2010-12-07_PR Comm Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ROSEVILLE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING OF NOVEMBER 9, 2010 ROSEVILLE CEDARHOLM GOLF COURSE —6:30PM PRESENT: Azer, Doneen, Etten, D. Holt, M. Holt, Jacobson, Pederson, Ristow, Stark, Willmus STAFF: Brokke, Anfang, Evenson GUESTS: Michael Schroeder, LHB 1. INTRODUCTIONS/ROLL CALL/PUBLIC COMMENT No public comment 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—OCTOBER 5, 2010 MEETING Commission Recommendation: Minutes for the October 5, 2010 meeting were approved unanimously. Willmus abstained. 3. PARKS and RECREATION DISTRICT ZONING CODE DISCUSSION Brokke provided background information to the Commission for Zoning Code updates to date. • Community Development is updating the current Zoning Code, including the Public Park and Open Space District to be consistent and draw parallels between zoning districts throughout the City. • Parks & Recreation Commission role and responsibility is for all aspects of Parks & Recreation operations • Planning Commission responsibilities is for land use and development • The updated Zoning Code draws concerns about the potential for duplication of efforts by Commissions and Staff • Willmus commented on the need for the inclusion of mechanisms to the code so that the P&R Commission continues to make recommendations to the Council on P&R related issues • Stark added that the P&R Commission can be more restrictive than the code • Willmus added that there appears to be excessive control by the Planning Commission over Parks development in this version of the code • D. Holt commented that Parks and their uses are unique and cannot easily fit with standards outlined in other sections of the code • Willmus echoed the response that parks are unique and there is not a design standard that fits all parks • Commissioners questioned how design standards can be drafted for a park system with varying and unique features • Commissioners commented; • that new active uses may be difficult to accommodate within the limits of the Buffer Strip requirements • Screening for dumpsters and other portable facilities could cause more work for Park maintenance staff • On the Master Plan Standards and inquired into whether the Master Plan standards would trump the Zoning Standards. Commission was unanimous in the need to be consistent with the Approved Master Plan • Commissioners are concerned that the Planning Commission could make recommendations to the Council on Conditional Uses contrary to the Parks and Recreation master plan • Commissioners inquired into; • How the Park and Recreation Zoning Code parallels Zoning Code for other City owned facilities • Who ultimately has authority for Parks and Recreation matters • Concern over the standard designation for telecommunication tower • Willmus inquired into why private lands are included in the Public Park and Open Space Zoning Code