Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinding of Fact - Findings of Fact - 3015 Marion Rd SE BEFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL# 63.21.22.037035Parcel IDMinnesotaCity of Rochester,3015 Marion Rd SE,forAbatement ProceedingsIn Re:re damage and uncertain structural stability in severe fi which resulted ,June 13, 2021explained that the property was heavily involved in a fire on Edenslater voided in 2015. 2012, 2016, and 2019. Permits were sought for work done without permits in 2012, but Nuisance complaints have been documented in the Rochester Code of Ordinances. bydepartment to enforce the minimum standards established Community Development provided a brief history of various efforts by the Edens County Recorder’s records. pursuant to the Olmsted owner and taxpayer for the property as listed wasDurhman Dean that verified Edens dwelling. the of condition the deteriorated on commented who ,Taryn Edens, Manager of Housing and Neighborhood Services by were presentedcurrent condition of the property, Evidence, including photographs showing the ).2022ubd. 3 (463.15, ssota Statutes, Section a "hazardous building or hazardous property" as defined by Minne(“Property") should be considered , County of Olmsted,Road 3015 Marion Rochester, on the question of whether the property located at of City the of Council Common the before property, the of owner the ,Dean Durhmanand notice to a public hearing was conducted, following publication November 14, 2022, On AND ORDER ,LAW CONCLUSIONS OF ,FINDINGS OF FACT MINNESOTA ROCHESTER, OF CITY of the propertycontractors who have communicated there are enormous hurdles to tear state they want it torn down first. He has reached out to multiple buyer’s for help from police for enforcement. Father is trying to sell it as is, potential done at property by gang numbers. Determined arson as cause of fire. Asked . Has many photos of damage have occurred in-from the neighbors of break. Numerous reports . Daughter of owner of the propertyAmanda Durhman 1. The public hearing was opened. The following persons were called to speak: possibility of selling the property.about the a neighbor of the propertystated the owner had spoken to Edens exposure itsgiven time overdeteriorate continue to without warning. The condition of the structure willsalvageable. The structural framing is unstable and is capable of collapse at any time nd decay is ongoing. No part of the building is reasonable or economically aweatherproof and could not be weatherproofed with reasonable effort. Water damage meet building code requirements even with sheathing in place. The building is not south wall. The upper floor is an addition and the framing in the south wall does not the exposed to the elements through large openings in the roof and walls, particularlyinterior including damage to the stud framing and missing sheathing. The building is structural engineering. It was determined that fire damage affected all parts of the and conducted on November 14, 2022 by staff with backgrounds in architecture identified.ciencies physical defi with sixin 2019 was condemned Prior to the fire, the property hazardous. is property the that assertion her support that property the of exterior the of apparent in the photographs ishis T. down the property. Her father wants to get the property torn down. Amanda in advance of the meeting, but a higher demolition price is likely considering soughtnot that bids were asked if there was an estimated price of demolition. Edens responded CM Keane .2023roposed delay date is January 11, attorney and can confirm the p Edens communicated she did speak to the owner’s Ms. Edens offered a rebuttal.e public hearing was closed. Having no additional persons wishing to speak, th into the house, stole all of his belongings, and burnt the house down. job that would take four to five hours. He then said after this is a very simple this time. He’s had bids range from $10,000 to $30,000. One contractor said verified by his attorney Travis Ohly. He’d request the abatement delay until sold that will be used to take care of this demolition. This can be property he theror break into them. We have about $10,000 coming in January from anowas broken into. He would install new doors and others would kick them in as a diabetic which took time and property himself. Later he was diagnosed This led to less earnings from the property, and Dean having to occupy the , and would not allow it to exist as a triplex. n. The City annexed this iproperty is was a triplex, and Dean used his savings to build this. ThDean Durhman 2. with many hurdles. They desire to tear down the property. been given only a year to reach out to multiple contractors who were faced ins and damages led to arson at this property. They have -well. Ongoing breakr doing a controlled burn as has asked if the Fire Department would conside additional requirement exist to dispose of materials involved in a fire. CM Keane asked ad to live demolition. Palmer: The fire occurred over a year ago, and neighbors have hto demolish in January. In such case, the City would permit the owner to complete the until the end of the year. Likely the timeline could concur with when the owner proposes take The timeline to receive bids and proceed with due process for abatement couldtimeline for next steps to approve abatement, then staff proceeds to get bids. Edens: $20,000 is an estimate for a property of this size. Palmer: Requested to clarify the -5,000 $10,000, thus a maximum cost of $1 had an estimate cost ofhome recently mobile damaged-fireon the owner otherwise. Edens responds that a demolition of burdenis concerned the price could have financial maximum cost of demolition, and the proposal to cap Communicates preference of a Campion:the building is not insured. ? Edens: Yes, it’s my understanding cover fire damage. Was this building not insuredand void? Edens: Correct. Mayor Norton: Generally buildings are insured, and would ty Council become null If the owner gets to the demolition first, does the action of the Ciabatement of a property since 2012, and do not have contractors set up. Mayor Norton: very possible. We have not sought It isin seeking bids as the owner has had? Edens: e the same issue other opportunities to shore up this property. Mayor Norton: will we havof paying for the cost. Edens stated the structural engineer determined there were no mediate this hazard to allow for a delay erDennis asked if there are any opportunities to usive. CM concl-communicated that the investigation on the cause of the fire was nonspeculated that the fire occurred from squatters occupying the property. The RFD documented two police calls to the property in the last 12 months, and that it is municated that RPD if Community Development is aware of police activity. Edens com near a fire damaged home for a year, is that correct? Edens: Correct. Palmer: In favor to assist this financially. Trying to balance this concern with neighbors dealing with have other tools ideally the price would not be so high for demolition. I understand weBransford seconded for discussion. Campion: This is not ideal, 20,000. at a cap of $motion was reviewed to deem as a hazard, demolish no earlier than January 15, 2022, A torn as a good point is made that neighbors have lived next to this for over a year. That is an option. Campion: There are options here. I’m finding myself income qualified.enforcement, which we have used for an owner of a mobile home demolition who but the owner would have to income qualify. We have some funds set aside for code CDBG funds are eligible for this sort of activity, is that correct? Edens: Yes, Campion: insured. Dennis: I’m concerned about safety here, and this should be prioritized. is notwould lie with the owner since the City ordered demolition and the property iability Edens: I understand the lWhere would liability fall if an injury or tragedy occurs? to March. delayedoccupants entered the property. There are liability concerns if this cause additional safety concerns, she supports Palmer’s stance. This is a risk if ld cost. Dennis: Prioritizes safety first. If the building is unstable, and the winter couproperty, we proceed assuming the presence of asbestos exists, thus increasing the damaged-firewould drive up the price of demolition? Edens: With a asbestos, whichof the image of the lot to Council. Kirkpatrick: Are we are aware of the presence Kirkpatrick: What is the size of the lot? Edens: It is a relatively large lot, and displays We do not. Campion: Do we know square footage of the site? Edens: We do not. Edens: property thus far. CM Kirkpatrick: Do we have an estimated value of the site?of proceeding with City abatement given the hazard and timeline permitted to the property fshould start immediately, and should not cap the cost of this. We should rely on expert they would be liable if any injuries occurred due to entry of the building. I believe we ce, eminent risk of collapse, if the owner doesn’t have home insuran of However, if this is value is $60,500. Dennis: I generally empathize for residents and homeowners. maximum process, but I’m willing to support to carry this along. Edens: The estimated the come back to us next year as an abatement for the tax roll. I’m not in support of goes onto the tax roll if they do not pay the bill. They can pay the bill at any time. It will cated that it’s unsafe. We have agreed to abate it. The process is then that it communiis close. Palmer: I support what Campion is saying. Staff have th January 15year, already looks to be in a condition of collapse, has been through a snow season. s that the property has been this way for a authority to proceed. Campion: My concern i danger of collapse, we wouldn’t need to come back to Council and would have the advocate for a provision that due to staff’s professional opinion that the property is in uestion for the City Attorney, to clarify if the cost exceeds a certain amount, would qit to be removed, at a cost not to exceed $20,000, by January 2022. Steinhauser: A the motion. Campion: The property is considered a hazardous property, instructed for should be tied back into abatement and charged back to the owner. Please read back his The motion does not include this, and as such I would not support this. Clarify that t approve abatement. We’re being asked to allow the cost be put back into the tax roll. ing sources if that is the case. CM Keane: To clarify, the ask before Council is to fundto Council to review if over $20,000, and would be interested in opening other City to do if the bid exceeded the $20,000 cap? Campion: I would direct staff to bring it back or over a year. Carlson: Campion, can you clarify what you would direct staff staff to find the safest, lowest bid and do as soon as possible to prevent I wanted that clarified before we started voting. I don’t want to hang up to $20,000 on funds for aid. we can supplytimelines presented. Kirkpatrick: if income eligibility is met, 6 weeks to resolve. I don’t have high confidence in that given the -within the next 4Palmer: Seconded the motion. Keane: The property owner could move to public safety.a hazard the property at 3015 Marion Rd SE due to the property meeting the definition offor motion was made to authorize the issuance of an abatement order Keane: tion was denied three to three with one abstention. The mo en his health and financial limitations. like to support the owner to work with him giv Campion’s motion. I don’t think there’s a rush, but it needs to get taken care of. I would : I support Kirkpatrickthat question. Trespassing can occur if the person is known. wner? Edens: I’m not able to answer be at their own risk and not at the liability of the o signs protect the owner from liability? If someone does enter the property, wouldn’t it Kirkpatrick: What are the trespass laws? Won’t trespass have any work to bill back. the owner first, we wouldn’t 8 weeks for completion. In that time, if the work is done by-quickly. Palmer: I agree with Carlson. If we move towards abatement, it will still take 4hope staff would be judicious in seeking a low bid. We need to keep this moving along t a later date, and along by bidding the work, and asking the owners to pay it back a Palmer in Dennis that this has been the case for over a year. We’re helping this process damage nearby residences. This is a reasonable compromise. Carlson: I agree with ble knowing it won’t not as close to other residences, which makes me more comfortawill likely align to allow the owner to demolish. This is an isolated structure near woods, Bransford: I believe this motion on the table is a good compromise. I think the timelines any injury. this owner if there is a potential for funding. I want that clarified. Steinhauser: Normally, the Palmer: All costs would be assessed to the homeowner. I’m going to makeunwarranted. Carlson: Are you meaning putting up a fence at the City’s expense? we’ve encouraged when we observe constant entry into the property which is gh in the past it’s something something we could require through our authority, thou Palmer: What would make you want to put a fence around this? Edens: It’s not proximity to other homes. distant unsafe. However, it poses less of a threat given its Edens: We do consider the property t?a barricade around or fenced it. Is that correcmake the assumption that the property is not that unsafe, otherwise we would have put can change my vote. Carlson: We’re back to the original motion? Palmer: I’m going to back to Campion’s motion, then I tion ’s mo eprocess then. Then I want to amend Keanbids, or if this person income qualifies. Kirkpatrick: And that will continue with this of title occurs. There’s a lot of different things that could happen, but we don’t know the th the property until transfer income, as a senior, etc. which would then stay wi-as lowcharged as an assessment, there are other options to defer payment through qualifying We don’t know if this person meets the income qualifications. Furthermore, if this was ndment to Council. Zelms: which case it would come back as a CDBG allocation ame available in 2021 when the fire occurred. Yes, it’s possible this could be eligible. In our CDBG allocation calls out code enforcement specifically in 2022. That wasn’t ate action. Correct? Edens: Yes, plan for this activity. This would come back as a separfor approval. That is dependent on sufficient funds being available in the consolidated verification process with the applicant. Then, if eligible, this would come back to Council ld go through income in a process like this, we would get estimates. Staff, wou assumption on the visit today or past visits, we haven’t seen activity present since the dilapidated.The property has not been maintained and is severely deteriorated and 4. habitation.used for dwelling, in the present condition, cannot be sold andThe been placarded as condemned.Prior to the fire, the property had 3. unsafe for the public and emergency response teams who may need to gain entry.damage resulting in structural instability and deemed been impacted by severe fire residential structure that has family-singleThe property is the site of a 2. .property within the deadlines providedtake action to demolish the failed to respond to Durham .Dean Durhmanby owned is Minnesota Rochester, SE, 3015 Marion Road at located property The 1. FACT OF FINDINGS The motion was approved six to one. on the payment hence a goal to cap the expense. plan. Campion: I wanted to understand, as this proposal does not include information could opt for a payment miscellaneous assessment. They would still have to qualify, but I’d look to teammates for clarification. It’s my understanding it could come forward as a eligible for a payback plan, correct? That’s also available to this assessment? Edens: sment, they’re Edens: Yes. Campion: Assuming the cost comes in, and we do an assesto remove the property? is authorizationassumption that issuing an abatement order Palmer: That makes me feel better. Campion: Requested motion clarification. Is the ion from our visits. have been two police calls in the last year, but no evidence of habitat 5.it be reasonably weatherproofed, will continue to deteriorate with time given the the elements through large openings in the roof and walls, is not weatherproof nor could warning, is exposed to unstable, is capable of collapse at any time without structurally is it as hazard safety a is property the concludes Council the particular, In §463.15(3). Statutes health in violation of Minnesota or safety to public hazarddamage resulting in structural instability of the property and a fire esever of result a as Minnesota, Rochester, SE,3015 Marion Road located atCouncil of the City of Rochester that the property hereby determined by the Common is it hearing, the at presented testimony and evidence the of weight greater the By LAW OF CONCLUSIONS Rochester. of the by or owner the by removed be to needs and hazardous is property The 10. date until January 2023. hearing seeking a delayed completion at this public testimony providedThe owner and his representative 9. Ordinances.Rochester Code of Orders have failed to motivate the owner to bring the property into compliance with the Correction Community Development. by intervention frequent requiresthe property, take action to demolish to failure owner’s the of result a as property, The 8. Ordinancesof Code Rochester to subject is and on September 25, 2009 of Rochester into the Cityneighborhood that was annexed The property is located in a residential 7. . Property. the in living not is owner The 6. delinquent. are 2008 and 2009 for 7,285.19$ of taxes property The exposure to the elements, studs are no longer braced and are b County.to the District Court of Olmsted a motion for summary enforcement of the order will be made order, this of service the of date the from days (20) twenty within Minnesota, County, District Court of Olmstedanswer is served upon the City of Rochester and is filed in the office of the Clerk of The Council further orders that unless such corrective action is taken or an law. the personal property or fixtures at public auction in accordance withIn the absence of this removal, the City of Rochester may remove and sell such owner.be removed by the nd removal of the propertyunreasonably interfere with the razing ares that may The Council further orders that all personal property or fixtu soon as possible. as buildingraze and remove such e, tor its representativowner of the above hazardous property, othe Common Council of the City of Rochester hereby orders the record hazardous, is at 3015 Marion Road SE located the property that determined Having RDERO and not reasonably or economically salvageable. uckling and blowing, Dated Rochester of City the of Mayor Kim Norton .________________ of day thisApproved at Rochester, Minnesota City Rochestere th of President Brooke Carlson ._________, ______ of day this Minnesota Rochester, at