pm_990113 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Member Klausing characterized this process as a "sketch plan". The charge is to identify uses not detrimental to a park. The matrix helped identify items which might compliment the park. An "eagle nest" play area (indoors like New Brighton) might be a good partnership. An ice cream or coffee shop may be acceptable and not intrusive, such as in Como Park. Determining financial feasibility is to be left for the developer to determine. Member Klausing stated a two level building with senior housing would not have significant impact. Classrooms, art space, craft stores, studio, meeting space may also be acceptable and an asset. He liked the parking lot behind the building, but with a barrier if traffic become heavy. The parking could bring users closer to the park. Member Olson stated that straight retail may not be the fit, but there are some good mixes that should be looked at. Member Mulder stated the process should have goal of integrating eight acres of uses. One charge was to have something for everyone. It will be hard to do that. Some retail things may compliment a high activity area. If the prime use is young families - uses such as beauty shop, eagles nest, day care, skate sharpening, coffee shop may compliment park. A space could be dedicated for seniors at one site (either City Center or Lexington/B). The design cannot be everything for everyone. It could be an arts park, less active with walking uses. The next step is determining the market - who should be attracted to it. A plaza on the corner makes sense, only senior housing makes sense. Chair Harms explained that the "sketch plan" process could work on this site. Chair Harms explained the Planning Commission had good consistent ideas, less interested in housing, more interest in public indoor park uses and activities including space for cup of coffee or community room with kitchen; perhaps bikes or ice skates could be rented to enhance the area. Member Klausing noted that City Center Task Force is beginning to identify uses and public/private partnerships. Chair Harms closed the discussion, noting that this issue will come up at items 7a. A 15 minute recess occurred. The meeting recessed at 6:15 p.m. and reconvened at 6:35 p.m. 5a. Planning 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 of the 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