Laserfiche WebLink
<br />4 <br /> <br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Wednesday, December 5, 1990 <br /> <br />proposed and if the park is determined to be surplus, then to <br />recommend that the applicant come back with a revised plat, which <br />would include access to the park land. <br /> <br />Schwalbach stated that he felt the council had already made a <br />decision that the land was surplus. Johnson clarified the <br />Council actions and potential actions. <br /> <br />Schwalbach pointed out that there was an additional piece of tax <br />forfei ted land adj acent to his parcel that went back to the <br />State and was eventually purchased by him. He pointed out that <br />the City was not involved in that at all. <br /> <br />Shardlow stated that that was still the correct process, but the <br />Housing and Redevelopment Authority does have first right of <br />refusal on obtaining the land. Berry pointed out that there was <br />no Housing and Redevelopment Authority in existence when Mr. <br />Schwalbach purchased his property. Keel stated that the Housing <br />and Redevelopment Authority doesn't have to pursue the piece and <br />then the parcel would go through a similar auction process. <br /> <br />Berry questioned whether this was all one piece of property. <br />Keel answered that there are two separate parcels. <br /> <br />Berry stated that it would be very difficult for the neighbors to <br />just purchase part of the property. <br /> <br />Zeece asked if the plat would be held up if the property gets <br />turned back to the County for auction. Shardlow answered that it <br />would not have to be. The plat would just have to be revised to <br />provide access to the parcel. <br /> <br />Zeece asked if the same number of lots could be maintained and <br />yet provide access to the park land. Shardlow stated that by <br />allowing narrower lots, access could be provided with the same <br />number of lots. <br /> <br />Schwalbach questioned how access would be provided to the park <br />land. Shardlow showed how access could be provided. <br /> <br />Johnson closed public hearing. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that it would be her desire to move this matter <br />along. <br /> <br />DeBenedet stated that the Park Board recommendation seemed to be <br />reasonable and that other parks need upgrading before new parks <br />are developed. He testified that the Commission should not, <br />however, approve a plat to landlock the parcel to the East. <br />