pf_03049 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 5a. ! '-'I') ~ cr Cif Extract of Minutes of Tanuarv 13. 1999 Planning Commission Minutes: Plannine; file 3049. Prince of Peace Lutheran Church and Senior Housing Partners, LLC, are requesting an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to change the future land use designation of a 6.1 acre parcel from Church to High Density Residential (2561 Victoria Street North) and the designation of a 2.1 acre parcel from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential (2555 Victoria Street North). Prince of Peace Lutheran Church and Senior Housing Partners, LLC, are also requesting concept development plan approval for a mixed use planned unit development including the existing Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, a 56-unit three-story senior housing building and an off-street parking area. The properties are located at 2555 and 2561 Victoria Street North (south of County Road C and west of Victoria Street North). Chair Harms left the meeting and Member John Rhody became Acting Chair. Chair Rhody read the item update from the staff report of January 13, 1999. Dennis Welsch presented a summary of other potential similar sites in Roseville as per staff report dated January 13,1999. Chair Rhody and Member Cunningham explained that potential alternatives give the Commission a broader perspective, allowing the Planning Commission to proceed with caution. Bob Van Slyke, developer, and Russ Rosa, project architect, reviewed the line of sight study from the pathway surrounding the Lake Bennett. Member Cunningham requested clarification on relocating the building further north and east. The architect explained the building would still have an "L" shape,but could be modified. Member Olson noted she reviewed tapes and notes ofthe public hearing. She expressed concern regarding retaining zoning - it should be stable, no rezonings should occur. She expressed concern about 45% impervious surface; the building is too large, too close to the lake and park. She would vote "no". Member Klausing explained that this was a difficult decision to make. His analysis started with the Comprehensive Plan designation (residential - low density). The applicant must carry the burden to justify change. He cannot support the concept. He explained a series of positive issues, but not sufficient to justify change. The parking problem is a non-issue and would not change perspectives. The applicant has not met the low to moderate income housing need. He noted that $600-$900/month was considered affordable in the senior study. There was no guarantee that the units could be sold as lower income units; 60% of the units could be for higher incomes. There was no way to guarantee that Roseville residents would be occupants. The visual impact on the park was the largest impact. While not a pristine park at this time (examples given) it will be an impact on the park. The building could go ahead without harming his enjoyment of the park, but most people felt this would have a strong impact on the park. He would vote against the project. Member Mulder considered the same issues that Member Klausing did but with different conclusions. Within the park, he could see many man-made improvements; the project would not destroy value in the park. Walking paths do attract walkers and was the best improvement at McCarrins Park, bringing neighbors together. The ambience and values of Central Park would not be harmed. Member Mulder explained the Comprehensive Plan and process may not have been "carved in stone", but rather a dynamic document that changes with community values. The Commission has changed the Plan numerous times. Without change, there was no need for the Planning Commission. Page 3 of 10