Loading...
05-461Council File # OS � �D � Green Sheet # 3026517 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented Referred To Committee Date /z BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the Apri15, 2005, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Conection Notices, and Correction Orders for the following addresses: Property Appealed Ap el p lant 935 Childs Road Michael G. McDonald, Legal Counsel Decision: Appeal is denied on the Deficiency List dated November 3, 2004. If the lease is transferred to Great Western, the compliance date will be October 28, 2005, for having the silos removed or brought into compliance. If CHS continues to maintain control of the property, CHS will bring the first row of silos closest to the river into compliance by October 28, 2005; the second row by October 28, 2006; and the third row by October 28, 2007. Yeas Nays Absent Benanav ,i Bostrom ✓ Harris ,� Helgen ,� Lantry ,� Montgomery ✓ Thune ✓ � � Adopted by Council: Adoption By: _ Approved B � Date �/�. ' ou�cil Secretary Requested by Department o£ I� Form Approved by City Attorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � �. �, __ _ '� oS- �G 1 N , .= � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � � _. . „�,. . _ , . _ .. _. . . . ,. � . ,. .. . _. DepartmeM/officelcouncil: Date Inifiated: co ���� 18-MAY-0S Green Sheet NO: 3026517 Contact Peison R Phone: DeoartmeM Sent To Person InitiailDate Maraa Mcertnond � 0 oancil 266-$56� A55ign 1 o�cil De rlmentDirecWr Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date); Number 2 •��. For Rouling 3 OMer 4 5 Tofal # of Signature Pages _(Clip AII Locations for Signalvre) Acfion Requested: Approving the decision of the Legislative Aearing Officer on an Appeal of a Deficiency List at 935 ChIlds Road. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this personffirm ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No ' Civii Service Commission 2. Has this persoNFlrm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this perso�rtn possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet Initiati�g Problem, lssues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AdvantaaeslfApproved: DisadvanWges If Approved: ���n�i6 Res�arCh Cetrter MAY 1$ Z0� Disadvantages If Not Approved: - - - - - •� _. ' s' .�d�'c Total Amount of CastlRevenue Budgeted: � Trensaction: Fundinq Source: Activily Number. Financial Infortnation: (Explai�) , � \Z dS� �E,� t NOTES OF TF� LEGISLATIVE HEAR.ING APPEALS OF DEFICIENCY LETTERS, CORRECTION NOTICES, CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, April 5, 2005 Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer Room 330 Courthouse, 15 Kellogg Boulevazd West The hearing was called to order at 136 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Phil Owens, Division of Fire Prevention Appeal of Deficiency list at 935 Childs Road; appellant: Matcolm G. McDonald for CHS, Tnc. (Laid over from i 1-23-04 and rescheduled from 3-22-OS) Ms. Moermond explained there are silos at 935 Childs Road, and there was a question about the best business course of action. The following appeazed; Malcolm McDonald, In-House Attorney at CHS Inc.; Tim Peruse, Operations Person at CHS, Inc.; Steven Hazdy, Vice President in charge of riverfront development for the Port Authority; Andrew Staebell, President of Great Western Recycling. Malcolm McDonald stated they concluded that painting the silos did not make sense based on what the properiy was producing. They looked at removing the tanks (silos). Their neighbar to the south is Great Western Recycling. The Port Authority owns both parcels of Great Westem Recycling and CHS. They aze tenants of the Port Authority. CHS looked into removing the tanks and getting estimates. Knowing Great Western is in the recycling business, it seemed like a logical party to talk to. They have reached an agreement: CHS will sell the tanks, fixtures, and equipment at that location to Great Western and CHS will assign its lease hold interest to Great Western. Great Western will then have two parcels they are leasing with the Port Authority, and Great Westem will assume CHS's lease with the Port Authority. Great Western will take down the tanks and recycle them, as Great Western wants to expand their operation. All these things are subject to the Port Authority's review and approval. Two weeks ago, said Mr. McDonald, they sent a purchase agreement to CHS. Mr. McDonald received a one page list of provisions by the lawyer from Great Western on Monday morning. None of the issues are deal breakers. They hope to have the purchase agreement signed by next week. Next step, they need to ask the Port Authority's board for consent to sign the lease to Great Western. The Port Authority would have to consent to the tanks being removed. N1r. Hardy cannot speak for the board of the Port Authority, but has said there is a possibility they will look favorably on this. Mr. McDonald understands two Councilmembers are on the Port Authority Board. Mr. McDonald stated there aze two steps: 1) finalize the purchase agreement, 2) get to the board before their next meeting. Assuxning the Port Authority consents to the signing of the lease to Great Western and allows them to remove the tanks, the painting of them becomes moot. OS- �-k (o( NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF APRiL 5, 2005 Page 2 Perhaps they can close in late May. He is asking for the opportunity to get before the Port Authority's boazd. Ms. Moermond stated this is Councilember Thune's area. The two Councilmembers on the board aze Bostrom and Lantry. Ms. Moerxnond requested a copy of the purchase agreement when it is reached and when the Port Authority approves it. Steven Hardy stated they have begun the process of staff review. They have not seen a11 the documents. It probably will not go before the Boazd of Commissioners until May 8. His recomxnendation is for them to accept the lease. Andrew Staebell stated it is their intent to expand their business. Ms. Moermond stated the situation will need to be rectified with a compliance date of something like September 30. She asked does that seem like a reasonable date. Mr. Owens stated the removal of the tanks meets the City's needs and complies with the order. CHS was not using them anyway. Tim Peruse stated that they could paint a row at a time if the deal falls through. Mr. Hardy stated it is unlikely the Port Authority will forbid Great Western from sigung a lease. Ms. Moermond added it is unlikely to get stuck at the Port Authority. Ms. Moermond stated the appeal is denied on the Deficiency List dated November 3, 2004. If the Port Authority approves the transfer of the lease hold to Great Western, the compliance date will be October 28, 2005, for having the silos removed or brought into compliance. In the event CHS continues to maintain control of the properry, CHS will bring the first row of silos closest to the river into compliance by October 28, 2005; second row by October 28, 2006; and the third row by October 28, 2007. The hearing was adjourned at 1:52 p.m. 0 � �e.c�c \Z NOTES OP "I'HE LEGISLATIVE HEARING �5�4 �O, LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES, AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, November 23, 2004 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Boulevazd West Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 1:35 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Phil Owens, Fire Prevention; Andy Dawkins, Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement (NIIPn; O�cer Keenan, NHPI 935 Childs Road Malcolm McDonald, attorney representing CHS, Inc. Phil Owens, Fire Prevention, appeared and stated orders were issued to paint the silos as they were not being kept in accordance with the code. He presented photos of the silos. Malcolm McDonald, attorney representing CHS, Inc., stated they were tenants of the property. Ms. Moermond questioned how often the silos were painted. Tim Paurus, representing CHS, Inc. stated the tops had been painted in 1996. There had been an explosion in 1982 which required replacement of some of the silos. He believed they had been painted at that time but was unsure. Ms. Moermond asked why they were appealing the order. Mr. McDonald stated there weren't any structural or safety issues concezning the silos. He believed it was a matter of aesthetics. The location of the silos was in a highly industrial area and the only people who would be able to see the silos would be from river traffic or neighboring properties which were also industrial. The tauks were used to store grain, however, they used them very sporadically mainly because it was not cost effective. They had received estimates to sandblast and paint the silos in 1999 ranging in price from $575,000 to $1 miilion. They also received estimates in 2001 which were approximately $500,000. They had attempted to receive new estimates prior to the hearing, however, they were unable to get firm estimates because they were unsure if the paint was lead based and, therefore, did not know what environmental protections would be necessary. They received a rough estimate of $532,000 to $700,000. The property was currently leased from the Port Authority and they were attempting to sell their leasehold interest. They had met with two potential buyers and one was still interested in purchasing their leasehold interest, however, negotiations had stalled. He requested additional time to work with the Port Authority on a plan as to whether the silos should continue to be used ar should be torn down. The earliest they would be able to paint the silos would be early spring. He also requested that if they do decide to go ahead with painting the silos, if they would be allowed to do the work in phases such one or two silos per yeaz. He also indicated the silos faxthest from the river were in fairly good condition while the tanks closest to the river were in the worst condition. Mr. Owens stated the silos were very visibie to people traveling on Warner Road which is where the photographs were taken that he had presented, and were very visible to anyone traveling on the river. He did not have any objection to allowing the work to be done in phases, however, he was not agreeable to painting only one or two silos per year. He was most concerned with the silos facing the river and would be willing to allow them until spring for painting. C7�-1}(p � Notes of the Legislative Hearing - November 23, 2004 Page 2 Ms. Moermond recommended laying tlus matter over to the Mazch 22, 2005 Legislative Hearing to allow additional time to formulate a plan as to whether they were going to sell their leasehold interest, demolish the silos or obtain estimates for doing the necessary repair and painting. 792 Fuller Avenue owners: Raymond P. and Catluyn Smithknecht Ms. Moermond stated this was a revocation of rental registration certificate hearing. The issues justifying the revocation concerned police matters. The reports on the police activities were considered data privacy since these matters were under active investigation. She had been in communication with the City Attorney's Office who indicated she would be able to review the documents to detennine whether they were significant to share with the pertinent parties to this matter; the pertinent parties being the owner, her attomey and the tenants of the building. Andy Dawkins, Director of NHPI, appeared and stated the Legislative Code provides the nxles for revocation of rental registration certificate. It allows the director to determine that the dwelling constitutes a nuisance, as prescribed by State Statute §617.81, or is in violation of the code. The Legislative Code incorporates the state statute concerning the definition of nuisance. He detailed the nuisance violations that occurred at the property which prompted the notice of revocation. The downstairs tenant, Janice Crreen, had agreed to willingly vacate the unit. There was a search warrant executed in July, 2004 which zesulted in drugs being confiscated from the bedroom and a visitor on the porch of the property also had crack cocaine which was confiscated as well. On October, 31, 2004 there was a shots fired call. When the police arrived at 1:20 am., the noise from the unit was so loud, they arrested Ms. Green for having a disorderly house. In between that time, there was a call from one of the neighbors indicating drug dealing was again going on at the property. When the police arrived, a visitor to the upstairs unit, Lamont Banks, assaulted a police officer which also constituted a public nuisance. Mr. Dawkins had talked to the owner, Ms. Smithknecht, in an effort to resolve the problem and allow her to maintain her rental registration certificate. After several conversations, they had come to an agreement and he had drafted a Confirmation of Rental Registration Non-Revocations Agreement which he presented. It basically provided the conditions on evicting the tenants, per the terms of the lease, and he suggested she consult an attomey on the proper notification and date to vacate. He had consulted with the top commander in the Police Department, Rev. Spence and Rev. Miller, known as the "God Squad", as well as Councilmember Montgomery and they all indicated that the both tenants needed to be evicted or the property owner should lose their rental registration certificate as this property had created much tunnoil in the neighborhood. Jack Cann, attorney representing Cathy Smithknect, appeazed and stated both tenants were Section 8 tenants and under federal regulations, there must be cause to terminate the tenancy during the middle of the lease. At the end of the lease agreement, the lease may not be renewed, however, the owner was required to give a two month notice which would mean a vacate date at the end of January. They disagreed with terminating the lease with the upstairs tenant as they did not believe there was significant cause. The person visiting this tenant who was arrested in October for obstructing legal process had no chazges brought against him. When Ms. Smithknect attempted to obtain the police report related to this incident, she was denied a copy of the report due to data privacy provisions. He did not believe this incident related to nuisance behavior of this tenant which would justify eviction. He believed his client was being denied due process of the law by taking her properry away from her.