CCP 01-29-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JAti.24.1996 5: 04pn r.1EDTRorue we. HF nGnT 5,4-6420 r~O. 217 P.4 I I .. To: The Administration, City of Arden Hills Date: January 15, 1996 From: Walter & MaIjorie Benjamin Re: Planned reconstruction, Oak Avenue I Weare writing this from Arkansas where we are vacationing during the month of January. We take sham exception to vour proposed olans for the reconstruction of Oak Avenue. Since they fall in 4 parts, we will take them up in turn: I L The complete reconstruction of the street is orohibitivelv expensive' Our taxes have been increased during the past decade above the rate of inflation and for us, constitute close to 3% of I our valuation. We are on a gentle curve and have 165 feet frontage. We estimate our cost at $5,280.00. We understand that we would not have access to our garages during construction. We are, seniors, as are many others, and this would create significant hardship. We would never I recover a fraction of the cost of this "improvement" when we sold our house. 2. We do not wish a curb and gutter. We feel it most inappropriate td do this inasmuch as at I present we do not even have street lights! We like the "small village" ambiance of our neigbborhood and believe it would be compromised by this proposal. ; I 3. We do not want our street widened. This would bring the traffic and noise of the street closer to our homes. It would compromise our privacy as well as reduce the amount of lawn that is used as playground space by our grandchildren. Must a1l residential streets be 32 feet. even a cul de Ie sac where there is no thro\jlili traffic and the traffic is veI)' modest? Does one size have to fit everyone in the Village? We live in Arden Hills because we love the village not the city "feel." Overnight parking is not a1lowed on the street now. I 4. We do not want the ~s island l.laved over. Aesthetically, this would be a terrible assault on the ambiance of our neighbqrhood. At present, property owners cut the grass and prune the apple I trees that are there now. If~he grass and tree island were paved, the water run-off would be greatly increased and cause ~ditional erosion problems. We understand the school bus has to back up a little to make thatl turn. Surely, this is a most simple act when compared with your I proposed solution that is so rdicaL In sum, we are strorurlv aq:alnst a proposal that does not take into consideration the reasons, I finances, and feelings ofthe Iproperty owners. We feel it reflects an all too common and insensitive, "when in doubt, pave-it-over" mentality. We will not be able to atten~ the hearing in January 29 but will be back in February to voice our I opposition in person. I Our Solution: We would be in favor of a new underlav with an lSuhalt surfate, Walter and MaIjorie BenjanL I 1605 Oak Avenue I ~~55? 633L _ J .. 'r!:"u ., I if"4l/f4(1 l1(o~ &0- , I