pf_00363 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�� � � CA5E: �4PPL1Cs�Ni: L�CATION: � 363-67 H. 8� Val J. Rothschild 818 �liinnesota ��ilding St. Paul, Mlinnesota � East of H�amline �v�nue between Counz� Roa�i C-2 and Judeth Avenue ACTlOi� REQUESTED: Re;coning from "R-2'' to "R-6" PLAi�NiNG �CaNSIDERATlONS: i. Thcsugh the property is known as H. & dal J. Ron�hschild praperty, the c�pplicati�ra for rezoning ar�d fih� c,urrently (isted owner i�Wam[ine /�.ss�iatc�s, a pr�rtnershup with offic�s at 818 Minnesota Bui Iding. Th� applicant proposes to rezone the shaded area show✓n on the ske.�tch at the l�fr from "R.-?." (dupl�xes) t� "R-6" (townhousas) far tht<= purp�se of eleveloping c� plar:;;ed unit deveiopmG;,t ccansisting of apartment structurss in the "R-3" Ic�nd and a grouping of townhouses in a proposed "R-b" sfirip surrounding the c�partmenfi�s on the narth�csa'st, c�nd soufh. 2. The property was initially zaned in about 1961 at the rer�u�st of the H. � Val J. Rathschild C;ampany with the promised intent to develop apartments on the '°R�3" property an,d duplexes on thz property now in questioii. Dus to the lack of adec�uate storm sewer facilities, #he development of this property was not po�sibls at that timee 3. As you all know, rec�nt storm s�:wer develapmerit �nables the dev�lopmer�t of the property at this pc�int in time. The applica�it has prepared a plan far the caren, which propos�s apartmeni` structures on �the "R-3" property and tawn�ouses on the pe,riphera'I property. Analysi:� of this plan wauld indicate th4t the apartm�nfis appear ta be well desigr�ed and are workahle as proposed. However, there is some c�uestion as to the desiqn and the reasonableness of the tow-nh�ouses as currently proposed. It should be noted at this �oint that the Counci I did not refer the planr►ed unit developnient for "special use �errr�tt" to i�h,e Planning ':ommission for fiheir consideratian. lt wovld appear that by this action, the'Counc� I is indicating its oppositi�n to�the proposed change fram dupiex�s fio �ownhouses. �. lrrespective of such cacfion, we fee! that the pr��posed plan ifor the �ntire area is a facior in the consideratian of thE; zaning question. The bur�en ^f proof that the proposed zoning is more reasonable than the existi�g zoning lies with the dev�loper. The plans thus, r�ep�esent a part af the developers d�emonstration �hat the razoning request is reasonable. We have me:t with the developer regarding the propose�d town6iouse design and have indicat�d our opinion that the 16 foot wide townhauses proposed €�nc� the arrangemeni� of the parking and garages are v�ry qu�sfionable in our opinion. Th� fact that i�he H. 8� Val J. Rothschild Com�pany obtair�ed fhe prPviaus