Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />ROSEVILLE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION <br />MINUTES OF MEETING OF NOVEMBER 9, 2010 <br />ROSEVILLE CEDARHOLM GOLF COURSE ~ 6:30PM <br /> <br />PRESENT: <br /> Azer, Doneen, Etten, D. Holt, M. Holt, Jacobson, Pederson, Ristow, Stark, Willmus <br />STAFF: <br /> Brokke, Anfang, Evenson <br />GUESTS: <br /> Michael Schroeder, LHB <br /> <br /> INTRODUCTIONS/ROLL CALL/PUBLIC COMMENT <br />1. <br />No public comment <br /> <br /> APPROVAL OF MINUTES – OCTOBER 5, 2010 MEETING <br />2. <br />Commission Recommendation: <br /> <br />. <br />Minutes for the October 5, 2010 meeting were approved unanimouslyWillmus abstained. <br /> <br /> PARKS and RECREATION DISTRICT ZONING CODE DISCUSSION <br />3. <br />Brokke provided background information to the Commission for Zoning Code updates to date. <br /> <br />Community Development is updating the current Zoning Code, including the Public Park and Open <br />o <br />Space District to be consistent and draw parallels between zoning districts throughout the City. <br /> <br />Parks & Recreation Commission role and responsibility is for all aspects of Parks & <br />o <br />Recreation operations <br /> <br />Planning Commission responsibilities is for land use and development issues <br />o <br /> <br />The updated Zoning Code draws concerns about the potential for duplication of efforts by Commissions <br />o <br />and Staff <br /> <br />Willmus commented on the need for the inclusion of mechanisms to the code so that the <br />o <br /> <br />P&R Commission continues to make recommendations to the Council on P&R related issues <br /> <br />Stark added that the P&R Commission can be more restrictive than the code <br />o <br /> <br />Willmus added that there appears to be excessive control by the Planning Commission over <br />o <br />Parks development in this version of the code <br /> <br />D. Holt commented that Parks and their uses are unique and cannot easily fit with standards <br />o <br />outlined in other sections of the code <br /> <br />Willmus echoed the response that parks are unique and there is not a design standard <br />that fits all parks <br /> <br />Commissioners questioned how can design standards can be drafted for a park system <br />with varying and unique features <br /> <br />Commissioners commented; <br />o <br /> <br />that new active uses may be difficult to accommodate within the limits of the Buffer <br />Strip requirements <br /> <br />Screening for dumpsters and other portable facilities could cause more work for Park <br />maintenance staff <br /> <br />On the Master Plan Standards and inquired into whether the Master Plan standards <br />would trump the Zoning Standards. Commission was unanimous in the need to be <br />consistent with the Approved Master Plan <br /> <br />Commissioners are concerned that the Planning Commission could make recommendations <br />o <br />to the Council on Conditional Uses contrary to the Parks and Recreation master plan <br /> <br />Commissioners inquired into; <br />o <br /> <br />How the Park and Recreation Zoning Code parallels Zoning Code for other City <br />owned facilities <br /> <br />Who ultimately has authority for Parks and Recreation matters <br /> <br /> <br />Concern over the standard designation for telecommunication tower <br /> <br />Willmus inquired into why private lands are included in the Public Park and Open Space <br />o <br />Zoning Code <br /> <br />