The property located at 4836 Bedford Road has long been identified as a hazardous property. The original restoration order for the property gave the property owner six months to correct the identified issues on the property or the structure would be removed. This original deadline meant that repairs needed to be completed by March 1. However, a new proposed purchaser of the property, Troy Percell, requested an amendment to the existing restoration agreement to allow him adequate time to make the restorations, due to the fact that sale of the property had not yet closed.
Community Development Director Sarah Smith informed the council, “The purchaser of the property is with us this evening. He is proposing a list of improvements to address the deficiencies on the property that are identified in the order and plans to undertake those improvements, which would be completed within a 120 day period.”
Smith added several comments for the council’s consideration in her presentation. “One of the original conditions included the preparation of a structural engineering report. We have retained that requirement in the amended restoration order because it is currently part of the original document that is of record. However we are amenable to a waiver of that provision if it’s determined as part of the building permit process that those activities are not required, as part of our standard practice. So we wanted to make that part of the council’s discussion this evening.”
“We have since received a signed ammendment to the restoration order from the current property owner that was provided to our legal counsel last Friday, and so the action that is requested by the council this evening is to consider and approve an ammendment to the restoration order with an addition 120 window to allow for those activities that Mr. Percell intends to undertake. We would however retain the ability that, in the event that those activities are not satisfied, the city still retains the ability to remove the structure in conformance with the original order that was put in place last September,” Smith went on to explain.
Council member Kelly Gillespie voiced concern that if the property were not purchased, for whatever reason, then the property may continue to be hazardous until July. “if for any reason this property does not close within 10 days, where are we at? Let’s say he doesn’t end up buying it for whatever reason, then what?” Gillespie asked.
City attorney Elizabeth Brodeen-Kuo informed the council, “If the property for whatever reason didn’t close within 10 days, and it would still belong to Miss Tangen, the current owner, then she would have until July 1st. Because the way the ammendment and the restoration agreement is written, it runs with the land.”
Mayor Wegscheid weighed in on the decision stating, “In my mind this is a small risk.” He added earlier in the discussion, “I think this is a win-win. This is kind of what we were after.”
City Manager Eric Hoversten added to the discussion that, “Staff has been in dialogue with Mr. Percell for months now. It’s unfortunate that this did not come to light or fruition until so late in the restorative agreement timeframe. I don’t think that’s for any lack of effort on the applicant’s part. And once made aware of the opportunity he’s very aggressively and very thoroughly discussed the matters of this property with staff, so I’m comfortable that he knows what he’s getting into, and I’m comfortable from a staff perspective that we understand what his capabilities are.”
The council approved the motion to amend the existing restoration agreement. The property has until July 1 to be restored to city standards or it will be removed.
Follow The Laker and Pioneer on Facebook