Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Welsch. Dennis <br /> <br />~cY ~f ?d-t~ <br />~ <br />(r--f'> - ~ ey <br /> <br />From: <br />Sent: <br />To: <br />Subject: <br /> <br />Klausing, Craig [Craig.Klausing@courts.state.mn.us] <br />Wednesday, January 13, 19998:57 AM <br />'Welsch, Dennis' <br />FW: Prince of Peace proposal <br /> <br />Dennis, <br /> <br />Could you make copies of Peggy Egli's email message available for Planning <br />Commission members? Thanks. <br /> <br />-----Original Message----- <br />From: Margaret Egli [mailto:peggy@biosci.cbs.umn.edu] <br />Sent: Monday, January 11, 1999 5:07 PM <br />To: Craig.Klausing@courts.state.mn.us <br />Subject: Prince of Peace proposal <br /> <br />Craig, <br /> <br />I can't make it to the planning commission meeting Wednesday night, so I <br />want to summarize my thoughts on the proposal here. You are welcome to <br />share this with other commission members. <br /> <br />I oppose the approval of the PUD for senionr housing on the Prince of <br />Peace property. My concerns are: <br /> <br />- what is the appearance of the project from the Lake Bennett area? <br />- what % of units will be occupied by Roseville residents? <br />- will the cost of units meet the housing needs of Roseville seniors? <br />- what are the effects on nearby water quality due to erosion and runoff? <br /> <br />I understood Presbyterian homes to say that 40% of the units would be <br />affordable for occupants having 60% of the median income of the <br />development's occupants. If I understood right, this would be skewed to a <br />higher level than the income of Roseville seniors as a whole. <br /> <br />I also heard that the % impermeable surface was fairly high and that the <br />planned on-site ponding was inadequate for size and safety reasons. <br />Currently the state's standards for ponding and impermeable surface don't <br />take into account proximity to water, but common sense says we should be <br />more careful when land is adjacent to a lake, especially one that is a <br />significant community resource. <br /> <br />If, as was stated for the C2-Snelling senior housing, only 20% of the POP <br />residents are from Roseville, then at best, only 4.5 units (40% of 20% of <br />56) will answer the needs of Roseville's "moderate-income" seniors. This <br />is not a sufficient justification for endangering the park's aesthetic <br />value and lake water quality, nor is it the best way to address housing <br />needs in Roseville. <br /> <br />POP should investigate other options for obtaining more parking area. <br />They have generously allowed the city bike path on their property, they <br />have allowed use of the path from Victoria/C to Lake Bennett, and in turn <br />they have benefited from their proximity to playgrounds, etc. I suggest <br />that the church and city use at least a portion of the Huberty property to <br />their mutual benefit, and that the church look into maximizing use of <br />their existing parking area. <br /> <br />In contrast to the POP proposal, R-1 development of the Huberty property <br />would be more in character with the adjacent homes to the south and east <br />(as well as park areas to the east) that already overlook the park's <br />recreational and natural areas. <br /> <br />Thanks for "listening", <br /> <br />Peggy Egli <br /> <br />1 <br />