CCP 02-22-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C. Task Force Preferred Plan #6d At its meeting on August 22, 1995, the Arden Hills TCAAP Reuse Task Force undertook a side-by-side review of Rermed Plans #6c and #6d. The only difference between these two plans was the removal of the residential node that, in Plan #6c, lay between the kame on the west and Marsden Lake on the east. (Figure 23 shows Plan #6d.) Because the Task Force had requested fiscal-impact analyses for both plans, this was the focus of the discussion. Ironically, the removal of the residential node actually improved the fiscal impacts slightly, by removing households for which services would have to be provided without significantly increasing the cost of operating and maintaining the open space. (Complete fiscal-analysis spreadsheets for all scenarios appear in the appendices.) Each Task Force member was then polled for his or her plan preference. The consensus among the members was that the residential lobe was not worth fighting for, if that was all that stood between them and an agreement with the Reutilization Committee. As a result, the Task Force essentially voted to accept Rermed Plan #6d as its recornnlendation. This decision was not unanimous, however. Dissenting voices made two cogent suggestions: . That the city should do as it pleases, without regard to what non-residents might want; and ~ That constructing housing on the site will be an essential adjunct to ensuring the success of commercial development in particular, and the more housing that can be provided the better off the development -- and the city -- would be over the long term. Even though the decision was not unanimous, though, the Task Force presented a unified position in support of Plan #6d at its public meeting on August 24. Public comments at this meeting Ie-raised some contentious issues related to open-space preservation, reuse of the fourteen on-site housing units for low-income families, and true fiscal impacts, including the cost of demolishing existing buildings (estimated at $15-20 million). The general tone of the meeting was receptive, though. The only serious objection to the preferred plan that was raised at this meeting involved "usable" VS. "unusable" open space. Open-space advocates believed that insufficient open space would be set aside under Plan #6d -- insufficient in that much of what was being recommended as the set-aside was "unusable" land that "couldn't be used anyway." Although most members of this group saw the need for part of the site to be used for tax-generating uses -- specifically, the southwestern portion of the site, which has been in industrial use for more than 50 years -- they were interested in setting aside even more than the 1300+ acres of open-space preserve (1043 acres), active recreation space (257 acres) and intcrpretive center (14 acres). This was an argument that would be heard again as the plan moved to the Reutilization Committee for review and action. Camjros, Ltd./SEH. Inc.lLHDL, Ltd. TeMP Framework Plan Page 12 Chapter V I .1 I I I I I I I .. I I I I I I .1 I I