My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006_0911_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2006
>
2006_0911_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 3:30:18 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:38:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
158
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
6. This development contradicts some of Roseville's Residential Policies as outlined <br />in section C. of sta�s report to you. (de�sities/setbaci�s} <br />7. Price points of the twin/quad homes will lead to these properties becoming rental <br />propertieswithin a few years. This area does not need any more rental property. <br />8. As a condition of a�'UD can Roseville require a"deed restriction" requiring the <br />housing units to be owner occupied? <br />Mounds View has held several "Neighborhood Meetings" regarding this development. <br />The vast maj ority of the meetings have been centered on the sites pollution. The <br />pollutant has been identified as Perchloroethyleneor "Perc", a solvent used in the <br />printing industry. According to Mounds Views experts, this pollutant will dissolve on its <br />own, with time. As described by Mounds Views experts the public is not at rislc unless <br />they would be using a well for drinlcing water. <br />Very little time has been allocated to a discussion of the "Land Use" aspect of this <br />development. It is only at the last meeting on July 27, 2006 that any real discussion toolc <br />place, it lasted about fifteen minutes. I understand Mounds View is under no obligation <br />to engage in any discussion with neighbors, as to their plans. However, if they are going <br />to put forth the perceptionthat this project considersthe neighbors concerns, it is false. <br />In the end I thinlc this project could move forward with the blessing of the neighborhood, <br />given some real bacic and forth discussionbetween the neighbors and developers talces <br />place. <br />Attached to this letter you will find a slcetch I made using one of Moser's proposed plats. <br />It includes two three plex homes (6 units total, located to the westerly edge of the parcel) <br />and seven single family units. <br />Given today's property tax rates, these seven single family lots alone, would generate <br />about seven to eight thousand per year to the City of Roseville. I have also attached a <br />copy of some recent MLS listings of single family homes located at Oal�c;rest and <br />I-�arza:lin�e Ave. Both of these properties have sold within the past six months. One <br />property sold at $545K the other $489K <br />If an office building was to be considered, a 37,000 to 40,000 sf office building would <br />have a marlcet value in the neighborhoodof four million. This would generate (on the <br />low end) about thirteen thousand in property taxes to the city of Roseville annually. <br />At this time I would aslc the commission to deny the four motions before you, or table <br />their request to allow a dialogue between the development team and neighbors. <br />�i�c�crel sr <br />�� <br />rl �ii] rnr,�s <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.