pf09-002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

--. .-.. Page 2 of 7 Commission. Due to the opposition from residents at Midland Grove, neighboring Ferriswood residents and the neighbor to the East, Steve Enzler, Mr. Mueller withdrew his proposal. He then attended the March Planning Commission meeting and proposed a 3-story, 55 unit complex. Again, neighbors from Midland Grove, Ferriswood and Steve Enzler opposed the project due to concerns about the size and scale of the project, the volume of additional traffic, the impairment of sightlines and other issues. Due to these concerns, the Planning Commission denied approval for the Orchard project. Despite this denial, Mr. Mueller brought his proposal to the May Roseville City Council meeting. At this meeting, a petition of 107 Midland Grove residents was presented opposing the project, residents of Ferriswood were also in opposition to the project as was the neighbor to the east, Steve Enzler. Based on these concerns, the City Council remanded the Orchard proposal back to the Planning Commission for further investigation. Because the Orchard project has been remanded back to the Planning Commission, please allow me to repeat the concerns of our residents for your review. (1) The first issue is the size of the proposed site. As noted in the original proposal, the site at 2025 County Road B consists of 2.23 useable acres. You may notice in the more recent packet that Mr. Mueller states that the site also includes an additional parcel of land to the west of Midland Grove Road granted to him by MNDOT which raises the acreage up to 2.61 acres. Please do not be misled by this information. Ownership of the land to the west of Midland Grove Road is not clear at this time and this land may be owned by Midland Grove Condominiums. If the land was owned or operated by MNDOT during this time, then ownership cannot merely be handed back to Mr. Mueller. Residents of Midland Grove have been tending to that parcel of property for over 20 years and we dispute MNDOT's ability to hand the land over to Mr. Mueller. PLEASE NOTE, that regardless of the ownership of this parcel, it is meaningless as to the scope and size of the Orchard project because nothing will be built on this strip of land. The entirety of the Orchard project will be built on the main site which is merely 2.23 useable acres. Therefore this additional parcel should have no bearing on how the project is reviewed. If the Planning Commission or the City Council are going to include this parcel in the density and city code calculations of the site, then Midland Grove hereby requests the city to review the true ownership of this parcel and make a determination on whether this land belongs to Midland Grove. (2) The second issue is the density of the proposed project. The Orchard projects to have a density level of over 24 units per acre. While this may seem compatible with other senior housing projects in Roseville, all but one of those other senior housing projects have at least 3.4 acres of land to soften the impact to surrounding neighbors. The Orchard site is so small, that the building will abut its neighbors to the east and west and significantly impair their sightlines. This density level does not fit into the overall neighborhood. Despite having 174 units, Midland Grove has a density level of 18.8 units/acre because it is located on almost 10 acres in a park-like setting. The neighboring townhomes of Ferriswood have a much lower density level. Thus cramming a high density project into this small piece of land just isn't appropriate for the surrounding area. PLEASE NOTE: Most residents of Midland Grove agree that the property site is not conducive to single family homes, however switching from low density to high density is inappropriate. Many Midland Grove residents would likely support some type of inedium density project at that location (4-12 units per acre would equal9-27 units). However the Orchard project is more than double that amount. We recognize that Mr. Mueller has made some cosmetic adjustments to his project since the March Planning Commission meeting, but these changes are merely cosmetic and do not affect the issues raised by our residents. (3) The third issue is the scale of the project related to the small size of the proposed site. The Orchard project is seeking a PUD exemption because it will not meet certain city code requirements. Specifically, the Orchard project will not meet city code height limitations, lot space per unit requirements or floor area ratio requirements. In the March packed, the Orchard project was seeking 29% variance on the city code height requirement, a 50% variance for lot space per unit requirements and a 90% variance for floor area ratio requirements. Adding these variances together results in a project that is out of scope for the size of the property site and is a signal to the Planning Commission and the City Council that the site is more appropriate for medium density use. 07/07/2009