Loading...
09-57Council File # 0�_ ��_ Green Sheet # '3p( Presented crrr,��f oF ;; ._ RESOLUTION 0 �1 1 BE IT RESOLVEA, that the Council of the City of Saint Paui, based on a review of the legislative 2 hearing record and testimony heazd at public hearing on December 3, 2008 hereby memorializes its 3 decision to certify and approve November 18, 2008 decision of the Legislative Heazing O�cer for the 4 following address: 5 6 ADDRES5 8 1066 Woodbridee Street 9 APELLANT Ellery & Darla Morgan 10 Decision: Appeal denied with a re-inspection on Monday, December 1. If property is determined to have 11 any outstanding life/safety issues, the property will remain condemned and the vacate date will be effective 12 on December 9. Requested by Department oE � Form Approved by City Attomey By: Adoption Certified by Council ecretary BY� �/ /l!�lii ///� �i.E�S�i? Approved by Mayor: ate i/ Za l� % / � � BY `�(Yl�lw^J � /t ¢ 1._n .�r-f Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Counci] By ' - - - — — Adopted by Council: Date °�1r��/JG� � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet ��1 �7 � DepaltmenUOfficelCOUncil: Date Initiated: co-�°°°°�� 08-DEG08 Green Sheet NO: 3064980 ConWCt Person & Phone- Department Sent To Person InitiaUDate Marcia Moertnond y o ouoGt 0 6-8570 1 ounc� De artment Direcror Assign 2 ' Clerk Ci Clerk Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 3 � For Routing 4 0 Doc.Type:RESOLUTION Order 5 � E-DOCUment Required: Y � Document Contact: Mai Vang ConWct Phone: 6-8563 Totai # of Signature Pages _(Ctip All LocaSons for Signature) Action Requested: � Resolu6on memorializing City Council action taken December 3, 2008 denying [he appeal with conditions for property a[ 1066 Woodbridge Street, per the recommendation of the Legislative Hearing Officer. Recommendafions. Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Pianning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB CommiHee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a ciry employee? Yes No 3. Does this persoNfirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain ali yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunily (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advanfages If Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: � Disadvantages H Not Approved: Total Amount of Transadion: Cost/Revenue Budgeted: Funding Source: Activity Number: Financial information: (F�cplain� December 8, 2008 930 AM Page 1 � �., �4 S O ' a a �ID19 e ,�. �� November 14, 2008 Ellery J & Darla Morgan 1066 Woodbridge Street St Paul, MN 55117 RE: 1066 Woodbridge Street Dear Mr. & Mrs. Morgan: CITY OF SAINT PAUL CITY CLERK'S OFFICE f,r ,�!� U"I �l Your appiication for an appeal has been received and processed. ��o Please attend the pubiic hearing before the Legislative Hearing Officer on Tuesday, November 18, 200& at 11:30 a.m. in Room 330 City Hail and Courthouse to consider your appeal concerning the above referenced property. At that time the Legislative Hearing Officer will hear all parties refative to this action. Failure to appear at the hearing may result in denial of your appeai. Sincerely, < Shari Moore City Clerk ��G G� G � cc: Phil Owens, DSI (Fire) Leanna Shaff, DSI (Fire) Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer Jerry Hendrickson, Deputy City Attorney Owner, Joe Richardson 15 WEST KELLOGG BOULEVARD, SUITE 310 SAINT PAUI, MINNESOTA55102 Te1:651-266-8688 Fax:651-2668574 www.stpaul.gw AA-ADA-EEO Employer D�-�7 APPLICA.TION FOR APPEAL Saint Paul City Clerk IS W. Kellogg Blvd., 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Telephone: (651) 266-8688 ,�o ��Fi� �lry�, Z ��B �� 1. Addsess of Property being Appealed: 2. Number of Dwelliug Units: 3. Date of I.etter Appealed: t�(�(r� l���i`zd �-� I 4. Name of Owner: � Q�- `�� C/� Qti�CI ��`� Address: Phone Numbers: Business City: Residence Cellular 5. Appellant / Applieant (if otlier than owner): �' I'�iu' q` � FJG�V' 1 C�- � - f� I U!� Gj/,f �'L � _ ` r � + Vrly� v �I� Address: ���� �t t�1,tCt�.� � City: 71 '' State: Zip: t�f�'tci �n71� �5� • '�o'f- 30�{� ��`�" PhoneNumbers��5�s-4��Z g��' Residence�v51-`���53R� Cellulark5l•aa����'�� �aa.L<�_ n � 6 State specifically what is'{being appealed and why (Use an attachment if necessary}: � 6� s 1'�kfz � Ma�✓�`�d��� -11�P_ u�um�Z3' 0't o@L'ot¢A!t�� 1'� `��. �t�,�' '� �� NOTE: A$25.00 filing fee made payabie to the City of Saint Paul must accompany flus application as a necessary condition for filing. You must attach a copy of the original orders and any other coaespondence relative to thzs appeal. Any person unsatisfied by the final decision of the City Council may obtain judicial review by umely fiHng of an action as provided by law in Distdct Court. For O�ce Use Onlv '' Received: Fee Received: Receipt Number: Date of Hearing: ��� �o�ao� ���� �� ��,�� bq�� ' �,'t�i�(� J - � �h'���?l�'�� '('� f�-{f ""�� ; 5� ��t�-' I /�/'vtJ,�.L j �;� do �`�� �l (�� `��'�v�" �.�li�c �- ��� .� 4 ^ �,� � ����e , I c;� �,a�' � t,�.��� c" ��- �����.��- ��'� �� ;� � C�?�,r�- � � �� v�� � � � � �; � �;�'� � ` � � � � � � (�� � � �; � �, i�, l� � � � � � � � c� � ���5-���.-�r� � �� � G� �� � �� ���P�� �' � l �� s ��,� � ,�-� ;�. - � � /��-� �t' � � ���� �(-��- ���� �s�-- � ;s �s � ��� s'��'��'�� �� �� ��� �� ��� l,�-C___ � �� � � �i� � �- �����r� � � �V lo � � � ��� � E� �� �� � � �(�� � G�►�� `��..� �;�' �-- -� � � �� r,� �-��� I �b�. � J �� �`�� � �� �� � � �� / � � �f CITY OF 5�1II�I'I' PAUL Chriseopher B. Coleman, Mayor November 7, 2008 JOSEPH RICHARDSON 4230 OAKVIEW LANE N PLYMOUTH MN 55442 RE: 1066 WOODBRIDGE ST Dear Property Representafive: Your building was inspected on November 7, 2008. DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND INSPECTIONS Fire Inspection Divis�on Robert Kessler, Director 69��7 375 Jackron Street, Suite 2?0 Telephone. 65l-266-9090 Saint Paul, MrV 55J01-1806 The building was found to be unsafe, unfit for human habitation, a public nuisance, a hazard to the public welfare or otherwise dangerous to human life. A Cbndemnahon Placard has been posted on the building. T'he following deficiency list must be completed immediately or the building vacated. A re-insuection will be made on November 18. 2�08 at 4:30 am. CONDENINATION OF TIIE BUILDING REVOKES THE FIItE CBRTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. Failure to complete the corrections may result in a criminal citahon. `l'he Saint Paul Legislative Code requires that no building be occupied without a Fire Certificate of Occupancy. DEFICIENCY LIST 1. EYtenor - SPLC 34.09 (3), 3432 (3) - Repair and maintain the door in good condirion.-Repair the front storm door closure and the front door that does not open all the way. 2. Exterior - SPLC 34.09 (3), 3432 (s) - Re�air and maintam the winduw glass.-Repair ciacked and �roken glass. 3. Interior - SPLC 34.14 (2) c- Provide or replace the duplex convenience outlet ��nth ground fault protect�on within 3 feet of the basin on an ad�acent wall in all bathrooms. This work may require a pernut(s). Call DSI at (651) 266-9090: Repair broken outlet in the bathroom. 4. Intenor - MSFC 605.4 - Discontinue use of all mulri-plug adapters. 5. Interior - MSFC 605.5 - Discontinue use of extension cords used in lieu of permanent wiring. 6. Interior - MSFC 1011.2 - Remove the materials that cause an exit obsh Maintain a clear and unobstructed exit way.-Remove all items in the bedrooms that are blocking the egress windows. 7. Intenor - SPLC 34.09 (3), 3432 (3) - Provide or repair and maintain the window screen.-Repiace all missing or torn screens. 8. Interior - SPLC 34.23, MSFC 110.1 - This occupancy is condemned as unfit for human habitarion. This occupancy must not be used until re-inspected and approved by this office.-This occupancy is condemned based on interior sanitation and over-occupancy. 9. Interior - SPLC 34.10 (6), 3433 (5) - Extermi, ...d ccnirol insects, rodents or other pests. Provide documentafion of extermination.-Hire a license� .,xterminator to eliminate mice and roaches. ���'� 10. Interior - SPLC 3410 (5), 3433 (4), 34.16 - Provide and maintain interior in a clean and samtary condirion.-Clean and sanitize the entire builning including the front porch and remove 50% of storage and all mattresses and bedding from the basement, and remove all storage &om the stove (FII2E FIAZARD). I I. Interior - SPLC 34.10 (7), 3433 (6) - Repair and maintain the ceiling in an approved manner: Patch and paint ceiling that are in disrepair. 12. Interior - SPLC 34.11 (6), 34.34 (3) - Provide service of heating facility by a licensed contractor which must include a carbon monoxide test. Submit a completed copy of the Saint Paul Fire Marshal's Existing Fuel Burning Equipment Safety Test Report to this o�ce. 13. Interior - UMC 504.6 - Provide, repair or replace the dryer e�aust duct. Exhaust ducts for domestic clothes dryers shall be constructed of inetal and shall have a smaoth interior finish. The exhaust duct shall be a minimum nominal size of four inches (102 mmj in diameter. The enrire e�aust system shall be surported and secured m place.-Replace the dryer vent and connect accordmg to code. 14. Interior - UMC 1346.703 - Provide 30 inches clearance around all mechanical equiprnent.-Remove storage around water heater and fumace area. 15. Interior - SPLC 34.19 - Provide access to the mspector to all areas of the building. 16. Interior - SPLC 34.16 (2) - Properly dispose all of your gazbage in the owner-provided containers.-Remove garbage from the interior of the home. 17. Interior - SPLC 34.13 (2), (3), SPLC 34.17 (2) - Reduce and maintain the number of occupants in the unit to: 8 occupants. 18. Interior - M13 Stat. 299F362 - Immediately provide and maintain a smoke detector located outside each sleepmg area.-Provide batteries in all smoke detectors immediately. 19. Interior - MN 5tate Statute 299F.50 Tmmediately provide and maintam an approved Carbon Monoxide Alann in a locarion within ten (i0) feet of eaeh sleeping area. Installanon shall be in accordance with manufactwers instructions. 20. SPLC 39.02(c) - Complete and sip the provided smoke detecter affidavit and return it to this office. You have the right to appeal these orders �a the Legislative Hearing Officer. Applications fo: appeais may be oniained at the City Clerks Office, Room 310, (651-266-8688), and must be filed within 10 days of the date of the original orders. If you have any questions, you may contact me at 651-266-8988. SincereJy, ' Lisa Martin Fire Inspector Re£ # 103231 cc: Force Unit cc: District Council November 18, 2008 L,egislative Aearing Minutes b9 �,i�f Page 8 �l 1 3. Appeal of Ellery and Darla Morgan to a Certificate of Occupancy Revocation, which includes Condemnation, for property at 1066 Woodbrid�e Street. Darla and Ellery Morgan, appellants, appeazed. Joe Richardson, owner, also appeazed. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She stated that the home was a foster home and that typically the state conducted foster home inspections. The city of St. Paul had a fire inspector who was also contracted to do foster care licensing. On November 6 the City had received a referral from the foster care inspector that the property was over-occupied, missing smoke detectors and had fire hazazds present in the basement, among other violations. Another fire inspector issued orders based on those observations. The city inspector visited the property on November 7, 2008. At that time Mr. Margan denied access and said that he needed time to clean. Foster care licensing was contacted to have the foster child removed based on interior grass unsanitary conditions. On November 14 the appellant called and requested an extension. Ms. Morgan stated she understood the concerns about cleanliness and those issues had been taken care of. She said they were working with the landlord to take care of the other issues. She said that they'd lived at the property for two and one-half years and qualified for Section 8 that had not been cited for over-occupancy before. Ms. Moermond asked how many people lived at the property. Ms. Morgan stated that there were 12 people in the household including a great-niece for whom they were providing foster care and a son who was away at college and only home occasionally. She said that it was a six-bedroom house and that they had a six-6edroom certificate from Section 8. She said that it was not possible to reduce the household size to eight. Ms. Moermond asked about the license status. Ms. Morgan stated that they were not currently licensed but were going through the kinship foster-care licensing process so that they could continue to provide care for her great niece. Mr. Richardson stated that almost all of the deficiencies had been addressed and that he was warking with some contractors to bring the property into compliance. He requested a re-inspection to confirm that the property was safe and habitable and that the items had been corrected. He said that he and the tenants would be working together to make sure the property stayed in compliance. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Richardson whether he had hired an exterminator. Mr. Richardson responded that he working on getting an exterminator but had not done so yet. Ms. Moermond asked whether the ceiling had been patched and painted. Mr. Richardson said that it had not been done yet. He said that all of the items had been scheduled but were not compieted because they could not be done until the cleaning was done. He said that the same was true for the electrical item. Ms. Shaff asked whether there were smoke detectors. Ms. Morgan stated that the smoke detectars had been purchased and that all but two had been installed. Ms. Shaff asked whether the remaining two were for sleeping areas. Ms. Morgan stated that they were. Ms. Shaff reviewed the state statute regazding smoke detectors. She said that the report indicated that batteries were missing from some smoke detectors. Ms. Morgan stated that the batteries had November 18, 2008 Legislative Hearing Minutes D(��/�� Page 9 been replaced but that her children sometunes removed the batteries. Ms. Shaff stated that it was a misdemeanor to disable a smoke detector. Ms Shaff noted that the inspector had been denied access on November 7 and that denying an inspector access to a building that had life safety violations was serious matter. Ms. Morgan stated that they hadn't finished cleaning the basement and that her husband had asked the inspector whether she could come back at another time, and that the inspector had verified their phone number and had left. Ms. Moermond asked the ages of the people living in the house. Ms. Morgan stated that the children were 17,16,16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 6 and 3. Ms. Moermond asked whether the doors had been repaired. Mr. Richardson stated that the door had been repaired but the handrail needed to be moved from one side to the other so that the door could be opened all the way. Ms. Shaff asked whether a firefighter with gear would be able to go through the door without turning sideways. Mr. Richardson responded that they would. Ms. Moermond asked about the windows. Mr. Richardson said that one of the windows was being repaired today. Ms. Moermond asked about the multi-plug adapters. Ms. Margan said that she had misunderstood that item and that they were still being used. Ms. Moermond asked about extension cords. Ms. Morgan stated that one was srill being used. Ms. Moermond asked about the exit obstructions. Ms. Morgan stated that they were all clear except for one second floor window. Ms. Moermond asked about the window screens. Ms. Morgan stated that they had not been repaired and that they had been concentrating on removing 50 percent of the storage from the basement. Ms. Shaff asked whether there was a 30 inch clear area around the furnace. Ms. Morgan stated that there was and that the area around the water heater was clear as well. Ms. Moermond asked whether the furnace had been serviced. Mr. Richardson stated that it had not been serviced yet. Ms. Moermond stated that she was disappointed that so few of the items had been completed and that life safety things such as the smoke detectors had been left undone. Ms. Morgan stated that there was a working smoke detector outside all of the bedrooms. Ms Moermond asked how much time was needed to complete the list. Mr. Richardson stated that it could all be completed within 10 days. Ms. Moermond stated that with so few corrections completed, she would normally issue an arder to vacate but because there were so many young children involved, she would not order the property vacated. She asked that a full re-inspection of the property be done on December 1. She also requested an inspection be done as soon as possible to confirm the presence of operational smoke detectors. Ms. Shaff responded that the smoke and carbon monoxide detectors couid be checked on November 19 and the balance of the list and any additional items could be addressed at the re- inspection on December 1. Ms. Moermond stated that if the life/safety issues were corrected by the Aecember 1 re-inspection, the condemnation would be lifted, but that if the work was not completed she would recomnnend to the City Council that the appeal be denied and that the property remain condemned with a vacate date of December 9.