Laserfiche WebLink
3.3. Code compliance items on accessory buildings (3) include: <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 /> 3.4 Code compliance items in the rear yard area include: <br /> 0 Overgrown vegetation; <br /> o Vegetation and matter in the pool; <br /> o Junk/debris on property. <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 /> 3.6 Abatement action was put on hold in September of 2000 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 /> 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 /> 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 /> 3.9 In August of 2001 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 /> 2 <br />