My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02425
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2400
>
pf_02425
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 11:51:50 AM
Creation date
12/8/2004 11:31:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2425
Planning Files - Type
Minor Variance
Address
715 HEINEL DR
Applicant
PUDELKO, GEORGE
Status
APPROVED
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
96
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 />sale. Filister indicated that they viewed it as a way to address <br />the maintenance issue and that in his opinion, the proposal would <br />increase the value of the houses on the west side of Woodbridge <br />and the north side of County Road C-2. Neighborhood members <br />indicated that they did not feel it would raise their value and <br />that they would rather see open space across the street than <br />additional homes. <br /> <br />There was discussion about the maintenance or lack thereof of the <br />buffer area. Filister pointed out that there were problems <br />because the junk and debris that has accumulated in the buffer <br />area was not from the apartments but from others and that he did <br />not feel it was fair for him to have to maintain it when other <br />people are dumping it. The neighbors pointed out that they have <br />to mow it and that they did not believe the debris was from the <br />neighborhood. <br /> <br />Neighbors questioned the proposed grading plan and where berms, <br />if any, would be located. Kolstad stated that the grading work <br />would be done all at once and that the berms would have to be <br />moved back between the new houses and the apartment buildings. <br />Neighbors expressed concern about erosion control and dust until <br />all the homes are developed. The neighbors also pointed out that <br />the houses won't screen the view of the apartments because of <br />grade differences. <br /> <br />Neighbors expressed concern about quality of the proposed houses <br />to be constructed. <br /> <br />Neighbors stated that maybe a potential solution is for the City <br />to buy and maintain a park across the street. <br /> <br />The neighbors expressed concern that the densi ty is still an <br />issue. <br /> <br />The neighbors also expressed concern that this appeared to be a <br />done deal and that the City was not upholding the promises that <br />were made in the past. I explained to the neighbors that this <br />was no means a done deal but that the City has an obligation to <br />review the request. I explained the process which this proposal <br />would follow and pointed out the number of opportunities the <br />neighbors would have to express their concerns. I indicated <br />that I felt the Planning Commission and City Council will take <br />very seriously any input which the neighborhood would want to <br />make on this proposal. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.