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 />For the purposes of summarizing the history, for 25 years this Rose Place neighborhood has <br />dealt with the City and been filing complaints re violations about noise, visual blight, odors, <br />huge piles of snow brought in from elsewhere and flooding our yards (photos available), <br />vibrations from 24-hour metal stamping (ie, heavy industry operations), and failure to <br />maintain the vegetative screening. Residents abutting the industries who have complained <br />to the City over the years include Redmond/Ring, Wadnal, Nickelsen, Bittner, <br />Koehler/Muldar, Walter, Lee, McLeod, and others [plus neighbors who have signed petitions <br />due to their concerns about the neighborhood as a whole). <br />Before we purchased our property in 1982, we checked the City codes re this <br />residential/light industry interface. We talked with City staff, who assured us that these <br />codes were enforced. After 28 years, and working with many City staff (Beseth, Jopke, <br />Waldron, Sarkozy, Falk, Strand, Lloyd, etc), we conclude that our neighborhood and its <br />residential values are, in reality, of much lower priority than the City claims. <br />REQUESTS <br />As noted above, we feel we can reach an accommodation which will allow Mr. Wicklund to <br />continue his outdoor storage, and bear him no ill will. <br />1. However, we would like the City to re ir that any mitigation plans be looked at from the <br />residential property as well as the business property. It seems like an obvious part of <br />planning & recommendations, especially with the hill involved, but has not happened ye� <br />2, We would like to be able to be part of the group considering vegetative screening, per the <br />Planning Commissions directive. Perhaps that way a more balanced picture of the needs and <br />options can be presented. In addition, Mr. Lloyd said he did not know much about different <br />types of vegetation possibilities. Molly has some background in this. <br />3. We would like the possibility of the addition of 2 feet to the new 8 foot privacy fence along <br />our northern boundary revisited--by someone from the City who actually looks at it from our <br />property, and someone who has the engineering credentials to evaluate that feasibility. <br />SPECIFICS OF COMPLAINT/SOME HISTORY <br />Regarding the Conditional Use Permit Request--here are some current and past reasons for <br />our high level of concern. <br />A. OMISSION IN CURRENT REPORT: The City staff s report to the Planning Commission <br />does not even mention that our residence, and 4 others, are on a hill about 12 feet above the <br />MIDC property. There is ample record of this hill in our communications with the City over <br />the last 20+ years. We find it inexplicable that this was not considered, nor mentioned. <br />B. RECENT PRIVACY FENCE, AUTUMN 2009: At the instigation of the City, an 8-foot privacy <br />fence was installed in Fall, 2009, along the south margin of industry interface with the <br />neighborhood. This fence was installed without notification of the homeowners. Again, we <br />believe it was installed without City Staff actually visiting the homes on the hill. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.