The Campus Planning Task Force (CPTF) was established by the Congregation Council at their March 2023 meeting.

The purpose of the CPTF is to examine the following questions:

One: What needs to be done with our current interim tiny settlement to satisfy the compliance issues raised by the city of Roseville?

Two: Does a permanent tiny home settlement fit our vision of how our land and facilities are best used to fulfill our mission to build the church and love the world?

These questions have remained a focus for the CPTF throughout the year.

An interim use permit was filed with the City of Roseville and four stipulations needed to be met:

  1. PoP hosted an open house for the community and comments from neighbors were gathered to be included in the application for an interim use permit
  2. The State of MN passed legislation setting guidelines for tiny home settlements – use this link for a summary:
  3. the PoP units were brought into compliance with State legislation including anchoring
  4. The city required PoP to decide whether or not to establish an ongoing settlement. This motion included a proposal for the addition of a third tiny home unit to accommodate the ratio required by State legislation for the 30% ratio between units dedicated to intentional neighbors and to chronically homeless residents.  

The CPTF dedicated significant effort to inform the congregation about the motions proposed and PoP voted on October 1 to establish an ongoing settlement following that decision a third unit was brought to the site and work was done to anchor it and bring it into compliance with the legislation.  The Beary’s will move into the new unit since it is larger and the search for a new resident, including interviews, is in process.  Hopefully, a new resident can be welcomed within the next several weeks.

Three: What is our long-range vision for how our campus should be used?  What ministries will be our main focus and how should our campus be developed to support those ministries?

Solar energy was one project considered by the CPTF.  At the June Congregational meeting, a motion was passed to work with a solar developer to install solar panels in a carport style on our parking lot.  The plan was to include enhanced lighting for the parking lot and some shade for parking and outdoor worship. 

The developer’s proposal included two options:

  1. For PoP to finance the construction and to realize more significant energy cost savings by assuming full ownership;
  2. For the developer to engage third-party investor(s) to finance the project and realize the more significant financial benefits with PoP realizing minimal cost savings for several years and then greater savings with full ownership for the last 5-10 years of life expectancy of the installation. 

The recommendation to PoP was to utilize the 2nd option given the fact we have had recent expenditures on the roof and parking lot.  After the motion passed and a contract was presented, the developer informed us that they did not have an investor ready and that we would be on a waiting list.  They indicated that at present, they were having difficulty obtaining investors. 

Given that information, the solar project was put on hold.  That does allow for the possibility of a solar installation in the future but also allows for more study of other potential projects to determine how solar might be best configured to accommodate our needs.

Prior to the pandemic, an Affordable Housing Team did significant work to consider possibilities to address community needs in the area of housing.  The CPTF considered the work that had been done and continued to review further possibilities.  At the October 1 meeting of the congregation, a second motion was passed, in addition to the motion to continue an ongoing tiny home settlement.  This motion indicated a desire/willingness to pursue the use of our property to address the need for affordable housing.  The purpose of this motion was to enable negotiations with potential developers who wanted some indication of commitment by PoP. 

Habitat for Humanity has also met with the Task Force and would be a possible partner for future development.

As the Task Force considered the options presented, it was determined that the Tiny Home Settlement addresses the most chronically homeless (see state legislation summary link above for definition)– those with possibly the fewest resources for addressing their needs.  The model is based on addressing housing needs within the context of building a community of relationships.  This is a powerful model for a church, but the limiting factor is that a very small number of people are directly accommodated.  This model demands engagement with the congregation and PoP members. 

A Habitat for Humanity project could address the needs of inadequately housed people and likely families with children.  However, it would not address the needs of those with the most limited resources.  The projects we have looked at would address those with the most severely limited resources, those with limited resources, and those with less limited resources.

Childcare has been a regular part of the conversation for the CPTF.  Our prior tenant was able to continue operation under exemptions from newer building regulations.  When they left, negotiations with a new potential tenant revealed that any future daycare operation at PoP would require a sprinkler system. 

The cost of that project has been estimated at perhaps $300,000 to over $500,000.  New water supplies would be required in addition to the piping work inside the facility.  This is cost-prohibitive but may be required in the future for any use of the building.  It is important to develop a plan of action in the event we are required to act.  Attention was given to the possibility of combining a daycare facility with an Affordable Housing Apartment unit but zoning issues likely make that unfeasible.  Sprinkling the current building would be a cost that would not be fully recovered by the rent paid by a daycare provider.  However, it may need to be considered in the near future. 

Another possibility could be the construction of an addition to the Church which could accommodate a daycare but be sealed off from the current facility.  It is unknown if this would enable sprinkling just the new addition or if it would be required to do the whole Church building.  This may not result in cost savings since the greatest cost to add a sprinkler system is new water supply provisions.  A daycare addition would be possible under zoning regulations since the main Church property is zoned “institutional.”

In addition, we discovered that Roseville has changed some regulations regarding setbacks from lakes that impact PoP.   In March, the city adopted DNR setback recommendations that extend lake setbacks to 1000 ft.  Within 1000 ft. of a lake, building heights are restricted to a height of less than 30 ft. and impermeable surfaces of under 25% of the property area.  The full setback of any building is 300 ft. from a lake’s high-water level.  Prince of Peace property is completely within 1000 ft of Lake Bennett with part of the property within 1000 ft of Owasso.  That severely limits the options possible on our campus. 

The Campus Planning Task Force took a poll of participants to evaluate which projects should be eliminated from consideration, which should be studied further, which should be referred to other committees within the congregation, and which should be pursued.

Solar: Should be pursued with further study.

Affordable Apartments: The Task Force was divided on this with several indicating it needs further study and should be pursued and a slight majority believing it would not be fruitful to pursue this any further due to zoning issues.

Habitat for Humanity: Again, the CPTF thought that this possibility should receive further study.  A small minority thought it should not be pursued.

Emma’s Place Model (townhomes for homeless families using Section 8/HUD funding): The group was not favorable to this model but thought it may warrant further study.

Childcare (with required renovations):  The CPTF thought this idea warrants further study.

Community Gardens:  It was unanimous to continue but further study could potentially enhance this program.

Tiny Home Community:  A strong majority favors continuation of the settlement with ongoing study and review to determine any future expansion subject to congregational approval.

Sprinklers for the Current Facility: This should be studied further with referral to appropriate committees.

Gender-neutral bathrooms:  A majority favored proceeding with this project and adequate study to determine the best way forward.

Accessible Parking:  Almost unanimously, the CPTF believes that this should be a priority – it requires planning and updating the line markings to better accommodate this.

Accessibility in the Sanctuary:  Some members stepped forward to pursue better signage and the replacement of some chairs with chairs with arms.  This step has been taken.

Renovations/Repairs/Deferred Maintenance:  The list of potential projects needs constant updating and a long-range plan for accommodating necessary upkeep and improvements. Needs ongoing attention.

Food Shelf/Clothing Distribution:  There was reluctance to pursue these options, but further study could re-open this possibility in the future with partners.  Not the highest priority.

Resource Center (Offices and Social Service Center):  The CPTF evaluation was to not pursue this type of project unless future housing developments warranted this.

Outdoor Worship: The CPTF was in favor of continuing to offer occasional Outdoor worship with a study needed to determine the impact of Solar panels and attention given to shade, convenient set-up, and safety in accessibility.

Selling the South Lot:  A mixed response determined that future study would be possible.  The South lot should only be considered for sale if it is utilized for meaningful ministry or if the city would consider a purchase for park expansion. The understanding of the CPTF is that because of zoning restrictions an offer from the city or any developer would be low compared to the perceived value to the Church.

    The CPTF has met almost every other week from its formation in April 2023 until January 2024.  The group has included volunteers/interested people beyond those appointed by the Council.  Special thanks to the participants from the Affordable Housing Team who had done significant work prior to the formation of the CPTF and who faithfully participated in the Task Force work, sharing much of their prior work with the group.  I deeply appreciate the commitment of all those involved in the CPTF and know that there remains a good deal of work to be done in planning for our future ministry together, upkeep of our campus and facilities, and determining how to address future needs for both facilities and ministries.  The proposed structures for our future together have some ways in which these tasks will be continued.  We are blessed with the asset of a beautiful location and serviceable facilities.  How we utilize these gifts will be a blessing and a challenge for our future.

    Steve Sveom, Chair of the Campus Planning Task Force
    On behalf of the whole Task Force