2004_0329_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�� � T4� IY�I�? fLk L�1..f'LVJ1 L YLT 4i. LYLLs.YlULJ�J �,:ir '� n r" �VJir�rl `�• �' �- �3,1� L1v�LJ�R-iL FROM: strBJECr: Da�: ' �5 THOMAS PASQ�KE, CITYf']�7VE� � �.� _. � __ 2550 I��MLINE AVENUE - PF3�� MEADOW VIEW HOMES 03/23/2004 k�L: �i'Ll.s 11LL�y k1�� lTi�11 Y��L IX On March 19,2004, Dr. Sadek Yousset sub�tted a letter indicating that the Gty Planner was dishonest and unethical in a response gi en to Mr. Yousset regarding the development/use potential of 2550 Hamlinel Avenue. Because I will not be in attendance on March 29,2004 to answer questions r�eg�rsiir�� this letter and others pertainingto the Meadow ViewHome town home �r�pos�l, � is necessarythat I provide you with the following: Over the past two years I ha�e received a rtwYi,'nw-� of �� nc��iries �r: t�e propert�' loc�4ed at 2550 Hamline �ve nuc_ ��llc m�5t ��5[i�� h.z�� 5�L7C �w�nt ��ning �� t�ic pcar�cl and the p��tral ��r crea� �,d�diu��a1 residrri�i�l fo�r�, oehers ��x�� s�ug�it rnore in•dep�h ir.f�t-�nation �e�ardi� the �a�iprehensi�e Lar�d L'�+e Pl�r� �esi�t4on �nd por,errtia� f�r r�ed�k�l,�prr�nt, �_��r. �ra��r ��suo�� w�ere �ener�] � r�aru��u�t �oeeif"�c r�,� vraa�s�l tl�at ��u,ld 6� r�� i��e�ci l�v �taff, _ ,__,^ My response to those seeking information and has been the same. Specifically, the property has a current zoning of R 1, Singl� �milyResidential, a Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation of LR, Low DensityReside � tia1, and based on the configuration of the parcel could accommodate up to four single �nily lots under a subdivision plat. This response is neither dishonest nor unethical. Planning Division does not design subdivisions for individuals interested in de �6ping land in Roseville, but rather is reactive t� su�h pe�p��ls, If ��rn�� n�d t� �� L*�r��h the effort of designing single family �f de+�I�p� t�t ��ed � s�rt �d�-sa� road and five residential lots on the s�b� p�r��l, L and �riembers �F �l�e L�e�ebpment Review Committee would ha�e reviewed il�c Fr�� a�uZ rr�por�d�d ac��r�iin�l�'. Hu��Y�r} no such proposal was ever received for review and comment. Similarly, the CommunityDevelopmentDep�txniei� does not offer its views on a comprehensive land use plan amendment or rc�n i� without first understanding a particular proposal. Providing such personal;rie�� ab�en� a proposal in neither appropriate, nor professional, and is opposite the policy �� fae �ep�f�rreee.r, My support for the Meadow ViewHomes pr�posal is neither dishonest nor unethical. It is based on a professional review conducted k�+� r}�i� Development Review Committee and based on the facts provided to ��u in the �micc� report dated March 29,2004.