pm_060309 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 03, 2009 Page 9 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 reminded 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 comparables 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 green space isolating the property; however, that the proposed Orchard project abutted the property line and building mass dominated space. Mr. Roste referenced Section 6.4 of the staff report related to the applicant’s inability to meet City Code requirements, 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 development 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 similar 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.