My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1999_0125_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1999
>
1999_0125_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/30/2011 11:31:39 AM
Creation date
9/30/2011 11:14:08 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
191
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
wm <br /> EXTI1ACT OF MINUTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF <br /> JANUARY 13, 1999 <br /> Planning File 3049. PRINCE OF PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH and SENIOR <br /> HOUSING PARTNER&LLC <br /> 5a. P1aning File 3049. Prince of Peace Lutheran Church and Senior Mousing Partners,LLC,are <br /> requesting an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to change the future land use <br /> designation of a 6.1 acre parcel from Church to High Density Residential(256 1 Victoria Street <br /> North)and the designation of a 2.1 acre parcel from Low Density Residential to High Density <br /> Residential(2555 Victoria Street North). Prince of Peace Lutheran Church and Senior Housing <br /> Partners,LL ,are also requesting concept development plan approval for a mixed use planned <br /> unit development including the existing Prince of Peace Lutheran Church,a 56-unit three-story <br /> senior housing building and an off-street parking area. The properties are located at 2555 and <br /> 2561 Victoria Street North(south of Counter Road C and west of Victoria Street North). <br /> Chair Harms left the meeting and Member john Rhody became Acting Chair. <br /> Chair Rhody read the item update from the staff report of January 13, 1999. <br /> Dennis Welsch presented a summary of other potential similar sites in Roseville as per staff <br /> report dated January 13,1999. <br /> Chair Rhody and Member Cunningham explained that potential alternatives give the <br /> Commission a broader perspective,allowing the Planning Commission to proceed with caution. <br /> Bob Van Slyke,developer,and Russ Rosa,project architect, reviewed the line of sight study from <br /> the pathway surrounding the Lake Bennett. <br /> Member Cunningham requested clarification on relocating the building further north and east. <br /> The architect explained the building would still have an"L"shape,but could be modified. <br /> Member Olson noted she reviewed tapes and notes of the public hearing. She expressed concern <br /> regarding retaining zoning-it should be stable,no rezonings should Occur. She expressed <br /> concern about 45%impervious surface:the building is too large,too close to the lake and park. <br /> She would vote"no". <br /> Member 1(lausing explained that this was a difficult decision to mare. His analysis started with <br /> the Comprehensive Plan designation(residential-low density). The applicant must carry the <br /> burden to justify change. He cannot support the concept. He explained a series of positive <br /> issues,but not sufficient to justify change. The parking problem is a non-issue and would not <br /> change perspectives. The applicant has not met the low to moderate income housing need. He <br /> noted that$600-$900/month was considered affordable in the senior study. There was no <br /> guarantee that the units could be sold as lover income units;60 of the units could be for <br /> higher incomes. There was no way to guarantee that Roseville residents would be occupants. <br /> The visual impact on the park was the largest impact. While not a pristine park at this time <br /> (examples given)it wiiH be an impact on the parr The building could go ahead without harming <br /> his enjoyment of the parr,but most people felt this would have a strong impact on the park.. He <br /> would vote against the project. <br /> Member Mulder considered the same issues that Member lausing did but with different <br /> conclusions. Within the park,he could see many roan-made improvements;the project would <br /> not destroy value in the parr. Walking paths do attract walkers and was the best improvement <br /> at McCarrins Park,bringing neighbors together. The ambience and values of Central Park <br /> would not be harmed. <br /> Member Mulder explained the Comprehensive Plan and process may not have been"carved in <br /> stone",but rather a dynamic document that changes with community values. The Commission <br /> has changed the Plan numerous times. Without change,there was no need for the Planning <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.