1C, Former City Hall Property-Public Works Property

Home Browse Search

Page 1 of 1 James Lehnhoff From: Sent: ElwoodFC@aol.com Thursday, January 24, 2008 7:28 PM James Lehnhoff To: Cc: sjharpstead@comcast.net; David_Grant; Holdenbj24@aol.com; FranH116@aol.com; davemcclung@comcast.net; ElwoodFC@aol.com; georgeredman@mac.com: BluesBud@wans.net Subject: former City Hall/Public Works community meeting results At the October 22, 2007 City Council work session and again at the December 6, 2007 Community Workshop on the above subject, we of the Arden Hills North Homes Association advocated a return of the property to residential zoning. A position statement to this effect adopted unanimously and signed individually by members of our Board of Directors was provided to you and members of the City Council prior to the latter meeting, as well as distributed to those in attendance at the meeting. Following the Workshop and in view of individual proposals made during it, I addressed a letter dated December 11 taking strong exception to a proposal, put forth orally by more than one of those present, that the property not only be zoned residential but also developed as a northward extension of the 140-home Arden Hills North Homes Association, presumably inciuding vehicular access between the two. My statement was that a site visit would quickly show the impracticality of this idea, to say nothing of the negotiations that would be involved, including the issue of access to Highway 96. I enclosed a detailed map to illustrate this. In the meantime, your staff compilation of Summarized Results from the Workshop has been published, thus calling attention to the various proposals that were advanced. We are aware that the Summarized Results were gathered under brainstorming rules and in no way constitute a draft RFP. Nevertheless, they do call to the attention of a wider group the ideas that were expressed at the Workshop. As I expected, however, our Board members, having perused at a regular meeting copies of the Summarized Results that were distributed to them, have unanimously endorsed the position stated in my December 11 letter. While continuing to advocate a return of the property to residential zoning, they aiso strongly oppose any development that would include vehicular access to it other than from Highway 96. This limitation wouid preclude access through our cui de sacs and also via Hamline Avenue, the latter because of the traffic congestion that was amply discussed when an office park was proposed and given up last year. I'm sure it has been well noted that no mention of an office park surfaced during the Community Workshop! As for the several comments proposing a park or a modest community center or gathering place in the western portion of the property, we would have no problem with those if established and operated by the City. What we urge is that any published RFP of purchase for development call for residential use whether or not a community facility is adjacent or included, with vehicular access only from Highway 96, and that such constraints be noted in your input to the next Community Workshop. Respectfully submitted for the Board, Arden Hills North Homes Association Elwood F. Caldwell 1451 Arden View Drive Who's never won? Bigqest Grammv Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. 2/13/2008