2010-12-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, December 01, 2010 Page 5 ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICTS, BOUNDARIES, AND DISTRICT 206 REGULATIONS; RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE 207 DISTRICTS; EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS; INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICTS; PARK 208 AND RECREATION DISTRICTS; PROCEDURES; PROPERTY 209 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS; AND PARKING AND LOADING AREAS; as 210 presented and/or as modified on December 1, 2010. 211 Vice Chair Boerigter concurred with Commissioner Gisselquist’s comments on 212 the process itself; and the Commission’s appreciation of and respect for the work 213 done by staff and the consultants. Vice Chair Boerigter noted his frustration in 214 not being able to better track language between the existing and proposed codes 215 due to reformatting and restructuring of the document. Vice Given the massive 216 changes and the lengthy process, Chair Boerigter expressed concern that the 217 public, or the Planning Commission for that matter, may not be completely 218 cognizant of all provisions of the document. 219 Vice Chair Boerigter reiterated his specific areas of opposition or concerns: 220 Residential District Design Standards: Vice Chair Boerigter opined that design 221 standards were unwarranted as they related to garages and home design. 222 Parks and Recreation / Institutional Districts: Vice Chair Boerigter opined that the 223 application of some of the design standards and restrictions in the Parks and 224 Recreation District, as well as for some Institutional Uses (e.g. schools) may 225 prove burdensome to those uses; specifically as they related to portable 226 restroom facilities at schools where if they were to remove them temporarily or 227 seasonally, and sought to replace them later, they would be regulated or 228 restricted. Vice Chair Boerigter opined that in certain circumstances, this may 229 cause them to make a fiscal decision to not replace them, creating more 230 problematic issues. Vice Chair Boerigter further opined that there may be other 231 items that were too restrictive and may be found to not apply well in certain 232 circumstances. Vice Chair Boerigter expressed his trust in the City’s great and 233 dedicated Parks and Recreation staff, and the Parks and Recreation 234 Commission, and suggested that we leave the design of parks and recreation 235 facilities to them without the Planning Commission dictating how they do that 236 design through the land use process. 237 Parking and Loading areas: Vice Chair Boerigter questioned whether the new 238 restrictions on bicycle parking could ever be met if a new school was constructed 239 in Roseville; and questioned whether the School District is going to consider 240 freeing one parking space for ten (10) bicycles from a practical sense. Vice 241 Chair Boerigter expressed hope that compliance and/or revising the code at that 242 time would not prove too costly. 243 Commissioner Wozniak noted the compromises made at a previous meeting 244 related to the portable restroom facilities, in keeping the screening requirement, 245 but removing the fence requirement. 246 Vice Chair Boerigter opined that he wasn’t sure if it was addressed to everyone’s 247 comfort. 248 Commissioner Wozniak noted that he was not in agreement with Vice Chair 249 Boerigter on a number of issues during the process; but his only remaining 250 concern was in not applying design standards for the Parks and Recreation 251 District. Commissioner Wozniak advised that, as a government employee, he 252 has seen the need to lead by example, as well as being a good example; and if 253 the private sector was asked to meet certain standards for trash, etc., the City’s 254 parks system or the City itself should have those same responsibilities. 255 Commissioner Wozniak reminded Commissioners that those proposed design 256 standards didn’t just apply to City parks, but also Ramsey County Open Space 257