Laserfiche WebLink
������ �: � ��, <br />� � � � � � �' �� <br />�� � � <br />� �� �� <br />Linda Neilson <br />1349 Brooks Ave. W. <br />Roseville, MN 55113 <br />March 22,2004 <br />City Council Members <br />City of Roseville <br />2660 Civic Center Drive <br />Roseville, MN 55113 <br />Dear Sir or Madam, <br />I am again writing to you concerning the proposal by Meadow View Homes to <br />build eight twin homes at 2550 Hamlinie Avenue (comer of Hamline and <br />Oakcrest—Planning File 3546.) 1 sent a letterto you in February enumerating <br />my reasons for opposition and will not restate all of those points here. <br />Several of my neighbors and I attended the Planning Commission meeting on <br />March 3, 2004, at which this project w�s discussed. All Roseville residents who <br />spoke at this meeting were in opposition to rezoning the parcel from R-1, Single <br />Family, to R-6, Town Home District, amd changing the current designation of this <br />parcel in the City's Comprehensive Pl�n from Low Density to Medium Density. <br />To accommodate this project, the Planning Commission unanimously <br />recommended approval of the reques�ed changes with some conditions. I am <br />extremely disappointed and appeal to you to follow the wishes of many of the <br />neighbors of this property and vote no on the proposed changes. I have <br />reviewed the draft minutes from the Plianning Commission meeting and also ask <br />that you review a videotape of the me�ting to appreciate the discussion there. <br />Please note that over 90 Roseville reslidents signed petitions of opposition that <br />were presented to the Planning Commission and that are to be included in the <br />packet forwarded by that Commission to you. <br />The Executive Summary for Roseville's Comprehensive Plan states in its Preface <br />that it "...is the City's officially adopted policy document used by citizens, elected <br />and appointed officials and staff to provide background and direction on City <br />development decisions. The City has updated the Plan in 1959, 1969, 1979 and <br />annually since 1994." City staff, in their report to the Planning Commission on <br />this project, stated this projectwas c�nsl��rrkwith the Comprehensive Plan. I do <br />not think that it is. It may or may not meet the parameters established in the Plan <br />for town home or planned unit developments, but it definitely does not meet the <br />established use of this parcel dictated in the Plan. A number of years ago, I <br />considered moving. I decided to stay and put a sizeable addition on my home <br />based partially on the contents of that Plan for my neighborhood. The current <br />Plan and its predecessors have continually characterized the property at 2550 <br />