pf10-014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

• � For the purposes of summarizing the history, for 25 years this Rose Place neighborhood has dealt with the City and been filing complaints re violations about noise, visual blight, odors, huge piles of snow brought in from elsewhere and flooding our yards (photos available), vibrations from 24-hour metal stamping (ie, heary industry operations), and failure to maintain the vegetative screening. Residents abutting the industries who have complained to the City over the years include Redmond/Ring, Wadnal, Nickelsen, Bittner, Koehler/Muldar, Walter, Lee, McLeod, and others (plus neighbors who have signed petitions due to their concerns about the neighborhood as a whole). Before we purchased our property in 1982, we checked the City codes re this residential/light industry interface. We talked with City staff, who assured us that these codes were enforced. After 28 years, and worldng with many City staff (Beseth, Jopke, Waldron, Sarkozy, Falk, Strand, Lloyd, etc), we conclude that our neighborhood and its residential values are, in reality, of much lower priority than the City claims. REQUESTS As noted above, we feel we can reach an accommodation which will allow Mr. Wicklund to continue his outdoor storage, and bear him no ill will. 1. However, we would like the City to req�zire that any mitigation plans be looked at from the residential property as well as the business property. It seems like an obvious part of planning & recommendations, especially with the hill involved, but has not happened yet. 2. We would like to be able to be part of the group considering vegetative screening, per the Planning Commissions directive. Perhaps that way a more balanced picture of the needs and options can be presented. In addition, Mr. Lloyd said he did not know much about different types of vegetation possibilities. Molly has some background in this. 3. We would like the possibility of the addition of 2 feet to the new 8 foot privacy fence along our northern boundary revisited--by someone from the City who actually looks at it from our property, r� someone who has the engineering credentials to evaluate that feasibility, SPECIFICS OF COMPLAINT/SOME HISTORY Regarding the Conditional Use Permit Request--here are some current and past reasons for our high level of concern. A. OMISSION I111 CURRENT REPORT: The City stafFs report to the Planning Commission does not even mention that our residence, and 4 others, are on a hill about 12 feet above the MIDC property. There is ample record of this hill in our communications with the City over the last 20+ years. We find it inexplicable that this was not considered, nor mentioned. B. RECENT PRIVACY FENCE, AUTUMN 2009: At the instigation of the City, an 8-foot privacy fence was installed in Fall, 2009, along the south margin of industry interface with the neighborhood. This fence was installed without notification of the homeowners. Again, we believe it was installed without City Staff actually visiting the homes on the hill.