pf09-002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� ..� Page 3 of 7 For example, city code requires 2,000 square feet (s� of lot space for each 1-bedroom unit and 2,800 sf for 2, 3 or 4-bedroom units. As currently proposed, the Orchard would require 146,000 sf in lot space (3.35 acres). Yet the site in question only has 97,000 sf (2.23 acres). Thus Mr. Mueller needs a variance of 50%. Another example is that city code requires a floor area ratio of .5 or 50% in order to preserve sufficient green space. This would limit the size of the project to half of the existing 97,000 sf and contain the project at 48,500 sf. Yet the Orchard proposes a structure of 92,500 sf. This represents a floor area ratio of .95 or 95% and would be a 90°/a variance from city code. These significant disparities show that the project is overbuilding the site in question and thus a PUD should not be granted for this project. PLEASE NOTE: Our residents recognize that a PUD is appropriate when minor variances to city code requirements are needed, but that is not the situation here. In this case, the PUD would essentially be gutting the city code requirements which are supposed to be designed to keep high density projects from overbuilding and preserve green space in Roseville. For this reason, our residents are opposed to the Orchard project. (4) Another issue is water drainage. As a point of reference, Mr. Mueller was also the developer for the Midland Grove Condominiums which were built in 1969. Over the past 40 years, several water drainage problems have persisted at our complex resulting in water seeping into the foundation and the underground garages. Just last year, our complex approved a$600,000 special assessment to be paid by our residents to dig up and redesign water drainage along all of our buildings. I do not know if these problems could have been prevented during the design of the complex in the 1960's, but it concerns me that the Orchard proposal lies on land that is lower than the land to the East and North. Therefore the site will be subject to significant water runoff. Mr. Mueller's project will have over 50% surface are coverage, meaning over half the lot will be covered by either the building structure or impervious parking lot surfacing. Where will this water go? Just to the east, County Road B dips down into a valley in front of the Fairview Community Center and this location has been the site of flash flooding in the past. By allowing a high density project on a small property site adjacent to County Road B, our residents are concerned that this problem will be exacerbated. Another reason to limit the property site to something smaller in scope and scale. (5) The next concern is related to traffic. Midland Grove is a short, curved road which essentially dead ends at our complex. The road entrance is within 100 feet of the Cleveland and County Road B intersection which is a high traffic intersection. To leave Midland Grove Road, a driver must negotiate traffic turning from Cleveland as well as high-speed traffic coming from the east on County Road B. Because County Road B dips to the east (as mentioned above), cars are sometimes not visible until the last moment. The Orchard project would add a driveway from Midland Grove Road to the Orchard site. This would increase traffic significantly and many of our residents are concerned about accidents and safety. There is also no sidewalk from the Midland Grove complex out to the street, meaning all walkers (including many of our senior residents) must walk in the street during both summer and winter months. Adding traffic from a high density site to this situation is not conducive for maintaining safety. Again, a medium density or smaller project would alleviate these concerns. (6) The final topic is financing. I don't know if the Planning Commission or the City Council typically discuss developer financing in these proposals, but it should be a topic of concern in this instance. Mr. Mueller has identified the project as an active senior living complex which will be a hybrid between ownership and renting. In theory, residents will pay a large down payment of cash ($150,000 or more) to move in to a unit. However they won't own the unit. The residents will still pay a monthly association fee to liver there (similar to rent) and then when the resident wants to move out or dies, their large down payment will be refunded to them (without any accumulated interest, I assume this goes to the developer/land owner). While this protects the resident from losing value on their condo asset, it also prevents the resident from gaining any appreciation in value from the condo asset. This raises several issues for the Commission and the Council to consider. Are there really enough potential residents who will want to buy in to this situation? In this economy, how many seniors will legitimately be able to move in with this down payment requirement? The last thing the city and the neighborhood want is a building site which is either vacant or sitting half-empty due to a lack of 07/07/2009