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 />To: The Roseville City Council <br />From: Steven Ring and Margaret (Molly) Redmond home owners, 1455 Rose Place <br />re: Request from MN Irrigation Distribution Center for Interim Use Permit for outdoor <br />storage of equipment <br />At the Planning Commission Meeting May 5, the Commission recommended passing the <br />request for a 5-year interim use permit, with specific additions regarding timing and <br />performance added to the original staff report--which had contained no metrics for <br />implementation nor target dates. <br />Before this is approved by the City Council, we would like to make a complaint, and 3 specific <br />requests. Our interest is: of the 4 properties directly affected by this request, ours is the most <br />affected, as our total northern boundaryborders the MIDC property. We are extremely <br />concerned that this deviation from City Code 1007.015 prohibiting open storage bordering <br />residential areas has the potential to seriously reduce our property values. <br />We have no desire to compromise Mr. Wicklund's business. Thus, in order to support the <br />[nterim Permit Use Request, we would like to see some concrete mitigation requirements <br />written into the permit, plus have further consideration on how the requirements will be <br />arrived at. <br />SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE <br />Our house--as are about 4 others-- is on a slope--probably about 12-14 feet elevation <br />difference from the level of the MIDC property. Thus, the 8-foot privacy fence installed by <br />industry Fall, 2009, does NOT provide the screening needed. We look over most of it. <br />Most of the real screening is provided by a 15-foot "buffer" strip of evergreen trees along the <br />MIDC property's south boundary. This area of alternating spruces and jack pines was <br />mandated by the City in (we believe) the 1960's, when adjacent properties were granted <br />permission to develop from pastureland, This vegetative screen is in decline: many trees <br />have died, and gaps are prominent and increasing. <br />THE COMPLAINT <br />We don't feel the current recommendation is strong enough to protect our property values. <br />This is partly because the recommendation from City Planning comes without Mr. Lloyd or <br />Mr. Paschke viewing the industrial property from our side of the boundary--ie, from the hill-- <br />from both the back yard and our north windows. As stakeholders in the outcome of the MIDC <br />request, we find this very, very troubling. And, frankly, it makes us suspicious that there is no <br />real City commitment to follow-through, or oversight. <br />I give more detail on our specific issues--especially the current request--at this at the end of <br />this letter. Frankly, much of our concern comes from our neighborhood's long history of our <br />efforts to get the City to enforce the letter and/or the spirit of its own codes--which <br />supposedly protect residential properties. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.