Laserfiche WebLink
<br />/ <br />It! <br /> <br />Ad) c2 fo 'hQ 0 <br />~oq'1 t)- <br /> <br />"'. <br /> <br />December 31, 1998 <br /> <br />1?--3 } ~q8' <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Cunningham: <br /> <br />This letter is concerning the proposed Senior Citizen Condominium at the Prince of <br />Peace Church site. <br /> <br />As a long time resident ofRoseville, I attended the December 9th Planning Commission <br />meeting at city hall to gain information about this proposal. As a citizen ofRoseville, I <br />am opposed to it. <br /> <br />This condominium proposal is in violation ofRoseville's Comprehensive Plan. How <br />would we justify turning down future requests for variances if we allow these? Do we <br />want to start this precedent? If we allow this, we are trivializing all of the work and ideas <br />that went into the city's long range plan. <br /> <br />If the church needs additional 50-60 parking spaces, why not create those somewhere on <br />their existing property? They claim the property they have isn't suitable for a parking lot <br />because there is too much of an incline for folks to hike up. So, the land can be <br />manipulated to such extent that a 24,000 square foot three-story building with <br />underground parkin~ can be built, but not so for ,a parking lot? <br /> <br />The runoff :ITom the behemoth parking lot and condominium would cause the already <br />sorely suffering water quality in Lk. Bennett, surrounding marshes, and Lk. Owasso to <br />continue to deteriorate. I should think the water runoff issue would be a big one. The <br />church representatives propose installing a pond. Do they know what size and specs are <br />necessary to accommodate all of the runoff? Have environmental experts been <br />consulted? It is obvious there is too much immediate run off already. Adding a small <br />pond would only serve to slightly slow a more rapid deterioration, a situation that <br />eventually our city would have to do something about. <br /> <br />The proposed site for such a facility isn't suitable. Although it would be built on private <br />property, it would greatly impact Central Park. Central Park is home to many species of <br />native trees, wildflowers, and prairie grasses. It is a patch of earth in the city that is <br />sanctuary for many types of birds, fox, pheasant, and occasional deer. Central Park is <br />one of the most enjoyable of city parks because it is quiet and not overly used, the <br />surrounding neighborhoods keep a respectful distance, and there are some areas of the <br />park where one can almost feel as if they're in the country. For this development, a <br />significant stand of mature trees would be removed and the three-plus story facility <br />would take its place, looming over the park. This facility wouldn't be imposing if it were <br />in a high-density residential area (which is where it belongs); it would be very imposing <br />on the edge of our park. <br /> <br />The church representatives optimisticaliy state that the senior housing condominium <br />would be a benefit to the community, that residents would keep watch over Central Park, <br />