2010-11-17_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 17, 2010 Page 6 Parks and Recreation Master Plan process provided a broad brush to address 254 and guide improvements; however, other non-city owned parks or open areas 255 were not included in that Master Plan process, and having no standards provided 256 no protection for City of Roseville residents living adjacent to those properties. 257 Member Wozniak spoke in support of leaving Design Standards in, opining that 258 they were not onerous enough to not allow the desired flexibility of the Parks and 259 Recreation Commission for determining what a building would look like and its 260 placement, while still working within the design standards framework set in place. 261 Vice Chair Boerigter spoke in opposition to keeping the Design Standards 262 section when the majority was addressing city-owned parks. Vice Chair 263 Boerigter concurred with the strong points expressed in the Parks and 264 Recreation Commission meeting minutes and their lack of support of the 265 proposed design standards without them being subject to deviation, allowing 266 them to make independent decisions through the Master Plan process. 267 MOTION 268 Member Boerigter moved, seconded by Member Gisselquist to 269 RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of DRAFT Park and 270 Recreation District requirements as presented, establishing new 271 regulations under Title 10, Zoning Regulations, pertaining to the Park and 272 Recreation District; as detailed in the Request for Planning Commission 273 Action dated November 17, 2010; amended as follows: 274 Delete Section 1007.03 Design Standards  275 Delete Section 1007.04 Dimensional Standards  276 Ayes: 2 277 Nays: 3 278 Motion failed. 279 MOTION 280 Member Wozniak moved, seconded by Member Cook to RECOMMEND TO 281 THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of DRAFT Park and Recreation District 282 requirements as presented, establishing new regulations under Title 10, 283 Zoning Regulations, pertaining to the Park and Recreation District; as 284 presented and detailed in the Request for Planning Commission Action 285 dated November 17, 2010. 286 Discussion ensued as to whether to delete any Permitted Uses in Table 1007-1; 287 Planning Division staff’s willingness to work with Parks and Recreation 288 Department staff on those items that should or should not be modified in the 289 proposed code and further revision before moving forward to the City Council 290 level; what constitutes a “building” or “structure” on a park (such as a dugout) and 291 application of design standards; with staff indicating that the proposed design 292 standards were not that restrictive as long as concern were addressed in the 293 placement of a structure and application of a buffer area as applicable as long as 294 standards were met and setbacks appropriate, and leaving the design to the 295 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. 296 Member Wozniak noted the most recent building construction in the park system 297 being that of the changing room, restroom and small meeting room at the 298 Arboretum and his interpretation that it met all the design standards. Member 299 Wozniak noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission was aware of the 300 development of proposed design standards over many months, and expressed 301 his support in applying design standards in the Zoning Code for the Parks and 302 Recreation District as part of that Code. 303 Vice Chair Boerigter sought clarification on whether to include trash storage area 304 provisions. 305