2010-10-27_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Page 17 Member Boerigter concurred; and expressed his interest in hearing the Park and 804 Recreation Commission’s specific comments, particularly with the Conditional 805 Uses and how they could circumvent that Conditional Use process. Member 806 Boerigter noted Ms. Radjek’s comments and concerns related to this district and 807 the Institutional District and how to make them consistent and address issues in 808 both districts that would alleviate her concerns. 809 Member Wozniak suggested language such as: “Where publicly supported 810 recreational activities occur in INSTITUTIONAL uses, PARKS AND 811 RECREATION DISTRICT design standards apply.” 812 Member Boerigter clarified that the concern was about uses, not necessarily 813 design standards. 814 Member Wozniak revised his suggested language to replace “Conditional Uses,” 815 in p lace of “design standards.” 816 Member Paschke clarified that the reference to “towers,” was no in reference to a 817 public address system. 818 Member Boerigter recommended making references to communications 819 equipment and towers consistent with other districts, similar to Section 1006.2; 820 and also recommended further staff review of whether the School District should 821 have a higher level of scrutiny for its uses in an Institutional District, or whether it 822 should be consistent with Parks and Recreation Districts. 823 Member Gottfried opined that if uses were parallel, they should be held to the 824 same standard, whether in the Parks and Recreation District or Institutional 825 District; and suggested that Conditional Uses may be a better process. 826 Member Boerigter concurred that things in Table 1007-1 listed as Conditional 827 Uses or Permitted Uses in Institutional should be consistent with the Parks and 828 Recreation District in order to provide for a heightened level of scrutiny. 829 Member Gottfried concurred, noting the need for Conditional Use approvals, 830 depending on the circumstances and locations and the impacts to adjacent 831 properties and areas. 832 Members concurred that this didn’t preclude the School District from complying 833 just because they’re zoned Institutional. 834 Public Comment 835 Karen Radjek 836 Ms. Radjek sought additional clarification related to public announcement 837 systems, as a permitted use in Parks and Recreation Districts, and whether it 838 was the intent of the Planning Commission to hold the School District or others to 839 the same standards for Institutional zoning. Ms. Radjek opined that public 840 announcement systems should be conditional in either zoning district; and noted 841 that, under current code, there was nothing addressing them. Ms. Radjek further 842 opined that she didn’t want public address systems allowed at all; however, if 843 they came up in the future, it needed to be listed as a Conditional Use for 844 Institutional Districts, particularly when softball fields were located on a site, and 845 it was currently a permitted use for Parks and Recreation Districts. 846 Member Boerigter clarified that Ms. Radjek didn’t want them permitted uses in 847 Institutional Districts; with Ms. Radjek confirming that comment. 848 Ms. Radjek listed her further concerns for Parks and Recreation Zoning Districts, 849 agreeing that design standards should be high for Institutional as well as Parks 850 and Recreation Zoning Districts, not one set of standards for one District and one 851 for another when facilities were being used similarly in both Districts. Ms. Radjek 852 questioned how “sports courts” or “sports center public” were defined under 853 Table 1006.2 and their differences; again seeking consistency among Districts. 854