pf10-024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

` September 30, 2010 Matt McLeod and Molly O'Brien 1433 Rose Place (Email to Pat Trudgeon) � Attachment E We at 1433 Rose place are also very concerned with both the outdoor and indoor facility. Our property is literally a few feet from where their large dog indoor play area will be and the back corner of our lot will be only feet from their outdoor play area. We are very concerned about the noise of both the indoor and outdoor areas, both for our quality of life (and our dogs) and for our property value. We also think it's completely unrealistic to think that they can contain the noise and impact on their very close neighbors. This is not a good fit at all. Lynn Walters 1425 Rose Place (Email to Pat Trudgeon) It appears that the City of Roseville intends to continue to disregard the interests of property-owners in this neighborhood. The Albrecht property is still in violation of city codes after 30 years of inaction on the part of the city. Now the city wants to permit a nuisance business property to move in. Houses in our neighborhood have been steadily losing value over the last few years. It is now very difficult to sell them at all. If the City of Roseville will not protect the value of our properties, I will initiate legal action against the city and I will encourage all of my affected neighbors to join me in a class action. (Email to applicant) Do you have any previous experience running a dog care facility? Do you have sufficient financial resources to ensure that the facility would be completed and maintained as you propose? You say you are pet owners and have a small business. I was a professional dog handler and training instructor for over 30 years. Your proposal sounds unrealistic and rather amateurish to me. The city would be wise to take a closer look at the feasibility of your plan before they commit city resources to defend it in court. Page 2 of 6