My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_1992_0810
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
199x
>
1992
>
CC_Minutes_1992_0810
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:03:03 AM
Creation date
2/2/2005 8:17:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
8/10/1992
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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 />Respected Members of the Council, Ladies & Gentlemen: <br /> <br />My name is Dr. Robert Tranquillo, and I reside at 2040 Irene <br />Street, adjacent to proposed Lot #1. <br /> <br />I would like to summarize a statement made at the meeting of <br />the Planning Commission when this proposal was considered <br />(which I submitted along with a petition, both of which I <br />understand the Members have been given prior to this meeting): <br /> <br />Almost all households immediately adjacent to the property (all <br />that I approached), 14 in total, signed a petition stating strong <br />opposition to this plan since is constitutes an unacceptable <br />alteration of the neighborhood. Here are a few of the common <br />reasons which I want to emphasize: <br /> <br />· The Beautiful oak-filled lot on which the original McCarron1s <br />farmhouse stands would be subject to extensive tree-cutting <br />and regrading, with immediately three, and eventually five, <br />homes, likely multistory, being constructed. Many of the <br />petition signers, including ourselves, purchased our properties <br />because of the rustic character of our suburban neighborhood <br />endowed by the subject property. We did not make our <br />investments expecting our views would be at, would I <br />characterize, as a proposed mini-development. There is no way <br />we would have purchase our home with a view of a multistory <br />home sitting ten feet off our property line on proposed Lot #1 <br />and a second below it on proposed Lot # 2, instead of the sloping <br />hill down to the Lake (which you can appreciate in Photo #1), a <br />situation which we now potentially face. The two best houses in <br />Minnesota could be built on proposed Lots 1 & 2, but as far as we <br />are concerned, and this seems to be shared by many petition <br />signers, both our quality of life, in terms of enjoyment of our <br />properties, and our property values will both drop significantly. <br /> <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.