Loading...
10-172Council Fite # �— �' �— Green Sheet # 3098516 Presented by RESOLUTION �� SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the 2 December 22, 2009 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals to Letters of Certificate of 3 Occupancy Deficiency Lists, Code Compliance Inspection Report, and Vacant Building Registration 4 Notice and Fees for the following addresses: 5 6 Propertv Appealed Appellant 7 8 908 Margaret Street Charles Stringer 9 10 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension to June 1, 2010 to complete repairs of the soffit and 11 fascia, gutters, downspouts, and handrail. 12 13 899 Western Avenue North Maurine Stenwick 14 15 Decision: Grant a one inch variance on the openable width of the egress windows in the south bedroom; 16 and a three inch variance on the openable width of the egress windows in the north bedroom. The egress 17 window in the east bedroom is in compliance. Grant an extension to June 30, 2010 to board up the back 18 stairs that do not have a handrail. Deny the appeal and grant an extension to June 1, 2010 to bring the 19 garage into compliance. The permit for the garage will require an engineering report be done. 20 21 1083-1085 Haeue Avenue Ashish and Sheng Lee Tomar 22 23 Decision: Grant a variance on the egress window in the middle bedroom. Appellants must put a statement 24 on the lease agreement indicating that the rear and front bedrooms are not to be used as sleeping rooms. 25 26 1024 Arkwrieht Street Molli and Chai Lee 27 28 Decision: Deny the appeai. 29 30 1218 Bradlev Street Dave Schnedler, MMI Investments 31 32 Decision: Grant a six-inch variance on the openable height of the egress replacement bedroom windows. 33 34 790 Atlantic Street Charlie McCarty 35 36 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension to February 28, 2010 for all items to be completed. 37 �Q-I��- 38 312 Bur�ess Street Justin Browser 39 40 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension to June 1, 2010 to repair or replace the stairways, porch, 41 decks or railings (Item 8), and removal of the kitchen (Item 9). The property cannot be used as a rental 42 until the kitchen is removed and the gas is capped under permit. 43 44 681 Van Buren Avenue Leslie Lucht 45 46 Decision: Grant a 1.5 inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the front bedroom; 47 grant a variance on the egress window middle bedroom; grant an extension to February 28, 2010 for all 48 items to be completed including the siding and handrail. 49 50 1196 Desoto Street Felipe Illescas 51 52 Decision: Deny the appeal and waiving the vacant building fees for 90 days. 53 54 904 Case Avenue 55 56 Decision: Deny the appeal and waive the vacant building fees for 90 days. The appellant must apply for a 57 code compliance inspection. 58 Bostrom Yeas Requested by Deparhnent of: Harris J Adopted by Council: Date Adoption Certified by Coundl Secretary B � , Approved b yer� Date l By: � Form Approved by City Attorney By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Counc�l By: Approved by the Office of Financial Services By: � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � /0-172- DepartmenUOffice/Council: , Date Initiated: , co-�°�^�° ,o Green Sheet NO: 3098516 ' Contact Person & Phone: Department Sent To Person InitiaUDate ��� Marcia Moermond �, y o Counca , 1 Council Department Direcmr . � Assign 2 CityClerF " CiNClerk Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number � 3 — ', Por Routing � 4 � � , Doa Type: RESOLUTION � Order 5 �_ � �� EDocument Required: Y � DocumentConWCt: I Contact Phone: Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip AII Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Resolution approving the December 22, 2009 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals to Letters of C of O De£ciency Lists, Code Comphance Inspection Report, and Vacant Building Registration Notice & Fees for the following: 908 Margaret, 899 Western N, 1083-1085 Hague, 1024 Arkwright, 1218 Bradley, 790 Atlantic, 312 Burgess, 681 Van Buren, 1196 Desoto, and 904 Case. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Re�ect (R): Planning Commission CIB Committee Civii Service Commission Persanal Service Contrects Must Answer the Following Questions: 1. Has ihis person/firm ever worked under a cOntract for this department? Yes No 2. Has ihis person/frm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/frm possess a skill not normally possessed by any curreM city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of Transaction: Funding Source: Financial Informati on: (Explain) CostlRevenue Budgeted: Activity Number: February 10, 2010 11:29 AM Page 1 10-i�� MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OFRICER ON APPEALS OF LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, VACANT BUILDING REGISRATION NOTICES & FEES AND DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMITS Tuesday, December 22, 2009 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 1:35 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Phil Owens, Deparhnent of Safety and Inspections (DSI) — Fire; Leanna Shaff, DSI — Fire; Mike Urmann, DSI — Fire; Amy Spong, PED — HPC; and Mai Vang City Council Offices Appeal of Charles Stringer to a Fire Certificate of Occupancy Inspection at 908 Marearet Street. (laid over from Nov. 3 and 17) Mr. Urmann reported that the appellant was not able to be present. The property was re-inspected on December 21, 2009 and everything was found to be in compliance with the exception of the kitchen floor, smoke detector affidavit, and the heating system test report. Those three items are required to be in compliance within 30 days. With regard to the exteriar issues, the building owner requested an extension of time to June 1, 2010. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting an extension to June 1, 2010 to complete repairs of the soffit and fascia, gutters, downspouts, and handrail. 2. Appeal of Maurine Stenwick to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 899 Western Avenue North. (originally scheduled on Dea 1; owner did not attend hearing as she did not receive notice due to improperly filling out appeal form) Maurine Stenwick, appellant, appeared. Ms. Shaff said on August 14, 2009 problem properties received a complaint on this property and Inspector Cummings scheduled an inspection. Numerous messages were exchanged; a few inspections had taken place including an inspection on December 21. The egress windows were cited as being too narrow. The house has three bedrooms; the south bedroom window measures 30" high by 19" wide - a one-inch shortfall; the north bedroom is 62" high by 17" wide - a three-inch shortfall; and the east bedroom is up to code. The exterior handrail does not run the entire length and is not in place. There are no basement guardrails, and there is no garage; the foundation is there but it's only a large hole and there is no site plan far taking caze of this space. There is orange fencing around the hole; however, some of the fencing has come down. Ms. Stenwick stated the issues she has to deal with include the windows, the exterior, and the hole in the ground. Everything else was taken care of in the last month. The house is 110 years old; the basement stairs are very steep, there is a storm wall foundation on one side and it opens up into the basement on the other side. There is a very solid pipe railing but, because it is pipe, someone could fall. December 22, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes ` �� � l�' Page 2 ( Ms. Moermond noted that the south bedroom windows measure 30" high by 19" wide and the north bedroom window measurements are 62 inches high by 17 inches high. She recommended granting a variance on both windo�vs and noted that the east bedroom is code compliant. Ms. Stenwick said in mid-October 2009, they received a report from their tenant that they had built a fire outside and they heard windows pop in the garage. The owners made a decision to take it down rather than wait for it to fall down. It was too late in the season to do concrete work. They could fill in the hole but then would have an issue of how they would hold in the fill. They are hoping to put a new wall up in the spring and a permanent fence so it will not be a hazard. She said they expect to evict the tenants for lack of rent payment. Ms. Moermond asked what they were going to do immediately for soil erosion control and whether straw and snow fencing would work to get through.the winter. Ms. ShafFresponded that iYs a very deep hole and raw soil. Ms. Stenwick said there are walls on two sides and the wall had started to crumble on the third side. Ms. Shaff said this is a structural issue and buildings can't be taken down without a permit. She had seen dumpster permits but no demolition permit. Ms. Moermond asked if she had talked to someone who knows about soil movement — a landscaper or someone who would be able to do something with the hole. There are natural resource issues with having soil fall away plus safety issues with the hill giving way. The hole is visible and could be a draw for children. She said she would take the garage portion off the list of things to do and recommended DSI issue a nuisance abatement order to address the matter. She told Ms. Stenwick that it means she will have to address the nuisance or the City will take care of it for her and charge her. She said she would recommend to Code Enforcement a two or three week deadline from this date for the owners to address the issue. She said she would request Steve Magner put up snow fencing immediately as an emergency order to keep someone from falling into the hole. Ms. Stenwick responded that she has fencing and ties and felt she could get it installed. In that case, Ms. Moermond said she will request it be inspected on December 24 and if any additional fencing is needed, she will request the emergency crew to install fencing. IFthat is taken care of, the citation will be removed from the list and she will receive a separate summary abatement order. Ms. Stenwick asked for an extension to spring to board up the back stairs that do not have a handrail. Regarding the interior handrails, she said hardboard and sheetrock will be put on the entire stairwell to make a wall. The frame is up and the work is progressing. Ms. Moermond granted a one inch variance on the openable width of the egress windows in the south bedroom; and a three inch variance on the openable width of the egress windows in the north bedroom. The egress window in the east bedroom is in compliance. She granted an extension to June 30, 2010 to board up the back stairs that do not have a handrail. She also recommended that DSI issue a summary abatement order on the gazage. On February 9, 2010, Ms. Moermond reviewed the orders concerning the gazage. She recommended denying the appeal and granting an extension to June 1, 2010 to bring the garage into compliance. She noted that the permit will require an engineering report be done. December 22, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes , Q�� t�" Page 3 3. Appeal of Ashish and Sheng Lee Tomar to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1083-1085 Hague Avenue. Ashish Tomar, appellant, appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that an inspection was conducted on December 3, 2009 by Inspector Imbertson who found that in Units 1083 and 1085, all the third floor bedrooms had shortfalls in the required window openings. The front bedrooms have an openable area of 12 inches high by 23 inches wide, the middle bedrooms 16 inches high by 25 inches wide, and the rear bedrooms 19-1/2 inches high by 29 inches wide. Mr. Tomar said the front rooms for both units are not being used as bedrooms; one room is being used as an office and the other is used for storage. Their appeal is that they do not feel they have to meet the egress requirements on those two rooms. In the middle bedrooms, the openable height did not meet the requirements. The house is approximately 100 years old and with some modifications. They could increase the height from 16 inches to 19 inches. The rest of the code compliance issues are being worked on and will be resolved by the next inspection in January 2010. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a variance for the egress window in the middle bedroom if it can open to 19 inches high. She also instructed the appellant to put a statement on the lease agreement indicating that the rear and front bedrooms are not to be used as sleeping rooms. On February 5, 2010, Ms. Vang contacted Mr. Tomar to confirm on the egress window in the middle bedroom. He has indicated that the Fire inspector re-inspected the property on January 29, 2010 and confirmed that the window open up to 19 inches high; therefore, Ms. Moermond recommended granting a variance on the egress window in the middle bedroom. 5. Appeal of Molli and Chai Lee to a Team Inspection Report for property at 1024 Arkwrieht Street. Molli and Chai Lee, appellants, appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that a code compliance team inspection was done on October 13, 2009. Item 37, basement egress windows, was being appealed. The inspector states that the basement unit sleeping rooms have legal e�ess windows as far as size and height. A sill height was not given but that appears to be the issue. Mr. Lee said the property was purchased with the impression that all the windows were legal because they've been there for a long time. He asked the inspector about putting portable stairs by the windows in one bedroom and was told that would have to be approved by the Hearing Officer. Mr. Lee was not able to give Ms. Moermond the height from the floor to the still and said he would call her office with the measurement. He would like to rent the property by January 15, 2010, and asked for an extension into the spring. He had pulled a general building permit but had to wait to see if his appeal is granted. Ms. Moermond explained that in the case of windows when remodeling is taking place, the safer code must be followed. If the window does have to be replaced, she will put a reasonable time December 22, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes ��' ��� Page 4 period on it so he is able to rent in a timely manner. NLr. Lee asked if he would have to pull a special permit and Ms. Moermond responded that she felt the general building permit will suffice. Ms. Moermond's recommendation is forthcoming. She requested the appellant provide photos with measurements from the floor to the top of the window, how far off the floor, the overall window opening, and how far the window opens. On February 9, 2010, Ms. Moermond reviewed the appeal and the appellants failed to provide the required photographs of the window sill height therefore, she recommended denying the appeal. Appeal of Dave, MMI Investments, to a Code Compliance Inspection Report far property at 1218 Bradlev Street. Dave Schnedler, MMI Inveshnents, appellant, appeared. Inspector Shaff reported that she had no information on this property. Mr. Schnedler stated that the house is 1-1/2 stories and was built in the early 50s and when he talked to Mr. Eggers about the newer windows, he was told that the opening may be questionable. He sent in the measurements and Mr. Eggers suggested he apply for a variance. The windows in the upper level are 24 inches wide by 18 inches high when fully opened. Ms. Moermond said that normally a building going through a code compliance would be required to be brought up to code and she asked what makes this different. Mr. Schnedler said they are existing windows and the stucco on the exterior of the house may make it difficuk to replace them. They are pop-out windows which were put in when the house was remodeled. Ms. Shaff asked if they could be made smaller by removing the plastic stoppers at the top and possibly gaining two inches. Mr. Schnedler responded that he felt that could be done. Ms. Moermond said if removing the stoppers does not work, she would recommend granting a six-inch variance on the openable height of the egress replacement bedroom windows. Appeal of Charlie McCarty to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency LisY for property at 790 Atlantic Street Charlie McCarty, appellant, appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that a complaint was received requesting the bad wiring be inspected. Multiple tenants had complained of water in the living room, outlets causing shorting, and a couch fire. Mr. McCarty responded that one of the tenants had a faulty lamp which caused the fire. Ms. Shaff said the building was not due for a C of O inspection until Apri129, 2010. However, when Inspector Thomas saw the issues, he did a full inspection of the property. Ms. Moermond asked about the citation regarding water. Mr. McCarty said he fixed the roof leaks this past summer and fall. There are still some stained ceiling tiles that have to be replaced but there is no more leakage. There is not a wiring issue and reiterated that it was the faulty lamp that caused the fire. The units were totally gutted and brought up to code in 1992. He said he will be out of town for a couple of months and has financial constraints so he would like ample time to December 22, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes r � � ��� Page 5 complete the work. These are five separate units and he questioned why the inspector went into the units. He received no letter but only a phone call telling him to be at the apartment immediately. At that time, the inspector only found a couple of loose floor tiles in unit 790. The inspector then went to all five units and inspected. Ms. Shaff asked if he was aware of how the City grades buildings and how often they are inspected. Mr. McCarty said it was his understanding that inspections take place every two years. Ms. Shaff explained that depending how the building does on the C of O inspection, it could be one, three, or five years. Past records indicate that this property was not tracking we1L Mr. McCarty responded that the building had been sold on a contract for deed for several yeazs and it was taken back less than two years ago. He stated that Units 788 and 790 are both presently vacant. In unit 784, Ms. Moermond expressed concern about the unsecured toilet saying there are public health concerns. Mr. McCarty said that unit has a Section 8 tenant and inspections are done more often. He maintained that the toilet was bolted down. Ms. Moermond asked if Unit 782 was also Section 8 and Mr. McCarty responded that he did not think so. There was a citation far too many people and there are four people living in this rivo- bedroom unit. Ms. Shaff said there are three people in one bedroom which is 122 sq. ft. Ms. Moermond noted that unit 786 has an order to remove combustible storage from the fuel-burning equipment rooms. Mr. McCarty said there was a gas can in the furnace room that has been removed. He said the tenants have been in 782 about three to four years, the tenant in 784 has been there 13 years, and the tenant in 786 has been there about two years. The building is managed by Mr. McCarty's brother, Kyle McCarty. Ms. Moermond said the problems are severe enough that she believes they should be taken care of sooner rather than later. The list was written on November 23, 2009 and the inspector is giving him until the end of December to make the repairs. Ms. Shaff advised Mr. McCarty on the re-inspection that will take place when the work is complete saying he should be there prior to that to make sure everything is done. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting an extension to February 28, 2010 for all items to be completed. 9. Appeal of Justin Browser to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 312 Burgess Street. Justin Browser, appellant, appeared. Ms Shaff stated that an inspection was conducted on December 1, 2009 by Inspector Lisa Martin. The building is a duplex but is being used as a triplex. The windows are difficult to close and open without excessive force. Ms. Moermond asked if this was an illegal conversion to a triplex. Ms. Shaff responded that it looks that way. Mr. Browser said he has owned the property since 2004-2005. It was vacant when he bought it and he has replaced flooring, drywall, and the back steps. He previously appealed the permit for the back steps because he was asked to dig down on the footings which cannot be done at this time of the year. He asked for an extension to the end of June to do the footings. The painting was done December 22, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes / �'0 �� Page 6 this past June but the h has not yet been put on the back door and that may be what the inspector was referring to regarding deteriorating paint. There is a two-inch gap on each side where the old steps had been. Ms. Shaff said the entire building should be painted. Ms. Moermond said she would need to see pictures in order to get a better sense of what kind of scraping and painting is needed. She would like to re-visit this issue in April and laid that portion over to that time. Mr. Browser said the third level has been unoccupied since the inspectors were out for the first inspection in November-December. Ms. Moermond asked what his plan is for removal of the kitchen. Browser said he was told to pull permits for all the work that was done but he only did the steps. Moermond asked if he has applied far the building to be a tri-plex. Browser said he looked into it but the lot is not big enough. Ms. Moermond said he will have to take the kitchen apart and she asked what he felt was a reasonable atnount of time to accomplish that. She said she would be satisfied with him putting the materials in the basement but also suggested he might want to sell the material. Ms. Shaff said a licensed contractor would be required to deal with the gas and water lines. Mr. Browser asked if he could open up the stairway to the second and third floor and allow two kitchens. Shaff responded that typically on a de-conversion the work would have to be done under permit. It was her understanding that the reason for completely removing the kitchen is so it cannot be converted back. Ms. Moermond asked if permits had been pulled for installation of the kitchen and Browser said he didn't know. Ms. Moermond summarized that they are looking at requirements of painting the building and removal of the third kitchen. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting an extension to June 1, 2010 to repair or replace the stairways, porch, decks or railings (Item 8), and removal of the kitchen (Item 9). The property cannot be used as a rental until the kitchen is removed and the gas is capped under permit. Appellant will provide pictures of the exterior paint job by mid-summer and the Hearing Officer will re-visit the issue. 10. Appeal of Leslie Lucht to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 681 V an Buren Avenue. Les Lucht, appellant, appeared. Mr. Urmann reported that this issue began in February 2009 coming in as a referral regarding construction being done without a permit. Orders were issued to complete the construction of the lower unit under permit and to get approval for the occupancy before it is used. At that time, Mr. Lucht was informed that the whole certificate of occupancy would be done at the same time he was ready to occupy the lower unit. When the construction was completed and permits were approved and signed off, he was called in early December to set up the certificate of occupancy inspection for the entire building. The orders for the needed repairs were then appealed by Mr. Lucht. Mr. Lucht said he pulled the permits and noted the letter states that once the lower unit was completed, it was the only unit that would get a C of O. He said the egress window in the front room was installed under permit. He showed a picture of the window in the middle bedroom and the problems with it. It had to be replaced because the Velcro was broken by the tenants. The December 22, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes � Q����- Page 7 opening space of the window is exactly 24 inches with the screen pulled back and meets code. The smoke detector was in place and functioning when it was originally inspected and it was signed off. Mr. Urmann did not see it because the door was open. He denied there is a broken handrail in the upper unit. It has two different styles which are sealed together and were legal when the house was built. He acknowledged that some siding is missing due to when the steps were removed. New steps were installed a couple of years ago and he was told by "Dave" that the siding could be installed in that area when he can afford to do it. The unit has been vacant for a year. He said he took the day off work without pay-leave on November 25, 2009 and attempted to schedule an appointment with Mr. Urmann but he was not able to inspect on that date. Ms. Moermond said that Mr. Lucht indicated the window in the middle room is a center pivot with an openable height of 31.5 inches and a width of 12.5 inches on both sides when it is fully opened but staff says iYs too narrow of an opening. Lucht said the screen is a metal slide drive, there is an area for the rod to sit on; the rod is retractable and can go forward. Ms. Moermond asked what stafPs concern is about the window configuration. Mr. Urmann explained that the window arm pivots in the middle. It allows the window to open on the right to about 45 degrees. It allows the opening on the left to be about 12-1/2 inches. The clear width opening may meet requirements but the usable portion is 12-1/2 inches. Lucht responded that it is a hatch-type window, was measured with it completely open, and there is nothing in the middle. He had a Section 8 inspection on this unit in May 2009. They are stringent on their inspections and he was not cited for anything. Regarding the siding, Mr. Urmann said the wood is not weather protected and iYs starting to deteriorate. He suggested that it be repaired in order to be weather protected and the work be done in an acceptable manner. He would like to see it match the existing siding. Mr. Owens noted that Lucht said the front room windows was done under permit, however, the window at issue was not done under permit and the building has never had an inspected certificate of occupancy. It has had provisionals and at the time DSI became aware of the construction without a permit, it had been pretty much gutted and they were not able to determine what the room used to be. Mr. Owens said the issues that Inspector Urmann filed at the time of his certificate inspection were not things DSI was ever awaze of previously because the building had never been inspected. The issues that were found were not part and parcel of the work Mr. Lucht had done with his subsequent permits. There is documentation at the time of Mr. Urmann's inspection that the construction was well in progress without permits and was not simply demolition which would have required permits. They are concerned about all 12 violations on the December 7, 2009 order but he will check on the life/safety issues. He has no objection with Lucht renting ifthose things are approved and pending his further compliance. Ms. Moermond recommended the following: 1) grant a 1.5 inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the front bedroom; 2) the middle bedroom egress ��indow measurement will be confirmed by Assistant Fire Marshal Owens at a scheduled re-inspection; if the windows do not meet the egress window measurement requirement, Ms. Moermond will recommend granting an extension for 90 days to bring the windows into compliance; 3) grant an extension to January 15, 2010 for the life/safety issues such as the windows, heating, and smoke detectors; 4) grant until December 22, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes /Q �(��-- Page 8 February 28, 2010 for all items to be completed including the siding and handrail; and 5) Item 9 is moot. On February 5, 2010, Supervisor Urmann indicated that he re-inspected the property and found the middle bedroom had been repaired to open more than 19 inches, therefore, Ms. Moermond recommended granting the variance on the egress window middle bedroom. 11. Appeal of Felipe Illescas to a Vacant Building Registration Notice and Fee for property at 1196 Desoto Street. Felipe Illescas, appellant, stated he bought the property on September 21, 2009. It is presently a four-plex and he would like to convert it to a single-family home. His plan was to have it done by December l, 2009 but due to unforeseen family circumstances, he was unable to meet the deadline. He asked for an extension and a waiver of the fee. Ms. Moermond asked if he has permits pulled and Mr. Illescas said the contractor will do that when the go-ahead is given. She asked if he had received a taac statement indicating they would like to assess the $1,000 fee to the taxes and he said he had not. Ms. Shaff said this property went into the vacant building program on November 29, 2007. Ms. Moermond told Mr. Illescas that not paying the bill now is going to make it hard to pull the building permit. She recommended denying the appeal and waiving the vacant building fees for 90 days. If he can't get the permits pulled and get the work progressing, the bill �vill go back into effect and he will be looking at the $1,000 again. 12. Appeal of John Ludwig, Caberallo LLC, to a Vacant Building Registration Notice and Fee for property at 904 Case Avenue. John Ludwig appellant, appeared. Mr. Urmann reported that this property originally came as an issue pertaining to power and water both off which caused them to do a referral inspection. About a week later, another referral came in that the basement wall had collapsed. At that time, the building was condemned and refened to Vacant Buildings because it was a vacant structure with multiple violations. As of December 18, it was boarded and secured but still in a vacant status. Mr. Ludwig provided a history of the property saying in Apri12003 the property was sold on a contract for deed. Around Apri12009 the new owner started to fall behind with payments and a cancellation of contract was issued. In August of 2009, they received a deed for this person, rented for awhile, and took possession of the property in October 2009. Ludwig said he is unaware of any other issues with the property over the past six years. On November 2, 2009 they signed a lease with new tenants and shortly after received a call from Mr. Urmann stating there was a foundation issue — a collapsed wall. The property is about 100 years old and the only way to get in the basement is through a hatch. The rental money was refunded and the insurance claim was denied because of erosion and because the entire building didn't collapse. He said the reason he appealed is because he wants to stay off the vacant property list. He wants to get the problem solved and inspected to see if the wall collapse caused other problems. It is a two-story, three-bedroom, one December 22, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes �Q���a-- Page 9 bath property. He asked for 1-1/2 months from this date to pull the permit, get it fixed and inspected. The property is being maintained. Mr, Urmann said the lower section was boarded and he thought it was done by the City's boarding contractor. There has not been an interior inspection. Ms. Moermand referred to the City Code and noted the building must be a registered vacant building if certain criteria is present including condemned and dangerous which would be the case with a fallen wall. A code compliance inspection will be required. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and waiving the vacant building fees for 90 days. The appellant must apply for a code compliance inspection.