Minutes CC 08.31.1976 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 31, 1976 William Bowerman, Chairman, opened the Public Hearing at 7:35 P.M. on the Planned Unit Development for Lots 9 thru 16, Block 6, Mounds View Acres which,.would include a dental clinic, a beauty salon, a retirement apartment building, a Country Kitchen restaurant along Silver Lake Road and a row of single family residences on Penrod Lane. Present for roll call: Cowan, Marks, Bowerman, Johnson and Rymarchick. Absent: Hiebel Also present Jim Fornell, Adm. Asst. There were also approximately 35 interested residents in attendance. Mr. Hedlund addressed the group announcing that he had learned just that day that government funding would be awarded to a Columbia Heights re- tirement home instead of to the First American Enterprises who had been granted a conditional use permit to erect a retirement apartment building on a portion of the property in the proposed P.U.D. The developer then requested that another Public Hearing_ to scheduled to consider rezoning the west 187 feet of Lot 10, Block 6, Mounds View Acres to allow Jim Hughes to remodel the existing building on that lot for a Gold Tiara beauty shop. He said Country Kitchen no longer planned to build on his property. Mr. Bowerman informed the developer that the Public Hearing had to be confined to the consideration of the proposed P.U.D. and his request could not be considered until after the hearing was officially closed. Mr. Hedlund then withdrew his application for a P.U.D. Several residents voiced their objections to the P.U.D. as had been pro- posed. One wanted to know why City officials continued to entertain re- quests for a Country Kitchen restaurant which they had previously rejected for the same area because of possible traffic generation, noise and odor pollution, opposition from the neighborhood and other undersirable charac- teristics. Another, Mrs. Ruth Nelson, 3916 Macalaster Drive, expressed he disappointment at the establishment of the Planned Unit Development concept as a land development vehicle. Duane Standing, 3817 Macalaster Drive, did not consider Mr. Hedlund's proposal a valid P.U.D., saying he felt it stretched the concept of a P.U.D. as a unified project which is allowed to give the developer flexibility for a creative use of his land. He saw Hedlund's proposal as more of a strip development. He also question- ed whether the proportion of commercial in the plan did not exceed the ratio of 30% which had been established for a P.U.D. in the new zoning ordinance.