Laserfiche WebLink
The Parks and Recreation Commission strongly recommended referencing in the zoning code’s <br />Statement of Purpose, the Parks and Recreation Commission’s advisory role to the Council in <br />matters directly related to Parks and Recreation design standards, as well as, recognizing that the <br />Parks and Recreation Master Plan act as the standard controlling Parks and Recreation uses <br /> <br />History of Parks and Recreation has been one of high standards and heavy <br />community involvement <br /> <br />Commission also recommended that section 1007.03 Design Standards include a statement <br />o <br />reflecting “subject for review by Parks and Recreation Commission” <br /> <br />Commission Chair Stark summarized the Commission’s discussion by suggesting that the <br />o <br /> <br />zoning document may need significant changes toreflect relaxed design standards necessary <br />for the flexibility needed in our parks <br /> <br />Pederson voiced her concern that too much authority has been placed with the Zoning <br />o <br />Administrator in this version and not enough responsibility is placed on the Parks and <br />Recreation Commission <br /> <br />D. Holt questioned why parks recommendations need to go through zoning if they are <br />not specific to building or development <br /> <br />Commission agrees; <br />o <br /> <br />The spirit of the document can be consistent with other sections of the Zoning Code <br />but the direct connection and direction needs to be provided by the adopted Master <br />Plan, they also see the need to spell out the fact that the Parks and Recreation <br />Commission needs to be part of all review processes for zoning discussions in our <br />parks <br /> <br />They were concerned about the duplication of effort presented by the proposed <br />Zoning Code <br /> <br />The Design Standard detail needs to be adjusted and must be under the direction and <br /> <br />responsibilityof the Parks and Recreation Commission <br /> <br />4. MASTER PLAN FINAL <br />Michael Schroeder from LHB was present to review the most recent updates to the Master Plan and provide <br />an overview of the final document. In summary, Schroeder recognized; <br /> <br />asset management strategies recommended by Jody Yungers from Ramsey County as a future need <br />o <br /> <br />an added abbreviated list of partnerships <br />o <br /> <br />completed plan components in the appendices missing from earlier drafts <br />o <br /> <br />references to the department annual report <br />o <br /> <br />corrections to an interest reporting error made by the finance department <br />o <br /> <br />inclusion of a short reference list <br />o <br /> <br />document reorganization based on earlier Commission comment <br />o <br /> <br />Commission Recommendation: <br /> <br />Motion by Pederson to recommend the Roseville City Council adopt the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. <br />Second by Etten. Motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br /> <br />5.MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION DISCUSSION CONTINUED <br />Brokke, Anfang and Etten led the discussion based on the Implementation Structure materials provided in <br />the Commission packet. <br /> <br />Commissioner Ristow suggested that he sees two stages for funding, one for maintenance and park <br />o <br />improvements and a second for a community center. Ristow feels a referendum should be paid for with <br />local sales tax revenues <br /> <br />Commissioner Stark suggested looking to the process used by the recent legacy sales tax efforts as a <br />o <br />model for success <br /> <br />Commissioner Azer referenced the buzz generated by the renovation and expansion of the library and <br />o <br />the event reopening the library became <br /> <br />