Loading...
96-622Council File # 9G - C?e1 Green Sheet # 3 S 6 g a� RESOLUTION PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented by Refesed To Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the May 21, 2 1996 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer: 3 Propertv A�pealed 4 1425 Norfolk Avenue 5 Decision: Appeal withdrawn. 6 549 Dayton Avenue Ap�eilant St. Mary's Home Ray Peterson 7 Decision: Deny extension with respect to repair of fascia, repair of porch and painting of building. Grant 8 extension to June 15, 1996 with respect to providing handrail and grant 90 day extension to repair the 9 retaining wall. 10 Sky Bridge #24 11 Decision: Appeal withdrawn. 12 754 E. Sigth 5treet 13 Decision: Deny the appeal. John Rupp Lucille Widing 14 FURTHER RESOLVED, that this action shall become effective immediately upon approval of the Mayor. Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney � Adopted by Council: Date ' � Adopuon Certified by Council Secretary By:� �C����#� f�'�'� , � �W Approved by Mayor: ate By: Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � 9�-G��. �EPARTMENT/OFFICE/CAUNpL DATE INfT1ATED ' O cr� couxc�, 5/21/96 G REEN SHEE N_ 3 5 6 8 INITIAVDATE iNmawa're CONTACT PERSON & P}70NE O OEPAqTMEM DIflECTOR � CIT' COUNCIL Gerry StratLmzn 266-8575 �ssicN � crrvnrroRrver � CRV CLEFK MUST BE ON UNCIL AGENDA BY (DAT� PO�� O BUDGEf DIRECfOP � FlN. & MGT. SERVICES OIR. June 5, 1996 ORDER O MpYOP (OR ASSISiqNn ❑ SOSAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLYP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SiGNASURE) ACfION REQUESTED: Approving the decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the May 21, 1996 meeting. RECAMMENDAnONS: Approve (A) or Reiea (R) pERSONAL SERVICE CONTNACTS MUST ANSWER TME FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: _ PLANNING COMMISSION _ CIVIL SFAVICE COMMISSION �� H251his perSONfimI eVEr wolk9tl under a CoMfaCt for tllis departmeM? - _CIBCOMMRTEE _ YES NO � —�� 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city empioyee? — VES NO _ DISTRICi CAURi _ 3. Does this person/firtn possess a skill not normally possessed by any current ciry employce? SUPPOPTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? YES NO Explain all yes answers on seperate sheat anA ettaeh to green sheet INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPP�RNNITV (Who, Whflt, NTen, Where, Why): ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: DISpDVANTAGE5IFAPPROVED: 6s83 9 i�Y*'��i» �4�f � ;�,� f°�f � � � _ . , DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED. ' TOTAL AMOUNT OFTRANSACTION t COS7/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) VES NO FUNDIHG SOURCE AC71VI7Y NUMBEH PINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) 9 G-G��- Property Code Enforcement Meeting May 21,1996 1925 Norfolk Avenue Appeal was withdrawn by property owner. 549 D�ton Avenue Ray Peterson, property owner, appeazed with his attomey Sarah Batzli. Ms. Batzli requested that Mr. Peterson be allowed addirional time to complete the necessary repairs and presented a proposed timeline for completing those repairs. Michael Schumann, 541 Dayton Avenue, appeazed and stated that he lived next to this properry and was opposed to any extension of time to make the necessary repairs as he believed the building was severely deteriorated and in need of immediate repairs. Dauid Weisberg, Public Health, stated that the property owner was issued orders to make the necessary repairs in August, 1995. In September, 1995, the owner appealed the orders and was granted an extension to make those repairs with a reinspec6on to be conducted in spring, 1996. Only a minimai amount of work had been completed and new orders were issued. Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer, denied the request for an extension with respect to repair of fascia, repair of porch and painting of the building. He granted an extension to June 15, 1996 with respect to providing the handrail and granted a 90 day extension to repair the retaining wa11. Sl� Bridge #24 Appeal was withdrawn by property owner. 754 E. Sisth Street Lucille Widing, property owner, appeazed and stated that the tenants who were renting the property trashed the house and she was in the process of cleaning it up and making repairs. The tenants had moved out the beginning of April, 1996 and she anticipated that she would have the building repaired with new tenants moving in the beginning of June, 1996. Harold Robinson, Public Health, stated that a certificate of code compliance would need to be issued by Licensing previous to the building being occupied. The building would not legally be considered vacant until May 30 and would need to be re-occupied by June 10, 1996. If the building was not re-occupied within this time frame, the vacant building fee would have to be paid or a citation would be issued. Mr. Strathman stated that the 10 day timeline to file an appeal conceming the condemnation order had passed and would not be considered. The appeal concerning the registered vacant building fee was valid, however, he denied the appeal.