My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf10-014
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
2010
>
pf10-014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2014 2:04:52 PM
Creation date
7/2/2013 8:17:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
10-014
Planning Files - Type
Conditional Use Permit
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
160
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
� <br />Meeting March 25, 2010 <br />Summary submitted by Molly Redmond <br />� <br />Convened by Dwayne Albrecht--landowner 1450 W Cty Rd C, and Scott Wicklund, MIDC <br />business owner at that site, following notice to property owners within 500 feet of the <br />property. <br />Present: Tony & Marlene Johnson, Mrs. Cooper, Molly Redmond & Steve Ring, Linda <br />Fearing, Larry Bittner, 2 residents from N. of Cty. Rd. C(I did not catch their names, but <br />they did sign Scott's list.) <br />Permit Request Explained <br />Mr. Albrecht explained re the Qualified Special Use Permit he is applying for on the MIDC <br />property. It would allow open outside storage, and that is the only exemption to the zoning <br />code that is being requested...ie, noise regulations & setback & maintenance of the front of <br />the property would still be complied with. <br />These permits are automatically reviewed by the City every 5 years, and can also be <br />rescinded by the City before the 5 year review if the City determines there's a problem. <br />Mr. Albrecht was not aware of where in the City his permit application would go for <br />review--ie, what standing Committee, or would it go right to City Council. <br />Problems mentioned by the neighborhood residents: <br />1. Residents north of County C were primarily concerned with how the property looked & <br />is kept up on the front (ie, County Rd C) side--appearance of buildings, front of the lot, etc. <br />2. Residents south of the property were concerned about the problems of visual blight, <br />which are made more complicated by the fact that their residences are built on a hill, and <br />thus a standard 8-foot privacy fence is of minimal help for screening, as the slope's rise is <br />higher than 8 feet, so they look OVER the fence, and see all the equipment being stored. <br />The screening problem is further complicated by the fact that the pine trees planted several <br />years ago on the industry side for screening, as mandated by Roseville when the area was <br />first developed, are dying off. None were replaced until Fall, 2009, when the 8-foot privacy <br />fence was installed. <br />In addition, the landowners have cleared out a lot of brush over the years: though the <br />landowner was improving his property, the brush had actually been providing fairly <br />effective screening, especially for the 1455 Rose Place property directly behind MIDC. <br />Screening issues are especially important for the 3 contiguous properties (Redmond/Ring, <br />Nickelsen, Sorenson) with impact on the Bittner property, also. There is a large gap in the <br />area behind Redmond/Ring (1455 Rose Pl) in which the tall evergreens have died, and they <br />look directly into the western 40% or so of the MIDC yard. (Because neighbors Sorenson <br />and Nickelsen weren't able to attend the meeting, their sightlines should also be reviewed.) <br />ln addition, neighbors did not rule out the idea of fencing-type screening near the stored <br />items, rather that the Code-required roofed buildings. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.