The URL can be used to link to this page

06-76Council File # C — l Green Sheet # 3�jZ�-t�Z,� RESOLUTION NT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented Referred To Committee Date Resolution Granting I80 Days for the Rehabi[itation of 1774 Norfolk Avenue WIIEREAS, the Saint Paul CiTy Council adopted Councii File #OS-16 on June 1, 2005, an Order to Remove or Repair the buildings at 1774 Norfolk Avenue within 45 days; and WFIEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council adopted Council File #OS-698 staying enforcement for a period of 90 days of this Order to give time to the Ramsey County District Court appointed Emergency Conservator of the Estate to abate some of the nuisance conditions on the interior and sell the property; and WHEREAS, the court approved the sale of this property on November 7, 2005; WHEREAS, the purchasers of the property, Bruce and Linda Wakefield of Antler Redevelopment Corporation, have posted a$2,000 performance bond, reviewed the Code Compliance Inspection Report and developed a work plan for addressing all of the deficiencies listed therein, and have adequate financing to complete this rehabilitation, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul CiTy Council herewith amends the Order adopted in Council File #OS-16 and grants 180 days for the rehabilitation of this structure, as provided in Chapter 33.03 of the City's Legislative Code. Benanav Bostrom Harris Helgen Lanhy Montgomery Thune Yeas Nays Absent � ✓ � ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 7 d i � Adopted by Council: Date /� �� Adoption Certified by Council Secretary BY� ��l//lGf fO��.G��J Approved by Mayor: Date: f Z� BY: ��""�( Requested by Depariment of: � Form Approved by City Attorney Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � ��- 7� Depar4nefM/office/council: Date Initiated: co -�W�,� ,��-� Green Sheet NO: 3029429 CoMact Person 8 Phone: ��ent Seirt To Person InitiaVDate Marcia Mcertnond � 0 ooncil 2668560 A55ign 1 ooncil De artmen[Director Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number y e k For Routing 3 Order 4 5 Tofal # of Signature Pages �(Clip AII Lowtions for Signature) Action Requested: Amending Council File #OS-16 and ganting 180 days to complete the rehabilitation of 1774 Norfolk Avenue. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Rejed (R): Personal Service Contrects Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission �, Has this persoN�irtn ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this personffirm ever been a city empioyee? Yes No 3. Dces fhis persoNfirm possess a skil! not nwmally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity QMho, What, When, Where, Why): ,:-<- ,- - Advantages If Approved: �� DisadvanWpes If APProved: O��CI� �e,�c��C� (�en�Q� JAN � � Disadvantages If Not Approved: � - ' _ .,.. �x+��_.C,._` � - Totai Amount of CosURevenue Budgetetl: Trensaction: . Fundinp Source: Activify Number: Financial Information: (F�cpiain) City of Saint Paul. City CounG1 Research Center Room 310 City HaIE Saint Paul, MN 55102 651 266-8570 INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM ��— �"� DATE: 7anuary 18, 2006 TO: Councilmembers � FROM: Mazcia Moermond, Leg9slat�ve Hearmg Officer RE: Conncil Agenda Today — Item for Snspension I am requesting that the aYtached resolutions be considered under suspension of rules today. The cacumstances for these aze descn'bed below. Resolution granting 180 days for the rehabi[itation of 1774 Norfolk Avenue. After more legislative hearmgs than I caze to count, there is a viable plan for the rehabilitation of 1774 Norfolk Avenue, formerly the property of Colleen (Lucky) Moore. The new owners, Bruce and Linda WakeSeld of Antler Redevelopment Corporation, haue done all of the things the City has requested of them over the last 6 weeks, mclud'mg: posted a$2,000 performance bond, reviewed the Code Compliance Inspection Report and developed a work plan for addressing all of the deficiencies listed therem, and they haue adequate fmancing to complete this rehabilitation. They are anxious to pull building pernuts and begm work. Therefore, I ask that you consider tivs item tmder suspension ofrules. Thauk you for your consideration of this request. cc: Jerry Hendrickson Trudy Moloney LEGISLATIVE HEARING — January 3, 2006 1774 Norfolk Avenue Bruce and Debbie Wakefield appeared. Il�-7� Page 4 Mr. Magner provided a staff report: This is a 1'/z -story, wood frame, single-family dwelling on a lot of 5,227 square feet. The building was originally condemned in December 2003, and has been ordered vacated since that time. There is a new owner, Bruce Wakefield, represenring Antler Building Corporation. One (1) Suminary Abatement Notice was issued since the last yeaz to remove snow and ice from the public walk. On October 6, 2004, the original inspecrion was conducted and a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed; photographs were taken. An Order to Abate Nuisance Building was posted on this property on October 12, 2004, with a compliance date of November 12, 2004. As of today, the property remains in a conditiott which comprises a nuisance as defined by the Legislative Code. The City has had to board the building against trespass. Since the new owner took over, that has not been the case. The Vacant Building Registration was paid as of January 3, 2006. The estimated mazket value is $30,600 on the land; $107,000 on the building. He doesn't think that the Ramsey County Assessor has looked at this property during the past decade. A Code Compliance Inspection Report has been completed and is attached (done in September, 2005); and a bond has been posted. Mr. Magner stated that it is his understanding that the new owner plans to rehabilitate the structure. Originally, this went before the City Council after a long rime and the Council ruled to proceed with demolition. A stay was then put on the demolition and a conservator was put in charge. Ms. Moermond stated that technically speaking, the bulldozers could roll in any time. But, no one really wants to raze this building if there is a possibility to salvage it, and it looks as though the new owners are going To do just that. All that is needed is a Work Plan and a Financial Plan Mr. Wakefield responded that they have the Work Plan witl� them today. Debbie Wakefield noted that they did not know that there was a demolition set for this property until the day after they closed. Mr. Magier said that the realtor working for Lutheran Social Services was legally obligated to disclose any action, including action being taken by a govertunental body, in this case, the City of Saint Paul. They should have provided a Truth in Housing Inspecrion Report and inshucted the Wakefields to contact the City about the demolition. They did receive the Code Compliance Report, which states the category of the building, in this case, a Category 3 Vacant Building, that requires a bond and that the building cannot be occupied It is the requirement of the seller to notify the buyer of these things. So, obviously, there's some legal recourse. Mr. Wakefield asked if a Category 3 Vacant Building is always a demo. Ms. Moermond responded that it is not. The Category 3 describes the condition of the building and that it requires a bond. Ms. Wakefield noted that someone from Lutheran Social Services called her three (3) days after the closing and left her a voice mail informing her of the `demo.' Ms. Moermond suggested that the Wakefields send a letter to their Lutheran Social Services contact, with copies to the realtor, and Judge Margaret Marrinan, Probate Court