pf09-002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� 2. The proposed project --� • This proJecl remains massive for [he site and could impact our air, light and vie��. This 45- foo� plus high struc�ure has not changed materially in height or setback &om our house from the proposal voted down by our Pluwing Commission 6 to 1. Cumpariums to other senior building emphasize our point. In vinually ALL examp]es presented by your Department, the bordering ]and is either parking loi, road, or commercial. \Vhen smglc residcnces are present there is substantial distance between the larger development and the single residence structure. Why are you recommending departure here? • The proposed senior living business model is more uf a senior "country club^ than [rue senior li�ing. We do not see �he value of Itaving a senior citizen plop down $150,000 to 200,000 for ihe "righP' to rent a condominium. As we understand it, Ihe person receives thcir "membership" payment back when they wish to move. BUT they receive no remm on their funds AND aoy appreciation/interest goes lo the developer. Does this kind oCsenior living really meet the long-tenn senior liv[ng needs of Roseville"! We believe a better project for Roseville would be senior subsidized living sponsored by a credible a�ency {like Presb}¢crian Homes) �hat is smaller in scope ...2 story 30 units... • There is little to nu useable green space in this plan. When looking at the surtace coverage calculation� one wonders if the parking lots are included? Rwi off and otlier environmental ennccros have only been minimally addressed. Why is �he City approving such a dramatic change withouc more researcli and appropriate environmental signoff? We are especialfy concemed about ground water runoff. 3. The Developer • As we understand it, this Developer's LLC consists of two members; Mr. Mueller and his son, who is in the insurance business. Mr. Mueller acknowledges he is in his SOs. We believe the city should be reasonably concemed thae what they tUink will be herr, w�ll not be what is on this land in the nex� 5 to 10 years. • As developer of Feaiswood, Mr. 1�9ueller lefi a boundary mess that our family is still struggling to clean up. One of the units behind our home was built violating setback rules. 5urvey errors have our pre-existing sidewalk on bo�h our and Ferriswood property. Mr. Mueller, via the associa�ion, buil� a retaining wall Uial is currently in dispute as lo who is responsible for il It was built by him as pan of the Ferriswood developmem on ciry property, our properly and the Ferriswood propertv, ]t does not match the as-buih provided to us by the city. Currently, no one is accepting ownership and responsibiliry for ihe wa11. The ciq� believes one thing, the Ferriswood Associatinn assumes another, and we have a third opinion. The point of �his is Ihat most of this problem was caused by consWCtion directed by Mr. Mueller. \4hat will the city do when Mc Mueller once again begs forgiveness versus asking permission on code violations? \4'I�at will the city do when the business proposal doesn'[ work because seniors aren't willine ro put $100's of thousands of dollars down for no return, the pmject fails and remains partially finished? Summarv We believe tUe city needs to address senior needs in our communiry. We also believe either a medium density Aesignation or a reasonable R-3 stmcmre that does not hide behind a PUD could work next door. We simply believc this projecl is �oo massive and inappropriate for this location. � Requesting a two-siep jump in the Comprehensive Plan then reques�ing a PUD so an R-7 structure can be placed on �his low-density parcel dces no� pass a reasonableness test. Sincerely, Steve and Kathy Fnzler V ia email