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 />. Besides the radical change in appearance of our neighborhood <br />resulting from the extensive tree-cutting and regrading <br />entailed by this plan, a significant issue for many is the potential <br />environmental impact. The combination of decreased root <br />systems and increased roofing and paving on this property will <br />almost certainly increase storm water ru nott, al ready a <br />significant problem for many homes to the south side along N. <br />McCarron1s Blvd., and along with the required regrading, could <br />potentially threaten retaining walls and foundations of homes, <br />like mine, on the north side slopes because of ground shifting. A <br />simple cursory inspection of Photo #2, showing proposed Lots 1 <br />& 2 from Irene Street with my home up the hill on the left, lends <br />credence to these serious concerns. <br /> <br />· Before moving to our peculiar circumstances, as opposed to <br />these shared concerns and objections, I want to take issue with <br />the fact that it would only be possible to, in my mind, squeeze <br />two houses between our property and N. McCarron's Blvd. <br />because of the variance approved by the Planning Commission <br />for proposed Lot #2. The Planning Consultant justified the <br />approval of this and other variances on the basis that many <br />properties to the north on Irene Street and Western Ave. "are <br />less than minimum standards." What the Planning Consultant <br />failed to point out was that many, if not all, of these lots were <br />platted prior to 1959. However, 1959 is the date at which the <br />standards he invoked for his comparison took effect. For all we <br />know, all these lots may have been platted to the code that <br />existed when they were platted. Even if they were so-called <br />"less than minimum standards", there is a big difference between <br />someone buying a property with knowledge that the adjacent <br />one is substandard (occurring back in the 1950's) and a long- <br />standing homeowner being told that adjacent property is going <br />to be subdivided substandard (occurring in 1992). <br /> <br />· Now to our peculiar circumstances. In the summer of 1990, <br />my wife and I first learned of the possible development of this <br /> <br />'2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.