Laserfiche WebLink
<br />conforming use" issue. At the same time they have pointed out other areas in the ordinance where clarification was <br />necessary. Attached are their proposals. <br /> <br />Dave Sellegrin, attorney representing the property owners, stated the owners support the staff proposal to table <br />text changes for attorney review, table indefinitely the B-6 map rezoning until property owners come forth; and staff <br />to develop a policy explaining the procedure for review of pre-existing non-conforming uses. <br /> <br />Chair Duncan closed the hearing. <br /> <br />Motion: Member Pepper moved, seconded by Member Bakeman, to recommend <br />Any Planning Commission recommendation on language changes to the B-6 zoning district be tabled until <br />November 4, 2002, and that the City Attorney and staff are to retain the existing pre-existing, <br />nonconformity language, and further that the City Attorney and staff are to prepare specific clarification <br />language for Section 1005.07A and B regarding "permitted uses and ancillary uses". <br /> <br />Member Traynor stated he will support the motion, change has been planned for 15 years, but the City must get <br />moving on the site. The market will still drive the development on the site and that the City should encourage <br />redevelopment of Twin Lakes. <br /> <br />Ayes: 5 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br /> <br />Motion: Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Pepper, to recommend to the City Council to table <br />indefinitely the City's proposal to rezone all Twin Lakes parcels from 1-1, 1-2, and B-1 and B-4 to B-6, thus <br />allowing for individual parcel-by-parcel "B-6" rezoning requests consistent with the Twin Lakes Master <br />Plan as amended and current at the time of the rezoning request. <br /> <br />Ayes: 5 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br /> <br />Motion: Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Pepper, to request the staff to develop a policy <br />document which explains the pre-existing, nonconforming building and land use review procedure. <br /> <br />Ayes: 5 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br /> <br />7. Information, Reports & Other Business <br />a. Planning File 3370: State Fair Interim Use Permit (IUP) Annual Report <br /> <br />On March 4, 2002, the Roseville City Council approved seven Interim Use Permits for the Minnesota State Fair <br />allowing the operation of park & ride lots on seven properties in Roseville during the State Fair (two weeks in late <br />August and early September). The properties include Bethany Baptist Church, Church of Corpus Christi, Grace <br />Church of Roseville, Roseville Covenant Church, Roseville Area High School, St. Michael's Lutheran Church, and <br />The Church of St. Rose. <br /> <br />The Interim Use Permits (lUPs) were approved for each individual site with certain terms and conditions. <br />Specifically, the lot at Bethany Baptist Church required the review by staff in 2002 (and reported to the Commission <br />and Council) to determine whether adjacent property owner concerns have been properly addressed. <br /> <br />The City Staff did receive complaints from the same household regarding issues related to the St. Rose park-and- <br />ride lot. A review of this lot has also been completed. <br /> <br />Throughout the 12 day Minnesota State Fair, the City Planner completed numerous inspections of each of the <br />seven park-and-ride lots, finding no inappropriate activities or violations to the any of the seven approved Interim <br />Use Permits. <br /> <br />The Community Development Department and Public Works Department did discuss "no parking signage", but <br />determined it to be problematic and impossible to enforce, especially a City wide ban (or individual lot) for on-street <br />parking on the City streets surrounding each park-and-ride lot. <br /> <br />Based on a complaint, the City could consider signing a particular corner (Dellwood at Eldridge) for "no parking" <br />and inspect to see whether violations have occurred. However, the staff did not suggest implementing a no parking <br />policy on City streets that surround each park-and-ride lot. <br />