My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission_1973
FalconHeights
>
Committees and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
197x
>
1973
>
Planning Commission_1973
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2009 10:24:22 AM
Creation date
7/17/2009 10:11:26 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
78
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• <br />M E M 0 <br />Date: 25 October 1973 <br />To: Village Council <br />Village of FalconeHeights <br />°: Re: .Public Hearing for Rezoning Application of <br />Nick Pothen, 24 October 1973 <br />Present: Nick Pothen, George Plant, Mrs'. R. F. Berdie, Robert Blomberg, <br />Leo Ohman, A. J. Schwantes, James Lammers, Charles'Stone, and <br />17 Falcon Heights residents. <br />By; James'I. Lammers <br />Mr. Pothen presented his application to rezone two lots located on North Hamline <br />immediately south of Roselawn. The lots are 76.5 feet wide by-132 feet deep with <br />an area of approximately 1,000 square feet. <br />Mr: Pothen proposes building one duplex on each lot, each unit having an area of <br />about 800 sq. ft. plus a single garage. Building would be no more than tg feet <br />in height (somewhat less than the adjacent single family homes). Corner lot <br />. would face Roselawn and second lot would face Hamline.,-It would appear"that <br />set back requirements could be met if the units are revised somewhat.'-Lot size <br />falls short of the required 12,500 square foot requirement. <br />Mr. Pothen requests rezoning because he feels-property values on Hamline have <br />been lowered due to increased traffic.' Rezoning would boost sale price to a <br />more equitable figure. Mr. Pothen would retain ownership of one duplex and <br />sell the other. <br />" Adjacent residents presented a petition stating opposition with 24 signatures and <br />a letter from S: J. Fusco, expressing disadvantages of duplex development. <br />The residents raised general questions: <br />1. Has Mr. Pothen demonstrated a hardship imposed by the present zoning? <br />2. Is there a need for duplexes in the area? <br />3. Will rezoning the two lots set a prescedent which would allow additional <br />'duplexes to be built to the south along Hamline? <br />ft was moved, seconded and unanimously carried by the Planning Commission to <br />recommend that the application for rezoning be denied since hardship under the <br />present zoning was not established. The Planning Commission also. cited spot <br />zoning and increased traffic along Hamline as reasons'for recommending denial. <br />/ i,~` / <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.