7.1. HRSR 11-25-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1. SCOPE OF WORK • The proposed district consists of 36 property parcels comprised of the following types of improvements: 6 single family residences, 4 apartment structures, 1 church, and 16 commercial or industrial buildings. There are 9 parcels that are vacant or have parking improvements only. 2. INSPECTIONS Of the 27 buildings in the proposed district, 21 building interiors were inspected (78%) and 6 exterior(curbside) inspections were conducted. 3. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS The properties were inspected and evaluated in accordance with the following requirements under Minnesota Statute Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, clause(c) which states: Interior Inspection—"The municipality may not make such determination [that the building is structurally substandard] without an interior inspection of the property..." Exterior Inspection and Other Means—"An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipality finds that(1)the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property; and(2)the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally substandard." Documentation—"Written documentation of the findings and reasons why an interior inspection was not conducted must be made and retained under section 469.175, subdivision 3, clause(1)." 4. PROCEDURES FOLLOWED The City of Anywhere sent letters to all property owners and tenants located in the district requesting that an interior inspection and evaluation be made of their property. An interior inspection and evaluation was scheduled after a property owner consented to the request. An exterior inspection and evaluation was made of the property where either the owner responded and refused interior access to their property or the owner did not respond to our contacts. The type of inspection conducted at each property is noted on the attached summary report. Twenty-one property owners consented to an interior inspection, four refused an inspection and two building owners could not be contacted by letter, a minimum of three phone calls (day and night calls) and a site visit. Written documentation is on file showing evidence of attempts to contact property owners. • Page 3