07-1176Council File # -'/�7�
Green Sheet # `3��
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
ADDRESS
906 Thomas Avenue
Decision: Appeal denied
Adopted by Council: Date �a�j y
Adoption Certified by Cout eil Secretary
B �
Approved by Date Z p
By ' � �
APELLANT
James McNeal
Requested by Department o£
�
Form Approved by City Attomey
By:
Form Approved by Mayox for Submission to Council
sy:
a►
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the Ciry of Saint Paul, based on a review of the legislative
hearing record and testimony heazd at public hearing on November 21, 2007 hereby memorializes its
decision to certify and approve the November 6, 2007 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for the
following address:
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
o�-lr��
y Dep
;co
-Counoa
Contact Person 8 Phone:
Marcia Mcetmond
2668570
Must Be on Council Agenda by
Doc.Type: RESOLUTION
E-DOCUment Required: Y
Document Contad: Mai Vang
ConWct Phone: 266-8563
2�-NO�-07 I Green Sheet NO: 3046671
y �e�a,.,.
0 ouncil
ASSign 1 ooncil De arhnentDirector
Number 2 i Clerk CitvClerk
For
Routing 3
Order 4
5
Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip Ali Locations for Signature)
Resolution memorializing City Council action taken November 21, 2007 denying the appea] for property at 906 Thomas Averme, per
the recommendation of [he Legislative Hearing Officer.
idations: Approve (A) or R
Planning Commission
CIB Committee
Civil Service Commission
Contmcts Must Answer the
1. Has this person/frm ever worked under a contract for this department?
Yes No
2 Has this personffirm ever been a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person/frm 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
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
Advantages If Approved:
DisadvanWges If Approved:
Disadvantages Ifi Not Approved:
Trensaction:
Funtling Source:
Financia� ��formation:
(Explain)
CosVRevenue Budgeted:
Activity Number:
November 27, 2007 9:40 AM Page 1
���
�_.
_ ,,,, _,
�� iielt�(IIIIOi sE
5 � w ��\' - �-n�
October 31, 2007
James McNeal
924 Central Ave. W.
St. Paul, MN 55104
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
RE: appeal for 906 Thomas Ave.
Dear Mr. McNeal:
Your application for an appeal has been received and processed.
V � //� V
Please attend the public hearing before the Legislative Hearing Officer on Tuesday,
November 6, 2007 at 11:00 a.m. in Room 330 City Hall and Courthouse to consider your
appeai concerning the above referenced property. At that time the Legislative Hearing Officer
will hear all parties relative to this action.
Failure to appear at the hearing may result in denial of your appeal.
Sincerely,
������ �✓����
Shari Moore ��
City Clerk
cc. Rich Singerhouse, Supervisor
Mike Kaiis, DSf — Code Enforcement
Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer
15 4VEST KELLOGG BOULEVARD, SUITE 310 SAINT PAUf, MINNESOTA55102
Tel: 651-266-8688 Fax:651-266-8574 wcvw.stpaul.gov
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
67 //� (p
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
Saint Paul City Clerk
1� W. Kellogg Blvd., 310 CiTy Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 5� 102
Telephone:(6�1) 266-8688
I. Address of Property being Appealed: 2. Number of Dwelling Units: 3. Date of I.etter Appealed:
q�c� r��� Jo�aa-o �
4. Name of Owner: JC�.NVt2 S R V 1� Y �PLU
Address: `1 �� �'P�� �Ci� S'F State: Zip: �.71(� y
Phone Numbers: Business
Residence c���1 ' l� 7� Cellular
S. Appellant / Applicant (if other than owner):
Phone Numbers: Business
City:
Residence
, ����
Zip:
Cellulaz
6 State specifically what is being appealed and why (Use an attachment if necessary):
NOTE: A$25.00 filing fee made payable ro the City of Saint Paul must accompany this application as a
necessary condition for filing. You must attach a copy of the original orders and any other correspondence relative
to this appeal. Any pezso� unsadsfied hy the final decision of the City Council may obtain judicia] review by
umely filing of an action as pro�ided by law in District Court.
For Office Use Only
Received: Fee Received: Receipt Number: Date of Hearin;:
NOV-01-2007 08�52 NHPI INSPECT�RS
CTT'Y OF $AIN'I' PAUL
DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY Al�tb R�TSPECFIONS
DTVISION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT
1600 White Beat Aveaue D .�,(�. 7 �
Saint Paul, NL�T 55106
SUMMARY ABATEMENT ORDER
6512661919 P.03iO3
October 22 2007
tnsp�cc�ri�o Dace
Date Ma;t
Maited B (init)
1'og hais tias koj hais lus Hmoob thiab koj tsis to tauh tsab ntawv no, hu rau Cus trhais lus ntawin (651) 266-1418. Nws yog pab
dawb zwb. Si usted hahLs el Fspanol y no cntiende esta nota, llama (G51)266-6008 para un �aductor. No costo.
James McNeal
406 Thomas Ave
St Paul MIv' S5104-2630
As owner or persou(s) responsible for: 906 THOMAS AVE you are hereby ordered to eliminate all
nufsance condilions which are im violation of CLapter 45 of Saint Paul Legislative Code_
� Remove impraperly stored or accumulated refuse including: garbage, rubbish, discarded furniture,
appliances, veLicle parts, scrap wood and metal, reeycling materials, household items, building
materials or rubbie, tires, brusL, etc., from yard areas.(DEBRIS'[�IRU-OTJT YARD, TOYS)
� Cuf and remove tal! grass, weeds sud rank plarit growth.
—1
-
-
Remove and properly disPose of all anima! feces from yard areas.
IMMEDIATELY secare all buildings whieh are open to unauthorized entry, inctnding:
Other:
If you do not coaeet the nuisauce or file an appea] before October 31, 2007, t[�e City will eorrcct ffie nuisanee and charge a11
�asts, including boardixlg costs, against the property as a speeial assessment to be eollected in tlie same way as propecty t¢xes.
�har�es: If the City corrects the nuisance, tlie charges will include the cost of correction, inspection, travel time, equipment,
etc. The rate will be approximately $260.00 per hour plus expc�ses for abatemenk
Yau must maintain the premises in a clean condition and
provide proper and adeqnate refuse storage at a11 times
FAILURE TO COMPLY MAy RESULT IN A CRIMINAL CITA TION
Issued by:Mike Kalis Badge Number 362 Phone Number 651-166-I929
If you have any questions about this nrder, the requlrements or the deadline, you shonld
contact the Inspector listed above, Monday through Friday.
e 1s: irou may appea� il�fs order Und obtain a henr4ng bcfore the City Council by
dcadime noud abovo ar sevcn (7) days after �l,c dau mailed, whichev� comes fi�sc
�lEplieution frnm [he C'tv Clcrk' OffCe Aonm 4I0 C� Hall. SL Peul. MN 55,�,102.
CnTT�ciion Order with vo a e,�J�ypl"c Hon.
apPliption wjth
"k'_ ARrv� � Cado inspcction nnd cnforcemeni trips cost [he rsxpayers money. If ihe vioiations arc not carrcctcd within the time perioci rrquired in thie
notice, the ciry�s costs m conducnng a reinspecdon aftcr thc dve date for compiiance wii3 bc colIected from the owncnattier ffiun bci�g psid 6y the taxp�yaa of
the ciry- [f additiona� ncw violaGons arc discovcred wit]»n the nezt following 12 months, the eiry's costs in eo�ucting ndclitional inspections az 8�is same
locaeion within such i 2 months wiii be coilecied from the oimcr rather than bcing pajd by the rsxpayers of the ciry. My such fuNre cosrs wi�� be colix�ed vy
R4sessment agejngt tl�e ren! property and azy in addirion tu any other Cnes or assessmcnt� which may b� j�hed againsc yc�u and your propeay.
sa60158 f0/07
TOTRL P.03
November 6, 2007 Legislative Hearing Minutes Page 5
�� ���7�D
3. Appeai of James McNeal to a Summary Abatement Order for property at 906 Thomas
Avenue.
Mr. Magner stated he believed the owner was appealing the vacant building status in addition to the
summary abatement order. He was unsure, however, since the application didn't indicate what they
were appealing. He believed they were appealing the summary abatement order because the boxes
were not checked as to what correction needed to be done. The order that he had, indicated the
following: remove improperly stored or accuxnulated refuse including gazbage, rubbish, discarded
fumiture, appiiances, vehicle parts, scrap wood and metal, recycling materials, household items,
building materials or rubble, tires, brush, etc., from the yard, as well at to cut tall grass and weeds.
On the issue of why it was a vacant building, they had received a condemnation dated July 31, 2007
with a vacate date of August 3, 2007 for lack of electricity at the property. This property was then
referred to vacant buildings by inspector Kelly Booker. The inspector went out the property and
found a two-story, wood framed, single-family dwelling to be vacant, unsecured, front and back
doors were open. In addition to the electricity being turned off, the water was also turned off. The
exterior had multiple code violations, windows, siding, the foundation, trash in yard, and interior
also had trash all over. At that time, a summary abatement was issued to secure the building and a
work order was sent to Parks to clean the yard and to mow the lawn. As to this summary abatement
order which was being appealed, the inspector re-inspected the property on November 1 and found
the yard had been cleaned up and the grass was cut. At this time the summary abatement was moot.
The appellant did not appear.
Ms. Moermond stated that they may have intended to appeal the vacant building status; however,
nothing was attached to the appeal to indicate this, so she would not make a recommendation on the
vacant building status. She also recommended denying the appeal on the suimnary abatement
order.