My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
September 1978
ArdenHills
>
Communications
>
Arden Hills Notes Newsletter
>
1966-1979 Town Crier
>
1978
>
September 1978
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/9/2015 10:59:43 AM
Creation date
11/9/2015 10:30:27 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
r <br />'1 <br />u <br />( J <br />so sometimes the addresses are <br />whomever its addressed tot <br />Published by the Arden Association <br />No. 120 <br />September 19.78 <br />"The difference is slight, to the influence of <br />an author, whether he is read by five hundred <br />readers, or by five hundred thousand; if he <br />can select the five hundred, he reaches the <br />five hundred thousand " <br />9 <br />--Henry Brooks Adams, 1838-1918 <br />The Town Crier does not have a circulation of <br />five hundred thousand (yet!), but our city is <br />growing nicely as is evidenced by the number <br />of these newsletters mailed each month. When <br />Jan Hollenhorst began this job in September, <br />1975, she sent out 1501 copies. When I took <br />over in March, 1977, we mailed 1799. And last <br />month it was 1910. <br />The exclusive and select list <br />who -receive the Crier is made up of <br />pays a sewer bill in Arden Hills or <br />of people <br />everyone who <br />who has asked <br />to be on our mailing list. We also try to mail <br />to as many businesses as we can, but some of the <br />offices keep changing (expecially in Arden Plaza) <br />not always correct. Feel free to read this, <br />The Twin Cities Christian Home was back last month at both the Planning.. <br />'Commission and at the Council meetings with its seemingly annual request for <br />a Special Use Permit to build retirement apartments for the elderly on a parcel <br />of land that is zoned R-1 (single family dwellings). Although the Planning <br />'Commission recommended granting the Special Use Permit (6 for, 1 opposed, 2 ab- <br />staining), the Council voted to deny it 0 for denial, 2 for approval). <br />The land in question is 23 acres just east of Old Snelling between the Soo <br />Line tracks and County Road E. Many neighborhood residents spoke at each meet- <br />ing, and opinion on the project seemed to be nearly evenly divided. The main <br />objection to this proposal is that a project of this type will practically isolatf <br />the homes north of E from the rest of the world. Already they have Lindey's <br />on the west, McDonald's on the east, and County Road E out in front. Many of <br />these residents are hoping for a development of single-family homes behind them <br />to form a decent -sized neighborhood. <br />Another objection was that the aim of Arden Hills has been to be a "Village <br />' of Homes" rather than a "Village of Special Use Permits". The Planning Commis- <br />sion also considered the fact that if, for some unforeseen reason, TCCH went out <br />'of business, these apartments could easily be turned into college dormitories or <br />"swingin' singles" apartments. <br />On the "for" side of the question was the fact that housing of this type <br />is definitely needed in the Twin Cities. It would be a nice -looking project <br />with quiet residents who would generate little traffic and would probably not <br />add many children to our schools. After three hours of discussion at the PC, <br />our City Planner observed, "The amount of discussion is indicative of the mag- <br />nitude of the problem." <br />With the feelings of the Planning Commission in mind, the Council attacked <br />the problem a week latera Two petitions were presented to the Council, one for <br />the project and one against. To show just how evenly divided the opinions were, <br />it was discovered two households had signed both petitions! Anyway, the Council <br />has denied the request for the time being and the applicant has to wait at least <br />6 months before trying again. • <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.