Loading...
05-452AMENDED MAY 18, 2005 Council File # `��'- �`� Green Sheet # 3ea��`��o RESOLUTION OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By Referred To Committee: Ddte 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, brick exterior duplex and the detached, two-stall, wood frame 4 garage located on property hereinafter refened to as the "Subject Propeny" and commonly known as 14 5 7essamine Avenue East. This property is legally described as follows, to wit: 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 L.ot 15, Block 3, Pottgiesers Subdivision of Lots 5 to 16 inclusive, all of Weide and Dawson's Gazden L.ots to Saint Paul. WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information obtained by Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement on or before December 15, 2004, the following aze the now known interested or responsible parties for the Subject Property: Joseph Gustafson, 21102 365th Avenue, Green Isle, MN 55338; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., P.O. Box 2026, Flint, MI 48501; Great Northern Financial Group Inc., 200 Coon Rapids Blvd., Suite 210, Coon Rapids, MN 55433 WHEREAS, Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement has served in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul I.egislative Code an order identified as an "Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s)" dated March 4, 2005; and WHERP,AS, 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 WF3EREAS, this order informed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair or demolish the structure located on the Subject Propefty by March 15, 2005; 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 WHEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been conected and Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings before the I.egislative 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 I.egislative Code, of the time, date, place and purpose of the public hearings; and � AA-ADA-EEO Employer vS- �ISd� 2 3 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 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the I.egislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City Council on Tuesday, May 3, 2005 to heaz testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and evidence, made the recommendation to approve the request to order the interested or responsibie parties to make the Subject Properiy safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitarion or demolition of the structure to be completed within F�r ���� days after the date of the Council Hearing; and s �� � WHEREAS, a heanng was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, May 18, 2005 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 tesrimony 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 14 Jessamine Avenue East: That the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul L.egislative Code, Chapter 45. 2. � 5. Q That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed three thousand dollazs ($3,000.00). That there now exists and has existed multiple Housing or Building code violations at the Subject Property. That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then known responsible parties to correct the deficiencies ar to demolish and remove the building(s). That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition have not been corrected. That Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement has posted a placazd on the Subject Property which declares it to be a nuisance condition subject to demolition. That this building has been routinely monitored by Neighborhood Housing & Froperty Improvement, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings. That the known interested parties and owners are as previously stated in this resolution and that the nofification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled. ORDER The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the following order: 1. The above referenced interested or responsible parties shall make the Subject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure and correcring all deficiencies as prescribed in the above referenced Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances, or in the alternative b� demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with a11 applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition and removal of the structure must be completed within�i€Eee�r{i-Sj days after the date of the Council Heanng. This amendment to 60 days is �%a *� /�Iu�) continQent upon the vostinQ of a$iW000 nerformance denosit bv the e os- Y� � 1 2. If 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 3 and remove this structure, fill the site and chazge the costs incurred against the Subject Property 4 pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul L.egslative Code. 5 6 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paui, all personal 7 property or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removai shall be 8 removed from the properiy by the responsible parties by the end of this time period. If all 9 personal property is not removed, it shall be considered to be abandoned and the City of Saint 10 Paul shall remove and dispose of such property as provided by law. 11 12 4. It is further ordered, that a copy of this resolution be mailed to the owners and interested parties 13 in accordance with Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislafive Code. Yeas Navs Absent Benanav � Montcromerv � Bostrom � Th�; Has Lar. Hel Requested by Department of: Ado� Adop By: Appr By: AA-ADA-EEO Employer Nei hborhood Housin Pro ert Im rovement By : �/�/ � Green Sheet Green Sheet 05- �s� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � DepartmenVoffice/councii: Date Initiated: NH -N���,��,�� o�-�R-0S Green Sheet NO: 3026046 Contact Person & Phone: � �a�^�^t Sent To Person InitiaVDate Mdy Dawkins � 0 ' borh H 266-1927 AsSign 1 e rhoodHO ' o De ariment - r �iZ —� , Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number Z � rne � a 7&MAY-05 .FOr , Routing 3 or's Otfice Ma or/Assis[ant . Order 4 o�mcil 5 i Clerk Ci Clerk � ToTal # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Req�ested: City Council to pass this resolufion which will order the owner(s) to remove or repair the referenced building(s). If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Neighborhood Housing 8c Property Improvement is ordered to remove the building. The subject property is located at 14 7essamine AvenuB East. ' Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service CoMrects Must An4wer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this departmenY? CIB Committee � Yes No " Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a ciry employee? Yes No ' � 3. Does this personffirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any wrzent city employee? . , Yes No � Explain all yes answers on separete sheet antl attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity(Who, What, When, 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 Lagislative Code. The owneis,'interested parties and responsible parties lmown to the Enforcement Officer were given an order to ' repair or remove the building at 14 Jessamine Avenue East by March 15, 2005, and have failed to comply with those ordeis: ' -- � �� AdVantdge5 If ApproVed: ' The City will eliminate a nuisance. AryR j� r���� �� P�R� 4"t 3 V C� DisadvanWges If Approved: The City will spend funds to wieck and remove this building(s). These costs will be assessed to the property, collected as a special ' assessment against the property tases. Disadvantages[f NotApproved: ' � � , A nuisance condipon will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to 6light the community. Total Amount of Transaetion: 9000 CostlRevenue Butlgeted: y � , ,����a�-�-'��( Fundin9 source: Nuisance Housing activity Numner: 30251 , Financiallnformation: Abatement e �� (F�cplain) � � LWICI. 05- �/S� NE[GHBORHOOD HOUSP•IG & PROPERTY RbiPROVEMENT Andy Dawkirzs, Progru��� Manager C� OF 5�.� y pAvy., Nuisa�u'e Building Code Enforcemen! Randr C_ Kel1y. M1fapor 1600Nonh Wfsite BearAvenue Tet: 655-266-190Q Sairst Paul. MN 55706 Far 651-266-1926 Apri18, 2005 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Council 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 consida,�a resoludon ordering the repair or removal of the nuisance building(s) located at: 14 Jessamine Avenue East The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearin�s as follows: � Legislative Hearing - Tuesday, May 3, 2005 City Council Hearing - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 The owners and responsible parties of record are: Name and Last Known Address 7oseph Gustafson 21102 365th Avenue Green Isle, MN 55338 Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 2026 Flint, MI 48501 Great Notthern Financial Group Inc. 200 Coon Rapids Bivd., Suite 210 Coon Rapids, MN 55433 The legal description of this property is: Interest Fee Owner Holder of Mortgage Lender on Mortgage Lot 15, Block 3, Pottgiesers Subdivision of L.ots 5 to 16 inclusive, all of Weide and Dawson's Gazden I,ots to Saint Paul. AA-ADA•EEO Empioyer °��: ' �,��;,, � os- �1s� 14 Jessamine Avenue East April 8, 2005 Pa�e 2 1VTei�hborhood Housing & Property Improvement has declared this buildin�(s) to constitute a "nuisance" as defined by L.egislative Code, Chapter 45. Neighborhood Housin� & Property Improvement has issued an order to the then known responsibie parties to eliminate this nuisance condition by correcting the deficiencies or by razing and removin� 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 Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement 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 Neighborhood I3'busing & Property 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, 1e , , � � . Steve Magner Vacant Buildings Supervisor Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement SM:mI cc: Frank Berg, Buiiding Inspection and Design Judy Hanson, City Attomeys Office MaryErickson, Assistant Secretary to the Council Laurie Kapian, PED-Housing Division ccnph AA-ADA-EEO Employer G,y�,,. ��:�.'.">>:�- �... i °!'2R^ os- Ys� NEIGHBORHOOD HO[.`SLYG & PROPERTY MSPROVEMENT Andy Dawkins, Program Manager CITY OF SAIi�IT PAUL Nuisance Building Code Enforcement R¢nCy G Kelfy, �Nacor 7600 Nortk White Brardcenue Te[: 651-266-1900 Saint Pauf,�W.V 5�106 F¢r 6�1-266-1926 April 8, 2005 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Council President and Members of the Ci[y Council Neighborhood Housin� & Property Improvement > Vacant/Nuisance Buiidings Enforcement Division has requested the City Council schedule public hearin�s to consideea resolution orderin� the repair or removal of the nuisance building(s) located at: 86 Sycamore Street East The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearin�s as follows: Legislative Hearing - Tuesday, May 3, 2005 City Council Hearing - Wednesday, May 18, 200� The owners and responsible parties of record aze: Name and Last Known Address Mihn Van Nguyen 86 Sycamore Street East St. Paul, MN 55117 Minnesota Housing Finance Agency 400 Sibley Street, Suite 300 St. Paul, MN 55101 The legai description of this property is: Interest Fee Owner Holder of Mortgage Lot 7, Block 2, Drake's 2nd Addition to the City of St. Paul. Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement has declared this building(s) to constitute a "nuisance" as defined by L.egislauve Code, Chapter 45. Neighborhood Housing & Pro�perty Improvement has issued an order to the then known responsible parties to eliminate ttus nuis� condidon by conec6ng the deficiencies or by razing and removina this building(s). �� � . AA-ADA-EEO Employa 05- yso� 86 Sycamore Street East April S, 200� Pa�e 2 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 Neighborhood Housin� & Property Improvement 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 Neighborhood Housing & Property 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 ta�ces. Sincerely, �> . . �� � i Steve Mab er Vacant Buildin�s Supervisor Neighborhood Housin� & Property Improvement SM:ml cc: Frank Berg, Building Inspection and Design Judy Hanson, City Attorneys Of�ce MaryErickson, Assistant Secretary to the Council Laurie Kaplan, PED-Housing Division ccnph - AA-ADA-EEO Employer � ;.a:s§�,;.• ' "'�« -M-,:- ° 3 , :e '(Y�� 1� ���a�.�c; �,��� ��1� --}� 5 (� ps �52 � District 6 Planning Council � p1 213 Front Street i � St. Paul, MN 55117 �� 651-488-4485 "Serving the North End and South Como Neighborhoods" May 7, 2005 Councilmember Lee Helgen Room 320 A City Hali 15 W. Kellogg Bivd St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Councilmember Helgen: At ourApril Land Use Task Force meeting District 6 Planning Council voted to support Tri-area Bfock Ciub's recommendation of demolition of the property located at 14 E. Jessamine. Linda Jungwirth (Tri-area block club) and myself expressed our request at the administrative hearing. Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement has also recommended demolition of the property. The person who represented himself as the owner, was not he owner or record, and also owns 11 E. Jessamine with is another boarded and vacant building directiy across the street. The administrative hearing officer recommended giving this claimed new partner additional time to make repairs, and provided a list of things to be completed prior to the council hearing on May 18 We do not feel the hearing officers recommendations are strong enough. We feel this owner has been given more than enough chances to make this property livable and would like to see it demolished, however, if they are extended yet another opportunity we would recommend the following: 1. The performance bond be a minimum of $30,000 2. The owner be given 45 days to complete the work not sixty, this wili be the heart of summer and residents should not have view that eyesore for another full summer 3. The performance bond be revoked if the property is issued another summary abatement 4. The owner also be required to post a perFormance bond on 11 E. Jessamine, and show adequate funds for rehab. It will be a continued problem for the city and community if he uses all his resources on 14, and then leaves 11 an eyesore until the city forces him to fix it. Thank you for your consideration, Patty Lammers Neighborhood Safety Coordinator _ `-�.� �� OS-�5Z MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING ORDERS TO REMOVE/REPAIl2, CONDEMNATIONS, ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS, ABATEMENT ORDERS, RENTAL REVOCATION CERTIF'ICATES Tuesday, May 3, 2005 Room 330 Ciry Hall, 15 VJest Kellogg Boulevazd Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 10:05 a.m. STAFF PRESENT: Andy Dawkins, Neighborhood Housing and Properiy Improvement (NI-IPn; Steve Magner, NHPI; Michaei Urmann, Division of Fire Prevention Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building(s) at 1011 Burns Avenue. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement is ordered to remove the building(s). (Laid over from 2-15-OS) WallyNelson, Renovation, Inc., appeared. Ms. Moermond stated the last fime they spoke, there were three mortgages on the property, two of which he had control of. Mr. Nelson responded that he is waiting for Wednesday. They will apply for perxnits, do interior drawings. Hopefully, he will start the construction process next Thursday. He will have legal control after tomorrow. Steve Magner reported that on February 15, they were looking for vacant building fees to be paid, a code inspection report, the property to be maintained, a bond, and t�es. The fees were paid, the inspection has been accomplished, and the property has been maintained. The owner was looking to post a bond at the last minute. The taYes were to be paid at closing. Mr. Nelson responded the taa�es have been paid. Ms. Moermond stated this is on for public hearing on May 4. All she needs is a purchase agreement. Mr. Nelson responded he owns the Sheriffs certificate and the second mortgage. There is a redemption issue for the other deal. Also, there is a new foreclosure law that says they haue to have the paperwork to the Sheriff and they have not done that. Ms. Moerxnond asked will he need the whole 180 days. Mr. Nelson responded it will take him at least four months. It is partially built. Ms. Moermond recommends granting the owner 180 days to rehabilitate the properiy. � Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building(s) at 14 Jessamine Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement is ordered to remove the building(s). Julian Jayasuriya appeazed. O� �c�� LEGISLATIVE HEARiNG MINLTTES OF MAY 3, 2005 Page 2 Steve Magner reported this is a duplex with a detached gazage. The building was originally condemned in January 2002 and has been vacant since 2-19-02. The current owner is Joseph Gustafson. Mr. Jayasuriya has been representing himself as the business partQer or previous owner. There have been 21 summary abatement notices issued for various code violarions. On 2-22-05, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance was developed, and photographs were taken. An Order to Abate a Nuisance Building was issued on 2-28-OS with a compliance date of 3-15-05. As of this day, the properry remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the lea slative code. The City has had to board this building to secure it against trespass. The vacant building fees are due. TaYation has placed an estunated mazket value of $40,000 on the land and $183,000 on the building. A Code Compliance Inspection was last done on 4-24-02. That inspection will have to be updated by Jnn Seeger (LIEP). As of 8-31-05, a$2,000 bond originally posted on 9-2-04 was forfeited for lack of rehabilitation. Code Enforcement estimates the cost of repairs to be $50,000. Mr. Magner continued: this properry was before the Legislative Hearing Officer a couple of yeazs ago. Individuals wanted time to rehabiliYate the properly. They were given time, the bond was forfeited. The City was going to take action, but the Council decided to reverse itself and give these individuals another chance in September 2003. Then, Mr. Jayasuriya who lived across the street, made contact with these individuals and purchased the property. He made promises that the building would be brought into compliance shortly, and they would not have any more problems. They aze not neaz occupancy to date. There has been work done at the property, but he still lacks a code compliance certificate, sign off on pernvts, lacks completion, lacks day to day maintenance, and the City consistenfly has to go to the properry. During the last year, they could count 10 to 12 suuunary abatements. This fonun needs to ask who is in control: Mr. Gustafson or Mr. Jayasuriya. On 21 occasions, said Ms. Moermond, the City issued a suminary abatement notices saying these items need to be addressed. She asked on how many of these the City did the cleanup. Mr. Magner responded large percentage. From September 2004 to Apri12005, They had five summary abatement and five work orders. Ms. Moermond stated she sees the summary abatement notices, she sees that the City has had to issue work orders to c�o the cleanup. The City has played the roll of property manager. The Vacant Building Fees aze due. The City has had to board the building to secure it against trespass. There is a danger from homeless people and teenagers getting inside vacant buildings and starting fires. A tragic situation can occur when vacant buildings are not secure. The fact that a bond was forfeited is also a strike. Ms. Moermond is looking for signs tl�at the past problems will be rectified and that he will engage some management issues at this property. She asked what the owner wanted to do. Mr. Jayasuriya responded he apologizes for the delay. The tsunami hit his family hazd. He has taken things over now. He has an inveshnent in this house and would like 30 days to completely finish it. Ms. Moermond stated she would be happy to give him the time, but he has to meet some conditions. 1) The Vacant Building fees aze due. 2) The Code Compliance Inspection was conducted in 2002. A new Code Compliance Inspection is needed to be conducted by the City. C�S--��� LEGISLATIVE HEAR�NG MINUTES OF MAY 3, 2005 Page 3 3) He needs a work plan that will address all the items on the Code Compliance Inspecfion and when he will do the items. 4) She will ask that the Council impost a$10,000 performance bond. It is refundable upon completion and sign off on the permits. He could lose $10,000 if he does not come through. 5) a demonstration that the owner is fivanciaily capable of executing this rehabilitation, which could include a line of credit at a bank. 6) documentation that the owner is in legai control of the property. All of these tivngs need to be done by noon of May 18. Linda Jungwirth, Tri-Area Block Club, appeazed and stated the neighborhood has put up with this pzoperiy for many years. The fmal shaw was the gas ineident in December. The neighborhood felt there was disregard for the people in the neighborhood. They would like to see the house removed. They were under the assumption there was a different properry owner. The property across the street is a vacant nuisance property, and now they know both properties have the same owner. The work done to repair the property has been shoddy. Patty Lammers, District 6 Plauuiug Council, 213 Front Avenue, appeared and stated she is in support of the block club's recommendation to teaz this down. She became the neighborhood safety coordinator for District 61ast May and this is the first properiy brought up to her last May. It is an eyesore. The owner has had ample time to make repairs to this property. Ms. Moermond stated if any of the conditions haue not been met, she will recommend that the house be removed. If all the conditions have been met, Ms. Moermond's recommendation wiil be to grant 60 days for the rehabilitation of this struchxre, as Mr. Jayasuriya said it would take 30 days to finish. Then, she would suggest people go to the City Council Public Hearing if they want this building removed. Mr. Jayasuriya said he has pictures of the building. Ms. Moermond responded she can not do any kind of inspecfion by way of photographs. Mr. Jayasuriya stated the professionals have taken perxnits out. Mr. Magner responded Jim Seeger (LIEP) will make the deternunation if the exis6ng permits aze in place. The permits are good for 160 days. Permits from the original bond aze at least 180 days old. Ms. Moermond recommends granting the owner 60 days to complete the rehabilitation of the properiy on condition that the following is done by noon of May 18: 1) vacant building fees paid, 2) a new Code Compliance Inspection conducted, 3) a work plan submitted indicating how and when all the items on the new Code Compliance Inspection Report will be addressed, 4) a$10,000 performance deposit posted, 5) a financial plan submitted indicating the capacity to accomplish the work plan, and 6) a docuxnent confirming ownership of the property. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building(s) at 86 Svcamore Street East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement is ordered to remove the building(s). Steve Magner reported tlus is a two-story wood frame single family dwelling. It was condemned OS-�5�, LEGISLATTVE HEARING NfINUT'ES OF MAY 3, 2005 Page 4 Apri12004 by his office and has been vacant since 4-2-04. The current owner is Mihn Van Nguyen. They have informafion that this person is deceased. There have been 11 si�mary abatement notices issued for several violations. On 2-8-05, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condifion was developed, and photographs were taken. An Order to Abate a Nuisance Building was issued on 2-14-OS with a compliance date of 3-3-05. As of ttris date, this properry remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. Also, this is a serious health and safety issue based on the contents of the dwelling. Tasation has placed an estimated mazket value of $104,800 on the land and $138,000 on the building. Mr. Magner questions both of these; the appraiser may not haue looked at this properiy recently. As of 5-3-05, a Code Compliance Inspection has not been applied for. The $2,000 bond has not been posted. Code Enforcement Officers estimate the cost to repair is $75,000 to $90,000. The estimated cost to demolish is $7,000 to $8,000. This is a 15 day resolution to repair or remove. The following appeazed: Frank Sprandel, Consiruction Specialist with SPARC, Paul Mordorski, City of Saint Paul-Planizing and Economic Development (PED). Mr. Mordorski stated he found out about this thrae weeks ago from Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. They aze the first mortgage holder. They contacted PED because they would like to see the building saved. PED contacted SPARC. Mr. Sprandel stated he got in the building last Thursday. There is an unsanitary condition to the properiy. SPARC would like the opportunity to alleviate that. It would be a nice three bedroom affordable unit for a family. The biggest thixig is trying to foreclose on it and get title to it. Mr. Mordorski added that will take four to six months. There is a redemption period. It could be three to four months at the quickest. Ms. Moermond asked who has legal control to grant access to the building to deal with the gross unsanitary conditions. Mr. Magner stated the City has certain police powers, but to grant the police powers to someone else, would open the City to liability. The only way t1�at the third party individuals can obtain that ability is to vendor through the mortgage company for its rights through foreclosure and to stop any furflier loss to an asset. Those questions would haue to be addressed to the mortgage company. Mr. Sprandel responded that some of those issues are being looked at right now. Scott Cloufier, 4Q0 Sibley Street, Suite 300, appeazed and stated his agency is open to working with parties to get the matter resolved. There may be a provision that allows the agency to stop deterioration of their asset. Mr. Sprandel responded they have an attorney looking into that. There is a clause that if the owner is deceased and the building becomes abandoned. It is not something that can be done overnight. Councilmember Helgen is in support of saving the building. Ms. Moermond stated they could ask the court for a shortened five week tune period. That would give an amount of time close to eight weeks. They should make the case that there is a gross unsanitary condifion that needs to be alleviated because they aze a danger to the neighborhood. She is asking that they do that and get in court by May 18, 2005. Any o�-y 5� LEGISLATNE HEARING MINLTTES OF MAY 3, 2005 Page 5 docuxnentation that shows they have a shortened redemption time period is much appreciated. Anything they can do to alleviafe some of those conditions is nnportant. They can apply for the shortened time period; whether they get it is up to the judge. Mr. Sprandel responded they will be working with an attorney to see if there is a way to alleviate this quickly. Mr. Magner stated there is a concem about allowing the properry to stay in this condition for six months. There is decaying food, feces, bottles of urine, etc. Ms. Moe�nond recommends laying over to the May 17 Legislative Hearing and the June 1 City Council Meeting. She would like to see a shortened time period and getting legal acfion into the building. She is looking for a progress report. She will be ready to talk to the Council on May 18. Appeai of Notice to Revoke Rental Registration at 735 Cook Avenue East; owner: James Swartwood. (NHPn (Rescheduled from 4-26-OS) James Swartwood, owner, 5537 Dupont Avenue South, Minneapolis, appeazed. Andy Dawkins reported this was an Apri17 notice of attempt to revoke the rental registration certificate to Mr. Swariwood at 735 E. Cook. The basis for the revocation was the seizure of felony level narcotics, three shotguns from inside the premises. The tenants were arrested for those illegal possessions. The City Ordinance 51.06(a)(ii) says when the Director believes the property constitutes a nuisance, it is time to send a nofice of intent to revoke. When Mr. Swariwood called to say the tenants had vacated, Mr. Dawkins refused to back off from the nofice of intent to revoke because he is not convinced the property will not continue to be maintained as a nuisance. Also, Mr. Dawkins told the owner he could appeal. As for his basis for believing this nuisance activity will continue, Mr. Dawkins would like Ms. Moermond to hear from a neighbor. (Mr. Dawkins showed some photographs.) Mr. Dawkins continued: at a Dishict 5 community meefing, neighbors described the East Side of Saint Paul. Some slides were shown, and Mr. Swartwood's was one the properties shown that day. The properties were not identified by photographs, and Mr. Dawkins had to speak to the person who took the photographs. Mr. Dawkins sent Hazold Robinson (Supervisor for East Side inspection team), and they met Mr. Swartwood on November 22 and photographs on Page 2 were taken at that time. The photographs show a deteriorated gazage filled with garbage, junk, and rubbish. Mr. Swartwood responded the garage has abandoned tenant belongings. A Correction Notice sent to Mr. Swartwood on Apri127, 2001, indicates the premises lacks suitable landscaping to control dust and mud, provide suitable landscaping. Mr. Dawkins was informed that Mr. Robinson was at the property yesterday, and the backyard is filled with junk and trash again. There are still outstanding court orders to repair and put ground cover on. In 2002, the garage was filled with bagged gazbage; in 2004, the gazage was filled with bagged garbage; in 2005, it was still filled with bags of garbage. In 2003, there were four founded complaints Z�S- 45� LEGISLATTVE HEARING MINUTES OF MAY 3, 2005 •._-. against this property. In 2004, there were five; in 2005, there were four. Mr. Dawkins is not convinced Mr. Swartwood will maintain this property so it is not a nuisance to the neighbors nearby. It is this reason Mr. Dawkins declined to withdrawn the notice for intent to revoke. James Swartwood stated he does not approve of drug dealing and he took appropriate actions to address these things. His lease prohibits drug dealing and subleasing of peopie that have not been approved by Mr. Swartwood. These people were not approved. The only person approved was Lazkin and her three ldds and they had no ciiminal history. The house has not had drug activity in the past and there has been none since this raid. This is not a gazbage situation, but a requirement to hold possessions for sixty days after an eviction. County records show that there haue been convicrions that correspond with these starage dates. Mr. Swartwood becaane suspicious of activities on this properiy from Mazch 12. He noticed a high level of activiTy and people coming and going for short periods of time. Ms. Moermond asked does he do maintenance himself. Mr. Swartwood responded he has a crew, and he went by to give material to the crew. There was too much activity there. Then, they had a pit bull there. She gave the tenant a wanzing on the 12'�'. On Mazch 20, she came by and there was the same activity going on. We told her that he was suspicious of the activity going on at the properiy. Ms. Moermond asked the effective date of the eviction. Mr. Swartwood responded that he gave her a notice on the 20 and the code says his tenant has 40 days. Then there was this raid. Right after the raid, Mr. Swartwood came by and saw the incident. He also saw the police reports that show they had a search warrant. Mr. Swartwood changed the locks, he called her up, and said she violated the lease on Paragraph 6. He asked does she want a UD or would she like to move. She said she was ready to move out. That is when he changed the locks and cleaned up everything. (Mr. Swariwood showed photographs.) Ms. Moermond stated the photographs show that everything is clean. She cannot make determination about any other code issues. The outside photographs show the property as picked up, except where there is a pile of rubble in the back. Mr. Swartwood responded it is a timber for landscaping. He re-rented the property to Ann Costello and her husband. There is no criminal past. Even Mr. Dawkins would approve of them since Ms. Costello was his housekeeper for five years. As of two days ago, the backyazd was clean. A tree was cut down. Ms. Moermond stated they rented on April 14, a week after the notice to revoke the rental registration. Mr. Swartwood responded the postmark was April 13. He has the envelope at his house. He pointed this out at the City Clerk's Office. He does have the lease. Also, drug activity is rampant in Saint PauL This is an isolated situation for him. He tries to screen his tenants. He does background checks. He does not have police powers and has to follow civil procedures. Also, he believes Mr. Dawkins is taking this personaliy, and he is sensitive to the fact that he pubiishes a paper that is critical of his adminisiration. OS-� 5 � LEGISLATTVE HEARING MINUTES OF MAY 3, 2005 Ms. Moermond stated she sees a long term established pattern of code violations. (Erick Fawcett submitted some documents.) Page 7 Erick Fawcett, '733 Cook Avenue East, appeazed and stated his single concem was 735 Cook from a visual standpoint when he moved into his home. His hope was that over time he would see an nnprovement. There was a family of eight living there. Their children piayed together. For tUat reason, the enormous aesthetic problems went unreported by him because he did not want to take action to jeapazdize the family. When they moved out—he heazd it was because they were unhappy with the upkeep of the properry—Mr. Fawcett started to take action. Whenever he saw something that was a problem, Mr. Fawcett made calls to Mr. Dawkins. The allegations that Mr. Dawkins is acting in retribution, is silly. The only time he saw acfion happening there was when Mr_ Fawcett reported. Mr. Fawcett read from his letter: His disagreement is not personaL He has met the owner two times and he was polite and friendly. The owner has done as littie as possible to maintain the properiy. Mr. Fawcett would like him to move into the pzoperiy himself or sell the properiy to a live in owner. The physical appeazance and the ongoing hazards infi�riate him: absence of meaningful ground cover causes mud to go onto the property, external disrepair of the home. The properiy's garage has for months or years been full of junk, so tenants do not have a place to store belongings. As a xesult, there are things in the yard. The fact that the garage has always been filled with nontenant clutter, has also meant the faznily hears cars arriving and leaving at the property's backyazd. The properiy's trash along the sidewalk, razely gets picked up. Also, Mr. Fawcette reported to the City's arborist about an overhanging branch and Dutch Eim Disease. The landlord never corrected tYzis properiy, and the City fmally removed it in Much. In the meantime, the bugs infesting the tree entered his home in droves. The second tree hazard was reported earlier and finally removed by his repairman. Finally, with dealer quantity of crack cocaine, meth, and pot, he has to question the landlord's tenant screemng process. He cannot believe the properiy is meeting the City's house standards. T"ne timbers in the backyard have been there for months. Mr. Fawcett read another letter from Robin Zimmerman, who owns 728 Cook East. She writes the following: the house is run down at 735 Cook. The tenants complained about the house, but chose to continue living there because it was affordable. They moved out and people were working on the house. There didn't appeaz to be any improvement to the yazd. Several renovations were made to the house. The new tenant moved into the house in August 2004. On September 4, her cat had escaped and was found in the backyazd of 735 Cook dead from a blunt trauma to the chest. The new tenant did not appreciate some of what was happening in the neighborhood and did not like the house. Then came more renters, litter, and traffic. The new renters were arrested about four weeks ago. This does not address the condition of the house and yard. She does not laiow if there was manufacturing of the dnxg. This properiy is not the only problem in the neighborhood. 735 Cook has brought down the safety and properiy value of the neighborhood. Mr. Dawkins stated he has never had a housekeeper. At the State Capital, responded Mr. o5-y5a LEGISLATIVE HEAI2ING MINCJT`ES OF MAY 3, 2005 Swartwood. � Mr. Dawkins stated this lias nothing to do with what Mr. Swartwood writes; it has everything to do with how the neighborhood feels about the landlording ability. This is the fourth notice of intent to revoke sent to Mr. Swartwood. Ms. Moermond asked was there an inspection of the properry following this raid, and what are the inspection results. Mr. Dawkins responded Mr. Robinson was inside the property last year on a complaint of no heat. He issued verbal orders about the interior to Mr. Robinson on 3-9-05, and he believes the interior is back to decent shape. Ms. Moermond stated there l�as not been a deterxnination by code staff about whether there was methamphetauiiue production taking place inside the building. Mr. Dawkins responded he has not heazd either way, but they do not believe that is the case. It was disiribution. Mr. Swartwood said that Michael Carroll said he did not thiuk there was methamphetamine production going on. He heazd from the neighboxs that the activity was intense in the last three weeks. Mr. Fawcett added that the traffic was longer than three weeks. It was a good 2%2 months of suspicious traffic. While he undezstands Mr. Swartwood is restricted in his constitutional rights, the boyfriend of the tenant was there 24 houts a day. His Suburban vehicle was parked outside all the time. Mr. Swartwood stated the history of the building would show that there have been no raids in the last ten years. The yard is shaded so that grass does not grow. He has a pernut from the Buiiding Deparhnent to put Class 5 rock on the parking spaces. Kelly Booker was satisfied with the yard with the exception of moving the fimbers. The property has had new roof, new soffits, sided, fixed a11 broken windows. Providing housing for poor people is a hard job, and he tries to do a goodjob. Ms. Moermond stated this is on May 18 at 5:30. She would like to check out the pernut situation and review the inspection records. It is important that the nofice does not turn on an ongoing nuisance condition code-wise, but on the police problems at the properiy. Those tenants are no longer there. She will issue a letter in writing regarding this issue. (Note: Ms. Moermond recommends granting the appeal of the Notice to Revoke Rental Regisisation Certificate dated 4-7-05. A letter was sent to the owner.} Appeal of Summary Abatement Order at 769 Tatum Street; owner: Gary Bruski. (NI3PI (No one appeared to represent this properry.) Steve Magner reported that he issued a sununary abatement order to clean up excessive storage on the properiy and board the dwelling, as there were repeated issues of illegal occupancy. The individuals and appellants have repeatedly used the property as a transfer site or salvage. This is NHPI's way to cease the illegal activity at the house and garage. They have held off doing the wark order until this appeal. Their preference is that Ms. Moermond deny the appeal. d5-y5�` LEGISLATNE HEARING MINUTES OF MAY 3, 2005 Page 9 Ms. Moermond recommends denying the appeal of the Summary Abatement Order dated 4-14- O5. The owner indicates the snowmobile and camper have been removed. Appeal of Vacant Building Registration Notice at 1164 Seventh Street East; owner: Sue Fun Liu. (NIIPn The following appeazed: Han Chin Liu, owner, and John Flores, contractor and agent. Steve Magner reported the owner has filed an appeal of the vacant building. This appeal was sent to Mr. Magner. After reading the items being appealed, it is best that Fire Prevention deal with this. The genesis of the vacant building is due to the fact that Fire Prevention has condemned the building and revoked the Certificate of Occupancy. The issues noted aze the result of that issue. Ultimately, Fire would refer to NI-IPI for enforcement of the vacant building ordinance. Michael Urmann reported the building is a mixed comtnerciaUresidential property. The residential portion was being illegally occupied as a residential shucture. The building was condemned due to lack of life safety issues due to smoke detection, proper egress, fire sepazafion between the commercial portion and the residential portion. The entire building was condemned due to the fact that both portions of the building were uninhabitable for human occupancy. The residential section was inspected by the field inspection. She deternuned that was also unoccupyable. They condexnned the property for those life safety issues and uninhabitable issues and refened to Mr. Magner for vacant building status after the building vacated. Ms. Moermond asked the specific conditions that led to the condemnation. Mr. Urmann responded the primary code violations were lack of smoke detectors, lack of proper egress, plumbing that was unsafe with no vent, occupying a commercial portion of the building for resident purpose, and the unhabiYable portion that was residential. The immediate condemnation was the life safety issues of no egress and lack of smoke detectors. Ms. Moermond has in front of her the requirement to register this as a vacant building. Mr. Magner stated this is Cagetory II which would require a team inspection, permits, and an issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy before his office would close the file. Mr. Liu stated he is a responsible landlord and he was not given the opportuniry to take caze of the tenant evicted by the court. April 18 is the same date of the court order. He was happy the tenant was evicted by the court. On April 20, he received a letter. Ms. Moermond asked did he have access during that fime. Mr. Flores responded the front door lock was changed. He will take caze of that by changing the lock. Mr. Liu stated the tenant damaged the properry. The tenant was reported by Officer Mike Carroll on December 17. He knows the tenant was evicted. Mr. Liu was happy to have the tenant out. In only two days, he received a compiaint by the Fire Deparhnent. He would ask to be given a �J-4 J�a/ LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINiJTES OF MAY 3, 2005 Page 10 reasonable amount of time to conduct the repairs. They have already started the repair process. Mr. Urmann stated the inspection occurred on the 18�`, orders were issued immediately with an immediate vacate of the 19�` due to the life safety issues. Mz. Liu responded that is the date the court ordered his tenant to move out. Ms. Moermond asked what precipitated this inspection. Mr. Urmann responded he cannot say, but he believes it was a referral, but he is not sure from where. Ms. Moermond asked could he not get into the building. Mr. Liu responded he did not have the key. Ms. Moermond stated he could remove the locks. She asked how he got in when the tenant left. Mr. Flores responded through the back door. Sometime in Mazch, Mr. Liu called and said there was an incident with a tenant. He went through the list that the department provided. He got the Certificate of Occupancy and got a11 the requirements. Of the 31 issues menrioned, about 25 are contributed to this particular individual. The area is proactive. The tenant probably made the call. Mr. Flores indicated to Mr. Liu that he called the plumber, electrician, and he will do what is required. There is a roll off in the back. They aze to reinstall fire extinguishers, which were previously present and approved. It is a good properiy. Mr. Liu spent money to redo the storefront. They have been forced to install a valve. Mr. L,ee has been proacfive. Ms. Moermond stated this building has three spaces. Mr. Flores responded the front half is store front and the back half is apartment. No one is there. What was filed was an appeal of the requirement that the building be registered as vacant. She asked were they also appealing the condemnation and revocation of certificate of occupancy. Mr. Liu responded yes. Mr. Magner stated he believes that NHPI has done nothing inappropriate based on the fact that Fire Department is in control of multi-unit or commercial units. NAPI is fully in standard practices here, but the Vacant Building Registrafion Notice gives 30 days to register the property. After that, they give an additional ten days. NHPI would not be opposed to 60 days to bring the building into compliance. Mr. Magner is willing to forgo the fees if two things are accomplished: 1) they submit the registration forms indicating they are going to obtain a team inspection and complete the project in 60 days, 2) they maintain the property so that the City does not haue to take caze of the property. Ms. Moermond responded that sounds reasonable. Mr. Flores asked can he pull a repair pernut. Not until the team inspection was performed, answered Mr. Magner. Ms. Urmann stated what is in front of them is a basic list that caused the action. In order for them to reoccupy it, it would have to be inspected and approved. The way that happens, they put a team inspection would go through the property, and give a fia111ist of what is needed. They can try to expedite that matter. There is no fee; it is part of the Certificate of Occupancy. Ms. Moermond asked what kind of history is on this building for corrections. Mr. Urmann responded it has been typical up to this point. They redid the front to make it attractive to the �5-y 5�, LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINLTTES OF MAY 3, 2005 Page 11 community. The young man was residing downstaiis, and he was ordered to stop and get his stuff out. Mr. Flores asked other questions and Mr. Urmann responded he would have to see the building. Ms. Moermond asked is it normal procedure to require a team inspection for reoccupation. Mr. Urmann responded it is triggered by Vacant Building Status. There were so many violations, that it called for that immediate action. Mr. Flores asked can he come back in a week to look at this. Ms. Moermond stated a lot of damage was done. The concern is that a general inspector was sent through and not a team trades inspector. The fees will be waived. He should get the inspector, as they do not lrnow what is in there. Sounds like the fire department can schedule in quick order. Ms. Moermond asked does he have a standing time. Mr. Urmann responded every Thursday afternoon. It would be two weeks out. Mr. Liu asked can the City take off the condemnation. Ms. Moerxnond responded the City will not legally lift the condemnation. If the�ancern is ttie placard�Tie Fire s��o om�ble wi � lifting it off the building. The sign can be removed, but the status will not change. Ms. Moermand recommends denying the appeal of the Vacant Building Registration Notice dated 4-21-OS and waiving the vacant building fees until 8-18-05. Appeal of Deficiency List, which includes condemnation, at 100 California Avenue West. Unit 308; appellant: Stephanie Reese. (Division of Fire Prevention) The following appeazed: Perry deStefano, SMRLS, 166 Fourth Street East, #200; Stephanie Reese, appellant. Michael L3rmann, reported that Perry deStefano and he have spoken on this issue. The corrections have been made. Beds have been removed from the location. He has an appointrnent tlus afternoon to make sure that code compliance has been gained. Mr. deStefano stated the tenant is on Section 8. He requests a written decision that there is no unauthorized occupant. The tenant suffers from a mental disability. The daughter moved out. They have documentation that the daughtez is with the husband. The owner had a memorial fox her daughter in the closet. It has been removed. Ms. Reese has a hearing on Thursday. Section 8 is important to her. She has a two bedroom apartment. She has a kid that went to college, so she is in the process of getting a one bedroom certificate. When the inspector saw that in the closet, it looked like there were three people living there. Ms. Moermond stated she is reading that there were four people. Ms. deStefano responded there was a broken futon. It may have looked like someone was there. They put it against the wall. The tenant also has osteo2rthritis, so she likes to lay down to watch t.v. 05�ks� LEGISLATTVE HEARING MINUTES OF MAY 3, 2005 Page 12 Ms. Moermond asked who is living here. Mr. deStefano responded just the tenant Stephanie Reese. Mr. Urmann asked will a letter suffice from him. Mr. deStefano responded yes. Ms. Moermond recomxnends granting the appeal of the Deficiency List, which includes condemnation, dated 4-20-Q5, as the condemnation has been lifted. The hearing was called to order at 12:02 a.m. rrn