Loading...
05-670�N1�/U D� ���o/aoo� Council File # � Green Sheet # 3C26795 Presented By Referred To RESOLUTION CI F SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA a��� � Committee: Date 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 and masonry, single family dwelling with a detached, two-stall, 4 wood frame garage located on property hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly 5 known as 1265 Stanford Avenue. This property is legally described as follows, to wit: 6 7 Lot 13, Block 3, Redwing Addition. 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 WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information obtained by Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement on or before January 9, 2005, the following aze the now known interested or responsible parties for the Subject Property: Mr. Stanley E. and Ms. Betty M. Head, 1265 Stanford Ave., Liberty State Bank, 175 Snelling Ave. N., St. Paui, MN 55104 St. Paul, MN 55105-2810 WHEREAS, Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement has served in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paui L,egislative Code an order identified as an "Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s)" dated May 5, 2005; and WHEREAS, this order informed the then known interested or responsible parties that the structure located on the Subject Property is a nuisance building(s) pursuant to Chapter 45; and WFIEREAS, this order informed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair or demolish the structure located on the Subject Property by June 6, 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 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 I.egisiative Code, of the time, date, place and purpose of the public hearings; and AA-ADA-EEO Employer � 0 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 �J'�e� WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the I.egislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City Council on Tuesday, July 5, 2005 to heaz testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and evidence, made the recommendation to approve the request to order the interested or responsible parties to make the Subject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and weifaze and remove its blighring influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances, or in the altemative by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The � demolirion of the structure to be completed within days after the date of the Council Hearing; and S� Y�, WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 and the tesUmony and evidence including the acrion taken by the Legislarive Hearing Officer was considered by the Council; now therefore BE TT RFSOLVED, 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 1265 Stanford Avenue: 1. 2. 3. 4. S. 6. F:� That the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 45. That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). That there now exists and has existed multiple Housing or Building code violations at the Subject Property. That an Order to Abate Nuisance Buiiding(s) was sent to the then known responsible parties to correct the deficiencies or to demolish and remove the building(s). T`hat the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition have not been corrected. That Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement has posted a placard on the Subject Property which declares it to be a nuisance condition subject to demolition. That this building has been rou6nely monitored by Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement, VacantlNuisance Buildings. That the known interested parties and owners aze as previously stated in this resolution and that the notification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled. ORDER The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the following order: The above referenced interested or responsible parties shail make the Subject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighUng influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure and wrrecting 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 structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The ��xabi�i�ateerrerdemolition and removal of the structure must be completed within�iftectr�#5j-days after the date of the Council Hearing. �i v� C5J AA-ADA-EEO Employer �h (�1� 1 2. If the above conecrive 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 charge the costs incuned against the Subject Property 4 pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legslative Code. 6 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all personal 7 properiy or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shall be 8 removed from the property 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 Legislative Code. Requested by Department of: AA-ADA-EPA Employer Yeas N avs Absent Nei hbor o Housinc Pro ert Im rovement Benanav � Montqomerv ,/ By: Gd� _ Bostrom / � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green $heet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � DepartmenUo�celcouncii: Date I�itiated: — `�' ��� NH -N� tO.IUN-05 Green Sheet NO: 3026795 Contact Person & PhOne: Mdy Dawkins 266-1927 Must Be on Council Agen 20JUL-05 ToWI # of Signature Pages � Department SeMTOPerson Initial/Date 0 rh H �� A55ign 1 ' borhood Ho ' arlment Director [��� F�1 S Number 2 i Attome V" D For Routing 3 or's Office Ma orlAssistant Oftler 4 a � 5 ' Clerk � C1erk (Clip NI Locations for Signature) Action Requested: City Council to pass this resolution which wili order the owner(s) to remove or repair the referenced building(s). If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement is ordered to remove the building. The subject property is located at 1265 Stanford Avenue. itlations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Planning Commission CIB Committee Civil Service Commission `` Personal Service Contrects Must Answer the Following Questions: 1. Has this persoNfirm ever worked under a coniract for this department? Yes No 2. Has this persoNfirm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any �- current city employee? Yes No Euplain all yes answers on separate sheet and 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 Legislarive Code. The owners, interested parties and responsilile parties known to the Enforcement Officer were given an order to repair or remove the building at 1265 Stanford Avenue by June 6, 2005, and have failed to comply with those orders. Advantageslf Approvetl: The City will eliminate a nuisance. Disadvantages If Approved: � The City wiil spend funds to wreck and remove this building(s). These costs will be assessed to the property, collected as a special assessment against the properiy taxes. �E�,E�UfD Disadvantages If Not Approved: - � A nuisance condiUOn will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to blight the communityMAYOR OFFICE Trensaction: 9000 Fundiny source: Nuisance Housing Financiallnformation: '4batement (Eupiain) CosURevenue Butlgeted: y Activity^Namber. 30251 rch C�nter JUN 2 0 2Q05 `i ' �u�e � � zoQ� . �■ hEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING & PROPERTY LtitPROVEMENT Andy Dawkins. Program iYfon¢ger ` ` ' � �L� C �Y �F Sf��� Pa��. ��«ismire Buifdirtg Code E� forcen:rnt Rai:dy C. KrUy, �4facor 7600,b'orde White Beardversue TrG 6�1 ?66-1900 Saint P¢n:, bf.Y 5�106 F¢e: 651-266-1926 June 10, 200� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Counci] President and Members of the City Council Neighborhood Housin� & Property Improvement , VacandNuisance 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: 1265 Stanford Avenue The City Coancil has scheduled the date of these hearin�s as follows: - Legislative Hearing - Tuesday, July 5, 200� City Council Hearing - Wednesday, July 20, 2005 The o�vners and responsible parties of record are: Name and Last Known Address Mr. Stanley E. and Ms. Betty M. Head 1265 Stanford Ave. St. Paul, MN 55105-2810 Liberty State Bank 175 Snelling Ave. N. St. Paul, MN 55104 The le�al description of this property is: I.ot 13, Block 3, Redwing Addition. Interest Fee Owner Mortga�e Holder w�'�'a*rs? ,��'c�sp�rri? l�.n�}�C � IVeighborhood Housin� & Property Improvement has declazed this buildina(s) to constitute a "nuisance" as defined by I.egislative Code, Chapter 45. Neighborhood Housina & Property Itnprovement 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). AA-ADA-EEO Employer ,°�» p5-t�1� 1265 Stanford Avenue June 10, 200� Pase 2 Inasmuch as this Order to Aba?e has not been complied with the nuisance condition remains unabated; the community continues to suffer the biightin� influence of this property. It is the recommendation of the Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement that the City Codncil 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 assessmenrto be collected in the:same manner as taaces. _.._ Sincerely, `�s 'P� � � i f � . Steve Ma�ner . Vacant Buildings Supervisor Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement SM:mI cc: Frank Berg, Building Inspection and Desi�n Judy Hanson, City Attorneys Office MaryErickson, Assistant Secretary to the Council Laurie Kaplan, PED-Housing Division ccnph AA-ADA-EEO Employer • � ' �.� � s C�� ��� MINLJTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEEIRING ORDERS TO REMOVE/REPAII2, CONDENINATIONS, ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS, ABAT'EMENT ORDERS, RENTAL REVOCATION CERTIFICA"I'ES Tuesday, July 5, 2005 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Boulevazd West Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 10:04 a.m. STAFF PRESENT: Steve Magner, Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement (NIIPn Property cleanup at 1669 Manton Street (J0407A) Mazcia Moermond recommends approval, as the appellant did not appear. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building(s) at 1002 Matilda Street. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement is ordered to remove the building. The following appeazed: Claude Worrell, Remax Results, 1035 Cedar Lake Road, Minneapolis, appeared and stated he is represenfing Homecomings which acquired title through foreclosure. Steve Magner gave a staff report as follows: This building has been vacant since 12-29-04. The current owner is Chase Financial. There have been four siuiunary abatement notices issued far snow and ice removal, tall grass and weeds, and for an unsecured building. On 12-29-04, an inspecfion of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condirion was developed, and photographs were taken. An Order to Abate a Nuisance building was issued on 3-28-OS with a corrected notice sent on 3-30-05 with a compliance date of 4-15- O5. As of this date, this property remains in a condifion which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. The Vacant Building Registration Fees were paid by Claude A. Worrell, on 5-6-05. Real estate taxes aze current. Taxation has placed an esfimated market value of $34,700 on the land and $94,600 on the building. As of 7-5-05, a Code Compliance Inspection has not been scheduled. As of 7-5-05, a$2,000 bond has not been posted. Code Enforcement Officers estimate the cost to repair this shucture is $50,000. The estimated cost to demolish is $8,000 to $10,000. The building was originally owned by an investor who did some rehabilitation, said Mr. Magner. Somewhere it developed a water leak which created a situation where the northside foundation collapsed. The rest of the structure is in decent condition. Mr. Worrell stated the redemption expired in Mazch. That is when he requested copies of work orders. They inspected the property and found its condirion. They got copies of the work orders plus corrected copies. Ms. Moermond asked for his clienPs name. Mr. Worrell responded JP Morgan is the mortgage servicer for the holder of the mortgage, which is Homecomings. They have seen photographs, MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF JULY 5, 2005 Page 2 work orders, and a recommendation from Mr. Worrell that the building was salvageable. They put it on the market for an "as is" price. They aze in the process of engaging a architect to fix the foundation. Once they have the desi�, they will put it out to bid. Mr. Wonell has submitted a bid from one engineer for the design. The sherifPs sale would have been six montUs before he gotinvolved. Ms. Moermond asked has Mr. Magner requested access to the building. Mr. Worrell responded he can have access anytime. There is a lock box. Mr. Maguer added that they will need a Code Compliance Inspection on the properiy. Most likely, Jim Seeger (License, Inspections, Environmental Protection) will require a structural engineer's report on the foundation. Mr. Magier received a phone call last week from an engineering firm. Ms. Worrell stated they aze proceeding, although Homecomings is slower than he would like. They did a huth-in-sale of housing report. They aze hying to keep it safe. - Ms. Moermond asked will Homecomings fix it or sell it. Mr. Worrell responded they plan to fix it themselves. Ms. Moermond recommends that the Council grant 180 days to complete the rehabilitation of the property on condition that the following is completed by noon of July 20, 2005: 1) a Code Compliance Inspection Report, 2) a$2,000 bond is posted, 3) a work plan is submitted indicating how and when all the items on the Code Compliance Inspection Report will be addressed, 4) a financial plan is submitted indicating the wherewithal to complete the work on the Code Compliance Inspection Report. Summary Abatements: J0502B Boarding up of vacant properties during March 2005 1008 Farrington Avenue Lois Jacobs, owner, 525 S. Lexington Pazkway, appeared. Ms. Moermond recommends laying over this issue over to July 19, as the file was not available on this property. 1265 Stanford Avenue - (Note: there are two issues involving this address. There is a resolution to remove or repair later in the hearing.) Ms. Moermond stated the assessment is $401 for the boazding of buildings. Mr. Huot responded that Mr. Weinhold is paying all the assessments. Her clients never went to the house after it was boazded up and did not give permission for the coming and going at that property, except for Mr. Weinhold and one other person. Mr. Weiss responded there are about $10,000 in assessments. Ms. Moermond recommends approval of the assessment. MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF JULY 5, 2005 Page 3 Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building(s) at 332 St. Clair Avenue. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement is ordered to remove the building. Aurelia Tessmer, owner, Loren Wiseth, neighbor, appeazed Steve Magner gave a staff report: The building was condemned on 10-12-04 by NHPI and has been vacant since 10-25-04. The current owner is Walter G. Tessmer. There have been no st�mary abatement notices issued. On 4-27-05, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An Order to Abate a Nuisance Building was issued on 5-4-OS with a compliance date of 6-3-05. As of this date, this property remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. The vacant building fees were paid by Aurelia Tessmer on 5-26- O5. Real estate taxes are unpaid in the amount of $2,158.80. Taxation has placed an estimated market value of $31,500 on the land and $124,900 on the building. On 6-2-05, LIEP completed a Code Compliance Inspection report. On 6-29-05, a$2,000 bond has been posted with LIEP. Code Enforcement Officers estimated the cost to repair is $80,000 to $90,000. The estimated cost to demolish is $7,000 to $8,000. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Tessmer who is Walter Tessmer (lasted as fee owner) in relationship to her. Ms. Tessmer responded her dad. This was taken to probate and should have been completed. She will have to check into tlus. She has three contractors ready to repair it. She is borrowing money to finance this. In answex to a question about taa�es, Ms. Tessmer responded she paid tl�e curxent hal£ She is not aware of previous taxes. Ms. Moermond recommends granting the owner 180 days to complete the rehabilitation on the property on condition that the following is done by noon of July 20, 2005: 1) a work plan submitted indicating how and when all the items on the Code Compliance Inspection Report will be completed, 2) a financial plan which demonstrates the capacity to pay the contractors for the work to be done, 3) taxes brought and up to date. If the property is being sold, she would like to see a purchase agreement. Laid over summary abatement: J0407E Egcessive Consumption of Inspection Services at 277 Winifred Street East. (Note: Lisa Sindt, CSD of Minnesota, was hired by the City to provide American Sign Language interpretation.) The following appeared: Teny Curtin, owner, Rosana Plaza, friend Steve Magner stated that on Febnzazy, an inspector was at 277 Wnufred and issued a Correction Notice 2-14-OS with a compliance date of 2-15-05. MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF JULY 5, 2005 ��e.�� S� � �ag 4 � Ms. Moermond asked why the compliance date was so fast. Mr. Magner responded that was an error. When the inspector found the error, a Correction Notice was reissued dated 3-17-05. It was mailed to the property giving the owner unti14-14-OS to remove or properly license the vehicle. Ms. Moermond stated the new Conection Order had a compliance date of 4-14-OS and there still were not current tabs. She asked was there a new inspecrion done to confirm that. Mr. Magner responded the orders were reissued as there was no compliance. On 4-14-05, the vehicle was noncompliant, a photograph was taken, and an excessive consumpfion letter was sent out indicating there was noncompiiance and a reinspection was going to be made. If that was not in compliance, there would be a second charge. They also indicated they had 30 days to pay the $50 Excessive Consumption for noncompliance. The vehicle was gone on 5-2-05. (A photograph was shown to Ms. Moermond and Ms. Curtin.) Through the interpreter, Ms. Curtin stated she got a letter in the mail. No one answered on the TTY. There was no way to contact anyone. She wishes someone would haue come to the door to explain. Ms. Moermond asked did they receive the notice. Ms. Curtin responded she is not sure. Nothing was explained very clearly. They got something, but they are not sure which one it was. She was not sure what they were coming to court for. Also, they thought it was okay to pazk on that property. As for the license tabs, they knew they could not use the car. They were waiting for someone to repair it. Someone did come to take it away. Ms. Moermond stated this tax assessment is $70 and they are charging for the cost of sending an inspector out when the inspector didn't see that the situation was rectified. It would appeaz that at least two letters were sent Ms. Curtin responded she did try to call through the TTY. If they explained to her on the phone she would haue known. Now it is clear what they are here for. Ms. Moermond stated there is a handbook about neighborhood nuisance situations. Oftentimes, people don't know how to store things. She will talk to the Mayor's Office about why the TTY line is not working. Ms. Moermond recommends deleting the assessment because the TTY was appazently not working. � Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building(s) at 1265 Stanford Street. If the owner faffs to comply with the resolution, Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement is ordered to remove the building. (Note: there are two issues involving this properiy. There is also an assessment earlier in the hearing.) The following appeazed: Mazy Huot, attorney, Tammy Head, and Terry Head, co-owners. MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF JULY 5, 2005 Page 5 Steve Magner reported the foilowiv.g: The building was condemned on 3-24-05 by Dick Lippert and has been vacant since 3-28-05. The current owners are StanIey E. and Betty M. Head per Ramsey County Properly Records and AMANDA. Tammy and Terri Head, the daughters of the owners, plan to probate the property to obtain cleaz ride. 'There have been six summary abatement notices issued for removal of debris, clean out home of waste, feces, rotting food, garbage, cut tall grass, remove dead mice from yazd and house. On 5-4-05, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies wlrich constitute a nuisance conditions as developed, and photographs were taken. An Order to Abate a Nuisance Building was issued on 5-5-OS with a compliance date of 6-6-05. As of this date, the property remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislafive code. The City has t�ad to boazd this building to secure it against trespass. The 2005 V acant Building Registration fees aze due. Real Estate taaces ue unpaid of $1,036.87. Taxation has placed an estimated market value of $76,500 on the land and $128,600 on the building. On 4-27-05, a Code Compliance Inspection was done. As of 7-5-05, the $2,000 bond has not been posted. Code Enforcement Officers estimate the cost to repair is $75,000 to $100,000. The estimated cost to demolish is $8,000 to $9,000. Ms. Moermond asked the period of fime for the summary abatement orders. Mr. Magner responded March 2005 to the present. Mary Huot stated Mr. Weinhold is ready to rehabilitate the property immediately. Ted Kronschnabel, 1261 Stanford Avenue, appeared and stated he lives adjacent to 1265 Stanford. He does not have a problem with them selling the properry. He has a newborn child. In the house, there is waste dust from rodents and insects. He has had to hire pest control to control his property. The air quality of the remodeling is a serious concern. There is capture and control equipment that is available for sanding and cutting. He would hope the City Council would enforce this so materials will not come out into the neighborhood. He would like to see that all work is done by professionals and licensed people. It would be beneficial that someone have a proven track record in Saint Paul. Also, he would like to see the building boarded better. People have left the doors off and he has put them back on himsel£ There aze recently more rats in the neighborhood probably because the doors were left off at night. He would like it kept more secure. The following appeared: Julie Matson and Mary Kay Claridge, both of 1258 Stanford Avenue. Ms. Matson stated she walks the dog everyday several times so she sees the house as she goes by. The unsecured doors have been a concern. In the middle of the night, there was knocking going on inside the house as if someone was pounding. The police came out but whoever or whatever was making the noise, managed to get out. Ms. Claridge has lung disease, so they echo the concems about dust and waste. They support the sale and rehabilitation of the dwelling. They would like the job done by professionals with safety precaution. There are many young children in the neighborhood. Ms. Clazidge stated she sent a letter in May. Ms. Matson stated she would like the last sentence deleted from that letter because the property is going to be sold. Ms. Moermond responded she will do a strikeout and date it today. MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF JULY 5, 2005 Page 6 Ms. Moermond stated she saw the probate notice, which was in the paper. The fmal thing needed is a purchase agreement. She asked aze these the people (Weinhold and Weiss) the Aeads aze selling to. The Heads responded yes. The following appeazed: Arnold (Arnie) Weinhold, Weinhold Investments/LLC, and Phillip Weiss. Ms. Moermond stated t�es aze due. She asked has the purchase agreement been signed. Mr. Huot responded it has been signed, but the money has not been exchanged. Ms. Moermond stated she needs a copy of the purchase agreement by noon of July 20. She needs to see how they are going to finance this. IvI�. Weinhold responded he will show the court cash funds available in a bank account to pay for this. In the next few days, they will pay the Heads off completely, which will be shown through a title policy. Ms. Moermond responded she is anticipating that $75,000 to $100,000 is a reasonable esrimate for the rehabilitation. Ms. Moerxnond said , a bond has not been completed. She asked can the rehabilitation be done in six months. Mr . Weinhold responded he will be at the 50% or better mark in six months. It is unknown what will happen with the weather. Ms. Moermond responded that Jim Seeger (LIEP) will be managing this because this is a dangerous vacant building. He has the discretion to grant another 180 days if it is 50% done at 180 days. Ms. Moermond asked who they are going to use as their subcontractors, as she would like to see that in the work plan. Mr. Weinhold responded he does not lmow yet. Ms. Moermond asked have they had experience working with hazazdous materials. The head of Animal Control says the walls need to be taken apart as there are auiuial cazcuses there. Mr. Weinhold responded they have a special person who will taken caze of rodent control within the walls. They will take the walls apart and put them back together properly. Part of the drywall will be new. Mr. Magner stated one the items (on the Code Compliance Inspection Report) indicates this is to be a total gut from the inside out. The contractor should have a discussion with the Minnesota Department of Health. The rodent removal could be dealt with the same way as lead based paint removal: seal off the site, air control handling, bagging all materials removed, proper disposal. The sites are vacuumed and dust controlled. This will be harder to do this work in August when it is 85 degrees inside. Those issues will be taken into consideration as part of the contractor's estimates for rehabilitation and how he would handle that situation. Ms. Moermond asked if this federal or state guidelines for removal of lead-based paint. Mr. Magner responded that is handled primarily through the Minnesota Department of Health. Ms. Moermond stated the lead based paint guidelines should be referred to. She will also ask that the wa11, ceiling, floor removal will be done as lead base paint precautions as done by the Minnesota Department of Health. The last thing is the boarding of the house. The owners are required to keep these buildings secure. MINUTES OF THE LEGlSLAT4VE HEARING OF JULY 5, 2005 Page 7 Ms. Moermond asked have they done projects of this scale and in Saint PauL Mr. Weinhold responded yes, but it has been many yeazs since the project in Saint Paul, and he is not sure of the address. Mr. Weiss asked about hauling away the debris and placing a dumpster in the front yazd. Mr. Magner responded he can work with them on the details. A permit is not needed for placing a dumpster in tbe front yazd; bowever, a pern�it is needed if it is on the street. Ms. Moermond asked aze they willing to commit to same day removal. Mr. Weiss responded they plan to gut the project and put in a11 new systems. Ms. Moermond stated she would recommend that the Council ask for a$5,000 bond. This will be an incentive. Mr. Weinhold responded that is fine. Ms. Moermond stated she would like the building to be registered with the Vacant Building Program. Ms. Weiss asked do they have to wait until July 20 to work on the building. As soon as the bond is posted, said Ms. Moermond, they can pull the permits. The actual granting of the time is something the Council does. Removing personal possession can happen now. It is in no one's interest to do much wark until the City Council heazing. She asked can they agree not to begin the gutting. Mr. Weiss responded that he cannot say that because they are here to get it done. Mr. Magner stated that there should be no gutting of the property unless there is a building permit, which has to be pulled by the owner of the property. The Head sisters could pull the permit, but they would be responsible for the action of that property and that permit. The City Council could deviate from the recommendation. Mr. Magner would suggest waiting until the date of the City Council hearing for their decision. Ms. Huot stated there are people interested in taking this property as is. Mr. Weinhold did his homework and did everything Ms. Huot requested of them. Mr. Weinhold stated they will take a risk by paying them off ahead of time. They are paying a substantial amount more than the land is worth because the building is on the property. They aze not stealing the property, as they aze paying fair mazket. If they are not granted permission to do the house, then it will be bulldozed. Mr. Weiss stated the rat infestation would be gone after the renovation. Ms. Moermond responded there have been a couple of baitings and it looks like the rat problem is under control according to the Aiumal Control informa6on that she has seen. Ms. Moermond asked is she conect that they can pull pernuts once they have their purchase agreement. Mr. Magner responded they need to show they have title to the property. MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF JULY 5, 2005 Page 8 One the appellants asked what is the rush and why the developers cannot wait for the City Council Hearing. Ms. Moermond responded that time is money, and they aze developers. This is a private properiy transaction. In summary: Ms. Moermond recommends the following be done by noon of July 20, 2005: 1) a $5,000 bond posted, 2) a work plan is submitted indicating the general time period when things will be done and the subcontractor name(s), 3) a financial plan is submitted showing the wherewithal to complete the work on the Code Compliance Inspection Report, 4) the vacant building fees aze paid, and 5) the putchase agreement is completed. The hearing as adjourned at 12:06 a.m. �