01-1027�'� � � � i � � � �v`c� cr��,- — 1Va� . `7 a.00\ Council File # O\— lOOJy
L� � � �
Green Sheet # (pa5��
RESOLUTION
F SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented By
Referred To
Committee: Date
�Q
1 WHEREAS, Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement has requested the City Council
2 to hold public hearings to consider the advisability and necessity of ordering the repair or wrecking and
3 removal of a two story, wood frame, sin�le family and wood frame shed located on property hereinafter
4 referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly known as 715 Preble Street. This property is legally
5 described as follows, to wit:
Lot 2, Block 4, Irvines Second Addition to St. Paul.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information
obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before June 7, 2001, the following are the now known
interested or responsible parties far the Subject: Gilbert Costilla, 1453 Arkwright Street #301, St. Paul, MN
55101; Long Beach Mortgage Co., 1100 Town & Country Rd, Orange, CA 97868; Katherin & Michael
Davis,1453 Arkwright Street #301, St. Paul, MN 55101
WHEREAS, Division of Code Enforcement has served in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code an order identified as an"Order to Abate Nuisance
Building(s)" dated August 6, 2001; and
WHEREAS, this order informed the then known interested or responsible parties that the structure
located on the Subject Property is a nuisance building(s) pursuant to Chapter 45; and
WHEREAS, this order informed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair or
demolish the structure located on the Subject Property by August 21, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placazd on the Subject Property declaring this
building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and
WHEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Division of Code Enforcement
requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the City
Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and
WFiEREAS, the interested and responsible parties have been served notice in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the time, date, place and purpose of the
public hearings; and
WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City
Council on Tuesday, September 25, 2001 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and
evidence, made the recommendation to approve the request to order the interested or responsible parties to
make the Subject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and
remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure in accordance with all
applicable codes and ordinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the structure in
accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to be
completed within €rue{S}days after the date of the Council Hearing; and `
o...�.y.1Y.� 2 ..�� ��Vol : s ..`.1 a e..�a oco '1 �i�.e. vae...} lv �ae..
��4hGt+ �Qt aa� t
�m..a..� . v� s �o o , � �e,
e� o�. �. �__.
o �-�.sv
1 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, October 3, 2001
2 and the testimony and evidence including the action taken by the Legislative Hearing Officer was
3 considered by the Council; now therefore
5 BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the above referenced
6 public hearings, the Saint Paul City Council hereby adopts the following Findings and Order conceming
7 the Subject Property at 715 Preble Street:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
2.
1.
2.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
That the Subject Properry comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul
Legislative Code, Chapter 45.
That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed tkuee
thousand dollars ($3,000.00).
That there now exists and has existed multiple Housing or Building code violations at the
Subject Property.
That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then known responsible parties
to correct the deficiencies ox to demolish and remove the building(s}.
That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition haue not been corrected.
That Division of Code Enforcement has posted a placard on the Subject Property which
declares it to be a nuisance condition subject to demolition.
That this building has been routinely monitored by the Citizen Service Offices, Division of
Code Enforcement, VacantJNuisance Buildings.
That the lmown interested parties and owners are as previously stated in this resolution and
that the notification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled.
� � � '7
The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the following order:
The above referenced interested or responsible parties shall make the Subject Property safe and not
detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the
community by rehabilitating this structure and correcting all deficiencies as prescribed in the above
referenced Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) in accordance with all applicable codes and
ordinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all
applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitarion or demolition and removal of the shucture
must be completed within�rne{�}days after the ( date o the Council Hearing.
0116 �1�tt�ssi 4�a�4C� \`gd t
If the above corrective action is not completed within this period of time the Citizen Service Office,
Division of Code Enforcement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps aze necessary to
demolish and remove this shucture, fill the site and chazge the costs incurred against the Subject
Property pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code.
D \ - �os7
3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all personal
properry or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shall be removed
from the properry by the responsible parties by the end of this time period. If all personal properry
is not removed, it shall be considered to be abandoned and the City of Saint Paul shall remove and
dispose of such property as provided by law.
4. It is further ordered, that a copy of this resolution be mailed to the owners and interested parties in
accordance with Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislarive Code.
Adopted by Council: Date �e., , � �. �
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
Requested by Deparhnent o£
Citizen Service Office: Code Enforcement
BY� L�
� J ^d�'�--'�
Form Approved by City Attorney
� /
� � �y ,� l� � —
_ /
By: "� „ �- . (� B y :
� .. • -� � � �. - � / '✓
�
� �� i ���1/i//
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
B ��'�� /��/�//!
o�-�oa�
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE
.. OATEJNITIATEO
GREEN SHEETR�
� u °�,�^�.°�- � °�� �-
� p n� �R ��,��
� � �,,..a�„ �'
� �
� ❑.�,�o.. ..�.��.�a
� W„���,�,�,., ❑
:S (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
City Council to pass this resolution which will order the owner(s) to remove or repair fhe referenced building(s). If
the owner fails to comply with the resolution, the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is ordered
to remove the building. The subject property is located at 715 Preble Street.
PLANNING CAMMISSION
CIB COMMfITEE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Has u,is aersoMirm everwaNea unae. a conaaa rw mi� depar6nem�+
YES No
Fiac thie pereoNGrm eva been a city empbyee?
YES NO
Doesthis peBONfrm poeseas a sitlll not normdllypossesse0 by any cum;M city employee4
YES �
k Mis persoNPom a telpHetl vendaYl .
YES NO
� �E�ain an ves anav.^eB on aece� snee� ana s�racn ro o� �
NITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORNNI7Y (Who, Wliat, When, Where, Why) ' '
Thi§ building(s) is a nuisance building(s) as defined in Chapter 45 and a vacant building as defined in Chapter 43 of
the Saint Paul Legislative Code. The owners, interested parties and responsible parties lrnown to the Enforcement
Officer were given an order to repair or remove the building at 715 Preble Street by August 21, 2001, and have
failed to comply with those orders.
APPROVED
The City will eliminate a nuisance.
, �ia��vnrv�ro�a�rNrrrt�v
` The City will spen fixnds to wreck and remobe this building(s). These costs will be assessed to the property,
, collected as a. special assessment against the property taaces.
remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to blight the community.
OF TRANSACTION S
souece Nuisance Housing Abatement
(IXPWN)
CO5TIREVENUE BUDfiETED (CIRCLE ONE) / YES /., NO
l.�
�crmT,Nw�e�x 33261
: .;.. .
tiLi � ,� �'
REPORT
o � _�0}7
Date: September 25, 2001
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Place: Room 330 City Hall
15 West Kellogg Boulevazd
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
Gerry Strathman
Legisla6ve Heazing Officer
Summary Abatement Order Appeal for 1598 Hazel Street North.
(Laid over from 9-4-01)
Legislative Hearing Officer recoxnmends denying the appeal.
2. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the properry at 2257 Hillside Avenue.
If the owner faiis to compiy, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
(Laid over from 4-17-01)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends granting the owner six months to complete the
rehabilitation of the property on condition that a$2,000 bond is posted by noon of
Wednesday, October 3, 2001.
Laid Over Summary Abatement:
JOIOSV Towing of abandoned vehicle at 376 Marvland Avenue East.
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends reducing the assessment to $105 plus the $45
service fee for a total assessment of $150.
4. Sununary Abatement Order appeal for 697 Surrev Avenue.
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends denying the appeal.
5. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 850 Sims Avenue. If
the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
Legislafive Heazing Officer recommends laying over to the October 16, 2001, Legislative
Hearing.
6. ItesoIution ordering the owner to remove or repair the properry at 715 Preble Street. If
the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcemen# is ordered to remove the building.
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends granting #he owner siY months to complete the
rehabilitation of the properry on condition that the following is done by noon of
Wednesday, October 3, 2001: 1) Pay the vacant building fee, 2) Get a code compliance
inspection, 3) Post a$2,000 bond.
C�\-lo?�
LEGISLATIVE HEARING REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Page 2
Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 397 Aldine Street. If
the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
(Case is closed.)
8. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the pmperry at 473 Hatch Avenue. If
the owner fails to compiy, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval.
�
CTTY OF SAII�TT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
CITIZEN SERVICE OFFICE
Fred Owusu, Ciry Clerk
DNISION OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT
Michae! R Morehe¢d, Program Man¢ger
Nuisance Building Cade Enfarcement
ISW.KelloggBlvd.Rm.790 Tel: 65r26U-8440
SaintPau[,MN55102 Fas:651-266-8426
C �� `0�7
A
August 25, 2001
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Council President and
Members of the City Council
�
�
� Citizen Service Office, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings Enforcement Division has requested
the City Council schedulepublic hearings to consider a resolution ordering the repair or
removal of the nuisance bnilding(s) loca[ed at:
s���PC�+ �'?n'�'�
715"Preble Street
�E� � � ��fl9
The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearings as follows:
Legislative Hearing - Tuesday, September 25, 2001
City Council Hearing - Wednesday, October 3, 20D1
The owners and responsible parties of record are:
Name and Last Known Address
Gilbert Castilia
1453 Arkwright Street #301
a.k.a 387 Arlington Avenue East
St. Paul, MN 55101
Interest
Fee Owner
Long Beach Mortgage Co.
_ 1100 Town & Country Rd.
� Orange, CA 97868
Katherin & Michael Davis
1453 Arkwright Street #301
a.k.a. 387 Arlington Avenue East
St. Paul, MN 55101
Mortgagee
Interested Party
715 Preble Street
August 24, 2001
Page 2
The legal description of this properry is:
Lot 2, Block 4, Irvines Second Addition to St. Paul.
ai -�as�
Division of Code Enforcement has declared this building(s) to constitute a"nuisance" as
defined by Lenislative Code, Chapter 45. Division of Code Enforcement has issued an
order to the then known responsible parties to eliminate ttus nuisance condition by
correcting the deficiencies or by razing and removin� this building(s).
Inasmuch as this Order to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition
remains unabated, the community continues to suffer the blighting influence of this
; property. Tt is the recommendation of the Division of Code Enforcement that the City
Council pass a resolution ordering the responsibie parties to either repair, or demolish and
remove this building in a timely manner, and failing that, authorize the Division of Code
Enforcement to proceed to demolition and removal, and to assess the costs incurred
against the real estate as aspecial assessment to be collected in the same manner as taxes.
Sincerely,
�teve �a�rcer
Steve Mab er
Vacant Buildings Supervisor
Division of Code Enforcement
Citizen Service Office
SM:mI
cc: Frank Berg, Building Inspection and Design
Meghan Riley, City Attomeys Office
Nancy Anderson, Assistant Secretary to the Council
Laurie Kaplan, PED-Housing Division
ccnph
U t-�o2�1
MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING ��-
Tuesday, September 25, 2001
Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer
Room 330 Courthouse
The meeting was called to order at 10:04 a.m.
STAFF PRESENT: Roxanna Flink, Real Estate; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Hazold
Robinson, Code Enforcement;
Summary Abatement Order Appeal for 1598 Hazel Street North. (Laid over from 9-4-01)
Gerry Strathman stated that the appellant was going to consult with City staff and others as to
whether the garden was consistent with the City's ordinance with respect to nahual gardens,
prairie growth, etc. He asked did the owner have time to do that.
Walt Montpetit, owner, appeared and stated a City representative called him last Friday and left a
voice mail. He was out of town and just retumed Sunday evening. He has not had a chance to
have a conversation with City inspectors as far as what was a landscape design versus weeds and
tall grass.
Harold Robinson reported he could not find a specific ordinance to cover these things. The
ordinance does read grass and weeds over 8 inches high must be cut. There are some specific
plants and landscape designs that aze excluded from this. It is not composfing because it is not a
contained azea. It is not covered under the grass and weed ordinance because it is tall grass that
has been allowed to grow. He cannot exempt it.
Mr. Strathman asked is there someone in the City ihat knows plants well enough to make a
determination as to if these plants aze accepted under state law. Mr. Robinson responded he has
been on the property, and ii is basically tall grass and weeds.
Mr. Strathman asked whaY makes the owner think it is something other than tall grass and weeds.
Mr. Montpetit responded the area is set aside from the rest of the yard. He looks at it as part of
his landscape scheme. It is a wooded lot adjacent to the rest of the lot that is groomed, even
though it is a sma11 area. He does not know anyone who cuts weeds and tall grass out of a
wooded lot. He asked is his yard designated as a yazd or as a wooded lot. Mr. Robinson
responded that specifically a wooded lot has to have a tree, and this backyard does not have a
tree. Mr. Montpetit responded there are trees back in the comer. Mr. Robinson stated this
properry is definitely noi a wooded lot.
From the description he included with his appeal, stated Mr. Strathman, there is a map that shows
the nature garden is behind the gazage and surrounded by a six foot privacy fence. He asked how
this came to the City's attention. Mr. Robinson responded it was a complaint based inspection.
Mr. Montpetit stated he belongs to the yacht club and a member wmplained to the City about
weeds and tall grass on Harriet Island. This member was told it was part of the landscape scene.
C�\-\oZ�`�j
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Page 2
It is no different than his weeds and tall grass, said Mr. Montperit. He does not laiow what
species needs to be cut and which species he can plant to conform.
(Mr. Robinson gave Mr. Montpefit documents about a company that specializes in this subject.)
Gerry S4athman recommends denying the appeal. It does not appeaz that what Mr. Montpetit
wants to do is provided for under the City ordinance.
Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 225'7 Hillside Avenue.
If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
(Laid over from 4-17-01)
The following appeazed: Kim McCallum, 929 Selby Avenue, and Steve Gibbs, Westem
National, 4i 12th Avenue North, Hopkins.
Steve Magner reported this building has been vacant since December 3, 1999. There have been
five summary abatement notices to secure the dwelling, cut tall grass, remove refuse, remove
snow and/or ice. On October 19, 2000, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of
deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken.
An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on October 24, 2000, with a compliance date of
November 27. As of this date, the properiy remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as
defined by the legislative code. The real estates taxes aze unpaid of $6,333. Taxation has placed
an estimated market value of $56,600 on the land, and $5,000 on the building. On July 25, 2001,
a code compliance inspection was done. A$2,000 bond has noY been posted. Estimated cost to
repair is $100,000 to $150,000; estimated cost to demolish, $12,000 to $15,000.
"This was originally before the Legislative Hearing Officer in March, said Mr. Magner. It was
laid over because the second mortgage company was going through a foreclosure process, wanted
to clear the tifle, pay off the insurance company, and then sell it. The second mortgage company
has been paid off and is no ionger involved with this property. The original owner has physical
control of the building, but there is still an issue with the insurance company for the first
mortgage company.
Mr. McCallum stated he plans to take the neact week and decide to sell the property, rehabilitate
it, or tear it down and rebuild. As of yesterdaq, #here was a settlement.
Mr. Gibbs stated VJestern National will be satisfied with the agreement. Thsy aze now in the
middle of foreclosure on the properry. They will be out of the picture when that happens and the
McCallums can take whatever action they would like.
Mr. Strathman asked is he prepazed to post the $2,000 bond. Mr. McCallum responded he is.
Gerry Strathman recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rehabilita6on of the
property on condition that a$2,000 bond is posted by noon of Wednesday, October 3, 2001.
�\
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINLTTES FOR SEPTBMBER 25, 2001 Page 3
Laid Over Summary Abatement:
JOlOSV Towing of abandoned vehicle at 376 Marvland Avenue East
Franciso 7aramillo, owner, appeared and stated this is about a velucle he pazked on the side of his
garage. He received an order to remove it. He called a towing company, and was told they
would not remove it until April. The City removed it in Mazch. He called the Impound Lot. He
was told that he would not have to pay anything and he could sign over the title. The vehicle was
left there.
Hazold Robinson reported the vehicle was abated on January 25 and towed in Mazch. It had no
current license plates. It was a proper tow.
In answer to questions, Mr. Jazamillo responded the vehicle was a 1981 Honda Civic, and it did
not run.
Gerry Strathman recommends reducing the assessment to $105 plus the $45 service fee for a total
assessment of $150. The owner should have taken caze of the matter as soon as he got the notice.
The City towed the vehicle, stored it, and sold it when they got the title. There aze costs
involved.
Summary Abatement Order appeal for 697 Surrev Avenue.
(Shazon Anderson, appellant, sent Gerry Strathman an e-mail saying that she is unable to attend
ioday's meeting.)
Gerry Strathman recommends denying the appeal.
Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 850 Sims Avenue. If the
owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
(Steve Magner presented photographs. They were later returned.)
Steve Magner reported the property was condemned May 2000. It has been a vacant building
since August 21, 2000. Two sunmiary abatement notices have been issued to remove refuse. On
Mazch 7, 2001, an inspecrion of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which
constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a
nuisance building was issued on Mazch 19, 2001, with a compliance date of April 18. As of this
date, the property remains in a condition that comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative
code. The vacant building fees aze due. Esrimated mazket value of property is $36,700;
estimated cost to repair, $80,000 to $100,000, estimated cost to demolish, $7,500 to $8,000. A
code compliance inspection was done on August 30, 20�0.
On April 13, 2001, stated Mr. Magner, a third party posted a$2,000 bond. His reasoning was
that he was in expectation of obtaining titie after the original owners--Michael and Becky
Ramstad--cancelled the contract with Samantha Mathews. That bond expires by October 15.
�
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
O\-�OZ
Page 4
Mr. Strathman asked what happened with the citation that was issued for failure to pay the vacant
building fee. Mr. Magner responded he does not have the file with him, but he assumes the
citation was never settled. The owner is no longer in Minnesota. In September, Ms. Mathews
paid the vacant building fee. Code Enforcement made an agreement with Ms. Mathews to give
her s� months to rehabilitate the properry and she would not have to post the bond, but would
have to obtain a code compliance inspection. She obtained the code compliance inspection, but
failed to act in a timely manner to rehabilitate the structure. Code Enforcement continually
receives complaints of illegal activiries and occupancy at the dwelling. There have been
numerous inspections. Mr. Magner had a conversation with Don Wagner (License, Inspections,
Envuonmental Protection) who said he has not been called to inspect the property. There aze still
outstanding pernv2s that need to be pulled before a code compliance can be signed off.
Samantha Mathews, owner, appeared and stated she had a code compliance inspection. The six
months were up, and Rich Singerhouse (Code Enforcement) and another inspector came out on
Mazch 7. She received an order to abate dated Mazch 19 and was given until April 18 to clear the
deficiencies. This is a different list than the original that she had six months to do. Shortly
thereafter, a$2,000 bond was posted. The man who posted the $2,000 bond was under the
assumption that he was going to get the house, and Mr. Ramstad had agreed to sell it to him after
the foreclosure proceedings against her. Ms. Mathews also came up with $5,000, took the matter
to district court, and saved her house. Three hours a$er she won the court case, there was a
legislative hearing noiice from Mr. Magner. Throughout this whole time, she has left several
messages and has never had her calls retu2ned. On her last visit with Mr. Magner, he said he was
finished with this matter and would put Mike Morehead (Code Enforcement) in charge of it. Her
house is more than 50% done. Ms.-Mathews has photographs and �davits from her neighbors.
One of the people complaining would be a neighbor right next door to her who would like to
obtain her property. Ms. Mathews received two summary abatement norices: one was for a dog
and one to clean up the property, The bond expires on flctober 13. Don Wagner would like to
inspect the pro�erry to see what has been done.
Gerry 3trathman recommends layang over to the October 16, 2001, Legislative Hearing. He does
not think the City should move on this property while the cutrent bond is still in effeck, but that is
only for approximately two more weeks. There needs to be an inspection of the property before
the bond is expired to determine if it can be extended another six months.
� Resotution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 715 Preble Street. If the
owner fails to compIy, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
(Steve Magner submitted photographs.j
Catherine Davis, 1A53 Arkwright Avenue #301, owner's daughter, appeazed.
Gerry Strathman stated the document in front of him has Gilbert Castilla as the fee owner, Long
Beach Mortgage Company as the mortgagee, and Katherin and Michael Davis as interested
parties. Ms. Davis responded she is not sure how her name got onto the paperwork other than the
fact that Gilbert is her dad. He purchased the house in August. He is disabled and Ms. Davis
v� �Z�1
LEGISLATiVE HEARING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Page 5
handles most of his business. They had done the work on the house and moved in unawaze that it
was a vacant house.
Steve Magner reported this building has been vacant since June 10, 1999. There have been seven
summary abatement notices issued to remove refuse, cut tall grass, secure structure. On August
1, 2001, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies wluch constitute a
nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance
building was issued on August 6, 2001, with a compliance date of Angust 21, 2001. As of this
date, this properry remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the
legislative code. The vacant building fees are due. Real estate taxes are unpaid in the amount of
$1,073.99. Prior to the fire, Taxation had placed an estimated mazket value of $11,000 on the
land and $38,400 on the building. The estimated cost to repair this struchue is $50,000 to
$60,000; esrimated cost to demolish, $7,000 to $8,000. On August 3, 2000, a code compliance
inspection was done. No bond has been posted.
Mr. Magner stated this was a registered vacant building, and vacant building placards were on it.
The owner was put on notice not to occupy this building. There were two citations issued for
iIlegal occupancy. They were occupying a registered vacant building when the fire occurred.
Mr. Strathman stated the photographs do not indicate a fire. Mr. Magner responded the fue was
contained in the interior of the dwelling. There was heavy smoke damage throughout. There
was no bum through to the outside; it is a stucco e�rterior.
Mr. Stratlnnan asked was the extent of the damage cosmetic or structural. Mr. Magner
responded there was heavy smoke and water damage throughout. The buiiding has been
abandoned since that time. There may have been more extensive water damage since then.
Ms. Davis stated she takes caze of her father; he is not well. He purchased the property on
August 9, 2000, from the previous owner. She does not have legal controi over 3us deoisions.
Ms. Davis was not awaze the properry was a registered vacant house. It was obvious fihere were
things that needed to be done to ihe property. Every pipe in the basement was busted. There was
no runnirag water nor electricity. She I�ew it had to meez certain codes before it could be legally
occupied. She hired a company to replace the pIumbing in the basement, and an outside spigot
that ieaked. The connection to the water heater had to be replaced. They laid carpet and painted.
After she did the wark, she moved in and was unaware that she cAUldn't. In September, a man
came to the house and explained to her husband that they could noY live there because the
property was registered as being legally vacant. When she found this out, she had just given birth
to her daughter. When she was able to, she contacted various people in the City. The fire that
occurred an June 12 has rendered the condition of the house worse. Long Beach Mortgage holds
$30,000 of insurance settlement on the fire to have it repaired.
Ms. Davis went on to say she came into possession of a code compliance inspection dated
August 3. After talking to Mr. Magner, he explained their contractor could walk through the
house with the list, and he would know if it has been done. They could obtain a pemut for the
code compliance issues and a permit for the fire damage. Her contractor did a walk through. She
o�-��z�
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Page 6
cannot get the code compliance issues done until the fire damage is cleaned up to see what she is
left with, but she cannot get the fire damage taken caze of until she gets the code compiiance
issues taken caze of.
Mr. Strathman asked was she awaze that the repair cost may be between $50,000 to $60,000.
Ms. Davis responded over half the list has been fixed. VJith the fire daniage, there is additional
work to be done. The mortgage company is holding $30,000.
Mr. Strathman asked is the August 3, 2000, code compliance inspection an accurate
representarion of what needs to be done. Mr. Magner responded Don Wagner (License,
Inspections, Environmentai Protection) would have to go ihrough the building and make a
determination as to what has to be completed, was it done under permit, and can it be signed off.
If not, it has to be done under permit. Most likely, Mr. Wagner will not give a code compliance
certificate without including the fire damage items.
Another code compliance inspection is needed, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Magner responded
vacant building fees need to be paid, a code compliance inspection completed, and a bond needs
to be posted. Also, the building should be unoccupied and secured.
Gerry Strathman recommends ganting the owner six months to compiete the rehabilitation of the
property on condition that the foilowing is done by noon of Wednesday, October 3, 2001: 1) Pay
the vacant building fee, 2) Get a code compliance inspection, 3) Post a$2,000 bond.
Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 397 Aldine Street. If the
owner faiis io comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
Steve Magner reported the house has been moved to another location.
(Case is closed.)
Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 473 Hatch Avenue. If
the owner fails to compiy, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
(Steve Magner submitted phatographs.)
Steve Magner reported tiris properry has been condemned and vacant since November 2000.
Five summary abatement notices haue been issued to cut tall grass and remove refuse. On
August 1, 2001, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which
constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a
nuisance condition was issued on August 6 with a compliance date of August 21. As of this date,
this property remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative
code. The City has boazded the building against trespass. The vacant building fees aze due.
Real estate taxes are unpaid of $2090.38. Taxation has placed an estimated mazket value of
$6,500 on the land. Before the fire, the esrimated market value of the building was $34,800. As
LEGISLATIVE HEARING REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
c� � �o
Page 7
of today, a code compliance inspection has not been applied for and a bond has not been posted.
The estimated cost to repair is $40,000 to $50,000; estimated cost to demolish, $6,000 to $7,000.
Mr. Magner stated the owner has tried to sell the property with no luck due to the small size of
the structure, low ceilings, and numerous problems with the building. About a month ago, the
owner asked Mr. Magner what would happen if the City demolished the structure. Mr. Magner
explained the lot would remain his property, and the cost of the demolition would be assessed on
the taYes.
Gerry Strathman recommends approval.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:02 a.m.
�
�'� � � � i � � � �v`c� cr��,- — 1Va� . `7 a.00\ Council File # O\— lOOJy
L� � � �
RESOLUTION
F SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented By
Referred To
Green Sheet # (pa5��
Committee: Date
�Q
1 WHEREAS, Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement has requested the City Council
2 to hold public hearings to consider the advisability and necessity of ordering the repair or wrecking and
3 removal of a two story, wood frame, sin�le family and wood frame shed located on property hereinafter
4 referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly known as 715 Preble Street. This property is legally
5 described as follows, to wit:
Lot 2, Block 4, Irvines Second Addition to St. Paul.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information
obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before June 7, 2001, the following are the now known
interested or responsible parties far the Subject: Gilbert Costilla, 1453 Arkwright Street #301, St. Paul, MN
55101; Long Beach Mortgage Co., 1100 Town & Country Rd, Orange, CA 97868; Katherin & Michael
Davis,1453 Arkwright Street #301, St. Paul, MN 55101
WHEREAS, Division of Code Enforcement has served in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code an order identified as an"Order to Abate Nuisance
Building(s)" dated August 6, 2001; and
WHEREAS, this order informed the then known interested or responsible parties that the structure
located on the Subject Property is a nuisance building(s) pursuant to Chapter 45; and
WHEREAS, this order informed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair or
demolish the structure located on the Subject Property by August 21, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placazd on the Subject Property declaring this
building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and
WHEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Division of Code Enforcement
requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the City
Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and
WFiEREAS, the interested and responsible parties have been served notice in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the time, date, place and purpose of the
public hearings; and
WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City
Council on Tuesday, September 25, 2001 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and
evidence, made the recommendation to approve the request to order the interested or responsible parties to
make the Subject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and
remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure in accordance with all
applicable codes and ordinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the structure in
accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to be
completed within €rue{S}days after the date of the Council Hearing; and `
o...�.y.1Y.� 2 ..�� ��Vol : s ..`.1 a e..�a oco '1 �i�.e. vae...} lv �ae..
��4hGt+ �Qt aa� t
�m..a..� . v� s �o o , � �e,
e� o�. �. �__.
o �-�.sv
1 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, October 3, 2001
2 and the testimony and evidence including the action taken by the Legislative Hearing Officer was
3 considered by the Council; now therefore
5 BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the above referenced
6 public hearings, the Saint Paul City Council hereby adopts the following Findings and Order conceming
7 the Subject Property at 715 Preble Street:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
2.
1.
2.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
That the Subject Properry comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul
Legislative Code, Chapter 45.
That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed tkuee
thousand dollars ($3,000.00).
That there now exists and has existed multiple Housing or Building code violations at the
Subject Property.
That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then known responsible parties
to correct the deficiencies ox to demolish and remove the building(s}.
That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition haue not been corrected.
That Division of Code Enforcement has posted a placard on the Subject Property which
declares it to be a nuisance condition subject to demolition.
That this building has been routinely monitored by the Citizen Service Offices, Division of
Code Enforcement, VacantJNuisance Buildings.
That the lmown interested parties and owners are as previously stated in this resolution and
that the notification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled.
� � � '7
The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the following order:
The above referenced interested or responsible parties shall make the Subject Property safe and not
detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the
community by rehabilitating this structure and correcting all deficiencies as prescribed in the above
referenced Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) in accordance with all applicable codes and
ordinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all
applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitarion or demolition and removal of the shucture
must be completed within�rne{�}days after the ( date o the Council Hearing.
0116 �1�tt�ssi 4�a�4C� \`gd t
If the above corrective action is not completed within this period of time the Citizen Service Office,
Division of Code Enforcement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps aze necessary to
demolish and remove this shucture, fill the site and chazge the costs incurred against the Subject
Property pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code.
D \ - �os7
3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all personal
properry or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shall be removed
from the properry by the responsible parties by the end of this time period. If all personal properry
is not removed, it shall be considered to be abandoned and the City of Saint Paul shall remove and
dispose of such property as provided by law.
4. It is further ordered, that a copy of this resolution be mailed to the owners and interested parties in
accordance with Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislarive Code.
Adopted by Council: Date �e., , � �. �
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
Requested by Deparhnent o£
Citizen Service Office: Code Enforcement
BY� L�
� J ^d�'�--'�
Form Approved by City Attorney
� /
� � �y ,� l� � —
_ /
By: "� „ �- . (� B y :
� .. • -� � � �. - � / '✓
�
� �� i ���1/i//
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
B ��'�� /��/�//!
o�-�oa�
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE
.. OATEJNITIATEO
GREEN SHEETR�
� u °�,�^�.°�- � °�� �-
� p n� �R ��,��
� � �,,..a�„ �'
� �
� ❑.�,�o.. ..�.��.�a
� W„���,�,�,., ❑
:S (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
City Council to pass this resolution which will order the owner(s) to remove or repair fhe referenced building(s). If
the owner fails to comply with the resolution, the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is ordered
to remove the building. The subject property is located at 715 Preble Street.
PLANNING CAMMISSION
CIB COMMfITEE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Has u,is aersoMirm everwaNea unae. a conaaa rw mi� depar6nem�+
YES No
Fiac thie pereoNGrm eva been a city empbyee?
YES NO
Doesthis peBONfrm poeseas a sitlll not normdllypossesse0 by any cum;M city employee4
YES �
k Mis persoNPom a telpHetl vendaYl .
YES NO
� �E�ain an ves anav.^eB on aece� snee� ana s�racn ro o� �
NITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORNNI7Y (Who, Wliat, When, Where, Why) ' '
Thi§ building(s) is a nuisance building(s) as defined in Chapter 45 and a vacant building as defined in Chapter 43 of
the Saint Paul Legislative Code. The owners, interested parties and responsible parties lrnown to the Enforcement
Officer were given an order to repair or remove the building at 715 Preble Street by August 21, 2001, and have
failed to comply with those orders.
APPROVED
The City will eliminate a nuisance.
, �ia��vnrv�ro�a�rNrrrt�v
` The City will spen fixnds to wreck and remobe this building(s). These costs will be assessed to the property,
, collected as a. special assessment against the property taaces.
remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to blight the community.
OF TRANSACTION S
souece Nuisance Housing Abatement
(IXPWN)
CO5TIREVENUE BUDfiETED (CIRCLE ONE) / YES /., NO
l.�
�crmT,Nw�e�x 33261
: .;.. .
tiLi � ,� �'
REPORT
o � _�0}7
Date: September 25, 2001
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Place: Room 330 City Hall
15 West Kellogg Boulevazd
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
Gerry Strathman
Legisla6ve Heazing Officer
Summary Abatement Order Appeal for 1598 Hazel Street North.
(Laid over from 9-4-01)
Legislative Hearing Officer recoxnmends denying the appeal.
2. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the properry at 2257 Hillside Avenue.
If the owner faiis to compiy, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
(Laid over from 4-17-01)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends granting the owner six months to complete the
rehabilitation of the property on condition that a$2,000 bond is posted by noon of
Wednesday, October 3, 2001.
Laid Over Summary Abatement:
JOIOSV Towing of abandoned vehicle at 376 Marvland Avenue East.
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends reducing the assessment to $105 plus the $45
service fee for a total assessment of $150.
4. Sununary Abatement Order appeal for 697 Surrev Avenue.
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends denying the appeal.
5. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 850 Sims Avenue. If
the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
Legislafive Heazing Officer recommends laying over to the October 16, 2001, Legislative
Hearing.
6. ItesoIution ordering the owner to remove or repair the properry at 715 Preble Street. If
the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcemen# is ordered to remove the building.
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends granting #he owner siY months to complete the
rehabilitation of the properry on condition that the following is done by noon of
Wednesday, October 3, 2001: 1) Pay the vacant building fee, 2) Get a code compliance
inspection, 3) Post a$2,000 bond.
C�\-lo?�
LEGISLATIVE HEARING REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Page 2
Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 397 Aldine Street. If
the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
(Case is closed.)
8. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the pmperry at 473 Hatch Avenue. If
the owner fails to compiy, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval.
�
CTTY OF SAII�TT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
CITIZEN SERVICE OFFICE
Fred Owusu, Ciry Clerk
DNISION OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT
Michae! R Morehe¢d, Program Man¢ger
Nuisance Building Cade Enfarcement
ISW.KelloggBlvd.Rm.790 Tel: 65r26U-8440
SaintPau[,MN55102 Fas:651-266-8426
C �� `0�7
A
August 25, 2001
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Council President and
Members of the City Council
�
�
� Citizen Service Office, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings Enforcement Division has requested
the City Council schedulepublic hearings to consider a resolution ordering the repair or
removal of the nuisance bnilding(s) loca[ed at:
s���PC�+ �'?n'�'�
715"Preble Street
�E� � � ��fl9
The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearings as follows:
Legislative Hearing - Tuesday, September 25, 2001
City Council Hearing - Wednesday, October 3, 20D1
The owners and responsible parties of record are:
Name and Last Known Address
Gilbert Castilia
1453 Arkwright Street #301
a.k.a 387 Arlington Avenue East
St. Paul, MN 55101
Interest
Fee Owner
Long Beach Mortgage Co.
_ 1100 Town & Country Rd.
� Orange, CA 97868
Katherin & Michael Davis
1453 Arkwright Street #301
a.k.a. 387 Arlington Avenue East
St. Paul, MN 55101
Mortgagee
Interested Party
715 Preble Street
August 24, 2001
Page 2
The legal description of this properry is:
Lot 2, Block 4, Irvines Second Addition to St. Paul.
ai -�as�
Division of Code Enforcement has declared this building(s) to constitute a"nuisance" as
defined by Lenislative Code, Chapter 45. Division of Code Enforcement has issued an
order to the then known responsible parties to eliminate ttus nuisance condition by
correcting the deficiencies or by razing and removin� this building(s).
Inasmuch as this Order to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition
remains unabated, the community continues to suffer the blighting influence of this
; property. Tt is the recommendation of the Division of Code Enforcement that the City
Council pass a resolution ordering the responsibie parties to either repair, or demolish and
remove this building in a timely manner, and failing that, authorize the Division of Code
Enforcement to proceed to demolition and removal, and to assess the costs incurred
against the real estate as aspecial assessment to be collected in the same manner as taxes.
Sincerely,
�teve �a�rcer
Steve Mab er
Vacant Buildings Supervisor
Division of Code Enforcement
Citizen Service Office
SM:mI
cc: Frank Berg, Building Inspection and Design
Meghan Riley, City Attomeys Office
Nancy Anderson, Assistant Secretary to the Council
Laurie Kaplan, PED-Housing Division
ccnph
U t-�o2�1
MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING ��-
Tuesday, September 25, 2001
Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer
Room 330 Courthouse
The meeting was called to order at 10:04 a.m.
STAFF PRESENT: Roxanna Flink, Real Estate; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Hazold
Robinson, Code Enforcement;
Summary Abatement Order Appeal for 1598 Hazel Street North. (Laid over from 9-4-01)
Gerry Strathman stated that the appellant was going to consult with City staff and others as to
whether the garden was consistent with the City's ordinance with respect to nahual gardens,
prairie growth, etc. He asked did the owner have time to do that.
Walt Montpetit, owner, appeared and stated a City representative called him last Friday and left a
voice mail. He was out of town and just retumed Sunday evening. He has not had a chance to
have a conversation with City inspectors as far as what was a landscape design versus weeds and
tall grass.
Harold Robinson reported he could not find a specific ordinance to cover these things. The
ordinance does read grass and weeds over 8 inches high must be cut. There are some specific
plants and landscape designs that aze excluded from this. It is not composfing because it is not a
contained azea. It is not covered under the grass and weed ordinance because it is tall grass that
has been allowed to grow. He cannot exempt it.
Mr. Strathman asked is there someone in the City ihat knows plants well enough to make a
determination as to if these plants aze accepted under state law. Mr. Robinson responded he has
been on the property, and ii is basically tall grass and weeds.
Mr. Strathman asked whaY makes the owner think it is something other than tall grass and weeds.
Mr. Montpetit responded the area is set aside from the rest of the yard. He looks at it as part of
his landscape scheme. It is a wooded lot adjacent to the rest of the lot that is groomed, even
though it is a sma11 area. He does not know anyone who cuts weeds and tall grass out of a
wooded lot. He asked is his yard designated as a yazd or as a wooded lot. Mr. Robinson
responded that specifically a wooded lot has to have a tree, and this backyard does not have a
tree. Mr. Montpetit responded there are trees back in the comer. Mr. Robinson stated this
properry is definitely noi a wooded lot.
From the description he included with his appeal, stated Mr. Strathman, there is a map that shows
the nature garden is behind the gazage and surrounded by a six foot privacy fence. He asked how
this came to the City's attention. Mr. Robinson responded it was a complaint based inspection.
Mr. Montpetit stated he belongs to the yacht club and a member wmplained to the City about
weeds and tall grass on Harriet Island. This member was told it was part of the landscape scene.
C�\-\oZ�`�j
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Page 2
It is no different than his weeds and tall grass, said Mr. Montperit. He does not laiow what
species needs to be cut and which species he can plant to conform.
(Mr. Robinson gave Mr. Montpefit documents about a company that specializes in this subject.)
Gerry S4athman recommends denying the appeal. It does not appeaz that what Mr. Montpetit
wants to do is provided for under the City ordinance.
Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 225'7 Hillside Avenue.
If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
(Laid over from 4-17-01)
The following appeazed: Kim McCallum, 929 Selby Avenue, and Steve Gibbs, Westem
National, 4i 12th Avenue North, Hopkins.
Steve Magner reported this building has been vacant since December 3, 1999. There have been
five summary abatement notices to secure the dwelling, cut tall grass, remove refuse, remove
snow and/or ice. On October 19, 2000, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of
deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken.
An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on October 24, 2000, with a compliance date of
November 27. As of this date, the properiy remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as
defined by the legislative code. The real estates taxes aze unpaid of $6,333. Taxation has placed
an estimated market value of $56,600 on the land, and $5,000 on the building. On July 25, 2001,
a code compliance inspection was done. A$2,000 bond has noY been posted. Estimated cost to
repair is $100,000 to $150,000; estimated cost to demolish, $12,000 to $15,000.
"This was originally before the Legislative Hearing Officer in March, said Mr. Magner. It was
laid over because the second mortgage company was going through a foreclosure process, wanted
to clear the tifle, pay off the insurance company, and then sell it. The second mortgage company
has been paid off and is no ionger involved with this property. The original owner has physical
control of the building, but there is still an issue with the insurance company for the first
mortgage company.
Mr. McCallum stated he plans to take the neact week and decide to sell the property, rehabilitate
it, or tear it down and rebuild. As of yesterdaq, #here was a settlement.
Mr. Gibbs stated VJestern National will be satisfied with the agreement. Thsy aze now in the
middle of foreclosure on the properry. They will be out of the picture when that happens and the
McCallums can take whatever action they would like.
Mr. Strathman asked is he prepazed to post the $2,000 bond. Mr. McCallum responded he is.
Gerry Strathman recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rehabilita6on of the
property on condition that a$2,000 bond is posted by noon of Wednesday, October 3, 2001.
�\
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINLTTES FOR SEPTBMBER 25, 2001 Page 3
Laid Over Summary Abatement:
JOlOSV Towing of abandoned vehicle at 376 Marvland Avenue East
Franciso 7aramillo, owner, appeared and stated this is about a velucle he pazked on the side of his
garage. He received an order to remove it. He called a towing company, and was told they
would not remove it until April. The City removed it in Mazch. He called the Impound Lot. He
was told that he would not have to pay anything and he could sign over the title. The vehicle was
left there.
Hazold Robinson reported the vehicle was abated on January 25 and towed in Mazch. It had no
current license plates. It was a proper tow.
In answer to questions, Mr. Jazamillo responded the vehicle was a 1981 Honda Civic, and it did
not run.
Gerry Strathman recommends reducing the assessment to $105 plus the $45 service fee for a total
assessment of $150. The owner should have taken caze of the matter as soon as he got the notice.
The City towed the vehicle, stored it, and sold it when they got the title. There aze costs
involved.
Summary Abatement Order appeal for 697 Surrev Avenue.
(Shazon Anderson, appellant, sent Gerry Strathman an e-mail saying that she is unable to attend
ioday's meeting.)
Gerry Strathman recommends denying the appeal.
Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 850 Sims Avenue. If the
owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
(Steve Magner presented photographs. They were later returned.)
Steve Magner reported the property was condemned May 2000. It has been a vacant building
since August 21, 2000. Two sunmiary abatement notices have been issued to remove refuse. On
Mazch 7, 2001, an inspecrion of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which
constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a
nuisance building was issued on Mazch 19, 2001, with a compliance date of April 18. As of this
date, the property remains in a condition that comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative
code. The vacant building fees aze due. Esrimated mazket value of property is $36,700;
estimated cost to repair, $80,000 to $100,000, estimated cost to demolish, $7,500 to $8,000. A
code compliance inspection was done on August 30, 20�0.
On April 13, 2001, stated Mr. Magner, a third party posted a$2,000 bond. His reasoning was
that he was in expectation of obtaining titie after the original owners--Michael and Becky
Ramstad--cancelled the contract with Samantha Mathews. That bond expires by October 15.
�
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
O\-�OZ
Page 4
Mr. Strathman asked what happened with the citation that was issued for failure to pay the vacant
building fee. Mr. Magner responded he does not have the file with him, but he assumes the
citation was never settled. The owner is no longer in Minnesota. In September, Ms. Mathews
paid the vacant building fee. Code Enforcement made an agreement with Ms. Mathews to give
her s� months to rehabilitate the properry and she would not have to post the bond, but would
have to obtain a code compliance inspection. She obtained the code compliance inspection, but
failed to act in a timely manner to rehabilitate the structure. Code Enforcement continually
receives complaints of illegal activiries and occupancy at the dwelling. There have been
numerous inspections. Mr. Magner had a conversation with Don Wagner (License, Inspections,
Envuonmental Protection) who said he has not been called to inspect the property. There aze still
outstanding pernv2s that need to be pulled before a code compliance can be signed off.
Samantha Mathews, owner, appeared and stated she had a code compliance inspection. The six
months were up, and Rich Singerhouse (Code Enforcement) and another inspector came out on
Mazch 7. She received an order to abate dated Mazch 19 and was given until April 18 to clear the
deficiencies. This is a different list than the original that she had six months to do. Shortly
thereafter, a$2,000 bond was posted. The man who posted the $2,000 bond was under the
assumption that he was going to get the house, and Mr. Ramstad had agreed to sell it to him after
the foreclosure proceedings against her. Ms. Mathews also came up with $5,000, took the matter
to district court, and saved her house. Three hours a$er she won the court case, there was a
legislative hearing noiice from Mr. Magner. Throughout this whole time, she has left several
messages and has never had her calls retu2ned. On her last visit with Mr. Magner, he said he was
finished with this matter and would put Mike Morehead (Code Enforcement) in charge of it. Her
house is more than 50% done. Ms.-Mathews has photographs and �davits from her neighbors.
One of the people complaining would be a neighbor right next door to her who would like to
obtain her property. Ms. Mathews received two summary abatement norices: one was for a dog
and one to clean up the property, The bond expires on flctober 13. Don Wagner would like to
inspect the pro�erry to see what has been done.
Gerry 3trathman recommends layang over to the October 16, 2001, Legislative Hearing. He does
not think the City should move on this property while the cutrent bond is still in effeck, but that is
only for approximately two more weeks. There needs to be an inspection of the property before
the bond is expired to determine if it can be extended another six months.
� Resotution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 715 Preble Street. If the
owner fails to compIy, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
(Steve Magner submitted photographs.j
Catherine Davis, 1A53 Arkwright Avenue #301, owner's daughter, appeazed.
Gerry Strathman stated the document in front of him has Gilbert Castilla as the fee owner, Long
Beach Mortgage Company as the mortgagee, and Katherin and Michael Davis as interested
parties. Ms. Davis responded she is not sure how her name got onto the paperwork other than the
fact that Gilbert is her dad. He purchased the house in August. He is disabled and Ms. Davis
v� �Z�1
LEGISLATiVE HEARING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Page 5
handles most of his business. They had done the work on the house and moved in unawaze that it
was a vacant house.
Steve Magner reported this building has been vacant since June 10, 1999. There have been seven
summary abatement notices issued to remove refuse, cut tall grass, secure structure. On August
1, 2001, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies wluch constitute a
nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance
building was issued on August 6, 2001, with a compliance date of Angust 21, 2001. As of this
date, this properry remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the
legislative code. The vacant building fees are due. Real estate taxes are unpaid in the amount of
$1,073.99. Prior to the fire, Taxation had placed an estimated mazket value of $11,000 on the
land and $38,400 on the building. The estimated cost to repair this struchue is $50,000 to
$60,000; esrimated cost to demolish, $7,000 to $8,000. On August 3, 2000, a code compliance
inspection was done. No bond has been posted.
Mr. Magner stated this was a registered vacant building, and vacant building placards were on it.
The owner was put on notice not to occupy this building. There were two citations issued for
iIlegal occupancy. They were occupying a registered vacant building when the fire occurred.
Mr. Strathman stated the photographs do not indicate a fire. Mr. Magner responded the fue was
contained in the interior of the dwelling. There was heavy smoke damage throughout. There
was no bum through to the outside; it is a stucco e�rterior.
Mr. Stratlnnan asked was the extent of the damage cosmetic or structural. Mr. Magner
responded there was heavy smoke and water damage throughout. The buiiding has been
abandoned since that time. There may have been more extensive water damage since then.
Ms. Davis stated she takes caze of her father; he is not well. He purchased the property on
August 9, 2000, from the previous owner. She does not have legal controi over 3us deoisions.
Ms. Davis was not awaze the properry was a registered vacant house. It was obvious fihere were
things that needed to be done to ihe property. Every pipe in the basement was busted. There was
no runnirag water nor electricity. She I�ew it had to meez certain codes before it could be legally
occupied. She hired a company to replace the pIumbing in the basement, and an outside spigot
that ieaked. The connection to the water heater had to be replaced. They laid carpet and painted.
After she did the wark, she moved in and was unaware that she cAUldn't. In September, a man
came to the house and explained to her husband that they could noY live there because the
property was registered as being legally vacant. When she found this out, she had just given birth
to her daughter. When she was able to, she contacted various people in the City. The fire that
occurred an June 12 has rendered the condition of the house worse. Long Beach Mortgage holds
$30,000 of insurance settlement on the fire to have it repaired.
Ms. Davis went on to say she came into possession of a code compliance inspection dated
August 3. After talking to Mr. Magner, he explained their contractor could walk through the
house with the list, and he would know if it has been done. They could obtain a pemut for the
code compliance issues and a permit for the fire damage. Her contractor did a walk through. She
o�-��z�
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Page 6
cannot get the code compliance issues done until the fire damage is cleaned up to see what she is
left with, but she cannot get the fire damage taken caze of until she gets the code compiiance
issues taken caze of.
Mr. Strathman asked was she awaze that the repair cost may be between $50,000 to $60,000.
Ms. Davis responded over half the list has been fixed. VJith the fire daniage, there is additional
work to be done. The mortgage company is holding $30,000.
Mr. Strathman asked is the August 3, 2000, code compliance inspection an accurate
representarion of what needs to be done. Mr. Magner responded Don Wagner (License,
Inspections, Environmentai Protection) would have to go ihrough the building and make a
determination as to what has to be completed, was it done under permit, and can it be signed off.
If not, it has to be done under permit. Most likely, Mr. Wagner will not give a code compliance
certificate without including the fire damage items.
Another code compliance inspection is needed, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Magner responded
vacant building fees need to be paid, a code compliance inspection completed, and a bond needs
to be posted. Also, the building should be unoccupied and secured.
Gerry Strathman recommends ganting the owner six months to compiete the rehabilitation of the
property on condition that the foilowing is done by noon of Wednesday, October 3, 2001: 1) Pay
the vacant building fee, 2) Get a code compliance inspection, 3) Post a$2,000 bond.
Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 397 Aldine Street. If the
owner faiis io comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
Steve Magner reported the house has been moved to another location.
(Case is closed.)
Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 473 Hatch Avenue. If
the owner fails to compiy, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
(Steve Magner submitted phatographs.)
Steve Magner reported tiris properry has been condemned and vacant since November 2000.
Five summary abatement notices haue been issued to cut tall grass and remove refuse. On
August 1, 2001, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which
constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a
nuisance condition was issued on August 6 with a compliance date of August 21. As of this date,
this property remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative
code. The City has boazded the building against trespass. The vacant building fees aze due.
Real estate taxes are unpaid of $2090.38. Taxation has placed an estimated mazket value of
$6,500 on the land. Before the fire, the esrimated market value of the building was $34,800. As
LEGISLATIVE HEARING REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
c� � �o
Page 7
of today, a code compliance inspection has not been applied for and a bond has not been posted.
The estimated cost to repair is $40,000 to $50,000; estimated cost to demolish, $6,000 to $7,000.
Mr. Magner stated the owner has tried to sell the property with no luck due to the small size of
the structure, low ceilings, and numerous problems with the building. About a month ago, the
owner asked Mr. Magner what would happen if the City demolished the structure. Mr. Magner
explained the lot would remain his property, and the cost of the demolition would be assessed on
the taYes.
Gerry Strathman recommends approval.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:02 a.m.
�
�'� � � � i � � � �v`c� cr��,- — 1Va� . `7 a.00\ Council File # O\— lOOJy
L� � � �
Green Sheet # (pa5��
RESOLUTION
F SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented By
Referred To
Committee: Date
`I9
1 WHEREAS, Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement has requested the City Council
2 to hold public hearings to consider the advisability and necessity of ordering the repair or wrecking and
3 removal of a two story, wood frame, sin�le family and wood frame shed located on property hereinafter
4 referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly known as 715 Preble Street. This property is legally
5 described as follows, to wit:
Lot 2, Block 4, Irvines Second Addition to St. Paul.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information
obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before June 7, 2001, the following are the now known
interested or responsible parties far the Subject: Gilbert Costilla, 1453 Arkwright Street #301, St. Paul, MN
55101; Long Beach Mortgage Co., 1100 Town & Country Rd, Orange, CA 97868; Katherin & Michael
Davis,1453 Arkwright Street #301, St. Paul, MN 55101
WHEREAS, Division of Code Enforcement has served in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code an order identified as an"Order to Abate Nuisance
Building(s)" dated August 6, 2001; and
WHEREAS, this order informed the then known interested or responsible parties that the structure
located on the Subject Property is a nuisance building(s) pursuant to Chapter 45; and
WHEREAS, this order informed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair or
demolish the structure located on the Subject Property by August 21, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placazd on the Subject Property declaring this
building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and
WHEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Division of Code Enforcement
requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the City
Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and
WFiEREAS, the interested and responsible parties have been served notice in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the time, date, place and purpose of the
public hearings; and
WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City
Council on Tuesday, September 25, 2001 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and
evidence, made the recommendation to approve the request to order the interested or responsible parties to
make the Subject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and
remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure in accordance with all
applicable codes and ordinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the structure in
accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to be
completed within €rue{S}days after the date of the Council Hearing; and `
o...�.y.1Y.� 2 ..�� ��Vol : s ..`.1 a e..�a oco '1 �i�.e. vae...} lv �ae..
��4hGt+ �Qt aa� t
�m..a..� . v� s �o o , � �e,
e� o�. �. �__.
o �-�.sv
1 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, October 3, 2001
2 and the testimony and evidence including the action taken by the Legislative Hearing Officer was
3 considered by the Council; now therefore
5 BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the above referenced
6 public hearings, the Saint Paul City Council hereby adopts the following Findings and Order conceming
7 the Subject Property at 715 Preble Street:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
2.
1.
2.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
That the Subject Properry comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul
Legislative Code, Chapter 45.
That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed tkuee
thousand dollars ($3,000.00).
That there now exists and has existed multiple Housing or Building code violations at the
Subject Property.
That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then known responsible parties
to correct the deficiencies ox to demolish and remove the building(s}.
That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition haue not been corrected.
That Division of Code Enforcement has posted a placard on the Subject Property which
declares it to be a nuisance condition subject to demolition.
That this building has been routinely monitored by the Citizen Service Offices, Division of
Code Enforcement, VacantJNuisance Buildings.
That the lmown interested parties and owners are as previously stated in this resolution and
that the notification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled.
� � � '7
The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the following order:
The above referenced interested or responsible parties shall make the Subject Property safe and not
detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the
community by rehabilitating this structure and correcting all deficiencies as prescribed in the above
referenced Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) in accordance with all applicable codes and
ordinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all
applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitarion or demolition and removal of the shucture
must be completed within�rne{�}days after the ( date o the Council Hearing.
0116 �1�tt�ssi 4�a�4C� \`gd t
If the above corrective action is not completed within this period of time the Citizen Service Office,
Division of Code Enforcement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps aze necessary to
demolish and remove this shucture, fill the site and chazge the costs incurred against the Subject
Property pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code.
D \ - �os7
3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all personal
properry or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shall be removed
from the properry by the responsible parties by the end of this time period. If all personal properry
is not removed, it shall be considered to be abandoned and the City of Saint Paul shall remove and
dispose of such property as provided by law.
4. It is further ordered, that a copy of this resolution be mailed to the owners and interested parties in
accordance with Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislarive Code.
Adopted by Council: Date �e., , � �. �
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
Requested by Deparhnent o£
Citizen Service Office: Code Enforcement
BY� L�
� J ^d�'�--'�
Form Approved by City Attorney
� /
� � �y ,� l� � —
_ /
By: "� „ �- . (� B y :
� .. • -� � � �. - � / '✓
�
� �� i ���1/i//
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
B ��'�� /��/�//!
o�-�oa�
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE
.. OATEJNITIATEO
GREEN SHEETR�
� u °�,�^�.°�- � °�� �-
� p n� �R ��,��
� � �,,..a�„ �'
� �
� ❑.�,�o.. ..�.��.�a
� W„���,�,�,., ❑
:S (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
City Council to pass this resolution which will order the owner(s) to remove or repair fhe referenced building(s). If
the owner fails to comply with the resolution, the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is ordered
to remove the building. The subject property is located at 715 Preble Street.
PLANNING CAMMISSION
CIB COMMfITEE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Has u,is aersoMirm everwaNea unae. a conaaa rw mi� depar6nem�+
YES No
Fiac thie pereoNGrm eva been a city empbyee?
YES NO
Doesthis peBONfrm poeseas a sitlll not normdllypossesse0 by any cum;M city employee4
YES �
k Mis persoNPom a telpHetl vendaYl .
YES NO
� �E�ain an ves anav.^eB on aece� snee� ana s�racn ro o� �
NITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORNNI7Y (Who, Wliat, When, Where, Why) ' '
Thi§ building(s) is a nuisance building(s) as defined in Chapter 45 and a vacant building as defined in Chapter 43 of
the Saint Paul Legislative Code. The owners, interested parties and responsible parties lrnown to the Enforcement
Officer were given an order to repair or remove the building at 715 Preble Street by August 21, 2001, and have
failed to comply with those orders.
APPROVED
The City will eliminate a nuisance.
, �ia��vnrv�ro�a�rNrrrt�v
` The City will spen fixnds to wreck and remobe this building(s). These costs will be assessed to the property,
, collected as a. special assessment against the property taaces.
remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to blight the community.
OF TRANSACTION S
souece Nuisance Housing Abatement
(IXPWN)
CO5TIREVENUE BUDfiETED (CIRCLE ONE) / YES /., NO
l.�
�crmT,Nw�e�x 33261
: .;.. .
tiLi � ,� �'
REPORT
o � _�0}7
Date: September 25, 2001
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Place: Room 330 City Hall
15 West Kellogg Boulevazd
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
Gerry Strathman
Legisla6ve Heazing Officer
Summary Abatement Order Appeal for 1598 Hazel Street North.
(Laid over from 9-4-01)
Legislative Hearing Officer recoxnmends denying the appeal.
2. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the properry at 2257 Hillside Avenue.
If the owner faiis to compiy, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
(Laid over from 4-17-01)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends granting the owner six months to complete the
rehabilitation of the property on condition that a$2,000 bond is posted by noon of
Wednesday, October 3, 2001.
Laid Over Summary Abatement:
JOIOSV Towing of abandoned vehicle at 376 Marvland Avenue East.
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends reducing the assessment to $105 plus the $45
service fee for a total assessment of $150.
4. Sununary Abatement Order appeal for 697 Surrev Avenue.
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends denying the appeal.
5. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 850 Sims Avenue. If
the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
Legislafive Heazing Officer recommends laying over to the October 16, 2001, Legislative
Hearing.
6. ItesoIution ordering the owner to remove or repair the properry at 715 Preble Street. If
the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcemen# is ordered to remove the building.
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends granting #he owner siY months to complete the
rehabilitation of the properry on condition that the following is done by noon of
Wednesday, October 3, 2001: 1) Pay the vacant building fee, 2) Get a code compliance
inspection, 3) Post a$2,000 bond.
C�\-lo?�
LEGISLATIVE HEARING REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Page 2
Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 397 Aldine Street. If
the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
(Case is closed.)
8. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the pmperry at 473 Hatch Avenue. If
the owner fails to compiy, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval.
�
CTTY OF SAII�TT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
CITIZEN SERVICE OFFICE
Fred Owusu, Ciry Clerk
DNISION OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT
Michae! R Morehe¢d, Program Man¢ger
Nuisance Building Cade Enfarcement
ISW.KelloggBlvd.Rm.790 Tel: 65r26U-8440
SaintPau[,MN55102 Fas:651-266-8426
C �� `0�7
A
August 25, 2001
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Council President and
Members of the City Council
�
�
� Citizen Service Office, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings Enforcement Division has requested
the City Council schedulepublic hearings to consider a resolution ordering the repair or
removal of the nuisance bnilding(s) loca[ed at:
s���PC�+ �'?n'�'�
715"Preble Street
�E� � � ��fl9
The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearings as follows:
Legislative Hearing - Tuesday, September 25, 2001
City Council Hearing - Wednesday, October 3, 20D1
The owners and responsible parties of record are:
Name and Last Known Address
Gilbert Castilia
1453 Arkwright Street #301
a.k.a 387 Arlington Avenue East
St. Paul, MN 55101
Interest
Fee Owner
Long Beach Mortgage Co.
_ 1100 Town & Country Rd.
� Orange, CA 97868
Katherin & Michael Davis
1453 Arkwright Street #301
a.k.a. 387 Arlington Avenue East
St. Paul, MN 55101
Mortgagee
Interested Party
715 Preble Street
August 24, 2001
Page 2
The legal description of this properry is:
Lot 2, Block 4, Irvines Second Addition to St. Paul.
ai -�as�
Division of Code Enforcement has declared this building(s) to constitute a"nuisance" as
defined by Lenislative Code, Chapter 45. Division of Code Enforcement has issued an
order to the then known responsible parties to eliminate ttus nuisance condition by
correcting the deficiencies or by razing and removin� this building(s).
Inasmuch as this Order to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition
remains unabated, the community continues to suffer the blighting influence of this
; property. Tt is the recommendation of the Division of Code Enforcement that the City
Council pass a resolution ordering the responsibie parties to either repair, or demolish and
remove this building in a timely manner, and failing that, authorize the Division of Code
Enforcement to proceed to demolition and removal, and to assess the costs incurred
against the real estate as aspecial assessment to be collected in the same manner as taxes.
Sincerely,
�teve �a�rcer
Steve Mab er
Vacant Buildings Supervisor
Division of Code Enforcement
Citizen Service Office
SM:mI
cc: Frank Berg, Building Inspection and Design
Meghan Riley, City Attomeys Office
Nancy Anderson, Assistant Secretary to the Council
Laurie Kaplan, PED-Housing Division
ccnph
U t-�o2�1
MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING ��-
Tuesday, September 25, 2001
Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer
Room 330 Courthouse
The meeting was called to order at 10:04 a.m.
STAFF PRESENT: Roxanna Flink, Real Estate; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Hazold
Robinson, Code Enforcement;
Summary Abatement Order Appeal for 1598 Hazel Street North. (Laid over from 9-4-01)
Gerry Strathman stated that the appellant was going to consult with City staff and others as to
whether the garden was consistent with the City's ordinance with respect to nahual gardens,
prairie growth, etc. He asked did the owner have time to do that.
Walt Montpetit, owner, appeared and stated a City representative called him last Friday and left a
voice mail. He was out of town and just retumed Sunday evening. He has not had a chance to
have a conversation with City inspectors as far as what was a landscape design versus weeds and
tall grass.
Harold Robinson reported he could not find a specific ordinance to cover these things. The
ordinance does read grass and weeds over 8 inches high must be cut. There are some specific
plants and landscape designs that aze excluded from this. It is not composfing because it is not a
contained azea. It is not covered under the grass and weed ordinance because it is tall grass that
has been allowed to grow. He cannot exempt it.
Mr. Strathman asked is there someone in the City ihat knows plants well enough to make a
determination as to if these plants aze accepted under state law. Mr. Robinson responded he has
been on the property, and ii is basically tall grass and weeds.
Mr. Strathman asked whaY makes the owner think it is something other than tall grass and weeds.
Mr. Montpetit responded the area is set aside from the rest of the yard. He looks at it as part of
his landscape scheme. It is a wooded lot adjacent to the rest of the lot that is groomed, even
though it is a sma11 area. He does not know anyone who cuts weeds and tall grass out of a
wooded lot. He asked is his yard designated as a yazd or as a wooded lot. Mr. Robinson
responded that specifically a wooded lot has to have a tree, and this backyard does not have a
tree. Mr. Montpetit responded there are trees back in the comer. Mr. Robinson stated this
properry is definitely noi a wooded lot.
From the description he included with his appeal, stated Mr. Strathman, there is a map that shows
the nature garden is behind the gazage and surrounded by a six foot privacy fence. He asked how
this came to the City's attention. Mr. Robinson responded it was a complaint based inspection.
Mr. Montpetit stated he belongs to the yacht club and a member wmplained to the City about
weeds and tall grass on Harriet Island. This member was told it was part of the landscape scene.
C�\-\oZ�`�j
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Page 2
It is no different than his weeds and tall grass, said Mr. Montperit. He does not laiow what
species needs to be cut and which species he can plant to conform.
(Mr. Robinson gave Mr. Montpefit documents about a company that specializes in this subject.)
Gerry S4athman recommends denying the appeal. It does not appeaz that what Mr. Montpetit
wants to do is provided for under the City ordinance.
Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 225'7 Hillside Avenue.
If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
(Laid over from 4-17-01)
The following appeazed: Kim McCallum, 929 Selby Avenue, and Steve Gibbs, Westem
National, 4i 12th Avenue North, Hopkins.
Steve Magner reported this building has been vacant since December 3, 1999. There have been
five summary abatement notices to secure the dwelling, cut tall grass, remove refuse, remove
snow and/or ice. On October 19, 2000, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of
deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken.
An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on October 24, 2000, with a compliance date of
November 27. As of this date, the properiy remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as
defined by the legislative code. The real estates taxes aze unpaid of $6,333. Taxation has placed
an estimated market value of $56,600 on the land, and $5,000 on the building. On July 25, 2001,
a code compliance inspection was done. A$2,000 bond has noY been posted. Estimated cost to
repair is $100,000 to $150,000; estimated cost to demolish, $12,000 to $15,000.
"This was originally before the Legislative Hearing Officer in March, said Mr. Magner. It was
laid over because the second mortgage company was going through a foreclosure process, wanted
to clear the tifle, pay off the insurance company, and then sell it. The second mortgage company
has been paid off and is no ionger involved with this property. The original owner has physical
control of the building, but there is still an issue with the insurance company for the first
mortgage company.
Mr. McCallum stated he plans to take the neact week and decide to sell the property, rehabilitate
it, or tear it down and rebuild. As of yesterdaq, #here was a settlement.
Mr. Gibbs stated VJestern National will be satisfied with the agreement. Thsy aze now in the
middle of foreclosure on the properry. They will be out of the picture when that happens and the
McCallums can take whatever action they would like.
Mr. Strathman asked is he prepazed to post the $2,000 bond. Mr. McCallum responded he is.
Gerry Strathman recommends granting the owner six months to complete the rehabilita6on of the
property on condition that a$2,000 bond is posted by noon of Wednesday, October 3, 2001.
�\
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINLTTES FOR SEPTBMBER 25, 2001 Page 3
Laid Over Summary Abatement:
JOlOSV Towing of abandoned vehicle at 376 Marvland Avenue East
Franciso 7aramillo, owner, appeared and stated this is about a velucle he pazked on the side of his
garage. He received an order to remove it. He called a towing company, and was told they
would not remove it until April. The City removed it in Mazch. He called the Impound Lot. He
was told that he would not have to pay anything and he could sign over the title. The vehicle was
left there.
Hazold Robinson reported the vehicle was abated on January 25 and towed in Mazch. It had no
current license plates. It was a proper tow.
In answer to questions, Mr. Jazamillo responded the vehicle was a 1981 Honda Civic, and it did
not run.
Gerry Strathman recommends reducing the assessment to $105 plus the $45 service fee for a total
assessment of $150. The owner should have taken caze of the matter as soon as he got the notice.
The City towed the vehicle, stored it, and sold it when they got the title. There aze costs
involved.
Summary Abatement Order appeal for 697 Surrev Avenue.
(Shazon Anderson, appellant, sent Gerry Strathman an e-mail saying that she is unable to attend
ioday's meeting.)
Gerry Strathman recommends denying the appeal.
Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 850 Sims Avenue. If the
owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
(Steve Magner presented photographs. They were later returned.)
Steve Magner reported the property was condemned May 2000. It has been a vacant building
since August 21, 2000. Two sunmiary abatement notices have been issued to remove refuse. On
Mazch 7, 2001, an inspecrion of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which
constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a
nuisance building was issued on Mazch 19, 2001, with a compliance date of April 18. As of this
date, the property remains in a condition that comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative
code. The vacant building fees aze due. Esrimated mazket value of property is $36,700;
estimated cost to repair, $80,000 to $100,000, estimated cost to demolish, $7,500 to $8,000. A
code compliance inspection was done on August 30, 20�0.
On April 13, 2001, stated Mr. Magner, a third party posted a$2,000 bond. His reasoning was
that he was in expectation of obtaining titie after the original owners--Michael and Becky
Ramstad--cancelled the contract with Samantha Mathews. That bond expires by October 15.
�
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
O\-�OZ
Page 4
Mr. Strathman asked what happened with the citation that was issued for failure to pay the vacant
building fee. Mr. Magner responded he does not have the file with him, but he assumes the
citation was never settled. The owner is no longer in Minnesota. In September, Ms. Mathews
paid the vacant building fee. Code Enforcement made an agreement with Ms. Mathews to give
her s� months to rehabilitate the properry and she would not have to post the bond, but would
have to obtain a code compliance inspection. She obtained the code compliance inspection, but
failed to act in a timely manner to rehabilitate the structure. Code Enforcement continually
receives complaints of illegal activiries and occupancy at the dwelling. There have been
numerous inspections. Mr. Magner had a conversation with Don Wagner (License, Inspections,
Envuonmental Protection) who said he has not been called to inspect the property. There aze still
outstanding pernv2s that need to be pulled before a code compliance can be signed off.
Samantha Mathews, owner, appeared and stated she had a code compliance inspection. The six
months were up, and Rich Singerhouse (Code Enforcement) and another inspector came out on
Mazch 7. She received an order to abate dated Mazch 19 and was given until April 18 to clear the
deficiencies. This is a different list than the original that she had six months to do. Shortly
thereafter, a$2,000 bond was posted. The man who posted the $2,000 bond was under the
assumption that he was going to get the house, and Mr. Ramstad had agreed to sell it to him after
the foreclosure proceedings against her. Ms. Mathews also came up with $5,000, took the matter
to district court, and saved her house. Three hours a$er she won the court case, there was a
legislative hearing noiice from Mr. Magner. Throughout this whole time, she has left several
messages and has never had her calls retu2ned. On her last visit with Mr. Magner, he said he was
finished with this matter and would put Mike Morehead (Code Enforcement) in charge of it. Her
house is more than 50% done. Ms.-Mathews has photographs and �davits from her neighbors.
One of the people complaining would be a neighbor right next door to her who would like to
obtain her property. Ms. Mathews received two summary abatement norices: one was for a dog
and one to clean up the property, The bond expires on flctober 13. Don Wagner would like to
inspect the pro�erry to see what has been done.
Gerry 3trathman recommends layang over to the October 16, 2001, Legislative Hearing. He does
not think the City should move on this property while the cutrent bond is still in effeck, but that is
only for approximately two more weeks. There needs to be an inspection of the property before
the bond is expired to determine if it can be extended another six months.
� Resotution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 715 Preble Street. If the
owner fails to compIy, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
(Steve Magner submitted photographs.j
Catherine Davis, 1A53 Arkwright Avenue #301, owner's daughter, appeazed.
Gerry Strathman stated the document in front of him has Gilbert Castilla as the fee owner, Long
Beach Mortgage Company as the mortgagee, and Katherin and Michael Davis as interested
parties. Ms. Davis responded she is not sure how her name got onto the paperwork other than the
fact that Gilbert is her dad. He purchased the house in August. He is disabled and Ms. Davis
v� �Z�1
LEGISLATiVE HEARING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Page 5
handles most of his business. They had done the work on the house and moved in unawaze that it
was a vacant house.
Steve Magner reported this building has been vacant since June 10, 1999. There have been seven
summary abatement notices issued to remove refuse, cut tall grass, secure structure. On August
1, 2001, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies wluch constitute a
nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance
building was issued on August 6, 2001, with a compliance date of Angust 21, 2001. As of this
date, this properry remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the
legislative code. The vacant building fees are due. Real estate taxes are unpaid in the amount of
$1,073.99. Prior to the fire, Taxation had placed an estimated mazket value of $11,000 on the
land and $38,400 on the building. The estimated cost to repair this struchue is $50,000 to
$60,000; esrimated cost to demolish, $7,000 to $8,000. On August 3, 2000, a code compliance
inspection was done. No bond has been posted.
Mr. Magner stated this was a registered vacant building, and vacant building placards were on it.
The owner was put on notice not to occupy this building. There were two citations issued for
iIlegal occupancy. They were occupying a registered vacant building when the fire occurred.
Mr. Strathman stated the photographs do not indicate a fire. Mr. Magner responded the fue was
contained in the interior of the dwelling. There was heavy smoke damage throughout. There
was no bum through to the outside; it is a stucco e�rterior.
Mr. Stratlnnan asked was the extent of the damage cosmetic or structural. Mr. Magner
responded there was heavy smoke and water damage throughout. The buiiding has been
abandoned since that time. There may have been more extensive water damage since then.
Ms. Davis stated she takes caze of her father; he is not well. He purchased the property on
August 9, 2000, from the previous owner. She does not have legal controi over 3us deoisions.
Ms. Davis was not awaze the properry was a registered vacant house. It was obvious fihere were
things that needed to be done to ihe property. Every pipe in the basement was busted. There was
no runnirag water nor electricity. She I�ew it had to meez certain codes before it could be legally
occupied. She hired a company to replace the pIumbing in the basement, and an outside spigot
that ieaked. The connection to the water heater had to be replaced. They laid carpet and painted.
After she did the wark, she moved in and was unaware that she cAUldn't. In September, a man
came to the house and explained to her husband that they could noY live there because the
property was registered as being legally vacant. When she found this out, she had just given birth
to her daughter. When she was able to, she contacted various people in the City. The fire that
occurred an June 12 has rendered the condition of the house worse. Long Beach Mortgage holds
$30,000 of insurance settlement on the fire to have it repaired.
Ms. Davis went on to say she came into possession of a code compliance inspection dated
August 3. After talking to Mr. Magner, he explained their contractor could walk through the
house with the list, and he would know if it has been done. They could obtain a pemut for the
code compliance issues and a permit for the fire damage. Her contractor did a walk through. She
o�-��z�
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Page 6
cannot get the code compliance issues done until the fire damage is cleaned up to see what she is
left with, but she cannot get the fire damage taken caze of until she gets the code compiiance
issues taken caze of.
Mr. Strathman asked was she awaze that the repair cost may be between $50,000 to $60,000.
Ms. Davis responded over half the list has been fixed. VJith the fire daniage, there is additional
work to be done. The mortgage company is holding $30,000.
Mr. Strathman asked is the August 3, 2000, code compliance inspection an accurate
representarion of what needs to be done. Mr. Magner responded Don Wagner (License,
Inspections, Environmentai Protection) would have to go ihrough the building and make a
determination as to what has to be completed, was it done under permit, and can it be signed off.
If not, it has to be done under permit. Most likely, Mr. Wagner will not give a code compliance
certificate without including the fire damage items.
Another code compliance inspection is needed, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Magner responded
vacant building fees need to be paid, a code compliance inspection completed, and a bond needs
to be posted. Also, the building should be unoccupied and secured.
Gerry Strathman recommends ganting the owner six months to compiete the rehabilitation of the
property on condition that the foilowing is done by noon of Wednesday, October 3, 2001: 1) Pay
the vacant building fee, 2) Get a code compliance inspection, 3) Post a$2,000 bond.
Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 397 Aldine Street. If the
owner faiis io comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
Steve Magner reported the house has been moved to another location.
(Case is closed.)
Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 473 Hatch Avenue. If
the owner fails to compiy, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
(Steve Magner submitted phatographs.)
Steve Magner reported tiris properry has been condemned and vacant since November 2000.
Five summary abatement notices haue been issued to cut tall grass and remove refuse. On
August 1, 2001, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which
constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a
nuisance condition was issued on August 6 with a compliance date of August 21. As of this date,
this property remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative
code. The City has boazded the building against trespass. The vacant building fees aze due.
Real estate taxes are unpaid of $2090.38. Taxation has placed an estimated mazket value of
$6,500 on the land. Before the fire, the esrimated market value of the building was $34,800. As
LEGISLATIVE HEARING REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
c� � �o
Page 7
of today, a code compliance inspection has not been applied for and a bond has not been posted.
The estimated cost to repair is $40,000 to $50,000; estimated cost to demolish, $6,000 to $7,000.
Mr. Magner stated the owner has tried to sell the property with no luck due to the small size of
the structure, low ceilings, and numerous problems with the building. About a month ago, the
owner asked Mr. Magner what would happen if the City demolished the structure. Mr. Magner
explained the lot would remain his property, and the cost of the demolition would be assessed on
the taYes.
Gerry Strathman recommends approval.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:02 a.m.
�