Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3.3. Code compliance items on accessory buildings (3) include: <br /> <br />o Doors missing <br />o Rotted wood trim <br />o Chipped, peeling paint. <br />o Debris inside each. <br />o Shifted off foundaton <br /> <br />3.4 Code compliance items in the rear yard area include: <br /> <br />o Overgrown vegetation; <br />o Vegetation and matter in the pool; <br />o Junk/debris on property. <br /> <br />3.5 On March 27, 2000, the City Council approved abatement of public nuisances on the <br />structure's exterior. Council allowed the property owner until August 7, 2000 to <br />complete repairs and avoid abatement. <br /> <br />3.6 Abatement action was put on hold in September of2000 following receipt of information <br />that the structure's interior had deteriorated and proposed repairs would not be justified. <br />Attempts to gain access for inspection of the interior from either the property owner or <br />the court system take time and a time-specific court order. (The City Attorney has been <br />working with staff on this issue.) However, new information suggests that while the <br />interior may be in disrepair, it is not of a significant nature. <br /> <br />3.7 The property owner to date has initiated no repair work to the exterior of the structure. <br />One dumpster full of junk and debris from the interior of the home was removed from the <br />site (by the homeowner). The structure continues to deteriorate. <br /> <br />3.8 The property owner applied for repair assistance from both the Housing Resource Center <br />and the St. Paul Department of Planning and Economic Development. In each case the <br />application was incomplete and expired. Also, the Ramsey County Human Services <br />Department was contacted to explore assistance for the property owner, but none was <br />available. <br /> <br />3.9 In August of2001 bids for construction repairs were requested from ten general <br />contractors. Four responded with bid proposals. Repair costs came in similar to <br />estimates, however, each contractor strongly advised against repainting the existing <br />masonite siding which has deteriorated to the point that it is questionable as to if the <br />home is worth repainting (see photos) Scraping and repairing holes has driven the cost of <br />repainting to $8,000 - $10,000 and each contractor said the repairs would only last a few <br />years due to the extensive deterioration. No contractor would guarantee the paint over <br />one year. Due to these concerns, staff also obtained bids for removing the deteriorated <br />siding and installing similar vinyl siding. Costs averaged $11,000 more than repainting. <br />Staff seeks Council approval on the long-term durability by residing the house (instead of <br />another coat of paint). <br /> <br />2 <br />