Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Regular Meeting Roseville Planning Commission <br />WednesdaYD December 1~ 1966 = 1:30 pomo <br /> <br />Members present~ Carpenterg Remsburg~ Nelsono Linebargero AndersonD Pope and Membrezo <br />Also present: DahlgrenD Odland and Grauelo <br /> <br />On motion by Anderson9 seconded by Nelson~ the minutes of the regular meeting of <br />November 2nd were approved as submittedo <br /> <br />Subject File 3S7d66 d Vadnais ConstructionOs request for a rezoning from a B=l to <br />Rd3 of property situated between old and new Highway 80 south of County Road C=20 <br /> <br />Mr. Frank Husnikg president of Vadnais Constructionp presented his request and stated <br />that he hoped to construct two buildingsp each containing 36 units on the Rosevi11e <br />side and the garages on the St. Anthony side. Howeverp the land required on the <br />Roseville side for the 72 units is short 200215 square feet and Mro Husnik suggested <br />he may h,ve to change his plans and extend into Sto Anthony Village with one apartment <br />building. <br /> <br />It was evident that Mr. Husnik was somewhat confused about his requesto The Planning <br />Commission suggested that a rezoning was not necessary. All he needed to apply for was <br />a special use permit to construct apartment buildings in a B=l zone 0 It was finally <br />concluded that the matter be laid over to the next regular meeting to allow Mro Husnik <br />to revise his plans and make a further study of the proposed rezoningo <br /> <br />Subject File 3S9~66 d Klosterman Realty Rezoning for Cherokee Saleso Inco of the <br />property situated east of Cleveland Avenue between County Road B and Highway 360 <br /> <br />Mr. Cleason, attorney for Mrso Jaglowskip owner of part of the lando stated that the <br />land was to be used for an apartment complex and introduced Mro Oscar Joneso the <br />purchaser and developer of the property. The proposed plans showed the construction <br />of 144 units of one and two bedrooms and 36 town houseso <br /> <br />Some residents in the Gluek Lane areaD County Road B and Cleveland Avenue were strongRy <br />opposed to this proposalo Their main objections were the depreciation of their propertieso <br />traffic and the type of people residing in apartment buildingso <br /> <br />The members of the Planning Commission were of the opinion that the site plan could be <br />improved considerably. It was suggested that town houses could be located along the <br />east line of the subject property and have fewer but larger apartment buildings at the <br />west and north sides of the property along both the highways of Cleveland Avenue and <br />Highway 36. <br /> <br />The petitioner requested an extension of 60 days to make a restudy of the proposed pRans <br />with an effor~ to alter these plans to conform with some of the suggestions presented by <br />our planning consultant. <br /> <br />It was finally moved by Carpentero seconded by Pope to grant the petitioners the <br />additional time requestedo Roll Cal1~ Ayes (6) ~ Abstention (1) = Membre~o <br />