CC 08-14-1967 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I~lnutes of Regu~ar Meeting of Council - Aug. 14, 1967 - cont. . Donald Chal"les, 1920 Jerro~d Avenue: In favor of rezoning; thi this could be located in an adjacent village and Arden HilJS residents would stili have to look at It. C~erk Lorraine Stromquist: Rose and Wilbur Milton, 3731 New Brighton Road, cal led In their approval of the rezoning, providing the complex Is of high quality. Mrs. Alfred Peterson, 3242 Lake Johanna Blvd.: feels very strongly that the village should be kept for private residences. Roy Anderson, 1910 Stowe Ave.: Had already presented the peti- tion opposing apartments and stated that It represented the majority of nearby residents. He stated that the proximity of the freeways Is not so. New Brighton Road is very narrow; the traffic would flow past a prime recreat!onal area In the village (Perry Park>. The pro- posed site for the development Is desirable for single family residents - consld&r the Perry Plat, which formerly housed goats, pigs and mink, there are now homes at this location In the S30-40 thousand class that are well main- tained. The area across the street from the proposed site, which is in New Brighton, is not zoned commercial as stated, but is being used with a special use permit. He believes apartment dwei lers lack pride In the surroundings; the recreational areas are already over extended. Mr. Anderson uulja~as the people In Arden Hills will absorb taxes rather than have apartments. Mayor Nethercut read the petition whIch stated "We, the under- signed property o~ner~ ?n~/0r resIdents of Arden Hills, are opposed to the construction of apartment type dwellings at County Road E and New Brighton Road. We hereby petition the Arden Hills Village Council to deny any permit for the construc- tion of apart~ent buildings at the above mentioned site." There were 91 signers to the petition. Ward Hanson, l538 Glenhlll Road: (member of the Planning Com- mission> Believes it !s not the policy of the Village to outlaw multiple housing; explained the difference between rezoning and special use. He stated that according to Village Planner Carl Dale, a berm Is not a cure-all. He also requested the Clerk to strike from the records Mr. Carlson's mention of the proposed zoning map as this was never adopted by the Council. Arthur L. Erickson, ~935 Grant Road: His home Is located 20 to 30 feet higher than the proposed site and would be looking at the tops of the buildings; does not believe Arden Hills should be compared with New Brighton. Arthur Geske, 1886 Gienpaul Avenue: New Brighton Is saturated with apartments, and their taxes are higher than ours. He believes these apartments would cause a traffic hazard as there are not sidewalks and the people would be walking In the streets to the beach, etc. Dr. Whiting, 1191 Tit ier Lane: What kind of an Image of Arden Hills do we want? This would start a precedent and he would like to have Arden Hills housing remain single fami I y. Victor Pomeranke, 2027 Glenpaul Avenue: Would like to see some nice apartment buildings In Arden Hills; would like to stay In the vii lage without maintaining a yard. Carl Christianson, 3122 Shorewood Drive: Taxes from apartments are not a Santa Ciaus to the Village; he worked as an assessor and has had experience with apartment owners In flnanciau dlfficultles requesting !ower valuations on their properties. Lawrence McGough. 1666 Lake Johanna Boulevard: Should have evidence That the ~tte is not suitable for single family residences. There I~ nothing In the old Ordinance binding quality; the construction cost per square foot has already dropped from $12.00 to Sli.OO. The proposed utility build- Ing Is not adequate for all the uses proposed. He believes Arden Hills has adequate tax base without apartments. . -4-