My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_641202
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
196x
>
1964
>
pm_641202
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:31:32 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 6:30:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
12/2/1964
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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 />Minutes Roseville Plmlning Commission <br />Regular Meeting, Wednesday, December 2, 1964, 7:30 P.M. <br /> <br />Members present: Nelson, Soike, Anderson, Sigford~ Lund, Linebarger and Membrezo <br />Trustee Grauel, Planner Dahlgren and Public Works Director Odland were also present. <br /> <br />Chairman Nelson arrived a little late and Membrez called the meeting to order. Sigford <br />moved, Soike seconded, to approve the minutes of November 4th as submitted. Carried by <br />unanimous vote 0 <br /> <br />File 64-240 - Sheehy Rezoning - Dellwood and Josephine Road. Mr. Rahn representing <br />Sheehy stated that 5 apartment buildings containing 55 I-bedroom apartments, 60 2-bedroom <br />and 2 duplexes will be built. He further stated that the Town Houses they first pro- <br />posed to build on this property could not be adequately financed, therefore, they now <br />want to construct apartment buildings. <br /> <br />He reported that the soil conditions due to high water table did not permit the con- <br />struction of single homes. <br /> <br />There was considerable opposition by a group of residents living in the area. They <br />complained that notices of the hearing were not received and they wanted a little more <br />time to study the proposed plans submitted by Rahn. Soike moved, Anderson seconded, <br />that the matter be laid over to a special meeting scheduled on December 14th at 5: 00 P. M. <br />and that notices be mailed to all residents within 250 feet of the subject property. <br />Carried by a unanimous vote. <br /> <br />File 64-225 - Chandler-Wilbert Vault Company rezoning from R-l to I-I. Mr. Chandler <br />submitted a plan in color showing how the subject property will eventually be developed. <br />It showed some screening in the rear of the property to protect the property owners on <br />Dellwood Avenue. Mrs. Pond, Mr. Beisang and Mrs. Mosley were among some of the property <br />owners who opposed the granting of this rezoning, the general feeling being that it will <br />depreciate the value of their homes. It was the opinion, however, the set back regulations <br />of 1-1 classification would give sufficient protection. Nelson finally moved, Sigford <br />seconded, that we recommend the granting of this rezoning. Ayes: Nelson, Soike, Line- <br />barger, Sigford and Membrez.Nays: Lund and Anderson. <br /> <br />File 64-241 - Arthur Gluek rezoning from B-1 to B-2 of approximately 2 acres of property on <br />Highway 36 between Fairview and Cleveland. Mr. Dahlstrom president of Colonial Furniture <br />Company explained the kind of building he proposes to build on this property, the side and <br />rear of cement block construction, the leading and unloading in the rear, the estimated total <br />value to be approximately $200,000. Mr. Parranto, sales agent, also urged the Commission <br />to recommend the rezoning. Mr. Curtis, Mr. Malone and Mr. Flaherty, residing on the south <br />side of the highway objected quite strenuously to grant the zoning. Nelson moved, seconded <br />by Lund that we recommend the request be denied for the following reasons: <br /> <br />1. The rezoning of this small piece of land for the sale of furniture <br />would establish a precedent with respect to future land use in this area. <br /> <br />2. It must be considered as a spot zoning <br /> <br />3. The development of the area north of Highway 36 as a pattern of typical <br />commercial strip would not be in the best interest of the Village. <br /> <br />Motion carried by a unanimous vote. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.