2020_0622_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RCA Attachment D 121 C. Ross, Noted there is no parking and no access at the park on Co. Rd. B and Cleveland. He 122 questions how you can take the last piece of wilderness land in this area of Roseville and turn it into 123 property. Noting, this is the only viable wetland area on this side of Roseville. He feels this is the 124 time for the city to come with fresh eyes and talk with the family and determine what this last piece 125 of land is worth to Roseville. 126 127 M. Manns, 2232 St. Croix St. Stated last night she spoke with the daughter of the Shannon Family 128 and she was told that the only time the city ever spoke with the Shannon Family about the land was 129 20 years ago and at that time they were asked to donate the land. 130 131 Staff responded that they met with the Shannon Family personally and they were told by the 132 property owner that if they ever felt they could sell the land for what the city could purchase it for 133 they would come forward. 134 135 J. Lomnicki, 2191 St Croix St. Is not in favor of the proposed park at its current locationand finds 136 it unacceptable and unusable. He would take the money as this is not useful land. He feels it is a 137 shame that a city that prides itself on having parks has 1/3 of the city without any. He is sortof 138 disgusted that nothing was done in a positive manner to acquire this property. He is not happy more 139 money was not sought from the City Council for this piece of property which could have made the 140 city world-class. 141 142 D. Ostrom, St. Croix St. Noted in the previous discussion that Chair Hoag said a .5 acre lot is not a 143 park. Osterom also noted that with this .56 acre park proposal 2/3 of it is on unusable land. Echo’s 144 all the other concerns that his neighbors have brought forward. 145 146 S. Reddy, 2180 Highway 36 W. Whole family is listening to the Zoom meeting. Recently moved to 147 the neighborhood 1 year ago. Reiterates what all the other neighbors stated about not having access 148 to a park that is within biking or walking distance without crossing a major street. Feels the 149 developer is just “checking the box” as this is not usable parkland. She stated that it sounds like the 150 city has not put in enough effort to purchase the land as a wetland or wild space. Therefore, she 151 encourages the commission to table the vote for land or cash as it puts a cash value on land that is 152 not worth being a park. 153 154 Nancy Nelson, Questioned why can the developer give the worst parcel of unusable land? Can the 155 city not designate the portion of land that would actually make a usable park? Also, questioned if the 156 development would be on both sides of Eustis. 157 158 Staff noted that the exact park land location would be up to the City Council, not the developer. 159 4 Page 6 of 33