Minutes - Legislative Hearings

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, July 14, 2026

9:00 AM

Room TBD in person/Remote

9:00 a.m. Hearings

Remove/Repair Orders

RLH RR 26-12

Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at

594-596 REANEY AVENUE within fifteen (15) days after the July 15,

2026, City Council Public Hearing. (Continued Public Hearing to August

5, 2026)

Yang

Sponsors:

Continue CPH to August 5, 2026 and grant 180 days to rehab the property pending

posting of $5,000 PD & CCIR being completed.

Jay Mitchell, contractor, appeared

Mitchell: Clint said the lock box didn’t work—I did but it was tricky---so I did put a new

one on. I called Clint, but didn’t think to leave the code in my Voicemail. We finally

connected, and he confirmed he’d go out again.

Hoffman: regardless of what the Code Compliance Inspection Report says, he’s putting

in a new everything. I think it looks fine based on the contractors, everything new.

Same with plumbing, heating, cooling, toilets, fixtures. Basically the whole thing.

Electrical panel will be new.

Moermond: you’ll be managing the work on this, not doing it yourself [with your injury].

Mitchell: yes.

Moermond: has the Performance Deposit been posted?

Mitchell: not yet, I’m being honest with you. It will be done today.

Moermond: I’m going to ask the Council to continue this a week on the strength of the

Performance Deposit being posted today. Then I’ll be ready to grant the time. You’re in

communication with Clint.

Referred to the City Council due back on 7/15/2026

RLH RR 26-14

Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at 914

CENTRAL AVENUE WEST within fifteen (15) days after the August 19,

2026, City Council Public Hearing.

Bowie

Sponsors:

Layover to LH August 11, 2026 at 9 am for update on plans for the property. (CPH

8/19)

Staff report by Supervisor James Hoffman: The building is a two story, wood frame,

single-family dwelling with a detached one-stall garage and an accessory wooden shed,

on a lot of 4,879 square feet. The property was referred by Code Enforcement to

Vacant Buildings with files opened on April 27, 2023.

The current property owner is Lucille Herring and Maurice L Bellamy (both deceased),

per Paulie and Ramsey County Property records.

On April 8, 2026, 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 April 15, 2026, with a compliance

date of May 15, 2026. 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 $25,300 on the land and $170,500

on the building.

Real estate taxes are delinquent for 2024 and 2025 in the amount of $5,024.61, which

includes penalty and interest. The taxes for the first half of 2026 are due and owing in

the amount of $5,635.30, which includes penalty and interest. The property is

scheduled for tax forfeiture on July 31, 2028.

The vacant building registration fees were paid by assessment on June 2, 2025.

As of July 13, 2026, a Code Compliance Inspection has not been done.

As of July 13, 2026, the $5,000 performance deposit has not been posted.

There have been four Summary Abatement notices since 2023. There have been two

work orders issued for: Garbage/rubbish and to cut vegetation in public right-of-way.

Code Enforcement Officers estimate the cost to repair this structure exceeds

$150,000. The estimated cost to demolish exceeds $30,000.

Moermond: do we know in 2023 what happened that the building ended up in the

Vacant Building program?

Hoffman: I don’t.

Adams: there was a tenant and family in there until sometime in 2023. He died and

then his wife died, and the family moved out I guess. Since that time it has been

vacant to know knowledge.

Moermond: so it was a rental property Ms. Herring and Mr. Bellamy owned, not where

they lived.

Adams: yes. The family who died were the tenants. Family didn’t step up to move in,

so it became vacant in 2023.

Moermond: how long ago did they pass?

Adams: Lucille was about 10 years ago. Maurice was in the 1980’s. And that tenant

lived in there a while, and before that family. This is the only time its been unoccupied;

sometime in the last few years.

Moermond: what’s going on?

Adams: I don’t live in St. Paul anymore. I’ve tried to encourage family to moved in as

an asset left to us. No one did. When the notice came a couple of years ago that it

was a Vacant Building, my cousin Layne who lives here, called me. I was unaware the

tenant had expired. I don’t know if my other cousins knew either. We went back and

forth about it, I always wanted to keep it repaired and have family live in it. Covid

stopped a lot of things from happening. We’re trying to get back on track.

Moermond: are you a representative of the estate?

Adams: Mrs. Herring, because she was my mother. The other cousins and I didn’t go

to probate after my mother passed. The reason their still on there is because they

went to probate after my grandfather passed. That could be a problem.

Moermond: their names are on it. What are your plans?

Adams: I’m trying to corral them. I have one cousin saying he’s willing to move in once

it is livable. It is our intention to do the repairs. I was in there yesterday and did a video

walk through and took photos. Everything seems to be related to water damage that I

could see.

Moermond: there appears to be a really large hole in the roof.

Adams: yes. I tarped it a couple years ago. Roofing, gutters, soffits are all

deteriorating, along with foundation issues from the water.

Moermond: I assume electrical was affective. We have a lot of work, and the guess

from staff is over $150,000 to repair. [Moermond explains financial requirements, bids,

schedule, work plan, Performance Deposit, etc]. You also need to square away the

taxes, both for this process and so you can change the title. There are a lot of

expenses going on with this. I’m sure at least $200,000. In conversations with your

family, do they have resources to help fix this?

Adams: my mother was tight-lipped about what all was going on, so I wasn’t able to

move forward some years ago. So, here we are.

Moermond: this has a Council Public Hearing August 19th, and I’m willing to

recommend they give more time to sort things out as long as the Performance Deposit

is posted and the Code Compliance Inspection applied for. That Performance Deposit

is returnable if the property is demoed for some reason.

Hoffman: you also have the option to find your own contractor to demolish it

yourselves.

Moermond: you’re looking at parcel value vs. costs at that point. Getting that Code

Compliance Inspection list would be something a contractor can look at to give a

sound bid. I’m thinking you should get that ordered sooner than later.

Adams: is there anything I can do while I’m downtown?

Moermond: Ms. Vang will print out the Performance Deposit and Code Compliance

Inspection application. Any of the family is welcome to come and talk with us. You

seem like you’re the type to be on top of this. Let’s go out 4 weeks, August 11—the

week before the Council Public Hearing August 19—we can touch base then, see what

you’ve learned, if you’re leaning a particular direction. If we are continuing the case we

need those 2 things done.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 8/11/2026

10:00 a.m. Hearings

Special Tax Assessments

RLH TA 26-152

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 99

CALIFORNIA AVENUE WEST (AKA 100 CALIFORNIA AVENUE

WEST). (File No. J2612B, Assessment No. 268118)

Kim

Sponsors:

Approve the assessment.

Zach Campbell, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor James Hoffman: Boarding from April 26 around 6 pm the St.

Paul Police Department responded to a call about disorderly conduct. They broke a

window in a door. The police had it secured.

Campbell: we felt like they should have tried calling the emergency line. Right where

they were was both an emergency line and the property owner number, also there’s

typically someone on site past 6 pm who also could have dealt with it. We could have

taken care of it without the cost.

Moermond: I’m sympathetic to your perspective, but also the police are navigating a

particular circumstance and need to get to their next call. While it would have been

ideal they reach out to you, it typically isn’t the case where someone has those

numbers posted. They’re dealing with an emergency situation, and they need to get it

done and quickly. They were in and out in under an hour. I’m thinking my

recommendation will be the assessment is approved, however the Council may look at

this differently. I get where you are coming from but I have to call it in the other

direction due to the exigent circumstances therein.

Campbell: we likely could have had someone there faster than the contractor.

Moermond: they left the scene at 6:06 and contractor arrived at 6:05. So the contractor

arrived and they left. We can send you a packet of what we have again, I think you

already received it.

Referred to the City Council due back on 8/19/2026

RLH TA 26-145

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 2012

COMO AVENUE. (File No. J2611B, Assessment No. 268116)

Coleman

Sponsors:

Layover to LH July 28, 2026 at 10 am (reschedule request by PO).

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 7/28/2026

Special Tax Assessments-Rolls

RLH AR 26-44

RLH AR 26-45

RLH AR 26-46

Ratifying the assessment for Securing and/or Emergency Boarding fees

billed during March 2026 on Private Property. (File No. J2611B,

Assessment No. 268116)

Noecker

Sponsors:

Referred to the City Council due back on 8/19/2026

Ratifying the assessment for Securing and/or Emergency Boarding fees

billed during November 2025 on Private Property. (File No. J2607B2,

Assessment No. 268117)

Noecker

Sponsors:

Referred to the City Council due back on 8/19/2026

Ratifying the assessment for Securing and/or Emergency Boarding fees

billed during April 2026 on Private Property. (File No. J2612B,

Assessment No. 268118)

Noecker

Sponsors:

Referred to the City Council due back on 8/19/2026

11:00 a.m. Hearings

Making Finding on Nuisance Abatements

RLH SAO 26-41

Second Making finding on the appealed nuisance abatement ordered for

399 BLAIR AVENUE in Council File RLH SAO 26-16.

Bowie

Sponsors:

Grant an additional 6 month extension (to January 12, 2027) to have building materials

removed or building permit closed.

Nyar Pwo, owner, appeared via phone

Mitch Hadler, attorney and friend of owner, appeared via phone

Staff update by Supervisor Martin: last time I checked planning, Mario had sent out an

email to owner and attorney requesting corrections and wanted an engineer to do the

drawings. They also have added another fence to the property so new orders will be

going out on that.

Moermond: why orders on another fence? Height or what?

Martin: it is over 6’ in height in front of property. It can’t be higher than 4 feet.

Moermond: that’s forthcoming, not in front of me today. Just an FYI. We’re talking

about compliance with the Summary Abatement Order and the building permit which

we had tried to stagger some deadlines. Mario Gonzalez asked for more information.

Hadler: there was review of the building permit by 2 people. The second was Mr.

Gonzalez. They want additional information on the drawings. The structure was

characterized on the application as independent addition and Mr. Gonzalez says it is

an attached addition. The issue with the engineer arose with the issues of footings

having to be added. There also was some issues with the site plan on the percentage

under coding rules. We’re going to have the drawings done, but we haven’t had a

chance yet. That just came to me the 6th of July from the plan reviewers. We send

them off to the “building drawer” who will review the comments and come up with the

adjustments to the plan. Then we’ll submit our replies and try to get variances if

needed. We just don’t know the whole story yet. No permit yet.

Moermond: Ms. Martin, do you have any dates in the system?

Martin: I believe it was June 25th.

Hadler: when we spoke last week we hadn’t received them yet.

Moermond: I see the resolutions say grant to June 1 to have building permit pulled OR

construction materials removed. I don’t have a permit pulled. But I do have it was

delineated as an item to be completed quite a while ago. While I am sympathetic you

are in the process now, I was hoping for an earlier conclusion, hence the earlier

deadline, we’re operating on grace anyway. June 25 was a date Ms. Martin referenced.

Martin: 8 days ago they were asked to resubmit, that was July 6. Keep in mind, most

people get a permit BEFORE they actually build something. This is already almost

completed.

Hadler: we actually opened the file in April.

Moermond: I remember that conversation, it was incomplete and needed more

information and wasn’t continued until after the deadlines has come and gone which

was your responsibility to track.

I’m ready to call it and say it either needs to be completed by permit or deadline for

removing the building materials. Disengage from the permit process entirely. That isn’t

proving to be a helpful thing.

Hadler: you are really being unreasonable. We are not trying to delay. We’re doing the

best we can in the system. It is hard to get people to make drawings. I don’t know if

you have any practical experience doing this yourself. People just don’t do things the

same day. We know we’ve had a rough beginning, we’re now in the process and I don’t

think it is fair to be so adamant about these deadlines. No one is being hurt by any of

this. We’re working with the City. This is some type of rule type adamance that is

unreasonable. What’s the purpose of destroying what has been built if we can comply?

What’s the purpose of someone removing the fence? Who is it hurting? It isn’t a

danger that someone is going to walk in and kill themselves. It is unreasonable.

Moermond: the expectation is that permits are pulled prior to a project such as this

being undertaken. We aren’t sure what’s there because no one knows whether the

proper inspections and safety precautions have or haven’t been taken. This is all after

the fact. I’m sorry you feel it is unreasonable and following rules for rules’ sake, I will

say I also have to treat this case fairly and consistently as other similar cases are

treated. We want to have grace and give people a chance. This has been a slow one. I

want to get to a place where it is done, one way or another, and my suggestion now is it

helpful for me to put deadlines within the permitting process when that really isn’t within

a timeline I can manage. I can manage deadlines by which something should be

completed. Looking at that I can set a deadline that would give some flexibility about

when the Department of Safety and Inspections get the permit sorted out with you. It

makes sense to me to be looking at it on a sixth month clock, and if it isn’t then that

is a nuisance the Department of Safety and Inspections would be authorized to abate.

That’s a significant extension for compliance. I don’t know if you think that is still

unreasonable, but that is where I’m at.

Hadler: I don’t understand what you mean by “something you can schedule or fit in a

sixth month schedule.” Why does it have to be six months as long as no one is being

hurt or damage and making good faith progress. What is the purpose on destroying

something someone put money into and not hurting anyone. It just seems like rules for

rules’ sake. Mr. Pwo is trying to work with the City. He has complied with putting

materials away. He is working with a licensed contractor for drawings. The

recharacterization of the structure requires re-drawing. This happens all the time.

There’s a project on Grand and Victoria that’s gone through all sorts of revisions, and

they’re getting TIF money. These plans take time. This is small scale. He started on

something that should have had a permit, okay, so he stopped his construction and is

working on permits. We’re going to get the permit. He wants to finish it too before the

snow flies.

Moermond: Mr. Hadler, your involvement followed the finding the Council made about

this being a nuisance condition. It was after that you came and were talking about

having that bell un-rung. That would be something the Council would have to decide. I

would say it does continue to be a nuisance until the matter is abated one way or

another. I’m trying to work with you in getting us to that place. If you want the Council

to make a different determination about conditions while they’re making a finding you

can do that. I’m not going to recommend that because they’ve already made that

decision. I’m looking at six months from now; I know you feel that is unreasonable. I

need you to take that argument to the Council at this juncture.

Hadler: did you mean six months from NOW? From today? Going forward?

Moermond: yes.

Hadler: oh, I have no problem with six months from today.

Moermond: how refreshing.

Referred to the City Council due back on 7/15/2026

RLH SAO 26-50

Making finding on the appealed of Gary Grimes to a nuisance abatement

ordered for 314 WYOMING STREET EAST in Council File RLH SAO

26-46.

Noecker

Sponsors:

The nuisance is not abated.

Voicemail left at 11:51 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling

Gary Grimes following up on the extension you received to deal with the vehicles at

your property. They are still there, no change, at this point I’m going to recommend the

Council find noncompliance and authorize the Department of Safety and Inspections to

take action. That will be happening next Wednesday at Council Public Hearing.

Referred to the City Council due back on 7/22/2026

Correction Orders

RLH CO 26-3

Appeal of Isaiah Tolo to a Correction Order at 575 BEAUMONT

STREET.

Noecker

Sponsors:

Grant to September 1, 2026 for compliance (approval or removal of raised beds in

boulevard).

Voicemail left at 11:54 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling

Isaiah Tolo about your appeal for 575 Beaumont. We have an order about a raised bed

in the right-of-way. I believe you’ve made application to Public Works and we have no

response from them yet. I’m going to recommend we have approval or removal of the

raised bed by September 1. We’ll send an email to Public Works about this as well

and ask them to expedite their review.

Referred to the City Council due back on 8/5/2026

Summary & Vehicle Abatement Orders

RLH SAO 26-57

Appeal of Katherine Werner to a Tall Grass and Weeds Order at 2177

FAIRMOUNT AVENUE.

Coleman

Sponsors:

Grant to July 31, 2026 for compliance.

Katherine Werner, owner, appeared via phone

Moermond: we’re doing follow up from last week’s hearing. I’d asked for a plan to be

submitted for the conversion of your yard in a more measured way. I don’t have

anything to respond to, tell me what is going on.

Werner: let me add, I did not understand you were looking for a plan before this

meeting anymore I was before the first meeting. I apologize for any confusion. I’m

totally prepared to talk about it today.

Moermond: there was no requirement for a plan before our original hearing, it was

discussed in last week’s hearing and included in the letter that went out Friday. Why

don’t you tell me what is going on. We discussed taking this in steps.

Werner: I purchased a pretty sturdy hedge trimmer and I plan to experiment cutting the

grass back with it. That’s my plan, to use that device to cut everything back so I’m

well within 8” across the front yard and it was intention to share that with you and see if

that is acceptable as a next step. A friend came this morning when it was cooler and

weeded around the bird feeders and cut back the suckers on the City tree. Two small

things are done. The neighborhood boy will be coming today to mow the boulevard.

Moermond: when I look at your property, what do you consider front and side given you

are on a corner?

Werner: whatever is at the front door with my address, I have a walkway to the front

door, land to the west and a larger area to the east. When I say front yard I mean that

area.

Moermond: ok. Where you do draw the line in the sideyard for front.

Werner: the side yard is on Cretin with a side door and garage. I’ve been planting

perennials all summer with clover. That’s just about full bloom.

Moermond: let’s get you through this heat. We don’t want you to mess with any

milkweed, it is monarch season.

Werner; that milkweed grew by itself. This is the third summer I’ve had my front yard in

this condition yet someone decided to call the City.

Moermond: I’ll recommend a deadline of July 31.

Referred to the City Council due back on 7/22/2026

RLH SAO 26-54

Appeal of Jane Foster to a Summary Abatement Order at 1312

SCHEFFER AVENUE. (July 21, 2026 Legislative Hearing)

Jost

Sponsors:

Layover to LH July 21, 2026 at 11 am to discuss work plan and deadline for extension

(CPH July 22).

Voicemail left at 12:15 pm: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling

Jane Foster calling about the tall grass and weeds at your property at 1312 Scheffer.

You were going to back tackling smaller portions for converting to more a native

planting situation. I’m happy to look at one half or the other so we can get it thoroughly

planted .I don’t have a plan from you in front of me, which would be helpful. We DO

need to get that boulevard height down to 36”. I don’t care how you do it, but it needs

to happen. I’d like to send this to Council next week, July 22. My recommendation will

be the appeal is denied on the boulevard, and granted in part in the front yard based

on a forthcoming plan. I need that plan. You can reply to the email Joanna Zimny sent.

(note: after call it was noted wrong email address was used by staff for PO - JZ)

Referred to the City Council due back on 7/22/2026

RLH SAO

26-58

Appeal of Jane Myers to a Summary Abatement Order at 1521 HAGUE

AVENUE.

Bowie

Sponsors:

Grant to September 11, 2026 for compliance.

Jane Myers, owner, appeared

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: June 5, 2026 a Summary Abatement Order was

issued for overgrown vegetation, to cut and remove all plant growth and vegetation

hanging into sidewalk and street on both sides of property. Fencing and other

structures are not allowed on the boulevard without a permit. We do have current

photos. This has been going on several years with the same issues. We’ve talked

about moving some of the taller plants, but it hasn’t been maintained.

Myers: it isn’t that it hasn’t been maintained. It is that it doesn’t make sense. The

people who live around me are very pleased with the way it is maintained and its safety.

There isn’t any issues unless you look at “nitpicky” things. I do tie back things that are

hanging over. I don’t want any grass, I don’t have any grass. The same thing on the

boulevard. I moved in 1985. There was grass on the boulevard. They redid the streets

and in the process they removed all the boulevard stuff and I requested they didn’t

replace it with sod. They gave me topsoil to plant other things. No top soil showed up. I

turned it all over myself. I planted attractive things. I have a beautiful pile of bee balm.

The bees love it. The other pollinators as well. I have a lot of milkweed. I have

monarchs. I have neighbors who go collect the larvae and keep them inside and

release the butterflies. What I’m doing isn’t negative. It also isn’t a safety hazard. I’d

like some sort of variance so we don’t have to keep doing this.

Moermond: I have the last time we talked being in 2015. Lots has changed since then.

Ms. Martin, could you talk about what the expectations are? We have height in

boulevards.

Martin: she has a corner property. The plants are beautiful, but they don’t meet the

height requirement. There is also raspberry bushes with fencing all around. Around the

fire hydrant. It has to be cut back. It IS a safety issue. There are some 5 foot plants

on the side, randomly throughout. Many of the plants overhand the sidewalk and street.

They just need to be cut back. They are absolutely gorgeous, they just can’t be on the

boulevard due to the height requirements.

Moermond: I don’t feel like anyone has to have a turf lawn. What I do concern myself

with are the public aspects and the right-of-way. The issue of height, especially in

corners, is site lines. There are rules around what that looks like. I like to call it the

tricycle rule. 36” would prevent a driver from seeing a tricycle. We want it lower around

driveways and corners where vehicles need to see with notice. I’m pretty firm on that.

The other piece is access to the right-of-way and the fencing. This is really Public

Works determination. There is provision for raised beds under permit. [Moermond

explains what the right-of-way entails and the different height requirements]

Myers: I have a bit more work to do around the fire hydrant. I had planted some bulbs

around it. I dug most of them out, I have a few left. I won’t put any flowers there

anymore.

Moermond: there are plenty of natives that are short in height.

Myers: nothing can be there except dirt.

Moermond: a clearance could be much lower. If a turf lawn can be up to 8”, I’d think

anything under 8” would be more than acceptable?

Martin: there has to be a 3’ clearance around the hydrant. If there are plants…..

Moermond: what about ground cover plants? Some type of ivy or clover, that are low

but not lawn.

Myers: maybe a low growing sedum.

Moermond: if we’re low like that and no barrier, I can live with it, absolutely. But we

need to get the height all the way around down that low.

Myers: understood.

Moermond: we have 18” within 30 feet from corner. We have 36” for the balance. If it

does exceed that you want to replace it with something shorter.

Myers: the raspberries out there are volunteers. Can we leave them for this season? I’ll

take them all back and remove the fence at the end of the season.

Moermond: let’s come back to that.

Myers: I think there are some tall lilies higher than that. I’ve been trimming them back

slowly. They aren’t blocking a line of sight. You can see through and around them

easily. They’re single stems. I’ve cut back the ones in the corner.

Martin: it has to be down to 18” within 5’ of a driveway, and 30’ from the corner. You’d

start measuring at the bottom of the corner walkway.

Myers: I have a wonderful relationship with my neighbors too. If they have a problem

they would tell me and I’d take care of it immediately.

Moermond: I bet you do, but let’s drop that measuring tape and get that clearance. I’m

going to be a stickler about those 18” and 36” heights. I’m going to give you until

September 11 to take care of everything. 18 & 36”, fencing and the raspberries and

dealing with the fire hydrant. The height thing IS in the public interest, same with

installations in the right-of-way, unless you can get a permit from Public Works.

Martin: Richard Kedrowski is the inspector.

Myers: he is rude. Dominating. He’s in the wrong job.

Moermond: Ms. Martin, could she contact you instead?

Martin: absolutely.

Myers: I keep getting letters about wasting taxpayer money, but sending someone out

over one person who keeps complaining is also wasting taxpayer money. If you

interview my neighbors, none of them have an issue and they’d also be happy to come

over and help me. Sending someone to show up to mow someone’s yard is also a

waste of resources. I think we should look into the possibility of making it a bit more

reasonable what happens. I am not saying things don’t need to be investigated, or

there are things that are urgent, definitely.

Moermond: I appreciate you sharing those thoughts.

Referred to the City Council due back on 8/5/2026

RLH CO 26-4

Appeal of Kinnell Tackett to a Notice to Cut Tall Grass and/or Weeds at

444 JOHNSON PARKWAY.

Johnson

Sponsors:

Layover to LH July 28, 2026 at 11 am for review of work plan by PO.

Kinnell Tackett, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: July 1, 2026 tall grass and weeds order went out

to cut any tall grass and weeds over 8” height. I can see cone flowers, brown eyed

Susans, maybe some other plants mixed it, but lots of grass.

Tackett: I previously lived on a 10 acre tree farm I was converting to a prairie. I am in

the process of converting to a wildflower/short grass prairie. Since I moved in February

2024 I have been planting and spreading seed mix every fall and spring. I purchased

those through MN Native Landscapes Corporation. You see goldenrod, bee balm, wild

bergamot, asters, I think it is coming along but I also know from working with St. Paul

Natural resources it takes 3 to 5 years. I’d like to make it all wildflowers and short

prairie grasses.

Moermond: are you killing parts with darkness? Turning over the soils? How is this

conversion happening? Tossing seeds into a turf lawn?

Tackett: I’m pulling any noxious weeds. You do see some fescue grass growing taller,

but intermixed is the flowers that will eventually take over.

Moermond: State law is much more permissive than local code. “Managed natural

landscape" means a planned, intentional, and maintained planting of native or

nonnative grasses, wildflowers, forbs, ferns, shrubs, or trees, including but not limited

to rain gardens, meadow vegetation, and ornamental plants. Managed natural

landscapes does not include turf-grass lawns left unattended for the purpose of

returning to a natural state. Managed natural landscapes may include plants and

grasses that are in excess of eight inches in height and have gone to seed, but may

not include any noxious weeds and must be maintained.

weeds or grasses growing upon any lot or parcel of land in a city to a greater height

than eight inches or that have gone or are about to go to seed are prohibited.

Overgrown turf lawn isn’t counted as a managed natural landscape. I need a quicker

conversion. I’ve had people I’ve been dealing with for 5 years on this, and it isn’t

happening. Getting us away from turf lawn and into the new plants. Not sure how you

want to approach that but it is something I need to work towards. Perhaps it can be

phased. Sometimes neighbors think things are just overgrown, so putting up a sign

about conversion to native landscape is helpful. I’m just looking more a more “planful”

approach that doesn’t look simply like overgrown lawn, because State Law doesn’t look

at that as conversion. What about you put together a plan for conversion of the yard,

maybe something in sections. More “bite-sized”?

Tackett: is there someone I can be put in contact with to make sure whatever this plan

I make is acceptable?

Moermond: that would be me. Submit it and I can route it to the people who need to

see it.

Tackett: I’m hoping my clout comes into the mix here, because the last time I was in

City Hall, I was being given the Sustainable Saint Paul award from the Council and

Mayor at that time. I find it ironic I’m here defending it now.

Moermond: and I don’t want to put you in that position defending it. I just want it so

everyone is on the same page. Let’s talk about this 2 weeks from now and give you a

chance to talk to people about things.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 7/28/2026

1:30 p.m. Hearings

Orders To Vacate - Fire Certificate of Occupancy

RLH VO 26-30

Appeal of Obsa Tahir to a Fire Inspection Report, which includes

condemnation, at 507 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST and 509

UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST.

Bowie

Sponsors:

Layover to LH July 21, 2026 at 1:30 pm to discuss findings of Friday, July 17th 1:00

inspection.

Osba Tahir, tenant, appeared via phone

Staff report by Fire Manager Neis: I received a referral for after hours assembly. It is

currently approved for S1 storage. Currently converted into A2, assembly use. There

are lounge chairs, freshly painted walls, set up for use as a bar/nightclub. These are

very dangerous conditions. This needs a full code analysis, may require full sprinkler

system in addition to building concerns and exiting issues.

Moermond: I wanted to hear more about your observations of conditions. Were you

there in person?

Neis: I was there in person and allowed access by the appellant. He did show

paperwork he was in the process of going through some SAC determinations for

approval of the use. It is my understanding from St. Paul Police Department they’ve

already had at least one event at this location. One person did admit there was some

carryover to this property from a couple other nightclub venues on University which

were also condemned for unapproved use. That’s what triggered the inspection from

Fire Safety.

Moermond: the main thing in reviewing this would be egress concerns, sprinklers?

Anything else?

Neis: many tragic fires in venues like this where occupancy was converted to an

unapproved use. No adequate egress, fire protection, emergency lighting.

Tahir: I didn’t know when I rented it I couldn’t use it as an event center. I wasn’t aware

it ws only approved for storage. I do have some ideas of using the space as storage

again. Items, vehicle parts. Until I get the funds to get the codes right, I want to use it

as storage. In order for me to do that I have to appeal to lift the condemnation off the

building.

Moermond: Mr. Neis, in reviewing this I can see there are a couple things that would

apply to both assembly and storage use. One of which are the openings in the ceiling.

Can you talk a bit about using it as storage? Clearly we have assembly items in the

space. What would Department of Safety and Inspections be looking for?

Neis: storage use is certainly possible, however, yes there would be other building

deficiencies that would need to be noted. It lacks some fire separation. It is hard to

determine until there’s a layout submitted, but even if it was approved for storage use

there can absolutely be NO other type of use than storage of goods and materials. It

isn’t a business that can be occupied anytime after hours. Strictly storage use at this

time.

Tahir: yeah, that’s what I was looking to do until I acquired the funds to get the code

analysis for the event space. Where I can charge people to keep whatever they need

to there in a storage unit.

Moermond: I’m not 100 percent sure in terms of rental storage space. Mr. Neis, are

there additional requirements for contracted storage space?

Neis: I’m not an expert in that, you’d want to check with zoning and licensing on that.

Tahir: I spoke with them about that and they said I wouldn’t need anything, I just need

the Fire department’s approval.

Neis: I’d want to confirm that with Yaya Diatta. What type of materials would be the

next question.

Tahir: not things that cost too much, but things people want out of their own spaces

like a refrigerator or tables. Appliance storage.

Neis: if storage is proposed, we’d require everything that made it look like an assembly

occupancy would need to be removed from the property. Tables, chairs, DJ equipment,

all of that. So it can not easily be converted into a venue.

Tahir: when do you want to come by and start to check it out? I have everything

removed that you noted on the condemnation. Since then I was thinking about storage.

It is all cleared out. Speakers, tables, chairs, desks, everything.

Moermond: I also see benches, a couch. Where is that stored?

Tahir: as of right now? It is in Minneapolis. I have an event space licensed there, so I

moved it there.

Moermond: alright.

Neis: I did not do a full comprehensive inspection because I was addressing the

immediate life safety concerns, which was the event space. I’d want to talk to the

building owner who would be responsible for some of the deficiencies like the cracked

brick in the walls. We’d want a structural analysis to make sure the building itself is

sound and safe.

Tahir: I’m just the tenant. I took over the lease. That would be up to the building owner.

Moermond: at this point in time the building is not certified because it has been used

for assembly use, although it is approved as storage. Because the Certificate of

Occupancy was revoked, it has to be reinstated as storage, which would require a full

Certificate of Occupancy inspection to confirm that. We could have that list identified

and those items that need to be addressed before reoccupancy can be in there. Mr.

Neis, you would really need to write those orders then and that would be what is in play.

Neis: typically in situations like this when I a building has been condemned this would

be slated to be a Category 2 Vacant Building based on the deficiencies found. Before

reoccupancy my recommendation would be it go through a Code Compliance

Inspection review. Then that list would need to be addressed before it can be

reoccupied.

Moermond: that’s typically the owner, yes?

Neis: correct. The orders are issued to the owner in North Oaks, that would be the

person ultimately responsible for that review.

Moermond: we will send a confirmation letter to you, Mr. Tahir, and also the owner, and

make sure you both have the same information. I’d like it to be certified for use as

storage. The list is essentially the same whether its done via Code Compliance

Inspection Report or Fire Certificate of Occupancy inspection at this point because of

the change in use and the change back. I’m not looking at a Vacant Building

registration at this time yet. Mr. Neis, this is kind of tricky because it is condemned for

its purpose, not for building conditions.

Neis: when we were doing the inspection we were looking at it strictly from immediate

life safety hazards. If this was on a routine inspection, other items would be listed. The

dangers of having a large group in a warehouse like this concern for occupants and

patrons. I’m less concerned about someone’s refrigerator burning up. The human

factor is my concern.

Moermond: Mr. Tahir, what assurance can the City have that this won’t be changed

back to assembly use as fast as it was deconverted and furniture removed.

Tahir: that’s up to you. You’re welcome to do a monthly inspection. However you want

to proceed.

Moermond: I have seen in the past many cases like this and we’ve asked the tenant or

owner to deconvert and it has been rapidly turned back into an assembly space. I

would really want that locked in. Mr. Neis, what I’m left with is you would have to sign

off on it being used for storage at this time. While it’s under appeal and condemned for

its use as an A2, then if the A2 issue has been dealt with satisfactorily, then the

condemnation does need to be lifted and were not in the Vacant Building program. If

you could do that follow up inspection, that’s step one. Then based on that inspection

we can make a decision about whether it will need a Code Compliance inspection/code

analysis. Can you get that done in the next week Mr. Neis?

Neis: I could do this Friday at 1:00.

Tahir: that works.

Moermond: we’ll get that inspection and I’ll put this on my calendar again next Tuesday.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 7/21/2026