My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_720607
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
197x
>
1972
>
pm_720607
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:31:50 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:13:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
6/7/1972
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.
/
14
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 />- 6 - <br /> <br />Planning File 629 - Zimmerman Realty request for rezoning from R-l to B-1B, Special Use <br />Permit and Variance to height limitation and setback at <br />2350 North Snelling Avenue. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Mr. Eddelman, attorney representing the Verde Haven neighborhood, requested that the <br />hearing be continued until a Jater date so that he could have additional time to pre- <br />pare, particularly with respect to the flowage easement. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />Mr. Kellett moved and Mr. V. Johnson seconded, that the Commission conduct the public <br />hearing as scheduled. Roll Call, Ayes: Eagles, Kellett, G. Johnson, V. Johnson and <br />Pope. Nays: Membrez and Demos. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Mr. John Daubney, attorney representing Zimmerman Realty, Qriefly reviewed the history <br />of the application. <br />Mr. George Rafferty made a slide presentation which depicted the first proposal, the <br />second proposal and the third proposal which is now before the Commission. <br />The third proposal includes a 7 story motel, restaurant and pool, in a first-phase con- <br />struction with all on-grade parking. The second phase of the development will include <br />a 7 story office building which will be connected to the motel-restaurant complex and <br />parking will be ramped. The sea of asphalt which was opposed by the Commission with <br />respect to the second proposal has been greatly reduced and the green area signifi- <br />cantly increased. The ramping of parking provides for this increase in green area. <br />Mr. Nobles who will operate the motel-restaurant indicated that at present, they are <br />anticipating only one pylon sign to be located on the southwestern portion of the pro- <br />perty with no signing on the face of the building. <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />Mr. Membrez indicated that he was very happy to see an improved landscaping plan and <br />the reduction in the ~sphalt area from the last proposal. <br />Mr. Eddelman, atto~ney representing the Verde Haven neigqborhood indicated that they <br />were very much concerned with the fact that the flowage easement has still not been <br />finally decided and will not until the Department of Natural Resources has made a deci- <br />sion. <br />Mr. Richard Fredlund of Nason, Wehmann, Chapman Associates, Inc., representing the <br />Verde Haven neighborhood, presented a letter to the Commission which indicates that the <br />Comprehensive Development Plan for the Village designates the future land use for the <br />property in question as multiple family. The proposed rezoning is in opposition to the <br />Village Comprehensive Plan standards. He indicated that it was their opinion that the <br />site should be developed for multiple family housing. He stated that the Metropolitan <br />Development Act (Weaver Bill) provides that multiple dwellings will produce a greater <br />community revenue than commercial development. <br />Mr. Eddelman indicated th~the neighbors recognized that the site cannot feasibly be <br />dev~loped as sdngle family, but that they also feel that the property should not be <br />developed as intensely as this proposal. They would recommend an intermediate use. <br />Mr. Eddleman indicated that there are five basic reasons why the neighbors are opposed <br />to the project. <br /> <br />1.) The development is too dense. <br /> <br />2.) Motel use increases the traffic hazard and congestion on County Road B-2. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.