pf10-014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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