2010-10-27_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Page 15 Members Wozniak and Gisselquist concurred that additional clarification was 705 needed to differentiate that, as it could be read either way and the proposed 706 language at this time didn’t designate commercial dumpsters. 707 Further discussion included frequency of use during the year depending on 708 programming needs and the difference between one primary and other 709 accessory areas for trash storage at parks; intent of design standards to screen 710 large dumpsters; and triggering of new standards for parks if a dumpster was 711 relocated from one spot to another or if there was not a dumpster, removal of 712 dumpsters during the winter and replacing them in the spring; or if there were 713 improvements in a particular park triggering those new standards. 714 before the new code goes into affect. 715 Member Boerigter questioned whether this was sound decision-making; and 716 expressed his concern that the Parks and Recreation Department fully 717 understood these proposed standards. 718 Member Gottfried concurred that there appeared to be a flaw in the reasoning for 719 that standard. 720 Member Cook noted inclusion of Items G (Rooftop Equipment) and H (Services 721 Areas and Mechanical Equipment) in the performance standards, and whether 722 they needed to be included. 723 Member Boerigter concurred, noting that those had been previously discussed 724 and removed for inclusion in the GENERAL PERFORMANCE standards; 725 however, he noted that Item I (Trash Storage Areas) may not be applicable to all 726 districts. 727 Member Wozniak observed that Item I may be unique to parks, with changes in 728 trash collection service over the course of a year or different types of trash 729 receptacles. 730 Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke arrived at this time, approximately 9:15 p.m. 731 Member Boerigter opined that he was not sure of the necessity for parks and 732 facilities to build permanent enclosures around dumpsters, noting that he 733 definitely didn’t support that standard for trash barrels; and further opined that he 734 was concerned that enclosing them and making them more difficult to find would 735 only increase litter problems. Member Boerigter asked Mr. Brokke how much 736 input his department had provided in development of these design standards in 737 their current format. 738 Mr. Brokke responded that his staff had been working with Planning Department 739 staff; but that the Parks and Recreation Commission had not had the opportunity 740 to provide comment until their upcoming meeting. Mr. Brokke advised that he 741 would prefer to have more description and fewer design standards; opining that 742 good community input had been received through the Master Planning process 743 and that design standards had been or would be established through that 744 process. 745 Member Boerigter acknowledged that the Parks and Recreation Department 746 would prefer that process rather than having them dictated through this process; 747 to which Mr. Brokke responded affirmatively. 748 Member Gottfried questioned if a Master Plan was in place would that trump a 749 Conditional Use; with Member Gottfried responding affirmatively, with the 750 exception being design standards which would still apply. 751 Mr. Paschke concurred; however, questioned if Master Plan structures identified 752 design, but a process for approval or support that would create that structure and 753