03-816l9iY/�/Y1L � �P�fFh'l0� -�. G����
CITY OF
Presented By
Referred To
RESOLUTION
PAUL, MINNESOTA
�-{b
Committee: Date
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 ardering the repair or wrecking and
3 removal of an 18 unit, three story, brick/stone and wood framed apartment located on property hereinafter
4 referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly known as 1956 Feronia Avenue. This property is
5 legally described as follows, to wit:
6
7 Parcell
8 Lot 1 except the Easterly 80 feet thereof; the W esterly line of said 80 feet, being pazallel to the
9 Easterly line of said L,ot 1; also with and subject to an easement of 12 feet for a private alley for the
1 O use of the owners of said Lot 1, running through from Waltham Avenue and Feronia Avenue; the
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
center line of said easement shall be the Westerly line of the Easterly 80 feet as heretofore
described, all in Union Pazk, in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Parcel 2
All that part Easterly of the following described line: Commencing at a point on the Southwesterly
line of Lot 1, 80 feet northwesterly from the most southerly comer thereof; thence northerly parallel
with the South half of East line of said Lot 1, 35.55 feet; thence northerly parallel with north half of
said Easterly line, 39.30 feet to a point on the northerly line of said lot, 80 feet from the most
northerly corner thereof, being part of Lot 1, Union Park.
WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information
obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or befare March 7, 2003, the following are the now known
interested or responsible parties for the Subject Property: Naomi Isaacson, 414 - 7'�' Avenue SE, #B104,
Minneapolis, MN 55414; Deborah L. Croom, 2800 University Avenue, Suite l, Minneapolis, MN 55414-
3293; Beacon Bank, 19765 Highway 7, Shorewood, MN 55331; Laureen Marie Ballinger, 414 - 7�' Avenue
SE, #B104, Minneapolis, MN 55414
WHEREAS, Division of Code Enfarcement 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 June 25, 2003; and
WHEREAS, this order informed the then known interested or responsible parties that the shucture
located on the Subject Property is a nuisance building(s) pursuant to Chapter 45; and
WIIEREAS, this order informed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair or
demolish the structure located on the Subject Property by 7uly 25, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placard on the Subj ect Property declaring this
building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and
AA-ADA-EEO Emgtoyer
Council File # V � _ ���
Green Sheet # � � � ` °`
03 �81�
1 WHEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Division of Code Enforcement
2 requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings before the I,egislarive Hearing Officer of the City
3 Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
25
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
48
49
50
WHEREAS, the interested and responsible parties have been served notice in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legslative 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, August 26, 2003 to hear testunony 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 Properry safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfaze and
remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure in accardance with all
applicable codes and ordinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the structure in
accordance with atl applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to be
completed within��; days after the date of the Council Hearing; and
/�//
WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, September 3,
2003 and the testimony and evidence including the action taken by the Legislative Aearing Officer was
considered by the Council; now therefore
BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the above referenced
public hearings, the Saint Paul City Council hereby adopts the following Findings and Order concerning the
Subject Property at 1956 Feronia Avenue:
That the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul
Legislative Code, Chapter 45.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
F�
That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed three
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 lrnown responsible parties
to correct the deficiencies or to demolish and remove the building(s).
That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition have not been corrected.
That Division of Code Enforcement has posted a placard on the Subj ect Properiy which
declares it to be a nuisance condirion subject to demolition.
That this building has been routinely monitored by the Citizen Service Offices, Division of
Code Enforcement, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings.
That the known interested parties and owners are as previously stated in this resolution and
Yhat the notification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled.
• ' � •7
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
03 - �r�
The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the following order:
2
3 1. The above referenced interested or responsible parties shall make the Subject Properiy safe and not
4 detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the
5 community by rehabilitating this shucture and correcting all deficiencies as prescribed in the above
6 referenced Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) in accordance with all applicable codes and
7 ordinances, or in the alternarive by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all
8 applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolirion and removal of the structure
9
lo
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
must be completed witrrin fi�Tdays after the date of the Council Hearing.
iBd
2. 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 structure, fill the site and charge the costs incurred against the Subject
Property pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code.
3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all personal
property or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shall be removed
from the property by the responsible parties by the end of this time period. If all personal property
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 Legislative Code.
Yeas Navs Absent
Benanav �
Blakev �
Bostrom `
Coleman ,/
Haz
Lar.
Rei
AdoF
AdoF
BY=
Appz
By:
Requested by Department of:
Citizen Service Office; Code Enforcement
� �4
Form Approved by City Attorney
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
o3-�i�
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
DepartmenUoffice/council: Date Initiated:
cs ���s�� 0&AUG-03 Green Sheet NO: 3003942
Contact Person & Phone: DeoartmeM Sent To Person InitiaUDate
Andy Dawkins � 0 ' ' 'ces �
Z66'�92� Assign 1 �tizenServices De artmentDirector
Must Be on Council qgenda by (Date): Number Z � A �� e `�
03-SEP-03 For
ROUting 3 vor's Office Ma odAssistaut
progf 4 ouncil
5 i Clerk CStv Clerk
Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature)
Action Requested:
City Council to pass this resolurion which will order the owner(s) to remove or repair the referenced building(s). If the owaer fails to
comply with the resolurion, the Citizen Sexvice Office, Division of Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. The subject
property is located at 1956 Feronia Avenue.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contrects Must Mswer the Following Questions:
Planning Commission 1. Has this personifirtn ever worked under a co�tract for this department?
CIB Committee Yes No
Civil Service Commission 2. Has this personffirm ever been a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any
current city employee?
Yes No
Explain aR yes answers on separete sheet a+M attach to green sheet
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
11�is 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
Legislarive Code. The owners, interested parties and responsible parties Imown to the Enforcement Officer were given an order to
� repair or remove the building at 1956 Feronia Avenue by July 25, 2003, and have failed to comply with those orders.
���s u�
AdvanWges IfApproved: �� � � � �
The City will elusilnate a nuisance.
Al1G 1 ' 2��J3
. r..
� DisadvanWges If Approved: � � � � � �� �
The City will spend funds to wreck and remove this buIlding(s). These costs wi11 be assessed to the property, collected as a special
assessment against the property taxes.
Disadvantages If Not Approved: �+ �, , ,
A nuisance condition will remain unabated in the City. Tlris building(s) will continue to blight the commuvit}%. ,
�� � � ��Q�
Total Amount of
Transaction: 30000 CosURevenue Budgeted: y
Fundin9 source: Nuisance Housing Activitv Number: 30251
Financiallnformation: AbBt@R18fif
(Explain)
b3-�i�
., ., .
Date: August 26, 2003
Tune: 10:00 a.m.
Place: Room 330 City Hall
15 West Kellogg Boulevazd
LEGISLATIVE HEARING FOR ORDERS TO REMOVE/REPAAI�tt,
CONDEMNATIONS, SUMMARY ABATEMENT ORDERS, ABATEMENT
ASSESSMENTS
Mazcia Moermond
I.egislative Hearing Officer
1. Appeai of 1Votice of Condemnation at 516 Edmund Avenue. Unit L'�
(Appeal cancelled.)
2. Appeal of Vehicle Abatement Order at 283 Syndicate SYreet South.'�
(Appeal cancelled.)
3. Appeai of Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate at 925 Cook Avenue East.
Legisiative Hearing Officer recommends changing the vacate date to September 15, 2003,
for #he entire building on the Notice of Condemnation and Order to V acate dated August
l, 2003.
�''� 4. Resolution ordering Yhe owner to remove or repair the building(s) at 1956 Feronia
Avenue. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is
ordered to remove the bui3ding(s).
I.egislative He�ring {�fficer recommends granting the owner 180 days to complete the
rehabilitation of the properiy on condition that the $2,000 bond is posted by noon of
September 3, 2003.
5. Appeal of Revised Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate at 297 Bnrgess
Street.
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends lifting the condexnnation for Unit 1(downstairs
wuY) on the Bevised Notic� of Condemnation and Order to V acate dated August 12,
2003. U�ii 2(upstairs unit) is condemned unless the foilowing is done by noon of
September 3, 2t�33: 1) the electrical, roof, and window permits ate ciosed out, 2) Items
33 �ttrough 24 are completed.
f��i�
C(TIZENSERVICEOFF[CE U 2 — G '�
Dorsald J. Luna. Ciry Clerk '� 0
DMSION OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT
Artdy Dawkirs. Program Sfanager
�, S �F ,�j T pAUL Nuisance Building Code £rtforcemerst
Randy C. Kelly, h/ayor 76007Jorth [i'hite BearAversve I'e(: 65l-266-1900
Sa[nt Pau1, F1.V 55106 F¢x: 651-2�1926
� " '� L �";�� �'� �
�uv � - za�3
aU�st s, zoo� ��.-�—
����` r-, � i �R��'
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Council President and
Members of the City Council
Citizen Senzce Office, Vacant/Nuisance Buildin;s Enforcement Division has requested the City�
Council schedule public hearin�s to consider a resolution orderin� the repair or removal of the
nuisance buiiding(s) located at:
1956 Feronia Avenue
The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearin�s as follows:
Legislative Hearing - Tuesday, August 26, 2003
City Council Hearin� -�Vednesday, Sept�mber 3, 2003
The o��ners and responsible parties of record are:
Name and Last Known Address
Naomi Isaacson
414 - 7�' Avenue SE, #B 104
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Deborah L. Croom
2800 University Avenue, Suite 1
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3293
Beacon Ban�
1976� Hiancc�ac -
�hor��rooc. �.'L\ =�==:
Laureen Marie Ballinger
414 - 7�" Avenue SE, �B 104
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Interest
Fee O�vnzr
Fee Owner
ti4ort�ase Holder
Interestzd Party
pp-ADA-EEO Employer
1956 Feronia Avemte
Au�ust 8, 2003
Pa�e 2
The legal description of this property is:
p3-�I(O
Parcel l �--
Lot 1 except the Easterly 80 feet thereof; the Westerly line of said 80 feet, bein�
pazallel to the Easterly line of said Lot 1; also �vith and subject to zn easement of
12 feet for a private alley for the use of the owners of said Lot 1, runnin� throu�h
from �Valtham Avenue and Feronia Avenue; the center line of said easement shall
be the Westerly line of the Easterly 80 feet as heretofore described, all in Union
Par�, in Ramsey County�, �Sinnesota.
Parcel2
All that part Easterly of the followin� described line: Commencin� at a point on the
Southwesterly line of Lot 1, 80 feet northwesterly from the most southerly comer
thereof; thence northerly pazallel with the South half of East line of said Lot i,
3�.55 feet; thznce northerly parallel w�ith north half of said Easterly line, 3930 feet
to a point on the northerly line of said lot, 80 feet from the most northeriy comer
thereof, bein� part of Lot 1, Union Park.
Division of Code Enforcement has declared this buildin�(s) to constitute a"nuisance" as defined
by Le�islative Code, Chapter 45. Division of Code Enforcement has issued an order to the then
known responsible parties to eliminate this nuisance condition by cosecting the deficiencies or by
razin� 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 blightin� influence of this property. It is the
recommendation of the Division of Code Enforcement that the City Council pass a resolution
orderin� the responsible parties to either repair, o{demolish and remo� this building in a timely
manner, and failin� that, authorize the Divdsion of Code Enforcement to proceed to demolition
and removal, and to assess the costs incuned against the real e'state as a special assessment to be
collected in the same manner as taxes.
Sincerely,
1✓
, �� .
i
Steve Ma�er
Vacant Buildin�s Supervisor
Division of Codz Enforcement
Citizen Sen�ice Omce
��1:�:
i.:. i i°.�_� `�� _. 15Liit'i�:= l.ri.�"�i',�IlOi. c^. = 17.' __
Me�han tZiley, Ciry Attomeys Office
Nancy Anderson, Assistant Secretary to the Councii
Laurie Kaplan, PED-Housin� Division
M-ADA-EEO Employer
��� � �
� ��� ��
MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARiNG
ORDERS TO REMOVE/REPAIR, CONDEMNATIONS,
SUMMARY ABATEMENT ORDERS, ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
Room 330 City Hall, 15 West Kello�g Boulevard
Mazcia Mcermond, Legislative Hearing Officer
The hearing was cailed to order at 10:00 a.m.
STAFF PRESENT: Pat Fish, Fire Prevention; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Jim Prill,
Code Enforcement
Appeal of Nofice of Condemnafion at 516 Edmund Avenue. Unit 1.
Marcia Moermond stated the appeal has been cancelled by Fire Prevention as the power has been
restored to ihis address. (The condemnation has been lifted.)
Appeai of Vehicle Abatement Order at 283 Svndicate Street South
Marcia Moermond stated this appeal has been cancelled by the owner and the compliance date
has been rescheduled to October 10, 2003.
Appeal of Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate at 925 Cook Avenue East.
The following appeazed: Mazk Underdahi, owner, and Rich Schultz, 9201 Lexington Avenue
#1B, Circle Pines, representing Mr. Underdahl.
Mr. Underdahl stated he has been in court with this issue because the people who are moving out
on September 1 called Code Enforcement. This is a duplex. That is when he first met Jim Prill.
He asked Mr. Prill what he could do to fix the property, and Mr. Prill gave him a list of things to
fix, which Mr. Underdahl fixed except for a few items that he could not do. Mr. Prill kept
coming back with the downstairs tenants finding more things on the property to repair. The list
never gox shorter. He lried calling Mr. Prill tluee times. Mr. Underdahl called his boss Harold
Robinson (Code Enforcement) via f� and letter because Mr. Prill never returned phone calls.
Mr. Underdahl met Mr. Prill outside the properry once, and asked Mr. Prili to show him what he
was talking about, but Mr. Prill said he did not have time, but he would call him and set up an
appointment Monday morning. He never called. Mr. Underdahl f�ed a letter to Mr. Robinson
to have him come as an independent person to tell him what needs to be fixed with Mr. Prill. On
Thursday, Mr. Underdahl got a call from Mr. Prill that he gave him the wrong azea code. At that
time, he figured the relationship with lum is gone, and he needs to get Mr. Robinson involved.
He #old him eazlier that he would interceded with him_ Mr. Robinson called him back, but Mr.
Underdahl could never get a hold of l3im live. He told him Yo just set up an appoinhnent, and he
will be there. Mr. Underdahl never got anything from him. •
Ms. Moermond stated this is a duplex and oniy one unit is condemned. She asked aze either
occupied. Mr. Underdahl responded the lower unit is condemned until September 1.
0�
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINiJTES FOR AUGUST 26, 2003 Page 2
Mr. Schultz stated Mr. Prill would agree that the violations they found were confined to the
lower unit. Mr. Underdahl plans to convert the properry back into a single family home once the
tenants are out. The properiy will be vacant and remain vacant until things can be taken care of.
The NoUce of Condemnation was dated August 1 and Mr. Underdahl has made several attempts
to talk to Mr. Prill and get the property reinspected. Some of these probiems have been fixed and
need to be reinspected. Some of them have been fixed, but not to Mr. Prill's satisfaction. There
has been no feedback as to why they aze sfill in violation. There has been some tampering with
other items on here: Mr. Underdahl fixes them and the tenants unfix.
Ms. Moermond asked what has happened between the tenants calling Code Enforcement and this
matter going to court. Mr. Underdahl responded the above tenant is Section S. The downstairs
tenants were not paying rent, she was being evicted, and she called Code Enforcement. There
were not shared meters, but the lower unit was supposed to pay all utilities. They are related and
that was in the lease. He went to court and she got part of her rent abstained (sic abated). There
was a building permit taken downstairs. He went to City Hall and asked the building pernrit
inspectors what he needed to get, and he was told he needed $1,200, which he didn't have. As
soon as he gets the $1,200, they will inspect the property. Mr. Prill wanted him to put in
something that he could not do because he did not have a building permit. Once he found out
that the owner was going to sell the house, he condemned it the next day.
Ms. Moermond asked how long he owned the building. Mr. Underdahl responded 1997. He
lived there, got married, moved out, and just rented it the last two yeazs.
Ms. Moermond asked did he construct the second unit. Mr. Underdahl responded he remodeled
the basement.
Ms. Moermond asked about correction notices that were issued prior to the condemnation. Mr.
Prill responded there were several notices issued to the owner before the condemnation was
actually issued. He will not address the misleading statements unless Ms. Moermond would like
him to, but he will bring up the issue that there were 25 items on the original list, but there are 11
on the condemnarion. The reasons for the condemnation are listed on the norice. Several of
them have been completed, but most of them have not. There were 3 or 4 correction notices
issued between the first inspection of May 7 and the issuance of the condemnation. Some of the
notices had the same items issued, so the owner was renotified. Two items to clarify aze as
follows: 1) one reason for the condemnation besides the individual violation was it was an
iliegally conshvcted unit without permits. Mr. Prill cannot address whether the items he cannot
see are up to code. 2) It cannot be used as a duplex until proper permits aze issued and brought
up to code.
Ms. Moermond asked was LIEP informed that this was an illegal duplex. Mr. Prill responded
one of the building inspectors was at the property when he was there. They issued a notice to the
owner telling him that he must comply with all the appiicable codes and pull all the proper
permits or it cannot be used as a duplex.
c��--� t b
LEGISLATTVE HEARING MINUT'ES FOR AUGUST 26, 2003 Page 3
Ms. Moermond asked what they were looking for today. Mr. Schultz responded it will be
converted back into a single family home, so that issue is moot. The owner is refemng to the
original conection notice dated May 15, 2003, which had 25 violarions. The most recent notice
had about five violations that were not on the originai notice. That is what he meant when he
said the inspector kept finding new things. To his knowledge, everything has been repaired
except three items: 1) the building pemuts, which is a moot point since it will no longer be a
duplex; 2) Mr. Prill at the rent abatement hearing said there was ambiguity in the code whether
there was a violation before the toilet room door. 3) There was a bedroom downstairs and an
opening to the bathroom. It was constructed as a master bathroom type of thing. There is a lock
on the outside door going from the living unit into the bedroom. Mr. Prili admitted in the
heuing if the lock in the bedroom door was sufficient for a lock on the bathroom door because
the bathroom is contained within the master bedroom. Mr. Schultz is not sure if there has been a
resolufion in that issue. 4) The other issue is the ventilation in the bathroom. There is no door
there. Next to the opening is an egress window. Mr. Underdahl is trying to determine if that is
sufficient ventilation for the bathroom.
Mr. Schultz went on to say that they have a copy of a letter sent to Mr. Prill's boss that there were
many attempts by the owner to hook up with Mr. Prill and they haue been unsuccessful in doing
so. He is not throwing stones, but both parties would agree that there has been some
miscommunication. Mr. Schultz does not think the property should be condemned because no
one will be living there. The property has been purchased on a contract far deed by a third parry
who will take the properiy as is, but the owner would like to make sure it is fit under code before
anyone else lives there. Mr. Schultz requests time to compiete any outstanding violation, this
issue can be taicen caze of before the property is condemned. He would like someone from Code
Enforcement to give the owner some guidance on these remaining issues.
Mr. Underdahl stated he has a video of things that were dismantled by the tenant that he added
onto the list.
Ms. Moermond asked were these new items that were added since the original conection notice
and things the tenant damaged the building. Mr. Underdahi responded that is correct. Ms.
Moermond stated she will set aside the idea that the inspector was adding on things arbitrary, and
there was new damage.
Mr. Underdahl stated he was remodeling a gazage and there was a truck that had tabs on it. He
came back a couple days later. The truck was piuchased in February. ABer the letter was sent,
the Tabs were gone. Someone removed #iie tabs knowing he would get a code violation.
With respect to the conversion from single family home to a duplex, Ms. Moermond stated she
cannot say whether that is moot or not. It was an illegal conversion of the building because
permits were not sought. The office can double or triple the cost of the permit in these cases.
She does not know if they aze seeking to do that. Mr. Underdahl responded they are.
Ms. Moermond stated she does not know if they will change their minds based on whether he
deconverts, although they can force him to deconvert. It is not an item she can deal with in the
o�-�s� (o
LEGISLATIVE HEr1RING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 26, 2003 Page 4
condemnation; however, factors resulting from that illegal conversion wouid come up. If a
permit t�ad been pulled, there probably would not be the bathroom situation that they have right
now in the basement with a question about the ventilation. This is part of the result from having
this inconectly done.
Ms. Moermond has to take into account what the inspector saw, did the conditions merit the
actions the inspecYor Yook, and did the inspector act appropriately in taking those acfions. Setting
aside the communicarion, it sounds 3ike these conditions exist. It sounds like he has difficult
tenants that aze damaging his property, and he needs time after they leave to complete the
rehabilitation. One thing that is not on the condemnation is tlus will become registered vacant
building because she will recommend to the City Council that the condemnaxion be upheld. He
does not have two units legally, so it is the entire building that will be condemned. That is
normal practice in this kind of a situation The condemnation is upheld as soon as she makes her
recommendation. He should talk to Mr. Prill about what will happen when it is put in the Vacant
Buildings Program. A code compliance inspection is a top to bottom inspection of the building
about what is not code compliant. It is a more thorough inspecrion that what Mr. Prill conducted.
His best bet is to get this out of condemnation as quickly as possible so it is not in the Vacant
Building Program.
Ms. Moermond asked vaas #his an immediate order to vacate. Mr. Prill responded the vacate date
is September i. Mr. Schultz responded the tenant said she would not be able to vacate by
September 1, but shortly thereafter.
Ms. Moermond asked is Code Enforcement amenable to two additional weeks. Mr. Prill
responded the upstairs unit is not condemned.
Ms. Moermond stated she will recommend that the City Council amend the Order to Vacate to
September 15, 2003. Mz. Schultz responded that will work if they can get direction from Mr.
Prill about when he will reinspect. The tenants can be out by September 15. Mr. Magner
suggested that the amendment be specific for upstairs only. Ms. Moermond responded she
cannot separate betvveen uaits aud tenants because it is not a legal duplex.
Ms. Moermond recommends that the owner work wi#h Code Enforcement to reinspect the
progress on it.
Mr. U�derdahl stated he needs an inspector that wili show up. Ms. Moermond suggested he call
Andy Dawkins (Code Enforcement). Mr. Magner added that if the owner leaves his phone
number on the list, Mr. Magner will have Hazold Robinson (Code Enforcement) contact him
directly.
Ms. Moermond recommends changing the vacate date to September 15, 2003, for the entire
building on the Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated August 1, 2003. TYris issue
will come before the City Council on September 3, 2003, 530 pm.
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINiJTES FOR AUGUST 26, 2003
C�� �
�10 .
Page 5
Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building(s) at I956 Feronia Avenue.
If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove
the building(s).
The following appeared: Naomi Isaacson, 414 Seventh Avenue SE #B 104, Minneapolis; Jan
Berg, Beacon Bank, 19765 Highway 7, Shorewood, Minnesota.
Mazcia Moermond stated she understands that Ms. Isaacson has been in contact with the Wazd 4
Office.
(Photographs were submitted by Steve Magner.)
Steve Magner reported this was at one a rime an 18 unit, three story, brick/stone, wood-framed
apartment building. The Certificate of Occupancy was revoked on December 1, 1998, and the
building was monitored by vacant buildings since February 1, 1999. Current property owners are
Naomi Isaacson and Laureen Ballinger per Ramsey County. There have been 24 summary
abatement notices issued to remove/repair broken glass, remove vehicles, clean gazbage and
refuse from yard, secure the building, cut ta11 grass and weeds, remove gr�ti. On June 11,
2003, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which constitute a
nuisance condifion was developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance
building was issued on June 25, 2003, with a compliance date of July 25. As of this date, this
property remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislarive code.
Real Estate taxes are paid in full. Tasation has placed as estimated mazket value of $7,600 on
the land and $172,400 on the building. As of July 26, a team inspection has not been completed
for a new use. A bond has not been posted. Code Enforcement estimate the repairs to be
$300,000; estimated cost to demolish, $20,000 to $30,000.
Mr. Magner stated that Ms. Isaacson has contacted Councilmember Benanav's Office and has
proposed a plan. There was a meeting last week with Mr. Benanav's aide, and they aze now
ready to rehabilitate the property and bring it up to code.
Ms. Moermond asked about the time frame for the summary abatement notices. Mr. Magner
responded that Beacon Bank sold the building to Naomi Isaacson and she will be rehabilitating it.
Her relationship with the building goes back to September 2002. There have been 18 sumuiary
abatement notices issued since January 2003 to shovel the walk, secure the building, remove
broken glass, remove cut grass and weeds. Mr. Magner and Supervisor Pat Fish were called to
the property a number of tunes. The City has had its contractors out there to clean up the
gazbage, cut tall grass and weeds, clean up the walk, and boazd it.
Ms. Moermond asked how many summary abatements the City has conducted. Roughly about
eight to ten, responded Mr. Magner.
Ms. Moermond asked how long they have had the building. Since the end of September 2002,
responded Ms.Isaacson.
O� ���
LEGISLATIVE F3EARING MINLTTES FOR AUGUST 26, 2003 Page 6
Ms. Moermond asked her plans. Ms. Isaacson responded she has her plans here. She has been
working with architects, engineers, etc. since she bought the build3ng. It took her a while to find
an architect to deal with it. They have completed pians and submitted them to the City for
permits. She is assuming it will take them a month to go through those plans.
Ms. Moermond stated she will not get those permits until she completes the code compiiance
inspection. Ms. Isaacson responded the building has been totally gutted. There are no walls, no
plumbing, and nothing to inspect. The only thing that will stay is the exterior brick shell. Mr.
Magner stated that in a case with a compiete rehabilitation, they will accept a plan indicating a
complete rehabiiitation in lieu of an inspection.
Pat Fish reported there was a team inspecrion for the first purchaser. The list was extensive.
Since then, it was completely gutted. If they submit their plans, there is no need to do another
inspection. Her office will do a final inspection before a certificate of occupancy is issued.
Ms. Moermond asked would they be looking for the $Z,000 bond posting. Mr. Magner
responded they aze looking for a couple of things: 1) there has been little or no communication
with Mr. Isaacson. He may have spoken to her once; 2) someone should be taking care of the
properiy; and 3) a$2,000 performance bond needs to be posted.
Mr. Isaacson stated she has a problem with the notices. She does not have a problem going there
daily. When she gets the abatement orders, the completion date has already passed. She has
called Dennis Senty (Code Enforcement) repeatedly about this issue. They have taken care of a11
of them except one. She has not seen that the City has done anything.
Jan Berg stated she would get the notices #he day after they were suppose to be completed. She
would find a pop bottle, a can, etc. There should be a timely manner in getting the information.
Ms. IvIoermond asked Mr. Magner to look for a work order for Parks and Recreation. Mr.
Magner responded that on July 7, 2003, there were trees and brush on the southside of the
building with broken glass. The Summary Abatement Order was filled out on June 26, 2003, the
date of mailing was June 26. It was sent Yo Naomi Isaacson at 414 Seventh Avenue SE #B 104,
Minneapolis 55104 and the Beacon Bank, 19765 Highway 7, Shorewood, Minnesota. The
compliance date was July 3. The summary abatement policy for the City is there is a four
calendaz day compiiance date from the time it was mailed. Code Enforcement repeatedly get
calls from the neighbors about broken windows.
Ms. Mcermond asked did Pat Fish look at the rehab plans. Ms. Fish responded she has not
reviewed the plans because she is not a plan reviewer. They have to be submitted to LIEP to get
pemuts. Sprinkler and alann plans would be forwazded to Fire Prevention for review. They will
do a fmal walk through. During the meering, they discussed the timing on the notices. The
underlying issue is that the City has had to babysit these issues. She discussed with the Isaacsons
that it would be better if they monitored these things themselves as opposed to getting the
notices. That is the biggest issue. The danger is with people breaking into the building,
mischievous kids, or transients. They have bumed down a number of these buildings.
o� �� �
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 26, 2003 Page 7
Ms. Isaacson stated she has submitted pians to LIEP. A bond wiil be posted once plans have
been reviewed and finalized. She anticipates that this is a yeaz project. Ms. Moermond stated
she would like the bond to be posted by noon of September 3. Her recommendation to the CiTy
Council wili be contingent on the bond being posted. Ms_ Issacson will be granted six months to
rehabilitate the building. If she is 50% complete, she can reapply for another six months. T4iat
component is not a problem.
Ms. Moermond stated it seems the CiTy is doing the properry management. If she disagrees with
the fact that these assessment aze going to be put on the properry tases, they ate appealable. Ms.
Isaacson needs to be a good developer as well as a good property manager. Eighteen summary
abatement notices in seven months is a huge number, and Ms. Moermond does not see that very
often, but the taYes aze good, there are redevelopment plans, cieazly there aze fuiancing plans.
Ms. Moermond recommends grarning the owner 180 days to complete the rehabilitation of the
property on condition that the $2,000 bond is posted by noon of September 3, 2003.
Appeal of Revised Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate at 297 Burgess Street.
The following appeared: Kelly Brisson, owner, and Gary Torgerson, 14262 Tenth Street North,
Stillwater.
Marcia Moermond stated what is in front of her now aze additional items listed on the
condemnation. An appeal was conducted on July 22 regazding the original Notice of
Condemnation. At that time, if those items were addressed by the tnne of the City Council
public hearing, she was going to recommend That the condemnation be lifted. There was no
reinspection by the time of the City Council Public Hearing. Mr. Brisson responded that he has a
videotape if she would like to see it.
Steve Magner reported it is his understanding that the items were not taken caze of subsequent to
the City Council public hearing date: 1) The appellant needed to contact Code Enforcement to
haue a reinspection done, 2j He needed to ]3ave a sign-off from the Building Department in LIEP
(License, Inspection, Environmental Pmtection) on the items that were discussed at the previous
legisiative hearing. The condemnarion stayed in force. After that, Mr. Brisson contacted Code
Enforcement and asked Lisa Martin (Code Enforcement) to go out and inspect the building,
which she did. Not only were a number of the items 1 through 12 not completed, but there were
additional items based on the August 7 inspection that are listed on the Revised Notice of
Condemnarion dated August 12. The City exposes itself to liability when there are this number
of deficiencies. They have tried to wozk with the appellant. To stabilize the shucture, they aze
asking that this condemnation stays in force. The building being condemned should be identified
as a registered vacant building and the code compliance be enforced.
Mr. Torgerson stated he and David Johnson provided financing when they purchased ten
buildings in that neighborhood. They again got involved on this property three weeks ago.
When Mr. Brisson got notice that it was condemned because of lack of electricity, they loaned
kum the money to get the electrical restored. Part of the problem was that Mr. Brisson did not
�� ���
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 26, 2003 Page 8
have the funds to do it as fast as the City would like it done. They provided at least $10,000
within those two weeks before the inspector Lisa Martin (Code Enforcement) was going to do the
inspection. They received a letter that she was going to be there August 6. He and Mr. Brisson
were there, and no one showed up to do those inspections. Mr. Brisson was there two years ago
when Mr. Torgerson purchased properties and a person could not drive down Burgess because of
the drug dealers in the street. Mr. Brisson was one of the first guys in there to help fight ttte
battle. Now he has to live in his car. The Section 8 federal inspection is difficult to pass. His
downstairs unit can pass Section 8 inspection. There were exterior issues. For example, Mr.
Brisson has a bad habit of towing cars. Some of the items aze bogus on the Notice of
Condemnation.
Steve Magner stated Mr. Torgerson should be well versed in Code Enforcement's operations as
Mr. Torgerson has appealed a nuruber of issues. Mr. Brisson continues to bring in vehicle. Mr.
Magner has had a number of face to face conversations at the fime they were demolishing the
property next door. Mr. Magner told Mr. Brisson that this is not his properiy and he is not
allowed to use it as a storage facility. Mr. Magner has been advised by the inspector that Mr.
Brisson is parking his vehicle at 295 Brisson. Mr. Magner would like to see the following: 1)
Notice of Condemnation stay in effect; 2) Order to Vacate stays in effect, 3) the property stays as
a registered vacant building, 4) a code compliance certificate is on this building before the
condemnation is lifted
Mr. Brisson stated his tow Uvck has been broken down for about seven months. He had to ask
Mr. Torgerson to heip him. Mr. Brisson has not had an unlicensed veiucle in his yard for at least
seven momhs. He had one truck in the yard. The trailer of garbage in his yard was not the same
trailer and not the same garbage. The roof had three to five layers of shingies on it. There were
about ten loads of shingles coming off the house. He did some cosmetic repairs. He put in new
windows. Dave Tenk (Code Enforcement) inspected the windows and okayed them.
Ms. Moermond stated they had conversation last time about which of these were the principal
violaUons on #he r,t�ndemnation. �'hey decided that Items 1, 2, 9, 10, and 12 were the principal
violations. Mr. Magtter responded not Item 12. Mr. Torgerson responded that Item 1 was taken
caze of within 48 hours. He ioaned the money and the electrical was restored. He paid for a
licensed electrician. There aze permits on records. The roof was fiznded as well.
Ms. Moermond asked what happened on August 5. Mr. Torgerson responded letters were given
to Mr. 3ohnson and Mr. Brisson, they waited for hours, and no one showed up to reinspect the
building. Permits were pulled, but Mr. Brisson lacked funding.
Mr. Magner stated Inspector Martin did send an appointment letter on July 22 for a August 5,
2003, reinspection, but Mr. Brisson said he would not be there so she did not appeaz. The
August 7 inspection occurred. Mr. Torgerson responded that Ms. Mar[in spoke to Mr. Brisson
on August 6. She had aiready missed the August 5 appointment. Mr. Brisson added that he did
not talk to Ms. Martin on August 5. He called and left several messages and then he got a hold of
her on August 6. She asked could he be there that day, and he said that he had previous plans.
o� ��c�
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 26, 20Q3 Page 9
He said tomorrow would work. The appoinhnent was August 7 at 1:00. Mr. Magner responded
that the City Council meeting was August 6.
Mr. Brisson stated his house looks sharp now. Every screen and window is new. Every door is
new. He painted everything except for the high spots he could not get. The roof is done except
for the back porch.
Ms. Moermond asked about the reinspection on August 7. She did not see the removal of any
items on the list. Mr. Magner responded the inspector noted some work was done, but the
primary things that needed to be accomplished had to have permit sign-offs. Mr. Brisson
responded he has permit sign-offs on the windows; Mr. David Tenk (Code Enforcemen) said the
windows were great. One window needs to be done because it was not tempered glass. The roof
was good except Mr. Tenk wanted to see the back piece done before he signed off on it.
If the roof and windows aze done, stated Mr. Magner, and the electrical contractor came through,
the outside of the house is done and the electrical part is done. If a code compliance inspection is
done, the exterior issues should be moot. Mr. Brisson responded he has done major progress on
the house and he does not want to live in his truck anymore.
Mr. Magner stated there aze outstanding violations. The best resolution is if the owner applied
for a code compliance inspection today. Jim Seeger (LIEP), he and Mr. Magner could talk with
the owner about the immediate life safety issues that have to be addressed. Code Enforcement
would be amenable to lifting the condemnation and requiring Mr. Brisson to finish the non-life
hazard violations. It sounds like he has done the major issues—roof, windows, electrical—so there
is just the plumbing, heating, and some painting. Major issues downstairs wili have to be
addressd before the tenant is back in.
Ms. Moermond stated on the interior issues here, there is no specification if it is the first floor
unit or the second floor unit that has these problems, such as the handrails, ceilings, walls. Mr.
Brisson responded there are no missing handrails or guardrails in his apartment. The ceilings in
both apartments aze new. There is a small spot in his bedroom can hardly be seen. The walls aze
immaculate upstairs and downstairs.
Ms. Moermond asked about the kitchen floor. Mr. Brisson said the kitchen and bathroom floors
are new upstairs and downstairs. Mr. Torgerson responded that every item would be done in ten
days.
Mr. Brisson stated every doar has a deadbolt on it. Only one wall is bad and it is in one of his
bedrooms. Mr. Torgerson stated if the furnace needs to be certified or replaced, they can handle
that. It will take months to do a code compliance inspection report. IY will be so ea�tensive and
every part of the building wiil be picked apart.
Ms. Moermond asked about the interior sanitation. Mr. Brisson responded the tenant has three
exits. By the back door, he had cans and his gazbage. They were all heaping. He is singie. He is
��-���
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 26, 2003 Page 10
not the cleanest a y; he is just cluttered. Mr. Brisson gets almost $800 from him. He is on
Section 8 and on disability.
Mr. Magner asked where is the tenant residing. Mr. Brisson responded he is at a hotel, but he
changes his location all the rime.
Mr. Magner asked about the next court hearing on the TRA (tenants remedy action). Mr. Brisson
responded he does not Imow. He cannot collect any rent for him. He has to provide him a place
to live because of the Section 8 issue.
Ms. Moermond stated he has a problem with the primary and other violations aze not sepazated
on the Notice of Condemnation. She will recommend to the CiTy Council that the condemnation
is amended to indicate that Unit 2, upper unit, is condemned, and not Unit 1. That unit will be
able to be occupied again. The principai violations are not effecUng that unit. For the balance of
the building, he wiil need that code compliance inspection. He will be selling it anyway.
Mr. Brisson asked can he show her the tape. Ms. Moermond responded she is not an inspector,
but she will look at it.
(Mr. Brisson showed her on his camcorder a videotape of the inside of the house which he said
was recorded just today. He submitted the videotape.)
Mr. Magner stated that Mr. Brisson indicated he had a permit to do the roof. Mr. Tenk looked at
it and said he had minor things to take caze o£ He asked did he sign off on the window permit.
Mr. Brisson responded the permit was for windows and stairs. He still has to do the general
repair. Mr. Torgerson responded that he pulled a permit for general remodeling. He put one
window in a stairway that was not tempered glass.
Mr. Magner asked is the electrical work signed off. Mr. Torgerson responded he does not think
it was signed off, but the electrician has a half day of work left. That will be done ihis week.
Ms. Moermond asked how faz out they make appointments for the electrical work. Mr. Magner
responded that day if they call before 7:00 a.m.
Ms. Moermond recommends lifting the condemnation for Unit 1(downstairs unit) on the
Revised Nofice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated August 12, 2003. Unit 2(upstairs
nni is condemned unless the following is done by noon of September 3, 2003: 1) the electrical,
roof, and window permits aze closed out, 2) Items 13 through 23 are completed. If the permits
are ciosed that is a sign of good faith, stated Ms. Moermond. The City Council is looking for
tangible evidence. She encouraged Code Enforcement to write corrections on Items 13 through
23 and continue to work with the owner.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:01 p.m.
rrn
� Y' �'
.a�" _.� � �. � � �� �<< �� ;A ��; � � ��
rV � .
�
_ a ;� .
✓ . >l . � .- � � �'e� �, p 4 � .
l fj * �N ��
`C •� � A Y� .' a�[ � ' � e .i!e�
°� p �l� 2� - Yi SX+i'� �'� � � e'}��`��^�" . .
�' / � �.'� , �c�f�� . r:�� " �
4 � �4�
SIC � Y "` �
�• ' w i�!u�i; F . , . . �, � �... . s 'y.,6 �
+��:4ax? : •� . _ - . g , �". . �
i
P� � Y� a '� . �E r � � Ft �; J �.
# s
a 6 3 x af' �i+r-� � m � i`� . �, .*.� -.
� �� , � � ti ��� '' . �. � � �' , v . ,
�F„}� j 1 ^ r �:. ?i � - _... .. . �.: ��"'� �� .. . .
a'"� w � _ p :�
4:; ir � Ye
. � A +tNS , y ,.� ~ t ': � . . l ` C - 0
) � � d �Y .� `��` �.��� . . .
4 • -• /
� 3 � ' ` �
�� � "4 � ��Yr � �� !# . �
J { � ( 1..� . '�'�, .. � � .. ,� _ . . . ' . ^ .•: � ` � ... .
-S .. ,� .-� .�: � . . , . . .
� ., y L � �` �"° � . - � .. . _ . . .
4. � �. __ , i . ,
r [ _
"y� � - �
; �:rr , _
� �; _
" . . � . . �� '
�
-. � � .� �. . .
r _���c = "
� � _ `�:
_ . � � �.- �
� ���_
� ` a '.� '" �'�
�� . f
, � ..
���'�'� .
_ L R _,
.i
.. �..'� .. +-�� .G�.-..�._ . . ... . ..
�i>.... �. . _ ..
� _
� . _� _ .. ,- ,. .. . ...
- a.�,� ' __ , �. _
; ' _ �
- fl , , y .�'"- ' _ _: -
_ = .:. -. -. ..
� = — '�:: x ' "'��� --
. . ._ _ , ._ _ _. .
f — — '
� � �.'. �- � - ,:.-�. �. .,
..� /, _ .A _ .. _._w_.1 .M_
;.�,�-
:�, .
�.v �
.� �;_
s� .
.
�,:��--W'---'��� `F �';
.�. ^ �.
. :, .
� ,�,
r'� t i
. �' s�Y� '��'F��•�� . .
� y 3 {' � . .
'��b..' W }n
�
� �'
f
�il�l�ll��
i "
�..�� ��� .:
� .�..�' �" "s �
.�
�
�; <nr ,
� :..� �q�;..�� — �._ �.� . .
._ __— ��� :a_/+
I '�
�
� � � i � A
� r �
� �, i�;
, : "' ��
��` ��� ��;
� �
��:
a� �
� � ��.
��