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 Member Mulder explained that life-time residents are not the only residents who care about he community. We should not put up barriers to new residents. It would be nice for Roseville to open more existing housing for first time housing. He explained the need for more senior and transitional housing, a different type of housing and community. Residents are living healthy, longer, and should not move into nursing homes. The project provides stimulation to seniors. If this project was only about parking, it would not be worth the effort. It is about new vision and community services. The project would be a great community asset. Motion: Member Rhody moved, seconded by Member Wilke, to recommend approval of the request for an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to change the future land use designation of both parcels from Institution and Low Density Residential to High Density Residential; and, approval of the concept development plan for a mixed use planned unit development including the existing P .U.D. of Peace Lutheran Church, a 56-unit three-story senior housing building, and an off-street parking area, based on the findings outlined in the staff report dated January 13, 1999, subject to the following conditions: a. Prior to requesting concept approval from the City Council, the applicant will hold a design meeting with neighbors and interested public (including the Planning Commission members if interested) to identify specific changes in site design and landscaping, materials, massing, and visual screening from the Lake. b. The applicant will include building design materials (brick, masonry, and natural materials) that match those of the existing Church building. c. The applicant will redesign the building mass to be consistent with the height, width and size ofthe existing Church building. d. The applicant will request, in writing, the Council on January 25, 1999, to provide a 60 day time extension to the project review process for further design refinement by the applicant. If the council approves the concept PUD and the change in the Comprehensive Plan, the PUD does not take effect until after final approvals of the PUD and Subdivision and respective agreements; and review and approval of the Comprehensive Plan change by the Metropolitan Council; and publication of the PUD ordinance. Member Wilke said he agrees with the concept, spent much time walking the path; feels the proposal could be a positive for the community. Member Rhody expressed thanks for the thorough discussion. He explained something will happen; change here will come; this is a good opportunity. He will support the motion. Member Cunningham said before tonight's meeting he was concerned about the adjacency to schools and line-of-sight issues. After review there is not as large an impact as originally thought. It could be designed to minimize the impact, taking stock of our aging population. He would vote in favor. Member Klausing said he felt the Comprehensive Plan was not a static document; it is a starting point to determine a compelling reason to change. Having seniors near the park is an important idea; the location right on the path and the location on the hill is an impact; the environmental impact on ponding and impervious surface is important. The path around McCarrons Lake could be a similar project and solution. Vote: Ayes: Wilke, Cunningham, Rhody, Mulder Nays: Olson, Klausing Motion carries 4-2. A ten-minute recess was called. Chair Harms re-entered the meeting. Page 4 of 10