15 West Kellogg Blvd.

Saint Paul, MN 55102

City of Saint Paul

Minutes - Final

Legislative Hearings

Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer

Mai Vang, Hearing Coordinator

Joanna Zimny, Executive Assistant

legislativehearings@ci.stpaul.mn.us

651-266-8585

Tuesday, August 22, 2023

9:00 AM

Room 330 City Hall & Court House/Remote

9:00 a.m. Hearings

Remove/Repair Orders

RLH RR 23-7

Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at 901

FULLER AVENUE within fifteen (15) days after the March 22, 2023, City

Council Public Hearing. (Amend to remove only)

Balenger

Sponsors:

Remove within 15 day with no option to repair.

Jessica Zeletes, attorney o/b/o Towd Point Mortgage, appeared

Moermond: Mr. Yannarelly, we were looking for a couple of things after the Council

Public Hearing?

Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: that the Performance Deposit needs to be posted and

Code Compliance Inspection be applied for.

Moermond: has anything been posted?

Zeletes: no, but I do have an update on the lock box.

Moermond: is the application made for the Code Compliance Inspection?

Zeletes: they didn’t fill out that paperwork but I did stop by the house this weekend and

there is a lockbox on there now.

Moermond: and Performance Deposit?

Zeletes: we are waiting on the draft language.

Moermond: it is in the resolution; the resolution wouldn’t be adopted until the Council--

-ok. This goes to Council tomorrow.

Zeletes: have you heard from the Rays?

Moermond: we have not. We have made several efforts. Have you, since it is your

foreclosure that we are talking about?

Zeletes: we’re just lienholders. They’re the homeowners.

Moermond: Ms. Zimny followed through several times with the attorney, who was on the

paperwork you gave us, and also found a mailing address for one of the family

members and sent a letter. We have heard nothing from anyone.

Zeletes: were they served?

Moermond: we don’t have a responsibility to serve, and we did not. We simply called

and sent mail. We have a responsibility to contact owners and anyone on the

ownership and encumbrance report. We did check title work yesterday and that

indicates there has been absolutely no change since the beginning of this process.

Nothing on title at all.

Zeletes: as to the assignment of mortgage, the issue is from the servicer before Towd

Point. We are now trying to go around them and get a new assignment of mortgage.

The client is equally frustrated.

Moermond: why hasn’t that happened yet?

Zeletes: slow process I guess.

Moermond: any paperwork filed anywhere?

Zeletes: yes.

Moermond: what? Where? When?

Zeletes: that I didn’t ask. The assignment of mortgage, like I said, we just got the

update that it has been the servicer before us. For the last couple months we’ve been

trying to go around them. That screwed up the assignment.

Moermond: the language change is in the resolution in front of Council tomorrow. I

didn’t anticipate they would be voting on it should you have taken care of the posting of

the Performance Deposit, which didn’t happen, nor Code Compliance Inspection

application made. My recommendation to the Council remains unchanged, I’m going to

ask them to order it removed within 15 days with no option for its rehabilitation. It is a

public hearing, share your piece with them. I’ve done what I can under the direction I

got from Council. I don’t feel I have any tools in my toolbox left to deal with this. I can

only imagine that the smoke, water, and mold damage from two years ago has

probably gotten worse.

Zeletes: with the inspection and getting in, we can’t prevent the City from coming in,

but we also can’t allow it. We’re not the homeowners.

Moermond: if as the lienholder you can’t do it, the City can’t get an emergency search

warrant for doing a Code Compliance Inspection. It isn’t a matter of needing to exercise

police powers to get in for a break-in or a fire. This is just an inspection. If the court

won’t grant you permission to have the City come in, then we would not go in to do this

type of inspection. If there was some sort of imminent public safety issue, the City

certainly would. You have the lockbox there but the City won’t go in without permission-

--we just don’t do that.

Zeletes: is there a reason why demolishing is the only option?

Moermond: the City has been seeking for a long time to abate the nuisance condition

and ownership has the ability to bring forward rehab proposals, none have been

forthcoming. We have a dangerous and/or nuisance structure standing for a long time.

The City won’t rehab a structure it doesn’t own or have any financial interest in. Being

guardians of public dollars can only choose the most expedient way to abate the

nuisance, which is demolition. We can’t spend money in another way. That’s the only

thing on our table.

Zeletes: the City is not willing to exercise its police powers?

Moermond: to exercise a Code Compliance Inspection? No, not at all. If permission is

granted by the owner—

Zeletes: which we are not.

Moermond: which you are not. No one has said we can go in. I haven’t seen any

paperwork filed with anyone to move this forward. I don’t have the basic first two things

I look for which is the Performance Deposit and Code Compliance Inspection. There is

no reason I can continue to treat this differently than any other situated property.

Again, I’m out of options without those two conditions met. If you have an argument to

make to the Council, but without that direction we are done here.

Zeletes: I understand.

Referred to the City Council due back on 9/13/2023

RLH RR 23-31

Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at 455

ROBERT STREET SOUTH within fifteen (15) days after the August 2,

2023, City Council Public Hearing. (Refers back to August 8, 2023

Legislative Hearing)

Noecker

Sponsors:

Layover to LH September 12, 2023 at 10 am to discuss any potential plans for rehab

with purchaser. (CPH 9/20)

Thomas Radio, attorney representing ownership, appeared

Jeff Hauge, managing director of Wakota Commercial advisors, appeared via phone

Bob Craft, o/b/o WSCO, attended but did not speak

Radio: he has been retained by owner to broker, list and sell the property.

Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: $5,000 Performance Deposit received,

representative from marketing to attend hearing.

Radio: you’ve heard conversation from our client regarding a potential Auto supply

zone. That came in through Mr. Hauge, a commercial broker, with expertise in this

neighborhood. His office is not far away. It is still in consideration from the auto

company, it doesn’t match size but it does for location. Given the interest and type of

building he’s going to market locally to businesses and restaurants. Will continue

talking to the Auto supply company. Will give advice to owner as far as value, price,

any further improvements that should be done at this time. WE do have that Code

Compliance Inspection. Some may make sense if it remains as a restaurant. We’re

looking for insight from him on what we should be doing now, and which can be

deferred so there isn’t economic waste.

Moermond: you said that there was a letter of interest with the Auto supply, they can

concern with size of the building? Or parcel?

Radio: the building size. No letter of intent, just contact.

Hauge: Tom stole my thunder. I don’t have a lot to add. Tom is correct, we office less

than ½ a mile from this location the last 5 years. We’ve spent a lot of time in the area,

and know the west side well. For the last 10 years we’ve been in the area. We have

been working with AutoZone, I’ve represented them for almost 15 years for site

selection throughout the upper Midwest. Knowing what they look for in sites, it drew me

to this area. We relocated an AutoZone on South Robert in West St. Paul two years

ago. We moved them south four blocks into a former Chucky Cheese. AutoZone is

just one example, I think we’ll have decent activity on this once it is fully marketed. We

know what they look for. I know it was vacated in September 2022. I did some

research at it, and contacted my contacts with AutoZone and let them know this was a

market they have coveted a while. The challenges with any urban site, the building is

not reusable to them. They have two prototypes they use nationwide, typically. They

have a third prototype they’ve only used in major metropolitan areas. They really like

the site they just have to convince everyone internally to go with the seldom used third

prototype. I have a relationship with Houston foods by talking about my clientele and

knowing the area.

Moermond: you represent AutoZone, looking at this parcel. It is just south of 30,000

square feet which isn’t quite what is normally in the portfolio. I do see the

neighborhood, and I would ask, what is the likelihood of Autozone moving forward with

this when there are very large parcels further north on Robert that are undeveloped?

Hauge: we have looked at some of those in the past. They have to be one of two

places, they have to be nearer the rooftop.

Moermond: that means?

Hauge: residential housing, as much as possible, or the middle of the retail hub. That

would be further south on Robert. The west side is primarily residential.

Radio: when we talked yesterday you were going to marketing to local community for

restaurant use?

Hauge: the way we work on marketing properties, we look at the highest and best use.

It is a great restaurant location. One is marketing to the brokerage community; one is

marketing directly to the neighborhood. First 30 days is marketing to that immediate

area, every commercial business on the west side into west St. Paul. As that goes on

we spread the geographic net out to try and hit more logical uses. Absolutely our first

thrust will be the local restaurant community. That’s the highest and best use. The

market dictates that more than I do.

Radio: we have that Code Compliance report, making some of those repairs. We have

the Performance Deposit on file. We’re up to date on everything asked, you requested

we energize the marketing efforts.

Moermond: I was under the impression that those efforts were already underway, and

there was a letter of intent. What I see here is a letter dated August 11, after that

August 8 hearing. So it was initiated following that conversation.

Radio: how long have you been working with AutoZone, jeff?

Hauge: since last September or October.

Moermond: that’s not on behalf of the owner though.

Radio: he has been in conversation with Nancy W, who signed it, over that time period

as well. He wasn’t acting as our marketing person or broker but he was in contact with

the person making the sale decision.

Moermond: and he is now the broker for Burger King, which is a different thing entirely.

That is different than representing the purchaser. It wasn’t his sign in the front. That’s

where I was going. Mr. Hauge, you were saying something.

Hauge: I will say one of the things brokers do when they identify property is show it to

Bridgestone Firestone and Valvoline, another realtor we do a lot of work with. I have

shown to some retailers. Anything under an acre shrinks the spectrum of potential

uses. Those three I know have prototypes that can fit on smaller sites. I was trying to

bring a buyer to the property.

Moermond: this agreement in my hand is you are trying to sell it for $900,000?

Hauge: that is correct.

Moermond: and there is an offer for less than that?

Hauge: I have to submit all offers; it is up to ownership as to what they sell at.

Radio: just a starting point.

Moermond: in the case of the West 7th Burger King there was limited time given for

the marketing and sale agreement. I’m willing to look at that. not a full 90 days. I need

a plan for the site. If it’s a rehab site, I’m fine with that. I don’t have a problem with

demolition if someone needs a different layout. That takes the City out of the equation

entirely. I’ll put a calendar together. If you have additional information, a sale, we can

pencil you in for Legislative Hearing September 12, otherwise we’ll send this to Council

September 20 to check in on it and they can give more time. I’m willing to put a

calendar in place, so long as I’m treating it in a similar fashion. Knowing there is

community investment here as well, same as the other one.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 9/12/2023

RLH RR 23-33

Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at 1356

REANEY AVENUE within fifteen (15) days after the August 16, 2023,

City Council Public Hearing. (Refer back to August 22, 2023 Legislative

Hearing)

Prince

Sponsors:

Grant 180 days pending submission of updated financing (either alternate funding

source or final loan approval document) and affidavit.

Jessica Darrough, purchaser, appeared

Moermond: when I read the original letter from the bank, what I saw and what was told

back to you was the letter said that the financing was contingent upon appraisal, so I

was concerned it meant it wasn’t locked in. I’m reading this now and it says you are

preapproved for up to 150k. I’m struggling, I’m not a banker, the term preapproved also

shows up in my mail every day for credit cards and isn’t the same as having the actual

money there. I’m wondering how we get from preapproval to you have the money and

good to go to pay the bills. I don’t want to tell the Council you are good to go without

the dollars being there. That’s where my questions are.

Darrough: I do have the funds in my business account, I was going through the bank

for a loan.

Moermond: are you willing to put those on the table with an affidavit?

Darrough: yes.

Moermond: let’s do that. If it changes and you have a closed loan and paperwork

around that, great. I do see the New Day Investments piece.

Darrough: if I talk to the bank and get approved? We went through the steps to get

preapproved; the contractors went through and I presented to the bank. The loan

people want to know that I can do the rehab.

Moermond: so they’re waiting for a City decision, and City is waiting on you showing

those funds. City is in the stronger position. If you replace the financing down the road,

I’m happy to look at it, but I need to see real dollars. I appreciate where they are at, I

just couldn’t ask Council to approve this.

Darrough: you need the approved letter.

Moermond: right. I’m fine looking at your money, it doesn’t matter to me. That’s all I

need on this side. Otherwise, things look tidy.

Darrough: so just the funds?

Moermond: you can handle that by way of email and we don’t have to have another

Legislative Hearing. That’s the last hurdle, and once we review we can green-light

permits and recommend a grant of time from the Council for the rehab. I will plan on

putting this in front of Council September 13. If you get it in tomorrow, we can work

with you to get moving more quickly.

Darrough: sounds good.

Referred to the City Council due back on 9/13/2023

RLH RR 23-40

Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at 401

ROSE AVENUE EAST within180 days after the September 6, 2023, City

Council Public Hearing.

Brendmoen

Sponsors:

Grant 180 days to rehab pending posting of $5,000 PD.

Joanna Zimny update: everything is in and you’ve reviewed and approved it, we are just

waiting on them posting the Performance Deposit. I had Department of Safety &

Inspections staff look yesterday because they’d said it was mailed in, but they didn’t

find anything. Mr. Mitchell is going to have them stop payment and will go in person.

Moermond: this goes to Council September 6, so advise Mr. Mitchell that is the last

piece to fall into place and if it comes in and we have a receipt he can begin pulling

permits. If we are still waiting, I’d like it no later than close of business September 5.

Referred to the City Council due back on 9/6/2023

RLH RR 23-44

Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at 1213

WOODBRIDGE STREET within fifteen (15) days after the September 13,

2023, City Council Public Hearing.

Brendmoen

Sponsors:

Refer back to LH October 24, 2023 for discussion of preliminary bids based on

completed CCIR, pending posting of $5,000 PD and application for Code Compliance

report by no later than Friday, September 8, 2023.

Michael Sauer, attorney o/b/o Penny Mac, appeared

Voicemail left at 9:54 am for Roark at x6051: good morning I am trying to reach

Andrea Roark, this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling you about

your property at 1213 Woodbridge, trying to call you into a hearing about the proposed

order to remove or repairs. We’ll try you back in a few minutes, hopefully you can call

then.

Tried calling x7842 number at 9:57 – unable to connect or leave voicemail.

Voicemail left at 10:02 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling

you again about your property at 1213 Woodbridge. We will talk with Michal Sauer,

attorney for Penny Mac, hopefully we can talk to you. I understand you talked to staff

about this hearing, concerned you aren’t present, but we’ll touch base later I guess.

Moermond: I was hoping we could go thorugh the basic bullets on this so she had the

same background as you, but isn’t quite the same thing.

Sauer: I’m cautiously optimistic we’ll have the Rest Pro mechanics lien resolved this

week. I need to speak with her anyway. I’ll talk with her about this property, I do have

approval if she didn’t show today and commit to making the Performance Deposit we

will post the deposit and get the second Code Compliance Inspection report and move

along until she comes along for the ride. We’ll get that done by the 8th. I have it lined

up to take care of it. They wanted to make sure we heard from her in case she

appeared. But since she didn’t show we will do that. What is the next step when that

happens? Wait for the Code Compliance Inspection Report? Contractor estimate for

rehab? Timeline on that as of today?

Moermond: we need to get that Performance Deposit posted and the Code Compliance

Inspection conducted and the first step is applying for it. Because you are working with

the owner on that, I don’t anticipate problems with that. And the house was gutted

following that Code Compliance Inspection?

Sauer: looks like we’ll be paying that contractor for the work they had done.

Moermond: when was the contract executed with Rest Pro?

Sauer: a year ago at least, probably the first time you saw permits being pulled. Then

insurance pulled because they were upset with how Rest Pro handled it. There have

been electricians and plumbers out. The roof has been replaced.

Moermond: do you know exactly when?

Sauer: it may be part of the lawsuit.

Yannarelly: building permit July 2022. Electrical October 2022. Expired plumbing

December 2022.

Sauer: everything was on track until the issue between insurance and rest pro. It no

longer became a fire damage job, it was a full remodel, so they weren’t going to fund it.

Moermond: are there approvals for parts of work that have been done MR Zane

Zane: no inspections as far as the Rest Pro work.

Sauer: I’m optimistic a new contractor come in and pick up where they left off. Our

client is very responsive on this one. We do have some leftover insurance funds we

can use, it won’t be enough, but our client has to cover it.

Moermond: fire December 1, 2021. Mid 2022 some permits being pulled. We also have

in that time period the contract having been signed and Rest pro working with

insurance for approvals to do the things they proposed and what presumably was in the

contract that was signed between MS. Roark and them. that’s where the no comes in?

Did they start insurance approval.

Sauer: there were funds issued by insurance, but they applied for supplemental funds.

Once they saw that they said no, we’re not going to remodel your whole house and

that’s where things fell apart. Penny Mac got more involved once the City got involved

and began learning the extent of what was done.

Moermond: does the supplement require a signature by the owner?

Zane: it is a document submitted by Rest Pro to insurance. They deal directly with

insurance typically once there’s an initial contract.

Sauer: it is essentially in the contract. The contractor just runs with it.

Moermond: if we can get that code compliance ordered, access legally for Mr. Zane’s

team. He needs assurance for access with property.

Sauer: in the extent she doesn’t ever return my call, which I don’t think will happen,

there’s something in the loan document to allow access for inspection to protect

damage.

Moermond: that should be doable. Get those items done, and I’ll ask the Council

September 13 to refer it back to Legislative Hearing on October 24.

Referred to the City Council due back on 9/13/2023

RLH RR 23-45

Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at 50

FILLMORE AVENUE EAST within fifteen (15) days after the September

27, 2023, City Council Public Hearing.

Noecker

Sponsors:

Remove within 15 days with no option to repair.

No one appeared

Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: The building is a one story, cement block,

commercial warehouse on a lot of 556,261 square feet. The Fire Certificate of

Occupancy was revoked on February 22, 2008 and the property was referred to vacant

buildings with files opened on February 26, 2008. The current property owner is

Fillmore Avenue Apartments, LLC, per Amanda and Ramsey County Property records.

On May 24, 2023, 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 posted on June 14, 2023, with a compliance

date of July 14, 2023. As of this date, the property remains in a condition which

comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. Taxation has placed an

estimated market value of $3,893,800 on the land and $390,500 on the building. Real

estate taxes are current. The vacant building registration fees were paid by

assessment on April 3, 2023. As of August 21, 2023, a Team Inspection has not been

done. As of August 21, 2023, the $5,000 performance deposit has not been posted.

There have been sixty-one Summary Abatement notes since 2008. There have been

thirteen work orders issued for boarding/securing.

Also, for the record, an Order to Abate an open and free flowing well was issued to the

property owner/responsible parties on January 31, 2012 with a compliance date of

March 1, 20212. The owner requested an extension to comply with the orders on

February 23, 2012 which was granted. When compliance was not achieved, a letter

was sent to the owner by the Minnesota Department of Health on April 3, 2012 advising

that the unsealed well was in violation of state law. On April 9, 2012, the inspector

noted that the well was no longer leaking and the order to abate was now in

compliance. Code Enforcement Officers estimate the cost to repair this structure

exceeds $500,000. The estimated cost to demolish exceeds $100,000.

Moermond: 61 notices, but only 13 work orders.

Yannarelly: they are fairly responsive. We have also issued orders for cleaning up. The

only work orders have been to board. We don’t send notices on those, if it is open,

we’re boarding it.

Moermond: the work orders are late 2021 through the present, they took care of things

prior to that much better. No graffiti orders in spite of it being plastered with graffiti.

And the number of work orders because--

Yannarelly: it has been discovered by the unsheltered.

Moermond: no question this has to be ordered removed within 15 days with no option to

repair.

Referred to the City Council due back on 9/27/2023

RLH RR 22-48

Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at 523

BEAUMONT STREET within fifteen (15) days after the September 21,

2022, City Council Public Hearing.

Noecker

Sponsors:

Grant 180 days pending submission of updated work plan/bid and updated letter of

financing.

Ed Dropps, Greater Midwest Realty o/b/o GITSIT Solutions, appeared via phone

Araiza Hargrove, GITSIT Solutions, appeared via phone

Joy Zimmerman, REO o/b/o GITSIT, appeared via phone 714-640-2657

Moermond: this was an opportunity to touch base on the foreclosure. We have some

updated information from you, let me find out how the foreclosure process has gone.

Hargrove: the redemption period has expired, so we are now the owners and can move

forward with starting the repairs. The last we spoke regarding the rehab was our

contractor had an earliest start time of September 5, so we’re looking to move forward.

Moermond: I see a new letter dated August 21 indicating 60,000 is set aside for the

project.

Hargrove: yes.

Moermond: my question is that the bid you submitted from Konower previously was

$114,963. I’m confused by either the bid or the amount of money, whatever it is doesn’t

line up.

Hargrove: initially we went through and got a complete fully renovated bid, as time has

gone by costs on supplies and construction have gone up and our position in the asset

may not provide with the best benefit in doing a complete rehab. We look at the

violations you provided and a bid based on that Code Compliance Inspection Report.

Moermond: so the work plan is no longer relevant, and that needs to confirm and

address the items in the Code Compliance Inspection Report dated October of 2022. I

assume that can be generated quickly?

Hargrove: I can send it today. It was just an itemized list of the Code Compliance

Inspection Report and making sure they’d all be addressed.

Moermond: is it the same contractor?

Hargrove: yes.

Moermond: let’s see that updated bid with the cost so we can add that to the record.

Zimmerman: the bid will come over in the name of GITSIT solutions,

Moermond: and it isn’t clear who even put together this bid—if Solid Rock is putting

together this bid.

Zimmerman: I was noticing that as well, I need to have the rehab department add that

in with the contact information.

Moermond: and then the confirmation that the dollar amount matches. I wouldn’t hate

an account with the dollar amount.

Hargrove: we were originally asked to provide that letter. That isn’t something I am privy

too or able to do. My point is we have complied and done everything you’ve asked us to

do. We rehab properties all the time, we want to get started. We provided what we were

asked to provide.

Moermond: I can live with this letter.

Hargrove: we can get you those.

Moermond: I can live with this; I don’t have any approved work plan.

Hargrove: and we’ll get you everything you requested in the letter.

Moermond: let’s get the updated plan in.

Zane: you’re saying the $60,000 covers the scope of the bid, but you’re saying the

contractor, Solid Rock—who I’m familiar with—has filled out the construction bid form

that is telling us the cost of the rehab will be $115,000. That’s a significant difference.

Hargrove: that’s for a brand new house. That’s to reach top market value, not just

addressing the renovation. For complete renovation.

Moermond: Ms. Zimmerman you have the bid sheet with the $60,000 total.

Zimmerman: I apologize for not having that information in there.

Moermond: we’ll get that updated, the schedule is acceptable. I can live with not

seeing an account, but what I would like to see is a sentence added to the letter

indicating that if there is a change order or something happens along the way, that

there is a commitment to finishing the project.

Hargrove: that makes sense.

Moermond: that would ease some of my concerns.

Zimmerman: I’ll walk you through our thought process because the market has

softened, interest rates have gone up. Our plan is if you approve the work, we

complete it and go on the market and if it doesn’t get sufficient offers, we’ll go back in

and finish the fluff work on the interior. That’s the plan on the property.

Moermond: let’s see those documents and we can do this by email. We don’t need to

do another hearing, we can save you some time there. This goes to Council Public

Hearing September 13.

Referred to the City Council due back on 9/13/2023

10:00 a.m. Hearings

Making Finding on Nuisance Abatements

RLH RR 23-48

Making finding on the appealed substantial abatement ordered for 1508

COMO AVENUE in Council File RLH RR 22-22.

Jalali

Sponsors:

The nuisance is abated and the matter resolved.

No one appeared

Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: Code Compliance certificate was issued, Vacant Building

file is closed.

Referred to the City Council due back on 9/6/2023

RLH RR 23-46

First Making finding on the appealed substantial abatement ordered for

342 THOMAS AVENUE in Council File RLH RR 22-54.

Balenger

Sponsors:

Refer back to LH September 26, 2023 to check status of CC certificate. If not issued,

PO to submit updated work plan.

Manuel Crespo, owner, appeared via phone

Moermond: we are checking in on your progress here at the property.

Staff report by Clint Zane: I determined it was about 80% completed.

Moermond: that is fantastic. Mr. Crespo, tell me where you are at for finishing.

Crespo: a couple more months we should be done.

Moermond: your $5,000 Performance Deposit it is automatically continued for six

months because you are 80% done. If you are really sure you can get this done in a

few weeks, I can continue this case, or you can give me a plan with a schedule and

contractors and I can give much longer to finish. I need that plan if it will be more than

3 or 4 weeks. Either option I’m fine with. Realistically 8 weeks, we can work on a

longer schedule, you don’t have to work day and night.

Crespo: I'm losing a lot of money and I think I can be done in a month. We’re trying to

get it livable soon.

Moermond: this goes to Council September 13, I’ll ask them to refer this back to

Legislative Hearing with me on September 26. That’s a month. We’ll check in then and

make sure you’re done. If you aren’t we will need a plan to finish.

Crespo: yes, definitely.

Referred to the City Council due back on 9/13/2023

11:00 a.m. Hearings

Summary & Vehicle Abatement Orders

RLH SAO

23-34

Appeal of David Wilson to a Tall Grass and/or Weeds Abatement Order

at 820 RANDOLPH AVENUE.

Noecker

Sponsors:

Grant the appeal (PO meets definition of managed natural landscape).

David Wilson, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Richard Kedrowski: a tall grass and weeds complaint came

into us, those letters go out automatically and then they are reinspected 3 days later.

Photos were taken showing matted, grassy, surface that appeared to be tall weeds,

not native plantings, and an appeal was filed having to do with that.

Moermond: Mr. Wilson, talk about the nature of your argument.

Wilson: I bought this house last year, after purchasing I had plumbing work done so

my front yard was essentially bare dirt. This spring I put some fill in to correct the

grading and began the transition to native species planting based off what my

understanding was at the time. I thought the native seed packet from MN Native seed

packet. I know it does look very weed like the first year, it doesn’t bloom the first year.

Wilson: my best friend is a well-known firefighter and on his recommendation I went to

MN Native Landscapes. I purchased a backyard prairie seed kit. I started with bare dirt

due to some plumbing work. It was dug out to the water main. I put fresh topsoil on it.

The patch that was replanted shouldn’t have had any other root systems of non-native

species. I’ve done my best to pull out the non-native species. There may be some

around the edges that are weeks, but I’ve done my best to keep them trimmed and

removed. I try to pull anything like that on a weekly basis, thistle or dandelions, things

like that. I spoke with the people who sold me the seed to see what I can do to

encourage it. I just want to express I am actively working to manage it.

Moermond: this is year two of establishing this?

Wilson: year one, planted this spring.

Moermond: I’m trusting where you are going with this and that you will be doing the

managing piece moving forward. You seem to be learning about that and engaged in

doing that. That’s really great. I would recommend that the Council grant your appeal

and I think Mr. Kedrowski’s recommendations are good. I’ll recommend your appeal is

granted and you are doing managed natural landscape.

Referred to the City Council due back on 9/13/2023

Correction Orders

RLH CO 23-11

Appeal of Gary Blair to a Correction Notice at 1121 MINNEHAHA

AVENUE EAST.

Yang

Sponsors:

Recommendation forthcoming.

Gary Blair, owner, appeared

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Richard Kedrowski: July 11, 2023 orders were written

regarding a semi parked in the parking lot at the property. There was a 2011 appeal to

the planning commission to allow the trailer for storage. That was granted, noting it be

maintained in good condition. It is sinking into the ground, has numerous flat tires, and

the owner stated to Lisa Martin that it would fall apart if it was moved. We are

contending it isn’t in good condition.

Moermond: why are you appealing Mr. Blair?

Blair: I didn’t say it would fall apart if it was moved. It isn’t drivable, the brake system

is locked up because it has been sitting so long. All the tires hold air except one. They

are into the blacktop about ½” from settling. All 8 tires are good with the exception of

one. What I told the inspector is I had someone look at it is because it had been

sitting so long it would break the lug nuts because it has been sitting so long. We

wouldn’t be able to get one back on. It is in beautiful condition. We did have this come

up a couple of times before and they approved it. At that time, it was the same as it is

today. One tire that doesn’t hold air. One tire that is flat doesn’t take away from the

beauty of the trailer. Same issue happened last year, and it was approved last year.

I’ve heard that comment from the Department before that they want it moved. We use

the trailer regularly. It doesn’t look bad. When we did the variance the Council agreed it

was best not to skirt it since rodents or kids could go underneath.

Moermond: it says, “shall be maintained in good repair”. If we have a tire that can’t be

fixed because the lug nuts will break, it doesn’t sound like it is in repair.

Blair: the repair is to make it drivable, that isn’t the purpose of the trailer. The purpose

is storage. The neighborhood needs a lot more attention than my tire, by the way.

Moermond: is the pavement yours?

Blair: yes.

Moermond: and the chain-link fence?

Blair: yes.

Moermond: those appear to be in bad repair too. No orders written on this.

Blair: not sure what you are talking about.

Moermond: I see the chain-link fence is just hanging there, there are weeds growing up

through the parking lot.

Blair: we have someone who comes in once a week. I’m not sure who the fence

belongs too. I didn’t put it in, there are no orders on it. I have repaired the fence

before, but because of the neighborhood being so undesirable the kids and whoever

have a tendency to abuse the area. We’ve taken care of all the things they’ve dumped

over the years. Mattresses, sofas. We’ve never been cited on those. I do get the

comments the neighbors appreciate having the building there. We’ve never had any

issues with graffiti. I’ve been there 45 years and support the community with my taxes

and the work we provide. We’re talking about one tire. Not a trailer that is falling apart.

It is in excellent condition. The brakes wouldn’t work because it has sat to long. We’re

talking about one flat tire out of 8. You can barely tell it is flat.

Moermond: the crux seems to be what in good repair means. You’re giving me a

definition as being “decent in appearance” as opposed to operable as intended use. A

workable trailer. How do we define “maintained in good repair.” As a side comment, I

was mentioning the condition of the blacktop and that fence does appear to belong to

you. It is not connected to a top post, it is in very bad condition. I was surprised Code

Enforcement didn’t write anything on that. I would say that I find that noticeable,

especially when looking at the trailer. I’ll give this some consideration.

Kedrowski: take note that if you look at all the tires and the reveal at the top of the tire

vs. the bottom, the flat tire is on the right-hand side in the rear. You can see the

mud-flaps. All 3 other tires show signs of thinner sidewalls at the bottom than the top

because of how far they have sunken into the asphalt.

Blair: any vehicle is going to settle. It isn’t settling to the point of being flat by any

means. A tire low on air would have that same appearance. The tires are all good, it is

just the one. The tires are settled into the pavement, but after 40 years I’d be settled in

too, but they aren’t to the point where they are really down to the mud and down to the

rim. I agree the fence doesn’t appeal to me, I would be willing to take care of the

fence.

Moermond: and I’m not going to negotiate the fence. That is something that if

Department of Safety & Inspections thinks it is a Code violation, it is its own issue. I’m

not going to include this in a conversation about the trailer. I do see the resolution from

the Planning Commission was from 2011, has the trailer moved since then?

Blair: no it has not.

Moermond: I will give this some more though.

Blair: we’ve been east-side people for almost 80 years, supported the downtown police

department. Worked for the Fire Department. Worked for the City of Saint Paul. I’m

getting called for a tire that’s flat, out of 8 tires. I guess when I look at the

neighborhood, the whole lower east side of St. Paul needs a lot more attention than my

tire. I guess that’s where I’m coming from. If we’re looking at details and splitting hairs,

my definition of maintaining a trailer is to have it look good. Not to put it on the road

and drive it. I would think the City would give small businesses who take care of the

community and City itself some consideration. I appreciate whatever you can do for

me, and I understand you have to go by rules and regulations, but whatever can be

done to help. We would rather spend our time helping the public and the City than

worrying about a tire that will be difficult and costly to take care of. I appreciate your

time.

Referred to the City Council due back on 9/13/2023

1:00 p.m. Hearings

Vacant Building Registrations

RLH VBR

23-41

Appeal of Chris Boylan to a Vacant Building Registration Renewal Notice

at 1508 COMO AVENUE.

Jalali

Sponsors:

Grant the appeal (CC certificate issued and VB file closed).

No one appeared

Moermond: we have a code compliance certificate issued, right?

Dornfeld: yes, it is closed out.

Moermond: grant the appeal.

Referred to the City Council due back on 9/5/2023

RLH VBR

23-51

Appeal of Peter Ratsamy to a Vacant Building Registration Notice at 575

UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST.

Balenger

Sponsors:

Deny the appeal, but make property a Cat 1 VB and allow permits to be pulled.

Peter Ratsamy appeared

Jin Chen, contractor, appeared

Staff report by Supervisor Mitch Imbertson: commercial office building in the

Certificate of Occupancy program, approximately 11,000 square feet. 3 year inspection

cycle as commercial office occupancy come due for renewal inspection August 4. AT

that time when the inspector went out he observed it was vacant and undergoing

remodel. Multiple code deficiencies noted. Needs an interior inspection. The Certificate

of Occupancy was revoked since the building was vacant and referred to Vacant

Building program as it meets definition of being unoccupied and multiple code

violations.

Moermond: and those are the window glass?

Imbertson: window glass, exterior surfaces, needs full interior access.

Moermond: chipped and peeling paint and window glass are considered major code

violations? I don’t know, it could be really bad.

Imbertson: I didn’t intend to say major, the multiple violations are the issue. But

understood.

Moermond: under rehab right now. If a commercial space is occupied and you have a

Certificate of Occupancy on it, and the owner of the building is remodeling to suit to

the new occupant is that something you’d hold the file on for a while? How do you treat

transitional cases?

Imbertson: we try to be reasonable as much as possible while following chapter 40

Vacant Building definitions. That can be a challenge sometimes when we don’t have

construction specifics, we are acting on best information at the time. There are

circumstances where we would monitor a file. often one factor in that is seeing active

permits on file, and I don’t see any permits yet for construction.

Moermond: that’s what I was looking for too.

Imbertson: that would have given us additional context at time of inspection as well.

Moermond: Mr. Dornfeld, you got a referral?

Staff report by Supervisor Matt Dornfeld: we opened a Category 2 Vacant Building per

that referral due to multiple exterior violations, being vacant, and Inspector Hoffman

documented no active permits on file for trades work.

Ratsamy: I bought this building December 22, 2022. After I bought, I was trying to

decide what to do, lease it or run a business myself. While I’m waiting for that, with the

weather, there is offices inside, I cleaned it up myself. I contacted Chen in July, my

family and I decided to open a restaurant or bakery. I still did some of the work myself,

there is exterior metal, so I contacted a stucco company to give me an estimate. It

won’t sit like that.

Moermond: I see we had an appeal by you of the neighboring parcel in 2019. 585

University. Released from the program in June 2019, worked with you on the fee. You

bought the building in 2022, didn’t know what you wanted to do. I can see there are

other people leasing, or are they gone now?

Ratsamy: they’re gone now. No one is occupying it now.

Moermond: and you’ve been doing some interior demolition work?

Ratsamy: right.

Moermond: so it is missing a lot of things then.

Chen: no sheetrock, no ceiling tile.

Moermond: that’s problematic as well, not just the glass outside and the trim. I see

you’re estimating $489,000 to build this out for future use. I’m not seeing a timeline in

this agreement.

Chen: depends on how long the City takes to issue a permits. I submitted for a

building permit first, my mechanical and plumbing engineer are still working on the

drawing. I’ve done this a lot for commercial buildings.

Moermond: architectural plans are submitted?

Chen: they’re with the City already.

Moermond: that doesn’t show up in the system.

Chen: they said we had to resolve this Vacant Building piece first.

Moermond: right, the Vacant Building letter went out August 9 so that would have been

the case the last 12 days.

Chen: I have paid the mortgage 8 months now. I am trying to speed him up. I have to

solve this problem; I don’t want it to keep sitting.

Moermond: this is a lot of work, how long?

Chen: 5 or 6 months. I built the Asia Mall in Eden Prairie in 9 months.

Moermond: it seems to me that this is no doubt a Category 2 Vacant Building but

wouldn’t really benefit from a team inspection because it is all going through plan

review anyway.

Imbertson: I would agree.

Moermond: that leaves the fee. Honestly, I think you owe the money, I hear you say it

has been 5 months and looking at another six. The question is when its due. I’m

concerned hearing you say you’ve done demo work without a permit because it clearly

requires it for the dollar amount. That’s a problem for me. I don’t want to make it a

Category 1, but it needs a Certificate of Occupancy before it can be reoccupied.

Imbertson: correct. As long as we understand it needs a Certificate of Occupancy prior

to reoccupancy, it could be a Category 1.

Moermond: Mr. Dornfeld, any thoughts?

Dornfeld: no comments other than it is always helpful to put the Vacant Building fee

money into the rehab.

Moermond: I’m going to recommend that the Council not require a team inspection, the

Code Compliance Inspection, I’m going to recommend they allow permits to be pulled

without the Vacant Building fee having been paid. I won’t recommend a waiver. You

can pay the Vacant Building fee or allow it to go to assessment on the taxes. That

assessment is also appealable. If you are done in six or fewer months I sometimes

look at prorating this fee. You have a half a million-dollar project that isn’t moving

forward for want of a 2500 fee. I’m not going to waive it, but I’m asking Department of

Safety & Inspections to allow permits so they can process your plans. We’ll change it

from a Category 2 to a 1 so the permit desk knows permits can be issued without the

Code Compliance Inspection. The fee goes forward but you can pull permits without

paying it. You need your Certificate of Occupancy before re-occupancy.

Ratsamy: so I have to pay this fee?

Moermond: you can choose to now, or if left unpaid it goes to assessment on your

taxes. That assessment is also appealable.

Referred to the City Council due back on 9/6/2023

RLH VBR 23-50

Appeal of Carolyn Brown, Community Stabilization Project, and Shai

Leibovich to a Vacant Building Registration Notice at 1129 BEECH

STREET.

Prince

Sponsors:

Layover to LH September 5, 2023 for results of August 31 inspection.

Shai Leibovich, BPH Homes, LLC appeared via phone

Voicemail for Carolyn Brown at 1:50 pm: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City

Council calling you about 1129 Beech Street. We do have Shai Leibovich on the

phone.

Staff report by Supervisor Mitch Imbertson: this is a one-unit residential property in the

Certificate of Occupancy program. This was up for a Certificate of Occupancy renewal,

due January 2023. A number of attempts to get in, leading to pending revocation

notice to either comply or vacate the property. That was extended a few additional

times and ultimately the Inspector did get access. Most recent order was June 26,

2023 and at that time the items noted were repair of basement stairway, toilet seat,

and smoke alarm affidavit so it was referred to the Vacant Building program for

noncompliance.

Moermond: 5 orders, 4 appointment letters since December of 2022.

Imbertson: yes.

Staff report by Supervisor Matt Dornfeld: I made this a Category 1 Vacant Building July

19, 2023. Obviously was occupied. I looked at the revocation and saw the stairs, a

smoke detector affidavit and loose toilet cover so did not make it a cat 2. I did note

some overflowing trash and two severely inoperable junk cars in the rear which have

current Summary Abatement Orders on them and are placarded. A Tow order will be

going out after this appeal if there is no resolution today.

Moermond: we have a pattern here of no one showing up for inspection so its revoked

and sent to Vacant Building program. What can we do about this?

Leibovich: he got the smoke detector affidavit and was sent a photo of the stairs. The

toilet is fixed. Everything is addressed. Tow the cars, it isn’t on me. I don’t know what

legal right I have or if I can tow it from the property even if she is occupying. I will

contact her today to give her 24 hours, otherwise I will send someone to tow at her

expense. The rest was addressed already, the inspector can come anytime. We will

make sure someone is there.

Imbertson: the next opening Inspector Thomas has is next week.

Leibovich: I agree, I’ve met with Hector this week, Frank this week, I don’t know, I’ll

make it happen.

Imbertson: 11 am on Thursday August 31.

Moermond: I’ll continue this to September 5, and we’ll check in and make sure

everything is crossed off the list and then we can grant your appeal.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 9/5/2023

1:30 p.m. Hearings

Orders To Vacate - Fire Certificate of Occupancy

RLH VO 23-32

Appeal of Carolyn Brown, Community Stabilization Project, and Shai

Leibovich to a Revocation of Fire Certificate of Occupancy and Order to

Vacate at 852 JACKSON STREET.

Balenger

Sponsors:

Grant the appeal as it relates to the condemnation, property must still have its Fire C

of O reinstated prior to reoccupation.

Shai Leibovich, BPH Homes, LLC appeared via phone

[second hearing of day so appeals background not given again]

Staff report by Supervisor Mitch Imbertson: due for a renewal inspection with a June 2,

2023 letter for a June 29 appointment. He was not met at the property. He was told by

a neighbor the house was vacant. He left a Voicemail for property management. Sent a

second appointment letter July 31. He didn’t get in the property again. Appeared

unoccupied and so he revoked the Certificate of Occupancy and there are a number of

violations noted including lack of electric to the property.

Moermond: and one of the appeal attachments was an online receipt from Laura at

RBK paying the Xcel bill.

Leibovich: we woke up 3.5 months ago and tried to pay a bill and discovered someone

did fraud and sold two of our houses, this was one. A title was transferred to a different

entity. We just got possession again two weeks ago. We couldn’t do anything. It wasn’t

in our name. we paid a lawyer, went through a title company. That’s when we paid the

bill. Now it is back in our hands. The inspector gave us to October to fix everything.

We already spoke with him. Somebody walked with a lot of money.

Imbertson: I wanted to clarify my understanding is that there is an inspection that was

set for October, which was intended to be the furthest out the inspector could extend

the next reinspection before referral was made to the Vacant Building program. It would

still need to be recertified prior to reoccupancy.

Leibovich: of course. We’ll be ready way before that.

Moermond: we’ll recommend your appeal is granted, so your Certificate of Occupancy

is revoked but it is no longer condemned.

Leibovich: I appreciate that.

Referred to the City Council due back on 9/13/2023

2:00 p.m. Hearings

Fire Certificates of Occupancy

RLH FCO 23-59

Appeal of Susan Dunlop to a Fire Inspection Correction Notice at 631

SNELLING AVENUE SOUTH.