Laserfiche WebLink
107 Ronald G. Rumpsa; 2201 Ferris Lane (Ferriswood Apartmer�#sj <br />�08 Mr. Rumpsa concurred with the comments of Mr. Coyle, opining that density was the <br />��9 major issue of concern; and apined that this proposed use was such a dramatic <br />�.� deviation, and ti�at it was inconsistent with the adjacent properties. Mr. Rumpsa asked <br />�� 1 that residents' quality of life be enric�ecE, not reduced. Mr. Rumpsa further addressed <br />112 existing traffic �olumes on County Road B be#ween Fairview and Cleveland Avenues, <br />113 and impacts with additional units in tnat area. <br />1 i4 Allen� Wiley, 2220 Midlar�d Grove Raad, #20fi <br />i 15 Ms. Wiley concurred with Mr. Rumpsa's fraffic concerns; and further addressed the <br />��� proposed exit road from the developmeni site onto Midland Grove Road, and negative <br />��7 impacts to access ability, in addition to ernergency vehicle considerations. <br />�� 8 Russ Sherer, 22.03 Ferris �ane <br />119 Mr: Sherer expressed concern related to egress fram Ferriswoad, when heading east of <br />12� h[ighway 36 and exiting on Cle�eland and the need ta cross over three (3} lanes of traffic <br />12� to make a lef� hand tum onto Caunty Raad B. <br />122 Dorothy Kur�ze, 222� Midiand Grove Road, #205 <br />123 Ms. Kunz� provided com.ment, opining that tax revenue should not be the anly <br />124 consideratian for the City, but also that of aesthetics; and opined that tt�is was toa large of <br />12� a building on too small of a plot of land, and that this was not what #he Ros��ille residents <br />126 have known for a co�siderable amount of time. <br />127 Eileen Stack, RN, 2220 Ferris Lane <br />�28 Ms. Siack, as a Faith Gammunity Nurse at the Church of Corpus Ghristi, noted that she <br />�29 had clients in many area homes; and that based on the current economy, they were <br />13� continuing to live in their homes, rather than mave, due to their inability to sell tE�eir <br />131 hames; and opined that this shou.ld be of m.ajor concern ta ti�e City. <br />132 Bob StoiKa, 2220 Midlar�d Gro�e Road, �108 <br />1s3 Mr. S#oika cancurred with concems expressed about. whether this praposal would fit in <br />i3� with the neighborhood; opining that Midland Grove was a park-like sett.ing; and that this <br />� 35 project would not fit in. <br />�36 Vijaya [SP) Pothapragada, 2250 Midland Grove Road, #105 <br />137 Mr. Pothapragada addressed Section 6.1 of t�e �taff report, detailing traffic ar�d daily irips <br />t38 based on the proposed number of units; and asked that ather complicatians be <br />13� cansidered {i.e., empioyee and staff parking needs; visitar parking; deli�eries to the site; <br />��o and emergency ambulance services) and those additional traffic impacis ta the <br />i41 neighbarhaod. <br />1�2 Fred Christianson, 222� Midland Grove <br />1�3 Mr. Christianson, as a former Planner in the United States and Canada, app�auded the <br />��� e�orts of thase speakers and their eloquence. Mr. Christianson asked that the <br />�a5 Cammission remember that their decisions were fong-term; and concurred with the <br />�a� camments af Attarney Peter Coyle. <br />�47 S#e�e Enzler, representing farnily, 1995 W Caunty Road B <br />�a8 Mr: Enzler read an e-maEl from Frank Wafion of the Roseville Historical Society, refated to <br />��� the hisiorical nature of his family praperty, identified on #he Herftage Trail, #�47, and the <br />�50 lack of notice of the Historical Society af a�y propased activities on this site; and future <br />1a1 notice in accordance. Mr. Walton's camments addressed concerns uvi#h mass and fhe <br />� a2 need ta honar the green space indicative of this property. <br />�53 Mr. �nzler's persortal camments included opining ti�at the current proposal may more <br />1�4 accurat�ly reflect future use of the prape�ty; that it was apparently nat the intent flf the <br />155 Cornprehensive P�an to efiminate his single-family residential property. Mr. �nzler opined <br />1�� that Mr. Mueller was attempting to undermine code limits by use af #he �UD applicatian; <br />157 and further opined fhat the building still remained massive in rela#ionship ta his property <br />�5g and home; and that his property wauid experience dramatic and negative impacts to <br />159 sunligi�t, air and view; and apined that it seemed #a be a reasonabie ciaim that this could <br />�6Q damage the �a[�.e of their home in addition to #heir quality af life. <br />