Loading...
97-116Presented by Referred To RESOLUTION 4�AUL, MINNESOTA .!� Council File # �� � ��7 Green Sheet # �U3� 1 Committee Date 1 BE TT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the December 3, 2 1496 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer: 3 Pro�arty Ap�ealed 4 266 E. Seventh Street 5 Decision: Deny appeal. A 1 t Marion Rose/Pioneer Co. Requested by Department o£ Q� Form Approved by City Attorney � by Council Secretaty � Approved by Mayor: Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � 4y: Adopted by Council: Date �:,� . 5_��� ��\\� �6��� Gerry Saathman 2b6-8575 February 5, 1996 iznz�s6 I GREEN SHEET � DEPARTMENT DIRECfOR � CT'AiTOFNEY fON OBUDGETOIHEC7�oa _ � O MAYOR (OR ASSIS7AM] TOTAL # OF SIGNA7URE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) CT'COUNdL (�1ry CLERK FlN. & M9T. SE INITIAVDATE Approving the decision of the I.egislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the December 3, 1496 meeting. Address of 266 E. Seventh Street. _ PLANNING 6pMM1S310N _ qVll SERVICE COMMISSION _ CIB COMMRTEE _ _ STAFF _ � OISTRICiGOURT _ SUPPORTS WHICH COUNqL 09JECTIVE4 PERSONAI SERYICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOU.OWING OUESTIONS: 1. Has this personrfirm ever worked under a contract for this tleQartment? YES NO 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? YES NO 3. Does this persoNFirm possess a skili no[ normaiy possessed by any curreM ciry employae? YES NO Explaln all yea nnswers on separete sheet and attach to green aheet .,�, -t ,� - ,er �':,�"-,-. _ _ . _ .� - .. e _ � _ , L.e�,�,v � � F��aLI ._ _.-�'_.._ .,:���w- ���� �ES QT Se97 �g����� ���a�� TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION $ COST/REVENUE BUDGETEO (CIHCLE ONE) YES NO °UNDIfiG SOUHCE ACTIVITY NUMBER 'INANCIAL INFOR6nATION. (EXPLAIN) ._-�--- ��-IG(r� Property Code Enforcement Meeting December 3,1996 592 Portland Avenue Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that th3s matter had been laid over from the November 5, 1996 hearing in order to have the building re-inspected. The building was inspected and found to be in compliance and the revocation order was removed. The property owner did not appear. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal. 360-362 Fuller Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that this matter had been ]aid over from the September 17, 1996 hearang. The - building was re-inspected on October 28, 1996. The inspectar cited 15 outstanding deficiencies when the building was re-inspected and the revocation of certificate of occupancy was still ln force. The propezty owner did not appear. Mr. Sttathman denied the appeal. 26G E. Seventh Street Alan Weinblatt, attorney representing the owner Marion Rose7Pioneer Co., appeared and stated that this matter was laid over from the September 17, 1996 hearing to allow the owner the time to obtain bids to make the repairs to the building. A request for bids was sent to three contractors on Novembet ] 5 and no response was received. The owner also contacted potential lenders to secure financing to afford the cost of the repairs. Unfortunately, the assets of the business were not substantial ettough to convince any lender to loan an uuluiown amount of money without guazantees. A professionat redeveloper contacted the owner to see if she would be interested in selling the building. The owner indicated that she would be willing to sell the building, however, to date had not received a formal offer far purchase of the building. The owner had now placed the property on the mazket for sa(e. He requested additional time to allow the owner to sell the building. Mr. Strathman stated that he believed all of the parties involved had made a diligent effort in trying to resolve this matter. However, he was not willing to hold the matter over any further and believed the Council should be allowed to make the decision. He denied the appeal. S55 Woodbridge Street Steven Jokuison, property owner, appeared and stated that he was appealing the registered vacant building fee. The tenants who had lived in the buiiding for two yeus were in arrears on their rent and they trashed the house before they moved out. He had been out of the country for over two months and was not able to handle the situation. He believed that he was being unfairiy punished in having to pay the vacant building fee. H3s intention was to repair or setl the property. Mr. Strathman exp2ained the purpose of registering a vacant building and the necessity of the fee. Presented by Referred To RESOLUTION 4�AUL, MINNESOTA .!� Council File # �� � ��7 Green Sheet # �U3� 1 Committee Date 1 BE TT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the December 3, 2 1496 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer: 3 Pro�arty Ap�ealed 4 266 E. Seventh Street 5 Decision: Deny appeal. A 1 t Marion Rose/Pioneer Co. Requested by Department o£ Q� Form Approved by City Attorney � by Council Secretaty � Approved by Mayor: Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � 4y: Adopted by Council: Date �:,� . 5_��� ��\\� �6��� Gerry Saathman 2b6-8575 February 5, 1996 iznz�s6 I GREEN SHEET � DEPARTMENT DIRECfOR � CT'AiTOFNEY fON OBUDGETOIHEC7�oa _ � O MAYOR (OR ASSIS7AM] TOTAL # OF SIGNA7URE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) CT'COUNdL (�1ry CLERK FlN. & M9T. SE INITIAVDATE Approving the decision of the I.egislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the December 3, 1496 meeting. Address of 266 E. Seventh Street. _ PLANNING 6pMM1S310N _ qVll SERVICE COMMISSION _ CIB COMMRTEE _ _ STAFF _ � OISTRICiGOURT _ SUPPORTS WHICH COUNqL 09JECTIVE4 PERSONAI SERYICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOU.OWING OUESTIONS: 1. Has this personrfirm ever worked under a contract for this tleQartment? YES NO 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? YES NO 3. Does this persoNFirm possess a skili no[ normaiy possessed by any curreM ciry employae? YES NO Explaln all yea nnswers on separete sheet and attach to green aheet .,�, -t ,� - ,er �':,�"-,-. _ _ . _ .� - .. e _ � _ , L.e�,�,v � � F��aLI ._ _.-�'_.._ .,:���w- ���� �ES QT Se97 �g����� ���a�� TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION $ COST/REVENUE BUDGETEO (CIHCLE ONE) YES NO °UNDIfiG SOUHCE ACTIVITY NUMBER 'INANCIAL INFOR6nATION. (EXPLAIN) ._-�--- ��-IG(r� Property Code Enforcement Meeting December 3,1996 592 Portland Avenue Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that th3s matter had been laid over from the November 5, 1996 hearing in order to have the building re-inspected. The building was inspected and found to be in compliance and the revocation order was removed. The property owner did not appear. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal. 360-362 Fuller Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that this matter had been ]aid over from the September 17, 1996 hearang. The - building was re-inspected on October 28, 1996. The inspectar cited 15 outstanding deficiencies when the building was re-inspected and the revocation of certificate of occupancy was still ln force. The propezty owner did not appear. Mr. Sttathman denied the appeal. 26G E. Seventh Street Alan Weinblatt, attorney representing the owner Marion Rose7Pioneer Co., appeared and stated that this matter was laid over from the September 17, 1996 hearing to allow the owner the time to obtain bids to make the repairs to the building. A request for bids was sent to three contractors on Novembet ] 5 and no response was received. The owner also contacted potential lenders to secure financing to afford the cost of the repairs. Unfortunately, the assets of the business were not substantial ettough to convince any lender to loan an uuluiown amount of money without guazantees. A professionat redeveloper contacted the owner to see if she would be interested in selling the building. The owner indicated that she would be willing to sell the building, however, to date had not received a formal offer far purchase of the building. The owner had now placed the property on the mazket for sa(e. He requested additional time to allow the owner to sell the building. Mr. Strathman stated that he believed all of the parties involved had made a diligent effort in trying to resolve this matter. However, he was not willing to hold the matter over any further and believed the Council should be allowed to make the decision. He denied the appeal. S55 Woodbridge Street Steven Jokuison, property owner, appeared and stated that he was appealing the registered vacant building fee. The tenants who had lived in the buiiding for two yeus were in arrears on their rent and they trashed the house before they moved out. He had been out of the country for over two months and was not able to handle the situation. He believed that he was being unfairiy punished in having to pay the vacant building fee. H3s intention was to repair or setl the property. Mr. Strathman exp2ained the purpose of registering a vacant building and the necessity of the fee. Presented by Referred To RESOLUTION 4�AUL, MINNESOTA .!� Council File # �� � ��7 Green Sheet # �U3� 1 Committee Date 1 BE TT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the December 3, 2 1496 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer: 3 Pro�arty Ap�ealed 4 266 E. Seventh Street 5 Decision: Deny appeal. A 1 t Marion Rose/Pioneer Co. Requested by Department o£ Q� Form Approved by City Attorney � by Council Secretaty � Approved by Mayor: Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � 4y: Adopted by Council: Date �:,� . 5_��� ��\\� �6��� Gerry Saathman 2b6-8575 February 5, 1996 iznz�s6 I GREEN SHEET � DEPARTMENT DIRECfOR � CT'AiTOFNEY fON OBUDGETOIHEC7�oa _ � O MAYOR (OR ASSIS7AM] TOTAL # OF SIGNA7URE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) CT'COUNdL (�1ry CLERK FlN. & M9T. SE INITIAVDATE Approving the decision of the I.egislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the December 3, 1496 meeting. Address of 266 E. Seventh Street. _ PLANNING 6pMM1S310N _ qVll SERVICE COMMISSION _ CIB COMMRTEE _ _ STAFF _ � OISTRICiGOURT _ SUPPORTS WHICH COUNqL 09JECTIVE4 PERSONAI SERYICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOU.OWING OUESTIONS: 1. Has this personrfirm ever worked under a contract for this tleQartment? YES NO 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? YES NO 3. Does this persoNFirm possess a skili no[ normaiy possessed by any curreM ciry employae? YES NO Explaln all yea nnswers on separete sheet and attach to green aheet .,�, -t ,� - ,er �':,�"-,-. _ _ . _ .� - .. e _ � _ , L.e�,�,v � � F��aLI ._ _.-�'_.._ .,:���w- ���� �ES QT Se97 �g����� ���a�� TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION $ COST/REVENUE BUDGETEO (CIHCLE ONE) YES NO °UNDIfiG SOUHCE ACTIVITY NUMBER 'INANCIAL INFOR6nATION. (EXPLAIN) ._-�--- ��-IG(r� Property Code Enforcement Meeting December 3,1996 592 Portland Avenue Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that th3s matter had been laid over from the November 5, 1996 hearing in order to have the building re-inspected. The building was inspected and found to be in compliance and the revocation order was removed. The property owner did not appear. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal. 360-362 Fuller Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that this matter had been ]aid over from the September 17, 1996 hearang. The - building was re-inspected on October 28, 1996. The inspectar cited 15 outstanding deficiencies when the building was re-inspected and the revocation of certificate of occupancy was still ln force. The propezty owner did not appear. Mr. Sttathman denied the appeal. 26G E. Seventh Street Alan Weinblatt, attorney representing the owner Marion Rose7Pioneer Co., appeared and stated that this matter was laid over from the September 17, 1996 hearing to allow the owner the time to obtain bids to make the repairs to the building. A request for bids was sent to three contractors on Novembet ] 5 and no response was received. The owner also contacted potential lenders to secure financing to afford the cost of the repairs. Unfortunately, the assets of the business were not substantial ettough to convince any lender to loan an uuluiown amount of money without guazantees. A professionat redeveloper contacted the owner to see if she would be interested in selling the building. The owner indicated that she would be willing to sell the building, however, to date had not received a formal offer far purchase of the building. The owner had now placed the property on the mazket for sa(e. He requested additional time to allow the owner to sell the building. Mr. Strathman stated that he believed all of the parties involved had made a diligent effort in trying to resolve this matter. However, he was not willing to hold the matter over any further and believed the Council should be allowed to make the decision. He denied the appeal. S55 Woodbridge Street Steven Jokuison, property owner, appeared and stated that he was appealing the registered vacant building fee. The tenants who had lived in the buiiding for two yeus were in arrears on their rent and they trashed the house before they moved out. He had been out of the country for over two months and was not able to handle the situation. He believed that he was being unfairiy punished in having to pay the vacant building fee. H3s intention was to repair or setl the property. Mr. Strathman exp2ained the purpose of registering a vacant building and the necessity of the fee.