pf09-002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

—. .� big, and too much mass for the site, as had been borne out in discussion of this site, referencing similar concerns voiced by the City Council in their discussions of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and their concerns with the high density of the proposal. Mr. Coyle opined that the PUD exceeded zoning outside the project, and that it remained clear from City Council discussions, that they were uncomfortable with the size of the building, and that the building was essentially the same, with the wings altered for the site and simply shifted around on the property. Mr. Coyle restated previously-raised objections; and noted remaining concerns of several Planning Commissioners related to the size and mass of the building and its close proximity to Ferriswood with the large east wall expanse. Mr. Coyle requested additional design changes that would be coinpatible with medium density use. Gary Stenson, 2179 Ferris Lane Mr. Stenson requested that staff display various Attachments provided by staff for comparison purposes; and proceeded to provide his interpretation of those comparables on a case by case basis with their respective locations, adjacent roadways, properties and uses, in addition to their lack of impact to single-family homes. Mr. Stenson questioned the applicant's attempts to increase the lot size based on Mr. Mueller's Quit Claim Deed, opining that it was not relevant based on property ownership. In response to Vice Chair Boerigter's request, Mr. Stenson identified the location of his property in relationship to The Orchard; recognizing that the property would not remain single-family designation, and opining that he was not opposed to medium density, but could not support high density. Scott Roste, President of Midland Grove Condominium Association, 2220 Midland Grove Road #211, representing members interested in this project Mr. Roste opined that the other projects completed by and the expertise of the applicants were irrelevant; and that the specifics of this project were the only consideration that she be considered at tonight's meeting but, as a matter of interest, questioned if previous projects had the same level of opposition as this project. Mr. Roste further opined that the volume and strength of that opposition should be what the Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers took away from the discussion, and reininded Commissioners that they were in receipt of a previously-filed petition with 107 names; and that the petitioners remained opposed, even with the minor cosmetic revisions now before the Commission. Mr. Roste speaking on behalf of the petitioners, advised that they remained disgruntled that land to the west of Midland Grove Road was apparently being included for calculation purposes, while the actual ownership of the property remained unclear, and that over the last twenty (20) years, Midland Grove residents had performed maintenance of the disputed area; and asked that the Planning Commission and City Council clearly understand that issue and to ignore that parcel entirely in calculations. Mr. Roste, in addressing the other multi-family project coinparables used, asked that the Orchard Project be considered on its own merits as it relates to density, size of available acreage for the project; and abutment to other properties, mostly single-family housing throughout the entire area. Mr. Roste noted that Midland Grove was built on 9-10 acres with large amounts of �-een space isolating the property; however, that the proposed Orchard project abutted the property line and building mass dominated