2020-5-5_PR_Comm_Min - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

C. Ross, Noted there is no parking and no access at the park on Co. Rd. B and Cleveland. He questions how you can take the last piece ofwilderness land in this area of Roseville and turn it into property. Noting, this is the only viable wetland area on this sideof Roseville. He feels this is the time for the city to come with fresh eyes and talk with the family and determine what thislast piece of land is worth to Roseville. M. Manns, 2232 St. Croix St. Stated last night she spoke with the daughter of the Shannon Family and she was told that the only time the city ever spoke with the Shannon Family about the land was 20 years ago and at that time they were asked to donate the land. Staff responded that they met with the Shannon Family personally and they were told by the property owner that if they ever felt they could sell the land for what the city could purchase it for they would come forward. J. Lomnicki, 2191 St Croix St. Is not in favor of the proposed park at its current location and finds it unacceptable and unusable. He would take the money as this is not useful land. He feels it is a shame that a city that prides itself on having parks has 1/3 of the city without any. He is sortof disgusted that nothing was done in a positive manner to acquire this property. He is not happy more money was not sought from the City Council for this piece of property which could have made the city world-class. D. Ostrom, St. Croix St. Noted in the previous discussion that Chair Hoag said a .5 acre lot is not a park. Osterom also noted that with this .56 acre park proposal 2/3 of it is on unusable land. Echo’s all the other concerns that his neighbors have brought forward. S. Reddy, 2180 Highway 36 W. Whole family is listening to the Zoom meeting. Recently moved to the neighborhood 1 year ago. Reiterates what all the other neighbors statedabout not having access to a park that is within biking or walking distance without crossing a major street. Feels the developer is just “checking the box” as this is not usable parkland. She stated that it sounds like the city has not put in enough effort to purchase the land as a wetland or wild space. Therefore, she encourages the commission to table the vote for land or cash as it puts a cash value on land that is not worth being a park. Nancy Nelson, Questioned why can the developer give the worst parcel of unusable land? Can the city not designate the portion of land that would actually make a usable park? Also, questioned if the development would be on both sides of Eustis. Staff noted that the exact park land location would be up to the City Council, not the developer. 4