My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1999_0426_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1999
>
1999_0426_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/29/2011 12:57:09 PM
Creation date
9/29/2011 12:41:57 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
149
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
5.0 Suggested Planning Commission Action (January 13,, 1999) <br /> 5.3 If the Planning Commission does tale final action on the request at this meeting,this will <br /> be the last opportunity for Planning Commission review. The final development plan, <br /> final plat, and planned unit development agreement does not require Planning <br /> Commission review prior to City Council action (unless the Planning Commission <br /> requests another detailed design review prior to the final approval stage and the Council <br /> concurs). <br /> 5.4 By motion,recommend approval(denial)of the request for an amendment to the City's <br /> Comprehensive Flan to change the future land use designation of both parcels to blip <br /> Density Residential and approval(denial)of the concept development plan for a mixed <br /> use planned unit development including the existing Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, <br /> a 56--unit three-story senior housing building,and an off-street parking area,based on the <br /> findings outlined in Section 3,subject to the following conditions: <br /> a. Prior to requesting concept approval from the City Council,the applicant will hold <br /> a design meeting with neighbors and interested public (including the Planning <br /> Commission members if interested)to identify specific changes in site design and <br /> landscaping,materials, massing, and visual screening from the Labe. <br /> b. The applicant will include building design materials (brick,masonry,and natdra <br /> materials)that match those of the existing Church building. <br /> C. The applicant will redesign the building mass to be consistent with the height, <br /> width,and size of the existing Church building. <br /> d. The applicant will request,in writing,the council on January 25, 1999, accept a 60 <br /> day time extension to the project review process for Further design refinement. <br /> If the Council approves the concept PUD and the change in the Comprehensive Plan,the <br /> PUD does not take effect until after final approvals of the PUD and Subdivision an <br /> respective agreements;and review and approval of the Comprehensive flan change by the <br /> Metropolitan Council; and publication of the PUD ordinance. <br /> 5.5- The Planning commission"s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for <br /> final action on January 25, 1998. The developer may ask, in writing, for another 60 day <br /> extension before submitting the concept and design documents to the Council for their <br /> decision. Please note that this is a change from the date stated in the public hearing <br /> notice for this request. <br /> Attachments: Property location reap; notice of public hearino Comprehensive Plan vision statement,goals, and <br /> policies for residential areas;summary of senior housing study(7/98);boundary&topographic surrey;preliminary <br /> site&grading plan;memo from Loeb Bloom(Assistant Public works Director);site plan;landscape plan;site profile; <br /> building elevations;building floor}Mans;excerpt of Planning Commission minutes(7/8198);overview of Parr and <br /> Recreation Commission discussion(8/4/98);excerpt from Planning Commission minutes(8112198):letters submitted <br /> to date regarding the request;Letter to Steve Sarkozy re:City/Church options;staff report on similar situations within <br /> the City. <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.