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
u <br />• Attachment C <br />3. One resident made the point that the area has not been in compliance with the <br />screening/visibility issue since the previous owner (Hale?) had sold Mr. Albrecht the <br />property. This has led to concern of the neighborhood re follow-through regarding <br />solutions. <br />4. Property values are of very high concern to the residents. There is a history of some of <br />the properties appealing their assessments to Ramsey County during a previous dispute re <br />industry compliance with City codes and having the assessor agree with them and having <br />their property taxes lowered. Although this was not the now-Albrecht property, it was the <br />property to its immediate east--which is why there is high concern. <br />Suggested Solutions <br />Three possibilities were discussed, which could possibly be looked at in some combination: <br />1. Vegetation--trees/shrubs on the residential properties to form a living screen. Mr. <br />Albrecht said that his landscape business could provide the trees. This has the advantage of <br />replacing trees still alive, but in decline, and is an investment in preventing future <br />problems with the sightlines, too. <br />2. Fence screening. Currently the 8' privacy fence is right up against an 8' cyclone-type <br />fence. Could either fence be higher, or have additional height added that might be woven <br />with strips to provide more screening to the residences on the slope above it? Mr. <br />Albrecht's conversations with the City seem to indicate a fence over 8' would not be <br />approved. <br />3. Management of where different items are stored on the property. Perhaps there is a <br />way for Mr. Wicklund to review where on his lot different equipment is stored, with an eye <br />to which ones might be less disruptive to a sightline, and still not inconvenience or <br />complicate his access to them. <br />Questions to be answered by the City: <br />1. Can approval of the Permit request actually be based upon contingencies f actions written <br />into the permit that attempt to solve problems noted above? <br />2. What kinds of trees/shrub combinations might give the best short-term and long-term <br />solutions for screening? <br />3. Would the City approve a higher fence if that seemed a good partial solution? <br />4. Where does the permit go once Mr. Albrecht submits it—Committees, etc? <br />5. What, then, is the process/timetable for review, comments, and decision making? <br />Next Steps: <br />--Meeting participants were amenable to working together towards solutions. <br />-- Residents are quite firm re wanting a detailed plan for solutions put together before they <br />would agree not to fight the zoning exemption. <br />--We need information from the City, per above list of questions. <br />--We need to schedule a time with Mr. Albrecht & Mr. Wicklund for looking at the sightlines <br />from each other's properties to see if we get some other ideas for problem solving that way. <br />Page 3 of 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.