2010-10-27_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Page 18 Member Boerigter suggested one was indoors and one outdoors. 855 Ms. Radjek further questioned storage buildings under Institutional Zoning, and 856 where sports equipment would be located, as well as in the Parks and 857 Recreation District; with Member Boerigter noting garden and storage buildings 858 were listed as Permitted Uses; with Ms. Radjek questioning design standards for 859 them, expressing concern that existing rusty, metal buildings with graffiti could 860 remain, as well as additional units being constructed and/or installed to store 861 additional equipment for other sports. Ms. Radjek advocated for design 862 standards and consistency, to address equipment currently stored on the field 863 and not stored properly. 864 Vice Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing at 9:48 p.m. 865 Discussion among Commissioners and staff recognized the issues raised by Ms. 866 Radjek; and included existing metal storage lockers that are roofed and enclosed 867 and how and in what instance they were required to meet design standards; 868 whether such design standards would be onerous for athletic groups using the 869 equipment; defining whether something was a building or a piece of equipment in 870 this type of application; smaller garden sheds used for storage in parks and 871 their need to meet design standards; and whether public announcement systems 872 should be a Conditional or Permitted Use. 873 Member Cook referenced Table 1007.01. 874 At the request of Member Boerigter related to whether a public announcement 875 system should be Conditional or Permitted Use; Members Cook and Gottfried 876 speaking in support of them being a Conditional Use. 877 Member Wozniak questioned whether a public announcement system wasn’t 878 permitted now under the Park Master Plan and whether the Conditional Use 879 could be circumvented; with Member Boerigter clarifying that it was a Permitted 880 Use and there was no need to circumvent the process 881 Member Gottfried noted the need for a potential public address system to go 882 through a public hearing process and be held to a higher standard; opining that 883 whether the process was through the Planning Commission or Parks and 884 Recreation Commission, both public processes, while noting that it was an issue 885 for further discussion in the future, given its broader impact. 886 Member Boerigter concurred; noting that those items now listed as all those uses 887 listed needed consistency to ensure a heightened approval process regardless of 888 whether they were in the Institutional or the Parks and Recreation District; and 889 recommended that staff coordinate those changes among those districts and 890 merge those Use Tables. Member Boerigter further noted that wind energy 891 systems and renewable energy systems were inconsistent, with one a 892 Conditional Use in the Institutional District, and one a Permitted Use in the Parks 893 and Recreation District; and further questioned whether they were one in the 894 same. 895 Members concurred that wind energy systems were unique and should go 896 through a Conditional Use process whether in an Institutional or Parks and 897 Recreation District. 898 MOTION 899 Member Boerigter moved, seconded by Member Gottfried to CONTINUE 900 discussion and consideration of the PARKS AND RECREATION DISTRICT 901 pending discussion and comment by the Parks and Recreation 902 Commission at their November meeting; with additional consideration at 903 the Planning Commission’s November 17, 2010 meeting. 904