Laserfiche WebLink
From: support @civicplus.com <br /> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 12:39 PM <br /> To: *RVCouncil; Margaret Driscoll; Bill Malinen <br /> Subject: Doggie Day Care /Redmond Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council <br /> The following form was submitted via your website: Contact City Council <br /> Subject: Woof Room unaddressed concerns <br /> Name:: Molly Redmond <br /> Address:: 1 <br /> City:: Roseville <br /> State: MN <br /> Zip:: 55113 <br /> How would you prefer to be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact <br /> information.: Email <br /> Home Phone Number:: 651 633 -2743 <br /> Daytime Phone Number:: 651 633 -2743 <br /> Email Address:: msring @earthlink.net <br /> Please Share Your Comment, Question or Concern: Honorable Council Members and Mayor, <br /> The Woof Room hearing and decision by the Roseville Planning Commission on November 3 left <br /> crucial unanswered questions. It also revealed an astonishing attitude of distrust and <br /> negativity of City Staff toward the residents on Rose Place, behind the proposed Woof Room. <br /> I've enclosed my November 4 letter of unanswered concerns to the Planning Commission. Here's <br /> a brief statement of 3 of them. The concern re Economic Harm is in the other included letter. <br /> CONCERN 1: Mr. Lloyd had not yet received feedback from the City of St. Paul Police <br /> department about whether or not there were any complaints about the urban dog care center he <br /> viewed as a possible model. He also did not interview nearby residents to see if they had had <br /> issues about the facility. And yet he concluded that there was no problem at that site. <br /> Thus, we don't know if the site held up as a model is actually "trouble free. Without this <br /> critical information, how can the Planning Commission still recommend it? <br /> CONCERN 2: I am, as detailed in the letter below, dismayed about the negative attitude <br /> expressed towards the residents -both directly stated and by what seem to be omissions in the <br /> fact finding. Mr. Lloyd basically said that lack of trust in the residents kept City Staff <br /> from building more safeguards into the proposal. I found this attitude shocking! <br /> CONCERN 3: In deliberation, one of the Planning Commissioners said that they were not going <br /> to consider past enforcement problems as a factor. But, doesn't making a decision before the <br /> facts are in, and seeing City Staff in that very meeting express distrust of the <br /> 1 <br />