My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2021_0222_CCPacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2021
>
2021_0222_CCPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/13/2022 2:14:46 PM
Creation date
1/13/2022 2:06:14 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
778
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
3 <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br />Susan Love <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 12:52 PM Bryan Lloyd <Bryan.Lloyd@cityofroseville.com> wrote: <br />Hi, Ms. Love. <br /> <br />You certainly have a valid, reasonable question about whether the City Council would consider acquiring Lot <br />1 as part of the developer’s park dedication obligation. I’m not sure the Planning Commission misconstrued <br />your question during the public hearing, though. If I’m not mistaken, Commissioner Kimble directed your <br />question to the developer with an acknowledgment that effectively eliminating a lot from the development <br />might make the development infeasible. The developer’s answer was definitely focused on increasing tree <br />density between Galtier Street and Lot 1 and not sacrificing a developable lot, but whether the developer <br />misunderstood your question or merely declined to be specific about the financial ramifications of losing Lot <br />1, I can’t say. <br /> <br />While the Planning Commission could have reached their decision to support the proposal with additional <br />tree density in that area by misunderstanding your question, I heard their deliberation differently. I <br />understood their action to be generally supportive of the proposal and, after the developer didn’t concede <br />one of the lots, the Planning Commission added a condition for additional trees to their approval <br />recommendation as a sort of compromise. <br /> <br />Again, your current question is still a reasonable one and I don’t mean this email to suggest otherwise. I just <br />wanted to share my observation that the Planning Commissioners might not have misconstrued your <br />question even though their final action didn’t directly address it. <br /> <br />Respectfully, <br />Bryan <br />__________________________________________ <br />Bryan Lloyd | Senior Planner <br />RCA Attachment D <br />Page 21 of 51
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.