pf_02726 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Michael Falk 2680 Civic Center Dr. Roseville, MN 55113 ,,-.\...._............_...... "1 f"'If""'Ia:: ~~u~~~~y ~, ~~~u Mary Lou Mohn 325 County Rd. C-2 W. Roseville, MN 55113-2445 Dear Mr. Falk: I don't know yet if.I can rearrange my schedule to attend the meetings regarding the Lake Owasso Property (Planning File #2726, Planning File Name: John W. Shardlow/ Independent School District #623), so I want to address some of my concerns to you. At the January 9, 1995 meeting about this property at RAHS, Mr. Shardlow said the school board has agreed to pay for the initial construction of the entry monu- ment to be erected at the main entrance. Then the associa- tion of single family homeowners will be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of this monument. He spoke about the "exclusivity" of this development because of the expense of these homes. First I question the need for this "monument". As a neighbor of the property, I know the price of these new homes will attract people of a higher socioeconomic group than the people on the east, west, and south borders. That's not what the majority of the neighbors wanted, but I understand the school board is trying to make $4 million from this sale. To erect this "monument" seems to promote "exclusivity", some- thing I thought our community was fighting against by pro- moting inclusivity. I can think of nowhere else in Roseville where there is a monument to denote a single family home de- velopment. The area north of the property is somewhat exclu- sive (i.e. Sandy Hook and Heinel Drive), yet there is no sign setting them apart. Is seems unnecessary. If this "monument" 'is to honor the school board or the City of Roseville, why would it need to be any fancier than any of the Roseville park signs? The picture on the plans looks like grid iron and brick, and the "monument" is taller than people and takes up a lot of space~ This is not a geed use of tax dollars. If this is just a sign with the name of the development on it, why would we pay our tax money to erect it? If the developers deem it necessary to attract clients, include the cost in the price of the hames. I re- ject the notion that the school board needs to pay for this. as part of the deal. This is not an "exclusive" development since the roads will still be public roads. That's another concern: Mr. Shard low stated it would be cheaper to build all the roads at once during phase I this spring, but the developers don't