2010-11-17_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 17, 2010 Page 5 foot (20’) buffer areas with respect to trails where such a buffer may not be 202 consistent with the best use of the park or based on neighborhood concerns; and 203 concerns that the proposed zoning code language restricted flexibility in parks to 204 create a system that is best for residents and reflected the needs of those 205 adjoining parks as well as those using it. 206 Vice Chair Boerigter noted the Chart of Uses, and as an example sports field with 207 lights as a permitted use; and noted that this was now a permitted use, without 208 public involvement, as opposed to the process under the Master Plan that would 209 provide community involvement before such an adjustment was made. 210 Vice Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing at 7:07 p.m., with no one 211 appearing for or against. 212 Vice Chair Boerigter opined that, while he was supportive of the Statement of 213 Purposes and mostly supportive of the Table of Uses; he suggested that the 214 Design Standards section should be eliminated and allow the Master Plan 215 process to dictate those standards, which would allow for public involvement and 216 scrutiny. Vice Chair Boerigter further opined that, more important than meeting 217 design standards given the uniqueness of most parks and the fact that they were 218 much different than typical commercial buildings, he didn’t see a need to apply 219 those same standards consistently. 220 Member Gisselquist concurred that Vice Chair Boerigter provided a good 221 interpretation and expressed his support of that position. Member Gisselquist 222 opined that the Parks and Recreation had gone through a rigorous process in 223 developing their Parks Master Plan and that they do a good job of working with, 224 and providing notice to, the neighborhood and other stakeholders, allowing for a 225 significant amount of public involvement throughout the process. Member 226 Gisselquist further opined that holding park buildings to the same standards 227 applied to buildings in the Commercial District seemed onerous and expressed 228 his trust in the Parks and Recreation staff and Commissioners to make the best 229 decisions for the City’s parks. 230 Member Cook opined that, if the Parks and Recreation Commission had a 231 problem with the twenty foot (20’) setback requirements that could be easily 232 modified; however, he didn’t determine that the Design Standards were a major 233 hurdle, but provided generic guidance and consistency with the remainder of 234 zoning districts. 235 Vice Chair Boerigter questioned the need to specify such strict restrictions on the 236 City’s parks, such as trash receptacles, and their location and screening. 237 Mr. Paschke reminded Commissioners that the purpose of Zoning Code 238 provisions was to provide an enforcement mechanism to ensure requirements 239 are met consistently. Mr. Paschke advised that staff was supportive of the Parks 240 and Recreation Master Plan process, but its guidance wasn’t enforceable; and 241 questioned how staff could issue a permit when they were unable to address 242 what the actual applicable minimum standards and base regulations were. 243 Further discussion addressed how the Master Plan process would work; only 244 those items requiring a Conditional Use coming before the Planning Commission, 245 otherwise approved by the Parks and Recreation Master Plan process; lack of 246 design standards in the Master Plan; and no force and effect for staff to address 247 if and when significant issues developed. 248 Mr. Lloyd noted that the Parks and Recreation Zoning District applied to more 249 than just public properties, and included private golf courses and Ramsey County 250 park and open space, or any land owner making a private park and zoning it as 251 such. Mr. Lloyd advocated for appropriate regulations applicable to those 252 instances as well, facilitating the purpose of land uses. Mr. Lloyd opined that the 253