Planning Commission_1969 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

w ~''ALCON HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting of June 19, 1969 PRESENT : Plant, Blomberg, Berdie and Trustee Black ABSENT Larsen, Libby, Ohman and Schwantes ALSO PRESENT :Mrs. Dilger of Spring Co. Realtors, Nir. Simon (Mr. Pagenkopf~s son-in-law), Mr. Don Brozen, 1707 N, Hamline, Mr. Harry Bruneke, N. Albert, and three other persons from the immediate neighbor- hood of 1679 N. Hamline. A public hearing to consider the application from Nor. Robert B. Pagenkopf to rezone 1679 N. Hamline (listed as Lot 7, Block-Larpenteur Villas., South 50 feet of Lot 7, except the west 100 feet thereof) from R-1 to B-2 was called to order by Chairman Plant at 8:10 p.,., June 19, 1969. As Mr. Pagenkopf was not present, Mrs. Dilger a realtor, presented his case for him. She stated that the house at 1697 N. Hamline was originally built as a tea house and hence was not well designed for a one family home. As a result of the style of the house and also of the noise and traffic in the area, Mr. Pagenkopf has been having trouble finding a buyer. He is interested in selling to Mr. and Mrs. Richard Ortt who would live in the house and operate a two-operator beauty parlor there. The beauty parlor would be open from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. six days per week. Mrs. Dilger estimated that there wouldntt be more than four or five customers at one time and so there would never be over six cars parked, and they could be parked in the driveway. The lot is 50~ by 200, and the house is 2300 square feet in size. The five neighbors present indicated they were opposed to the re-zoning. They want the area kept residential. Mr. Brozen, the immediate neighbor to the north, felt that re-zoning would hurt the value of his property as residential pro- perty and that he would in all likelihood feel it necessary to request re- zoning when he sold. He presented a petition, signed by 13 neighbors living within 300 feet of the affected property, which opposed the rezoning. On a motion by Berdie, seconded by Blomberg, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend to the Village Council that the request for rezoning the above property from R-1 to B-2 be denied. (Mr. Plant planned to poll the absent members of the @ommission by telephone to assure a quorum vote,) The Commission made this recommendation for the following reasons: 1. Such rezoning is not compatible with the intents and purposed of Ordinance No. 64 as stated in the introduction: "This Ordinance is adopted for the purpose of promoting orderly development of the residential, business, industrial, recreational and public areas." Spot rezoning of this lot could easily lead to requests for other spot rez oning. 2. If the property were rezoned to B-2, it would not comply with the