|
FALCON HEIGHTS PLANNING CON'iN1ISSTGN
<br />October 10, 1972
<br />PRESENT Blomberg, Lammers, Larsen, Ohman, Plant, Schwantes, Berdie and
<br />Trustees Black and Ecklund
<br />ALSO PRESET'T Art Lindig, Fred. J. Lindig,`Ralph Gullickson, Mr. and I~~rs, Allan
<br />Kraemer, Patrick Garvey, Connie~Allen, Audrey French,.C. M. Troge,
<br />Hetty Sommers, Martha Sommers, Joseph Bianchi,.Gene.Gennaro, Joan
<br />Gennaro, Florian and Nlary Ann Lauer..
<br />A public hearing to consider the application from Mr. Art Lindig to rezone Lot 3,
<br />Block 1, Lindigts 3rd addition (88.385' x 289.45~)`from R-3 to R-2 was called to
<br />order by Chairman Plant at 8:10 p.m., October 10, 1972, at the Village Hall,
<br />~;1
<br />Ntr. Lindig's lot abuts an R-3 district and he would. ,like to have 3t re-zoned to -
<br />R-2 in order that a double bungalow could be built on it. '(Re residents resent`
<br />P
<br />at the meeting spoke in opposition to the re-zoning.: Their statements covered
<br />-.the following pointsz'1) rezoning the lot jaould lower the value of the neigh-
<br />boringhomes; 2) a double bungalow might lead to traffic problems with pang
<br />on the street, as the bungalow might be rented to as many as .four students in
<br />each unit; 3),the re-zoning of one lot might lead to requests for r®-zoning of ."
<br />other lots near it. ~
<br />The Funning Commission members found it difficult to appraise the results of
<br />re-zoning without a clearer picture of just how the lot would be used. If a
<br />definite sketch of the type of structure to be built were presented, the decision
<br />of whether or not to re-zone would be more meaningfully made. Hence, Mr. Larsen
<br />moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Village Council that, they
<br />deny Mr. Lindigts request to re-zone unles9 he could show ghat the plans for the
<br />building to be built are such that it would not depreciate the value of the
<br />.adjacent lots. The motion passed. with only Mr. Ohman voting against it.
<br />However, after discussion of the motion, it was rescinded, and a new motion
<br />made. Nir. Larsen moved that the Commission recommend to the Village Council that
<br />they deny the application of Nir. Lindig to re2one his lot from R-3 to R-2. The
<br />motion passed unanimously.
<br />The public hearing. was then dismissed, and the Planning Commission met to discuss.
<br />the r.:unicipal liquor store. Mr. Black read wo letters, one from the architect,:
<br />dated Aug. 30, 1972, and one from the Village attorney, dated Cctoher 10, 1972.
<br />Both letters concerned deviations from the Village ordinance in connection with
<br />adapting '~eber's Inn for a liquor store... The Planning Commission `discussed the `
<br />problems and took action to recommend to the Village Council that they approve
<br />the extensior, cf non-conforming uses as indicated in the attorneys letter, as well
<br />as approving the variance for parking spaces: from 12 to 11 as indicated. by the
<br />attorney.
<br />Two additional recommendations were made to the'Council. Inasmuch as the per-
<br />mitted uses and the conditional: uses for a B-2 Retail Business District are
<br />carefully listed in Sec. 11.1 and Sec. 11..2 of the Ordinance, the Commission ~!
<br />recommended the addition of "liquor sales' to Sec. 11.1. The Commission. also '~?
<br />recommended that scme type of screening be put on the east side of the parking
<br />.lot for the store.
<br />,,
<br />Respectfully submitted,.
<br />Frances,S. Berd.ie, Sec.
<br />;I
<br />~->- ~~
<br />..., , ,
<br />
|