07-358Council File # 07-358
Green Sheet # � ��
RESOLUTION
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented by
Resolution Formally Yacating fhe Stay in Implementation of Council File #07-I21,
An Order to Remove or Repair 66-68 East Stevens Street
1 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council adopted Council File #07-297 on Mazch 28, 2007 to stay the implementation
2 of Council File #07-121 until April 11, 2007; and
a WHEREAS, this stay was designed to allow for the presentation and review of plans for the rehabilitation of the
5 buildings at 66-68 East Stevens Street; and
� WHEREAS, the Council directed the legislative hearing officer to schedule a legislative heazing on April 10, 2007 in
8 order to confirm the conditions articulated in Council File #07-297 had been met, and then report back to the City
9 Council on April 11, 2007 with her findings and a draft resolption providing for a further stay in the demolition should
�0 she so recommend; and
it
t2 WHEREAS, based on information received in the legislative hearing on April 10, 2007 and the following day, the
t 3 legislative hearing officer determined the two of the four conditions the Council established in Council File # 07-297
t4 had been met by the property owner, namely a purchase ageement with a potential rehabber had been concluded and a
is performance deposit had been posted; and
16
t� WHBREAS, the legislative hearing officer also determined that the other two conditions the Council established had
� 8 not been met, namely, the work plan was determined to be inadequate and the financial plan both incomplete and
i 9 inadequate, as is articulated in the attached correspondence; and
z0
zt WHEREAS, the legislative hearing officer recommends to the City Council that the stay on the Order to Remove 66-
z2 68 East Stevens Street be vacated, and
23
za WHEREAS, the City Council also finds that on March 7, 2007, the City had to shovel to remove snow and ice the
25 walk of this property, which indicates the current owner is still not acting to maintain this property in conformance
z6 with local codes and standards; now, therefore, be it
z�
z8 RESOLVED, that the City Council adopts the recommendation of the Legislative Hearing Officer and hereby formally
29 vacates the stay on the implementation of Council File # 07-121 which was established in Council File # 07-297,
3o allowing the enforcement agency to commence demolition proceedings.
66-68 Stevens St. — 2 Week Stay Resolution, Page 2 of 2
07-358
Yeas Nays Absent
Benanav �/
Bostrom ,i
Harris ,�
Helgen ,i
Lanhy �
Montgomery r
Thune ✓
� d
Adopted by Council: Date `��/�`�7
Adoption Certified by
By: / /" /
Approved o �
By:
Requested by Deparnnent oE
�
Form Approved by City Attomey
�
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Counci]
�
:7�-3� a'
=��/ �� �: CITY OF SAINT PAUL
, *i+311w��� ��
,��?u�.e�1 " OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
,�`
April ] 6, 2007
Christina Weber
Wilford & Geske
7650 Currell Blvd Suite 300
Woodbury MN 55125
Re: Property at 66-68 East Stevens Sheet
Dear Ms. Weber.
This ]etter is to confirm our phone conversation from last Thursday in which I indicated to you that the
CiTy did not find Matt O'Hara's financia] or work plans for the rehabilitation of 66-68 East Stevens Street
acceptable. I also spoke with Matt O'Hara by phone and communicated this to him, as well.
As you know, no financial plan per se was provided in the April 10, 2007 legislative hearing.
Information was made available that the cost of the purchase, approximately $90,000 would likely be
covered by Wells Fargo in the form of a mortgage. However, the City's estimated cost for the
rehabilitation is $60,000 -$80,000, which meant there needed to be at least that much more available,
above the purchase price, in financing for this project.
Another problem was that the financing plan presented for the rehabilitation part of the project appeared
to be contingent on the sale of another property Mr. O'Hara has been rehabilitating, namely 52 King
Street in Saint Paul. The City needs to have a confirmation that funds will be available for the actual
rehabilitation of the structure, and that its nuisance condition will be abated.
A third problem with the O'Hara proposal is that the estimated $18,700 -$26,500 to do the rehabilitation
falls significantly short of the City's estimated cost for this work. This raises concerns about the quality
of the work being proposed, especially in light the recent City orders on 52 King Street connected to Mr.
O'Hara not using a licensed contractor for furnace work at this properiy.
I have prepazed a resolution for Councilmember David Thune to introduce Wednesday April 18, 2007
under suspension of rules to formally vacate the temporary stay granted for your clients to present plans
for the rehabilitation of this property.
Sincerely,
M nd
Legislative Aearing Officer
Copy: Judy Hanson, City Attorney's Office
Steve Magner, Department of Safety and Inspections
Jim Seeger, Department of Safety and Inspections
Councilmember David Thune
CITY HAI,L THIRD FLOOR 15 WEST KELLOGG BOULEVARD SAINT PAUL, NIINNESOTA 55102-1615
�
AA-ADA£EO Employer
a�_ � �$
SUMMARY FOR PUBLIC
66-68 Stevetts Street East
�-��.
t�' 7 �
� �
Legislative Hearing — Tuesday, April 10,
The building is a two-story, wood frame, single family dwelling on a lot of 6,098 square feet.
According to our files, it has been a vacant building since June 6, 2006.
/ --- �,
The cunent property o r is GEORGE FARKA r AMANDA and Ramsey county property
and taxation recards. --- �
The city has had to board this building to secure it from trespass.
The city condemned this building on May 3, 2006.
There have been seven (7) SUMMARY ABATEMENT NOTICES issued for:
- Removal of tall grass and weeds,
- Removal of improperly stored refuse
- Secure the building
On October 24, 2006 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 posted on November 6, 2006 with a compliance date of
December 11, 2006. As of this date this property remains in a condition which comprises a
nuisance as defined by the legislative code.
The Vacant Building registration ��d. � /�, ,,, ,�Q , � �. p �
/ ��c""i
TaYation has placed an estimated market value of $53,700 on the land and $124,700 on the
building.
As of February 22, 2007, a Code Compliance inspectio as en completed.
As oFAprii 6, 2007, tY�e $5,000.00 performanc d nqYbee jres#ed: � �� d�ted
�� as o f s'-/O-v �
Real Estate taxes are current.
Code Enforcemant Officers estimate the cost to repair this s e is $60,000 to $80,000. The
estimated cost to Demolish is $8,000 to $9,000. �
NI�PI, Divis:on of Code Enfarcement Resolution submitted for consideration orders th p oe r perty
owner to repair or remove this structure within fifteen (15) days, ifnot the resolution authorizes
the Division of Code Enfarcement to demolish and assess the costs to the property.
���¢�.�
��e �"�
����-� � ' �a�r�. �U�� �/a�, ��
b�- ��g
b�t C�.;<�ps�:.�ta� P.a��o;'1 G.l �-.� i St. �.
,
� �� �
`�� , -�,_�,�, . . _
��L2°4i�� +Miv� al���`w v�SJ«
���v:: �,.�, c2�(�.:.�
CIEc.: c�.� b�-scrL
�-:.<..1c��S s
P:.cw�,��..v�.� _
rr"!�t"� ��*r:.t�., c°.�.:r S�g'iS la�S�S tei'wi 2.�'e- S{2�::
(�i 2w � d c ar,n..-�
rh�:,.�� P�.Y.-1-
�.x�4Ea���• l'��.:�-
�?.¢f; �✓a^� C � ar:,
� 1 � C.� o��zc. �
4�+c"i< Q�ov.L 1:�. 5/!g-�'-i' ���v� C.
c�n�=�w\a j^t,� f='!Z
I w.�, b°.�
��rY. cAo�2 � C;:�r' :,�� Q1�.+,u.-,h.�.
�� �= SN:,� 7%�° 2i�;-243 ��
�(f76: UO
��e�orC
���,�c, cc
L-.�e� �c
� � s� . c�
� �e , ea
i�SCe ,,�
� J�
Z ��.� o c:.
3;7a�
�uav.¢g �
1�e„v� 2.N Y"�et.l�t �;Ck� �
9 i p .� - .T �
n ' 6��" "L
:.b»YF�'v��-V�'vwN� k'Jl� I'O��b-UI� �,�I
�' "'�� : F�� IC�a�a �lhc G-a� f3� � 6 5!- 7 3�(- 2 b`42
P Ie� «� S� Q.��- C��� 1 S � FM tS 4 A,� e. �arG�t � tf
%� � ��'.� -"`
�..� � � ���r� ��� ���
!oSl- 3b �- l� au7
�'/��� �/'�� P��, �� 6�-��8
1 �J� n . ...�- � �
e .. E'. � ,_ e �$ii i
- Co;..�,-t r wv�� on R��;,�r i•,c�" b4 5te�x.�+S �t- E, .
P.,..,rt.l..«�� p�.�-� 5-'-1-oZ
F�h�S�, C)�,�
'7-I-c�l
7
�'� ° ��
�{—t ��
9- 3� ��l
lt��{-�'�
��—+- �''�
���I�-a `l
�e <ol^ Cos"I"
RL�c.�r e- R�tac� 2x.{e✓i6: Oe;ca i�ci. ao
f,t(��(' aw:� Ce�lt.�� i,;��. �4�L.c:�
QizQulc c..� �c�t�+ sc���T' �.v��i �acvF I� ETcV. c�+
Pc�Vw ` wwC.� ��`+�cci J' ZX'�2✓1�SY I fjlA`Jr0✓
�
�.x,�ic�cz iv��.J�w �oP re�<..�f') F��rti�.'x=7/�1 ��6Jtl.to
�
Ftre.. ct(u,�r.� i�.y w,:t(I ,� co��H.an A t� Svu.c*n
�a,wi.F� L 12�..v. 3utz.h A:, szv..zH.t � p�o. �.,
FUA-.ckc,.kc�.� }�+.��1< Po�w�' �z.�:,��ec�tir 5aa,aa
� ie��,rC�:� �
$ C �ti.s�cli3��--�' ;,.,�,r.�r�c�
i,.� c: K:�f,a �n z b-� 5 kz{er � lei.1-�'i t
�R��n eiR- �yv- 1�4 �I
g-15
� Y -
��WM ��
�8�7Ie+.i�e. i'S N�C.:�Y�.��Wal�✓' �
P.�x=rr u.w.� rtebae� gEv �..,ba+��
�o•rie c�c�. b.� r�v� :.tt i'l�bd�
���✓� �fv3°21�-�.`��3�
S- i s - 'o°i ew��
� /` �tic
���i�.z� aot� "TKTH ae nF
ll�l -��
(�c.�v��' rtiv.,� fee:.lr i�n�E�",lsf'
d= Ipo. r`��
� �a�
'�� t70LJ. �: ci
`� � ("lesCs , tTfd
S c�
f
J f��? c? : o=•
� � c ntv
� / � ��Z�
� ' ��O(/iG 4YGC �6G1/!/v�
�Cv°`�` �(v�=� l4.re,v �K�w' ��L o4 W�ci�,bw��j
/
�1w�� 1(lkws�� e5 i— 73y -�i.`i z.
T"� � t� � S�� �� t� r, �.:`s'�2$ r�p4i rs w; � t be � v�
6`�+�.� �v,+. C���k�� b N-zo-o�
MW{tl��.�% a u�{�ur�. L�o
�'�'' fi' C���
�G�cre� � b7�%
fax transmittal memo 7671 I#o+paees .
07-358
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
CQ -Council
CoMact Person & Phone:
Marcia Moertnond
266-8570
Must Be on Council Agenda by
Doc. Type: RESOLUTION
E-Document Required: Y
DocumentContact: RacquelNaylOr
18-APR-07
y
Assign
Number
For
Routing
Order
Contact Phone: 266$573 � I
Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature)
Green Sheet NO: 3038870
0 oancil
1 ounc�l De artm¢nt D"vector
2 ' Clerk
3
4
5
Adopting the recommendation of the Legislative Hearing Officer on 66-68 Stevens Street East by vacating the stay on the
implementation of Council File 07-121, which was established in Council file 07-297, allowing the enforcement agency [o
commence demolition proceedings.
itlations: Approve (A) or RejeCt (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Mswerthe Following Questions:
Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contrad for ihis deparlment?
CIB Commiitee Yes No �
Civil Service Commission 2 Has this person�rm ever been a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person�rm 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:
Disadvantages If Approved:
Disadvantages If Not Approved:
Total Amount of
Trensaction:
Funding Source:
Financial I nformation:
(Explain)
CostlRevenue Budgeted:
Activity Number.
April 18, 2007 10:49 AM Page 1