My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02418
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2400
>
pf_02418
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 11:51:22 AM
Creation date
12/8/2004 11:31:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2418
Planning Files - Type
Rezoning
Address
1935 CLEVELAND AVE N
Applicant
HO, FRANKLIN
Status
DENIED
PIN
172923140082
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
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 />February 12, 1992 <br /> <br />Roseville City Planning Commission <br />City Hall <br />2660 Civic Center Drive <br />Roseville, MN 55113 <br /> <br />Dear Sirs: <br /> <br />This letter is written in opposition to the request by Mr. Franklin Ho to rezone <br />the property at 1935 North Cleveland Avenue from R-1 to R-2. <br /> <br />Our reasons for opposing the rezoning of the property is that we feel that such <br />an action would lead to a degradation of the character and stability of the <br />surrounding neighborhood in the years ahead. Rezoning the property would be <br />a short run solution to the owner's problem, but at the expense of longer run <br />problems for neighbors who have been long time residents of the area. <br /> <br />We have lived at 2100 Draper Avenue for almost 7 years and have shared <br />Healy Pond with our neighbors and the former residents at 1935 North <br />Cleveland. We anticipate that a multiple-family dwelling on the pond could <br />lead to a disruption of a valuable natural resource, since these would be <br />tenants with little or no long term interests in the wildlife and quality of the <br />habitat. <br /> <br />Secondly, once rezoned the intentions of future owners of the property would <br />be highly uncertain. A future owner may not be as selective in accepting <br />tenants with the obvious consequence that the neighborhood would be <br />adversely affected. <br /> <br />In summary we feel that an R-1 zoning of the property is conducive to <br />sustaining the current character and stability of the neighborhood and adjoining <br />natural resources. An R-2 zoning would threaten that neighborhood, one that <br />has provided a valued quality of life in spite of the perimeter roads and plans <br />for future road ev lopment. <br /> <br /> <br />ary Pederson <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.