pf_02726 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Chairman Keith Witecki and Planning Commission Members 2 February, 1995 Page 2 I ask that the Planning Commission focus your attention (and to the extent possible) public testimony on the application and not on why the land can not stay undeveloped. From a practical perspective, that decision was made a long time ago. In fairness, the City ofRoseville strongly urged the District to put the land back on the tax: roles and they committed to do so when the bond issues was passed. The proceeds of the sale of this property were pledged when the bonds were sold. The District has entered into binding, exclusive development agreements with builders. The land will be sold and it will be developed. All of this has been fully explained to the public at meetings and in the newsletter. There have been some vocal opponents at the early meetings who advanced the argument that since the public bought the land the public should be able to keep it. You know that the School District had the legal authority to purchase this property because they sought to build a school. They do not have the authority to purchase public park land or nature preserves. The City Council was asked if they wanted to purchase the land as park and they declined. Rather, ,they decided that they wanted the land developed for high valued single family lots and town houses. As a land owner the District has every legal right to make this application and we believe it to be complete. Please do not foster confusion or raise false hopes by taking a lot of testimony about keeping the land undeveloped. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM As we draw near to the hearing process, we are hearing concerns about the proposed mix of town houses and single family homes in the development. Several people are expressing the opinion that there are not enough townhomes and that we are missing the opportunity to complete a much denser and more lIurban'! development. At least an equal number of people are concerned that there are too many townhomes. This is a project that is destined to be second guessed at every step and we accept that fact. There are many who continue to question the decision by the District to serve as the developer for this project. We cannot control what people think and of course everyone is entitled to their own wishes and expectations. I ask that you understand that the program that is included in the project was developed in cooperation with the City Council. I happen to believe that it is a wise program and speaks directly to the recommendations contained in the Maxfield Study and the VISTA 2000 Study. We sent out 76 Requests For Proposal and received 3 responses. The only way the District could achieve the