06-838AMENDED 9/20/2006
4i
Council File # ��'��
Green Sheet �
MTNNESOTA
'resented By
Refened To
Committee: Date
1 WHEREAS, Neighbarhood Housing & Property Improvement has requested the City Council to
2 hold public hearings to consider the advisability and necessity of ordering the repair or wrecking and
3 removal of a two-story, masoury and wood frame, single family dwelling and the detached, two-
4 stall, masonry and wood frame garage located on property hereinafter referred to as the "Subject
5 Property" and commonly lrnown as 537 Mount Curve Blvd . This property is legally described as
6 follows, to wit:
North'/: of Lot 13 and all of Lot 12, Block 3, Ryan Place
10 WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information
11 obtained by Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement on ar before March 14, 2006 , the
12 following are the now known interested or responsible parties for the Subject Property: John C
13 Goodmanf Sharon M Goodman, 2197 Scheffer Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55116-1161
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
WHEREAS, Neighborhood Housing & Property Tmprovement has served in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul L,egislative Code an arder identified as an"Order to Abate
Nuisance Building(s)" dated June 16, 2006 ; and
WHEREAS, this order informed the then lrnown interested or responsible par[ies 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 sh located on the Subject Property by July 17„ 2006 ; 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
WIIEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Neighborhood Housing &
Property Improvement requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings before the Legislative
Hearing Officer of the City Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and
WHEREAS, the interested and responsible parties haue 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
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
D� - �3�
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City
Council on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 to heaz testimony and evidence, and after receiving testunony
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
welfaze 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#"ifteerr f}5}days after the date of the Council
Hearing;and one hundred eighty (180)
WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday,
September 6, 2006 and the testimony and evidence including the action taken by the 1_.egislative
Hearing 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 537 Mount Curve Blvd :
That the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul
Legislative Code, Chapter 45.
Q
�
8.
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 Subj ect 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 Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement 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 Neighborhood Housing & Property
Improvement, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings.
That the known interested parties and owners are as previously stated in this resolution
and that the notification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled.
ORDER
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 shucture 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 rehabilitation or
demolition and removal of the siructure must be completed withinl"[fY�eartY�jdays after the
date of the Council Hearing. one hundred eighty (180)
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
./. i �
s�
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
2. If the above corrective action is not completed within this period of time Neighborhood
Housing & Property Improvement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps are 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 properiy or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal
shail 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 zesolution be mailed to the owners and interested
parties in accordance with Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code.
Adopted by Council: Date 9�j�—�)�/,
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
By: �
Approved by 1�x9�j Date g— y`f �(
.
By: C��
Requested by Department of:
Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement
s i i
I
: ��1� �.,_V:
_,,
. .. . -, . . ,
_ .=<� � �
.�___
. ..�n � . . . i . � .
e � '
�`i � - _ `.
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
06 ��3�
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Greeo Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
NH '"NeighborhoodHousing/Property
CoMact Person 8 Phone:
f�chard Lippert
2G6-1922
Must Be on Council Agenda by (Dafe):
O6SEP-06
Date Initiated: I, 7tGLt�
2,�,��� Green Sheet NO: 3031473 �`
�
Assign
Number
For
Routing
Order
0 Pleiehborhood Housin¢/Prooer � �
1 ' hborM1oodA �i ro rtmentDirector
2 i Attome
3 a ce Mav r A ' n[
4 uncil
5 Clerk Ci Clerk
Total # of SignaW re Pag _( Clip PJI Locatio f Signalure)
Action Requested:
Ciry Council to pass this resoluflon which will order the owuer(s) to remove or repair the referenced building(s). If the owner fails to
comply with the iesolution, Neighborhood Housing & Properiy Izuprovement is ordered to remove the building. The subject properly
is located at 537 Mount Curve Blvd.
idations: Appro�e (A) or R
Planning Commission
CIB Committee
Ciul Service Commission
1. Has this persoNfirm e�er worked under a contract fw this department?
Yes No
2. Has this perswJfirtn e�er been a ciry employee?
Yes No
3. Does this persorJfirtn possess a skill not nortnalty possessed by any
currerR city employee?
Yes No
Euplain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet
Initiating Problem, lssues, opporlunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
This 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 ow�ers, interested parties and responsible parties laiown to the Enforcement Officer were given an order to
repaix or remove the building at 537 Mount Curve Blvd by July 17, 2006, and have failed to comply with those orders.
Advanqges HApproved:
The Ciry will eluninate a nuisance.
JUL 3. �- 2006
Disadvanfages If Approved:
The City will spend funds to wreck and remove this building(s). These costs will
assessment against the property taxes.
collected as a special
Disadvantages If NotApprovetl:
A nuisance conditio� will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to blight the community.
Transaction:
Funding Source:
Financial Information:
(Explain)
8000
Nuisance Housing
Abatement
Activ'ity Number: 30251
f�,�� ' %` [lt't!�
Councii �t�sear�h �et�tet " � � i �`,
� � ° `�= :',� ! ? � �� ;� � ?
AlIG 012006 RRr��-eo._
July 2�, 2006 2:22 PM Page 1
Questions:
CostlRevenue Budgeted: Y
.: , ' � -'�'
�(o - �3�
August 15, 2006 Legislative Hearing Page 3
approximately $50,000 and the building to be $75,000. Real estate taxes for 2005 are delinquent
in the amount of $1,051.89. Code Enforcement estimates the cost to repair the building to be
approximately $75,000 to $80,000 and the cost for demolition to be approximately $7,000 to
�8,000. There had also been four surmiiary abatements issued to this property: cut tall grass and
weeds, remove improperly stored refuse and to remove a vehicle. Code Enforcement
recommends the building be demolished within 15 days.
Ray Johnson, properry owner, stated he was attempting to sell the property but had been
unsuccessful in fmding a buyer. He had also considered demolishing the house and salvaging
the garage, however, he did not believe this was an oprion at this point in time. The building had
been vacant for one year, however, people were finding entry into the building and he was sure
vagrants were living there sporadically.
Ms. Moermond recommended the building be removed within fifteen (15) days. She suggested
to Mr. Johnson that he pay the delinquent real estate taYes or he could lose the property to tax
forfeit as this building was located in a targeted area where the County fast tracked forfeitures.
She also told him that he needed to maintain his property for as long as he owned it.
Mr. Magner suggested the owner sign a Confession of Judgment with the County and work out a
payment pian to pay the delinquent tases for 2005.
� 4. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building(s) at 537 Mount C�n
Blvd. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, NI�PI is ordered to remove the
building.
Mr. Magner stated this was a two-story, masonry and wood frame, single-family dwelling with a
detached masonry and wood frame garage on a lot of 16,117 square feet. The building had been
vacant since April 25, 2002 and the vacant building fees for 2005 and 2006 had not been paid, a
code compliance inspecfion had not been done and the $5,000 performance bond had not been
posted. On 3une 7, 2006, an inspection of the building was conducted and a list of deficiencies
which constitute a nuisance condition was developed. An order to abate a nuisance building was
posted on June 16, 2006 with a compliance date of July 1'7, 2006. To date, the property owner
had done nothing to bring the building into compliance. According to Ramsey County Taxation,
the real estate taxes were current. Tasation has placed an estimated value of the land to be
$279,100 and the building to be $224,200. Code Enforcement estimates the cost to repair this
structure to be approximately $100,000 to $150,000 and the cost for demolition to be between
$10,000 and $12,000. There had been two summary abatement orders at this property: remove
rubbish and garbage in the yard which had been abated by the owner. Code Enforcement
recommends the building be removed or repaired within 15 days.
John Goodman, property owner, appeared with his attorney, Shawn Bartsch Ms. Bartsch
presented pictures of the properiy. She stated her client had suffered severe injuries from a car
accident a few years ago and his cognitive ability is impaired. Mr. Goodman had hired a new
architect to draw up plans for a complete remodel, however, those plans will not be available for
approximately three to four weeks. He had already begun to demolish the kitchen and she
agreed the exterior of the house needed extensive repairs, especially since the chimney had been
August 15, 2006 Legislarive Hearing
Page 4
taken down but that the house had been painted the previous week. Mr. Goodman would like to
add an addition to the home as part of his remodelmg plan. She suggested any contractor which
is hired would need to meet with the building inspector to come up with a list of the items which
needed to be repaired. She did not believe there were any life-safery issues involved with the
home.
Bemard McDonough, 501 Mt. Curve Blvd, stated the house had been vacant for at least ten
years. It was an eyesore for the neighborhood and he sincerely hoped the properiy owner would
make the necessary repairs and live at the residence.
Bruce Hoppe, 531 Mt. Curve Blvd, stated he and his family moved into the house next doar in
7une, 2006. He had no ill will towazds the property owners, however, he was hoping something
would be done with the property soon. He agreed that the property was an eyesore to the
neighborhood and he had put up a fence around his property as he witnessed people going into
the garage to smoke and he did not want them on his properry.
Mr. Magner stated the history on vacant buildings has been they aze a fire hazard due to lack of
maintenance and they were an attractive nuisance far kids to break in and cause havoc with the
building.
Jean Hoppe, 531 Mt. Curve Blvd., stated she had met the Goodmans and she also had no ill will
towards them. However, it was her belief that the house had been painted with lead paint
because it was chipping away, it was going onto the ground and into her yard. As a result, now
her one year old child needs to be tested every year for lead poisoning. She also complained
about people going to the back of the garage as she had found a pair of underwear with used
condoms in them.
Daniel Goodman, 2112 Eleanor Avenue, stated it was his intention to help his brother restore his
house. He did not believe, however, that the house had been painted with lead paint. He
suggested the Hoppes work with his brother, John, as he suffers from lead and mercury
poisoning and is well-versed on how to treat it.
Ms. Moermond stated she would grant 180 days to rehabilitate the house provided the following
was provided by the end of business on Tuesday, September 5, 2006: 1) the vacant building fees
are paid for 2005 and 2006; 2) a code compliance inspection is completed; 3) a$5,000
perforxnance bond is paid; 4) a work plan is developed outlining the scape of the project and
timelines for completion; 5) demonstration of the financial wherewithal to complete all of the
necessary repairs; and 6) the owner must maintain the properry. She also suggested the owner
consider hiring a project manager and she would like to see Daniel Goodman's resume if he
intends to act as the project manager/contractor for this project.
Ms. Moermond then recommended laying this matter over to the September 5 Legislative
Hearing to make sure all of the necessary requirements had been met.
b � —�3�
Marilyn J. Doyle and Brian H. Davis
575 Mount Curve Boulevard, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55116-1167
651.731.0101
davisdovle(a� com cast. n et
August 15, 2006
Steve Magner
Vacant Buildings Supervisor
Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement
City of Saint Paul
1600 White BearAvenue North
Saint Paul, MN 55106
ViA FAX: 651266.1926
and U.S. MAIL
Re: 537 Mount Curve Boulevard
Dear Mr. Magner:
I am responding to a July 21, 2006 Notice of Public Hearings. A pile of these notices
mysteriously appeared on our front door on August 1 the day of National Night Out.
We were among the organizers of the neighborhood event scheduled for our front yard.
This was the second National Night Out my husband and I organized in our four years
living on Mount Curve Boulevard as we enjoy an attractive and safe neighborhood.
We are concemed about the disrepair and distraction that the property at 537 brings to
the neighborhood. When we casually asked about the house when we arrived in the
neighborhood, we were informed the property owners lived in Mendota Heights and had
stopped plans for the property when the city would not permit a half circle drive in front of
the home. At the neighborhood Night Out earlier this month, the owner mentioned his
recent contractor had run into financial problems and he was seeking another. We have
no personal issues with the property owner; however, we do have these concerns:
• The long term disrepair of the property negatively impacts on the rest of
the neighborhood. �
• Failure to mow and otherwise care for the property makes it a distraction.
. Failure to timely shovel snow makes neighborhood walks more
dangerous / di�cult when passing the property.
. The long term vacant status of the property has the potential to attract
unwanted safety problems to the neighborhood.
• A long time trusted neighbor believes this property has been vacant for
about 12 years; at least four years that we know of. That is more than
su�cient time for any owner to develop, seek approval and execute any
approved improvement plan.
Steve Magner
Vacant Buildings Supervisor
August 15, 2006 — Page Two
Now that you have some momentum and the Legislative Hearing Officer will hear
evidence and make recommendations for action to the City Council on September 5�',
we support taking the necessary steps to eliminate this eyesore and neighborhood
nuisance. The options available with this property are numerous. Although the house
trim was recently painted, the house remains an attractive nuisance — it is a distraction
that will attract more problems if it remains in its current condition. Immediate action is
required to improve the situation.
Of course, any steps the City implements must be the owners' financial responsibility.
Please provide the Legis{ative Hearing Officer assigned to this case with a copy of this
letter. Feel free to contact me at the above number or my office (612.303.7863) with any
questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Marilyn J. Doyle Brian H. Davis
- - --- -- - - - - - ---- -- - - ------- - -
LegislativeHearings - 537 Mount Curve property considerations from neighbors for the upcoming hearing Aug 15th Page 1
Q 6 ��3�
From: <bruce.hoppe@pentair.com>
To: <legistafivehearings@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: Fri, Aug 11, 2006 1:09 PM
Subject: 537 Mount Curve property considerations from neighbors for the upcoming hearing Aug
15th
Memo to Marcia Moermond
Re: 537 Mount Curve nuisance home
Dear Marcia,
We understand that you will be the Hearing Officer for the 537 Mount Curve
property matter. My family recently moved into 531 Mount Curve in June.
Before buying our home, we researched the actions that the City was
taking against this 13-year problem home. We received uno�cial
assurances that the City would not let the owners of 537 (Goodman's)
continue their long term neglect with this property. So we purchased
the home next to this dangerous and decaying property gambling that the
City would eventually take action. We are very encouraged by the
progress thus far.
Since moving into the neighborhood we have met numerous, wonderful
neighbors. Through this eMail, � want to summarize what we have heard
about this problematic property and owner. Further, my wife and I have
had a few opportunities to interface with the owners (John and Cheri
Goodman) and have gained even more insight into this property. We have
even had a chance to see the interior of the property with Chei Goodman.
It has been a priority to remain cordial with the Goodman's and not put
them on the defense - they apparently still have good but delusional
intentions with this once prestigious home. My wife and I need to be
careful not to alienate ourselves with the Goodman's since they could
become official neighbors (note that they have never physically occupied
the dwelling)
Here is my list of what we know (note that some of the history/details are
of course anecdotal, but the same stories seem to get repeated by numerous
sources):
1) Around circa 1993, the Goodman's did a FSBO with the elderly owners of
the 537 Mt Curve home. Soon after their purchase, the Goodman's wanted
to build a modern/attached garage and front-yard driveway. (currently
the driveway and garage are detached and behind the home) The
neighborhood fought back on this matter creating ill-feelings beiween the
Goodmans (537 owners) and the neighbors. The Goodman's may have heid a
vendetta against the neighborhood and used their vacant, rotting property
as an act of vengeance. Hard to say. Now after 13 years and pressure
from the City, the Goodman's want to try to make this home
livable/habitable for themselves.
2) The Goodmans live only 3-blocks away on Scheffer -- We know several
neighbors ofi the Goodmans on Scheffer - There is no apparent rational
reason why the Goodmans would own one home and let a nearby home decay.
3) Apparently John Goodman wanted to jack the house to repair some major
foundation issues. The preparation work was started several years ago
(disconnecting gas and other utilities and removing the porch, chimney,
- - - - - - ---- --- --
LegislativeHearings - 537 Mount Curve property considerations from neighbors for the upcoming hearing Aug 15th Page 2
landscaping around the home) but was never finished.
4) The removed chimney and back porch have allowed openings into the home
for rodents to enter - colonies of birds and squirrels have been seen in
the structure/eaves of the home and garage. Also colonies of carpenter
ants can be seen around the home's perimeter. Only recently, the
Goodman's boarded up the open chimney area.
5) There are two large dying ash trees on this property —1 had the City
Forrester o�ce come out for an inspection. Parts of these trees could
be saved if the dying parts get removed. Large decaying portions hang
over my property and children's playset. I plan on having a tree service
come out and cut back what hangs over my property.
6) After getting to know the Goodmans, they cfearly still have intentions
to do "something" with this home. As many times before, it does not
appear that they have an articulate plan, nor realization of the amount of
work/money it will cost. We think that finances may be a limiting factor
for them. When my wife was talking with Cheri Goodman inside the house,
all Cheri could talk about was minor/interior cosmetic things that she
wants to do to the house (such as French Doors off the living room). She
had nothing to say about the gutted kitchen or efforts to make the home
livable. Again, they have delusional but good intentions. I hope that
the City takes into account that the Goodman's have made previous promises
to the City to make repairs in good faith -- these promises were never
met.
7) Their latest plan is to apparently engage their "handyman" on the home
renovationlrestoration effort. Obviously, a handyman does not have the
breadth of tradesmen skill-sets, structural and architectural engineering
resources, nor project management skilfs to take on this size of a
project. I'm concerned that the Goodmans are trying to get a away with
"window dressing" (bare minimums) to get the City of their backs.
8) We understand that the John Goodman has had serval
architects/contractors look at the property over the past numerous years.
There are numerous versions of home plans, none with a clear "end-game" in
mind. The neighbors have heard many statements over the years from Mr.
Goodman that he plans to refurb this property. Could the Goodman's be
gaming the City and neighbors by telling them what they want to hear? We
have not seen contractors visit this house since we took possession of the
home next door. (other than the "handyman") My wife (Jean) is a
stay-home mom with our three preschool children. A project this size
would require numerous visits from tradesmen and contractors. The
neighbors feel that this gentleman has limited wherewithal to take action
on this home and if he does take action, it will be to the bare minimums
to get out of noncompliance.
9) John Goodman has engaged his brother(s) to do some paint scraping and
cosmetic maintenance - again without an end-game. They do not even have
a color scheme in mind yet. John's brother has worked off-and-on for
several weeks -- he is not a professional painter. The home is far from
"restored" -- The Goodmans will need an army of committed professionals
to get this home up to code and make habitable. A part-time, amateur
painter will not get this job done -- especially since so much of the wood
trim needs repair before painting. In fact, we have not seen any more
- -- ---- _ - - - - --
LegislativeHearings -
project size and scope
-- ---- -- - - - - -- - _ - -
Page 2
- — -- -- - - - -- -
bt�����
10) Ask what makes this year so different than past years? (other than
the fact that the house now risks demolition) They had many years to
save-up and plan a remodel. Ask simply -- Why have they left this home
vacant, untouched for 13 years?
11) Ask why they don't just sell the home - They must have a line of
interested buyers waiting to take this home off their hands at a nice
price
12) Ask if they are going to rely on family members or friends
(nonprofessionals) for much of the construction work?
13) Ask how will the scraped lead paint chips be handled? Right now they
are just scrapping it off and {etting it "snow" down on the dirt and
sidewaiks around Yhe home.
14) It appears that the Goodman's are trying to do quick cosmetic
improvements to mask the bigger issues - When do they pfan on replacing
or repairing the trim where necessary.
15) Ask what are their plans to repair the open holes and rot in the eves
-- you can't just paint it
16) Ask to see the detaiis on the kitchen -- which was pretty much gutted.
17) Ask what is their plan to repair the heating system --- rusted
plumbing, burst lines, chimney missing, the boiler has not operated for
years
18) Does the home still need to be jacked for foundation repair (This was
the original reason for John Goodman to remove the back porch, utilities
and chimney)
19) Do the Goodman's plan on petitioning the City again for a variance to
allow a driveway and garage to be constructed in the front yard? This is
what caused the Goodman's to not work on the home 13 years ago.
20) Ask what the Goodman's plan on doing with the items ("junk") packed in
the 537 garage?
The neighborhood appreciates your time and consideration.
Bruce N. Hoppe � Dir. Business Development � Pentair Inc. � 5500 Wayzata
Blvd., Suite 800 � Golden Valley, MN 55416 � Cell 612-670-9051
September.� 2006 Legislative Hearing ��� W` Page 4
D(�- �3 £�
� 3. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building(s) at 537 Mount
Curve Blvd. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, NHPI is ordered to
remove the building. (Laid over from August 15, 2406)
Mr. Magner stated the vacant building fees had been paid and the registration form had been
received, the code compliance inspection had been done and the $�,000 performance bond had
been posted on August 31, 2006.
Shawn Bartsh, attorney representing the owner, John Goodman, stated she had fased the
financial information to Mr. Magner on August 18. Mr. Magner stated he had not received that
information. She provided documentation for the record. Ms. Bartsh outlined the list of repairs
and said it was Mr. Goodman's intention to have his brother, Daniel Goodman, as the project
manager to overlook hiring contractors to make the necessary repairs. She requested six months
to make the necessary repairs.
Ms. Moermond stated a work plan with timelines for completion of each item needed to be
submitted. She also requested Daniel Goodman present a resume or a list of other projects he
had managed so she could determine whether he had the capability to oversee the repairs to the
property. Daniel Goodman stated he had previous experience working as an accountant for a
construction company. He had also undertaken projects on his own. He had talked to
approximately 14 contractors and architects to come up with a plan for repairing the house.
Ms. Bartsh requested one month to come up with a work plan for the list of the repairs as they
also wanted to include the planned addition to the plans. She requested an example of a work
plan so they could have something to follow.
Mr. Magner stated that any proposed addition to the building was immaterial to the list of
deficiencies which needed to be corrected in accordance with the code compliance inspection
report. Any new construction would need to be pulled and approved under separate permits.
Ms. Moermond stated it was her intention to continue the Public Hearing from September 6 to
the September 20, 2006 Public Heazing.
4. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building(s) at 260 Morton
Street West. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Neighborhood
Housing and Property Improvement (NHPI) is ordered to remove the building.
Mr. Magner stated the buiiding was a one-story, wood frame dwelling, with a detached wood-
frame utility shed on a lot of 7,405 square feet. The building had been vacant since October 25,
2005 and the vacant building fees had not been paid for 2005 and 2006, a code compliance
inspection had been done and the $5,000 performance bond had not been posted. On May 31,
2006, an inspection of the building was done and a list of deficiencies which constitute a
nuisance condition was developed. An order to abate a nuisance building was posted on June 13,
2006 with a compliance date of July 13, 2006. To date, the owner had done nothing to abate this
nuisance. Ramsey County Taxation has estimated the market value of the land to be
approximately $58,400 and the building to be $66,200. Real estate taxes were current. Code