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.