Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Member Roberts stated he would vote against the motion because of the noise, density, <br />traffic concerns, and the structure is not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. <br /> <br />Member Rengel stated he would vote against the motion because the Planning <br />Commission should complete further review before making the recommendation. <br /> <br />Member Sandstrom stated he would vote in favor of the project because it did provide <br />affordable housing for seniors. He noted that affordable housing does require a higher <br />density in an attempt to reduce land and other development costs. He stated this project <br />would have the least amount of conflict on the site with adjacent uses. <br /> <br />Member Wall stated that senior housing brings seniors into the neighborhood and provides <br />a sense of security for neighbors. In the future, it would be considered an amenity in the <br />neighborhood. <br /> <br />Chairman Wietecki stated that, for the foreseeable future, the open space, landscaped <br />buffer on the south side would be used only for open space and a small amount of parking. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Thomas, Wall, Sandstrom, Wietecki <br /> <br />Nays: Rengel, Roberts <br /> <br />6. (c) Planning File 2656 <br /> <br />Amendments to the Roseville Shoreland Ordinance. <br /> <br />Chairman Keith Wietecki opened the public hearing. The Community Development <br />Director, Dennis Welsch, provided a background report regarding the progress to date by <br />the Planning Commission's Technical Committee to review Shoreland Ordinances and to <br />bring them into compliance with the most recent State regulations regarding shorelands <br />and wetlands. <br /> <br />Member Sandstrom and Member Thomas provided information regarding their role in the <br />revisions to the ordinance and estimated that, if the topic and hearing were continued until <br />the September 14th meeting, a completed ordinance would be available for review by the <br />Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Member Sandstrom described the application of the ordinance to storm water and erosion <br />control. <br /> <br />Member Wietecki asked that the ordinance be more definitive and strike phrases that <br />relate to drain fields and septic systems; define the boundaries of the district; and provide <br />for staff review of accessory structures including the architectural design. <br /> <br />8 <br />