Loading...
08-665Council File # (�'��� Green Sheet # 3055170 Presented by 1 2 , � 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 RESOLUTION C SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �� BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul, based on a review of the legislative hearing record and testunony heazd at public hearing on June 4, 2008 hereby memorializes its decision to certify and approve the May 27, 2008 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for the following address: ADDRESS 924 Sherburne Avenue APELLANT Cleaz W. Dayland Decision: Appeal denied on the Summary Abatement Order and Vacant Building Registration. Adopted by Council: Date Boston Stark Thune Adoption Certified by Co cil Secretary By: // /./1�J/ � � Approved,H9Yy1a Date ! �j (� By: ��� Absent Requested by Department of: ✓ � Form Approved by City Attorney By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � � ���� DepartmenUofficelcouncil: Datelnitiated: co ����;� o9.,�N-0$ Green Sheet NO: 3055170 Contact Person & Phone: Marcia Moertnond CTSS�U Must Be on Council Acen Doc. Type: RESOLUTION E-DOCUment Required: Y Document Gontact: Mai Vang ConWCtPhone: 68563 � ueparuneni aenc�� rersvn O OP�CiI Assign 1 ovnc� De arm�entDirector Number Z - C7erk CtinClerk For Routing 3 Order 4 5 ToWI # of SignaWre Pages _(qip NI Locations for Signature) Reso]ution memorializing City Counci] action taken June 4, 2008 denying ihe appea] for proper[y at 924 Sherbume Avenue, per tt�e recommendation of the Legislative Hearing Officer. ioauons: Hpprove (A) or K Planning Commission CB Commiriee Civil Service Commission 7. Has this person/firm ever worked under a conlract for this department? Yes No 2. Has this person/fircn ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not nortnally possessed by any current ciry employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AdvanWges If Approved: DisadvanWges If Approved: DisadvanWges If Not Approved: Transaction: Funding SoUrce: Financial Infortnation: (Explain) CosURevenue Budgetetl: Activity Number: June 9, 2008 10:22 AM Page 1 �iTY uy D : w . ,��,��� � J ;��� �V May 16, 2008 Clear W. Dayland 5725 157 Street N. Hugo, MN 55038 RE: 924 Sherburne Ave. Dear Mr. Dayland: CITY OF SAINT PAUL CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Your application for an appeal has been received and processed. G8 ���� Please attend the public hearing before the Legislative Hearing Officer on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 a# 11:30 a.m. rn Room 330 City Hall and Courthouse to consider your appeal conceming - the above referenced property. At that time the Legislative Hearing Officerwill hear all parties relative to this action. Failure to appear at the hearing may result in denial of your appeal. Sincerely, � 9 ���� � ��� Shari Moore � City Clerk cc: Matt Dornfeid, DSI (Code Enforcement) Leanna Shaff, DSI (Fire) Marcia Moermond; Legislative Hearing Officer Jerry Hendrickson, Deputy City Attorney 15 WEST KELLOGG BOULEVARD, SUITE 310 SAIIVT PALII., MINNESOTA55102 Te1:651-26fi-8688 Fa�c:651-266-8574 www.stpaul.gov AA-ADA-EEO Employer D��� l�5 s��,:� : }��.. �; ���� APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Saint Paul City Clerk 15 W. Kellogg Blvd., 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 5� 102 Telephone: (651) 266-8688 I. Address of Properry bemg Appealed: I 2. Number of D� �f �.�1 S�.E����� r�,�e. f � 1 4. Name of Owner: ��`���i�,�.� ��� I2 2p �8 � Units: � 3. Date of I.etter Appealed: 5-1 �.-D N. '1 � �t Address: �� �5 ���}� City: f�{I State: ��V Zip: � r U� Phone Numbers: By�iness U/ � �-" � �7 - � Residence vs �` "" � Cellular �"`� � _ 5. Appellant i Applicant (if other than owner): Address: Phone Numbers: Business City: Residence Zip: Cellulaz 6 State specifically what is being appealed and why (Use an attachment if necessary): r i NOTE: A$25.00 filing fee made payable to the Ciry of Saint Paul mvst 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 person unsarisfied by the final decision of the City Council may obtain judicial ieview by timely filing of an action as provided by law in Disirict Court. Date Received: Fee Use Only Receipt Number: Date of Heazing: ;���� l'��� CTTY OF SAIlVT PAUL W' �F' �� DIVISION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT 1600 White Bear Avenue Saint Paul, NIN 55106 SUNIMARY ASATEMENT ORDER .s7�/p� Inspection Date ' �� ate ail� Mailed By Yog hais rias koj hais lus Hmoob thiab koj tsis to taub tsab ntawv no, hu rau tus tChais lus n[awm (651) 266-8989. Nws yog pab dawb zwb. Si usted habla el Espanol y no entiende esta nota, llama (651) 266-8989 para un traductor. No costo. TO: G�_ �!=—�hy9�l.�� T0: ���5 �l J�� 1V ��D � I'�Z/f� �D 5' g As owner or person(s) responsible for: q� `7� f/�✓�r �Ot1 P �/h you are hereby ordered to eliminate all nuisance conditions which are in violation of Chapter 45 of Saint Paul Legislative Code. � Remove improperly stored or accumtilated refuse including: garbage, rubbish, discarded furniture, appliances, vehicle parts, scrap wood and metal, recycling materials, household items, building materials or rubble, tires, brush, etc., from yard areas. � Cut and remove tall grass, weeds and rank plant � �� � Remove and properly dispose of all animal feces from yard IlVIMEDIATELY secure all buildings which are open to unauthorized entry, including:�`L �r.�rs-f�'�;/,� ,�fl6�'t �A� �l1�1yPlS Other: _ , _ /�iEcti/� 9e jV4�QA'f' /l�r.<.CO �G� /`> o���cs��P' S�°� If you do not correct the nuisance or file an appeal before �L/ e� , the City will correct the nuisance and chazge all costs, including boarding costs, against ffie properry as a special assessment to be collected in the same way as property taees. Chazees: If the City coirects the nuisance, the chazges will include the cost of correction, inspection, travel time, equipment, etc. The rate wiil be approxintately $260.00 per hour plus expenses for abatement. You must maintain the premises in a clean condition and provide proper and adequate refuse storage at all times FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY RESULT IN A CRIMINAL CITATION Issued by: �.�� ��/!� Badge Number �`f Phone Number (651) a 0� l�a� If you have any questions about this order, the requiremenfs or the deadline, you should contact the Inspectot listed above, Monday through Friday A ealr. You may appeat this order and ob[ain a hearing before the C�ty Councii by completing an appeal apptication with the Ciry Clerk before the appeal deadline noted above or seven ( Noappealsmavbefiledafterthatdat Yo vobra"na aoneat oplcationfomth C'NClerk'sOff eRoo 310C5tyHa11St PauL MN 551�2 The telenhone u be �s (6511266-8688 You st s bm" t a co v of th" Orde �[h r apn al a ol"cat �R'AI2NING Code inspeeuon and enforcement mps cost the taxpayers money. If the v�olations are no[ cortected within the nme period required in th�s notice, the city's cosis m co�duchng a reinspection after the due date for compliance will be collecred from the owner racher than bemg paid by [he taepayers of the city. If add�t�onal new violations are discovered w�thm the next followin� 12 months, the city's cos[s in conductin� addiuonal mspectlons a[ this same location within such 12 months wdI be collected from the ownerrather than bemg paid bythetaxpayersofthecity. MysuchfuNrecostswillbecollectedbyassessmentagainsttherealproper[yandare maddifion[oanyothecfinesocassessmenLSwhichmaybeteviedagamst you and your property (04/08) May 27, 2008 Legislative Hearing Minutes �,��� Page 5 9. Appeal of Clear Dayland to a Summary Abatement Order and Vacant Building Registration for property at 924 Sherburne Avenue. Cleaz Dayland, property owner, appeazed. Ms. Moermond requested a staffreport from Mr. Magner. Mr. Magner stated that on January 18, 2008, the Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) was revoked by Fire which was then referred to the Vacant Buildings Program on January 29, 2008. The file was opened as a Category II due to the numerous list of deficiencies. Since that time, there had been five inspections at the property in which smmnary abatements had been issued with one resulting in a work order. A summary abatement order was issued on May 7, 2008 to clean up the properiy; to secure all doors and windows; the property was a registered Category II vacant building and the house needed to be vacated as a code compliance inspection had not been completed. On Apri129, 2008, the Police issued a tag for iliegal occupancy of the building. Ms. Moermond stated that she had read the minutes from the November 6, 2007 hearing in which Mr. Dayland had filed an appeal on a deficiency list. She asked Mr. Dayland why he was appealing the summary abatement order. Mr. Dayland stated that in November, 2007, he had attempted to evict the tenant to make repairs to the building; however, the tenant had changed the locks and denied hnn access to the property. After the hearing in November and Ms. Moermond had contacted Referee Yanish, the tenant left. He claimed that she also had done $1,200 in plumbing damage by trying to flush her kids' clothes down the toilet which she had done on several previous occasions. He had spent approximately $S,OOQ in repairs to the property and he contended that the only item that he had not completed by the extension that he had been granted on complering the items on the deficiency list was to have the furnace inspected by a licensed contractor. He finally did have the fiunace inspected and it passed; however, by that time, the C of O had been revoked. He was out eight months of rent, had spent over $5,000 in repairs to the property, and was now being referred to Jim Seeger to obtain a code compliance inspection which he could not afford. He claimed he would lose the house without a renter and would walk away from the property. He claimed that he had passed the Section 8 inspection and began renting the property in April. He believed that he should not haue to have a code compliance inspection. Ms. Moermond reviewed the sumuiary abatement order and asked Mr. Dayland whether the garbage and rubbish that was on the property had been addressed. Mr. Dayland responded that he believed it was clean as he had instructed the tenant that she needed to keep the property clean. Mr. Magner stated that on May 7, 2008, the inspector noted that the door was open to entry and there were overflowing trash containers in addition to miscellaneous debris. He asked Mr. Dayland who was paying for the trash hauling service. Mr. Dayland responded that the tenant was responsible for paying for trash service. Ms. Moermond suinmarized the following from the November, 2007 minutes: he had indicated that he did not want to be in the C of O program and that he was three months behind on the mortgage; he had been in court with Referee Yanish on a tag that had been issued; his appeal had been denied and he was not granted any extension on the arders; she had written to the Referee explaining the situation from the November hearing, the tenant then leaves and he begins making repairs in May 27, 2008 Legislarive Hearing Minutes JQ ��(Q� Page 6 w December; the C of O was then revoked in January; in April, he begins renting the property without a C of O or without a code compliance; he rented the property with the l�owledge that he was required to have a C of O or a code compliance. The history of this property is as follows: the property has been vacant previousiy; on 9/13/07, there was a complaint that water was lealdng, the wall was cracked, and feces were coming up from the basement drain; on 10/3/07, there was a complaint that the basement walls were cracked and moldy and mice were coming in through the cracks in the house; on 10/15/07, the water had been shut off; the water had also been shut off on 4/15/08. Mr. Dayland responded that the water had been shut off in April due to a pipe that had burst in the basement and there was $300 due and owing on the water bill. Ms. Moermond asked him why he had not paid the water bill. Mr. Dayland responded that it was the tenant's responsibility. Ms. Moermond stated that he had indicated that he had just rented out the property at the beginning of April and he was alleging that the tenant was responsible for the bill because she had used that much water. Was this true? Mr. Dayland responded that this was correct and that he would let the property go into foreclosure as he couldn't afford to pay for another inspecrion. Mr. Magner stated that the owner has been told that he either needs a code compliance inspection or a C of O before he can rent the property. He claims that the property was inspected under Section 8 and he shouldn't need another inspection. He stated that a Section 8 inspection did not qualify under the Legislative Code. Ms. Moermond stated that in looking at the history of the property beginning from September, 2006 to September, 2007, it appeared there were chronic problems with this property that were not being dealt with. She also did not see that any plumbing permits had been pulled for the apparent broken water pipe in the basement. Mr. Dayland clearly knew that he was in violation of the City's arders and had rented the property anyway. Therefore, she recommended denying the appeal on the Suminary Abatement Order and denying the appeal on the Vacant Building Registration.