Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Tuesdav. Julv 12. 1994 11 :57:39 AM (612) 647-9326 <br /> <br />FAX TO: Michael Falk <br /> <br />FROM; T.R. Rykk.en <br />1697 Hamline Ave. N. <br />F~lcon Heights, MN 55113 <br />641-9326 <br /> <br />FIE: Planning file #2685, Sandra Kentrield,1700 N. Hamline Ave. <br /> <br />As we discussed in our telephone conversation yesterday, I have several <br />concerns with respect to the proposed rezoning. I would appreciate these <br />being conveyed to the Planning Commission, <br /> <br />1) It is a deeper incursion of commercial property into a residential <br />neighborhood than on any of the other corners of Hamline and larpenteur. On <br />the West side of HamlineAve. in Falcon Heights, only the corner lots are <br />commercial. On the S. E. corner in 51. Paul, the first two lots are commercial. <br /> <br />While a beauty shop may be a reasonable transition Into the residential area to <br />the North, it will have a negative impact on those of us living aaoss the street if, <br />k1" example, there are signs or parking lot lights that remain on all night. <br /> <br />2) It can exacerbate an already bad parking situation. Currently, employees of <br />the other businesses on the ROliJeville corner use the Hamline on-street parking <br />in front of our homes during business hours (arriving at 7am and not moving <br />until 5pm). This prevents visitors or residents of these homes from having <br />reasonable access to parking during the day. <br /> <br />While the proposed development does include a large parking area, I would <br />Uke to have some form of regulation of on-street parking to prevent those <br />parking space from being "hogged" by business employees. Perhaps a two <br />hour limit during business hours would be appropriate. <br /> <br />3) At some time, the owner of the proposed business will want to sell and it is <br />possible that a potential buyer will want the property (as in the current situation) <br />1a" some other use than originally intended. <br /> <br />While I understand that the PUD zoning designation is intended to limit <br />alternate uses, I have a concern that "the camel's nose will now be under the <br />tent." I'm not aure what additionally can be done other than leaving the zoning <br />as is, <br /> <br />T.R. <br />