pm_650804 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Meeting = Roseville Planning Commission WednesdaYD August 4D 1965 - 7:30 PoMo Members present: James NelsonD LinebargerD AndersonD Lo Ao Nelson and Membrezo Also present: DalhgrenD Grauel and Od1ando Lo Ao Nelson movedD James Nelson secondedD that the minutes of the July 7, 1965 meeting be approved as submittedo Roll Call = unanimouso File 65=280 Harlan Grayden RezoningD Development plan and special permit - property at N ,W, of Toll, 8D south of County Road Do A new attractive plan was submitted by Jim Borden representing Graydeno The general feeling of the Commission was that the proposed plans were suitable and desirable for the areao There was no one present opposing the proposal, Anderson moved. Jim Nelson secondedp to recommend the approval of the rezoningD Development Plans and Special permito Roll CallD unanimous 0 File 65=271 Mro DaubneYD representing the applicantD Roberts Construction. submitted a new proposal for the property situated at the southeast corner of Fulham Street and Terminal Road, The north portion of this piece of land is owned by George Harto The request is a rezoning from R=l to 1=10 The new plan involves the construction of two structures with access off Terminal Road only, They are to be used primarily for warehousing and light manufacturingo Similar buildings have been constructed by Roberts in the Village of Arden Hillso The proposal con- forms with all the setback regulations 0 The subject property had been considered for rezoning at prior meetings but were rejected because of lack of development plans and the parking too close to the adjoining property to the south, There were several homeowners residing on Highway 36 and Fulham Street at this meet= ing opposing the rezoning and they submitted a petition of 34 names stating the reasons of their objectionso Mro DahlgrenD planning consultant explained why he felt that the new proposal of constructing two buildings with the loading and un- loading to be done in the court between the two buildingsg the portion south of the buildings to be used for parking and the conformity of all the setback regulations provided in the ordinance D was a good pIano He further stated it is not economically sound for any investor to purchase this property for a single family residence development 0 After due considerationD it was finally moved by Jim Nelson and seconded by Anderson to recommend the rezoning from R=l to 1=10 Roll CallD Ayes (5) = Abstention (l)D Membrez abstaining, File 65=265 Angelo CarboneD Rezoning and Development plans property located on tiamline Avenue across from Oakcrest Avenue 0 This rezoning had been previously reviewedD the first time on May 5th~ the second time on June 2nd and carried over to July 7thD at which time the request was denied because acceptable development plans were not submitted with the rezoning petition and also because final actions must be taken by the Planning Commission and reported to the Council within 60 days 0 The matter was re=submitted to the Planning Commission by the council with revised development planso These revised plans were presented by James Speckmanp President Associated Architects and EngineersD Inco The proposal is to construct 172 units of 1 and 2 bedrooms and 12 town houses with proper setbacks~ recreation facilities and adequate surface water drainage 0 There Was very little opposition to this development except two residents who were concerned about traffic and drainage 0 Membrez finally movedD seconded by Jim Nelson to recommend the rezoning and develop- ment plan submittedD subject to density requirements and also subject, to dedicate 10 feet for future widening of Hamline Avenueo Roll CallD unanimous 0