The URL can be used to link to this page

04-115Council File # �� S Green Sheet # �OV7 �Jlo RESOLUTION SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By Referred To Committee: Date y3 1 WHEREAS, Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement has requested the City Council to 2 hold public hearings to consider the advisability and necessity of ordering the repair or wrecking and 3 removal of a two-story, wood frame, duplex located on property hereinafter referred to as the "Subject 4 Property" and commonly known as 690 Burr Street. This properiy is legally described as follows, to wit: 6 I,ot 13, Block 2, Subdivision of and Addition to Irvine's Addition of Out Lots to Saint Paul. 8 WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information 9 obtained by Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement on or before July 23, 2003, the following are 10 the now lmown interested or responsible parties for the Subj ect Property: Charden M. Gomez, Sr., 690 Burr 11 Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-4521; Charden M. Gomez, Sr., 324 Johnson Parkway, St. Paul, MN 55106; 12 First Union Home Equity Bank, N.A., c/o Wilkerson, Hegna & Walsten, PLLP, 1100 Northland Plaza, 13 3800 West 80`� Street, Bloomington, MN 55431; Bankers Trust Company of California, N.A., as hustee for 14 Vendee Mortgage Trust 1993-1, without recourse, 3 Park Plaza, Sixteenth Floor, Irvine, CA 92714; 15 Ramsey Robbins Shull, 424 West Dayton Street, #109, Madison, WI 53703 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 WHEREAS, Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement has served in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code an order idenrified as an"Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s)" dated November 18, 2003; and WHEREAS, this order informed the then laiown interested ar responsible parties that the shucture 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 December 18, 2003; and WIIEREAS, the enfarcement officer has posted a placard on the Subj ect Property declaring this building(s) to constitute a nuisance condirion; subject to demolition; and WHEREAS, this nuisance condirion has not been corrected and Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement 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 AA-ADA-EEO Employer 1 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul Ci �-`+ ``� 2 Council on Tuesday, 7anuary 27, 2004 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and 3 evidence, made the recommendation to approve the request to order the interested or responsible parties to 4 make the 5ubject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and 5 remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure in accordance with all 6 applicable codes and ordinances, or in the altemative by demolishing and removing the structure in 7 accordance with ali applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to be 8 completed within fifteen (15) days after the date ofthe Council Hearing; and 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 WF�REAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 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 690 Burr Street: That the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 45. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. � That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estunated 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 Neighborhood Housing & Property Ixnprovement 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 Neighborhood Housing & Property Ixnprovement, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings. That the known interested parties and owners are as previously stated in this resolution and that the notificarion requirements of Chapter 45 haue been fulfilled. ORDER The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the following arder: 1. The above referenced interested or responsible parties shall make the Subj ect Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure and correcting all deficiencies as prescribed in the above referenced Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the shucture in accardance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition and removal of the structure must be completed within fifteen (15) days after the date of the Council Hearing. AA-ADA-EEO Employer 0�•��5 1 2. ff the above corrective action is not completed within this period of time Neighborhood Housing & 2 Property Improvement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps are necessary to demolish and 3 remove this structure, fill the site and charge the costs incurred against the Subject Property 4 pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislarive Code. 5 6 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all personal 7 property or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shall be removed 8 from the property by the responsible parties by the end of this tune period. If all personal property 9 is not removed, it shall be considered to be abandoned and the City of Saint Paul shall remove and 10 dispose of such property as provided by law. 11 12 4. It is fixrther 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 Department of: Benanav Montaomerv Bostrom Thune Har Lan Hel Adop Adop By: Appr By: Yeas Navs ✓ v ✓ ✓ Absent Nei hborho Housin Pro ert Im rovement By: 1 Form Approved by City Attorney AA-ADA-EEO Employer � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet�'� Department/offiee/council: Date Initiated: cs -��5� oZ.��-04 Green Sheet NO: 3009736 Contact Person ffi Phone: Mdy Dawkins 266-1927 Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): 04FE6-04 � neoartrnent sen[ �orewon mrtiavuace � 0 �'itiza Se ' es � � I A55ign 1 i Ci[izen Services I De partment Director � Number Z � � � ��/6� For Routing 3 a or's O�ce I Ma or/Assistant i Order 4 c'I � I 5 Clerk � CiTy Clerk i Totai # of Signature Pages _(Clip NI Locations for Signature) Action Requested: City Council to pass flus resolution which will order the owner(s) to remove or repair the referenced bulding(s). If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, the Neie,Jiborhood Housing & Property Improvement is ordered to remove the building. The subject property is located at 690 Burr S4eet. RecommendaGons: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Planning Commission CIB Committee Civil Service Commission Must Answer tne ro��owing Uues[ions: �. Has this persoNfirm ever worked under a contrad for this department? Yes No 2. Has this persoNfirtn ever been a city empioyee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any curcent city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, issues, Opportunity (Who, What, Wqen, Where, Why): This building(s) is a nuisance building(s) as defined in Chapter 45 and a vacant building as defined in Chapter 43 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. The owners, -interested parties and responsible parfies Imown to the Enforcement Officer were given an order to repau or remove the building at 690 Burr Street by December 18, 2003. Advantages If Approved: The City will elinunate a nuisance. DisadvanWges If Approved: The City will spend funds to wreck and remove this building(s). These costs will be assessed to the property, collected as a special assessment against the property taxes. DisadvanWges If Not Approved: A nuisance condition will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to blight the co�unity. f11 !i� ' Fur� soesce: Nuisance Housing Finandal h�fortnation: ��m2llf (Expiain) � /: =:i-'. '_ " Achva!/Ntmher. 33261 � � S �' .. ; , ._.. JAN 0 �t e�� E�;i i � �. b�,-�� REPORT Date: January 27, 2004 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Room 330 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevard LEGISLATIVE HEARING FOR ORDERS TO REMOVE/REPAIIZ, CONDEMNATIONS, AND ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS Marcia Moermond Legislative Hearing Officer � 1. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 690 Burr Street. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval. 2. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 930 Duchess Street ff the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. L,egislative Hearing Officer recommends granting 180 days to complete the rehabilitation of the property on the condition that the following is done by noon of February 4, 2004: 1) the building is entirely secured; 2) the windows are completely boarded with'/z inch plywood; 3) the foundation is completely protected from entry; and 4) the sidewalk area is free from trip/fall hazards by use of fencing as appropriate. 3. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 598 Western Avenue. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends granting 180 days to complete the rehabilitation of the property on the condition that a bond has been posted by noon of February 4, 2004. 4. Appeal of Summary Abatement Order dated January 14, 2004, at 899 Palace Avenue. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends denying the appeal. 5. Appeal of Summary Abatement Order dated January 6, 2004, at 930 Duchess Street. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends denying the appeal and granting an extension to February 6, 2004. 6. Appeal of Summary Abatement Order dated January 16, 2004, at 930 Duchess Street. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends denying the appeal and granting an extension to February 6, 2004. jab CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Randy C. Kel[y, Mayor January 2, 2004 DNISION OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT �"� '"��-s Andy Dawklrss, Program Marsager Nuisaue Building Code Enforcement /600NorthWhiteBearAvenue Tel: 651-266-I900 Saint Paul, MN 55106 Fax: 651-266-1926 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Councii President and Members of the City Council Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement , Vacant/Nuisance 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: 690 Burr Street The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearings as foilows: Legislative Hearing - Tuesday, January 27, 2004 City Council Hearing - Wednesday, February 4, 2004 The owners and responsible parties of record are: Name and Last Known Address Chazden M. Gomez, Sr. 690 Burr Street St. Paul, MN 55101-4521 Chazden M. Gomez, Sr. 324 Johnson Parkway St. Paul, MN 55106 First Union Home Ec}uity Bank, N.A. cfo WiIIcerson, $egna & Walsten, PT,T.p l Id0 Northl�d Pla�a 3800 W�t SfY�' Street Bioo�gtan, MN 55431 Interest Fee Owner Fee Owner Mortgage Company AA-ADA-EEO Employer 690 Burr Street January 2, 2004 Page 2 Name and Last Known Address Bankers Trust Company of Califomia, N.A., as trustee for Vendee Mort�age Trust 1993-1, without recourse 3 Park Piaza Sixteenth Floor Irvine, CA 92714 Ramsey Robbins Shull 424 West Dayton Street, #109 Madison, WI 53703 The legal description of this property is: Interest U�� irs Contract for Deed Holder Lien Holder I,ot 13, Block 2, Subdivision of and Addition to Irvine's Addition of Out Lots to Saint Paul. Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement has declazed this building(s) to constitute a "nuisance" as defined by Legislative Code, Chapter 45. Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement has issued an order to the then known responsible parties to eliminate this nuisance condition by correcting the deficiencies or by razing and removing this building(s). Inasmuch as this Order to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition remains unabated, the community cont�inues to suffer the blighting influence of this property. It is the recommendation of the Neighborhood Housing & Properiy Improvement that the City Council pass a resolution ordering the responsible parties to either repair, or demolish and remove this building in a rimely manner, and failing that, authorize the Neighborhood Housing & Properiy Improvement 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, �� i� Steve Magner Vacant Buildings Supervisor Neighborhood Housing & Properiy Improvement u CC: F23III{ BCL°� B1IIIC�IIt� IBSQeChOIl 2II� DESIEIl Meghan Riley, City Attomeys Office MaryErickson, Assist�t Secretary to the Council Laurie Kaplan, PED-Housing Division AA-ADA-EEO Employer D�iis DNISION OF PROPER'IY CODE ENFORCEMENT Andy Dawldr.s, P�ogram Manager CITI' OF SAINT PAUL Nuisance Bullding Code Enforcemen[ Ra�dy G Kr1ly, b(m�or I600 Nonh White BearAvenve Tel: 65]-Z661900 SaintPaul, M,L' =5706 F�r 651-266-i926 S January 2, 2004 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS To all Known Responsible and/or Interested Parties Dear Sir or Madam: The Saint Paul City Council and the Legislative Hearing Officer of the City Council have scheduled public hearings to consider a Council Resolution ordering the repair or removal of the building(s) located at 690 Burr Street. In acco*darce with the provisions of the Saint Paul Legislative Code Chapter 45, all owners of record and other interested parties with a lmown interest in this building(s) are hereby notified of these hearings. At these hearings testimony will be heazd from the Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement Enforcement Officer and any other parties who wish to be heard. The Council will adopt a resolution describing what action, if any, the Council deems appropriate. Please be advised the Public Hearing before the Legislative Hearing Officer is scheduled for: Tuesday, January 27, 2004, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 330, City Hall, 15 VVest Kellogg Boutevard, Saint Paul, MN 55106 The Legislative Hearing Officer will hear the evidence and make a recommendation for action to the full City Council: Wednesday, February 4, 2404, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor, City Hali, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, Saint Paul, b'IN 55106 All costs incurred by the City, including inspection costs, administrative costs, title searches, filing fees and, if necessary, demolition and removal expenses, will be assessed against the real estate as a special assessment to be collected in the same manner as real estate taxes. If you hace any questions concerning this matter please call the VacantlNuisance Buildings Code Enforcement Officer Steve Magner at (651)266-1928, or you may leave a voice mail message. Sincerely, �� i . Steve Magner Vacant Buildings Supervisor Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement SM:ml AA-ADA-EEO Employer O�-�� MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE FIEARING �� ORDERS TO REMOVE/REPAIR, CONDEMNATIONS, ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS Tuesday, January 27, 2004 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Boulevazd West Mazcia Moermond, L,egislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 10:00 a.m. STAFF PRESENT: Steve Magner Code Enforcement; 7ean Birkholz, City Council. OTHERS PRESENT: Joshua Favilla, 518 Ohio Street, Apt #2; Linda Carreno, 670 Sims; Ron Staeheli, 4300 Blackhawk Road, Eagan; David Youmans, 4521 Orchard Ave North, Robbinsdale; Lori Athias, Robbinsdale; Gary Torgerson, 14262 10`" Street North, Stiliwater; and Steve Robey, 2677 17`" Avenue East, North Saint Paul. Ms. Moermond explained that all the issues at this heazing will have public hearings in front of the City Council. J0307A Property clean-up during August 2003 at 518 Ohio Street. The owner, Joshua Favilla, is appealing an assessment related to a property clean-up. Mr. Favilla stated that he hauled the brush away and the next day the City came and hauled away his firewood. He called and spoke to someone who asked him why he didn't have the firewood split. Mr. Favilla noted that $715 is out of proportion to haul something away that cost him $25. Ms. Moermond asked to see the originai Summary Abatement Order (July 17, 2003) and to see the video before and after ciean-up. Mr. Magner showed the video. Ms. Moerxnond asked if he talked with Inspector Jack Reardon about this. Mr. Favilla replied that he had spoken with Mr. Reazdon, who advised him to go to court. The crew who were there to pick up the pile of brush, not the firewood, were told that since the brush was not there, they should pick up whatever was in the yazd; and that was Mr. Favilla's firewood for going camping up at his friend's cabin. Mr. Favifla called and spoke with Jack Reardon before they picked up the firewood and told him that he had hauled away the brush & that what was left was his firewood. Apparently, the tree fell down in a storm and Mr. Favilla had it cut up and logged, and he was waiting fox his trailer to get fixed to haul it away. Steve Magner reported that on March 24, 2003, Code Enforcement received a complaint about a large truck behind the house on a trailer. Inspector Reazdon went out to the site and issued an ordet He has been back a number of times, also with the assistance of Officer Mazk Wiegei. There was no change on June 5, 2003 and a work order was issued on the vehicle. On June 19, 2003, their office received a voice maii from Officer Wiegle saying that the truck couldn't be towed because of its location on the property. At that time, a conversation ensued with the owner who became incensed and was nearly arrested. On June 28, Inspector Reardon noted that there was a large tree down due to a recent storm and advised the owner that the tree needed to be removed. The inspector went back on July 2, 2003. All the vehicles were currently licensed and O�-=�� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2004 Page 2 the debris from the downed tree was stiil there. He noted that he would monitor the situation. On July 17, 2003, there was still a pile of brush, tree debris and discazded interior furniture, so he issued the summary abatement order. On August 9, 2003, there was no change, so a work order was sent. On September 15, 2003, the site was re-inspected; it was cleaned-up. The work was completed on August 13, 2003, approximately two (2) months a8er the tree came down. Code Enforcement would consider that more than enough time to remedy the situation. There is no documentation of when the owner called and asked for an extension of time after that incident in June. Ms. Moermond noted that the summary abatement order indicates that there's a concern about exterior sanitation: Immediately remove improperly stored or accumulated refuse including: garbage, rubbish, junk, vehicle parts, wood, metal, recyciing materials, household items, buiiding materials, rubbie, tires, etc., from yard. The Saint Paul Legislative Code requires it to be maintained in a clean and sanitary fashion. Useable materials must be stored in an approved manner, so as not to cause a nuisance ............................ Also, any and all brush and tree debris ..... Ms. Moermond stated that the order is cleaz: wood is included and tree debris was included in the additional notes. Ms. Moermond recommends upholding the assessment at its current level. Ms. Moerxnond recommends denying the appeal. Appeal of Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate at 670 Sims Avenue. Ms. Moermond reported this to be an appeal of a condemnation. There was excessive storage inside the house, excessive animals, animal feces - mainly, a lot of clothes that had gotten wet and the owner was trying to deal with it. Last week ihere was a re-inspection and fifty percent (50%) of the interior storage was to have been removed or taken care of at that point. The inspector has reported that there has been very little progress. Ms. Carreno disagreed and said that there was quite a lot of progress, but it was difficult to see. Steve Magner submitted photographs. Mr. Magner stated that Inspector Martin and Dean Koehnen, Saint Paul Police Officer, re- inspected the property on 7anuary 22, 2004. At that time, there were six (6) birds, one (1) hedgehog, one (1) rat, five (5) rottweilers, and three (3) rabbits ouTside. Bill Stevenson, Animal Control, informed their office that the City still does not have a license from the owner for having that number of animals nor for having exotic animals, which the hedgehog is. Ms. Moermond requested a copy of the original condemnation. From that she noted that the property was placarded on December 22, 2003, notified on December 23, 2003, and the vacate order was for December 29, 2003. The photos are an improvement but not sufficient to grant the O�-��5 LEGISLATNE HEARING MINLJTES OF JANiJARY 27, 2004 Page 3 appeal of the condemnation order. In the photos aze scenes that merit condemnation and the inspector's action. There is another inspection later today at 1 p.m. Ms. Moerrnond stated that unless she receives a call back from the inspector that today's inspecfion looks like a fifiy percent (50%) improvement over what it looked like in December, 2003, she will recommend to the CiTy Council that they deny the appeal. Officially, she recommends a condemnation today with a vacate order for Friday, February 6, 2004. The placazd can be lifted if the inspector sees an improvement of fifty percent (50%) or better. Ms. Moermond recommends denying the appeal. Appeal of Summary Abatement Order at 899 Palace Avenue. Ms. Moermond reported that 899 Palace has been cleaned-up. The appeal of the Summary Abatement Order is mute. No action is necessary. The appeal is officially denied. Ms. Moermond recommends denying the appeal. (Discussion ensued with the owner regarding the short timing of notifications.) Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 598 Western Avenue North. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Steve Magner submitted photographs. Mr. Magner presented a staff report. This is a 2-story wood frame single-family dwelling on a lot of 2,614 square feet. The building was condemned on July 16, 2003 by Code Enforcement and has been vacant since that date. The owner on record with Ramsey County is Dorothy L. Cox. There have been four (4) Summary Abatements issued to secure the building, cut tall grass and weeds and remove/clean refuse. On November 6, 2003, an inspection was conducted. A list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed and photographs were taken. An Order to Abate Nuisance Building was issued on November 18, 2003 with a compliance date of December 18, 2003. As of today, the property remains in the condition which comprises a "nuisance" as defined by the Legislative Code, Chapter 45. The City has had to board this building to secure against trespass: Vacant building registration fees have been paid; taxes are paid in full. Taxation estimated market value of the land at $11,800; $42,100 on the building. On January 21, 2004, a code compliance inspection was completed. As of January 27, 2004, the City has not been notified of a bond having been posted. Code Enfarcement estimates demolition to this structure between $6,000 and $'7,000, and repairs between $60,000 and $70,000. A recent development to this property was that Mr. Magner received a phone call from the new owners, Lori Athias and David Youmans. Today Mr. Youmans came into the office and registered the building in his name, and Mr. Magner advised them to go down and post a bond. They have obtained a code compliance inspection and they obtained the property through a G�-��S LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINLTTES OF JANUARY 27, 2004 Page 4 transaction with Ms. Cox, and are in the process of cleaning out the building: Mr. Magner suspects that they are looking for 180 days to bring the property into compliance. Ms. Moermond asked if they had a purchase agreement for the property. Ms. Athias responded that they have purchased the property. Ms. Moermond reviewed the photographs that were taken at the time of inspection in July 2003. Ms. Atruas explained that everything has been removed from the building, a$2,000 bond will be posted today, and they aze ready to begin the rehabilitation. Ms. Moermond asked if they had done this ldnd of thing before. Ms. Athias responded that they have rehabbed 695 Charles, 650 Central, 793 Selby, 713 Aurora, etc. They aze professional rehabbers, licensed realtors, brokers, and contractors. They did not own the property when there were a number of summary abatement orders on it. Mr. Magner added that the new owners need to maintain the exterior of the property. The building needs to remain secure; the walks need to be taken caze of today; and the yazd needs to be cleaned. Ms. Moermond added that the only thing that can change her recommendation is if all of this stuff isn't taken caze of by noon, February 4, 2004. Ms. Moermond recommends 180 days to compleYe the rehabilitation of the property on the condition that a bond has been posted by noon February 4, 2004. Appeal of Summary Abatement Orders dated January 6, 2004 and January 16, 2004 at 930 Duchess Street. Mr. Magner submitted photographs of the site. Ms. Moermond asked Gary Torgerson if he had pulled building permits. He replied that he did. Mr. Magner stated that currently there is a new bond on the property. These two orders aze intertwined. In October 2002, Code Enforcement opened a registered category 3 vacant building due to the conditions of the dweiling. At that time, Barbara Anderson and Gregory Howazd were listed as owners. Suixunary Abatements were issued to get it secured. In December 2002, Code Enforcement received a vacant building registration form and the vacant building fees were paid, indicating that Mr. Howard had plans to rehabilitate the property. The property changed ownership. His assumption is that David Johnson purchased the properiy, turned right around and sold it to Mr. Torgerson on a contract-for-deed. A code compliance inspection had been performed in December 2002. Then a performance bond was posted in Mazch 2003 and work commenced. Subsequenfly, the permits were pulled and work began. Code Enforcement issued some Summary Abatement Orders to clean-up some refuse and deal with vehicles. After the one-year time period expired (September 16) and the work had not been completed, Code Enforcement started the Building Deficiency Inspection Program and issued an order to abate. Mr. Torgerson obtained a new bond on December 27, 2003. Mr. Magner called Mr. Torgerson and issued Summary Abatement Orders about keeping the property secure on the site. As you �4-\\`j LEGISLATTVE HEARING MINIJTES OF JANUARY 27, 2004 Page 5 can see by the photos, there needs to be extensive foundation work completed. The house sits up against the sidewalk. The photos show boards and braces set up and there is a fence. The fence needs to stay intact, and this site needs to remain secure because the open excavation creates a safety hazard. The latest concem of Mr. Magner's (January 5, 2004) is that there's a large amount of rubble and miscellaneous debris thrown azound behind the garage, inciuding some concrete chunks which need to be removed and the yazd needs to be cleaned-up; and the west side gazage window was broken out at the time. Originally, Mr. Magner gave them a January 22, 2004 date because he knew it would take some time to remove the rubble. After a week, Mr. Magner returned to check on the conditions. Mr. Torgerson had taken the initiative to boazd the garage, but now some of the boards on the house windows had been tampered with and were loose. Also, the boards were thin plywood which doesn't meet Code EnforcemenYs criteria. Boards for boarding up windows needs to be at least %z inch plywood, and they need to be fastened all the way around the window, not just part of it. At that time, Mr. Magner re-issued a new Summary Abatement Order with the same compliance date, January 22, 2004, to make sure � the buiiding was secure and to remind Mr. Torgerson that the rubble needed to be removed. After that, an appeal was filed. Mr. Magner was at the site yesterday, January 26, 2004, to check on any progress. He noted that most of the rubble is still on site and some of the windows boards are there, but only partiaily secured and wouid not meet Code Enforcement requirements to have Uie whole window completely covered with'/z inch plywood. Ms. Moermond asked whether work orders were required for the five (5) Summary Abatement Orders. Mr. Magner responded that originally the City did a boarding, prior to Mr. Johnson and Mr. Torgerson taking possession. Subsequently, it looks like only one vehicle work order went through & Mr. Magner wasn't sure whether that vehicle was actually towed. The other things look like they've been addressed. Mr. Torgerson generally does hy to take care of these issues once he's been notified. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Torgerson when he acquired the property. Mr. Torgerson responded that they acquired it about February 2003. He added that the bond hadn't gone a year and expired. Permits were issued on May 14, 2003. On October 24, 2003, Mr. Magner had scheduled an inspection with Jim Seeger and Rich Singerhouse. Mr. Seeger advised Mr. Torgerson to post another $2,000 bond to have time to complete the work. On October 25, 2003, Mr. Torgerson posted another $2,000 bond. The order to take remedial action was not received until November 18, 2003, and he had aiready taken the action to solve the problem. Mr. Torgerson provided photographs that reflected what had been done to remedy the exposure to excavating under the house. They had formed a piywood wall all the way azound the house so that one could not fall in the event one stepped off the sidewalk. Ms. Moermond asked how long they will be doing the block work. Mr. Torgerson replied that they aze ready to set the house onto the foundation right now. All the walls aze braced and ready to go. Ms. Moermond questioned them about the rubble. Mr. Torgerson said that ii would be no problem at ati to remove the concrete chunks. Mr. Magner explained that with the Summary Abatement Order, he was addressing primarily two (2) outstanding issues: 1) the concrete rubble on the east side of the garage in the back, a cast iron trap, and some miscellaneous things; and 2) securing the windows with'/z inch plywood nailed �u-� �S LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2004 Page 6 completely around the window. Mr. Torgerson explained that he'd rather not have the building boazded, but the buiiding had mostly new thermal pane windows untii the kids broke them out. He wish that he could install the new ones, but doesn't want to risk any more breakings. Ms. Moermond recommends denying the appeats and granting and extension to Pebruary 9, 2004. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 930 Duchess Street. IF the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Ms. Moermond explained that she wanted to do a couple of conditions that aze not normaily done to grant the 180 days: fencing or some other means to secure foundation area from the sidewalk; secure the whole area from trip/fall hazard or illegal entry into the building by February 4, 2004. Ms. Moermond recommends granting 180 days to complete the rehabilitation of the properiy on the condition that the following is done by noon of February 4, 2004: i) the building is entirely secured; 2) the windows are completely boarded with'/z inch plywood; 3) the foundation is completely protected from entry; and 4) the azea is free from trip/fall hazards by use of fencing as appropriate. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 690 Burr Street. If the � owner fails to comply with the resotution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. Mr. Magner submitted photographs. Mr. Magner stated that this is a 2-story wood frame duplex on a lot of 5,227 square feet. The building was condemned on October 1, 2002 by Code Enforcement and has been vacant since. The current property owner, according to Ramsey County, is Chazden M. Gomez, Sr. There has been no contact with Mr. Gomez. Mr. Magner has had previous contact regarding other buildings. It is uncieaz as to his exact whereabouts. There have been five (5) Summary Abatement Notices issued to remove accumulated refuse and secure the dwelling. On October 28, 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 nuisance building was issued on November 18, 2003 with a compliance date of December 18, 2003. As of this date, the property remains in a condition that comprises a nuisance as defined by the Legislative Code. The City has had to board the building to secure it against trespass. Vacant building fees are due and owning, Real Estate ta�ces have been paid. Taafation has placed an estimated mazket value of $13,200 on the land and $25,900 on the building. On December 24, 2002, a code compliance inspection was done. As of December 27, 2004, a bond has not been posted. Code Enforcement esrimates the cost of repairs to the structure between $70,000 and $80,000, and demolition between $6,000 and $7,000. U�-�� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF JANiJARY 27, 2004 Page 7 Ms. Moermond noted that there are no interior photographs, only exterior. Mr. Magner explained that they had no response from the owner in order to obtain a key to get into the building. Mr. Magner added that there aze a number of deficiencies addressed in the code compliance inspection. There have been no permits obtained nor bond posted; nor has there been activity at the properiy since 2002. Code Enforcement is seeking a resolution to repair or remove the building within fif[een (15} days. Ms. Moermond recommends approval. J0307A Property clean-up during August 2003 at 827 Van Buren Avenue. Mr. Magner noted his understanding of this issue. On July 24, 2003, Code Enforcement received a complaint in regazd to the steps in the back of this property had fallen off and are very dangerous. There is a pile of junk in the basement. A neighbor was concerned about an elderly woman living in the property with her brother. Code Enforcement went to the property and issued orders. There was a huge pile of brush in the back yard at the time. A Summary Abatement was issued giving the owner until August 8, 2003 to clean it up. Code Enforcement went back on August 12, 2003 and there was no change. Our office was unable to contact the owner. Subsequently, Pazks went out and cleaned-up the brush for a total of $281.00. A video was presented showing the clean-up. Ms. Moermond noted that staff's recommendation was to delete the assessment. Mr. Magner explained that Code Enforcement received an appeal cazd from H'ildegard Kimlinger, who resides at 27 Van Buren. She indicated that the City had not removed the brush, but that it had been removed by a Handiworks, a senior chore service. Mr. Magner noted that as the video indicates, the City certainly did remove the brush pile. Ms. Kimlinger called and spoke with the director, Andy Dawkins, and asked that the assessment be deleted. Mr. Dawkins passed that information to Harold Robinson, who was handling the issue. It was Mr. Dawkins' opinion that the assessment be deleted. Mr. Magner wasn't sure that staff concurred with that. Ms. Moermond asked if there was any record of an extension being discussed with staff. According to inspector Joe Yanarelly's notes, there's no documented extension granted. Ms. Maermond recommends that the appeal of the assessment for cleaning up the brush is denied and this assessment of $351 be divided over five (5} years because of financial hazdship. Staff will call or write the Kimlingers informing them to seek a deferment in paying the assessment, which will involve filling out a form in the Real Estate Office, indicating that they're disabled. Then the assessment would be deferred until the time that Yhe tixle of the property is transferred. Interest would accu�nulate on the amount of the assessment. Last yeaz the interest rate was 4.75%. The hearing was adjourned at 1135 am. jab