Laserfiche WebLink
c ~-W -ate a~ou <br />Cindy Anderson ,~~/ D 1 / D <br />From: Tam McGehee [tam@mcgehee.info] <br />Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 11:51 AM <br />To: Cindy Anderson; Bill Malinen <br />Subject: Format Correction, Please Use this Version <br />Cindy, <br />Please print the following letter for tonight's meeting. The formatting was somehow jumbled on the first <br />version I sent. This is easier to read. I am sorry for the bother; I really appreciate your help. <br />To: Roseville City Council <br />From: Tam .McGehee <br />Date: May 10, 2010 <br />Re: Changes to Comprehensive Plan <br />I wish to voice my concern regarding the rewording of the Comprehensive Section on Commercial sites. I <br />would also like to note that I was unaware of the Pubic Hearing by the Planning Commission regarding this <br />issue. I do not know how the notification was done, but it did not come to my attention. The Comprehensive <br />Plan is too important a document to change without substantial notification. (We receive water bills every three <br />months. Something as important as Comprehensive Plan changes could certainly be mailed to all residents with <br />the water bill.) That aside, now that I know of the proposed changes, my objections to the proposed changes are <br />multiple. <br />The Comprehensive Plan is the guiding policy document for our City. Changes to this document should be <br />very seriously considered. This change is simply a proposed "knee jerk" reaction to a request to place a <br />church in a vacant industrial site-a site which continues to be primarily industrial. <br />Our Comprehensive Plan was just very recently updated by the efforts of staff, citizens, and consultants. <br />The cost was at least $ ] 25,000.00 which does not take into account the time by many residents who <br />participated in the process either on the Commission or by attending the hearings and providing input. <br />Our city has a large, well located, and contained industrial area. The businesses provide significantly to our <br />tax base. To allow institutional and/or religious developments into these sites is to limit our city <br />revenues, increasing the operating costs of the city onto the local residents and taxpayers. <br />This is motivated by a particular request is for a church, but the proposed changes would affect all other <br />commercial properties potentially allowing a shift from tax base property to tax exempt property. To <br />approve this specific request would be to allow a prime parcel of commercial real estate to go to a tax <br />