|
<br />~.J .. ....(
<br />, ~,
<br />'" .~
<br />, "(
<br />September 12J 1988 ~
<br />
<br />. H.mbprs 0 f the Ros.vl! 1 e C >t, C...ne 11 , ' , )1
<br />
<br />;Over t.he past year, 1 havE' been ln~rcaSlngl;)' ~l'lare of the man) lHsues concernerl' _~,
<br />~with land use 1n the City uf Rosevllle. We h~ve resided in Rosevlllc since. ~il
<br />~,Ncvelllber, 1971. The I,exwgton School sale was the fHst hllle that I wok~ up'~!> ,,-,;;}
<br />1the land use 18",ues. . ,~I,i.'~
<br />
<br />~Since that sale 8 litl.le over a year ago, r '".a wa\:.ched S.Llllllar 1S8ueS al"~sft:hl<:,:;?iI
<br />f-qth"'r areas of Rosev1.l.le. I must confess th~t 1 htwC not gone bacK before th,at-.",;;.;.:.lfli'
<br />i:,c"sale, b,'t I would suspect that the same iSSUE'S came up before th<'l Kacf'olc;l ., ,:...,)1~,
<br />,\purchasc. Four r::aIn issues co"'~ to mind: , n....~:~
<br />'\..... ' ... ...~ ~.(+;"'.~~. ..~.
<br />~ . ~ ." ..' . ~:
<br />.:1. Economic gl'owth and develofllllent \.nthln the Clt>' of RoscVllle ha,s,be~!,.at_,,:i~:
<br />~prim9 motlvat1on. To a certaln extpnt. that's ~ood. Wh~re I sta~t let~ln~: .,.,~ ~~~
<br />;concerned lS knowIng when ha\c we achl~ved our obJective. Growth for the sake . ~~~y~
<br />;, of grmtth alone l!' not goou. Are w{' tr'Ylng to be another lllaj or llletropoli tan "' ....". ,1
<br />,a:-ea llke r-l1nnea!Jolls and St Paul" Do we m;l.nt t.o become a c"mmunity of -, /~ 1
<br />'.~partment buildJ.ngs? What kind of city do we want to be? ~"'~~!
<br />\ ..;w-. 1"2'
<br />
<br />X have heard the statistics several tlmes that ROS(Wlll.-; "can absorb 150 nc~ ,,- -,:~l
<br />'~partlll.ent \.mits per ycar." Thc operatlve word here IS ~an--do ~e want to a1?8or~ .J
<br />~50 new units per year? We already have a good pInce to ral8P ~ family, goo4. ~~ ~
<br />yards for our kIds to play In, good recreatIonal opportunlt,cs. What do we give ~~
<br />,up whc.. we increase the concentration of people Within the City. ~' \J.
<br />&t ~~\ f'~
<br />....'H, ';.~
<br />
<br />-.. -'.'1
<br />
<br />~~ v
<br />
<br />&''^ ~ ~~,
<br />
<br />rl . -... .
<br />v). .. "
<br />"
<br />
<br />2. Thp second issue concerns the stated deslre of the coun~ll to approve
<br />the highest and best land use w1thln RoseVllle. Aga1n, thIS sounds lIke an
<br />admlrable goal. But, I am not sur~ what 'hIghest nnd best use' means. Does it
<br />-mean that R-3 IS better than R-l because lt lS more concentrated and more people
<br />can live on th~ ~ame amount of land? Or does it mean that bUSlness dlstricts
<br />are, by deflnltlon, better than resldentlal dlstrlcts, and that industrial
<br />dlstriots are better yet? I don't know the answer. I personally thInk that
<br />open space can be the highest and best land use in a suburban area like
<br />Roseville.
<br />
<br />, ",
<br />~ ~
<br />...
<br />
<br />"
<br />,
<br />~
<br />{
<br />
<br />i
<br />
<br />,.
<br />...
<br />
<br />3. ThlS leads to the third lssue--redevelo~ment and tax lncrement
<br />financlng. When I thlnk about rede~elopment, I thlnk about the truck termlnals
<br />in the industrIal zone of Rogcvllle, the Gatehay area In downtown Mlnneapolls,
<br />and the Bandana Square and Selby-Dale areas In St ~aul. I don't think of open
<br />space or school yards. As Mr B1cza pOinted out In hlB letter to the FOCUS last
<br />week, when developers pay more fur propErty than lt .LS w~rth on the open market
<br />and the City provlde~ tn.... in..::rement fHlanClng, we are aSklng for troutle. This
<br />lS true at the ~ex School, ~he Concord18 property and the Rel1lng property.
<br />
<br />, "
<br />-;;
<br />
<br />'"
<br />
<br />;,
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />4. Fourth, our zoning code 1$ behInd for this kind of activlty. We are
<br />talklng about notlflcation of neighbors hho o~n ~ropcrty ~lthln 350 feet of a
<br />requested change. The notlflGation area remaln~ the same, rega~dless of the
<br />sIze of the parcel that has n proposal before the Plannln~ CommlSSlon. It could
<br />be a qualter acr~, the 8.5 acrcs at Le~ School, 01 th~ 2r4 acrER In th~ ReIling
<br />propert~'. ThIS 1'> SImply hOt. good enough. Vest notice l~ PUL::'lShcd lfi thp
<br />ReVIew, b~t there'~ not enough tlme ~o flnd out what lS happcn4ng. Ploposed
<br />de~&lopers of these larger blolks should be rcqu!red to notIfy and present
<br />proposals beyond these narrow lImitatIons hhen the areas are large.
<br />
<br />Wlth Issues llke thiS, If l~ tIme for a ooratorlum td look at where Rosevllie
<br />cltlze~s stand on cconomi~ de~elupment and ta( ln~rem~nt flnanClng. If t~e plon
<br />you are conSIderIng tcnlght lS g~od for the city toda~. It wlll ~e good later as
<br />
<br />lu
<br />
|