazardous conditions of the floors rotted out in some azeas. This building would hav� to be gutted down to tiae bare walls and studs to be rehabilitated. If the building was ra7�d, she does not know a�hetlier the building dep<�ent woutd allow a building on that site because it is a small lot. Ms. Trudrowski asked does the building have to meet the 30 foot criteria. Mr. Magner responded there is a frontage criteria and a square footage criteria, and there aze some parameters to the adjacent buildings. The problem they see there is that the adjoining homes aze at a higher elevation and this lot drops off down toward the street and the northwest corner of the lot. The City would probably require full plans for rebuilding on it. If someone was to come in today and apply for code compliance inspection, and the City Councii decided to give the owner 180 days, the property could be saved. If that does not happen and the house is torn down, it would be up to the building deparhnent and the zoning deparGnent of LIEP Yo allow rebuilding on that site. Mr. Trudrowski asked does he have the right to ask LIEP if they would they aliow rebuilding on the lot. Mr. Magner responded that is general public information. That o�ce would need to know the address and check the site. Ms. Moermond stated they are a andfathered in for the setbacks. Mr. Magner added that as long as the house is e�sting. Ms. Moermond asked if there was a provision about the house being rehabilitated at more than 50% of the vaiue, the new zoning criteria would come inio play. 11�Ir.1lylagner responded they need to inquire about that with LIEP. Ms. Trudrowski asked about a quick claim deed. Mr. Magner responded there is an issue with the ownership. LIEP will not accept a bond from someone who is not the owner unless the owner sEates in wri3ing the other person can post a bond. Ms_ Moea-mond responded that if they had power-of-attorney aver the house, they could apply for all of this on behalf of Florence Walz if she has 51% ownership; however, Ms. Moermand cannot provide legal advice. Ms. Moer�cs�nd suggeste@ they can#act an attorney who specializes in real estate. If Florence Walz is indigent, she may be able to be represented by Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services. Mr. Magner stated if no action was taken and the Council approves the resolution to repair or remove, the City would raze the building and assess those costs on the taYes. At that point, the lot could be sold. The adjoining property owner may be interested in the lot. o� c��� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF NLY 8, 2003 Page 10 Mr. Trudrowski asked whether $3,070 was the total tax bill. Tony Novak responded there aze also penalties. Mr. Magner added that there may be assessments, too. Mr. Trudrowski stated they are going to be gone July 23. He asked whether this issue could be delayed for that meeting in order for them to talk to an attorney. They would like to raze the property and put up a new strucrixre. Mr. Magner responded if they are considering anything other than rehabilitation, they should check with LIEP about rebuilding on it because it is an eactremely small lot Ms. Moermond staied she is not inciined to ask #he Co�mcii to delay this. This is a dangerous situation. There aze mold and strnctural problems. Children could get inside. Ms. Trudrowski concurred with Ms. Moermond and asked when would be the next meeting. Ms. Moermond responded there is a legisiative hearing on July 22. Ms. Trudrowski responded she cannot make that meeting. Mr. Magner stated that there should be enough time in the next two weeks to answer the questions about the legal opportunity to work on the property. Then, Ms. Moermond can make more of an educated decision on the property on July 23. Ms. Trudrowski responded that is fair. Ms_ ibioermond stated that once the ownership issue is cleaz, then she will be looking for a Code Compliance Inspection. When talking to the buiiding official about whether this is a rebuildable site, they should ask if it is a siYe that can be rehabilitated. Her concern is there is so much of an invesUnent, it may be treated as a new building. Mr. Trudrowski responded it may need to be tom down and started over. Ms. Moermond suggested the Trudrowskis call her before they go on vacation. Jacob Beliinsky, 1813 Sheridan Avenue, appeared and stated he is the adjoiniug property owner. The properry at 1819 Sheridan is such a smali lot, and a rodent trap right now. Neighbors complain ti�at rabbits are breeding there_ He would ]ike to acquire the land once it is vacant. (Mr. Bellinsky submitted a photograph.) Mr. Traiciro�ski as�Ced whetlaer the City se1ls Yhe property. Mr. Magner explained that his office would hire a contractor ta a�move the dweliing 15 days after the Council approves the order. Ms. Moermond added that ifnsi#�ng else happens, the property will forfeit to the State. (There was fm-ther discussion about the properry.) Ms. Moermond recommends approvai of the resolution. 1004 Bush Avenue (Note: this address was called at the beginning of the meeting, but the owner was not present.) n� ��� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF NLY 8, 2003 (A videotape was shown.) Page I1 Daniel Yesnes, P.O. Box 5032, Hopkins, appeared and stated he received a letter from the inspector regazding the debris. He called the inspector to tell him the tenant was moving out. The inspector said his concem was ihe box spring and the dresser. Ms. Yesnes went there and took away those things. As faz as he knew, the garbage service would take the rest and the carts. That was the last he heazd of it unril he received a letter about the chazges from the City. He does not knoiv if there is a step missing. Mr. Yesnes complied with what the inspector told him verbally. Either the gazbage people did not pick if up or the City did it beforehand. Ms. Moermond asked what was in the summaiy abatement order. Nir. Magner responded the top box is checked: "garbage, rubbish, discarded fumiture, appliances, vehicle parts, scrap wood and metai, recyciing materials, household items, building materials or rubble, tires, brush, etc. from yard azeas." Written below is "furniture and a mattress." Ms. Moermond asked whether he received a copy of the order. Mr. Yesnes responded he did. The box spring and a clothing dresser were the big things the inspector asked him to take care of. He saw things by the alley ready to go. The inspector told him to take care of something and he did. As couid be seen from the videotape, 90% of the items were in gazbage carts. Ms. Moermond asked if there was a record of the phone conversation. Mr. Robinson responded that there was not. T'he summary abatement was mailed on February 4, 2003, with a compliance date of February 10. The work was done by the Parks Department on February 18. There were 14 days �etween ilxe time the swni�iary abatement was mailed and the time Pazks did the work. There was plenty of time for the garbage company to pick it up. Mr. Yesnes responded the tenant gave him a story. The big stuff was taken caze of by Mr. Yesnes and the rest was in carts. Ms. Moermond asked about the recheck and ihe cleanup. Mr. Robinson responded the recheck was Februazy 10 and the cleanup was February 18. Ms. Moermond asked if there was a problem with the garbage service. Mr. Yesnes responded the tenants may have cancelled the gazbage service. Mr. Yesnes is not certain. He is only saying the big items were taken. The amount of $306 seems high for items that are in a cart and ready for a truck ta dvrng_ Ms. Moermond asked about the �auriy chazge. l��fr. Robinson responded $225. Mr. Y�mes stat� F�ere overe five or six earts full of this stuff. Ms. Moerxnond responded the City is not in t�e garbage business. They only send people out on certain calls. The tenants are responsible in the lease, but ultimately it is the owner's responsibility. It was not taken care of. The recourse is not with the City. She cannot make an azgument to the City Council that the citizens of Saint Paul aze responsible far his tenants cancelling the garbage service a week eazly. He should seek the money from the tenants for the cost incurred. o�-��� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF NLY 8, 2003 Page 12 Mr. Yesnes asked if the inspector followed standazd procedures. Absolutely, responded Ms. Moermond. Ms. Moermond recommends approval of the assessment. 422 Jessamine Avenae F'ast (Note: Yhis address was called at the be�?nning of the meeting, buk the owner was not present.) The following appeazed: Robert H. DeFlorin, owner, and Kathy Schmig, friend. Ms. Schmig stated that Rosemary Deflorin (one of the listed owners) is deceased, and Robert is her son. Mazcia Mcermond stated the assessment is for $1,150. Ms. Schmig asked for a breakdown of the costs. Steve Magner responded the workers were there for three hours for $675, there were 25 tires, and ten yazds of refuse. Mr. Deflorin responded he watched them pick it up. The workers were there for one hour. His yard is fenced. One guy went out of the yazd and picked up garbage from the church property. Ms. Schmig stated there was a dumpster on March 20 and they paid $270 for it. All the refuse was in that dumpster. Mr. Deflorin stated the City ripped down security cameras and cat the cables. Ms. Schmid stated there were tires in the tree, and they cut that down. They were in the house and wa#ched the workers do the entire thing. They were having some problems so they could not come out of the house. The City did not have to tear down the treehouse. They did not have to take the empty trash barrels. That does not make any sense. There were 11 cars there. By the time they came, there was one car left. There was a flatbed tow truck that the workers pushed, and they opened its hood. They took one car out and left the flatbed there. They gave a ticket for pazking on the lawn. He has been doing it for 40 years. There was a dog catcher there, who left a nofe fhat the dog were abandoned there. Then, they came and put a vacant building sign on the house on April 7. By Apri14, they sent #he check back on an appeal of the first work arder. Ms. Moermond responded she would like to see the paperwork on that. (Ms. Schmig showed Ms. Moermond a document.) Ms. Schmig seatad she got a call on the day of the appeai for #he vacant building saying that Code Enfflrcement was going t+j drap if becausE iY is not vacant any longer. After that, they got another notice tlzat scre�ats were missing, vehicles must be operating, fascia, etc. It was fixed. They feel they are being harassed. The house was condemned in 2000. Now, the house is in good shape. Ms. Schmig does not feel tl�e City should come in every time they want to look at the house. There were trash and cars there, but they took caze of it except for one automobile. She would like to see the videotape. (A videotape was shown.) o�-�,�--� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF JULY 8, 2003 Page 13 Ms. Schmig stated she does not think it took three hours to do that little bit of work. Also, the yazd was ripped up. Ms. Schmig stated the City gave them three days to do the first order. She appealed and got more time. They got it all done before the hearing. She thought the wood would be okay. As for the tires, Mr. Deflorin is a mechanic. That is her fault; she thought the tires would be okay if they were sTacked neatly. Ms. Schmig stated they 3�ave trash picked up every week. Ms. Moermond asked for an itemized lis# of the charges. Three fiours at $675, 25 tires at $250, ten cubic yazds at $180, plus the $45 administrative fees comes to a total assessment of $1,150, responded Mr. Magner. As for the fires in the tree, NIs. Schmig asked if the City had deTernunes the trees to be rotted. Ms. Moermond responded there is a cl�arge per tire. (Ms. Schmig showed two out of the four cables that she says were ripped or torn by the City.) Mr. Deflorin stated the City shorted out some of the channels on the monitor. He feels there is a persanal vendet€a againsi him. Mr. Schmig stated Mr. De4orin got in troubie a few yeazs ago, but he should not have to pay for the rest of his life. Aiso, when he wern to the building code place to deal with the vacant building, ten cops arrested them because Mr. Deflorin had a warrant. It seems there were things damaged or taken that had useful value, stated Ms. Moermond. They can file a claim with the City. She asked did they want the assessment spread over five years. Ms. Schmig responded yes. Ms. Moermond recommends spreading the assessment over a five-year period. The hearing was adjourned at 12:11 p.m. rtn _ ..�. � �: --� � �� - . . ; � , � �� �� �� , -' 1 �� 1 {� ". �L _ 1 ^ � �+ 33 j � b 4 M p � i . �b ; "�' �� F �� . aA� N '4E.�F� � � � L ' A� � � p . .. � �# .� � �� a J � r .�. l 1�'�:i' .�k'Yr �����'P��1S'"ti � `.a��..... _. _. . � �� � `�t �' �' ��. �, ; T " ;�- , � ,� '_ , .:�ts � ="=�=� - "��.... �� �,.. - �} � � � � �� � 3� ";" ���d^r',:,fi � .'.. .,� g',ti �-.��',� : �. �; ig � � .�^F_'� 4 -� �� } 4u" � �.� � E ''�i "+ �_?e��% A�"'p �°i +s.. �� i �� " / ! � v Y � ?. " S � ��4 's � ��`: ,c!,.. ..4 � \� � y�—. � ..,��.,_�i�. . >��,a.� 7/ : �., -t .,'.� : r' � ., `� `�`"'!... �,� +,'r al" `�.� .:.! .. u� h �' '.'L � 1 ar m v,.?:. i�'S".. . • . \ �.,, ,�.., .� � � a�� �� r.i��r. y � _ � � - f � . . . . ��e`+�°W hi 7'� .ie'f : . - �:; ✓ `:____ ,, : a. � �'�' , � � �' ��� ,. �..._��� �,w� _ �a � Y 1 YF �p� GO' SF' l. �F � �• : F' .. a � �. aU " i ��'�� � ��+ � , '� » �� � �J i��1 Y ,� T.a� � °�C�: �n�'� ���;�:. ���; F � >. ,:�,� � ��f r � � —.�, � a ��; „'�"� � a�� •x. , �o' ., a'l�:='�+ � � «..� -- r � -��`.- 4 y��` � .�_ � � ! � i I .,.,..�+,,..