CC_Minutes_2010_0628 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

elected representatives to prevent the damage that will be caused by the subdivision if that 'is possible. We raised the concern that the large trees on the property help to mitigate the noise and air llution coming from traffic on the major highways to the north of our neighborhood. It eems highly likely that a number of the trees will be removed to accommodate the new construction. Your response is that the owner is free to remove the trees with or without subdivision. Furthermore, you suggested that only trees in the middle of the property would be removed and that trees on the edges of the property would not be impacted by the construction. Although we have no expertise as lawyers, as Professors of Plant Biology at the University we can assure you that the damage to the trees on the property will be real and irreversible (for decades). We can state categorically that the oak trees will not survive the construction process, as they suffer inordinately when soil over their roots is compacted. One need only to witness the recent deaths of oaks along County Rd. B that accompanied much less extensive construction than is envisioned in this proposal. Furthermore, if future development retains the footprint of the existing house, a quick walk around the property establishes the fact that there is no way that the majority of the many large trees on this property will not have to be sacrificed, with the resulting decrease in filtering of noise and pollutants from the highways. We believe that the neighbors are justified in expressing concern about increased air and noise pollution around our homes. With regard to concerns that this area of Roseville is woefully underserved with parks and sidewalks, you acknowledge that our area of the city is under-served by parks and open space and that this issue is being studied for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. It seems clear, as nothing has been done on this issue for the 20 years we have lived here, that no solution is forthcoming in these tight economic times, at least not during the childhood of our current children. You point out that it is not fair to ask one property owner to sacrifice his right to subdivide to maintain the character of the neighborhood. We would ounter that the property owner obtained this property very recently with the obvious purpose changing the character of the neighborhood, and the fairness issue cuts more in the erection of those who will have neither parks nor large lots to compensate for the absence of parks if this and similar proposals are approved. We raised the concern that there are no sidewalks in our neighborhood and that the safety of pedestrians (many of whom are small children) will be compromised by increased automobile traffic. You responded that even if two new single family homes were constructed, they would not generate sufficient traffic to have any noticeable impact on neighborhood traffic or safety. In our view, this is not an adequate response to the key issue of safety because the logical extension of proposed action is that more subdivisions and more traffic will follow. On the question of future subdivisions, you state that "The city studied this issue extensively several years ago and decided for a number of reasons, including the fact that the number of lots where this could be done is relatively small, decided not to change the code so as to require property owners to maintain larger then normal lots." The city may have studied this issue, but it must have performed the study without input from the residents of the area.- Manson Hills is exceptionally small, stretching only about a mile east-west and a quarter mile north/south. How many large lots need to be subdivided to destroy the character, and decrease the property values within, such a small area? Not many, we would argue. As it is, the lot directly behind ours has already received approval for fragmentation into four lots, and clearly more requests are coming as older residents move to smaller homes. We and our neighbors will be able to claim, probably successfully, that such actions have decreased the value of our properties, resulting in lower assessed values and wer revenue for the city and county. gain, thank you for your comments and reasonable discussion, and we ask you to prevent this subdivision if at all possible. z