CCP 06-26-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Memo to Michelle Wolfe September 20, 2005 J4J5 Glenhill Rd. & 3150 Hamlinc Ave 4 Summary One vehicle at 3150 Hamline Ave. has been removed and one vehicle at 1415 Glen hill was removed but a recent site inspection revealed it to be back in place, but it has a current license and appears to be operable, Some brush and debris has been also removed from 3 I 50 Hamline. The RV has also been licensed. The RV remains slored outside in the front yard and inoperable. The other violations remain at 3150 Hamline Ave. While the vehiele violations do not pose any immediate safety concerns, staff has serious concerns as to the rubbish, debris, and unsafe structures that remain in violation of City ordinances. The City has been aware ofthesc violations for a number of years, (starting over 5 years ago) and has tried to work with the owner to resolve these issues. Nothing constructive had been done regarding the propcrty's violations until recent court action resulted in the owner to remove one of the vehicles and some debris. The City is, and has been aware of unsafe structures located at 3150 Hamline Ave. for a number of years. It is the Cities responsibility to remedy any and all safety concerns in a timely matter, and if not, the City could possibly be held responsible for not taking action in a timely matter. From the outside the structure is severely deteriorated and rotting. Exterior sheathing is falling away because the structure can no longer hold fasteners in several areas. There is a high fencc (over 10ft. tall) that appears it could fall over at any time. The owner has refused staff entry into the building for a better inspection of the structures frame, but from the exterior the building remains a hazard and possibly a magnet for children to play on, in, or near the building. The Mayor has offered to help remove the debris and structure, but the owner has refused. The owner appeared in court and has pleaded guilty to the abovc violations, with an abatement date of Sept. 1st, 2005. No further action, other than noted above, has been taken by the owner. I see no other action can be taken by the City, other than to enforce abatement proceedings against the property, IIMetro-inet.uslardenhillslBuildinglMemos\1415 Glcnhill Rd..DOC . . .