pf10-014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

• � To: The Roseville City Council From: Steven Ring and Margaret (Molly] Redmond home owners, 1455 Rose Place re: Request from MN Irrigation Distribution Center for Interim Use Permit for outdoor storage of equipment At the Planning Commission Meeting May 5, the Commission recommended passing the request for a 5-year interim use permit, with specific additions regarding timing and performance added to the original staffreport--which had contained no metrics for implementation nor target dates. Before this is approved by the City Council, we would like to make a complaint, and 3 specific requests. Our interest is: of the 4 properties directly affected by this request, ours is the most affected, as our total northern boundary borders the MIDC property. We are extremely concerned that this deviation from City Code 1007.015 prohibiting open storage bordering residential areas has the potential to seriously reduce our property values. We have no desire to campromise Mr. Wicklund's business. Thus, in order to support the lnterim Permit Use Request, we would like to see some concrete mitigation requirements written into the permit, plus have further consideration on h�v the requirements will be arrived at. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE Our house--as are about 4 others-- is on a slope--probably about 12-14 feet elevation difference from the level of the MIDC property. Thus, the 8-foot privacy fence installed by industry Fall, 2009, does NOT provide the screening needed. We look over most of i� Most of the real screening is provided by a 15-foot "buffer" strip of evergreen trees along the MIDC property's south boundary. This area of alternating spruces and jack pines was mandated by the City in (we believe) the 1960's, when adjacent properties were granted permission to develop from pastureland. This vegetative screen is in decline: many trees have died, and gaps are prominent and increasing. THE COMPLAINT We don't feel the current recommendation is strong enough to protect our property values. This is partly because the recommendation from City Planning comes without Mr. Lloyd or Mr. Paschke viewing the industrial property from our side oPthe boundary--ie, from the hill-- from both the back yard and our north windows. As stakeholders in the outcome of the MIDC request, we find this very, very troubling. And, frankly, it makes us suspicious that there is no real City commitment to follow-through, or oversight I give more detail on our specific issues--especially the current request--at this at the end of this letter. Frankly, much of our concern comes from our neighborhood's long history of our efforts to get the City to enforce the letter and/or the spirit of its own codes--which supposedly protect residential properties.