5217 S 2ND AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

31 January 29, 1975 attend the hearing, the IIuilding Offical ordered a reinspection for the structure. This inspection was completed on July 30, 1974, and Mr. Manlep was made aware of the violations, by letter, on August 12, 1974. Mr. Manley did not respond to tltis letter. The second Ltuilding Officials Itcaring was hcld on SeptemUer ].7, 1974. bir. rlanley �vas 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 agreement to correct the outside violations. Iie was notified of this by telephone and he promised to have Mr. Ferguson, Contractor, take care of the matter. The tenant, who had occupied the apartment at the rear of the building durin� these proceedings, moved out on or before Dece:nber 17, 1979. The w�.cer 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. jVe mailed notice of a Council presentation to Mr. Manley on January 13, 1975, and as we did not receive a return card, we deli.vered a copy of the notice to his address where it wa, accepted by Mrs. Manley on January 21, 1975. I•ir. Royce requested the Council pass a resolution authorizing demolition of this unsafe building. I•9r. Harry Platis, Attorney for Mr. Manley, stated the reason no money has been er.pended to reconstruct this Uuilding is that there has been a problem as to the actual ownership of the buildiny. 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. CounciZman Aldcroft stated that from a historical point of view, if. Mr. bianley had the necessary money to bring the building un to code, hc feel.s the Council should give him the opportunity to do so. bioved by Councilman Aldcroft, seconded Uy Councilman Michelson, to i�ave the owner, �fr. Manley, wor.k with IIoU Royce of the Iiousing 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 estra 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. P1r. HendriGcs stated that it ro�ould be possible to requir.e the o�aner to have a performance bond or a type of security property bond for tl7e repair. i�loved by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Councilman Langus to table t17is matter for two weeks and have the City Attorney investigate and come back �vith the feasibility of having a perfornance bond and have the Planning Department let us know if this building could be used for any purpose after the repair work.