CR 92-22 Hazardous Building 702 7th Ave S
u
lanuary 13, 1992
.m:
1- '"
oPK\~
council Report No. 92-22
ORDER DECLARING THE BUILDING AT
702 7TH AVENUE SOUTH A HAZARDOUS BUILDING.
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the city Council approve the following motion: Adopt
resolution No. 92-07 declarina the builditla at 7027th Avenue South a
hazardous buildina under Minnesota State Statute. Chapter 463 and orderinq thE
structure repaired. razed or removed within 90 days.
Overview.
city involvement with this property dates back to November of 1986. At that
time the city received housing code complaints and attempted to resolve them
with Mr. Leroy Smithrud, the owner of the property. The city reached an out oj
court settlement in September of 1987 with Mr. smithrud and his attorney that
the structure would not be occupied until the housing code violations had beer
corrected.
In March of 1991 the city received neighborhood complaints about the building
because of its dilapidation, lack of maintenance, and blight on the
neighborhood. Inspections were performed and it was determined little or no
-.rork. had been done to the dwelling since 1987.
In June runaway juveniles broke into the dwelling, setup temporary
housekeeping, and used it as a base for criminal activity. They also used
candles for light, creating a fire hazard and concern for the neighboring
home.
since 1986 the property owner has shown a general unwillingness or inability
to maintain the property. Several attempts have been made to contact him over
this past year and he has been generally unresponsive.
Primary Issues to Consider.
o Does the condition of the property constitute a hazardous building
o Should the building be ordered repaired or demolished
o What will the process be if the Council follows the staff
recommendation
o Alternatives
Supportina Information.
o Background of the property
o Draft resolution with findings of fact
o Memo from Bob Wilson, City Assessor
o Memo from Nancy Anderson
~~p
Thomas Anderson
City Building Official
CR 92-22
Page 2
Primary Issues to Consider.
o Does the condition of the property constitute a hazardous building?
The City involvement with this property dates back to November of 1986, when
the city staff did a routine inspection upon complaint from a tenant and foun<
27 violations of the city's Housing Code. Correction notices were sent to the
owner giving him 90 days to make the necessary corrections.
The city staff and city attorney worked with the owner through the court
system and sometime during the end of 1987, or beginning of 1988, a
plea-bargain agreement was reached with the owner that the house would remain
vacant until the corrections were completed.
In March of this year, the city again received complaints from the
neighborhood because the siding was falling off of the building on the south
side, and it is in general disrepair.
Attempts were made to contact the owner. Those attempts failed and the City
staff requested and received an administrative search warrant from the
gennepin County Courts.
Inspections were made and it was found that only very minor work had been donE
to the inside of the dwelling. No exterior work had been completed and the
house was still vacant and in disrepair. Research by city staff indicated
there has been no gas, electricity, or water to the dwelling for more than 3
yrs. The taxes are current. It appears that the building has been vacant sincE
the plea bargain was agreed to.
The staff in its research obtained information from the neighborhood that they
are maintaining the property by cutting the grass in exchange for storage in
the garage on the property.
In June of this year, the property was broken into by runaway juveniles who
used the dwelling as abase for criminal activity. They used burning candles
in this vacant dwelling for light, since the neighboring home is only 5 ft.
from this vacant building, staff's position is that the building constitutes a
fire hazard.
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."
t is the staff's position that since the building has been vacant at least 3
years, and there is evidence of inadequate maintenance, the physical conditior
of the structure is dilapidated, water and sewer have not been connected for ~
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.
CR 92-22
Page 3
o Should the building be ordered repaired or demolished?
The 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 this vacant
structure, it must be brought into a minimum condition of habitability under
the City's Housing Code. Inspections had been made by City 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 $38,974 plus an
additional $565 for permit fees.
It has been determined by Nancy Anderson, the city Planner (memo attached),
that this is a non-conforming structure. The building does not meet the
required sideyard setbacks. section 520.01 subdv. 2 of the city's Zoning
Ordinance states "Nothing in this subsection prevents modernizing or repairin~
of the structure when said structure is declared unsafe by the building
inspector providino the necessary renairs shall not constitute more than 50%
of the fair market value of such structure after renair.
Job Wilson, the city Assessor, has determined (memo attached) that the cost of
the repairs as provided by a local contractor are 95%- 100% of the fair market
value after the structure is repaired.
It is therefore the staff's opinion that, based on these facts, it may not be
possible for the owner to repair this structure under the city zoning
ordinance, however the staff feels the owner should be given the opportunity
to obtain his own estimates on the cost of repair. The staff has therefor
recommended the City council order the structure repaired, demolished or
removed from the property within 90 days.
o What is the process if the Council follows the staff recommendation?
The City Attorney wishes to use Minnesota state statute Chapter 463, Building
Line Easements, Building Regulations and Hazardous Buildings as the legal
method in order to resolve this issue. This procedure requires that the city
council determine that a hazardous building does exist on the property and
they order the building either corrected, razed, or removed.
If a determination is made by the council that a hazardous building exists,
the process would be as follows:
If all owners and lien holders of record agree, the city could correct or
remove the building from the property and charge the cost against the real
estate as provided in Chapter 463. It would be the staffs recommendation
based on the estimates to repair and estimated market value that the city
should demolish rather than repair this structure.
If the owners or lien holders of record do not agree, the city will have
issued an order in writing reciting the grounds and specifying the necessary
repairs or action, and giving the owner 90 days to comply. The notice also
CR 92-22
Page 4
will contain a statement that if the corrective action is not undertaken,
then a summary enforcement order will be made to the Hennepin County
District Court. If the corrections are not completed, proceedings will be
set up and the case will be argued in District Court. If the court sustains
the action of the city by trial, the court will enter a judgment and will
fix a time at which the building must be demolished, repaired, or the
hazardous condition removed by the owner.
If the judgment is not complied with in the time described, the governing
body may cause the building to be repaired, razed, or removed as set forth,
and the cost of the repairs, razing, or correction may be filed as a lien
against the property and collected as a special assessment as set forth in
the Minnesota statutes. The staff would then recommend the Council demolish
the structure. An estimate has been received from Diamond Five Wrecking in
the amount of $5,500 to remove the structure, including disconnection of
sewer and water, demolition of the home, and removal of the debris.
Alternatives
1. Approve the staffs recommendation.
2. Disapprove the staffs 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.
3. Determine a hazardous building does exist and direct staff to modify
the order allowing the owner more time to correct the hazard.
4. Determine a hazardous building does exist and direct staff to
modify the order limiting the owners options to removal or
demolition. FOllowing this course of action would require the City to
provide proof the repairs cannot be made within the legal requirements
of the city zoning ordinance.
Backaround of the orooertv.
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 1986.11
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 oj
the Housing Code. Corrective notices were subsequently sent to Mr. smithrud b~
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 lef1
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 wor}
0ut a solution.
In September of 1987, a re-inspection was done with the owner and there was
some 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 ~as reached with the city requiring the house to remair.
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
'everal messages were left on his answering machine. The department was unabl,
~ontact 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 an;
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 t<
clarify!
On June 7, 1991 an inspection was done under the authority of the
administrative search warrant. The inspection revealed very little had changec
in the dwelling. Wallpaper had been removed but none of the major, structural.
plumbing or exterior problems had been resolved.
'ollowing the execution of the search warrant and in the routine monitoring 01
the property city inspectors noted, that the garage had been cleaned up. It wa~
painted and the windows re-boarded. Neighbors at that time informed inspectior
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 abatemeu'
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.
At 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
statute, Chapter 463. A letter was sent to Mr. Smithrud inviting him to attenc
he meeting.
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. That the Order attached to this Resolution requlrlng the
repair or removal of the Building at 702 Seventh Avenue South be
executed by the Mayor of Hopkins and the Hopkins City Attorney,
and;
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.
Above listed Resolution was moved by
Member , and duly seconded by
Member
,
,
-2-
CITY OF HOPKINS
IN THE MATTER OF:
The Abatement of a Hazardous
Building Situated at 702 ORDER
Seventh Avenue South, Hopkins,
Minnesota.
------
The City Council of the City of Hopkins, Minnesota to the
following named person:
Leroy Smithrud, 3317 Hampshire Avenue
North, Crystal, Minnesota 55427, and all persons claiming any
right, title, estate, lien or interest in the real property
described in Paragraph 1 of this Order.
1. DESCRIPTION OF REAL PROPERTY. Address: 702 Seventh Avenue
South,
Hopkins,
Hennepin
County,
Minnesota
55343.
Legal
description:
Lots 1 and 2, Block 7, West Minneapolis Annex.
Said real property ~s hereinafter referred to as the "property".
2. GROUNDS FOR THIS ORDER. The property has been improved by
three buildings; a single family residence, a detached garage and a
detached metal shed. For purposes of this Order, the only affected
structure is the single family residence (hereinafter referred to
as the "Building") .
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 463.l5-463.26, the
City Council of the City of Hopkins, having duly considered the
matter, finds that the Building constitutes a "hazardous building"
as defined by Minn. Stat. 463.15, Subd. 3, for the following
reasons:
a. 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 tha 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.
b. 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.
c. The Building has been uninhabited for at least three (3)
years.
d. 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.
e; On June 28, 1991, the City's Inspections Department
discovered that the Building had become unsecured and was
being used 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.
f. As a result of the June 28, 1991 inspection, the City
Inspections Department discovered that the Housing Code
violations originally identified in 1986 either had not
been corrected or had not been corrected properly.
g. 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.
-2-
h.
structural and health
Property due to the
is detrimental to the
it is located.
In addition to the Property's
problems, the appearance of the
numerous Housing Code violations
welfare of the neighborhood in which
Accordingly, it is the finding of the City Council that said
structure is a hazardous building within the definition of Minn.
Stat. 463.l5, Subd. 3.
3 .
Pursuant to the foregoing findings and in
ORDER.
accordance with Minn. Stat. 463.15-463.26, you are hereby ordered
to repair and make the Building safe and not detrimental to the
public health, welfare and safety by making the following necessary
repairs:
a.
Remove existing roofing
joists and sheating as
material.
repair current roof
install new roofing
material,
needed and
b. Cap chimney to prevent water and moisture from entering
Building.
c.
Replace or
sheathing.
repair all exterior sidewall siding and
d.
Replace
except
window.
all windows, including any deteriorated framing
one first floor bedroom window and the utility room
e. Replace all exterior doors, including any deteriorated
frames and sills.
f. Remove entire structure covering entry and steps to front
door, including all supporting materials.
g. Replace all interior wallboard or fiberboard wall material
and interior ceilings which show water damage or other
cracking.
h. Replace sagging ceiling in kitchen.
i.
Repair bathroom walls
bathroom tub area.
and replace wallcoverings in
j. Replace ceiling joists and rafter supports in the bathroom
and in the kitchen.
-3-
k. Replace deteriorated floor joists and foundation in the
northwest corner of the kitchen.
1. Restore ventilation to the crawl-space and replace the
access window to that crawl-space.
m. Install adequate overcurrent protection for conductors and
install proper size fuses. Complete wiring of house and
check system and repair or replace materials as needed.
Install one smoke detector per building level.
n.
Remove one
circuit.
outlet to the laundry branch electrical
o. Restore all existing utilities including gas, electric and
water and repair all deficiencies of the systems.
p.
Demonstrate
and adequate
adequate.
via testing the heating plant that it is safe
and replace heating plant if not safe and
q. Restore furnace chimney to safe condition.
r. Install an adequate vent in the kitchen sink and correct
the waste line.
s. Replace the toilet and bathtub.
t. Replace the water supply pipe to the bathroom with proper
sized pipe. Replace undersized water pipe in other areas
of the house and complete existing drain, waste and vent
piping to Code.
u. Insulate repaired wall cavities and underinsulated ceiling
spaces with fiberglass insulation or equivalent and
vapor-retarder.
v. Cover floors with carpet or other appropriate flooring
material.
w. Install new handrail on stairway to second floor.
x. Repair rotten soffits and fascia on exterior of the
building.
y. Remove cistern and repair foundation.
z. Replace stairs to basement and construct handrail as
required by Code.
Said repairs are to be completed within ninety (90) days of the
date of the service of this Order on you. In the alternative, the
-4-
Building shall be razed or removed and the basement filled within
the ninety (90) day period. All work shall be performed in
compliance with the appropriate Building Codes and shall be
performed by licensed contractors. Permits must be obtained before
commencment of work.
4. ANSWER. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 463.18, you may serve an
Answer on the undersigned attorney for the City of Hopkins within
twenty (20) days of the date of service of this Order upon you,
denying such facts in this Order as are disputed.
5. FAILURE TO ANSWER OR COMMENCE CORRECTIVE ACTION. You are
futher notified that, unless the corrective action described in
Paragraph 3, above, is taken within the time specified in said
Paragraph 3 or an Answer is served upon the undersigned attorney
for the City of Hopkins and filed in the office of the Clerk of
District Court of Hennepin County, Minnesota within twenty (20)
days of the date of the service of this Order on you, a Motion for
summary enforcement of this Order by the City of Hopkins will be
made to the District Court of Hennepin County.
6. ASSESSMENT OF COSTS. You are further notified that all
costs incurred by the City shall be assessed against the Property
as a lien and collected in accordance with Minn. Stat. 463.21.
Dated:
, 1992
Nelson Berg, Mayor
-5-
Dated:
, 1992
VESELY, MILLER & STEINER
Jeremy S. Steiner, #12235X
Attorney for the City of Hopkins
400 Norwest Bank Building
1011 First Street South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
(612) 938-7635
-6-
C I T Y
o F
HOP K
N S
DATE:
January 15, 1992
TO:
Tom Anderson, Building Official
Bob Wilso~~ty Assessor
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Estimated Market Value of 702 7th Avenue South,
Hopkins
I physically inspected the above referenced property on
January 14, 1992 with Pat Graham, Housing Inspector for the
city of Hopkins.
The subject property is in poor condition. The exterior and
interior need extensive repairs. In my opinion, the current
improvements do not provide a positive contribution to
overall property value.
The subject property's estimated market value as of January
2, 1992 is $14,400. This is the estimated land value minus
razing costs of the existing improvements.
If repairs were made to the existing structure to make it
habitable and to satisfy the current code violations, I
would estimate the value of the structure after repairs at
$40,000 to $42,000. The estimated value of the structure
after repairs is approximately 95 to 100 percent of the bid
received by Pat Graham of $40,000 to make the necessary
repairs. The total estimated value of the land and
structure after repairs would be $58,000 to $60,000.
RW/rr
1010 First Street South, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 612/935-8474
An Equal Opportunity Employer
C I T Y
o F
HOP KIN S
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
January 12, 1992
TO:
Tom Anderson
FROM:
Nancy Anderson
SUBJECT:
Repair of nonconforming buildings
The attached ordinance refers to the repair of non-
conforming buildings. It is my understanding that if a
building is declared unsafe by the building inspector, the
cost of the repairs cannot be more than 50% of the value
after the repair.
C I T Y
o F
HOP It INS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
January 13, 1992
TO:
Tom Anderson
FROM:
Nancy Anderson
SUBJECT:
702 7th Avenue South
The house at 702 7th Avenue South is nonconforming for the
following reasons:
o south side yard is not the required 8 feet
o front yard setback is not the required 30
feet
Also the garage on the site is nonconforming for the
following reasons:
o garage does not have the 20 foot driveway as
required
o the west setback is not the required 3 feet
~il '~/1 '~IUUI /I /I II II ..// ~!U'U
~WLJ . si Location Map) <l ~
~ ~ ~ . 0 ~U ~rJO[]DD[JD
.~,' rl MAINSTREE ~. oj i oj oj ~ oj
~ <l ~ .; 5 !;' ~ ~I ~
?i ~[jlst OSI- <l:[JS' <! ~ ~ ,," CD
Central ,_ ,L'
~ Po,' ~ ~"c ~,~~
~ ~ 3 rd
I
I
r
1
I
I
I
I:
I,
I
L
r
/'"
/'.
I
I:.
f
I
l<
1",-
, ,
I
L
(,
f
t'
~:.:,.
L'.
1"
L:
I::', '
/1
c::r
~
2
o
I-
w
Z
Z
~
2W
LLi
~
;"W.~
~~(
i 241
: R22W 251
:2
:0
.1-
.<9
2
r
(fJ
SI S. 18 : ~
c::r
z
/. 8
J ;
1'@
'.l"".' "':"'" 0"" ~""
.' R~2 W 25130
36131
2
W
-'
<9
0::
o
ST.
T 117N R22W
~
26J25
en
ST. S.
Cf)
c.ri
0::
Cl c.ri
6th >-
w
-'
-'
u..i <:!
~ > LLi
:>.:: ~
0::
u) <t
a.
ST. ~t
w
\ ~
\
\~. .c
~t<>m
"
uJ
>
<t
tt,
1'-'
:J
e -
\..,{\ ::t
.c ..c
~ 7th ~
N. LANDMARK
TR.
S. LANDIt,..q
~RK TR.
W~~ J WESTBROOKE
~~EL RD..
~J
TRAILW::=JOOD N.,
TRAILWOOD S
~ .
10th ST. S. J
-'
I-
-'
W
LL
. .... ,'.:;..,
: :';- ';:...':' ....q', SMETANA:, : ',':, ':' DR. :'.':';'::::' '...':, , ,::,,-:, ,::,
~( 'I
J
MINNETONKA
S
~,' 4 'j. '"
." ,
~
.
.
':,.
.'
,~
Hopkins City Code (Zoning)
520.01
(Revised 1-3-88)
Section 520 -Zoning: general provisions
520.01.' Application. Subdivision 1. Minimum standards. The prov~s~ons of this code
are the minimum requirements for the promotion of the public health, safety, morals,
and welfare. Where the conditions imposed by any provision of this code are either
more restrictive or less restrictive than comparable conditions imposed by any other
law, ordinance; statute, resolution, or regulation, the regulations ,which are more
restrictive or which impose higher standards or requirements prevail.
Subd. 2. General rule. No structure shall be erected, converted, enlarged,
reconstructed or altered; and no structure or land shall be used for any,purpose nor
in any manner which is not in conformity with the provisions of this code.
Subd. 3. Annexation. When land is proposed to be annexed to the city, the
commission shall hold a public hearing to determine zoning of the land. The result of
the hearing, along with a recommendation, shall be presented to the city council. In
the event of annexation proceedings becoming' final before the permanent zoning is
determined, the annexed area shall be placed in the R-l-D district and such
classification is an interim category pending permanent classification.
Subd. 4. Flood plain. The development of all land which is within the
designated flood plain of Miimehaha Creek or Nine Mile Creek shall conform to the
terms of this code and the requirements of the appropriate Watershed District.
(Amended Ord. No. 87-601)
520.03. Non-conforming uses and structures. Subdivision 1. Grandfather. Any
obstruction or structure or use lawfully existing upon August II, 1966 which would not
be permitted under the same standards may be ,continued as a, non-conforming use at the
size and in the manner of operation existing upon August 11, 1966, except as herein
specified.
l~~~'~'~~:~~:'~~JZ~E.a'irT~~~~~For'afion~;) Nothirig in this subsection prevents modernizing
or repairing of a structure ""when'said structure is declared unsafe by the building
inspector, providing the ,necessary repair shall not constitute more than 50% of fair
market value of such structure after such repair.
Subd. 3. Change in use. When lawful non-conforming use of any structure or
land in any district has been changed to 'a conforming use. it may not thereafter be
changed to any non-conforming use. A lawful non-conforming use in or on any location
may be changed to a different non-conforming use provided such new use is permitted in
the zoning, classification applicable to such location or such new use is more
restrictive and if a more restrictive use is selected, the location shall not return
to the previous less restrictive use.