Laserfiche WebLink
City of Roseville - Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/council/planning/minutes/2006/pm0712.htm <br />concerns related to screening; the existing berm; and access concerns. Mr. Paschke noted that, in ongoing <br />discussions between staff and MSP, it had been determined that there would be no access to Pascal Street, as it <br />was not realistically allowable; and that MSP had assured staff that they would work with the existing landscaping <br />to provide a better screen than that currently in place, with the goal following development to have a landscaped <br />berm. Mr. Paschke advised that staff and the applicant would continue to work to resolve issues of concern. Mr. <br />Paschke encouraged the public to continue to contact staff with by e-mail, phone, or personally at City Hall with <br />their comments regarding the project. <br />At the request of Chair Traynor, Mr. Paschke reviewed the Preliminary and Final Plat approval process. <br />himself available for questions of the Commission or public. <br />At the request of Chair Traynor, Mr. Young briefly reviewed, as much as possible in a preliminary context, <br />proposed screening for trash receptacles; access issues; and preference for a more aesthetically pleasing berm. <br />Robert Ethan, of Albert Street and County Road C2, sought clarification on the actual lot and how it was intended <br />for division. The applicant and staff clarified the project area for Mr. Ethan. <br />Chair Traynor closed the Public Hearing <br />Motion: Member Boerigter moved, seconded by Member Roe, to recommend approval of the two lot MSP <br />Addition Preliminary Plat based on the comments in Section 5 and the conditions of Section 6 of the <br />project report dated July 12, 2006. <br />Ayes: 5 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Abstain: 0 <br />Motion carried: 5-0 <br />Chair Traynor reviewed the process for the July 24, 2006 City Council review of the Planning Commission <br />recommendation. <br />b.Planning File 3768: Minnesota State Fair request for a five year extension of their existing INTERIM USE <br />PERMIT allowing park and ride facilities on eight (8) properties during the two-week State Fair. <br />Chair Traynor opened the Public Hearing. <br />City Planner Paschke reviewed the request for a five-year extension of the INTERIM USE PERMIT for eight (8) <br />sites in Roseville to allow parking and shuttle service during the two-week Minnesota State Fair. Mr. Paschke <br />noted that, prior to February 2002, the Minnesota State Fair operated park and ride facilities at certain sites in <br />Roseville. However, in 2001, the City received complaints from residents adjacent to Bethany Baptist Church <br />concerning vehicle noise and Fair patron conduct; prompting the Community Development Department to review <br />the situation, determining that an IUP was necessary for the seven sites in 2002, and the subsequent eighth site in <br />2003. <br />Mr. Paschke advised that in 2004, staff had conducted numerous inspections of the park and ride facilities, finding <br />no inappropriate activities or violations to any of the required conditions, with subsequent Council support for <br />provisions outlined for each site. <br />Staff recommended approval of a FIVE-YEAR ITERIM USE PERMIT EXTENSION for the eight sites: Bethany <br />Baptist Church, 2025 W Skillman Avenue; Centennial United Methodist Church, 1524 County Road C2; Church of <br />Corpus Christi, 2131 Fairview Avenue N; Grace Church of Roseville, 1310 W County Road B2; Roseville <br />Lutheran Church, 1660 W County Road B; and St. Rose of Lima Catholic Church, 2048 Hamline Avenue N; <br />allowing for temporary off-street parking of vehicles and bus transportation to the Minnesota State Fair Grounds. <br />Mr. Paschke entered in the record his receipt of several e-mails, equally supporting the permit and one indicating <br />concern related to parking off and on site and containing parking on the site. Mr. Paschke advised that he would <br />prefer to monitor the sites to determine if there was an actual issue regarding off-site parking (on-street parking in <br />residential neighborhoods). <br />Discussion included any significant changes to conditions from the previous permit; addition of condition 7.1(j) <br />regarding an extension of the time frame specific to each site; timing of cars parked on rights-of-way and in front <br />2 of 122/6/2007 11.11 <br /> <br />