pf10-014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

• • Attachment F B. Also not explored: are there some patterns of materials storage on the actual site which might work eyually well for Mr. Wicklund, and present less visual impact to the residences? 3. BRIEF HISTORY There is a very long history of problems with this property meeting City Codes, dating from the Albrecht acquisition. Prior owner did not have stored equipment visible to the residential area, due to (1) visual barrier of evergreens required by Roseville. This was a City prerequisite to protect residential integrity when the area was originally develaped from fields to light industry; (2) the use of stockade-type fencing to screen the storage, which was primarily right near the building; (3) a substantial amount of shrubs and bushes, most of which appeared to have popped up in a randorn, unplanned way, but were very effective screening. When the Aibrechts acquired the property, they removed the stockade-style fencing, remaved the brush, and did not replace the originai evergreens, which were starting to die or be biown over. In addition, they installed a cyclone-type fence 15 feet north of the property line, for which they trimmed the evergreens to abaut 9 feet up, Chus removing more screening. Plus, they stored substantial amounts of materials right up against their Fence. Periodic approaches to the City to ameliorate this problem of what we see from our houses have been ineffective, despite the City planning at various stages for a berm, piantings, requests that the City enforce the "no storage" 40 foot residental/industry interface. Plus, over the years, and through several different CiCy officials, we have never received any coherent answer as to why the City does not enforce its own code re these interfaces, as in City Code 1007.015. Praperty values are af very high cancern to the residents--especially given the current decline in residential property vatues. There is a history of some of the residents successfully appealing Cheir assessments to Ramsey County during a previous dispute re industry compliance with City codes. (Although that industry was n�t the now-Albrecht property, it was the property to its immediate east--which is why there is high concern.) We can provide the Planning Commission with an extensive hist�ricat perspective, including many photos from the past 20 years or so, if requested, regarding situations of non-compliance with City codes. 4. CONCLUSION We would like to see a workable agreement. However, in order for us to feel granting this variance is compatible with our residential quatity and value, we need to see specific performance requirements built in, with commitments from the owner. We'd like to feel that the City has the ability to enforce this, too. Page 2 of 2