Laserfiche WebLink
the outdoor play area and the fence to the south. There <br /> are buildings and fences almost completely surrounding the <br /> proposed outdoor play area(I expect that even with fencing <br /> around the play area, "woofs" will bounce around and refer <br /> to the neighbors, 40 feet away). While it would be far <br /> preferable and caring to the the neighbors, to move the <br /> outdoor area forward, towards County road C, the single <br /> row of a handful of five foot pines recently planted and <br /> old fence are certainly not adequate or well planned to <br /> effectively buffer sound or odor for this usage. In fact, <br /> all the drawings and documents we have collected from the <br /> city over the years require a berm and a much thicker <br /> stand of trees on that location. <br /> 3)Require the waste be removed more than once per week and <br /> require outdoor storage of said waste be kept well away <br /> from our residences. For obvious reasons. <br /> 4) If you feel you must grant this permit, grant it as a 2 <br /> year permit instead of a 5 year permit. That way, we can <br /> review the record in 2 years and proceed from there. This <br /> was raised at the planning commission meeting and Brian, <br /> the city staff member arguing for approval, did not give <br /> much of a reason for choosing five over 2 years. It seems <br /> to us a win, win situation. If it is going poorly, 2 years <br /> is a lot of suffering. If it is going well, all will be <br /> happy, so extend it to 5 years then. Where is the error in <br /> this reasoning? <br /> 5) Specify how this will be policed /enforced and by whom, <br /> and what triggers are in place to judge non compliance and <br /> what actions will be taken. The devil is in the details, <br /> and it will be our hell if this is left vague or poorly <br /> planned. <br /> Lastly, in listening tQ Thomas Pashke (at the planning <br /> commission meeting) state why /how a non compliant building <br /> is left and not brought up to present codes and setbacks, <br /> it sounded like he said that if a building is vacant for <br /> 366 days, it can be required to meet present <br /> code(setbacks,etc.). It is our understanding that before <br /> the storage facility went into the west end of that <br /> building last fall, for more than 1 year that building was <br /> empty, with a for lease sign out front. We would like <br /> some clarification on this and your help in bringing this <br /> property into compliance as soon as is possible, as it <br /> impacts us and our property value. <br /> Thank you very much for hearing us. <br /> Pat, will you please forward this letter to the city <br /> council members and any other concerned parties within the <br /> city as soon as possible. Thank you. <br /> Matt McLeod and Molly O'Brien <br /> 1433 Rose place <br /> 651)636 -3655 <br /> 3 <br />