2010-10-27_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Page 16 its design, not how it would look in a specific park (e.g. picnic structures, tennis 754 courts, etc.) with no design standards addressed in the Master Plans. 755 Member Gottfried observed that the proposed design standards were meant to 756 create guidance for structures based on certain criteria; however, he was 757 understanding that Mr. Brokke preferred more generic standards, to which 758 Member Gottfried noted most homeowners would also probably concur. 759 Further discussion was related to the extensive Parks Master Plan process itself; 760 need for review of the Design Standards and Table of Uses by the Parks and 761 Recreation Commission at their upcoming meeting; and confirmation that if at a 762 future date, a Master Plan recommended, as an example, a “sport court with 763 lights” in a certain spot and it was approved by a Master Plan, then it was a 764 permitted use. 765 Member Boerigter advised that, if he was on the Parks and Recreation 766 Commission, there would be no incentive to get a Conditional Use, but rather to 767 amend the Master Plan process seeking permitted uses for anything currently 768 listed as needing a Conditional Use. 769 Mr. Paschke noted that this District was not specific only to City-owned parks, but 770 covered all park-type uses, including Ramsey County parks, golf courses, and 771 any private interest constructing any of this type of use on land in the City that is 772 zoned Park. 773 Member Gottfried questioned whether a non-government agency could create a 774 Master Plan; with Mr. Paschke responding negatively, with the exception of 775 Ramsey County Master Plans. 776 After further discussion, Member Boerigter questioned whether, with the 777 exception of Midland Hills Golf Course, it was meaningful to have Conditional 778 Uses for this District when approval was through the Master Plan process for the 779 City of Roseville as well as Ramsey County; and reiterated his comments related 780 to INSTITUTIONAL zoning, whether these design standards really apply that well 781 to parks and structures being built in parks, such as warming sheds, picnic 782 shelters, etc. 783 Member Cook opined that the proposed design standards seemed quite general. 784 Member Wozniak spoke in support of the proposed design standards; and 785 questioned if he’d be inclined to hold the Parks and Recreation District to any 786 different standards than other districts. 787 Member Gottfried concurred with Member Wozniak; opining that the design 788 standards were not harmful unless the Parks and Recreation Commission 789 provided specific areas of concern; and expressed his interest in hearing their 790 comment. 791 Member Gisselquist noted that there were no window requirements for warming 792 houses, but there were garage door requirements, and questioned if that would 793 impact vehicle storage. 794 Member Gottfried suggested that staff included special use language in the 795 Parks and Recreation District identifying most park buildings to be unique, and 796 incorporating the same language as the institutional, with similar parallels, for 797 consistency. 798 Mr. Paschke concurred. 799 Mr. Brokke noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission would be reviewing 800 this at their November 9, 2010 meeting. 801 Member Gottfried suggested that the “unique building” language be included 802 prior to the draft going before the Commission. 803