My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL MINUTES 06201972
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Minutes
>
1972
>
PL MINUTES 06201972
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/19/2016 5:42:11 PM
Creation date
4/19/2016 5:42:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
36
SP Folder Name
PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1972
SP Name
PL MINUTES 06201972
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
-2- <br /> Mrs. Chester Nelson of 3916 Macalaster wished to go on record as opposed to the <br /> idea because it would be too high, cutting off light to residents on Penrod, <br /> and would lead to further commercialism on Penrod. <br /> Q. Mr. Ted Dageford of 4016 Fordham Drive asked what the present zoning was? <br /> A. He was informed by the Planning Board that it was part R-2 split North & South. <br /> Mr. Dageford went on record as being opposed to the idea and felt it would <br /> "Look Terrible". <br /> Mrs. Arthur Rurke of 3900 Shamrock Drive felt it would create terrible traffic <br /> problems, where they already have had bad traffic problems (i.e. Silver Lane <br /> and Silver Lake Road intersection). <br /> Mrs. John Iacarella of 4016 Shamrock Drive opposed the construction because it <br /> was too high, and too large. <br /> Q. Mrs. Sue Manson of 3917 Macalaster asked is it the normal procedure of the <br /> Planning Board to consider the traffic problems associated with new structures, <br /> have they considered the problems involved with traffic in regard to this <br /> type of business? <br /> A. Planning rioard answered we will make recommendations to the Council based on <br /> what is expressed here tonight. Yes, traffic is always considered when a pro- <br /> posed new structure is considered. <br /> Mrs. David Hanson of 4013 Penrod Lane was opposed because it was too big. <br /> • When asked by the Planning Roard if she was opposed to the use of the land or <br /> the specific construction. She answered she was opposed to the use of the land. <br /> Mrs. Stegemeyer of 3921 Penrod Lane area is residential and should remain as <br /> such. <br /> Mrs. Ruth Thompson of 3015 39th Avenue N°E. was opposed because it will open <br /> the way for more commercial building and will cause traffic problem to increase. <br /> Mr. Ted Dageford of 4016 Fordham stated 'We just plain don't want it , it would <br /> ruin our neighborhood. <br /> Q. Phyllis Haas asked why finance FHA 236 if it is not feasible to build less than <br /> seven stories. If you built in Edina without 236, build here without it, and <br /> charge more for the rentals. <br /> A. Edina has the fourth largest per capita income in the U.S. the units there <br /> rent for 53504550 per month. This would not be feasible in this area. <br /> Mr. George Thompson of 3900 Penrod stated there should be houses on Penrod Lane, <br /> not commercial buildings. <br /> Mr. Donald Zebro of 4017 Penrod Lane stated that he was against a seven story <br /> building and that he would move. Also that he was opposed to the height of the <br /> • building. <br /> Notes from residents who were unable to attend meeting were presented to the <br /> Planning Board. <br /> Public Hearing closed. <br /> Eileen Biernat, Recording Secy. <br /> I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.