pm_060309 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 03, 2009 Page 10 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 modification 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 faced by residents at Midland Grove Condominiums. Ms. Thielen referenced her conversations with the State of MN regarding drainage issues; and opined that the proposed project would only serve to further compound drainage issues in the area; and that the ultimate outcome for Roseville may be the collapse of the Midland Grove units, loss of tax base by the City of Roseville, and potential litigation issues. Steve Enzler, representing family, 1995 W County Road B Mr. Enzler requested that his letter of June 2, 2009 be included in the record; with Vice Chair Boerigter advising that staff had done so, and the written comments were part of the record, attached hereto and made a part thereof. Mr. Enzler assured Commissioners that his comment was not simply based on “not in my backyard” mentality; and opined that his comments about the developer and concerns with him had nothing to do with the age of previous projects; but with the reality of the discoveries found on his property over the last two (2) years due to inaccurate measurements, City Codes, and boundary issues. Mr. Enzler opined that the design and footprint of the proposed massive building had not materially changed, while the developer had broken up the exterior elevations; and that the building mass was immediately adjacent to his single-family home. Mr. Enzler advised that he had attempted to reconcile himself to the building’s placement, and reviewed various photos from the Developer’s presentation, based on his visual interpretations and perspectives. Mr. Enzler opined that Mr. Mueller was a great guy; but he expressed his concern about accurate measurements for this project, noting the two (2) examples currently existing on his property. Mr. Enzler addressed potential development on his property, based on its topography, and opined that it would remain a single-family lot, and asked the Commission consider that in their deliberations. Mr. Enzler addressed similar traffic concerns already expressed, and opined that, while not supported by hard data, the reality was that due to the speed and amount of traffic, seniors would be put in harm’s way. Mr. Enzler questioned why this project was being proposed, and why was it so large; and opined that it was basically due to financial considerations, both for the developers, and the City’s tax base. Mr. Enzler further opined that it was wrong that there was a chance that changes to the City’s Comprehensive Plan would transfer value from his home to the developer; and asked that the Commission consider approval only based on at a maximum medium density, not high density, and not PUD.