Memo- Hopkins Sports Center Property - 2100 Mainstreet•
CITY OF HOPKINS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 3, 1991
TO: The Honorable MMaa or & City Council
FROM: Tom Harmening
1' Id"
Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Hopkins Sports Center Property - 2100 Mainstreet
I. Proposed Discussion
During the upcoming work session, Staff would like to
discuss with the City Council matters pertaining to health,
safety and appearance issues relating to the former Hopkins
Sports Center property located at 2100 Mainstreet
(Mainstreet and Shady Oak Road). Based upon this
discussion, it is hoped the City Council will be able to
provide general direction to Staff on how this matter should
be handled.
II. Background Information
In May of 1988 the Hopkins Sports Center building burned
down. The property in question is owned by Ken Duneman and
is zoned B -3 General Business. Since 1988 the property has
remained vacant and has presented some concerns in terms of
safety and its esthetic appearance. These concerns relate
to the large hole on the property as well as a sanitary
sewer service and an old well which should be capped.
As the Council is aware, Hennepin County is contemplating
the improvement of Shady Oak some time after 1996. The
improvement of Shady Oak Road involves the acquisition of
right -of -way both on the east and west side of Shady Oak
Road, including the front (east) portion of the property in
question. Although the County has proposed a reconstruction
project, no specific right -of -way alignment has yet been
approved. The uncertainty of the future right -of -way needs
tend to make the development of the subject property more
difficult. According to Mr. Dunemar, several prospects have
looked at the property but no firm commitments have been
made for it's future redevelopment.
Page 2
Over the last few months Staff has discussed with Mr.
Duneman a proposal which would resolve the right -of -way
issue and at the same time provide capital to Mr. Duneman to
fill the hole on the site and make the site building ready.
It was also felt that by filling the hole, esthetic and
safety concerns would also be addressed. The proposal made
to Mr. Duneman essentially involved the City purchasing from
Mr. Duneman the necessary right -of -way to accommodate the
Shady Oak Road reconstruction project. In return, Mr.
Duneman would agree that these acquisition dollars would be
placed in some form of an escrow account to be used for the
purpose of filling the hole on the site and making the
property building ready. The City would eventually be
reimbursed by the County for a portion of the acquisition
cost of the property at the time the Shady Oak Road
Improvement Project took place.
City Staff obtained an appraisal on the property required to
be acquired for the future right -of -way. Based upon the
appraisal, it was estimated that the cost for the
acquisition ranged from roughly $50,000 to $55,000. Staff
also obtained an estimate on the cost to fill the hole on
the site. This expense was estimated to be roughly $45,000
to $50,000.
Staff has attempted to work with Mr. Duneman on the
arrangement as noted above. Although Mr. Duneman has not
formally provided an alternate proposal to the City, based
upon a verbal conversation with Mr. Duneman's realtor, it
appears Mr. Duneman does not feel the City's proposal is
acceptable. Apparently Mr. Duneman feels that the taking of
the right -of -way will be of such a magnitude that the
remaining property will be worth very little as it will not
be able to be used for a development of any size. Based
upon this assumption, Mr. Duneman is apparently requesting
that the City provide him with $150,000 for the right -of -way
with the understanding that he would use a portion of these
dollars to fill the hole on the remaining property which he
would continue to own. The City would be responsible for
paying for filling that portion of the hole on the property
which the City acquired.
Assuming the proposal made by Mr. Duneman is considered
unacceptable, the safety and esthetic issues relating to the
property still remain. The City does have a nuisance
abatement ordinance which appears to provide the City with a
method to order that the property owner fill the hole on the
site and undertake any other necessary measures. If the
property owner refuses to do this, the City Council, after
going through a required procedural process, has the ability
to order that the hole be filled and that the cost for the
improvements be assessed against the property.
410
• Page 3
• TKH /kmb
During the time Staff was discussing the proposal with Mr.
Duneman, Staff also encouraged Duneman to undertake clean up
measures on the site. Although not entirely complete,
Duneman did take action to remove materials from the site,
remove the "reward" sign as well as undertake other misc.
activities.
It should be noted that Duneman does not have complete
control of the property. Duneman's ex -wife also has an
interest in the property.
III. Possible Future Action
Options available to the City for dealing with this issue
include:
o Do nothing.
o Continue to work with Mr. Duneman on the acquisition of
the future right -of -way.
o Utilize existing nuisance ordinance to facilitate the
necessary site corrections.
•
-4( $c.rp l'ltAtsanLt Oral
Hopkins City Code 615.11
615.11 Substantial abatement procedure. When the Enforcement Officer determines that
a nuisance exists on a property and the cost of abatement of the nuisance is estimated
to exceed two thousand dollars or the abatement involves demolition of a building
other than a structure accessary to a residential building or the abatement
substantially diminishes the value of the property and except in the case of an
emergency as provided for in Section 615.12, the City shall abate the nuisance by the
procedure described below. A good faith estimate of the abatement costs, not the
actual cost calculated after the abatement is completed, shall be the basis which
determines whether this abatement procedure shall be used.
Subd. 1. Orders. The Enforcement Officer shall serve a written order upon
the owner, all interested parties, and any responsible party known to the Officer.
The order shall contain the following:
a) a description of the real estate which is sufficient for
identification and which shall include the legal description;
b) the location of the nuisance on the property;
c) a description of the nuisance and the basis upon which it is
declared to be a nuisance;
d) the remedial action required to abate the nuisance;
e) the abatement deadline, to be determined by the Enforcement Officer
allowing a reasonable time for the completion of any act required; and
f) a statement that if the remedial action is not taken before the
abatement deadline, the matter will be referred to the City Council who, after a
public hearing, may order the City to abate the nuisance and charge all costs
incurred against the real estate as a special assessment to be collected in the
same manner as taxes.
Subd. 2. Notice to public. When an order requires, exclusively or as an
option, the demolition of a building, the public shall be put on notice as follows.
a) A copy of the order shall be placed on file in the Office of the
City Clerk.
b) The Enforcement Officer shall notify the City Council of each
property subject to a demolition order as follows. The Enforcement Officer
shall send to the City Council a list of the properties that have become subject
to a demolition order. The list shall be in the form of a resolution declaring
that an enforcement action has been commenced and that as a result of the
nuisance status of a building on the property an order has been issued detailing
the violations and requiring, exclusively or as an option, that the building be
demolished and that a copy of this order is on file in the Office of the City
Clerk. This resolution shall include the legal description of each property and
shall authorize and direct the City Clerk to file a copy of the resolution with
the Hennepin County Recorder.
•
•
Hopkins City Code 615.11, Subd. 3
Subd. 3. Setting a hearing date. If the remedial action is not taken within
the time specified in the written order, the Enforcement Officer may notify the City
council that substantial abatement is necessary and appropriate. Upon being notified
by the Enforcement Officer, the City Council shall, within two weeks, fix a date for
an abatement hearing.
Subd. 4. Notice. Written notice of the time, date, place and subject of the
hearing shall be given as set forth in this subdivision.
a) The City Clerk shall immediately notify the Enforcement Officer.
b) At least ten days prior to the hearing, the Enforcement Officer
shall notify the owner and all interested parties by personal service of the
notice upon the owner or his/her duly authorized representative and upon each
interested party or his/her duly authorized representative. If, after
reasonable effort personal service cannot be made, either of the following
methods of notice shall be considered adequate.
1) confirmed-mail service which is either certified mail with a signed .
receipt returned or first class mail confirmed by written response.
2 mailing the notice to the last known address and publishing the
notice once a week for two weeks in the official city newspaper of
general circulation in the City of Hopkins and posting the notice in
a conspicuous place on the building or property.
c) At least ten days prior to the hearing, the Enforcement Officer
shall mail a notice to any responsible party known to the Enforcement Officer.
Subd. 5 Hearing. At the time of the public hearing, the City Council shall
hear from the Enforcement Officer and any other parties who wish to be heard. After
the hearing, the City Council shall adopt a resolution, describing what abatement
action, if any, it deems appropriate. If the resolution calls for abatement action it
may either order the City to take the abatement action or fix a time within which the
nuisance must be abated and provide that if corrective action is not taken within the
specified time, :the City shall abate the nuisance. The City Clerk shall give a copy
of this resolution to the Enforcement Officer who shall mail copies to any of the
parties required to be notified in Subd. 4 for whom the Enforcement Officer has a
current mailing address.
615.12. ,Emergency Abatement Procedure. When the Enforcement Officer determines that
a nuisance exists on a property and the nuisance constitutes an immediate danger or
hazard which if not immediately abated will endanger the health or safety of the
public and there does not exist sufficient time to follow the procedures of 615.10 or
615.11, the City may abate the nuisance by the procedure described below.
Subd. 1. Order by City Manager. The City shall order emergency abatement by
an administrative order to be signed by the City Manager or, in the case of
unavailability of the City Manager, by the official authorized to act in the Manager's
igl behalf as established by the chain of authority stated in the City Policy Manual. A
good faith effort shall be made to inform the owner that the action is being taken.
te /077roary
5 ,fir 06.4 •t „1;aa.i . 1
Ar ,>
u ;•�(., t�. a�i+ w
irt:
sUt8a14 sOUaae
•
41/._•P.111 I. M
• .w..�..���"�A ice...._ .�.. r ~• 4 « 4,♦ + #VI e '.4F� ^ir' a
J �� r , ft.tit• (:r4
eaiied
°• c:r
4_0 3(2