My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02251
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2200
>
pf_02251
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 11:46:27 AM
Creation date
12/8/2004 10:54:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2251
Planning Files - Type
Planned Unit Development
Address
2774 VICTORIA ST N
Applicant
SLATER, BOB
Status
APPROVED
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
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 />Lake OWasso, Case No. 2251 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />amendment to the PUD. Also, in approving <br />would be making an inherent finding that the <br />consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />the PUD <br />proposal <br /> <br />you <br />is <br /> <br />The existing duplex is built within the current r.o.w. of <br />victoria and the approval of this PUD should be <br />conditioned upon the dedication of an additional 10 feet <br />which would further the nonconformance of this location. <br />This is an existing, legal nonconforming structure and may <br />remain and be maintained in its current location. The <br />approval of this proposal should not change the status of <br />this structure. If Ramsey county ever decides to widen <br />victoria, the building would have to be either removed or <br />razed. <br /> <br />LandscaDing <br /> <br />The property contains several trees and is particularly <br />well screened from Victoria. In their narrative, the <br />applicants have stated that they plan to plant shrubs <br />along the roadside for further screening, as well as <br />planting more trees on the property. There is no <br />landscaping plan and the narrative contains no specific <br />commitment as to size, number, or timing of future <br />plantings. <br /> <br />After visiting the property we agree that additional <br />screening along Victoria is not needed. We are concerned <br />about the adequacy of the proposed screen fence to block <br />the views of the storage and parking area from the <br />neighboring lot. We believe that there should be a <br />commitment to plant some additional overstory trees along <br />this edge, to further buffer the adjacent lot. <br /> <br />Liqhting <br /> <br />No lighting plans have been submitted and <br />assumption that none is proposed. This <br />confirmed with the applicants. <br /> <br />it is <br />should <br /> <br />our <br />be <br /> <br />Siqninq <br /> <br />No additional signage has been requested. <br /> <br />screeninq <br /> <br />The drawing labelled Proposed Improvements shows the <br />location of a board-on-board screen fence. This fence is <br />to be 6-1/2 feet tall, which is the maximum allowed <br />without a variance. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.