2021_0222_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

health and general welfare issues that development plans must not compromise. She 98 noted she stood by this conviction and urge the Commission to take this into 99 consideration here. However, she knew the City is deeply invested in this 100 development and design. She wished that residents living in close proximity had 101 been specifically notified earlier in the process. She asked if the Commission is and 102 remains in favor of the preliminary plat design included on page 14 of the packet, 103 would the Commission consider a revision of the preliminary plat design, a revision 104 that would preserve the neighborhood character and its unique sense of place in the 105 woodsy neighborhood that would preserve a noise and privacy buffer and most 106 importantly, preserve and make room for replacement trees that sink carbon, purify 107 the air, and help keep the lake healthy. She asked if the Commission would consider 108 moving the placement of the monument sign to the south of the road and eliminate lot 109 one in order to reserve a wooded area composed of existing and replacement trees. 110 This would provide a little of the woodsy feel along Gaultier Street that is valued by 111 neighbors and lake walkers for the tree’s beauty, importance to the environment and 112 positive impact on property values. 113 114 Ms. Love stated in their repeal to the City Council regarding park fees, the developers 115 have stated that because the land north of the road adjacent to the lake is quite small, 116 it provides a much-needed amenity for the future owners. She put forth that the 117 woods that the residents see and enjoy along Gaultier is a much-needed amenity for 118 current residents of the neighborhood. When the Commission considers Motion C, 119 which concerns the plat design, she asked the Commission to not pass the motion as it 120 is but to consider all the concerns presented in the packets and from the community. 121 She asked is if the Commission went forward with the preliminary plan to revise it 122 from twenty homes to nineteen homes with the area currently marked as lot one 123 reserved for existing and replacement trees. 124 125 Ms. Rene Pardello, McCarrons Blvd N., explained she echoed Ms. Love’s concerns. 126 She asked the Commission to take a step back and take a look at the bigger picture for 127 a moment. She explained she has been impressed with Roseville’s new commitment 128 to equity and diversity and on the Roseville website it states, “The City of Roseville is 129 committed to taking tangible steps to normalize, organize and implement racial equity 130 principles and tools with an eye toward impactful and sustainable outcomes that 131 create a more equitable community.” She asked the Commission to keep that in mind 132 because when she thinks about this situation and have reviewed the information from 133 the Roseville’s City website, if she took a look at some census data and the lifetime 134 housing options, on the Roseville website it states “the City Council and staff have 135 been studying the census data. The data has shown an increase in total housing units 136 and an increase in vacant housing”. Her question is why the City of Roseville is not 137 buying this property and maintaining this greenspace to address the issues of climate 138 change, to address the issues of stormwater. There will be issues around stormwater 139 management. This system that the stormwater is going into is too old to manage what 140 the City currently has, which is an issue. Once land is turned into concrete it is hard 141 to go back. Regarding racial equity, the City knows that there is racial disparity in 142 this Country and that wealth is built through home ownership, and through 143 generational home ownership. The City knows that in the thirty’s there were racial 144 restricted covenants in the deeds. It was illegal to sell a home to a black person or a 145 Jewish person. The City knows that these covenants existed in Minnesota and were 146 RCA Attachment D Page 3 of 51