Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2 <br /> <br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Wednesday, December 5, 1990 <br /> <br />have the first right to buy the property if it went back to the <br />County. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked if the land would go back to the County for <br />auction if the city or HRA chooses not to keep or develop it. <br />Shardlow replied yes. DeBenedet asked if the citizens had an <br />opinion about what the City should do with the parcel. Shardlow <br />stated that if the HRA sought to develop it, the HRA would have <br />control over the development and could ensure that there were <br />proper separations and protections for the neighborhood. <br /> <br />Glenn Gelbmann, 220 W. county Road B., stated that he had no <br />desire to sell the back end of his property for an additional <br />lot. <br /> <br />Mr. zieglemier, 2119 Rice street, stated that the park land <br />should be left as open space. <br /> <br />Carsten Wiemken, 217 Burke Avenue, stated that he had no <br />intention to sell the back part of his lot. <br /> <br />Robert Boylan, 233 Burke Avenue, stated that he is not interested <br />in reducing the size of his lot because the house is set too far <br />back. He stated that he had no concerns about the park land <br />being developed if it would be kept residential. <br /> <br />steve Zeece, Jr., stated that he was representing his father who <br />could not be at the hearing because he is in the hospital <br />recovering from surgery. Zeece said that if the park land is <br />developed, his father would suffer some monetary loss because <br />they would have to provide land for a road to reach the parcel. <br />Zeece added that there was no proposal to compensate his father <br />for this loss. Zeece stated that the parcel should remain park <br />land because there would be 14 families moving in. It would be <br />nice to have the open space because there is no other place for <br />them to go. <br /> <br />Goedeke questioned whether the possibility of extending <br />Albermerle street to provide access to the park had been <br />considered. Johnson replied that the Council has to first decide <br />whether to dispose of the park land and then would deal with the <br />specific details of the design and access. Johnson added that <br />the drawing shown by Shardlow was purely illustrative of one <br />potential solution. <br /> <br />Shardlow stated that, in discussing this matter with Karl Keel, a <br />design had been developed to extend Albermerle into the property. <br />Shardlow pointed out, though, that the property owner, through <br />whose property the extension would have to run, was not <br />interested in that alternative. Shardlow also pointed out that <br />