pf09-002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-� -�. space. Mr. Roste referenced Section 6.4 of the staff report related to the applicant's inability to meet City Code requireinents, thus the need for the PUD (i.e., floor area ratio calculations) and the need for a variance. City Planner Thomas Paschke clarified that this project does not and has not requested a"variance"; that the PUD process allows for a developinent that deviates from Code standards and is completely different that a variance. Vice Chair Boerigter concurred, noting that the deviation referenced in the chart in the staff report compared deviations from underlying code requirements. Mr. Roste further addressed the Midland Grove project developed by Mr. Mueller forty (40) years ago, and the persistent water drainage issues experienced in the underground parking garages, and due to the scope of the work, requiring ongoing deferral, and now causing those residents to face a total assessment of $600,000 for major excavation required to alleviate the problem. Mr. Roste questioned how many of these water drainage problems could have been avoided when the units were originally constructed; and questioned if siinilar problems would be created when the Orchard project was constructed, and whether it would further impact Midland Grove drainage issues. Mr. Roste further addressed traffic in the vicinity; with the staff report estimated an additional 193 trips/day. Mr. Roste advised that this was a major safety concern for Midland Grove residents, based on the curvature of the road and realities of vehicles driving down the middle of the road, their speed, lack of lighting, and pedestrian traffic sharing the road as well. Mr. Roste addressed the proposed location of the Orchard access, its impacts on the road and views from the intersection of County Road B and Cleveland Avenue. Mr. Roste opined that this would only further acerbate high speed traffic from I-35W after closure of Highway 280. Mr. Roste concluded by addressing concerns of the proposed financing for the project, ownership/rental of units, association fees; and what guarantees residents had of future management, use and management, respectfully asking that the project be denied. Dick Taylor, 2210 Midland Grove, #302 Mr. Taylor pointed out, on Attachment A(location map) from the staff report, misidentification of Building Numbers 2200 (should be 2210), and 2210 (should be 2200); and noted that the proposed building was on much higher elevation than surrounding buildings and that topography should be taken into consideration, as well as the flat roof of Midland Grove opposed to the proposed Orchard pitched roof; and questioned the actual number of stories referenced in Section 5.6 of the staff report, due to the ground level entry of the garage. Mr. Taylor opined that this also didn't change the building dimensions, but that the topography be taken into consideration accordingly. Mr. Taylor advised that, related to traffic concerns, referenced Sections 6.6 and 6.7 of the staff report, and proposed allocation of right-of-way; however, he suggested that the City of Roseville should retain the right-of-way for future inodification or reconfiguration of Midland Grove Road to improve safety issues. Joyce Thielen, 2210 Midland Grove Road, Unit #203 Ms. Thielen opined that water drainage would be an issue on the proposed Orchard project; and noted the major engineering improvements currently being