pf_02726 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

IIIIW ~ I ~". ,) J' I" ) II \ I! 11 CONSULTINC PLANNfFS L^NrJSC^P[ ARCHlTCCTS .I()D rrRsr AVeNUe J..JCWTII SUITL 2\0 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 'i.. 101 612. 1.\9 .lIDO Steven Roberts 2051 Somero Road Ely, Minnesota 55731 June 16, 1994 Dear Mr. Roberts: On Friday June 10, we met with AI Grauel, Peter Greschewitz and Cliff Lund, who represented you. The purpose of that meeting was to present and discuss an outline summarizing the type of agreement that Independent SchooL District #623 would need to enter into with all of the adjacent, vacant land owners, in order to proceed with a joint development project. Although the material provided to you at the meeting speaks for itself, the concept is that all of the parties would agree to share in the development expenses and proceeds based upon the percentage of the total developable land that they own. The materials also provided a potential means by which individual land owners could participate without contributing revenue to cover project expenses until their land is sold. We consider this to be a very fair and straight forward proposal, particularly in light of the fact that the District would be providing you with the opportunity to share in a portion of the sale ofland for medium density development, even though your land is guided LR (Low Density Residential), and zoned R-l (Single Family Residential). Prior to the meeting on Friday you told me that your land was for sale and that your preference was to sell it to a developer. Mr. Lund reiterated that position at our meeting. We understand and respect your position and we will cooperate fully with you or whoever purchases your land as we proceed with planning and design. However, we have received a number of phone calls from developers that you have contacted, who have asked us for clarification since you have apparently represented that your land has the support of the City ofRoseviUe for townhouse development. John Thein, the Assistant Superintendent of Business Affairs for the District has asked me to write to you and clarify this situation. I talked with you on the telephone yesterday and covered much of this information. This is too important to risk any miscommunication, so I am following up in writing. First of all, the concept plans that show townhouse development on your property and the Grauel property have no official status whatsoever. They are preliminary concepts that bave been used to conduct some community meetings and to begin a dialogue with the City. Concept B illustrates the approximate relative mix of townhouses and single family lots that the City Council and School District Board thought was appropriate when they met in a joint meeting. Again, that was the result of an infonnal discussion and has no official status. In fact, the Planning Commission is in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan and they have taken no action to change either the Medium Density designatiC?n on the District property, nor the Low Density designation on yours.