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 />• Attachment F <br />B. Also not explored: are there some patterns of materials storage on the actual site which <br />might work equally well for Mr, Wicklund, and present less visual impact to the <br />residences? <br />3. BRIEF HISTORY <br />There is a very long history of problems with this property meeting City Codes, dating from <br />the Albrecht acquisition. Prior owner did not have stored equipment visible to the <br />residential area, due to (1) visuai barrier of evergreens required by Rosevilte. This was a <br />City prerequisite to protect residential integrity wlten the area was originatly developed <br />from fields to light industry; (2) the use of stockade-type fencing to screen the storage, <br />which was primarily right near the building; (3) a substantial amount of shrubs and bushes, <br />most of which appeared to have popped up in a randorr►, unplanned way, but were very <br />effective screening. <br />When the Aibrechts acquired the property, they removed the stockade-style Fencing, <br />removed the brush, and did nat replace the original evergreens, which were starting to die <br />or be blown over. In addition, they installed a cyclone-type fence 15 feet north of the <br />property line, for which they trimmed the evergreens to about 9 feet up, thus removing <br />more screening. <br />Plus, they stored substantial amounts of materials right up against their fence. <br />Periodic approaches to the City to ameliorate this problem of what we see from our houses <br />have been ineffective, despite the City planning at various stages for a berm, plantings, <br />requests that the City enforce the "no storage" 40 foot residental/industry interface. Plus, <br />over the years, and through several different City offrcials, we have never received any <br />coherent answer as to why the City does not enforce its own code re these interfaces, as in <br />City Code 1007.015, <br />ProperCy values are of very high concern to the residents--especially given the current <br />decline in residential properiy values. There is a history of some ofthe residents <br />successfully appealing their assessments to Ramsey County during a previous dispute re <br />industry compliance with City codes. (Although that industry was �t the now-Atbrecht <br />property, it was the property to its immediate east--which is why there is high concern.) <br />We can provide the Planning Commission with an extensive hist�ricat perspective, <br />including many photos from khe past ZO years or so, if requested, regarding situations of <br />non-compliance with City codes, <br />4. CONCLUSION <br />Vlle wauld like to see a workable agreement. However, in order for us to feel granting this <br />variance is compatible with our residential quality and value, we need to see speci�c <br />performance requirements built in, with cammitments frorn the owner. We'd like to feel <br />that the City has the ability to enforce this, too. <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.