Laserfiche WebLink
' ,� <br />• <br />� <br />� <br />r <br />Sept�er 6, 1967 <br />CASE: <br />363-67 <br />APPLICANT: H. 8� Val. J. Roth�child, Inc. <br />410 Degr ee of Honer� Bui I�i ng <br />St. Paul <br />LOCATION: East of I-iaml►ne Avenue between Juclith Street and <br />County Road C-2 <br />ACTION REQ�JESTED: Appr�oval of Spec�iaf U�e Pe��mit for `�nned Residential <br />Developme�t and Variances to Densi�y and Setback <br />Requirements <br />P'LANNING CONSfDERATIONS- <br />1. At the last meeti ng ot thn Planni ng Commi ss� on, i t�vas recommended by th� <br />Commission that the Appl�cant's proposal to r�zone the "R-2" pr�perty to <br />"R-6" �hown on the sketch at the ieft�. be deniecio 'That propasal included <br />the developmenf of 44 townhouse5 on the p�riphery of the block across the <br />streat from existing s�ngie-famFly residenceso One o� the obvious liabiliries <br />inherent in that plan 'NQS the c�nsidernble number ci cc�r; and resulting traffic <br />produced by the 44 unirs, afi of whic.h traffie would ha��_ been on Judith, <br />Huron, and County Road C-2 � <br />2� ff the pr�perties now zcned "R-2" were to b� developeci with duplexes, 36 <br />units could be construc:ted. TI-�us, the.re remain} ine same pro�iem, theugh <br />to a lesser degree, wirh respect to the Fraffic and the drivewcay access off <br />uf the r�esidential orier-,ted street�. <br />3. At th� last meeting� it v as suggesfec� by f�,e Ccmmi�s�on thaF anather apuroach <br />might be taken eliminating al1 cleve{c�pment along the r�es�dential streefis <br />and confin�ng the uni,s to enartments Qriented entirely toward Hamline Avenue, <br />Resi�ents in attendance ot the meeting indieated the�r inrere�t ir, p��suing <br />fih�s ideo further, though tl�,e appl�c.onr wa� nof ce�'tain that he desired if � <br />The Applicant's a�chitect has p�eNcrred a develo�ment plan on lhis basiso <br />whic'i includes 154 ur,�t; with the �ema�ning graur�d *o rhe easr, nnrth� and <br />so�th Ior,dscaped and g�aded �c� os to create a�ermanent �pen �raaC� toward <br />the single-fam:iy res�der,r:� Uffec•tedo <br />4. We feel this pfan has cc�r�5iderable mer�r, tf�cugh it �r�crea�es th? numk�.er of <br />apo,rtment �n�t5 iU C7�F3fGxif�OfPI•r the SamE �s under fihe prev�ous plan (�nc•luc�ing <br />rhe townhouse�;� `v"de wc��l�i yvyge�f fr'�at i�te inCreG�;ed �umb�er in apartments <br />(48 add�t�onol} is not ��gnif!Cc7rltly diSCErrtOi3l�, onc� ci���� in fact more ef'fectively <br />;creen the shopp�ng Ci"antE:r frcJrn :ingle-fomi ly areU:. <br />