2010-11-17_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 17, 2010 Page 4 City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the request seeking comments 148 regarding the new Park and Recreational District standards in the text portion of 149 Title 10; and following review of the chapter by the City’s Parks and Recreation 150 Commission, as previously requested by the Planning Commission. Mr. Paschke 151 noted that the meeting minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission were 152 included in the staff report; and that Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie 153 Brokke was present at tonight’s meeting, as well as a member of the 154 Commission. Mr. Paschke advised that he and Mr. Brokke had not reviewed the 155 chapter since the most recent Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, and 156 noted that this chapter was still a working document and additional modifications 157 would be forthcoming. Mr. Paschke noted that, since the last review by the 158 Planning Commission, the Chart of Uses had been refined for those items 159 permitted and those requiring conditional permits for consistency, as well as 160 additional language for design standards making allowances for uniquely- 161 designed buildings similar to the language in the Institutional section. 162 Public Comment 163 Jim Stark, Chair of the Roseville Parks and Recreation Commission 164 Mr. Stark noted inclusion of the November 9, 2010 Parks and Recreation 165 Commission meeting minutes in the meeting packet and their review of the 166 proposed ordinance in the context of the recently-completed Master Plan for 167 parks, as approved by the City Council at their November 15, 2010 meeting. Mr. 168 Stark summarized the findings of the Parks and Recreation Commission that the 169 Master Plan addressed park design; and allowed for a rigorous process in any 170 reconfiguration. Mr. Stark advised that the Commission was concerned that 171 there were inconsistencies between the Master Plans and the proposed 172 ordinance that would limit flexibility with neighbors of parks and their desires and 173 the needs of the park to fit those local needs. 174 Discussion among Mr. Stark and Planning Commissioners included building 175 design of new buildings as well as those existing and how the Master Plan 176 process for improvements guided improvements for individual parks. 177 Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke reviewed the public process for 178 review of proposed park improvements through various stakeholders and 179 neighborhood, then through the building code process, for any and all parks in 180 the Master Plan process. 181 Further discussion included public notice processes for those uses allowed under 182 code for internal review, but if an allowed use, not coming before the Planning 183 Commission unless Conditional Uses or not supported by the Master Plan. 184 Additional discussion ensued related to concerns expressed by the Parks and 185 Recreation Commission in their meeting minutes supporting Master Plan design 186 standards being consistent and recognized in the proposed zoning code that 187 could be more restrictive; recognition by the Parks and Recreation Commission 188 that building codes need to be complied with and that any park structures are 189 built to high standards, but allowing that the design standards for a park are 190 driven by the Parks and Recreation Master Plan process, recognizing that each 191 park and area is different and that the neighborhood should be able to decide 192 how their park looked. 193 Member Wozniak noted that the intent of the zoning code was to make the 194 various chapters consistent throughout zoning districts; however, he recognized 195 that the City’s parks are unique and that maintaining flexibility in design was 196 important; however, he questioned if it was fair to ask that p arks received a 197 different application than other uses; and sought those specific design standards 198 that the Parks and Recreation Commission was reluctant to accept. 199 Specific areas of concern related to proposed zoning code design and 200 dimensional standard requirements that trash containers be enclosed; twenty 201