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 />• <br />Attachment G <br />,:, Ms. Redmond reiterated the desire to implement the tightest plan possible to remediate this <br />�" ongoing issue that they've dealt with over the last fourteen (14) years, while ensuring that Mr. <br />:��� Wicklund's business remained vital. <br />.� Ms. Redmond invited Commissioners to view the Albrecht parcel from the inside of their home <br />�> � to have a better concept of their view; noting that one residential property was currently for sale, <br />` with comments received by the realtor expressing concerns about adjacent commercial uses. <br />��,. Discussion among staff, Commissioners and the applicant included location of vegetation on the <br />s? � north or south side of the fence; gaps in the current privacy fence; review of the proposed <br />�':� screening plan from the perspective of the commercial property as well as residential properties. <br />�� � Steve Ring (Molly's husband), 1455 Rose Place <br />�:''- Mr. Ring concurred with previous comments; however, he expressed additional concern that the <br />i,_ � proposed INTERIM USE would continue the long-term visual pollution the residents had been <br />�' ; experiencing that was well beyond City Code acceptance and application; impacting the value of <br />i: their homes. Mr. Ring noted the recent efforts of Mr. Albrecht and Mr. Wicklund in cleaning up <br />i�, � the property prior to this requested action; however, he expressed concern that this may not be a <br />i;:� long term effort; and requested that the City ensure residential property owners that, in the <br />i future, they would move to enforce all other City Code related to this property; and noted that <br />�, -' Mr. Albrecht has a commercial business several parcels down from this parcel. <br />i' -' Mr. Ring expressed concern with the physical location and height of his property at 1455 Rose <br />i.� _: Place; and suggested another two feet (2') added to the height of the existing fence to better <br />i'::; shield their property. Mr. Ring sought to reach an accommodation with the property owner and <br />��' lessee; and suggested that the offer proposed by Mr. Albrecht at the open house to plant trees on <br />i'; residential properties may be a better screening solution. <br />i`- Tony Mickelsen, 1463 Rose Place <br />i= Mr. Mickelsen expressed frustration in over eight (8) years of attempting to work with Roseville <br />�� Code Enforcement staff on areas of concern, including issues of rubbish and noise; declining <br />i property values; inconsistencies of this property owner to comply with City Code; and the <br />i; inability of staff to find resolution, and appearing to be more pro-business than pro-residential <br />i: properties. Mr. Mickelsen expressed his resentment and disappoinhnent with such appearances. <br />i:� Mr. Mickelsen stated that he wished to work with the property owner and lessee, and was <br />�; supportive of small businesses in the community and their impact to the City's tax base; <br />i; however, he asked that if they were consistently not in compliance with City Code, they <br />i�� eventually brought property values down. Mr. Mickelsen concluded by stating that the codes <br />i;= were already on the books, and asked that the City enforce them. <br />i•= Chair poherty closed the Public Hearing at 7:25 p.m. <br />i�:, Discussion among Commissioners and staff included fence setbacks of twenty feet (20') and <br />i'�F� setbacks of storage at twenty feet (20') from that fence for commercial areas; proposed existing <br />�;' = fence location part of the legacy of the property; past application of Comprehensive Plan <br />i�:� amendment geared toward this stretch of property along County Road C and adjacent residential <br />i;:� properties south of that industrial property and ongoing challenges to maintain vegetative <br />�-"�- screening; and proposed rear yard setback respective to outdoor storage on a property zoned to <br />i-� not allow such outdoor storage and requirements for buildings set back one hundred feet (100') <br />i:�' from residential and abutting property lines for Light Industrial uses, with parking required to be <br />i�:� forty feet (40') from that property line and screened from residential properties. <br />i:;�= Further discussion included the ongoing code compliance issues with this property and inability <br />i:<:; to enforce them based on current code, and rationale for this INTERIM USE process to establish <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.