Memo2MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 23, 1987
TO: Zoning and Planning Commission
FROM: Nancy S. Anderson NSA
SUBJECT: Variance at 525 Seventh Avenue South
Roberto & Peggy Hammeken
See staff report dated May 14, 1986 and memo from the
Hammekens. Last year the Zoning and Planning Commission and
the City Council recommended the approval of continuance to
allow the home of Roberto and Peggy Hammeken at 525 Seventh
Avenue South to remain a triplex for one year. Since last
year the Hammekens have started legal proceedings against
the realtors. As of this date there has been no settlement.
The Hammekens have vacated one apartment, which they are
using for their own use. They are requesting that they be
allowed to keep their home as a duplex until the resolution
of the legal proceedings or until they move or sell the
home.
TO: Planning and Zoning Committee
RE: 525 7th Ave. South {Lot 18 Block 47}
In May, 1982 we moved to Minnesota from Mexico City.
Roberto had been employed as a Marketing Manager and I was
previously employed by the American Embassy School. We had
decided that if we were ever to leave Mexico, we had to do
it at that time. We really did not anticipate that it would
be a difficult transition
We lived with my parents several months and could not find
full time employment. We both worked opposite schedules so
we wouln't have to place the girls in a day care situation.
We tried finding a place to rent, which was difficult
without job references and due to the fact that we had moved
from a foreign country We did have some money from the
sale of our previous house, so we employed a realator to
look for investment property. We placed several bids on
property and the third one resulted in the purchase of the
above property It was represented to us as a triplex and
we had no reason to doubt it. It had two furnaces, separate
meters for electricity etc. The house itself was in bad
shape but we thought that $72 000 was a good price for the
two apartments. We purchased the house in November of 1982
and moved in as soon as we finished painting, carpeting, and
wallpapering.
In March 1983, Roberto took a job as an assembler at CPT.
He received a promotion to supervisor after several months
and we felt that we would finally be able to get on our feet
financially. Well, CPT started doing poorly, and Roberto
had to take a demotion, and was then layed off in December
1984. During this time, we were very happy that we had made
the "wise" investment of rental property, since it was what
•
•
•
had sustained us during the difficult times.
Due to the prediction of a lay off, Roberto had enrolled at
Control Data Institute for a nine month intensive course in
Computer Programming. He started in December 1984. Once
again, the house was a blessing. I wouldn't have been able
to support a family of four, even though I was waitressing
and substitute teaching. During this time we had to use
all of our savings.
During the winter while Roberto was in school, we applied
for a low interest loan through the City of Hopkins. The
house desperately needs windows {some we cannot open, in the
winter they ice up on the inside, cold drafts in the winter,
even with plastic, and the wood is rotten }, roof {it leaks },
and siding. We had also decided during this winter that we
wanted to keep the house for security and supplemental
income.
In March, Nancy Anderson called to let us know that the
inspectors would be out to check the house to see
what home improvements needed to be done. We had several
people come out to give us estimates on windows, before the
inspectors came out. It was not until after the inspection
was made that we found out that our house was not a triplex.
We found out that the house was really a single family home
with two apartments {not legal} in the basement. We
received an eviction letter from the city. We had no idea,
previous to applying for the low interest loan that we were
living in a building with a list of violations dating back
to 1970.
At the present time, we do have a lawyer {Ron Goldser}
representing us. We have since had an appraissel done on
the property, and were told that if we were to put it on the
market today, without making the suggested repairs, we would
have to list it between 70,000 and 72,000 which is less than
we paid for it in 1982. When we bought the property we put
10,000+ as a down payment. Since then we have recarpeted,
insulated and vented the attic, put in a driveway, bought a
new stove, refrigerator, washer and dryer, put in new floor,
new wall coverings and drapes, panelled, and put a new
ceiling in one of the apartments, just to mention a few
things.
At this time, we would like to ask for a varience, to
continue to rent the apartments, which was the reason that
we purchased this house. We are unable to maintain a good
credit standing, without the $570.00 that we receive each
month. We have never had any complaints from any of the
neighbors about our renting the units, and it has always
been public knowledge. We would really appreciate it if you
would grant us varience.
Roberto L.
iY
Peggy A. Hammeken
•
•
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT.NO. VN86 -6
BACKGROUND:
Name of Applicant:
Address of Property:
Present Zoning:
Nature of Request:
Reason for Request:
CITY OF HOPKINS
VARIANCE REQUEST - 525 -7th AVENUE SOUTH
May 14, 1986
PURPOSE: To review and recommend action on a variance request to allow a
triplex to continue.
Roberto and Peggy Hammeken
525 - 7th Avenue South
R -3
Variance for lot area per family, lot
area and minimum lot width
Bought house as a triplex and need it for
income.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a triplex to continue. This
home was built as a single family dwelling and converted illegally to a tri-
plex. A 2 -4 family dwelling is permitted in an R -3 District, however, the
applicant does not have the minimum requirements to allow a triplex.
R -3 District Subject Lot
Lot area 16,000 sq.ft. 6,400 sq.ft.
Lot area per family 2,600 sq.ft. 2,133 sq.ft.
Lot width 150 ft. 50 ft.
A single family dwelling is permitted on the subject lot,
427.07 states a lot of record existing on the effective
date of this ordinance located in the R -2, R -3, R -4, R -5,
or R -6 Districts which does not meet the minimum require -
ments set forth in this Ordinance as to area and dimen-
sions for the District in which it is located, may be used
for a single family attached dwelling provided that the
width of such lot is not less than 40 feet and said lot
contains at least 5,000 square feet.
Ordinance 427.23 states that variances shall be approved only by circumstances
unique to the property under consideration would cause undue hardship to owner.
ANALYSIS: It is unfortunate that the applicant has been put in this situation,
however economic hardship is not a valid reason for granting a variance. There
is a long history on this residence as to being an illegal triplex, the Housing
Inspector has ordered the apartments in the basement to be vacated several times
in the past. Along with having several zoning violations, the subject home also
has building code violations because it is a triplex. The problem is a complex
• PLANNING REPORT NO: VN86 -2
Page 2
one, however, the City should not be put into the position of granting variances
for economic reasons.
RECOMMENDATION: I recommend denial of the variance. The following Findings of
Fact are suggested should the Commission recommend approval of a resolution deny-
ing the request:
1) Lack of hardship
6 )1\ A9,0
Nancy S Anderson
Analysty Community
Development
Hardship A.
L PurOmc - ASeck kAire proper Et
List of Homeowners
Contacted by Applicant C.
FOR VARIANCE APPLICATION ONLY
NOTE: The purpose of a variance is to provide relief to a property owner when
the strict enforeement of the Zoning Ordinance would cause an undue hard-
ship to the property owner or deny reasonable use of the property.
Hardship to the applicant is the crucial test. Variances will be granted
only in unusual situations which were not foreseen when the Zoning Ordin-
ance was adopted. Economic situations are seldom unique and are rarely
considered a valid hardship.
Explain why strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would cause undue
hardship:
in 1G�Z QS c,
April '86,
but n Ww trl-crv.s- . an . A4 -his
- 1 - tme tAn. -CGU.rrs c.ut we hrwl rkr ��l�o�� trtplcx. -the.
Prv(cer for +tlCoY, -,� and ne xrcorne cw.lk phis Po 4 ' �o
SNppork -Car ;)Ny of cc-aur .
Conditions 6.
What are the special conditions (shape of lot, exceptional topographic
conditions, etc.) of this request that are unique to this property and
do not apply generally to other properties in the district?
LC)f. S 1 l- t- I �Sj C I� dDi v F_ 2 T a 10 (L L-
- Owe. c -ac_ ZF {4.40 if:LJ >4 7C' 00, . 1 1rF- 7 - 2 -
S l
Submit a list of names and addresses of neighbors contacted.
(120 -159)
g• 24
m 23' .
2 -
1 5(97)
�5 - "
22
14(34 (21)
2 = (26)3
(27) 7
8)
1 1
'1 I I (9)
/I I i
2I t
r 1I 1
•
T - - - - -44
r 1. 1
1 1 24 11 - - � 1
I 1 I 23 1 2 l
I . II : I v �o
II ' 3
II 4 t .
II 5 1�
22
21
20
19 1 16
18 I `TI)
17 8, 1 1 I
9 1
110 52 I
11 11 I
I I
3�� 12 I I
Ti
92
1
2
I 9
3 i
4 1
1
(79 -126) . ty
90 =9 /F
(118 )
LOT 7
•
5TH-
24 T1
11 .
"23 II
22 11
21 11 4
20 11
19 H
I
18 11
17 11
16 11 4
15 II 10 •
14 I I`
I 1
____
0 2 oao)(1)1
so
X9(19) (2) 2
(36)2
C37 -
(38) 4 h
c39 ---) 5
O = �
W h
(41) 7 15 (15)
(42) 89 cri
(43) g 14 U4)
(44) 1 h 13 (
(45)11 ►�
(46)12 — v.
M
18 (18)
160
12 (12)
11(11)
( 3
(4) 4
(5) 5
(6)
(7) 7
(8) 8
(9) 9
(10)10
o 13 (33) (22) 2
12(3 2K23)3
11 a 1 ?Qc24)4
IO(3ca(25) 5
16 1 • 9
15 . ' �' 10
14 (. (103)„
13 ` f
) 12