CR 92-095 Hazardous Building - 702 7th Ave S
April 28, 1992
Council Report 92-95
HAZARDOUS BUILDING - 702 SEVENTH AVENUE SOUTH
Proposed Aetion.
Staff recommends the City Council approve the following motion: Adopt
Resolution No. 92-39 authorizinq the city Attorney to seek summary
enforcement of January 21. 1992 order for removal of hazardous buildinq at
702 Seventh Avenue South.
Ov rview
On January 21, 1992 the City Council adopted the attached Resolution No.
92-07 declaring the single family residence at 702 Seventh Avenue South as
a hazardous building.' This Resolution, and the accompanying order,
indicates that the owner of the property at 702 Seventh Avenue South, Leroy
Smithrud, was to repair the building or raze and remove it within 90 days.
This order was served on Leroy Smithrud on January 30th.
During the January 21st meeting, City staff indicated that Mr. Smithrud may
consider cooperating with removal of the structure. Mr. smithrud indicated
that he was interested in obtaining his own quotes on the removal of the
structure and would possibly consider signing a consent form allowing the
City to remove the structure through the use of smithrud's contractor. It
was further understood that the City would then assess the cost against
smithrud's property. Although repeated contacts were attempted to inquire
as to smithrud's progress on getting quotes on the demolition of the
structure, no response was given. In fact, it came to the city's attention
that Mr. smithrud was in fact attempting to sell the property but thus far
has been unsuccessful.
The Resolution which staff is recommending be adopted reaffirms that the
City Council finds the building to be a "hazardous structure," that
smithrud was ordered to repair or remove the structure, that he failed to
undertake these steps, and that the City has taken the necessary steps to
seek authority to remove the structure on its own. Once the Resolution has
been adopted by the City Council, the City Attorney will then present it to
the Court, along with other documents seeking authority from the Court to
enforce the City Council's order and have the structure demolished.
The only building which can be removed from the property is the house
itself. Neither the garage nor the storage shed were found to be hazardous
structures according to the Housing Inspector.
Primary Issues to Consider
o Does the condition of the property constitute a hazardous building?
o Should the building be repaired or demolished?
o Alternatives
SupDortinq Information
o Detailed Background of Issue
o Resolution No. 92-07
o J' Resolution No. 92-39
o Location Map
'"
W;i '-'-
Thomas K. Harmenin , CO~~~ity Development Director
__rc~"j'
CR92-95
Page 2
Primary Issu s to consid r
o Does the eondition of the property eonstitute a hazardous building?
state statute Chapter 463, "Building Line Easements, Building
Regulations, and Hazardous Buildings," defines a hazardous building or
property as "Hazardous building or hazardous property means any
building which because of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation,
physical damage, unsanitary condition, or abandonment constitutes a
fire hazard or hazard to the public safety or health."
It is staff's position that since the building has been vacant at
least three years, and there is evidence of inadequate maintenance,
the physical condition of the structure is dilapidated, water and
sewer have not been connected for three years causing an unsanitary
condition, and a fire hazard exists to the neighboring property, the
building constitutes a hazardous building under the state statute
definition.
o Should the building be repaired or demolished?
state statute Chapter 463 permits the governing body of any city or
town to order the owner of any hazardous building or property within
the municipality to correct the hazard, remove the hazardous condition
of the building, or demolish the building.
The staff's position is that in order to correct or repair the vacant
structure, it must be brought into a minimum condition of habitability
under the City's Housing Code. Inspections have been made by staff
and an estimate has been received from a local contractor. The
estimate to bring the building up to a minimum condition of
habitability is approximately $39,000, plus an additional $565 for
permit fees.
It has been determined by Nancy Anderson, the city Planner, that the
structure is considered non-conforming by the City's Zoning Ordinance.
The building does not meet the required side yard setbacks. section
520.01 Subdivision 2 of the City's Zoning Ordinance states "Nothing in
this subsection prevents modernizing or repairing of the structure
when said structure is declared unsafe by the Building Inspector
provided the necessary repairs shall not constitute more than 50% of
the fair market value of such structure after repair."
Bob Wilson, the City Assessor, has determined that the cost of the
repairs as provided by a local contractor are 95% to 100% of the fair
market value after the structure is repaired.
It is therefore the staff's opinion that based upon these facts, it
may not be possible for the owner to repair the structure under the
city Zoning Ordinance. The staff has therefore recommended that the
City Council order the structure demolished.
CR92-95
Page 3
Alternatives
o Approve the staff's recommendation.
o Disapprove staff's recommendation and determine a hazardous
building'does not exist on the property. Following this course
of action will allow the building to remain on the property in
its current state.
o Determine a hazardous building does exist but allow the property
owner additional time to correct the hazard.
o Table matter for further information.
4IfaCkQrOUnd of the property.
The history of the City involvement with the property owned by Mr. LeRoy
smithrud, 702 7th Ave. S. Hopkins, MN 55343
PID: 25-117-22-42-0045
City involvement with this property and owner goes back to November of 1986.It
started with a complaint from a tenant who was renting the property from Mr.
smithrud. Inspection staff did a routine inspection and found 27 violations of
the Housing Code. Corrective notices were subsequently sent to Mr. smithrud by
regular mail giving him 90 days to make the necessary corrections. The city
received no response from Mr. smithrud.
In March of 1987, phone calls were made to Mr. smithrud and messages were left
with his wife informing her of the situation at 702 7th Ave. S. There was no
response from Mr. smithrud so in April a certified letter was sent to Mr.
smithrud, and it was returned unclaimed.
In May the City Attorney started work on the complaint, letters were sent to
the tenants and the house was vacated and posted no occupancy.
A formal complaint was filed in District court against Mr. smithrud.
In June there was a preliminary conference between the City Attorney, Mr.
smithrud's attorney, the inspection department and Mr. smithrud to try to work
~ut a solution.
.n September of 1987, a re-inspection was done with the owner and there was
ome minor compliance, however the necessary building permits were not
requested or granted for the work that had been done. The City Attorney
prepared an addendum to the original inspection order and sent it to Mr.
smithrud detailing the remaining work to be completed. There was no response
from Mr. smithrud. Legal action was pursued against Mr. Smithrud in September.
In October of 1987, a permit was granted to Stodola Well Drilling Co. to grout
an abandoned water well on the property. This was the only permit requested
for the work yet to be accomplished.
The proceedings were continued against Mr. smithrud and at the end of 1987, 9
misdemeanor complaints were filed for maintaining a sub-standard building. A
plea bargain agreement was reached with the city requiring the house to remain
vacant until the corrections were completed.
Minor work has been done to the inside of the dwelling but none of the
exterior work has been completed. The house is still vacant and in disrepair.
Research by city staff indicates there has been no gas, electricity, or water
to the dwelling for more than 3 years. The taxes are current.
Inspections staff received a complaint from Park Valley Assn. regarding the
general malaise of the property in March of this year. A letter was sent by
regular mail and numerous calls were made to Mr. smithrud's residence and
Ii 'everal messages were left on his answering machine. The department was unable
4Itontact him directly.
In April, city staff continued to call the smithrud residence and did on
Background
Page 2
one occasion speak with his wife. We outlined our concerns and requested that
he call so that we could discuss these concerns and arrange an inspection. We
received no response from Mr. smithrud.
In May of 1991, Mr. smithrud finally called City Hall but did not speak to any
inspections personnel. He called 3 times leaving messages. Return calls were
made but each time his answering machine was encountered. One time his call
was returned within a minute, his machine was on and he did not call back.
The city Attorney in May of this year was contacted and at his advice an
administrative search warrant was requested and obtained from district court
for the purpose of conducting an inspection. Also in May, we did receive a
letter from Mr. Smithrud stating he would be making some improvements to the
property that would make everybody happy. The letter was vague and did not
adequately address the City's concerns. Mr. smithrud could not be contacted to
clarify!
On June 7, 1991 an inspection was done under the authority of the
administrative search warrant. The inspection revealed very little had changed
in the dwelling. Wallpaper had been removed but none of the major, structural,
plumbing or exterior problems had been resolved.
f~~ollowing the execution of the search warrant and in the routine monitoring of
.he property city inspectors noted that the garage had been cleaned up. It was
ainted and the windows re-boarded. Neighbors at that time informed inspection
personal that Mr. Smithrud had not been maintaining the property and that
neighbors have been cutting the grass in exchange for using the garage for
storage. A neighbor indicated that Mr. Smithrud is seen at the property about
once a year and that he has had no direct involvement in taking care of the
property.
On a routine drive by of the property on June 28th it was noticed that the
doors to the dwelling were opened. Upon investigation there was evidence that
persons unknown had broken in and were living in the dwelling. Both upstairs
bedrooms were being used and there was evidence of 3-4 people sleeping in
them. Food, alcohol, candles and debris was scattered around and there was
evidence that candles were being used for light. The biggest concern was a
possible fire that could damage the dwelling or possibly spread to the
neighboring homes. The neighbors home is five feet from the vacant dwelling.
The condition was discovered on Friday morning the 28th. An attempt was made
to reach Mr. smithrud at 11:00 a.m. His answering machine was turned on, a
message was left and there was no immediate response. Because of the lack of
response encountered in the past from Mr. smithrud and because of the
potential for fire, the inspection department requested an emergency abatement
authorization from the acting City Manager, as permitted in the City nuisance
abatement ordinance. This authorization allowed city forces to secure the
'tructure before the weekend and the associated costs could be assessed
." ....gainst the property.
41ft 2:15 p.m. on the 28th, after the emergency order was granted and public
works personal were requested to board the property, Mr. Smithrud's attorney
called to inquire about the situation.
Background
Page 3
The inspection personal immediately contacted public works in attempt to stop
the boarding but found that they were just finishing the job.
Mr. smithrud appealed the $98.00 assessment and a public hearing was held by
the City Council on August 6th. The appeal was denied and Mr Smithrud did not
attend. Neighbors were in attendance and expressed concern about the
condition of the property, lack of maintenance and its impact on the
neighborhood.
City staff discussed with the City Attorney the possibility of dealing with
the lack of maintenance and potential pUblic nuisance it presents.
Additional inspections were completed at the request of the City Attorney.
Estimates were requested on the repairs required to bring the structure into
compliance and also to demolish.
The estimate to repair exceeds that allowed by the zoning ordinance for a
non-conforming structure.
The city Attorney advised staff to schedule a meeting before the Council to
discuss an action to declare the building a hazardous building under state
~~~atute, Chapter, 463. A letter was sent to Mr. smithrud inviting him to attend
ff;~The meeting of January 21, 1992.
.i'
l
RESOLUTION NO. 92- 39
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO SEEK
SUMMARY ENFORCEMENT OF JANUARY 21, 1992 ORDER
FOR REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS BUILDING AT
702 SEVENTH AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, the Hopkins City Council, on January 21, 1992, adopted
Resolution No. 92-07 declaring the single family residence (the
"Building") at 702 Seventh Avenue South as a hazardous building
pursuant to Minn. Stat. 463.15 et seq., and;
WHEREAS, the Hopkins City Council, on January 21, 1992, ordered
the owner of the property at 702 Seventh Avenue South, Leroy
Smithrud, to repair the Building or raze and remove it within
ninety (90) days, and;
WHEREAS, the Hopkins City Council Order (the "Order") approved
January 21, 1992 and dated January 30, 1992 was served on Leroy
Smithrud on January 30, 1992, and;
WHEREAS, the Order was filed in Hennepin County District court
on January 30, 1992, and;
WHEREAS, a Notice of Lis Pendens pertaining to the property at
702 Seventh Avenue South was filed with the Hennepin County
Recorder's office on January 31, 1992, and;
WHEREAS, Leroy Smithrud has neither answered the Order pursuant
to Minn. Stat. 463.18 within the time allowed nor performed the
corrective action required by the Order within the time allowed;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City
of Hopkins:
1. That Leroy Smithrud, the owner of the property at 702
Seventh Avenue South, is found to have failed to comply with the
Order by failing and refusing to take the corrective action
required hereby, and;
2. That the appropriate corrective action is to raze and
remove the Building and fill the basement.
3. That the Hopkins
seek summary enforcement
District Court pursuant to
seq., and;
City Attorney is hereby authorized to
of the Order by obtaining judgment in
the procedures in Minn. Stat. 463.15 et.
4. That should the Hopkins City Attorney obtain a Judgment
authorizing enforcement of the Order, the Hopkins City Inspections
Department shall obtain price quotations to raze and remove the
Building at 702 Seventh Avenue South and to fill the basement, and,
on the basis of those quotations, shall enter into a contract to
perform said work. The Hopkins City Inspections Department shall
follow and comply with all requirements for obtaining the contract
and letting the bid as set forth in Minn. Stat. 471.345, Subd. 5.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hopkins, Minnesota,
on this day of , 1992.
Nelson W. Berg, Mayor
ATTEST:
James A. Genellie, City Clerk
-2-
.
RESOLUTION NO. 92-07
RESOLUTION DECLARING PROPERTY AT 702 SEVENTH AVENUE SOUTH A
HAZARDOUS BUILDING AND ORDERING REPAIR OR REMOVAL
WHEREAS, the Hopkins City Council, pursuant to the procedures
set forth in Minn. Stat. 463.15-463.26, has this day considered the
matter of the condition of a single family residence (hereinafter
referred to as the "Building") located at 702 Seventh Avenue South,
Hopkins (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"), and;
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that inspection by the Hopkins
Inspections Department of the property at 702 Seventh Avenue South
has revealed the following information:
1. In 1986, in response to a tenant's complaint, the City
Inspections Department did a routine inspection of the
Buiilding and discovered 27 violations of the Minnesota
Housing Code, including deteriorated exterior siding which
failed to provide weather protection, extremely
deteriorated exterior brick chimney, visible sagging in
the roof above the kitchen and bathroom areas, visible
leakage in numerous parts of the Building, deteriorated
ceiling joists in the kitchen, deteriorated floor joists
and floor in the kitchen, inadequately maintained
electrical system, deteriorated and hazardous furnace
system, inadequately maintained plumbing system and an
open and unsealed well. Notice was sent to the owner,
Leroy Smithrud, who failed to take corrective action. A
criminal complaint was filed against Smithrud in May
1987. Reinspection in September 1987 revealed only a few
minor corrections. No permits have ever been obtained as
required for the correction of the deficiencies stated in
1987 Complaint, except a permit to cap the open well,
which was completed.
2. In 1988 water services were shut off to the Property due
to nonpaYment. In 1988 gas services were shut off to the
Property. Sometime in 1987 or 1988 electrical service was
shut off to the Property.
3. The Property has been uninhabited for at least three (3)
years.
4. In March 1991, the City Inspections Department received a
letter from the President of the neighborhood association
requesting corrective action and stating that the Building
constituted a fire hazard and a blight on the
neighborhood.
5.
On June
discovered
being used
28, 1991, the City's Inspections Department
that the Building had become unsecured and was
as a shelter by several juveniles, who were
.-
sleeping, lighting fires and defecating in the Building.
The juveniles subsequently admitted to burglarizing a home
in the neighborhood while occupying the Building.
5 .
As a result of the
Inspections Department
violations originally
corrected.
June 28, 1991 inspection, the City
discovered that the Housing Code
identified in 1986 had not been
6. On December 20, 1991, the City Inspections Department
retained a general contractor to inspect the Building and
provide an estimate of the cost of repairs necessary to
make the Building habitable. The estimate, including
materials and labor, totaled approximately $38,000.00.
In 1991, the Property had an assessed value of $13,900.00
for the land and $500.00 for the Building. These amounts
reflected a reduction in the value of the Building from
the 1990 assessed value of $27,700.00; the assessed value
of the land was unchanged. The fair market value of the
Property, should the proposed repairs be completed, is
approximately $60,000.00 according to the City's
Assessor's office.
7 .
In addition to the Building's
problems, the appearance of the
numerous Housing Code violations
welfare of the neighborhood in which
structural and health
Building due to the
is detrimental to the
it is located, and;
WHEREAS, the City Council therefore finds that due to the
above-described conditions, the Property constitutes a hazardous
building as defined by Minn. Stat. 463.15, Subd. 3, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City
of Hopkins:
1 .
repair
executed
and;
That the Order attached to this Resolution requlrlng the
or removal of the Building at 702 Seventh Avenue South be
by the Mayor of Hopkins and the Hopkins City Attorney,
2. That the executed Order be served upon Leroy Smithrud, the
owner of the property at 702 Seventh Avenue South, in accordance
with procedures set forth in Minn. Stat. 463.15-463.26, and;
3. That the Hopkins City Inspection Department return to the
Council ninety (90) days from the date the Order is filed with the
Court Administrator and report whether the Building was repaired or
removed in compliance with the Order.
-2-
~
Adopted this 21st day of January, 1992.
ATTEST:
-3-
'...
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
~
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
r
r
L
1
I
1
I
I
!,'
t
I
t
t
f
I
I
L
7~ -
<t
~
z
o
I-
w
Z
z
~
:w
.r::
CD
T 1l7N R22W
~
26[25
-l
f-
-l
W
u..
J
Centrol
Pork
51
5,
(f)
t
"-
"
N LANDMARK
~
en
w en vi vi
~
\
\
\~, E
"?",, (])
''\
5 LAND4t.
~RK TR.
W~~EL RD.} WESTBROOKE
TRAILW~
TRAI~
IO~T, sj
MINNETONKA
w
~
, , 5MET ANA.. : ,... , DR. :.'.':.,;;::....""
~
2
W
-l
<9
Q:
o
3rd
5T.
en
ST.
0: 0:
D D vi
>-
W
-l
...J
<!
> w
Y: ~
0:::
<t
a.
uiS~
[
1"
~~
u:i
S. 18
w
~
~..l!sL
::~c
, ..,. "I"
: 25130
:2
:0
,f-
.<9
2
I
(f)
:~
<t
Z
/' fj
J :
.< .. ,,",,",,"Ccc'""""""''1 · @
r ~T 117N
.' R 22 W 25130 R
36131