The URL can be used to link to this page

10-611Council File # \�— (p � � Green Sheet# 3113699 RESOLUTION � 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul, based on a review of the legislative 2 hearing record and testimony heazd at public hearing on May 19, 2010 hereby memorializes its decision to 3 certify and approve the April 27 and May 4, 2010 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer for the 4 following address: 6 ADDRESS APELLANT 8 1163 Burns Avenue Suzanne & Nestor Dell'Oro 9 Tauros Properties, LLC 10 11 Decision: Appeal denied and extension granted to May 18, 2010 for bringing the stair railings and porch 12 foundation into compliance. When those items are completed the property will be made a Category 1, and 13 the item related to the gazage walls will be written up as a sepazate order with a deadline of 3uly 1 S, 2010. Carter Bostrom Harris Yeas Requested by Department of. � Form Approved by City Attomey By: Adopted by Council: Date Adoption Certified by Co cil Secretary By: � � Approv d Ma o.�ate �� 7 ZO �� By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: �f�`5 \C�-(o\\ � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � � DepartmenUOffice/Council: Date Initiated: ! co-�°°°°�� o,��N2o,o Green Sheet NO: 3113699 Contact Person 8 Phone: � Deoartment Sent To Person Initial/Date I � Marcia Moermond u onnca �---� -- i ' 6-8570 I ooncil De arrment Director Assign Z � Clerk Citv Clerk I Must Be On Council Agenda by (Date): Number 3 r----- � For 4 � Routing ( Doc. Type: RESOLUTION Order 5 O i I E-DOCUment Required: Y Document Contxi: Mai Vang Contact Phone: 6-6563 Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Resolution memorializing City Council action taken denying the appeal and extensions granted for properiy at 1163 Bums Avenue. Recommendadons: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firtn ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB Gommittee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantage5 If Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of TranSaction: CostlRevenue Budgeted: Funding Source: Activity Number: Finan cial I nformation: (Explain) June 1, 2010 8:49 AM Page 1 7 r� i � �r I �r;.�.�.:. i� �e�a 10-611 APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Saint Paul City Clerk li W. Kellogg Blvd., 310 City Hal] Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Telephone: (651) 265-8688 1. Address of Property being Appealed: J/� j Qv�v�s fl ✓�e.� SS'IG( 4. Name of Owner: 2. Number of Dwelling linits: � ?tCE1V�� aPR 2 1 701Q C611' CLERtC 3. Date of Letter Appealed: �/� lZ a0/O� l�itcr.nf h(n'Fecx {�Q�t�l6 Address:_ 5 6 � �vr �� q��, i2 c� City: �-�� % State: Nl� Zi SSI! �j -�. p: � �` - 3s3 -s�(�( Phone Numbers: Business Residence _ Cellular 5. Appellant / Applicant (if other than owner}: � SarM e � 5 OU�e-1 e r Address: City: State: Phone Numbers: Business Residence Cellular 6 State specifically what is being appealed and why (Use an attachment if necessary): NOTE: A$25.00 filing fee made payable to the City of Saint Paul must accompany this application as a necessary condition for fi]ing. You must attach a copy of the original orders and any other correspondence relative to this appeai. Any person unsatisfied by the final decision of the City Counci3 may obtainjudicial review by timely filing of an action as provided by law in Distdct Court. For Office Use Only Date Received: Fee Received: Receipt Number: �`'��l'� ��/��• Date of Aearing: � �}"' � �AU 'v i � ��i..�� ✓ t �j� ��U — (Jrc� � Uc� /T��—�,'c�`�.�,c� L�s� — �-et�7ri� r� �c2'�e-qtar o� VGCG.,.�'7 !St la�r�n�l•5 .J 10-611 What is being appealed and why — 1163 Burns Avenue We aze appealing the Deficiency List and also the classification of this property as a vacant building, because: l. The property dces not meet the definition of Category 1. It is temporarily unoccupied but it is properly secured, monitored, maintained, utilities are current and it is not a nuisance. It is 100% safe and habitable. 2. Owners are actively trying to prevent foreclosure by marketing the home as a short sale. Sheriff's sale has already occurred, and this home is headed for foreclosure. With so many homes on the market, the city imposing fees and requirements at this point only intimidates potential owner-occupants. 3. We received inaccurate information during the course of pursuing (and subsequently cancelling) our rental permit renewal for this property, the process that led to this situation. During the fire inspection, the inspector mentioned a few low-cost repairs she wanted us to make relative to safety (see items 4, 6, 9, 1Q- 11). We were pianning to comply. However, when the Reinspection Appointment Notice arrived, the deficiency list contained several additional items that she did not discuss in her visit and which we consider costly and unnecessary (see items 2, 3, 5, 7). We decided to withdraw our application to renew the rental license, and instead redouble our effofts to sell. We notified her we weren't going to be landlords anymore, and she had us keep the reinspection appointment so she could verify there was no renter living there. At that appointment, the inspector told Nestor that if a buyer/owner was not occupying the home within 3 months, the city would have to put the house on the vacant list. Based on her comments, we thoughf we had more time to find a way out of this confusing and frustrating predicament. We ask that the city: - Immediately remove ll 63 Burns from the vacant buildings IisC and waive associated fees, giving us a fighting chance to sell it to a buyer - Revoke the deficiency list, which is not really protecting anyone. These items were not cited on the Truth-In-Sale-of —Housing as hazards. The city may wish to perform another fire inspection if the bank takes back the house. Thanks for your consideration. 10-611 CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Christopher B Co[eman, :Nayor April 20, 2010 Suzanne P Del1 Oro/Nestor H Dell Oro 561 Burlington Rd St Paul MN 55106-5315 D6PARTMENT QF SAFETY AND INSPECTIONS Steve Magrzer. Ma�ger ojCode Exjorcement A'u+saKe Buddang Code Enjorcement 375lacksan SrreeC Smte 220 65/-166-8989 Sa�ntPauC7vn'S5101-(806 637-266-7919 wwwstaaul eoo/drr VACANT BUILDTNG REGISTRATION NOTICE The premises at 1163 SURNS AVE has been inspected and found to meet the legal definition of a Vacant Building as described in Saint Paut Legislative Code, Chapter 43. You are required to register this bui]ding with the Department of Safety and Inspections, Vacant Buildings Division, by filling out and returning the registration form provided with this letter. You are also required to pay the annual Vacant Building Registration Fee of $1,100.00. The fee is due upon receipt of this letter and must be paid no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, as required in Saint Paul Legislative Code Chapter 43. If this building is vacant due to a fire, complete tl�e enclosed registration form and retum it to this office rti�ithin 30 days. Please return the enclosed registrafion form along with your payment by May 20, 2010. Do not mail cash. If you wish to pay in person, you may do so from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday at: DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY 375 Jackson Street, Suite 220 Saint Paui, MN 55101-1806 AND INSPECTION5 You may file an appeal to this fee Qr regis� requirements by contacting the Office of the City Clerk at (651) 266-8688. Any appea] of this fee must be made within ten (10) days of the date of this notice. If the re�istration fee is not received in this ofi'ice within 45 days of the due date the full amount owed wi11 be assessed to, and collected with, the taxes for this property as permitted by Saint Paul Legislative Code Chapter 43. The Code Enforcement Officer has notified the Building Inspection And Design Sectio� that this property meats the legai definition of a registered vacant building and in accordance with Legislative Code Chapter 33, no pecmits (except demolition, wrecking and removal permits} will be issued until the requirements of all applicable ordinances are fulfil]ed. An Affirmative Acnon Equal Opportumry Employer 10-611 Apnl 2Q 207 0 1 t63 BURNS AVE Page 2 WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE CITY OF 5AINT PAUL IS REQUIKED BEFORE A CATEGORY 2 OR CATEGORY 3 VACAI�T BUILDING CAN BE SOLD. Category 2: Requirements include: 1. register/re-register the building, 2. pay outstandin� fee(s), 3. obtain a code compliance report, 4. submit for approva] a rehab cost estimate from a]icensed contractor and a schedule for completion of all code comp]iance work, 5. submit proof of financial responsibility acceptable to the City, and 6. obtain Zoning approval of the proposed use. Category 3: All requirements listed for Category 2 vacant buildings, AND obtain a Certificate of Occupancy OR Certificate of Code Compliance prior to the sale of the building. If the use of this building meets the definition of a nonconforming use by the Zoning Code then the use will lose its nonconforming status 365 days from the date the building was declared vacant. You must contact the Enforcement of�cer, Dave Nelmark, at 651-266-1931 to find out what must be done before this building can be legally reoccupied. The Enforcement Officer may declare this building(s) to constitute a Nuisance Buildmg subject to demolition and issue an Order to Abate under authority of Legislative Code Chapter 45. In the event this building is declared a Nuisance Building subject to demolition, the Enforcement Officer will notify all owners and interested parties of the Order to Abate, as provided in the Legislative Code Chapter 45. Ifyou have questions about Chis annual registration fee or other vacant building requirements, please contact the Enforcement Officer, Dave Nelmark, at 65]-266-1931. This registration fortn and fee is required by law. Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated. Thank You, Steve Magner Vacant Buildings Program Manager Department of Safety and Inspections Enclosures: Regulations Requirements Information Vacant Building Registration Form SM: dn vb_reg�strat�on_nonce 10/09 DEPARTMENTOFSAFETY ANDtNSP��S Fve Inspecnon Drvis�on BoG Kessler, D�recior CI��F�J�IINTPF�IJL. 375JncksorsSt�eel.Suite220 Telephone 651-Z66-8989 Christopher B CofemQn, Mnyar Sa�a� Pau{ Mirsrsesota 5510(-1806 Fncs�mde 6�!-?668951 WeG wwwslnauLeov/dsr April 12, 2010 TAUROS PROPBRTIES, LLC 561 BURLINGTON ROAD ST PALTL NIN 55119 Revocation of Fire Certi�cate of Occupancy and Orden to Vacate RE: 1163 BURNS AVE VACANT BUILDING Ref. # 101066 Deaz Property Representative: Your building was determined to be a regstered vacant buiiding on April 12, 2010. Since certificates aze for the occupancy of buildings, it has become necessary to revoke the Certificate of Occupancy. 3aint Paul Legislative Code provides that no building shall be occupied without a Certificate of Occupancy. In order to re-occupy the building, the following deficiencies (if applicable) must be corrected and a complete Certificate of Occupancy inspection will be required. DEFICIENCY LIST 1. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCE REVOKED - VACANT BUILDING - SPLC 33.05 - Uncertified portions of the building must not be occupied until inspected and approved by this office. HOUSE IS VACANT AND FOB SALE. SHALL REMAIN VACANT UNTIL REPAIRS MADE AND HAS BEEI3 APPROVED FOR OCCUPANCY BY RIRE PREVENTION INSPECTOR 2. EXTERIOR - EXTERIOR WALLS - SPLC 34.09 (1) b,c, 3432 (1) b,c - Provide and maintain all exterior walls free from holes and deterioration. All wood exteriar unprotected surfaces must be painted or protected from the elements and maintained in a professional manner free from chipped or peeling paint. Repair and tuckpoint foundation. � 3. EXTERIOR - GROLJND COVER - SPLC 34.08 (3) - Provide and maintain suitable ground cover on all exterior areas to control erosion. Properly repair hillside near parking azea to control erosion. An Equal Opnoriunit}� Employer 10-6ll 4. EXTERIOR - HANDRAILS - SPLC 34.09 (2) 34.32 (2) - Provide an approved handrail. The top of the handrail must be between 34 and 38 inches above the treads and run the entire length of the stair. Provide handrail full length of exterior steps to street level. �. EXTERIOR - RETAINING WALLS - SPLC 34.08 (5), 34.31 (3) - Repair, replace and maintain all exterior surfaces on fences, sheds, gazages and other accessory structures free from holes and deterioration. Provide and maintain exterior unprotected surfaces painted or protected from the elements. Repair concrete walls (Now used as retaining walls) left after garage removal. 6. INTERIOR - DEADBOLT LOCKS - SPI,C 34.09 {3) i- Provide and maintain an approved one-inch throw single cylinder deadbolt lock. � INTERIOR - HEATING REPORT - SPLC 34.11 (6), 3434 (3) - Provide service of � L heating facility by a Iicensed contractor which must include a carbon monoxide test. Submit a completed copy of the Saint Paul Fire Mazshal's Existing Fuel Burning Equipment Safety Test Report to this office. INTERIOR - 5DA - SPLC 39A2(c) - Complete and sign the provided smoke detector affidavit and retum it to this office. 9. INTERIOR - FIRE EXTINGUISHER - MSFC 901.6 - Provide required annual maintenance of the fire extinguishers by a qualified person and tag the fire extinb ishers with the date of service. Fire extinguisher provide by owner. Have extinguisher service and tagged by qualified � company. NOTE: A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DOES NOT REQUIRE AN EXTINGUISHER BUT� IF PROVIDED SHALL BE MAINTAINED. 10. INTERIOR BASEMENT - STAIRWELL - SPLC 3410 (3), 3433(2) - Provide an approved handrail. The top of the handrail must be beriveen 34 and 38 inches above the treads and run the entire length of the stair. Provide handrail full length o£basement steps. I 1. INTERIOR BASEMENT - STAIIZWELL - SPLC 34.10 (3) 3433(2} - Provide an approved guazdrail. Intermediate balustrade must not be more than 4 inches apart. Intermediate rails must he provided if the height of the platform is more than 30 inches. Provide for basement steps. For an explanation or information on some of the violations contained in this report, please visit our web page at: http://wv✓w.ci.stpaul.mn.us/index.aspx?NID=211 You have the right to appeaJ these orders to the Legislative Hearin� O�ce�. AppIications for appeaFs may be obtained at the Office of the City Clerk, 310 City Hali, City/County Courthouse, 10-611 15 W Kellogg Bivd, Saint Paul MN �5102 Phone: (651-266-8688) and must be filed within 10 days of fhe date of tius order. If you have any questions, email me at: bazb.cummings@ci.stpaul.mn.us or call me at 651-266-8943 between 7:30 - 9:00 a.m. Please help to make Saint Paul a safer place in which to live and work. Sincerely, Barh Cummings FireInspector Ref. # 101066 .. ti � �_.; .» x i � .�7 a•� ;° ��'�� < - s .��,��,�. � �,. ,. � ' �. , „ � _. �"' r ° :. r� �X t �� '^ .. a . �v :'. tit-�� :� F: �"'+ _ .�r �"`'�+F6`,- �!P'e>v r� -� _ � ,� ^ ,t�y.q�r6src.s� . J \� - r . ; >s.-..-' c,.:aZv. � � s ,.�.��,� a: Z 3 ..� '�1 1 ` � E. . YS 'R' .-. 6fi i; � 3-..^;sc K .i 2" ,eiw,.,.�-.. . 3 . }• nw � r -`F*: -€ `a'� ' �`- ,9� '(,'. L� i P � � �, r x '��. ti s' � „� � r. r i f ts :. . �� .�I@�/�' � }:• � N 7 �" �� '.' t �� io-`' T � . r � §: i �� t,ei`°� s E , . 3 Y . � � � � � ` �" "� � �. � Tbe.c'a'2�e ,5� r .� 1 � `� r ��•'` � '. E �9� � � �� f {t s � ,. �� cY 4�$� ' d yh� � .. �. �,. ,`t � gu� ' ��. r `�f ' 4 � �. � � h� 4�, a+ t � p { � P .. p : 's � i � Y b -`�.��'� � �, w �� C � � � x f �� tI i �;�� a;'i aa. � ��i�� I� 111 �' � �� '�` �` �� r°�� f „i i �'_- � d �� (f'� :;� �� p i .�rw.��(�� I V �` t� ��`�� w^„ i � �� y �� . . i �+: "�"�.�. � � .... , ..� "a= . � ��- . a .. ,�: � . � �� `� o-c� �� ' ' �`� 1►-� � „ s,r.�_:: -- - M� _. .. °x ��::�':�;::." :�,- � ,', + - - ..:_�-. . �� :�� - � � ;,..: ,_. � .�4,.. � �,�,`. � Q ..,.� - ` . �,� �, _ -• . ;- `r� _ r : -_ - s �° �. _ � .. ' - � _ � � --,•�_.--..._. �: . � �, � � ' -, , t � �.� � � '�.�„"� : _ - _ _ ^ �, �„��- � __ � �.i`�` � � ,� �: � ; � �. — �.:= -��,. k :^ �. ._° �=-�_ � a. � _ .�. "° F u r ,' 1 �"`a�+ — .�..-...,.__ ,�. � �� # � `�'�. t f � 3- 4 tt '. " � w �, �.: , �, i✓ %a� ��. il � r � f . �ti �' t I � �''"�� t � r `` � 3 :'� S`�'��, 9 :-.;� ° �i ..r" � °'a*�, ,� ' .� - � rtx �o-� ' � r .. a 7 _ .- �'� - �r i " y � '� ��—�,^�+" �.�,c' � , �' �- , ,i�'< z i� `�W'�`rt'# - aa""- � � � X � ` � .3>" � T2 a ....�F��l� 'l� �/ t��..c f � +w « ��.kut � � .. : _ �. � � T: �� m. s" � �c" � �t�+� - ��` 7r,� . \� x... � J�� 3� � � • g ; � ��a �� ayy+�.+n.� .... A . �^t i .�w� �rP' u . s x: „2'�rer^ �` , . xt�i ^k`'PCi ��+� .� y ,�,,'- �__ __ ' _ �� ,'�*c�,.�,��,��`� f., �...� �--3 ��; :�' �ci��n 4. � . ' � � �. : r �.�,_ ' '?';�,'"'" ; �rw. 7� y e;i , � , :�,c� ars^:.. -��."` ..-w- -""� yv,...' .„,�. a�r ,�e, �' l t.. r. ,�° � � a ''�'u� � '�.`w�,� � .,� �.�. �"� ., "� F � °�` � . , 4 +r� � „ -� aa��y � ;�` t -; ��°. _ - � ��,A,�;... �� .� .. a . . , . .. __ c�� . .. ,� _ ' ,�� r � ii � a sy, ��S � h „�n.., x - .;.. . -�"'�� 3 �� .. _ �` °"°x �„� � � � , ' �� '� �' +� �-F a h�.�' _ - - .. � ,a S ``.°'�€' � � , r _ . . _ . �.;.. - S}` � a? >> � ' ' - _ _ ^°� _ �^' t � .: �` ��„ r 3.� . , � _ � y � a �� _ . , . c ".� "`�r � X � . � � �det t �� '��`r+-"' .�'�'-�- �i _ . _ ` _ z - .-- �... _ , , �^-t3'�-�:+��e . _ _ 3 �� a � a�`..�'�" "�.. t �z, ' , - ' - ' - , , 4' _ ' i=�^�' } .- ` . E �P � t .� ' _ .. . � ai�� s 1 . ' .y "' _ _ _ _ ` f _ . . _ . ' ... .. � �s*..5 � .i . r . ` .._ . � v� ... �.. _ *F��} i m� J ` � �5� Apri127, 2010 Property Code Minutes 10-611 page 11 9. Appeal of Suzanne and Nestor Dell'Oro to a Vacant Building Registration Notice and Fee and Certificate of Occupancy Revocation for property at 1163 Burns Avenue. Appellants Suzanne and Nestor Dell'Oro (561 Burlington Road, St. Paul, MN » 119) appeared. Ms. Deli'Oro said they were not contesting the Certificate of Occupancy revocation. Ms. Moermond reviewed the historv. She said the deficiencies would need to be addressed before the building could be reoccupied. Ms. Dell'Oro said they would like to contest some ofthe items. Mr. Dornfeld stated that lnspector Cummings had revoked the C of O on April 12 with eleven deficiencies. Inspector Nelmazk had gone to the property on April 19, and after reviewing the list and observing the exterior of the building, made a Category 1 determination. Mr. Dornfeld said the house fit the definition of Category 2 in that it was unoccupied, had multiple code violations and the C of 0 had been revoked, but he believed Inspector Nelmark had wanted to help the owners avoid the Code Compliance requirement. Ms. Dell' Oro stated that the house was rented from May of 2006 through May of 2009, but they had been unable to rent it since then and had stopped making payments in September. She said the house was in foreclosure, had been on the market since July, and they received their first offer the previous Friday. She said the sherifFs auction had taken place on March 18. She stated that the C of O inspection had been scheduled on Mazch 1 I and at that time, they thought they might be able to do a deed in lieu of foreclosure rather than having to sell the property. She said Mr. Dell'Oro had been present far the inspection and the inspector had mentioned only a few small things. Mr. DelP Oro stated that the inspectar told him the only items were the deadbolt, the fire extinguisher, and the basement stair railing. Ms. Dell'Oro said the list they received in the mail was longer and included items they were not able to do. She said she sent a f� to the inspector asking to withdraw their request for a rental certificate because they were no longer trying to rent the house, and the inspector had then referred the house to vacant buildings. She said they were asking to have the house removed from the vacant building list so they would have a better chance of selling it. Ms. Moermond said the house had been foreclosed. Ms. Dell'Oro said they were still hoping to do a short sale. There had been a TISH report on the house since 3uly 2009 and it did not include some of the items on the C of O deficiency list. She said the purpose of the TISH was to protect the buyer and she wasn't sure what the purpose of the C of O list was. She said they were asking that the vacant building fee be removed and the more expensive and involved items on the deficiency list be removed. The deadboh was done and they would make the correction to the basement stair railing. They didn't have a fire extinguisher any more and didn't undezstand the ordex related to it. They had made a lot of improvements to the house and were asking that the status be made the same as it was at that Ume. Mr. De1POro stated that the inspector had also said she would wait three months before referring ttie house as a vacant building. Ms. Dell'Oro stated that after she £axed the request to be removed from the C of O program, the inspector had contacted her and suggested they keep the reinspection appointment. She said the inspector had not enfered the house at the reinspection but seemed only to be checking to make sure the house was not being rented without the C of O. Mr. Dell'Oro stated that the inspector had told him at that time that if the house was not occupied within three Apri127, 2010 Property Code Minutes 10-611 Page 12 months it would be placed on the vacant buildings list. Ms. Dell'Oro said that because they thought they had more time, they had dropped the price on the house and continued to try to sell it. Ms. Moermond asked the Del]'Oros which items they were asking to have removed. Ms. Dell'Oro said they did not want to do the tuck pointing. She asked for clarification of the item related to erosion control. Ms. Moermond read the order. Ms. Dell'Oro said they maintained the yard; they had demolished the deteriorated gazage that was built into the hill on the property; she assumed a buyez would want to put in a new garage. Ms. Moermond reviewed a photograph of the hill; she said it did need to be shored. Ms. Moermond said she would recommend that the vacant building fee be waived for 120 days, but all items would need to be completed except those related specifically to rental property status. She said the property met the definition of a vacant building under Chapter 43 and was a Category 2 vacant building by viriue of being empty and having code violations. She said she didn't feel staff had the discretion to make the category 1 determination. Ms. Dell'Oro asked who they could talk to about what would be required to comply with tt�e order related to erosion control on the hillside. Ms. Moermond suggested they talk to a contractor. Mr. Urmann said inspectors could not design but could only direct property owners to a licensed contractor to provide a design for them. Mr. Dell'Oro reiterated that they could not afford to do have the work done. Ms. Moermond asked who the buyer was. Ms. Dell' Oro said communication had been made through the realtors and she didn't know. She said the offer had been made before the prospective buyer knew about the vacant building status and was now dependent on the outcome of the appeal. Ms. Moermond said she would lay the matter over for one week to allow the Dell'Oros time to review their options and put together a work plan. May 4, 2010 Progerty Code Minutes 10-611 Page2 3. Appeal of Suzanne and Nestor Dell'Oro to a Vacant Building Registration Notice and Fee and Certificate of Occupancy Revocation for property at 1163 Bums Avenue. (Laid over from April 27) Appellants Suzanne and Nestor Dell'Oro (561 Burlington Road, St. Paul, MN »119) appeared. Ms. Moermond asked whether the Dell'Oros had brought the work plan she requested. Ms. DelPOro said the prospective buyer had rejected their proposa] for meeting the conditions set at the previous week's hearing. She submitted a copy to Ms. Moermond. Ms. Dell' Oro said they had a new prospective buyer who wanted to replace the old gazage; she asked whether that could be done rather than repairing the wall. She said they were not in the position to do that work but hoped to get a buyer to agree to the terms of the proposal. She said they would lose the house in September whether or not they found a buyer within that time who would agree to the conditions. Their primary goal was to complete a short sale. Ms. Moermond asked whether the interiar items were done. Ms. Dell'Oro responded that they had installed the deadbolt in the back door and would do the interior railings before closing. Ms. Moermond said that she would change the property to a Category 1 if the interior items were completed, and separate orders could then be issued for the exteriar items. She and Ms. De1POro reviewed the list and confirmed that the only interior item not related to rental property was the stair railings. Ms. Dell'Oro said they could complete the railings sooner. Ms. Moermond asked about the condition of the tuck pointing. Mr. Domfeld refened to a photograph in the report and said the condition was a five on a scale of one to ten. Ms. Dell'Oro said the order referred to the cinderblock foundation under the one-story porch. She said there was a crack at one corner and the front was pulling away from the side. They had talked about anchoring it with a concrete bolt and filling in the crack. Ms. Moermond said the order was to repair the foundation which sounded like a reasonable approach. Ms. Moermond asked whether the order related to the garage wall could be pulled out of the C of O orders and reissued as a summary abatement order. She compazed the situation to another address with a similar garage demo and believed it would become a hazard in the winter. Ms. Shaff referred to one of the photographs in the report and expressed concern about the stability of the walls. Ms. Moermond, Mr. Dornfeld, Ms. Shaff and Mr. Ubl reviewed the photographs and those from the property with a similar situation. Ms. Moermond suggested shoring and fencing along the top of the wall; she asked Mr. Ubl for his input. Mr. Ubl stated that a retaining wall needed to be erected; he questioned the stability of the walls to support a new structure. Mr. De1POro said he didn't think the potential buyer planned to use the same walls. Ms. Dell'Oro said the potentia] buyer was only inquiring at this point; she asked whether the buyer would be allowed to put a garage in. Ms. Moermond said they would be allowed but would have to get a pertnit and go ttu plan review. Mr. Ubl said the hillside needed to be stabilized in the meantime. Ms. Dell'Oro reiterated that they were not in a position to do any of the work and were just trying to complete the sale of the house. May 4, 2010 Property Code Minutes 10-611 Page3 Ms. Moermond stated that if the interior railings and porch foundation were brought into compliance, a suuunary abatement order could be written for the gazage and the city would complete the work if the owner didn't comply by a set deadline. Ms. Dell'Oro asked how much time they would have. Ms. Moermond said it looked like a good rain could cause the wall to collapse. Ms. Dell'Oro said they had removed the gazage in November of 2005 and the wall hadn't changed that much. She said they were trying to be frank with prospective buyers and find one willing to sign on to do the repairs, but they had to be able to teil them what the required repairs and deadlines were. Ms. Moermond said she normally granted 60 to 90 days. She explained the process and timeline for assessing the cost for the summary abatement to the property taxes. Ms. Dell'Oro said they hoped to protect a buyer from an assessment; she asked how it could be avoided. Ms. Moermond said she dad want the city to come in and stabilize the wall after a certain date, bu1 would change the property to a Category 1 so the property could change hands without work plan approvals. She asked for a staff recommendation as to the deadline. Mr. Ubl suggested 45 days. He said fencing should be installed in the meantime to keep people away from the unstable wall. Mr. and Ms. Dell'Oro stated that there was fencing bushes and trees along the wall, and it was hazd to get to the edge. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Ubl if he could drive by the property to see if he felt additional fencing or signage was needed. Mr. Ubl said he would. Ms. Moermond said she would ask that a summary abatement order be written far the garage wa11 with a deadline of July 15 for submitting a plan and initiating the work. Mr. Ub1 refened to the photographs and said the site should be secured along the front. Ms. Moermond granted two weeks for completing the interior items and foundation. She scheduled this matter for a public hearing before the City Council on May 19. Council File # \�— (p � � Green Sheet# 3113699 RESOLUTION � 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul, based on a review of the legislative 2 hearing record and testimony heazd at public hearing on May 19, 2010 hereby memorializes its decision to 3 certify and approve the April 27 and May 4, 2010 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer for the 4 following address: 6 ADDRESS APELLANT 8 1163 Burns Avenue Suzanne & Nestor Dell'Oro 9 Tauros Properties, LLC 10 11 Decision: Appeal denied and extension granted to May 18, 2010 for bringing the stair railings and porch 12 foundation into compliance. When those items are completed the property will be made a Category 1, and 13 the item related to the gazage walls will be written up as a sepazate order with a deadline of 3uly 1 S, 2010. Carter Bostrom Harris Yeas Requested by Department of. � Form Approved by City Attomey By: Adopted by Council: Date Adoption Certified by Co cil Secretary By: � � Approv d Ma o.�ate �� 7 ZO �� By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: �f�`5 \C�-(o\\ � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � � DepartmenUOffice/Council: Date Initiated: ! co-�°°°°�� o,��N2o,o Green Sheet NO: 3113699 Contact Person 8 Phone: � Deoartment Sent To Person Initial/Date I � Marcia Moermond u onnca �---� -- i ' 6-8570 I ooncil De arrment Director Assign Z � Clerk Citv Clerk I Must Be On Council Agenda by (Date): Number 3 r----- � For 4 � Routing ( Doc. Type: RESOLUTION Order 5 O i I E-DOCUment Required: Y Document Contxi: Mai Vang Contact Phone: 6-6563 Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Resolution memorializing City Council action taken denying the appeal and extensions granted for properiy at 1163 Bums Avenue. Recommendadons: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firtn ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB Gommittee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantage5 If Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of TranSaction: CostlRevenue Budgeted: Funding Source: Activity Number: Finan cial I nformation: (Explain) June 1, 2010 8:49 AM Page 1 7 r� i � �r I �r;.�.�.:. i� �e�a 10-611 APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Saint Paul City Clerk li W. Kellogg Blvd., 310 City Hal] Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Telephone: (651) 265-8688 1. Address of Property being Appealed: J/� j Qv�v�s fl ✓�e.� SS'IG( 4. Name of Owner: 2. Number of Dwelling linits: � ?tCE1V�� aPR 2 1 701Q C611' CLERtC 3. Date of Letter Appealed: �/� lZ a0/O� l�itcr.nf h(n'Fecx {�Q�t�l6 Address:_ 5 6 � �vr �� q��, i2 c� City: �-�� % State: Nl� Zi SSI! �j -�. p: � �` - 3s3 -s�(�( Phone Numbers: Business Residence _ Cellular 5. Appellant / Applicant (if other than owner}: � SarM e � 5 OU�e-1 e r Address: City: State: Phone Numbers: Business Residence Cellular 6 State specifically what is being appealed and why (Use an attachment if necessary): NOTE: A$25.00 filing fee made payable to the City of Saint Paul must accompany this application as a necessary condition for fi]ing. You must attach a copy of the original orders and any other correspondence relative to this appeai. Any person unsatisfied by the final decision of the City Counci3 may obtainjudicial review by timely filing of an action as provided by law in Distdct Court. For Office Use Only Date Received: Fee Received: Receipt Number: �`'��l'� ��/��• Date of Aearing: � �}"' � �AU 'v i � ��i..�� ✓ t �j� ��U — (Jrc� � Uc� /T��—�,'c�`�.�,c� L�s� — �-et�7ri� r� �c2'�e-qtar o� VGCG.,.�'7 !St la�r�n�l•5 .J 10-611 What is being appealed and why — 1163 Burns Avenue We aze appealing the Deficiency List and also the classification of this property as a vacant building, because: l. The property dces not meet the definition of Category 1. It is temporarily unoccupied but it is properly secured, monitored, maintained, utilities are current and it is not a nuisance. It is 100% safe and habitable. 2. Owners are actively trying to prevent foreclosure by marketing the home as a short sale. Sheriff's sale has already occurred, and this home is headed for foreclosure. With so many homes on the market, the city imposing fees and requirements at this point only intimidates potential owner-occupants. 3. We received inaccurate information during the course of pursuing (and subsequently cancelling) our rental permit renewal for this property, the process that led to this situation. During the fire inspection, the inspector mentioned a few low-cost repairs she wanted us to make relative to safety (see items 4, 6, 9, 1Q- 11). We were pianning to comply. However, when the Reinspection Appointment Notice arrived, the deficiency list contained several additional items that she did not discuss in her visit and which we consider costly and unnecessary (see items 2, 3, 5, 7). We decided to withdraw our application to renew the rental license, and instead redouble our effofts to sell. We notified her we weren't going to be landlords anymore, and she had us keep the reinspection appointment so she could verify there was no renter living there. At that appointment, the inspector told Nestor that if a buyer/owner was not occupying the home within 3 months, the city would have to put the house on the vacant list. Based on her comments, we thoughf we had more time to find a way out of this confusing and frustrating predicament. We ask that the city: - Immediately remove ll 63 Burns from the vacant buildings IisC and waive associated fees, giving us a fighting chance to sell it to a buyer - Revoke the deficiency list, which is not really protecting anyone. These items were not cited on the Truth-In-Sale-of —Housing as hazards. The city may wish to perform another fire inspection if the bank takes back the house. Thanks for your consideration. 10-611 CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Christopher B Co[eman, :Nayor April 20, 2010 Suzanne P Del1 Oro/Nestor H Dell Oro 561 Burlington Rd St Paul MN 55106-5315 D6PARTMENT QF SAFETY AND INSPECTIONS Steve Magrzer. Ma�ger ojCode Exjorcement A'u+saKe Buddang Code Enjorcement 375lacksan SrreeC Smte 220 65/-166-8989 Sa�ntPauC7vn'S5101-(806 637-266-7919 wwwstaaul eoo/drr VACANT BUILDTNG REGISTRATION NOTICE The premises at 1163 SURNS AVE has been inspected and found to meet the legal definition of a Vacant Building as described in Saint Paut Legislative Code, Chapter 43. You are required to register this bui]ding with the Department of Safety and Inspections, Vacant Buildings Division, by filling out and returning the registration form provided with this letter. You are also required to pay the annual Vacant Building Registration Fee of $1,100.00. The fee is due upon receipt of this letter and must be paid no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, as required in Saint Paul Legislative Code Chapter 43. If this building is vacant due to a fire, complete tl�e enclosed registration form and retum it to this office rti�ithin 30 days. Please return the enclosed registrafion form along with your payment by May 20, 2010. Do not mail cash. If you wish to pay in person, you may do so from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday at: DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY 375 Jackson Street, Suite 220 Saint Paui, MN 55101-1806 AND INSPECTION5 You may file an appeal to this fee Qr regis� requirements by contacting the Office of the City Clerk at (651) 266-8688. Any appea] of this fee must be made within ten (10) days of the date of this notice. If the re�istration fee is not received in this ofi'ice within 45 days of the due date the full amount owed wi11 be assessed to, and collected with, the taxes for this property as permitted by Saint Paul Legislative Code Chapter 43. The Code Enforcement Officer has notified the Building Inspection And Design Sectio� that this property meats the legai definition of a registered vacant building and in accordance with Legislative Code Chapter 33, no pecmits (except demolition, wrecking and removal permits} will be issued until the requirements of all applicable ordinances are fulfil]ed. An Affirmative Acnon Equal Opportumry Employer 10-611 Apnl 2Q 207 0 1 t63 BURNS AVE Page 2 WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE CITY OF 5AINT PAUL IS REQUIKED BEFORE A CATEGORY 2 OR CATEGORY 3 VACAI�T BUILDING CAN BE SOLD. Category 2: Requirements include: 1. register/re-register the building, 2. pay outstandin� fee(s), 3. obtain a code compliance report, 4. submit for approva] a rehab cost estimate from a]icensed contractor and a schedule for completion of all code comp]iance work, 5. submit proof of financial responsibility acceptable to the City, and 6. obtain Zoning approval of the proposed use. Category 3: All requirements listed for Category 2 vacant buildings, AND obtain a Certificate of Occupancy OR Certificate of Code Compliance prior to the sale of the building. If the use of this building meets the definition of a nonconforming use by the Zoning Code then the use will lose its nonconforming status 365 days from the date the building was declared vacant. You must contact the Enforcement of�cer, Dave Nelmark, at 651-266-1931 to find out what must be done before this building can be legally reoccupied. The Enforcement Officer may declare this building(s) to constitute a Nuisance Buildmg subject to demolition and issue an Order to Abate under authority of Legislative Code Chapter 45. In the event this building is declared a Nuisance Building subject to demolition, the Enforcement Officer will notify all owners and interested parties of the Order to Abate, as provided in the Legislative Code Chapter 45. Ifyou have questions about Chis annual registration fee or other vacant building requirements, please contact the Enforcement Officer, Dave Nelmark, at 65]-266-1931. This registration fortn and fee is required by law. Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated. Thank You, Steve Magner Vacant Buildings Program Manager Department of Safety and Inspections Enclosures: Regulations Requirements Information Vacant Building Registration Form SM: dn vb_reg�strat�on_nonce 10/09 DEPARTMENTOFSAFETY ANDtNSP��S Fve Inspecnon Drvis�on BoG Kessler, D�recior CI��F�J�IINTPF�IJL. 375JncksorsSt�eel.Suite220 Telephone 651-Z66-8989 Christopher B CofemQn, Mnyar Sa�a� Pau{ Mirsrsesota 5510(-1806 Fncs�mde 6�!-?668951 WeG wwwslnauLeov/dsr April 12, 2010 TAUROS PROPBRTIES, LLC 561 BURLINGTON ROAD ST PALTL NIN 55119 Revocation of Fire Certi�cate of Occupancy and Orden to Vacate RE: 1163 BURNS AVE VACANT BUILDING Ref. # 101066 Deaz Property Representative: Your building was determined to be a regstered vacant buiiding on April 12, 2010. Since certificates aze for the occupancy of buildings, it has become necessary to revoke the Certificate of Occupancy. 3aint Paul Legislative Code provides that no building shall be occupied without a Certificate of Occupancy. In order to re-occupy the building, the following deficiencies (if applicable) must be corrected and a complete Certificate of Occupancy inspection will be required. DEFICIENCY LIST 1. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCE REVOKED - VACANT BUILDING - SPLC 33.05 - Uncertified portions of the building must not be occupied until inspected and approved by this office. HOUSE IS VACANT AND FOB SALE. SHALL REMAIN VACANT UNTIL REPAIRS MADE AND HAS BEEI3 APPROVED FOR OCCUPANCY BY RIRE PREVENTION INSPECTOR 2. EXTERIOR - EXTERIOR WALLS - SPLC 34.09 (1) b,c, 3432 (1) b,c - Provide and maintain all exterior walls free from holes and deterioration. All wood exteriar unprotected surfaces must be painted or protected from the elements and maintained in a professional manner free from chipped or peeling paint. Repair and tuckpoint foundation. � 3. EXTERIOR - GROLJND COVER - SPLC 34.08 (3) - Provide and maintain suitable ground cover on all exterior areas to control erosion. Properly repair hillside near parking azea to control erosion. An Equal Opnoriunit}� Employer 10-6ll 4. EXTERIOR - HANDRAILS - SPLC 34.09 (2) 34.32 (2) - Provide an approved handrail. The top of the handrail must be between 34 and 38 inches above the treads and run the entire length of the stair. Provide handrail full length of exterior steps to street level. �. EXTERIOR - RETAINING WALLS - SPLC 34.08 (5), 34.31 (3) - Repair, replace and maintain all exterior surfaces on fences, sheds, gazages and other accessory structures free from holes and deterioration. Provide and maintain exterior unprotected surfaces painted or protected from the elements. Repair concrete walls (Now used as retaining walls) left after garage removal. 6. INTERIOR - DEADBOLT LOCKS - SPI,C 34.09 {3) i- Provide and maintain an approved one-inch throw single cylinder deadbolt lock. � INTERIOR - HEATING REPORT - SPLC 34.11 (6), 3434 (3) - Provide service of � L heating facility by a Iicensed contractor which must include a carbon monoxide test. Submit a completed copy of the Saint Paul Fire Mazshal's Existing Fuel Burning Equipment Safety Test Report to this office. INTERIOR - 5DA - SPLC 39A2(c) - Complete and sign the provided smoke detector affidavit and retum it to this office. 9. INTERIOR - FIRE EXTINGUISHER - MSFC 901.6 - Provide required annual maintenance of the fire extinguishers by a qualified person and tag the fire extinb ishers with the date of service. Fire extinguisher provide by owner. Have extinguisher service and tagged by qualified � company. NOTE: A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DOES NOT REQUIRE AN EXTINGUISHER BUT� IF PROVIDED SHALL BE MAINTAINED. 10. INTERIOR BASEMENT - STAIRWELL - SPLC 3410 (3), 3433(2) - Provide an approved handrail. The top of the handrail must be beriveen 34 and 38 inches above the treads and run the entire length of the stair. Provide handrail full length o£basement steps. I 1. INTERIOR BASEMENT - STAIIZWELL - SPLC 34.10 (3) 3433(2} - Provide an approved guazdrail. Intermediate balustrade must not be more than 4 inches apart. Intermediate rails must he provided if the height of the platform is more than 30 inches. Provide for basement steps. For an explanation or information on some of the violations contained in this report, please visit our web page at: http://wv✓w.ci.stpaul.mn.us/index.aspx?NID=211 You have the right to appeaJ these orders to the Legislative Hearin� O�ce�. AppIications for appeaFs may be obtained at the Office of the City Clerk, 310 City Hali, City/County Courthouse, 10-611 15 W Kellogg Bivd, Saint Paul MN �5102 Phone: (651-266-8688) and must be filed within 10 days of fhe date of tius order. If you have any questions, email me at: bazb.cummings@ci.stpaul.mn.us or call me at 651-266-8943 between 7:30 - 9:00 a.m. Please help to make Saint Paul a safer place in which to live and work. Sincerely, Barh Cummings FireInspector Ref. # 101066 .. ti � �_.; .» x i � .�7 a•� ;° ��'�� < - s .��,��,�. � �,. ,. � ' �. , „ � _. �"' r ° :. r� �X t �� '^ .. a . �v :'. tit-�� :� F: �"'+ _ .�r �"`'�+F6`,- �!P'e>v r� -� _ � ,� ^ ,t�y.q�r6src.s� . J \� - r . ; >s.-..-' c,.:aZv. � � s ,.�.��,� a: Z 3 ..� '�1 1 ` � E. . YS 'R' .-. 6fi i; � 3-..^;sc K .i 2" ,eiw,.,.�-.. . 3 . }• nw � r -`F*: -€ `a'� ' �`- ,9� '(,'. L� i P � � �, r x '��. ti s' � „� � r. r i f ts :. . �� .�I@�/�' � }:• � N 7 �" �� '.' t �� io-`' T � . r � §: i �� t,ei`°� s E , . 3 Y . � � � � � ` �" "� � �. � Tbe.c'a'2�e ,5� r .� 1 � `� r ��•'` � '. E �9� � � �� f {t s � ,. �� cY 4�$� ' d yh� � .. �. �,. ,`t � gu� ' ��. r `�f ' 4 � �. � � h� 4�, a+ t � p { � P .. p : 's � i � Y b -`�.��'� � �, w �� C � � � x f �� tI i �;�� a;'i aa. � ��i�� I� 111 �' � �� '�` �` �� r°�� f „i i �'_- � d �� (f'� :;� �� p i .�rw.��(�� I V �` t� ��`�� w^„ i � �� y �� . . i �+: "�"�.�. � � .... , ..� "a= . � ��- . a .. ,�: � . � �� `� o-c� �� ' ' �`� 1►-� � „ s,r.�_:: -- - M� _. .. °x ��::�':�;::." :�,- � ,', + - - ..:_�-. . �� :�� - � � ;,..: ,_. � .�4,.. � �,�,`. � Q ..,.� - ` . �,� �, _ -• . ;- `r� _ r : -_ - s �° �. _ � .. ' - � _ � � --,•�_.--..._. �: . � �, � � ' -, , t � �.� � � '�.�„"� : _ - _ _ ^ �, �„��- � __ � �.i`�` � � ,� �: � ; � �. — �.:= -��,. k :^ �. ._° �=-�_ � a. � _ .�. "° F u r ,' 1 �"`a�+ — .�..-...,.__ ,�. � �� # � `�'�. t f � 3- 4 tt '. " � w �, �.: , �, i✓ %a� ��. il � r � f . �ti �' t I � �''"�� t � r `` � 3 :'� S`�'��, 9 :-.;� ° �i ..r" � °'a*�, ,� ' .� - � rtx �o-� ' � r .. a 7 _ .- �'� - �r i " y � '� ��—�,^�+" �.�,c' � , �' �- , ,i�'< z i� `�W'�`rt'# - aa""- � � � X � ` � .3>" � T2 a ....�F��l� 'l� �/ t��..c f � +w « ��.kut � � .. : _ �. � � T: �� m. s" � �c" � �t�+� - ��` 7r,� . \� x... � J�� 3� � � • g ; � ��a �� ayy+�.+n.� .... A . �^t i .�w� �rP' u . s x: „2'�rer^ �` , . xt�i ^k`'PCi ��+� .� y ,�,,'- �__ __ ' _ �� ,'�*c�,.�,��,��`� f., �...� �--3 ��; :�' �ci��n 4. � . ' � � �. : r �.�,_ ' '?';�,'"'" ; �rw. 7� y e;i , � , :�,c� ars^:.. -��."` ..-w- -""� yv,...' .„,�. a�r ,�e, �' l t.. r. ,�° � � a ''�'u� � '�.`w�,� � .,� �.�. �"� ., "� F � °�` � . , 4 +r� � „ -� aa��y � ;�` t -; ��°. _ - � ��,A,�;... �� .� .. a . . , . .. __ c�� . .. ,� _ ' ,�� r � ii � a sy, ��S � h „�n.., x - .;.. . -�"'�� 3 �� .. _ �` °"°x �„� � � � , ' �� '� �' +� �-F a h�.�' _ - - .. � ,a S ``.°'�€' � � , r _ . . _ . �.;.. - S}` � a? >> � ' ' - _ _ ^°� _ �^' t � .: �` ��„ r 3.� . , � _ � y � a �� _ . , . c ".� "`�r � X � . � � �det t �� '��`r+-"' .�'�'-�- �i _ . _ ` _ z - .-- �... _ , , �^-t3'�-�:+��e . _ _ 3 �� a � a�`..�'�" "�.. t �z, ' , - ' - ' - , , 4' _ ' i=�^�' } .- ` . E �P � t .� ' _ .. . � ai�� s 1 . ' .y "' _ _ _ _ ` f _ . . _ . ' ... .. � �s*..5 � .i . r . ` .._ . � v� ... �.. _ *F��} i m� J ` � �5� Apri127, 2010 Property Code Minutes 10-611 page 11 9. Appeal of Suzanne and Nestor Dell'Oro to a Vacant Building Registration Notice and Fee and Certificate of Occupancy Revocation for property at 1163 Burns Avenue. Appellants Suzanne and Nestor Dell'Oro (561 Burlington Road, St. Paul, MN » 119) appeared. Ms. Deli'Oro said they were not contesting the Certificate of Occupancy revocation. Ms. Moermond reviewed the historv. She said the deficiencies would need to be addressed before the building could be reoccupied. Ms. Dell'Oro said they would like to contest some ofthe items. Mr. Dornfeld stated that lnspector Cummings had revoked the C of O on April 12 with eleven deficiencies. Inspector Nelmazk had gone to the property on April 19, and after reviewing the list and observing the exterior of the building, made a Category 1 determination. Mr. Dornfeld said the house fit the definition of Category 2 in that it was unoccupied, had multiple code violations and the C of 0 had been revoked, but he believed Inspector Nelmark had wanted to help the owners avoid the Code Compliance requirement. Ms. Dell' Oro stated that the house was rented from May of 2006 through May of 2009, but they had been unable to rent it since then and had stopped making payments in September. She said the house was in foreclosure, had been on the market since July, and they received their first offer the previous Friday. She said the sherifFs auction had taken place on March 18. She stated that the C of O inspection had been scheduled on Mazch 1 I and at that time, they thought they might be able to do a deed in lieu of foreclosure rather than having to sell the property. She said Mr. Dell'Oro had been present far the inspection and the inspector had mentioned only a few small things. Mr. DelP Oro stated that the inspectar told him the only items were the deadbolt, the fire extinguisher, and the basement stair railing. Ms. Dell'Oro said the list they received in the mail was longer and included items they were not able to do. She said she sent a f� to the inspector asking to withdraw their request for a rental certificate because they were no longer trying to rent the house, and the inspector had then referred the house to vacant buildings. She said they were asking to have the house removed from the vacant building list so they would have a better chance of selling it. Ms. Moermond said the house had been foreclosed. Ms. Dell'Oro said they were still hoping to do a short sale. There had been a TISH report on the house since 3uly 2009 and it did not include some of the items on the C of O deficiency list. She said the purpose of the TISH was to protect the buyer and she wasn't sure what the purpose of the C of O list was. She said they were asking that the vacant building fee be removed and the more expensive and involved items on the deficiency list be removed. The deadboh was done and they would make the correction to the basement stair railing. They didn't have a fire extinguisher any more and didn't undezstand the ordex related to it. They had made a lot of improvements to the house and were asking that the status be made the same as it was at that Ume. Mr. De1POro stated that the inspector had also said she would wait three months before referring ttie house as a vacant building. Ms. Dell'Oro stated that after she £axed the request to be removed from the C of O program, the inspector had contacted her and suggested they keep the reinspection appointment. She said the inspector had not enfered the house at the reinspection but seemed only to be checking to make sure the house was not being rented without the C of O. Mr. Dell'Oro stated that the inspector had told him at that time that if the house was not occupied within three Apri127, 2010 Property Code Minutes 10-611 Page 12 months it would be placed on the vacant buildings list. Ms. Dell'Oro said that because they thought they had more time, they had dropped the price on the house and continued to try to sell it. Ms. Moermond asked the Del]'Oros which items they were asking to have removed. Ms. Dell'Oro said they did not want to do the tuck pointing. She asked for clarification of the item related to erosion control. Ms. Moermond read the order. Ms. Dell'Oro said they maintained the yard; they had demolished the deteriorated gazage that was built into the hill on the property; she assumed a buyez would want to put in a new garage. Ms. Moermond reviewed a photograph of the hill; she said it did need to be shored. Ms. Moermond said she would recommend that the vacant building fee be waived for 120 days, but all items would need to be completed except those related specifically to rental property status. She said the property met the definition of a vacant building under Chapter 43 and was a Category 2 vacant building by viriue of being empty and having code violations. She said she didn't feel staff had the discretion to make the category 1 determination. Ms. Dell'Oro asked who they could talk to about what would be required to comply with tt�e order related to erosion control on the hillside. Ms. Moermond suggested they talk to a contractor. Mr. Urmann said inspectors could not design but could only direct property owners to a licensed contractor to provide a design for them. Mr. Dell'Oro reiterated that they could not afford to do have the work done. Ms. Moermond asked who the buyer was. Ms. Dell' Oro said communication had been made through the realtors and she didn't know. She said the offer had been made before the prospective buyer knew about the vacant building status and was now dependent on the outcome of the appeal. Ms. Moermond said she would lay the matter over for one week to allow the Dell'Oros time to review their options and put together a work plan. May 4, 2010 Progerty Code Minutes 10-611 Page2 3. Appeal of Suzanne and Nestor Dell'Oro to a Vacant Building Registration Notice and Fee and Certificate of Occupancy Revocation for property at 1163 Bums Avenue. (Laid over from April 27) Appellants Suzanne and Nestor Dell'Oro (561 Burlington Road, St. Paul, MN »119) appeared. Ms. Moermond asked whether the Dell'Oros had brought the work plan she requested. Ms. DelPOro said the prospective buyer had rejected their proposa] for meeting the conditions set at the previous week's hearing. She submitted a copy to Ms. Moermond. Ms. Dell' Oro said they had a new prospective buyer who wanted to replace the old gazage; she asked whether that could be done rather than repairing the wall. She said they were not in the position to do that work but hoped to get a buyer to agree to the terms of the proposal. She said they would lose the house in September whether or not they found a buyer within that time who would agree to the conditions. Their primary goal was to complete a short sale. Ms. Moermond asked whether the interiar items were done. Ms. Dell'Oro responded that they had installed the deadbolt in the back door and would do the interior railings before closing. Ms. Moermond said that she would change the property to a Category 1 if the interior items were completed, and separate orders could then be issued for the exteriar items. She and Ms. De1POro reviewed the list and confirmed that the only interior item not related to rental property was the stair railings. Ms. Dell'Oro said they could complete the railings sooner. Ms. Moermond asked about the condition of the tuck pointing. Mr. Domfeld refened to a photograph in the report and said the condition was a five on a scale of one to ten. Ms. Dell'Oro said the order referred to the cinderblock foundation under the one-story porch. She said there was a crack at one corner and the front was pulling away from the side. They had talked about anchoring it with a concrete bolt and filling in the crack. Ms. Moermond said the order was to repair the foundation which sounded like a reasonable approach. Ms. Moermond asked whether the order related to the garage wall could be pulled out of the C of O orders and reissued as a summary abatement order. She compazed the situation to another address with a similar garage demo and believed it would become a hazard in the winter. Ms. Shaff referred to one of the photographs in the report and expressed concern about the stability of the walls. Ms. Moermond, Mr. Dornfeld, Ms. Shaff and Mr. Ubl reviewed the photographs and those from the property with a similar situation. Ms. Moermond suggested shoring and fencing along the top of the wall; she asked Mr. Ubl for his input. Mr. Ubl stated that a retaining wall needed to be erected; he questioned the stability of the walls to support a new structure. Mr. De1POro said he didn't think the potential buyer planned to use the same walls. Ms. Dell'Oro said the potentia] buyer was only inquiring at this point; she asked whether the buyer would be allowed to put a garage in. Ms. Moermond said they would be allowed but would have to get a pertnit and go ttu plan review. Mr. Ubl said the hillside needed to be stabilized in the meantime. Ms. Dell'Oro reiterated that they were not in a position to do any of the work and were just trying to complete the sale of the house. May 4, 2010 Property Code Minutes 10-611 Page3 Ms. Moermond stated that if the interior railings and porch foundation were brought into compliance, a suuunary abatement order could be written for the gazage and the city would complete the work if the owner didn't comply by a set deadline. Ms. Dell'Oro asked how much time they would have. Ms. Moermond said it looked like a good rain could cause the wall to collapse. Ms. Dell'Oro said they had removed the gazage in November of 2005 and the wall hadn't changed that much. She said they were trying to be frank with prospective buyers and find one willing to sign on to do the repairs, but they had to be able to teil them what the required repairs and deadlines were. Ms. Moermond said she normally granted 60 to 90 days. She explained the process and timeline for assessing the cost for the summary abatement to the property taxes. Ms. Dell'Oro said they hoped to protect a buyer from an assessment; she asked how it could be avoided. Ms. Moermond said she dad want the city to come in and stabilize the wall after a certain date, bu1 would change the property to a Category 1 so the property could change hands without work plan approvals. She asked for a staff recommendation as to the deadline. Mr. Ubl suggested 45 days. He said fencing should be installed in the meantime to keep people away from the unstable wall. Mr. and Ms. Dell'Oro stated that there was fencing bushes and trees along the wall, and it was hazd to get to the edge. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Ubl if he could drive by the property to see if he felt additional fencing or signage was needed. Mr. Ubl said he would. Ms. Moermond said she would ask that a summary abatement order be written far the garage wa11 with a deadline of July 15 for submitting a plan and initiating the work. Mr. Ub1 refened to the photographs and said the site should be secured along the front. Ms. Moermond granted two weeks for completing the interior items and foundation. She scheduled this matter for a public hearing before the City Council on May 19.