2120 HOYT AVE 2018-01-02 MF Import

31 January 29, 1975 attend the hearing, the Building Offical ordered a reinspection for the structure. This inspection was completed on July 30, 1974, and Mr. Manley was made aware of the violations, by letter, on August 12, 1974. Mr. Manley did not respond to this letter. The second Building Officials Hearing was held on September 17, 1974. Mr. Manley was present and agreed, at that time, to immediately correct the dangerous conditions on the outside of the building and to obtain the necessary permits to begin rehabilitation of the structure before January 1, 1975. On December 2, 1974, we noticed that Mr. Manley had not kept his agLeament to correct the outside violations. He was notified of this by telephone and he promised to have Mr. Ferguson, Contractor, take cara of the matter. The tenant, who had occupied the apartment at the rear of the building during these proceedings, moved out on or before December 17, 1974. The water service to the structure was interrupted at this time to preclude vandalism. Mr. Manley was notifed of this action December 18, 1974. On January 6, 1975, we found the structure open and unattended. There was'evidence of vandalism and transient use of the building. We mailed notice of a Council presentation to Mr. Manley on January 13, 1975, and as we did not receive a return card, we delivered a copy of the notice to his address where it was accepted by Mrs. Manley on January 21, 1975. Mr. Royce requested the Council pass a resolution authorizing demolition of this unsafe building. Mr. Harry Platis„ Attorney for Mr. Manley, stated the reason no money has been expended to reconstruct this building is that there has been a problem as to the actual ownership of the building. He further stated that the problem has since been resolved and that Mr. Manley would like an extension of time to repair the building and bring it up to code. Councilman Aldcroft stated that from a historical point of view, if Mr. Manley had the necessary money to bring the building up to code, he feels the Council should give him the opportunity, to do so. Moved by Councilman Aldcroft, seconded by Councilman Michelson, to have the owner, Mr. Manley, work with Bob Royce of the Housing Department to take immediate steps to secure the building against vandalism and transient use and to bring the building up to City Code and grant him an extension of time up until June 30. Councilman Rucker stated that the same situation has arisen many times and the City Council has extended the extra time and usually nothing is done in that period. Councilman Rucker asked City Attorney, Allen Hendricks, if it would be possible in this situation to require the property owner to present a performance bond to show good faith in doing the work. Ir. Hendricks stated that it would be possible to require the owner to have a performance bond or a type of security property bond for the repair. Moved by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman Langus to table this matter for two weeks and have the City Attorney investigate and come back with the feasibility of having a performance bond and have the Planning Department let us know if this building could be used for any purpose after the repair work.