HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 08061962 Meeting Sheet
IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII
100304
Box; 15
Folder: PL MINUTES 1962-1966
Document: PL MINUTES 08061962
MINUTES OF JOINT MEETING
S PLANNING BOARD AND COUNCIL
r-Q S P h r : I . . ; ,, _ AUGUST 6, 1962
• M A���� E�e.,c iso"• .,
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY MAYOR- MADDEN.
THE AREA BEING DISCUSSED WAS THAT AREA LYING SOUTH OF THE S00 LINE RAILROAD
TRACKS AND NORTH OF 37TH AVENUE AND LYING EAST OF SILVER LAKE ROAD AND WEST
OF HIGHCREST ROAD.
THE PROPOSED ZONING IN THIS AREA WAS ILLUSTRATED ON THE ZONING MAP,9+I=V
BOB DOUGHERTY EXPLAINED THE PLANNING BOARDI5 REASONS AOR CHANGING
THE ZONING IN THIS AREA.
MAYOR MADDEN QUESTIONED THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING NORTH OF 37TH
BETWEEN FOSS ROAD AND HIGHCREST ROAD. . BOB DOUGHERTY EXPLAINED THAT THIS WAS
THE MOST DESIRABLE ZONING FOR THAT AREA.
HENRY JENNIGES REQUESTS MULTIPLE DWELLING ZONING ON THE ILOTSS FRONTING ON 37TH
AVENUE BETWEEN FOSS ROAD AND HIGHCREST ROAD. MR. JENNIGES STATED THAT THE
90 ACRE TRACT IN NEW BRIGHTON IMMEDIATELY EAST OF HIGHCREST ROAD WAS LEFT AS
OPENING ZONING AND MAY POSSIBLY GO TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL. HE ALSO
STATED THAT THE AREA NORTH OF SILVER LANE AND EAST OF SILVER LAKE ROAD IN NEW
BRIGHTON WAS ZONED COMMERCIAL. MR. JENNIGES FELT THAT THE ZONING ALONG 37TH
AVENUE FROM MINNEAPOLIS THROUGH ST. ANTHONY, NEW BRIGHTON, AND ROSEVILLE TO
HIGHWAY #8 SHOULD BE KEPT MORE CONSISTENT AND IS NOT DESIRABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS DUE TO THE EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC CARRIED BY 37TH
AVENUE.
THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR MR. JARVI AND MR. ERLIEN PROPOSED TO REZONE THE SOUTH HALF
OF LOT:'a; 4, LOTS 5, 6, '&- 7, OF BLOCK 11 , MOUNDSVIEW ACRES 2ND ADDITION TO MULTIPLE
DWELLING. HE STATED THAT THIS AREA WAS PRESENTLY INVOLVED IN THREE DIFFERENT
ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS. HE ALSO FELT THAT IS WAS NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE TO BUILD
DOUBLE BUNGALOWS WEST OF FOSS ROAD OR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS EAST OF FOSS ROAD
BECAUSE OF THE PRESENT WET CONDITIONS,
MR. DOUGHERTY STATED THAT THE REASON MR. JARVI AND MR. ERLIEN'S PROPERTY WAS
INVOLVED IN THREE DIFFERENT ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS WAS THAT THE MULTIPLE DWELLING
AREA NORTH OF 37TH AND EAST OF CHANDLER DRIVE WAS MADE LARGER THAN ONE LOT DEEP
TO PROMOTE A COURT APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT AND TO DISCOURAGE A ROW OF APRRTMENT,
BUILDINGS ALONG FOSS ROAD AS THIS WOULD NOT BE AS ATTRACTIVE AS A COURT DEVELOPMENT.
MR. CAVANAUGH STATED THAT LOW WET LAND ISN'T NECESSARILY UNDESIRABLE FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. HE STATED THAT IN HIS AREA THE PRESENT HOMES
ARE BUILT ON A SITE THAT WAS FORMERLY A LARGE SWAMP.
i
_2_
.b
• MR. HAAK, THE OWNER OF LOT 16, BLOCK 12, MOUNDSVIEW ACRES 2ND ADDITIONS REQUESTED
THAT HIS PROPERTY BE ZONED MULTIPLE DWELLING ON THE GROUNDS THAT RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY ZONING IS NOT DESIRABLE IN THIS .AREA.
MR. BERGRAF, 3721 Foss ROAD AND MR. STANKE OF 3$29 FOSS ROAD REGISTERED AN
OBJECTION TO REZONING THE AREA WEST OF FOSS ROAD TO MULTIPLE DWELLING. THEY
STATED THAT THE PEOPLE REQUESTING THIS REZONING WERE INVESTORS AND DID NOT LIVE
IN THE AREA.
MR. HENKLE, 3824 Foss ROAD OBJECTED TO THE MULTIPLE DWELLING REZONING. HE HAS
A HOME IN THIS AREA AND HE IS SATISFIED WITH THE TWO FAMILY BONING WEST OF FOSS
ROAD. HE STATED THAT CHANDLER DRIVE WAS DEDICATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF HANDLING
THE HEAVY TRAFFIC FROM THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREA ALONG THE RAILROAD TRACKS. THIS
WAS SUPPOSED TO ALLEVIATE ANY ABNORMAL TRAFFIC ON FOSS ROAD. HE FELT THAT IF
MULTIPLE DWELLINGS WERE CONSTRUCTED IN THIS AREA, IT WOULD INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF
TRAFFIC ON FOSS ROAD' --
ERIK ROCK FELT THAT REZONING MERELY TO MAKE MONEY FOR LAND INVESTORS WAS NOT THE
INTENTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. HE, STATED THAT THE PRIME PURPOSE OF ZONING
WAS TO KEEP DESIRABLE SURROUN9INGS FOR THE RESIDENTS OF ANY GIVEN AREA. HE ALSO
FELT THAT IF THE AREA OF BLOCK 11, ALONG FOSS ROAD IS REZONED TO MULTIPLE DWELLING
THAT THE ENTIRE AREA OF BLOCK 12 MUST ALSO BE REZONED TO MULTIPLE DWELLING6
MAYOR MADDEN STATED THAT IF ANY CHANGES IN THE ZONING AS PRESENTED ON THE PROPOSED
MAP WERE MADE, A 10 DAY WRITTEN NOTICE WOULD BE MAILED TO (ILL PARTIES INVOLVED.
THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE COUNCIL FELT THAT THIS WOULD BE HCCEPTABLE.
Zy