My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf10-014
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
2010
>
pf10-014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2014 2:04:52 PM
Creation date
7/2/2013 8:17:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
10-014
Planning Files - Type
Conditional Use Permit
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
160
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
• • <br />This is important because, when Molly asked Mr. Lloyd in a meeting on May 4, whether a <br />mitigation measure might be to extend the height of the fence behind us to 10 feet, he said <br />the City had just ordered the 8 foot fence, and it didn't seem right to ask the industry to make <br />a change. <br />Well, it does not seem right to us that the City did not do its homework hy visiting the <br />neighborhood and taking the hill into consideration, and then just assuming the residents <br />should take the consequences for the City's omission. <br />C. MARGINAL GOOD FAITH FROM INDUSTRY RE TREE SCREENING: The existing <br />vegetative screen is/was made up of spruce and jackpine, mentioned above. It has <br />deteriorated substantially, due to tree loss from wind, disease, etc. Re�eated requests to the <br />City to have the vegetative barrier kept up have gone nowhere. There are now some serious <br />gaps in the screening-though we've planted some spruces on our side (seen in 2010 photo). <br />In 1996, there was another Variance Request from the MIDC property. At that point, the <br />request was granted, contingent on strong mitigation measures to protect the neighborhood <br />via use parameters and screening. This included strong vegetation planning, plus a possible <br />berm. MIDC later withdrew its request. <br />Enclosed are 2 pictures of MIDC from property...One is from 1996, and one from 2010. You <br />can just see one of the 3 pines that Mr. Albrecht planted in 2009 (the small one in the gap)...it <br />will be years before they achieve screening height. And, in the 14 years, the gap has gotten <br />worse. Those 3 trees are the only plantings on the industry side in 14 years... <br />It seems to me that this says a lot about the City's lack of commitment to its residents. <br />D. IGNORING THE STAKEHOLDERS: Another mark of the City's inability to listen to its <br />stakeholders: Mr. Albrecht had specifically suggested at his information meeting in April that <br />he could help with plantings on the residential property. This offer was ignored by City staff. <br />In fact, their original Staff report would mandate that all screening be to the no of the <br />industry fence. When questioned about this in the Planning Meeting, City staff repeatedly <br />said that, basically, the residents could not be counted on to maintain them (on their own <br />properties)--this after Molly told the Committee that she has been watering the industrv�s <br />t ees (in the 15-foot buffer) faithfully for 20-plus years, and had offered (in writing) to do <br />the same for the 2 new trees Mr. Albrecht installed in 2009. <br />How does the City not see that it is in the economic self-interest of the residents to work <br />with the industry? How does the City have such great trust in the industry--and none at all in <br />the good sense of the residents? <br />E. REAL EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL HARM: At one point--1991, in one of the code disputes <br />with the City, 2 families decided to see if we could get our County Property Taxes lowered. <br />We did this to see if an outside agency would validate that the City's lack of enforcement had <br />an economic impact. We succeeded in having our taxes lowered. It's probably time to re-file <br />a similar request. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.