pf_02810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1455 Rose Place St. Paul, MN 55113 Sept. 6, 1996 Mike Falk City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Mike: I would like to reiterate some of the points in our conversation of last week regarding Mr. WICklund's decision to suddenly withdraw his request for a oonditional use permit and a variance. First, I was really shocked. As the neighborhood's primary representative in some of the meetings with you and Mr. WICklund last year, I feel that I oonsistently represented the position that Mr. WICklund's requests were reasonable and oompatible with the residential area if appropriate measures were taken to buffer the homes (primarily visually) from the more intensive uses of his site. And I still feel that way--between the Master Buffer Plan and the 1976 City ruling that mandated the 15 foot strip of evergreens between us and the industries--I feel that we had come up with protective stipulations as endorsed by the Planning Commission and City Staff. Second, I got the impression from Mr. Wicklund that the primary reason for his withdrawal was the issue of high cost (with a short deadline)--he seemed to feel he was being asked to shell out $20,000 to comply with the Master Buffer Plan. I have no idea if that cost estimate is accurate--it seems very high to me. Plus, both the Council and the Planning Commission seemed to think there might be some funding available to help amelioriate costs. Certainly, it is true, as he said to me afterwards, that Mr. Wicklund was having to be the .poster boy" for this whole Master Buffer Plan concept. But, as an experienced grantwriter, I have observed that the money is often available for the pilot project in a larger program like this, and wonder if that might be the case with Mr. Wicklund. Third, the neighborhood has put in a lot of time working on this project with Mr. WICklund. It seems a great shame to have things resolve like this. It would be especially awful if this wreaks any economic hardship on this small businessman, as I am sure that his is the type of operation Roseville wants to encourage. I would encourage Roseville to revisit the situation with Mr. Wicklund and see if there is a way for the requirements which protect our neighborhood and are attached to his conditional use requests can be accomodated at a more reasonable cost -- via grants, loans, excess fill, whatever. I would also like to note that this situation is, of course, complicated by a history of problems that the neighborhood and the City have had with the actual property owner, Mr. Albrecht, and that is why the strong protections were so actively lobbied for by this neighborhood--because we realize that any variance will ultimately attach to the land, and notto Mr. Wicklund's business. This addition of an extra layer of difficulty may have had an effect on Mr. WICklund's ability to make rapid decisions regarding costs and land alterations. Please note that I still think that the protections for the neighborhood remain critical. However, if there is a way that Roseville can follow up with Mr. Wicklund, and help him strategically or logistically or financially work towards the oompromises I thought we were approaching, I would encourage the City to do so. ~.~ Molly Redmond cc.Scott Wicklund