Laserfiche WebLink
<br />• <br />M E M 0 <br />Date: 25 October 1973 <br />To: Village Council <br />Vi Rage of Falcon Heights <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 1. 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 19 feet <br />in height (somewhat less than the adjacent .single family homes). Corner tot <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. Lat 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 seta prescedent which would allow additional <br />duplexes to be built to the south along Hamline? <br />It 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.Y <br />;; f'~ <br />,/' ~:; <br />~~~ ~ ~~~~ <br />s~~~ <br />~,~ <br />_. ` <br />3 <br />