The URL can be used to link to this page

09-316AMENDED 3/18/09 RESOLUTION Presented by Council File # C�q- 31 � Green Sheet # 3065237 CIT�( OF $�INT PAUL, MINNESOTA ,�-<� /,T��--- 37 1 WFIEREAS, Department of Safety and Inspecrions has requested the City Council to 2 hold public hearings to consider the advisability and necessity of ordering the repair or wrecking 3 and removal of a one story, wood frame, single family dwelling located on property hereinafter 4 referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly laiown as 393-397 CASE AVENUE. This 5 property is legally described as follows, to wit: 6 7 J F TOSTEVINS SUBDIVISION ETC. LOT 18 BLK 1 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 37 38 39 40 WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information obtained by Deparhnent of Safety and Inspections on or before July 21, 2008, the following are the now known interested or responsible parties for the Subject Property: Bee Vue, 21301 Furman St NE, Wyoming, MN 55092; Countrywide Group Inc, c/o Wells Fargo, 2505 W. Chandler Blvd, Chandler, AZ 85224; Wilford & Geske, 7650 Currell Blvd, #300, Woodbury, MN 55125; Countrywide Mortgage, Attn: Chris Kawohl, 1920 Donegal Drive, Woodbury, MN 55125; Payne Phalen District Planning Council. WHEREAS, Department of Safety and Inspections has served in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code an order identified as an"Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s)" dated November 14, 2008; and WHEREAS, this order informed the then lrnown interested or responsible parties that the structure located on the Subject Property is a nuisance building(s) pursuant to Chapter 45; and WHEREAS, this order informed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair or demolish the structure located on the Subject Property by December 15, 2008; 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 Department of Safety and Inspections 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 Legislative Code, of the time, date, place and purpose of the public hearings; and WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City Council on Tuesday, February 24 and March 10, 2009 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and evidence, made the recommendation to approve the request to 05-31� 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 order the interested or responsible parties to make the Subject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting 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 rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to be completed within ffteen (15) days after the date of the Council Hearing; and WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 and the testimony and evidence including the action taken by the Le�slative Hearing Officer was considered by the Council; now therefore BE IT RESOLVED, 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 393-397 CASE AVENUE. That the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 45. 2. That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). That there now exists and has existed multiple Housing or Building code violations at the Subject Property. 4. That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then lrnown responsible parties to correct the deficiencies ar to demolish and remove the building(s). 5 � 7 That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition haue not been corrected. That Department of Safety and Inspections has posted a placard on the Subject Property which declares it to be a nuisance condition subject to demolition. That this building has been routinely monitared by Department of Safety and Inspections, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings. That the known interested parties and owners are as previously stated in this resolution and that the notification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled. �'� ' The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the following order: The above referenced interested or responsible parties shall make the Subject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the community'�� r°'��'��'�'�':r� "�:� �*�,�*.,�° ��-' � °�*:�� „ c�5-3« $7 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 ,t,�,.:e..,.:.,.. .. ..:w,a ;.. .�.., ..i..,._.,, _„r ..,,..,.,,a n_a,.. t,, n �.,,.o rr,.:�.,,,,.o u,.;t,t;,,..�� ; , _ ' by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The ��I� demolition and removal of the structure must be completed within �e°"� five 5 days after the date of the Council Hearing. 2. If the above corrective action is not completed within this period of time Deparhnent of Safety and Inspections is hereby authorized to take whatever steps are necessary to demolish and remove this smxcture, fill the site and charge the costs incurred against the Subj ect Property pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all personal property or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shall be removed from the property by the responsible parties by the end of this time period. If all personal property is not removed, it shall be considered to be abandoned and the City of Saint Paul shall remove and dispose of such property as provided by law. 105 4. It is further ordered, that a copy of this resolution be mailed to the owners and interested 106 parties in accordance with Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. Bostrom Carter Harris Helgen Lantry Stark Thune Adopted by Council: Date Adoprion Certified by Co BY� /� i Appro �dby r. ate BY� � ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ D' 3 �� 9 Secretary 'l/!Sd/J ��Iql� Requested by Deparhnento£ Safety and Inspecrions Code Enfoxcement / Vacant Buildings By: Form Approved by City Attomey s Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: �� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � � 3 � JepartmeM/0fficelCouncil: Datelnitiated: Green Sheet N�. 3�65237 S � _Dept, of Safety & Inspections �7_DEC-08 Contact Person 8. Phone: Bob Kessler 266-9013 Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date}: �&MA Doc. Type: RESOLUTION E-Document Required: Y Document Contact: Contact Phone: � Assign Number For Routing Order �'�� °IV�� G � � �a�a Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip Ali Lowtions for Signature) �.� City Council tA pass this resolurion which will order the owner(s) to remove or repair the referenced building(s). If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, the Department of Safety and Inspections is ordered to remove the building. The subject property is located at 393-397 CASE AVE . Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Plamm�g Commission CIB Committee Civil Service Commission Personal Service Contrects Must Answer the Following Questions: 1. Has this person�rm ever worked under a contract for this department? Yes No 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this personffirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current ciry employee? Yes No Explain alt yes answers on separate sheet and atfach to gree� sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Oppartunity (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 Legislative Code. The owners, interested parties and responsible parties known to the Enforcement Officer were given an order to repair or remove the building at 393-397 CASE AVE by December 15, 2008, and have failed to comply with those orders. AdvanWges If Approved: The City will eliminate a nuisance. Disadvantages If Approved: The City will spend funds to wreck and remove this building(s). These costs will be assessed to the property, collected as a special assessment against the property taces. A nuisance condition will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to blight the community. Disadvantages Ifi Not Approved: A nuisance condirion will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will conrinue to blight the community. Total Amount of CosURevenue Budgeted: Transaction: Funding Source: Nuisance Housing Abatement wctivity Number: 001-00257 Financ�al Information: (Explain) December 17, 2008 10:33 AM Page 1 � GS 3065237 �q-31� DEPARTbiENT OF SAFETY AND 1NSPECTIONS RicharALiypert, ldana8er ojL'ode Enforcemer.t CITX OF SAIlV"I� PAUL j�5 Jackson S!reel., Suite 220 Sain!PauZ MA'3571J3-7806 Chrisfopher B. Co(eman, bf.yor � December 19, 2008 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Council President and Members of the City Council Te%pharse: 65l-266-1900 Fccsimit e: 651-2 661919 Web r�wvsmauL¢ov/dsi Deparhnent of Safety and Inspections, Vacant/Nuisance 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: 393-397 CASE AVE The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearings as £ollows: Legisiative Hearing— Tuesday, February 24, 2009 City Council Hearing — Wednesday, March 18, 2009 The owners and responsible parties of record aze: Name and Last Known Address Bee Vue 21301 Furman St NS Wyoming, MN 55092 Counhywide Group Inc c/o Wells Fargo 2505 W Chandler Blvd Chandler, AZ 85224 Wilford & Geske 7650 Currell Blvd, #300 Waodbury, MN 55125 Interest Fee Owner Mortgage Company Fozeclosure Attorney Country�vide Mortgage Attn: G7uis KawohI 192Q Donegal Drive Woodbury, MN 55125 Payne Phalen District Planning Council d5-directorna visi.com Fnterested Party & C of O Responsible Party District Council Contact An AffitxnaGve Ac[ion Equa] OpportunityEmployer 0��31� 393-39' CASE AVE December 19, 2008 page 2 The legal descriprion of fhis properfy is: J F TOSTEVIItiS StiBDIVISIflN ETC. LOT 18 BLK 1 The Department of Safety and Inspections has declazed this building(s) to consritute a"nuisance" as defined by Legislative Code, Chapter 45. The Department of Safety and Inspections 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). The property was re-inspected on December 16, 2008. There was no compliance and the nuisance condieion remains unabated, the community continues to suffer the blighting influence of this property. It is the recommendauon of the Department of Safety and Inspections that the City Council pass a resolution ordering the responsible parties to either repaix, ox demolish and remove this building in a timely manner, and failing that, authorize the Department of Safety and Inspecrions to proceed to demolition and removal, and to assess the costs incutred against the real estate as a special assessment to be collected in the same manner as taxes. Sincerely, Steve Magner Steve Magier Vacant Buildings Manager Deparhnent of Safety and Inspecrions SM:mm cc: Chad Staul, City Attorneys Office Mary Erickson, Assistant Secretary to the Counoil Cindy Carlson, PED-Housing Division Nancy Homans, Invest St. Paul District Council — Community Organizer pubhmg60183 9/08 U� - 311� SUMMARY FOR PUBLIC HEARING 397 Case Avenue Legislative Hearing — Tuesday, February 24, 2009 City Council — Wednesday, March 18, 2009 The building is a one-story, wood frame, duplex dwelling, on a lot of 5,663 square feet. According to our files, it has been a vacant building since September 27, 2007. The cunent property owner is Bee Vue, per AMANDA and Ramsey county property records. The city has had to board this building to secure it from trespass. There have been four (4) SUMMARY ABATEMENT NOTICES since 2007. There have been three (3) WORK ORDERS issued for: - Boarding - Removal of tall grass and weeds - Removal of improperly stored refuse On October 6, 2008, 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 14, 2008 with a compliance date of December 15, 2008. As of this date this property remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. The Vacant Building registration fees are paid. (Good thru 9/27/2010.) Taxation has placed an estimated market value of $35,000 on the land and $90,000 on the building. As of September 18, 2008, a Code Compliance inspection has been completed. As of January 16, 2009, the $5,000.00 performance bond has been posted. Real Estate taxes for the year 2008 are delinquent in the amount of $1,442.88 plus penalty and interest. Code Enforcement Officers estimate the cost to repair this structure is $50,000 to $60,000. The estimated cost to Demolish is $10,400 to $14,400. DSI, Division of Code Enforcement Resolution submitted for consideration orders the property owner to repair or remove this shucture within fifteen (15) days, if not the resolution authorizes the Division of Code Enforcement to demolish and assess the costs to the property. , Tax & Property Look Up Information - Structure Description Page I of 2 ,�-3 � Cv Home Site Map Confact Us Tax & Property Look Up Information - Structure Description Home � � Informatio� � � Property Look Up � � Record Look Up � � Contact Us New Property_Search > Structure Description Back to Search ResulYs Quick info Property Information Taxpayer Name and Address Value. Informatian Value History Structure Description Sale Information Special Assessments t'r�erty Tax_Paymznt Informatian Property Tax Payment N i sto ry 20D8 Property Tax StatemenlValue Notice Z007 PropeKy Tax Statement/Value Notice 2QQ6 Property Tax Statement/Value Notice 2Q05 Property Tax Statement Value Notice Property Identification 29.29.22.23.0161 Number (PIN) Property Address 397 Case Ave St. Paul 55130-4029 Residentiat Property: Year Built 1916 # of Stories 1.00 Style Other Exterior Wall Aluminum/vinyl Total Rooms 5 Total Family Rooms 0 Total Bedrooms 2 Full Baths 2 Half Baths 1 Attic Type Finished SQ Feet 2542 Foundation Size 2542 Basement Area Finished Finished Rec Area Garage Type Area (sq.ft.) Parcel Size .13 Acres Parcel Width 42.00 Feet Parcel Depth 135.00 Feet Land Use Code 520 Land Use Description R- Two Family Dwelling, Platted Lot http://rrinfo.co.ramsey.mn.us/public/characteristic/Parcel.aspx?scrn=Dwelling&pin=29292... 2/19/2009 DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND INSPECTIONS Richard Lippert. Manager afCode Enforcemem �, CTTY OF SAIN'T PAUL Christopher B. Coleman, Mayor 375 Jackson Sireet., Suite 220 Saint Pauf, MA��5101-7806 Telephone� 651-266-7900 Facsimile: 651-266-1919 Web' wwwstnaul sov/dst November 14, 2008 Bee Vue 21301 Furman St NE Wyoming MN 55092-9626 Countrywide Group Inc c/o Wells Fargo 2505 W. Chandler Blvd Chandler, AZ 85224 Wilford & Geske 7650 Currell Blvd, #300 Woodbury, MN 55125 Order to Abate Nuisance Suilding(s) Dear : Sir or Madam The Vacant/Nuisance Buildings Unit, Department of the Department of Safety and Inspections, Division of Code Enforcement, hereby declares the premises located at: 393 CASE AVE and legally described as follows, to wit: J F TOSTEVINS SUBDIVISION ETC. LOT 18 BLK 1 to comprise a nuisance condition in violation of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 45.02, and subject to demolition under authority of Chapter 45.11. On October 6, 2008, a Building Deficiency Inspection Report was compiled and the following conditions were observed. This list of deficiencies is not necessarily all the deficiencies present at this time. As first remedial action, a Code Compliance Inspecrion must be obtained from the Building Inspecfion and Design Section, 8 Fourth Street East, Suite 200, Commerce Building (651)266-9090. That inspection will identify specific defects, necessary repairs and legal requirements to correct this nuisance condition. You may also be required to post a five thousand dollar ($5,000.00) performance bond with the Building Inspection and Design Of�ce before any permits are issued, except for a demolition permit. AA-ADA-EEO Employer November 14, 2008 393 CASE AVE page 2 c�I-3�� This building(s) is subject to the restrictions of Saint Paul Ordinance Chapter 33.03 and shall not again be used for occupancy until such time as a Certificate of Compliance or a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. This is a one story, wood frame, single family dwelling. A Code Compliance Report was done on September 18, 2008 by Jim Seeger. Details of this report are as follows: BUILDING 1. This is a single family dwelling with one kitchen only. 2. Install provide hand and guardrails on all stairways and steps as per attachment. 3. Provide thumb type dead bolts for all enh doors. Remove any surface bolts. 4. Repair or replace any deteriorated window sash, broken glass, sash holders, re-putty etc. as necessary. 5. Provide storms and screens complete and in good repair for all door and window openings. 6. Repair walls and ceilings throughout as necessary. 7. Provide fire block conshuction as necessary. 8. Where wall and ceiling covering is removed, attic, replace doors and windows, (insulation, giass, weather stripping, etc.) sha11 meet new energy code standards. 9. Prepare and paint interior and exterior as necessary (take the necessary precautions if lead base paint is present). 10. Any framing members that do not meet code (where wall and ceiling covering is removed, members that are over-spanned, over-spaced, not being carried properly, door and window openings that are not headered, etc.) are to be reconsttucted as per code. 11. Habitable rooms with new usage, replaced windows shall have glass area equal to 8% of floor area, or a minimum of 8 sq. ft., one-half of which shall operate and all bedroom windows shall meet emergency egress requirements (20" wide minimum, 24" high minimum but not less than 5.7 sq. ft. overall). 12. Provide general clean-up ofpremise. 13. Provide smoke detectars as per the Minnesota State Building Code. 14. Provide proper drainage around house to direct water away from foundation. ELECTRICAL Bond around water meter with a copper wire sized for the elech service per Article 250 of the NEC. 2. Provide a complete circuit directory at service panel. 3. Verify/install a separate 20 ampere laundry circuit & a separate 20 ampere kitchen appliance circuit. 4. Verify that fuse(circuit breaker amperage matches wire size. 5. Close open knockouts in service panel/junction boxes with knockouts seals. 6. Properly strap cables and conduits in basement or service conduit on the exterior of the house. November lA, 2008 393 CASE AVE page 3 � 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. (�1-�/� InstalVreplace GFCI receptacle in basement bathroom adjacent to the sink. Repair or replace all broken, missing or loose light fixtures, switches & outlets, covers and plates. Check all 3-wire outlets for proper polarity and verify ground. Throughout building, install outlets and light fixtures, as specified in Bulletin 80-1. Properly ware exterior lights at fronUside/back door. Install exterior lights at fronUside/back entry doors. All electrical work must be done by a licensed electrical contractor under an electrical permit. Any open walls or wa11s that are open as part of this project must be wired to the standards of the 2005 NEC. The electrical meter must be accessible. PLUMBING All plumbing work requires permit(s) and must be done by a plumbing contractor licensed in Saint Paul. The water heater temperature and pressure relief valve discharge piping is incorrect. 2. The water heater has no gas shutoff or gas piping is incorrect. 3. The water heater gas venting and water piping is incorrect. 4. The water heater is not fired ar in service. 5. The water meter is removed and not in service. 6. The water meter service valves are not functional or correct. Z The water meter has corroded and incorrect piping. 8. Remove water meter &ont pit. 9. Repair or replace all corroded, broken or leaking water piping. 10. The water piping has improper fittings, piping and usage. 11. Replace corroded gas piping. 12. The range gas shutoff, connector or gas piping is incotrect. 13. Remove and cap all unused gas lines. 14. The soil and waste piping has no front sewer cleanout and no soil stack base cleanout and unplugged, open and back pitched piping. 15. The soil and waste piping has improper pipe supports and improper connections, transitions, fitting or pipe usage. 16. Provide approved waste vent to all plumbing fixtures. HEATING 1. Install approved lever handle manual gas shutoff valve on fumace. 2. Install approved automatic gas valve for furnace. 3. Clean and Orsat furnace burner. Check a11 controls for proper operation. Check furnace heat exchanger for leaks; provide documentation from a licensed coniractor that the heating unit is safe. 4. Install chimney liner. 5. Replace furnace flue venting and provide proper pitch for gas appliance venting. 6. Connect fumace and water heater venting into chimney liner. November 14, 2008 �9�� 393 CASE AVE page 4 7. Provide adequate clearance from flue vent pipe on fumace/boiler to combustible materials or provide approved shielding according to code. 8. Vent clothes dryer to code. 9. Provide adequate combustion air and support to code. 10. Provide support for gas lines to code. Plug, cap and/or remove all disconnected gas lines. 1 l. Clean all supply and return ducts for warm air heating system. 12. Repair and/or replace hearing registers as necessary. 13. Provide heat in every habitable rooan and bathrooms. 14. Appropriate mechanical permits are required for this work. ZONING This house was inspected as a single family dwelling. As owner, agent or responsible party, you are hereby notified that if these deficiencies and the resulting nuisance condition is not corrected by December 15, 2008 the Deparhnent of Safety and Inspections, Division of Code Enfarcement, will begin a substantial abatement process to demolish and remove the building(s). The costs of this action, including administrative costs and demolition costs will be assessed against the property taYes as a special assessment in accordance with law. As first remedial action, a Code Compliance Inspection Report must be obtained from the Building Inspection and Design Section, 375 7ackson Street, Suite 220, (651)266-9090. This inspection will identify specific defects, necessary repairs and legal requirements to correct this nuisance condition. ALT 1: If this building is located in a historic district or site (noted above, just below the property address) contact Heritage Preservation (HPC) staff at 651-266-9078 to discuss your proposal to comply with the design review guideline while maldng the required repairs. Copies of the guidelines and desi� review application and forms are all available from the Department of Safety and Inspections web site and from the HPC staff. A building permit will not be issued without HPC review and approval. ALT 2: If this building is located in a historic district or site (noted above, just below the property address) then you must contact Heritage Preservation (HPC) staff to discuss your proposal for the repairs required by this order and compliance with preservation guidelines. Copies of the guidelines and design review application and forms are available from the Department of Safety and Inspections web site (see letterhead) and from the HPC staff. No permits will be issued without HPC review and approval. HPC staff also can be reached by calling 651-266-9078. As an owner or responsible party, you are required by law to provide full and complete disclosure of this "Order to Abate" to all interested parties, all present or subsequent renters and any subsequent owners. If you sell, transfer, or convey in any manner, the ownership or November14,2008 393 CASE AVE page � l�1 responsibility for this property, you must within seven (7) days, notify the Enfarcement Officer with the names and addresses of any new owners or responsible parties. The Enforcement Officer is required by law to post a placard on this property which declares it to be a"nuisance condition", sub}ect to demolition and removal by the City. This placard shall not be removed without the written authority of the Department of Safety and Inspections, Division of Code Enforcement. The department is further required to file a copy of this "Order to Abate" with the Ciry Clerk's Office. If corrective action is not taken within the tune specified in this arder, the Enforcement Officer will notify the City Council that abatement acrion is necessary. T'he City Clerk will then schedule dates for Public Hearings before the City Council at which time testimony will be heard from interested parties. After this hearing the City Council will adopt a resolution stating what action if any, it deems appropriate. If the resolution calls for abatement action the Council may either order the City to take the abatement action ar fix a time within which this nuisance must be abated in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 33 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code and provide that if corrective action is not taken within the specified time, the City shall abate this nuisance. The costs of this action, including administrative costs will be assessed against the property as a special assessment in accordance with law. If you have any questions or request additional information please contact Mike Kalis between the hours of 8:00 and 9:30 a.m. at 651-266-1929, or you may leave a voice mail message. Sincerely, Steve Magner Vacant Buildings Program Manager Division of Code Enforceanent cc: Mary Erickson - Council Research Cindy Cazlson - PED Housing Amy Spong — Heritage Preservation ota60135 9/08 CITY OF SAINT PAUL Christopher B. Colerraan, Mayor September 18, 2008 DEPARTMENTOFSAFETYAND7NSPECTIONS � Bab Kess[er, Omector COMMERCEBUILDING Telephone 651-266-9090 8 Fourth Street East, Suiee?00 Fncsimi(e 651-?66-9099 St Paul, Mmnesotn i5101-10?4 Web www stDr.ul zov/Asi COLNTRYWIDE MORTGATE GO CHRIS KAWOHL 1920 DONEGAL DRIVE WOODBURY MN 55125 Re: 397 Case Ave File#: 07 153468 VB2 Dear Property Owner: Pursuant to your request the above-referenced property was inspected and the following report is submitted: BTJILDING 1. This is a single family dwelling with one kitchen only. 2. Install provide hand and guardrails on ail stairways and steps as per attachment. 3. Provide thumb type dead bolts for all entry doors. Remove any surface bolts. 4. Repair or replace any deteriorated window sash, broken glass, sash holders, re-putty 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. etc. as necessary. Provide storms and screens complete and in good repair for all door and window openings. Repair wa11s and ceilings throughout as necessary. Provide fire block construction as necessary. Where wall and ceiling covering is removed, attic, replace doors and windows, (insulation, glass, weather shipping, etc.) shall meet new energy code standards. Prepare and paint interior and exterior as necessary (take the necessary precautions if lead base paintis present). Any framing members that do not meet code (where wall and ceiling covering is removed, members that are over-spanned, over-spaced, not being carried properly, door and window openings that are not headered, etc.) are to be reconstructed as per code. Habitable rooms with new usage, replaced windows shall have glass area equal to 8% of floor area, ar a minimum of 8 sq. ft., one-haif of which shall operate and all bedroom windows shall meet emergency egress requirements (20" wide minimum, 24" high mirumum but not less than 5.7 sq. ft. overall). Provide general clean-up of premise. Provide smoke detectors as per the Minnesota State Building Code. Provide proper drainage around house to direct water away from foundation. An Affirmative Actaon Equal Opportunity Employer 0�=� i� Re: 397 Case Ave Page 2 ELECTRICAI. 1. Bond around water meter with a copper wire sized for the electrical service per Article 250 of the NEC. 2. Provide a complete circuit directary at service panel. 3. Verify/install a separate 20 ampere laundry circuit & a separate 20 ampere kitchen appliance circuit. 4. VeriFy that fuse/circuit breaker amperage matches wire size. 5. Close open knockouts in service paneUjunction boxes with knockouts seals. 6. Properly strap cables and conduits in basement or service conduit on the exterior of the house. 7. InstalUreplace GFCI receptacle in basement bathroom adjacent to the sink. 8. Repair or replace a11 broken, missing or loose light fixtures, switches & outlets, covers and plates. 9. Check a113-wire outlets for proper polarity and verify ground. 10. Throughout building, install outlets and light fixtures, as specified in Bulletin 80-1. 11. Properly wire exterior lights at frontlsidelback door. 12. Install exterior lights at fronUside/back entry doors. 13. All electrical work must be done by a licensed electrical contractor w�der an electrical permit. Any open walls or walls that are open as part of this project must be wired to the standards of the 2005 NEC. 14. The electrical meter must be accessible. PLUMBING All plumbing wark requires permit(s) and must be done by a plumbing contractor licensed in Saint Paul. 1. The water heater temperature and pressure relief valve dascharge piping is incorrect. 2. The water heater has no gas shutoff or gas piping is inconect. 3. The water heater gas venting and water piping is inconect. 4. The water heater is not fired or in service. 5. The water meter is removed and not in service. 6. The water meter service valves are not functional or correct. 7. The water meter has corroded and incorrect piping. 8. Remove water meter front pit. 9. Repair or replace all corroded, broken or leaking water piping. I0. The water piping has improper fittings, piping and usage. 1 i. Replace conoded gas piping. 12. The range gas shutoff, connestor or gas piping is incorrect. 13. Remove and cap all unused gas lines. 14. The soil and waste piping has no front sewer cleanout and no soil stack base cleanout and unplugged, open and back pitched piping. f�1-3�� Re: 397 Case Ave Page 3 PLUMBING 15. The soil and waste piping has improper pipe supports and improper connections, transitions, fitting or pipe usage. 16. Provide approved waste vent to all plumbing fixtures. HEATING 1. Install approved lever handle manual gas shutoff valve on furnace. 2. Install approved automatic gas valve for furnace. 3. Clean and Orsat fumace burner. Check all controls for proper operation. Check furnace heat exchanger for leaks; provide documentation from a licensed contractor that the heating unit is safe. 4. Install chimney liner. 5. Replace furnace flue venting and provide proper pitch for gas appliance venting. 6. Connect furnace and water heater venting into chimney liner. 7. Provide adequate clearance from flue vent pipe on furnace/boiler to combustible materials or provide approved shielding according to code. 8. Vent clothes dryer to code. 9. Provide adequate combustion air and support to code. 10. Provide support for gas lines to code. Plug, cap and/or remove all disconnected gas lines. 11. Clean all supply and return ducts for warm air heating system. 12. Repair and/or reptace heating registers as necessary. 13. Provide heat in every habitable room and bathrooms. 14. Appropriate mechanical permits are required for this work. ZONING This house was inspected as a single family dwelling. NOTES *'�See attachment for permit requirements and appeals procedure. Provide plans and speci�ications for any portion of the building that is to be rebuilt. Most of the roof covering could not be properly inspected from grade. Recommend this be done before rehabilitation is attempted. There was considerable storage/clutter within property at the time of the inspection. Property is to meet appropriate Codes when complete. D`I �3 �v Re: 397 Case Ave Pa�e 4 NOTES All items noted as recommended do not have to be completed for code compliance but should be completed at a later date. Possible purchasers of property shall be made aware of these items. This is a registered vacant building. Tn order to reoccupy the building, all deficieucies listed on the code compliance report must be corrected and be in compliance with the Minimum Housing Standards of the St. Paul Legislative Code (Chapter 34), and all required permits must receive final approval. **VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION FEES MUST BE PAID AT NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING AND PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT (NHPI) FOR PERMITS TO BE ISSUED ON THIS PROPERTY**. For further information call, NHPI at 651-266-1900, located at 1600 White Bear Avenue. Sincerely, James L. Seeger Code Compliance Officer JLS:mI Attachments � � w � d U � � M M T M � O O N C N � � L � W "� N "� E'a � .� � � .� .Sb � � � � 0 0 0 N�� D� /L O � p ,., r, � � � ."'�-� H c��, �z � �� az�,� ar oo� x � � � � � � � o „ g o 0 0 � o� �0� �a3� c��'? c ,a3 ' � o .�3 r , a,�� r � , � A N N N N N N N N N N a � o�� ' W�w ? � w x _ z � �- � oyw � .� w�� ~ a, � � m � ' � � d - �� `� ``- � � O � � tti � � Q� W � W ~ ~ ~ N � � ti H � � a �+ � � � � ~ � � � � W � O w H (V `" '� O N � N a '�"i b-0 ^ W W GA O� S�. � V �t ,-. GJ .--i . Z� � f. N 'd h �'"' O�C v1 ti o �� Z W tn `n � o ' � � N '� � 3 �1 � �, ,.., C7 oA �o � p] � � � ^. � Q > F �� '� �N a�� -o u., .c d � a� 'a �, � °� ,� �a � ��c, � �3 � � �� °I d o0 0� r, � z a � w.� s, a� �..� '° U-� : U(.� � � o s `�.' � �.-. � ��n � w o � o o �� O � o o � o a� �n o o �� o � o � �i � U �NU ��r�v Ud,-,� aU-o •� 'n"n � � � x .� 0 U / Y , V � � � � 0 � b 6 o� �� STATE OF MINNESOTA AFFIDAVIT OF NOT FOUND COUNTY OF RAMSEY METRO LEGAL SERVICES Steven J. Peterson, agent for Metro Legal Services, Inc., being duly sworn, on oath deposes and states that agents in his employ attempted to serve the attached Notice of Public Hearings upon Bee Vue, therein named, personally at his/her last known address located at 21301 Furman Street NE, Linwood Township, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, and was unable to locate him/her there for the purpose of effecting personal service of process. a / Subscribed and sworn to before me on 1 � � 20�9 J �� c�s;apN,t+� r. sn.�!o n�orr,�v Puauc-n�iNh�sorn My Conmissmn 6spr,es Jan_ 31.2012 979383-1 RE:393-397 Case Ave G�i Date: October 07, 2008 HP District: File #: 07 -153467 Property Name: Folder Name: 393 CASE AVE Survey Info: PIN: 242922Z3�161 �i �-3i� Date: October 07, 2008 HP District: File #: 07 - 153467 Property Name: Folder Name: 393 CASE AVE Survey Info: PIN: 292922230161 ��I 3�� Date: October 09, 2008 HP Aistrict: File #: 07 - 153467 Property Name: Folder Name: 393 CASE AVE Survey Info: PIN: 292922230161 Date: October 0'7, 2�08 File #: 07 - 153467 Folder Name: 393 CASE AVE HP District: Property Name: Survey Info: G�-�i� PIN: 292922230161 Date: October 07, 2008 File #: 07 - 153467 Folder Name: 393 CASE AVE HP District: Property Name: Survey Info: � � �� PIN: 292922230161 February 24, 2009 Legislative Hearing Minutes C�1-31b Page 5 Ordering the owner to remove or repair the building(s) at 393-397 Case Avenue within fifteen (15) days from adoption of resolution. The property owner of record, Bee Vue, appeared. No other parties of interest appeared. Ms. Moerxnond asked for a report from Mr. Magner. Mr. Magner stated the building was a one- story, wood frame, duplex on a lot of 5,663 square feet and had been vacant since September 27, 2007. A code compliance inspection had been done on September 18, 2008, the vacant building registration fees were current, and the $5,000 performance bond had been posted on January 16, 20Q9. On October 6, 2008, an inspection of the building was done and a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed. An arder to abate a nuisance building was posted on November 14, 2008 with a compliance date of December 15, 2008. To date, the property remained in a condition which comprised a nuisance as defined by the Legislative Code. Ramsey County Taxation estimated the market value of the land to be approximately $35,000 and the building to be $90,000. Real estate taxes for 2008 were delinquent in the amount of $1,442.88, plus penalty and interest. Code Enforcement estimates the cost to repair the building to be approximately $50,000 to $60,000. The cost for demolition was estimated to be approximately $10,400 to $14,400. There had also been four summary abatements issued to this property since 2007, three of which went to work order. to secure the building and the City had to board the building to secure it from trespass, remove iinproperly stored refuse, boarding and cut tall grass and weeds. Code Enforcement recommends the building be repaired or removed within 15 days. Mr. Magner presented photographs of the property. Ms. Moermond asked for a report from Ms. Spong. Ms. Spong stated that this building was built in 1910 and was a brick veneer, covered in stucco, commercial storefront building. Originally, there were two store fronts with a dwelling in the back of the lot that had a one-story &ont porch. The rear dwelling had since been removed. The exterior had been significantly altered, had not been surveyed, and she did not believe demolition would haue an adverse effect on the neighborhood. She did note that if the building was demolished, the neighboring property was at a much higher grade and extra stabilization would be necessary. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Vue what his plans were for the building. Mr. Vue responded that he planned to finish rehabbing the property. Ae said that the plumbing was done; the electrical was almost done; the heating had been done; the interior had been painted; carpeting needed to be installed; windows were not completed; and there were doors that needed to be changed. Ae estimated that three quarters of the job had been done. Ms. Moermond stated that the property taxes for 2008 were delinquent in the amount of $1,442.88 plus penalty and interest. She asked what the reason was for not paying the tases. Mr. Vue stated that he had purchased the property in August or September last year and believed he had paid the property tases in full. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Vue who he purchased the property from. Mr. Vue responded that he did not know. He said that he had bought 10 to 15 properties within the past year and did not remember who he bought the property from. He believed he may have purchased the property from the bank. Ms. Moermond stated that on the ownership and encumbrance report, it indicated Mr. Vue, Countrywide Group c/o Wells Fazgo, Wilford & Geske, and Countrywide Mortgage attention Chris February 24, 2009 Legislative Hearing Minutes p�-3t4 Page 6 Kawohl, as having interests in this properiy. She asked Mr. Magner to explain the ownership interest. Mr. Magner responded that the information was rather confusing. He asked Mr. Vue when he purchased the building. Mr. Vue responded that he believed he purchased it in September 2008. He said that he previously owned the property, sold it, and then bought it back. Mr. Magner stated that this was confusing as it appeazed Mr. Vue owned the property in 2007. Mr. Vue responded that he did not own the property in 2007 and that he had sold it in 2005. Mr. Magner asked Mr. Vue who he had sold the property to. Mr. Vue responded that he did not know; he believed he sold it to aninveshnent group. Ms. Moermond stated that what had happened with the property Mr. Vue owned at 606 Bush was that he purchased the mortgage, his name was put into the record; however, the date of the mortgage origination was what was recorded which skewed the ownership from the tifle perspective. Mr. Magner stated that the records indicate there was a foreclosure in June 2006; there was a sheriff's sale and Wells Fargo purchased the property. He asked Mr. Vue if he purchased the property from Wells Fargo at that time. Mr. Vue responded that he sold the property in 2005 and bought it back in September 2008. Mr. Magner stated that since the record was confusing, he would need to research the ownership information further before he could provide an accurate answer. Mr. Magner stated that Mr. Vue had andicated he was working on the building and the permits indicated that there was only one permit for plumbing which was taken out in November 2008 and there was a building permit in January 2009. Ms. Spong stated that the permit information listed this as a single family and indicated that a second kitchen must be eliminated. Mr. Vue responded that this was a duplex and had been a duplex for many years. Mr. Manger stated that ariginally the building was a storefront and for many years, it was used as a legitimate storefront with a rear dwelling or side residence; and at some point, the storefront use was discontinued and it was converted to a duplex which did not meet the zoning requirement. Ms. Moermond clarified that the lot size was too small far a duplex. Mr. Manger responded that this was correct; however, this property was never deemed a legal non-conforming duplex which would be considered an illegal use. Ms. Moermond asked about the status of the permits. Mr. Magner responded that the plumbing permit was listed as inspected and the building permit was open. Mr. Vue stated that there should be an elechical permit and he would need to check with his contractor to find out why there wasn't a permit. Mr. Magner responded that there was no heating permit and there was no electrical permit listed in the system. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Vue why permits had not been pulled. Mr. Vue responded that he did not know why. He said that when he hired someone to do the work, he expected them to pull the permit to do the work; he said that he did not lrnow. Ms. Moermond told Mr. Vue that this seemed to be a chronic problem for him. Mr. Vue responded that he didn't believe so. Ms. Moermond told Mr. Vue that he didn't have all of the permits pulled for his last project either. She said that Mr. Vue had ind'acated the following: the plumbing work was done but hadn't been finaled; the building permit was active and there hadn't been an inspection; there wasn't an electrical permit although Mr. Vue indicated that the project was almost done; he said that the heating was done but there were February 24, 2009 Legislative Hearing Minutes C>� 3l � Page 7 no permits. In reviewing the code compliance report, it indicates that there was a lot of a work which required permits which had not been pulled. Ms. Moermond told Mr. Vue that he had been in this business a very long time not to know this. Mr. Vue responded that when he hired a contractor, he did not ask them to show him whether they pulled a permit or not. He said that he could go back to the contractors and ask about the permits; however, he did not care to know how they did their business. Mr. Magner explained that any work done under a code compliance required that a permit be pulled, the work would then be done, the work would then be inspected and signed off. It was not legal to do the work, then pull the permit and have it inspected and signed off. The state code was very clear that permits needed to be pulled before doing the work; that wark could not be done and then the permits could be pulled. Mr. Magner told Mr. Vue that he had been in the business for a very long time and needed to be responsible for the work that his contractars did at his properties. Mr. Magner asked Mr. Vue what he was rehabbing the building to be. Mr. Vue responded that he was rehabbing the building as a single family. Mr. Manger asked Mr. Vue what he was going to do with all of the doors. Mr. Vue responded that there would be one entrance to the building on Case and one entrance on Arkwright. He had blocked off one of the doors on the Case side of the building. Ms. Spong asked Mr. Vue whether he planned to do anything to improve the exterior appearance of the building. She said that currently, the building looked like blight, in her opinion. Mr. Vue responded that he was keeping the vinyl siding on the Arkwright side of the building and he was going to put in new doors; he was going to paint the stucco on the front; and he was going to fix the fence in the back. Ms. Spong asked about the glass-block and boarded up windows. Mr. Vue responded that he would remove the boards from the windows and paint the trim; he said that he was going to keep the glass-block windows. Mr. Magner asked what rooms were behind the glass-block windows. Mr. Vue responded that these were sleeping rooms. Mr. Magner asked how the glass-block windows could be approved when all bedrooms were required to have egress windows that have a minimum of 20 inches in width and 24 inches in height. Mr. Vue responded that all of the boarded windows would be replaced with brand new Pella windows which were the proper egress size. Mr. Magner expressed concern with the aesthetics of the exterior of the building to make it more attractive. He said that this property was located across the street from a school, was at a major intersection, and there was also a substantial house located across the street. He did not believe that simply removing boards and putting some new windows in would be an attractive benefit to the building and surrounding properties. Mr. Vue said that he did not know what could be done about the exterior of the building given the front of the building be located right next to the sidewalk. Ms. Spong said that typically, when rehabbing a storefront into residential, the common areas are typically in the front of the building and the sleeping rooms were in the back. She was concerned that the interior layout would not accommodate a comfortable living situation. She referred to 800 Third Street East as being an example and suggested Mr. Vue look at this building as an example. February 24, 2009 Legislative Hearing Minutes ca-3�� Page 8 Mr. Vue said that he did not want to spend a lot more money doing things that he didn't need to do. He said that re-ananging and taking walls out from the inside would cost too much more money. Ms. Spong asked whether the building had a brick-bearing wall running down the center of the building. Mr. Vue responded that this was correct. Ms. Spong asked whether he had cut through any openings. Mr. Vue said that he had not. He said there was an opening into the hallway; the living area and two bedrooms were on the Arkwright side of the building and then there were two bedrooms in the front. The middle room was going to be a family room azea with another bedroom in the back. Mr. Magnez asked Mr. Vue to provide documentation of the ownership of the property, specifically, the closing documents from when he sold the property and the documents from when he re-acquired the property. He said that in reviewing the ownership and encumbrance report, there was no indication in change of ownership. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Vue to provide this documentation at the hearing on March 10 and to provide documentation on who the investment group was that Mr. Vue had sold the property to. She said that Mr. Vue seemed to have the unique circumstances in properties that he owned where he had owned the properties, sold them, and then re-acquired them with no clear documentation in any title work. She said it also seemed unique in that property taaces were never recorded as being paid in properties that he owned and that building permits tended not to be pulled prior to work being done. Ms. Moermond recommended continuing the hearing to March 10 and the following conditions must be met: 1) delinquent real estate tases must be paid; 2) the property must be maintained; 3) permits must be pulled for work that is being done; 4) submit a work plan outlining the details of the project; 5) financial documentation indicating financing to do the project; 6) submit an affidavit committing the funds to do the proj ect; 7) address the exterior aesthetics of the building by possibly hiring an architect to consult on improving the faqade; and 8) the building must be converted to a single-family dwelling. March 10, 2009 Legislative Hearing Minutes �� Page 2 Ordering the owner to remove or repair the building(s) at 393-397 Case Avenue within fifteen (15) days from adoption of resolution. (Continued £rom Feb. 24) Bee Vue and Lamena Vue, property owners, appeazed. Mr. Ma�er stated that at the hearing on February 24, Mr. Vue had indicated that he wanted additional time to complete the project; that he had many of the items on the code compliance already completed or in process. NIr. Vue was told that some of the permits had not been pulled and since that time, an electrical was pulled on February 24 and a mechanical permit was pulled on February 25. Ms. Moermond reviewed the letter sent by Ms. Vang which indicated the following needed to be done: 1) the real estate tases in the amount of $1,442.88, plus interest and penalty, needed to be paid; 2) a wark plan needed to be done and the City had estimated the cost of the repairs to be between $50,000 to $60,000; 3) financial documentarion, which could be a construction loan, etc.; 4) all necessary permits needed to be pulled for the work that was already being done; she said that at the hearing on February 24, he had indicated that the heating and ventilation was near completion and the system indicated that no permits had been pulled; 5) address the exterior aesthetics of the building by possibly hiring an architect to consult on improving the faqade; 6) the building must be convefted to a single-family dwelling; 7) the property must be maintained. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Vue whether he had hired an architect to look at this building as this was probably one of the ugliest buildings she had ever seen and was located at a prominent intersection. Mr. Vue responded that he had not contacted an architect yet and was more concemed with how much money he wanted to put into the property to make it look better. Ais main objective was simply to bring the property up to code and he did not believe making it look better was his main priority. Ms. Moermond responded that the financial feasibility was why she had suggested hiring an architect to see what suggestions they could give in improving the exterior. She said she believed the appearance of the building itself helped to constitute a nuisance and that it was very likely to continue acting as a nuisance given its current appearance. Mr. Vue responded that the building had been built this way with its storefront ar office use. Ms. Moermond clarified that the building was a commercial building which had been boarded and then there was glass block which was not the way the building had been built. Mr. Vue responded that he had been concentrating on working on the inside of the building and would contact an architect to see if they could come up with a solution that might work. Ms. Moermond said that the other issue was the number of bedrooms; she believed Mr. Vue had indicated there were eight bedrooms. Mr. Vue responded that there were eight bedrooms. Ms. Moermond stated that she was concerned that the building would become more of a"flop house" rather than a single-family residence as in the past, the property had operated as a"flop house." She said that she would like some assurance that this would not be the case, such as a written statement from Mr. Vue that he would rent the property to a"famil}�' as opposed to eight to ten individual adults which zoning did not allow. Mr. Vue responded that he didn't think this would be a problem; however, he would need to consult with his lawyers. He believed that any problems with the property that had existed in the past were due to other property owners that had owned it and not by March 10, 2004 I,egislative Hearing Minutes Page�3� 31 � lum when he owned it. He said if there were problems at the property when he owned it, he would like to lrnow what those problems were. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Vue whether he had paid the property tases. Mr. Vue responded that he did pay the property taaces. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Vue whether in the future, he intended to pay the property taxes prior to showing up at a legislative hearing as this was the second property, 606 Bush as well, to come before her where the property taxes had not been paid. Mr. Vue asked whether this was a concern as one way or another, the tases did �et paid. Ms. Moermond told Mr. Vue that he had demonstrated a pattern of irresponsibility of not paying the property taxes which was indicative of his ability to rehab and manage properties. She said that paying taxes was "square one, good citizenship." Mr. Vue said that he had owned properties in the City for over ten years and the property taYes did get paid. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Vue that if she checked the other properties that he owned whether she would find that the property taYes had been paid and were current. Mr. Vue responded that probably, at this time, they had not all been paid. Ms. Moermond asked why he was not current on his property t�es. Mr. Vue responded that "times were tough" and he was working on it. Ms. Moermond countered that he had been acquiring properties but had not been paying property taxes on the properties he already owned. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Vue whether he had done a work plan. Mr. Vue submitted a copy of a work plan. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Magner what permits had been pulled. Mr. Magner responded that the plumbing permit was pulled on November 6, 2008; the building permit was pulled on January 16, 2009; the electrical permit was pulled on February 24, 2009; and the mechanical permit was pulled on February 25, 2009. Ms. Moermond reviewed the documentation submitted by Mr. Vue. She said that the financial documentation did not indicate that the money in the account was for this particular property nor was there an affidavit dedicating the funds. She said that the money in the account only indicated that there was approximately $4Q000 in the account rather than the $SQ000 to $60,000 cost estimated by the City. She said that she would require an affidavit, notarized, dedicating the funds to rehabilitate this property. In reviewing the work plan, she asked Mr. Vue how he came up with the date of February 1, 2009 for the electrical. Mr. Magner stated that the electrical permit wasn't pulled until February 24, 2009. Ms. Moermond said that the work plan indicates the elech was being done on February 1 yet the permit wasn't pulled until February 24. Mr. Vue responded that he talked to the contractar and he said he didn't know what happened; that he had sent it in but maybe it didn't get there. When he mentioned it to the contractor, tlie contractor went down and pulled the permit right away.. Ms. Moermond responded that the plausibiliry was very small given this had been a problem with this permit, as well as the mechanical permit, and this had happened with other properties as well. Mr. Vue responded that he did not believe he started bidding on the contract until February 1; however, he didn't recall the exact date. He said that he didn't keep track on what his contractors were doing. He said that the work was finished and somehow, the permit did not go through. He claimed that the same thing happened with the heating contractor. He said it took about one ar two weeks for the permit to get to the City and entered into the computer. He claimed that was why it didn't appear in the system from the last hearing. Ms. Moermond asked whether there had been any problems with property maintenance. Mr. Magner responded that on December 12, 2008, there a complaint of snow on walk which did not go March 10, 2009 Legislative Hearing Minutes D�-3i� Page 4 to work order. Prior to that, on December 3, 2008, there was a complaint of trash; on October 6, 2008, there was a complaint of graffiti; on October 3, 2008, there was exterior trash; on July 29, 2008, there was tall grass and weeds; on July 21, 2008, there was a work order for tall grass and weeds; on 7uly 8, 2008, there was a complaint of tall grass and weeds; on March 4, 2008, there was a complaint concerning the house in general "a concerned neighborhood would like to see the house demolished." Complaints go back to 2007 and he was unsure when Mr. Vue purchased the property. Ms. Moermond expressed concern about the quality of work being done; she was concerned about the work that was initiated prior to the issuance of building permits; she had concern that the taxes hadn't been paid; and that he had indicated he would have an architect look at the aesthetics of the building and that had not been done. She said she would need to evaluate whether this property constituted a nuisance priar to Mr. Vue selling it and re-acquiring it. She said she would need assurance that this would be used as a single-family home in accordance with zoning laws. She told Mr. Vue that he had initiated the rehab of the building prior to obtaining a grant of time from the City Council and the percent of completeness of the work would be weighed in the context that make this a nuisance building. Ms. Moermond stated that she would review the records and would make a recommendation to the City Council on March 16. In the meantime, she told Mr. Vue that he must maintain the property and have an architect look at the building and present a plan on the aesthetics of the exterior of the building. 5he said that she would require Mr. Vue to submit the specific bids with each of the contractors along with how much he had paid on the bill of each of the contractors. She said she would need to see the detail on the bids that cover all of the items on the code compliance inspection that needed to be done under permit. Ms. Spong suggested Mr. Vue contact Bob Roscoe, Historic St. Paul, which was the architect Mr. Vue had worked with on the Bates property he had rehabbed. Ms. Moermond asked what the outcome was of the Bates property. Ms. Spong responded that exterior work had been done without a permit and the architect redesigned the windows to complement it to its historic value. Ms. Moermond stated that she would need time to review the materials and would not make a recommendation to the City Council until after reviewing the materials.