View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

May 21, 2012


1.         Roll Call

Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed everyone. (Voting and Seating Order for May: Pust; Willmus; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe).  City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present. 


2.         Approve Agenda

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the agenda as presented.

                                                Roll Call

            Ayes: Pust; Willmus; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.       

            Nays: None.


3.         Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.  No one appeared to speak at this time.


4.            Council Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Report

Mayor Roe announced and invited all Roseville residents to the upcoming formal groundbreaking ceremony and comments by City officials scheduled for Monday, June 11, 2012 at 5:00 pm, immediately prior to the regular City Council meeting scheduled at 6:00 pm.  Mayor Roe encouraged attendance of residents, and asked that those attending park in the City Hall parking lot.


Mayor Roe announced the filing period for City Council candidates for this fall’s elections would open on May 22, 2012, with filing available at the Ramsey County Government Center in downtown St. Paul.  Mayor Roe noted that there would be two (2) openings for City Council; and that if five (5) or more candidates file, a Municipal Primary would be held in August, and if not, selections would be done at the General Election in November.   Mayor Roe advised that additional information was available through City Hall or at the Ramsey County Elections Department.


5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications


6.         Approve Minutes


a.            Approve Minutes of May 14, 2012 Meeting

McGehee moved, Pust seconded, approval of the minutes of the May 14, 2012 meeting as amended via the Councilmember McGehee copy of the draft meeting minutes; and incorporating those corrections verbally noted by Mayor Roe below.



At the request of Mayor Roe, Councilmember McGehee provided written corrections to the meeting minutes via a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof; with changes to pages 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24 and 25. 


Mayor Roe apologized that he had not been able to review the minutes prior to the meeting; and offered two (2) minor corrections:

·         Page 9, typographical error

·         Page 15, typographical error

·         Page 17, Lines 10-11, immediately prior to “Roll Call, revise to indicate that City Planner Paschke had advised that the “line would be substantially radial to the curve and met code requirements.”


                                                Roll Call

            Ayes: Pust; McGehee; and Roe.    

            Nays: Johnson.

            Abstentions: Willmus

Motion Carried.


Councilmember Johnson requested that, if at all possible in the future, individual corrections be provided with sufficient time for Councilmember review prior to the meeting.


7.            Approve Consent Agenda

There were no changes to the Consent Agenda.  At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.


a.            Approve Payments

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.    


ACH Payments


66229 – 66276





Roll Call

            Ayes: Pust; Willmus; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.


b.            Approve Business and Other Licenses

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval of license applications for the following applicants:



Type of License

Steiner Naturopathy, LLC

2353 Rice Street, Suite 208

Massage Therapist Establishment

Greg Steiner at Steiner Naturopathy, LLC

2353 Rice Street, Suite 208

Massage Therapist

Dave’s Roseville Auto Care; 2171 N Hamline Avenue

Gasoline Station

B-Dale Corner Store; 2164 N Hamline Avenue

Gasoline Station

Gas Plus 12; 1583 W County Road C

Gasoline Station

B-Dale Corner Store; 2164 Dale Street N

Cigarette /Tobacco


Gas Plus 12; 1583 W County Road C

Cigarette /Tobacco


Walgreens #13685; 2635 Rice Street

Cigarette /Tobacco


Walgreens #02002; 1611 W County Road C

Cigarette /Tobacco


Walgreens #01804; 1739 N Lexington Avenue

Cigarette /Tobacco


MGM Wine & Spirits; 1149 Larpenteur Avenue W

Cigarette /Tobacco


Hamline Liquors, Inc.; 2825 Hamline Avenue N

Cigarette /Tobacco


Midland Hills Country Club; 2001 Fulham Street

Gas Pumps – Private

Ryder Truck Rental; 2580 Long Lake Road

Gas Pumps – Private

Roseville Animal Hospital; 2630 N Snelling Curve


Examination &

Inoculation Center

AMC Theatres Rosedale 14; 850 Rosedale Center


Rotary Club of Roseville

2233 Hamline Avenue N, Suite 620

Temporary On-Sale


Roll Call

            Ayes: Pust; Willmus; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.


c.            Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding $5,000



d.            Request by Kevin Miller for approval of a partial sewer easement vacation at 1770 Chatsworth Street (PF12-007)

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10984 (Attachment E) entitled, “A Resolution Approving the Vacation of a Portion of the Sewer Easement at 1770 Chatsworth Street (PF12-007).”


Roll Call

            Ayes: Pust; Willmus; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.


e.            Request by Minnehaha Transportation, Inc. for approval of outdoor storage of bus fleet vehicles as a CONDITIONAL USE at 2507 Walnut Street (PF12-006)

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10985 (Attachment F) entitled, “A Resolution Approving Outdoor Storage of Fleet Vehicles as a Conditional Use at 2507 Walnut Street (PF12-006).”


Roll Call

            Ayes: Pust; Willmus; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.


f.             Accept Community Forest Bonding Grant

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, authorizing acceptance of a Community Forest Bonding Grant from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in the amount of  $25,000 for public tree planting.


Roll Call

            Ayes: Pust; Willmus; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.


g.            Accept a Conservation Partners Legacy Grant for Langton Lake Park

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, authorizing acceptance of a Conservation Legacy Partners (CLP) Grant from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in the amount of $89,168 for Langton Lake Park Natural Resource Restoration with a City cash match in the amount of $9,880 to be funded from Parks and Recreation Renewal Program Bond Funds.


Roll Call

            Ayes: Pust; Willmus; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.


h.            Accept a Metropolitan Regional Arts Council Grant for the 2012 Summer Entertainment Series

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, authorizing acceptance of a grant from the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council in the amount of $5,000 to assist in offering an art-focused summer entertainment series in Central Park’s Frank Rog Amphitheatre with matching City funds in the amount of $1,250, to be funded from the approved 2012 Parks and Recreation Budget; and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Grant Agreement by and between the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council and the City of Roseville’s Parks and Recreation Department.

Roll Call

            Ayes: Pust; Willmus; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.


i.             Award Contract for Storm Water Ditch Erosion Repair

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, awarding a contract to Larson Contracting in an amount not to exceed $41,280; for construction of a gabion basket retaining wall to prevent further erosion of the railroad embankment at the drainage ditch adjacent to Minnesota Commercial Railroad at 2265 – 2285 County Road C.

Roll Call

            Ayes: Pust; Willmus; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.


j.             Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Terminating the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) for Engineering Services with the City of Arden Hills

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) terminating the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the Cities of Roseville and Arden Hills for utilization of Roseville engineering employees.

Roll Call

            Ayes: Pust; Willmus; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.


8.            Consider Items Removed from Consent


12.         General Ordinances for Adoption


13.         Presentations


a.            Receive Update from Ramsey County Commissioner Jan Parker

Mayor Roe welcomed Ramsey County Commissioner Jan Parker, noting that since she was not running for re-election, this may be her last periodic report to the Roseville City Council.


Commissioner Parker’s staff provided a packet of reports and information.  Commissioner Parker highlighted some of the information and provided updates for items of interest in Ramsey County and to residents of the City of Roseville.  Those highlights included awards/recognitions; Ramsey County budget; County road projects; medicine collection program and sites; stadium/TCAAP environmental clean-up; parks and libraries; the Meals on Wheels program; and trends within the County of families considered “in crisis.”  Commissioner Parker noted that, while the 2012 budget had in fact been reduced when compared with the 2011 budget, there were increases to property tax bills in many areas significantly due to reductions in federal and state funding.


Commissioner Parker addressed the NE Diagonal, noting another meeting of cities along that corridor had recently been held, with continued interest from those cities in the corridor.  Commissioner Parker advised that it was the County Rail Authority’s plan to acquire land for future transit as it became available for a bike trail.


Discussion among Councilmembers and Commissioner Parker included continued increases in the use of the Ramsey County Library – Roseville branch compared to the seven (7) branches within the suburban area.


Mayor Roe and individual Councilmembers thanked Commissioner Parker for her service to and representation of the City of Roseville during her tenure with Ramsey County; and for her informative presentation tonight.


Commissioner Parker expressed her appreciation of being given the opportunity to serve the community as a “labor of love;” and announced that she had accepted the role of Co-President of the North Suburban Senior Coalition.


b.            Joint Meeting with Ethics Commission

Ethics Commissioners Ben Lehman; Margo Fjelstad (Vice Chair); Nancy O’Brian; and Anne Collopy were in attendance from the Ethics Commission; with Commissioner LuAnne Pederson unable to attend tonight.


Commissioner Fjelstad thanked City Attorney and City Manager for their assistance to the Commission.


Topics of discussion, at the request of the Ethics Commission, were outlined in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated May 21, 2012.


Recap on 2012 Annual Ethics Training

Vice Chair Fjelstad noted the favorable reception of speakers at the 2012 annual ethics training: Dr. David Schultz and former Roseville Mayor Craig Klausing for their thought-provoking comments and historical perspective.


Vice Chair Fjelstad advised that the Ethics Commission would be responsive to feedback from 2012 participants and seek to improve 2013 training to provide a more clear connection between items in the Roseville Ethics Code for that training, including specific hypothetical conversations or situations; as well as to reduce the amount of time for the annual training. 


Update on any Complaints Reported to Ethics Commission

None received to-date.


Non-Filing of Annual Disclosure Statements

Vice Chair Fjelstad reported on this issue, brought to the City Council’s attention at their March 12, 2012 meeting, and subsequent reference to and follow-up by the Ethics Commission for three (3) City Advisory Commission Members who had not completed their non-disclosure statements.  Vice Chair Fjelstad advised that two (2) Commissioners were contacted by the Ethics Commission in accordance with the process outlined in the City’s Ethics Code and subsequently completed their paperwork as required.  Vice Chair Fjelstad noted that the tenure of the third commissioner was coming to a close and had therefore been exempted from their follow-through.


Regarding the potential change to Section 6 of the Ethics Code as requested, Vice Chair Fjelstad advised that the Ethics Commission had discussed it at their May 9, 2012 meeting, and determined that the current Code was written appropriately and did not recommend any modifications to the Code.


Mayor Roe concurred that the presentations at the 2012 annual ethics training were very good; and also agreed that the amount of training time could be reduced.


At the request of Councilmember Johnson, Vice Chair Fjelstad advised that the Commission did not currently have a Chairperson in place, but would be taking that up at their next Ethics Commission meeting. Councilmember Johnson thanked the Commissioners for their work on behalf of the City.


14.         Public Hearings


15.         Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Consider Citizens’ Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Proposed Wal-Mart Store at County Road C and Cleveland Avenue


Prior to the staff presentation, and for the benefit of the public, Mayor Roe provided a synopsis of the process for consideration of both Items 12.a and 12.b related to the proposed Wal-Mart Store at County Road C and Cleveland Avenue.  Mayor Roe also reviewed the process following staff’s presentation to be followed by City Council questions to staff, not position statements of individual Councilmembers, then comments from the applicant or their representative(s), at which time public comment would be received.  Mayor Roe advised that any questions of the public would be addressed by the City Council, legal counsel, and/or staff at the end of the public comments, after which a discussion of City Councilmembers and staff as applicable would occur, at which time individual Councilmembers could provide their positions on the issue prior to voting on each specific item.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly summarized the decision regarding the citizens’ petition as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated May 21, 2012; in accordance with Minnesota Administrative Rules; and as available to the public on the Environmental Quality Board’s (EQB) website providing a procedural guide for Local Responsible Governmental Unit’s (RGU) for reviewing petitions for preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW).  Staff’s analysis and conclusion, as detailed in Section 4.0 of their report, was that the proposed Wal-Mart development was exempt from the citizens’ petition for preparation of an EAW.


At the request of Councilmember Johnson, Mr. Lloyd advised that the Alternative Urban Area-wide Review (AUAR) was updated every five (5) years, and the current AUAR was in place until mid-October of 2012.


Councilmember Willmus asked staff to respond to the issues raised by former Councilmember Amy Ihlan in an e-mail dated earlier today, contrasting some of staff’s narrative in Section 3.2 of the staff report and current Community Mixed Use (CMU) Zoning versus the former B-6 Zoning designation for this subject area.  Mr. Lloyd advised that Ms. Ihlan’s perspective was that there was a significant difference between those two (2) zoning designations.


While Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had not had an opportunity to review that e-mail, he addressed the differences between the former B-6 Zoning District designation and the current Community Mixed Use (CMU) Zoning District for the parcels under discussion. 


Mr. Lloyd noted that the previous B-6 Zoning, much of which was in place since the City’s inception and first Zoning Code dated from 1959, allowed for little in development parameters and permitted uses and design standards in today’s development world compared to the 1950 era; and therefore the use of Planned Unit Development (PUD) process in zoning districts to allow for site-specific zoning was used predominantly.   Mr. Lloyd advised that, under the current CMU Zoning, and no longer requiring PUD’s, there was a set parameter of what could and could not be developed in the form-based development adopted by the City Council in December of 2010, providing for a dramatic difference in the two (2) zoning designations and their application to development.  Mr. Lloyd advised that the previous zoning code was found increasingly out-of- date and verging on irrelevant for normal development types as they transformed over the years since that original code was created in 1959.


In staff’s narrative, Section 3.2, Councilmember Willmus noted staff’s mention that the two (2) uses were substantially consistent and questioned this apparent discrepancy.


Councilmember Pust noted that those references were to the “Business Park” designation; with Mr. Lloyd concurring noting that they were referencing the Comprehensive Plan, not the Zoning Code.


In follow-up, Mayor Roe asked staff to clarify that the update of the Zoning Code now in place was based on the updated Comprehensive Plan and previous discussions related to use in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, with staff concluding that the evolutionary nature of the community indicated the CMU Zoning designation, consistent with the AUAR.


Mr. Lloyd concurred, noting that in terms of Comprehensive Plan designation and CMU and previous Business Park (BP) designation for development of an AUAR, once the Comprehensive Plan was updated in 2009 it superseded the previous iterations; however, he noted that the substance of that update was that the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area guided in the Comprehensive Plan update was essentially intended to replicate the Comprehensive Plan.


At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Lloyd expounded on the basis of that interpretation of the definition or description of a CMU Zoning District in the Comprehensive Plan, allowed for walkability.  Mr. Lloyd noted that this was the same premise of the former master redevelopment plan for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, anticipating the same nature of development; however, the Zoning Code applied the actual metrics to that intent.


Councilmember Pust questioned whether staff had listened to the tapes of the Comprehensive Plan Task Force or Subcommittee recommendations for those specific changes and their intent to the Comprehensive Plan; and the specific differences in BP and CMU designations.


Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had not reviewed the actual tapes, but from previous Public Hearings related to the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent City Council actions, and staff’s review of those resulting documents, the similar land use designation were indicated.


Prior to proceeding with further discussion, Councilmember Pust requested the definition of the BP designation from the 2003 Comprehensive Plan, which was provided by staff as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof (page 3, Land Use Section – 2003 Comprehensive Plan Update).


Councilmember Pust clarified that staff did not believe the City, as the RGU, had the legal authority to find that the AUAR was not valid.


Mr. Lloyd responded that if the proposed project didn’t fall within  approved parameters and the AUAR was not valid, an EAW would be required.


Based on staff’s determination, Councilmember Pust clarified that there was no real distinction, thus their recommendation.


Mr. Lloyd responded affirmatively, that the assumptions about future land use made by the AUAR, and the Comprehensive Plan were comparable and the AUAR not found to be invalid from staff’s perspective.


Councilmember Pust stated that she was in agreement with a portion of staff’s analysis: that the level of use that this particular proposal fits into one of the four (4) scenarios studied by the AUAR. However, Councilmember Pust opined that the traffic data and traffic studies submitted to-date in the current proposal   included certain parts of the development area, not all studied in the AUAR.  Councilmember Pust noted that the AUAR provided mitigation plans for different parts of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area for increased traffic, some of which were not included in this proposal.


City Engineer Debra Bloom responded that the AUAR was a larger study, including other intersections and roadways from a regional perspective, and using a regional model.  Ms. Bloom advised that this included multiple intersections, area freeways, and when the Wal-Mart proposal was reviewed, it was done so in the context of the larger AUAR model and how traffic would flow throughout the area, not just to and from the Wal-Mart site.  As part of the review of the City’s consulting traffic engineer, SRF, their reports were referenced by staff and included as part of the supporting documentation for staff’s report.  In response to Mayor Roe’s previous comments, Ms. Bloom clarified and advised that fourteen (14) potential intersection and/or roadway improvements were included in the AUAR; however, only the ones triggered or having a negative impact were listed for City Council awareness and review.  Ms. Bloom noted that those were specific to I-35W at County Road C and Cleveland Avenue; and from mitigation perspective, had been included as part of the draft Development Agreement between the City and the Developer that required future mitigation at the developer’s expense, as negotiated, triggered by the proposed development of the Wal-Mart.



In an effort to restate and summarize Ms. Bloom’s comments and to ensure her understanding, Councilmember Pust stated that, when the AUAR was done five (5) years ago, a broad area of different intersections was reviewed if and when additional traffic would be triggered, based on fourteen (14) different mitigations plans for four (4) potential development scenarios from best to worst case.  Councilmember Pust clarified that the proposal currently before the City Council at this time reviewed all of those fourteen (14) different mitigation and intersection points; however, only those called out and addressed in the Development Agreement were problematic specific to this proposed Wal-Mart development.


Ms. Bloom concurred with Councilmember Pust’s summarization.


At this time, the previous BP definition was displayed and reviewed.


Mr. Lloyd noted that a lot of the description of the BP designation was similar in nature to that description for future land use scenarios contemplated in the Twin Lakes Master Plan developed in approximately 2001, and was intended for the more comprehensive development of the entire area rather than the piece-meal development approach that was today’s reality.


At the request of Councilmember Pust and whether the 2001 Twin Lakes Master Plan was still referenced today, Mr. Lloyd responded that it was referenced by the updated Comprehensive Plan, but not formally a part of the Plan as an official control, but simply referenced as a guiding document or reference to the initial vision and community discussions for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.


At the request of Mayor Roe as to whether the BP language was similar to the CMU, Mr. Lloyd responded that in essence it was; however, the updated Comprehensive Plan instructed review of proposed developments in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area against the new Zoning Code, Comprehensive Plan update, Twin Lakes Master Plan, and AUAR and those directives.


Applicant’s Representative, Sue Steinwall, Land Use Attorney for Wal-Mart in MN, with the firm of Frederickson, Byron, et al

At the invitation of Mayor Roe, Ms. Steinwall advised that she concurred with staff’s report and had no additional comments at this time.


At this time, Mayor Roe opened the meeting to public comments specific to the Citizens’ Petition for an EAW; and reviewed the City Council’s rules related to public comment specific to this issue, not to the Plat at this time.  Mayor Roe asked that the speakers and the audience be respectful and refrain from commentary and/or applause, and that those speakers would limit comments to five (5) minutes each, with some flexibility provided for speakers representing a group.  Mayor Roe asked that all questions be addressed directly to the City Council, and noted that subsequent to hearing all public comments on this issue, the City Council would respond or direct City staff or legal counsel to respond to questions raised by the public as applicable.


Public Comments (7:23 p.m.)

In addition to the written and verbal comments previously expressed to the Planning Commission and received by staff (included in meeting materials), additional written comments to-date were provided as bench handouts, attached hereto and made a part hereof.

*Amy Ihlan, 1776 Stanbridge Avenue

Sue Gilbertson, 2000 Cleveland Avenue N

Joyce Thielen, 2210 Midland Grove Road, Unit 203

Theresa Gardella, Roseville resident (no address listed)

Anonymous e-mail dated May 21, 2012 in opposition to Wal-Mart

*Timothy Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane

Vernon R. Eidman, 90 Mid Oaks Lane

Tammy McGehee, Councilmember (2 Memorandums dated May 21, 2012)

Position Statement dated May 19, 2012 from the “Solidarity of West Area Roseville Neighbors (SWARN)” expressing concerns/opposition to Wal-Mart


*Tim Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane

As noted, Mr. Callaghan had provided his questions via e-mail dated May 21, 2012.  Mr. Callahan questions were:

1)    If the Business Park (BP) defines limited retail as being acceptable in this area; by what stretch of the imagination could Wal-Mart be defined as “limited retail?”

2)    As he had previously requested in the past, where was the information addressed on the traffic impacts to Fairview Avenue at the intersections of Lydia Avenue and County Road D, as previously available in the AUAR, but now not included in staff’s report?  Mr. Callaghan alleged that the information was being hidden somewhere and people were not being told of the effect on this currently massively overloaded intersection.


*Amy Ihlan, 1776 Stanbridge Avenue

As noted, Ms. Ihlan had provided written comments via e-mail earlier today addressing the environmental review and impacts, as well as the Preliminary and Final Plats and Development Agreement provisions.  Ms. Ihlan’s comments referenced various Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) correspondences to staff as part of her written and verbal comments.  Ms. Ihlan verbally reviewed and summarized her written areas of concern, specifically the accuracy of the AUAR, requested further traffic studies, and questioned the lack of notice to residents on this process.  Ms. Ihlan alleged a lack of openness and transparency by the City Council and staff to the surrounding residential neighborhoods.  At a minimum, Ms. Ihlan suggested that it was only reasonable that mailed notice be provided; and thanked residents for their attempts to get the word out, since the government had failed to do so.


Raymond Schreurs, 3058 Wilder Street N

Mr. Schreurs noted his residence at his current home in Roseville since 1956, and approximately one (1) mile from the proposed site and one (1) block off Cleveland Avenue.  Mr. Schreurs stated that in those years, he had seen many decisions made, most good, but some bad.  However, Mr. Schreurs opined that, if the City Council approved this development tonight, it would be the worst decision ever made by a Roseville City Council.


With no further speakers coming forward at this time, Mayor Roe closed public comment at approximately 7:37 p.m.


At this time, with the assistance of staff and legal counsel, Mayor Roe responded to questions raised during the public comment.


“Limited Retail” use definition

In response to Councilmember Johnson, Mr. Lloyd noted that the CMU and AUAR addressed a much larger area than just that adjacent to County Road C and Cleveland Avenue; and that  larger area directed that a limited retail presence be maintained.  Mr. Lloyd noted that this didn’t mean that every development should be retail; and acknowledged that the Wal-Mart development may eat up a significant portion of the retail area.  However, Mr. Lloyd reiterated that it was staff’s analysis that the proposed store of 160,000 square feet fit in this redevelopment area


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that the “Business Park” designation was not a designation of the current Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Plan.


At Mayor Roe’s question as to whether the Business Park designation was at all relevant to tonight’s discussion, Mr. Lloyd responded that it was to the extent that the CMU designation was similar to the BP designation in that it established goals for mixed use residential and retail.  Mr. Lloyd noted that the present description edged away from warehousing and light manufacturing uses found in the previous version of the Comprehensive Plan; however, it was relevant in that the City still aspired to a “limited” retail presence without the entire area becoming a retail district.


In considering the entire Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, Councilmember Pust questioned Mr. Lloyd on what definition he would ascribe to “limited retail,” in that context.


Mr. Lloyd responded that, while he was not alluding to any formal definition, staff recognized in their analysis of this retail store, that it didn’t break any assumptions of the AUAR of a retail use that could develop in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.  Mr. Lloyd noted that this particular corner had been assumed for retail all along to address potential traffic volumes and environmental impacts, based on the AUAR scenarios.  At 160,000 square feet, Mr. Lloyd noted that this retail store was smaller than Scenario A in the AUAR.


At the request of Councilmember Pust as to whether staff was confirming that this was a “Scenario A” development, Mr. Lloyd noted that the AUAR provided for environmental impact analyses indicated by retail in that area and that this proposed development did not  exceed the impacts considered by that environmental document.  Mr. Lloyd opined that it was really a subjective observation that a large store in that corner seemed from staff’s perspective to be limited when considered in the entire context of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.


Councilmember McGehee stated that the term “limited retail” was very subjective in this analysis and that this proposal fit the definition was only an opinion; Mr. Lloyd responded that it was based on the given metrics for assessment provided to staff.


Councilmember McGehee opined that she didn’t see any building in the CMU Zoning District or Comprehensive Plan that looked like this proposed Wal-Mart development, since that retail was assumed to have some residential housing capacity on an upper level, with building design moving vertically, not horizontally, and providing for underground versus surface parking.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that, from her perspective, this development represented “big box retail,” and was not desirable in that area, nor prescribed by the original Comprehensive Plan or the Twin Lakes Master Plan in that area, as addressed in her written comments, previously referenced.  Councilmember McGehee stated that the trip per day traffic generations had still not been provided negating any possible analysis of that traffic, which was key to some of the environmental considerations.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee as to how large the Subarea 1 area of the AUAR was in acres, Mr. Lloyd estimated that it represented approximately 1/3 of the entire Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.


Councilmember McGehee asked staff to explain to her how the current process was more flexible than the previous PUD process.


Mr. Lloyd responded that the current process may not be more flexible, but it was certainly more current.  Mr. Lloyd noted that former zoning districts were found to be increasingly out of date with current development types typical for good development desired for the City of Roseville, with many of those desirable developments not allowed in the City’s standard zoning districts.  Mr. Lloyd advised that this had prompted the PUD process to provide more flexibility for the previous outdated code requirements.  Mr. Lloyd opined that the new code is much more current with today’s development standards and requirements.


Impervious Coverage

Mayor Roe requested staff’s response to the percentage of impervious surface coverage requirements in the former B-6 zoning district, and that surface area or any relative difference from the AUAR perspective.


Mr. Lloyd advised that while the impervious surface addressed storm water and cumulative environmental impacts, and since that was not his area of expertise, he deferred to the City Engineer for a response.


Public Notice

At request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Lloyd advised the City Council that published and mailed notices had been provided for the Public Hearing at the Planning Commission level on February 1, 2012 related to the Preliminary Plat proposal.  Mr. Lloyd, with Mayor Roe’s concurrence, noted that additional announcements at City Council meetings, updates on the City’s website, e-mail notices to interested parties having requested updates on this proposed development, along with media coverage of the issue over the months.


Traffic and Mitigation at the Intersections of Fairview Avenue at Lydia Avenue and County Road D

Ms. Bloom provided information, based on a traffic study by the City’s consulting engineer, S.R.F. in the context of the AUAR and review of sixteen (16) different improvements identified for mitigation in the AUAR, based on peak hours, not daily trips.  Ms. Bloom advised that the earlier review of service levels for those intersections dated January 22, 2012, for Subarea 1, Block 4, using Scenario C, not Scenario A, reviewed trip generation estimate comparisons and trip generation differences in the context of numbers from the AUAR and what is currently proposed with this development.


Councilmember Pust sought clarification on why Ms. Bloom was referencing “Scenario C,” rather than the previous focus on “Scenario A.”


Ms. Bloom clarified that in the four (4) scenarios, “Scenario A” addressed the highest and worst case scenario; and based on the infrastructure improvement plan, engineers found that “Scenario A” was not applicable and would not come to fruition, since it was based on 43,000 vehicles per day versus this actual 28,000 vehicles per day projection overall for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.


Councilmember Pust questioned how the 28,000 vehicles per day for the entire area corresponded with the 6,000 vehicles per hour mentioned by Councilmember Willmus.


Mayor Roe referenced the MnDOT correspondence included in the meeting materials, clarifying that it addressed 100,000 trips per day, or 6,000 per hour, but was for all trips on I-35W heading into the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.


Ms. Bloom concurred, further clarifying that the referenced letter had been an initial response from MnDOT before they had received any subsequent information, when the plat had been first submitted for review.  As a result of their initial review, Ms. Bloom advised that MnDOT had requested, and had been provided with, additional information from the City’s traffic consultant, SRF, as well as the developer’s traffic engineer. 


Ms. Bloom briefly reviewed the process for determining and projecting traffic counts, based on a regional model, and including potential mitigation efforts outlined in the AUAR, and if and how the service level at those intersections changed, and improvements that needed to happen.  In the packet of materials, Ms. Bloom referred to the Development Agreement that included mitigation for those identified with this project, with nothing identified at Cleveland or Fairview Avenues at their intersection with County Road D.  Ms. Bloom advised that the level of service with the addition of this development did not change according to the analysis by SRF for the regional study.  Ms. Bloom noted that the only mitigation addressed were included in the materials provided to the public and City Council, those that needed attention specific to this development, and included in the draft Development Agreement.


Councilmember Pust summarized that the model did not flag any mitigation other than at Twin Lakes Parkway, County Road C and Cleveland Avenue.


Ms. Bloom concurred, noting that mitigation included a right turn lane at County Road C and Cleveland Avenue; two (2) improvements by the developer – a right turn off Twin Lakes Parkway and another off County Road C; and interchange improvements of concern to the City and/or State to ensure traffic flow. Ms. Bloom advised that the mitigation was detailed in the draft Development Agreement, with the developer asked to contribute financially for those identified mitigation efforts.


Councilmember Pust asked Ms. Bloom to explain to the public why vehicles traveling to and from the proposed Wal-Mart development wouldn’t increase traffic at Fairview Avenue and County Road D.


Ms. Bloom advised that it was based on directional distribution, with regional trips coming off the highway to the store and then back onto the highway. Ms. Bloom opined that Wal-Mart most likely anticipated a significant draw from the Roseville neighborhood as well or they would not be seeking to locate there.


Councilmember Pust opined if there was a back-up getting back onto the interstate, there would most likely be an obvious back-up to those other intersections as well, but the change was not projected to be significant.


Ms. Bloom advised that the nexus of models and information was based on potential failure in the regional system.  Ms. Bloom noted the significant traffic impacts already being felt on the system already with construction projects on Snelling and Lexington Avenues, I-694, and County Road E; with most north/south roads already over-burdened, with that current situation not a good gauge of normal traffic operations.  Ms. Bloom advised that she was not attempting to diminish the fact that those roads already had high volumes of traffic.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bloom concurred that Cleveland Avenue was a likely and common-sense alternative to access County Road D, as well as County Road C


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Bloom responded that the proposed intersection on County Road C would cross Mount Ridge Road at the approximate parking lot location, and was considered a “3/4 intersection,” providing a right-in and right-out, as well as a left-in, but no left-out.


Councilmember McGehee calculated the acreage and projected vehicle trips, with approximately 1/3 of the traffic allotted to the entire area addressed for this single development, and questioned how to evaluate cumulative impacts. 


Ms. Bloom advised that the projections and the AUAR addressed the entire redevelopment area consistently. 


Impervious Coverage (continued)

Councilmember Pust referenced the previous B-6 zoning district requiring an EIS as part of that zoning; however, by definition, it was not part of the CMU zoning district at this time.  Councilmember Pust questioned if the PUD portion of the B-6 zoning discussed the impervious coverage ratio.


Mr. Lloyd, noting that it was pure conjecture on his part, suggested that the timing of the AUAR update versus when the B-6 zoning district was last updated before it was replaced, may have included some environmental review process.  However, since the AUAR update required that environmental review, Mr. Lloyd noted that the AUAR review basically included a combined EAW and EIS at the same form and range, and provided for the depth of analysis of an EIS.  Mr. Lloyd advised that it was prepared in advance versus as each development proposal was presented, and required a formalized level of analysis for each development.  Other than requirements that could have pre-dated the AUAR itself, Mr. Lloyd advised that he was unaware of any EIS review required for the entire area.


Preliminary/Final Plat Consideration

Mayor Roe asked if it was typical or not typical to consider a Preliminary and Final Plat in the same discussion.


Mr. Lloyd advised that it was dependent on the project.  In referencing the former Pulte Homes development on County Road C-2 and Lexington Avenue, Mr. Lloyd advised that it did not come as a combined Preliminary and Final Plat process, as development of internal roadways was involved and more questions needing to be addressed in platting the area and matching existing and proposed roadways and infrastructure.  Mr. Lloyd noted that there was usually a lot of details to be worked out between Preliminary, or conceptual, Plat.  By comparison, Mr. Lloyd advised that this plat was relatively simple, with many others representing simply a reconfiguration of internal property boundaries that don’t involve extensive public infrastructure.  While the Final Plat document will have a different title, Mr. Lloyd advised that it would look similar to the Preliminary Plat, and be essentially consistent with the Preliminary Plat.  Mr. Lloyd opined that, in such instances, it was common practice to address the Preliminary and Final Plats at the same time (e.g. Meritex Plats)


Councilmember McGehee sought a simple explanation of the terms “Preliminary” and “Final” Plats.


Mr. Lloyd advised that it was based, in some sense, on the level of detail, with more detail provided in the Preliminary Plat, and including existing easements that may be vacated, but identifying them.  Mr. Lloyd noted that the Preliminary Plat may also involve roadways, individual parcels combined, and in concept, any changes necessary to property boundaries or rearrangement of a portion of those boundaries.  Once those numerous details are addressed, Mr. Lloyd advised that the Preliminary Plat could then be approved, at which time the Final Plat in a simpler format could be formalized that would provide the final picture once those details of the Preliminary Plat were addressed and allowing a formal view of the Plat.  Mr. Lloyd advised that the Final Plat was exactly the same thing approved as the Preliminary Plat with all those conditions applied.


Pust moved, McGehee seconded, contrary to staff recommendation and as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), that the City Council grant the citizens’ petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW).

As the maker of the motion, Councilmember Pust opined that there were a lot of good reasons to pursue an environmental review, since if consideration of this project had occurred in the future, or four (4) months from now when the AUAR was due for a five (5) year update, the City would be required to perform that review.  Councilmember Pust opined that this development represented a very big change in what the neighborhood had been expecting and what the community had been hoping for.   Councilmember Pust opined that her questions about traffic had been answered sufficiently by staff, and while MnDOT’s correspondence included in the meeting packet materials had backed off their original concerns, the fact remained that there was now too much traffic and while recognizing that the area may be inundated with traffic, the City Council could wait and see and deal with it later.  However, Councilmember Pust further opined that this did not represent good planning.  Councilmember Pust advised that she was also concerned with the reduction of green space from 25% to 15% without adequate explanation, even with staff’s analysis through the AUAR with respect to runoff and water quality.  Councilmember Pust opined that this was a significant difference, and provided another good reason to take another look.


Councilmember McGehee seconded Councilmember Pust’s remarks; and opined that the AUAR was invalid, given changes from 25% to 15% in green space, and traffic impacts of the development exceeding what was called out in the AUAR.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the traffic impacts had not been adequately studied, and this development was more than expected in this area, creating the need for more environmental review.  Councilmember McGehee questioned whether the EAW was sufficient; and further opined that a new AUAR was needed if this one was found to be invalid.


Councilmember Johnson spoke in opposition to the motion, opining that staff had proven to his satisfaction that the existing AUAR addresses his initial concerns.


Councilmember Willmus concurred with Councilmember Johnson, and thanked staff for their analysis.


Mayor Roe spoke in opposition to the motion, opining that the AUAR’s worst case scenario was based on assumptions significantly worse than the impact of this proposed development.  Since the purpose of the AUAR was to address water quality, Mayor Roe noted that the developer was required to meet Rice Creek Watershed District and other storm water handling regulations.  Mayor Roe opined that the percentage of impervious coverage would not have significant impacts once water quality and storm water requirements had been met.  Mayor Roe reiterated that the worst case scenario contemplated by the AUAR was significantly beyond the impacts of this development.


Roll Call

            Ayes: Pust and McGehee.   

            Nays: Willmus; Johnson; and Roe.

            Motion failed.


Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10986 (Attachment E) entitled, “A Resolution Enunciating the Exemption of the Proposed Wal-Mart Development at County Road C and Cleveland Avenue from the Citizens’ Petition for Preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet.”


Councilmember McGehee spoke in opposition to the motion, citing MN Rule 4410.3610, as addressed in her written comments dated May 21, 2012, previously referenced, and based on Items B, C, D, G and H of those rules.


Councilmember Willmus expressed appreciation to Mr. Lloyd for his explanation to those questioned raised by Ms. Ihlan; and spoke in support of the motion.


Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of the motion, opining that staff had provided sufficient evidence supporting this action.


Mayor Roe spoke in support of the motion, opining that in his personal review of Councilmember McGehee’s memorandum from earlier today and her itemization of her analysis and findings for MN Rule 4410.3610 items B. C. D. G. and H, he was not in agreement with her analysis based on the AUAR and additional information provided in tonight’s meeting packet materials.  Mayor Roe opined that it was appropriate to indicate exemption and declare the citizens’ petition not valid.

Roll Call

            Ayes: Willmus; Johnson; and Roe. 

            Nays: Pust and McGehee.

Motion carried.


Willmus moved, Pust seconded, authorizing the City’s Planning staff to notify the petitioners’ representative and the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) of the exemption of the proposed Wal-Mart development from the citizens’ petition for preparation of an EAW.


Roll Call

            Ayes: Pust; Willmus; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:15 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:23 p.m.



b.            Approve Preliminary / Final Plat and Development Agreement – Roseville Properties (Wal-Mart)

Attachments included: Area Map (Attachment A); Aerial Photo (B); Concept Rendering (C); Preliminary and Final Plat Documents (D); Memorandum from the City Attorney (E); Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes (F); Planning Commission / Public Hearing Meeting Minutes dated February 1, 2012 (G); Public Comments (H); Traffic Study Material (I); Draft Development Agreement (J): and Draft Resolution (K).


Mayor Roe reviewed the process once again for presentation, public comment and discussion of this item prior to potential City Council action.


Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon and City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized the requested action as detailed in the RCA dated May 21, 2012 for consideration of the Preliminary and Final Plat for Wal-Mart and Roseville Properties.  The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat on a 5/1 vote.  Planning Division and Public Works Department staff, and the City Attorney recommend approval of the Final Plat and associated Development Agreement.  Details of those recommended approvals were detailed in Section 8 of the staff report.


Mr. Paschke noted the existing parcel would be combined into two (2) lots along Cleveland Avenue as the property frontage.   Mr. Paschke reviewed the Preliminary Plat, in accordance with City Code, Chapter 11, based on analysis of the development meeting those code requirements related to appropriate infrastructure, any easements and rights-of-way issues related to the project, and improvements negotiated between the developer and staff on behalf of the City.  Mr. Paschke advised that the Final Plat, as previously indicated by Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd, incorporated those detailed elements of the Preliminary Plat, but not to the level of detail while yet including all land to be dedicated to the City, and easements and boundaries related to the specific project.  .


Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon reviewed the draft Development Agreement (Attachment J) also known as a public improvement contract outlining the obligations of the City and the applicant.  Mr. Trudgeon provided an overview of those business points.  While the draft Development Agreement included in the meeting packet was substantially complete, Mr. Trudgeon referenced additional exhibits and attachments, along with a cover memorandum from Mr. Trudgeon dated earlier today, providing additional details, was included as a bench handout tonight, and attached hereto and made a part hereof.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that there were copies available for the public as well.  Mr. Trudgeon briefly reviewed the revisions, whether typographical, grammatical, or more substantial that were recommended via that bench handout.  Therefore, Mr. Trudgeon asked that the City Council motion include verbiage that Development Agreement was amended.


Councilmember Pust questioned the exhibits and differences in the Final Plats, with Mr. Trudgeon noting that the Preliminary Plat was marked “Preliminary subject to revision” which was routine as the document was forwarded to Ramsey County for their review by the County Surveyor as part of the recording process.


Councilmember McGehee, via a bench handout attached hereto and made a part hereof, had a list of fourteen (14) questions related to the draft Development Agreement to which staff responded.


Hours of Operation: Twenty-four (24) hours per day

It was noted by Mayor Roe that Cub Foods at Har Mar Mall is another retail operation in Roseville with a 24-hour operation.


Mr. Paschke advised that there was no restriction in City Code as to hours of operation; with Mr. Trudgeon and Mayor Roe concurring, noting the restrictions for extended hours were specific to commercial operations adjacent to residential areas.


Councilmember McGehee noted that there was a potential for future residential development adjacent to the proposed Wal-Mart as part of CMU zoning, and noted that the Development Agreement stipulated that no further restrictions could be imposed by the City for at least two (2) years.  Councilmember McGehee questioned whether this precluded any adjacent properties being developed as residential.


Mr. Trudgeon clarified that it was not the City of Roseville nor Wal-Mart, but State Statute that dictated the two-year rule once the Development Agreement and Plat were approved.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that while the City may not appreciate the two-year clause, there was some protection or assurances based on the newer office/warehouse building directly to the east of the proposed Wal-Mart site that he didn’t anticipate for any immediate redevelopment at least within that two-year window.  Mr. Trudgeon also noted that the PIK property directly to the north could potentially have residential development; however, since it was located closer to the park, that property had been identified for office/campus activity.  Mr. Trudgeon opined that any future residential developers would certainly take into account the location of a retail store in the vicinity; however, at this time, Mr. Trudgeon advised that a CMU zoning designation did not guarantee future redevelopment as residential.  Without that knowledge, Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was difficult for the City to regulate.


Regarding the two-year rule, Mayor Roe questioned if the Zoning Code or Comprehensive Plan guidance could be changed for that area once approved.  While not meaning that existing zoning and Comprehensive Plan provisions wouldn’t remain in effect, Mayor Roe questioned if residential development adjacent to commercial or retail properties wouldn’t still be subject to City regulations.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that, prior to responding, he would like to study that question further with the City Attorney to determine how to apply those restrictions.  Of course, Mr. Trudgeon advised that it would be staff’s intent to work with any retail and/or residential development to ensure compatibility.  However, he was not sure of the enforcement capabilities available to the City without consultation with legal counsel.


Mayor Roe encouraged staff to review that issue with legal counsel in more detail.


Infrastructure Cost Allocation

Councilmember McGehee questioned why Wal-Mart was only paying $400,000 for I-35W ramp improvements that are estimated to cost approximately $1.6 million; and why it appears that the City is subsidizing the Wal-Mart Corporation with $10 million of completed infrastructure.  Councilmember McGehee further questioned traffic projects; triggers for additional improvements and various interpretations by MnDOT and other traffic engineers; and questioned the accuracy of models and projected calculations.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that Wal-Mart’s cost allocation had been determined, through significant analysis of various components and expert consultation, at twenty-five percent (25%) of the total interchange costs.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that this was not a small, but rather significant, investment on their part, especially when drawing a nexus to this specific development and other occurrences that may make the interchange inadequate.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff had performed substantial due diligence and negotiations with Wal-Mart to reach this agreed-upon $400,000 amount, and staff was unable to justify any additional cost to this developer above that amount.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that this figure represented more to the City than a typical assessment from the Chapter 429 process.


Councilmember McGehee opined that there would be additional traffic impacts and mitigation that the citizens of Roseville would be required to pay; and further opined that citizens have already done their share.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that there were also other options available to the City for reimbursement of costs from other future property owners and/or developers, as well as the Chapter 429 assessment process.



Park Dedication

Councilmember McGehee questioned the rationale for accepting $411,115 in park dedication fees as opposed to land owned by Roseville Properties along County Road C and targeted for an addition to Langton Lake Park, including the Oak Forest identified in the 2002 Natural Resources Plan.  Councilmember McGehee opined that this agreement not only precluded the City obtaining the land, but also not getting added protection to a portion of Langton Lake.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that the Twin Lakes Regulating Plan identified that area for an addition to Langton Lake Park, the decision as to whether to acquire the property or a fee in lieu of had been the decision of the Parks and Recreation Commission after their deliberation of the issue.  While not attempting to speak for the Commission, Mr. Trudgeon surmised that the Commission apparently had determined that taking the fee instead of the land, was based on their ability in the future to improve parks with dollars versus land.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the City could acquire land with these funds, but the Commission had apparently decided not to pursue that option at this time.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that, even though this parcel and that north on County Road C were owned by the same property owner, a different project was being discussed and became more complex.


Councilmember McGehee opined that any park dedication funds should be used to purchase land around Langton Lake Park, especially when the intent was to improve or protect water quality and address other mitigating factors.

Indemnification for Operation of Wal-Mart

Councilmember McGehee questioned why the City was not indemnified for operation of the Wal-Mart.


Regarding day-to-day operations, Mr. Trudgeon deferred to legal counsel.


City Attorney Mark Gaughan sought additional clarification from Councilmember McGehee, with Councilmember McGehee advised that she was seeking assurances for proper remediation for TCE or health damages to people accessing or working at the Wal-Mart site for any harm caused by contaminated soils.


City Attorney Gaughan noted that Councilmember McGehee’s question assumed City liability and indemnification suggested that the City was assuming some liability, which he didn’t believe would be the case.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Gaughan summarized the Indemnification Clause included in the draft Development Agreement that would “hold harmless” the City under demands or complaints under the project’s construction.  Once completed, Mr. Gaughan advised that he could not fathom any scenario where a private property owner would be required to indemnify the City for anything happening on that private property.


Mayor Roe concurred with City Attorney Gaughan that this was certainly not common practice.


Councilmember McGehee disputed that assumption, opining that the property was a Brownfield and such an event could happen, especially since this is the first development to occur in the area; and there would be a significant number of employees and shoppers at the facility. 


Long-Term Continuity of Wal-Mart Operations

Councilmember McGehee questioned if it was possible to have an escrow fund established in case Wal-Mart chose to move on and leave behind a large, vacant building that couldn’t be marketed; and to protect Roseville residents against that possibility.  Councilmember McGehee advised that she was aware of 159 other communities with  vacant, big box stores on no fully remediated land. Mr. Trudgeon advised that any provisions could be suggested for inclusion in a Development Agreement; however, he questioned the effectiveness of some provisions or what the City would want Wal-Mart to do if they chose to close the store in the future.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that any remediation should be completed prior to Wal-Mart opening for business; and in his analysis and review of other Development Agreements nation-wide, he was unsure of any advantage to be gained and opined that such a provision might be somewhat unrealistic.



Councilmember McGehee questioned if the City could stipulate that Wal-Mart carry basic or standard insurance to cover injuries to store patrons.


City Attorney Gaughan advised that it could be made a requirement of the Agreement; however, he advised that his legal counsel would be to keep in mind that any provisions in the Agreement needed to be reasonable and consistent with other existing or future Development Agreements to avoid any risk of undermining the reasonableness of the City’s demands.  Mr. Gaughan opined that he was unaware of any other property owner that the City had required such a mandate.  Mr. Gaughan further opined that it was common knowledge that the Wal-Mart Corporation was sufficiently insured, and suggested it was a moot point to require such a provision in the Development Agreement.


Level of Environmental Clean-up

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Trudgeon advised that any environmental clean-up of the property by the developer was under the regulations and requirements of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), not dictated by the City of Roseville.  Mr. Trudgeon anticipated that this would involve either removal or capping of the contamination soil so it no longer created any danger to water bodies or the aquifer; and would require the developer to submit a RAP (Response Action Plan) document detailing their action plan to the MPCA, which would not be under the direct approval authority of the City of Roseville.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that there was a difference in clean-up levels between residential and/or commercial areas, but that this was also determined by the MPCA.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Trudgeon advised that preliminary analysis of the subject property should be available to any interested parties as public information, since a Phase I and Phase II analysis had been performed.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke advised that the developer would be required to meet the regulations of the Rice Creek Watershed District as well as the City of Roseville for storm water management on the site; with an underground chamber proposed, built to specifications of the MPCA, City and Watershed District, and monitored as applicable under their various oversight authorities.


Prior to opening the meeting for public comment related to the proposed Plat, Mayor Roe again reviewed the process; and recognizing that this was an intense and emotional issue, sought the respect of all parties moving forward.


Public Comments

In addition to the written and verbal comments previously expressed to the Planning Commission and received by staff (included in meeting materials), additional written comments to-date were provided as bench handouts, attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Amy Ihlan, 1776 Stanbridge Avenue

Sue Gilbertson, 2000 Cleveland Avenue N

Joyce Thielen, 2210 Midland Grove Road, Unit 203

Theresa Gardella, Roseville resident (no address listed)

Anonymous e-mail dated May 21, 2012 in opposition to Wal-Mart

Timothy Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane

Vernon R. Eidman, 90 Mid Oaks Lane

Tammy McGehee, Councilmember (2 Memorandums dated May 21, 2012)

May 19, 2012 position statement from the “Solidarity of West Area Roseville Neighbors (SWARN)” expressing concerns and opposition to Wal-Mart


David Nelson, 2280 W Highway 36, representative of “Solidarity for West Area Roseville Neighbors (SWARN)”

As previously noted, written comments were provided from SWARN; with questions specific to the Plat related to reimbursement for the I-35W and Twin Lakes Parkway interchange; and clarification of whether or not the Twin Lakes Master Plan was part of the current Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan.


Mike Gregory, 1945 Sharondale Avenue, representative of: “Solidarity for West Area Roseville Neighbors (SWARN)”

Mr. Gregory expressed concerns related to economic and/or social concerns, and read his written comment (no copy provided), opining that Wal-Mart was not a “community-based” business, but a national chain that will negatively impact and/or close many local business.  Mr. Gregory referenced numerous studies; and questioned what legacy the City Council wanted to leave for western Roseville and asked that the City Council consider the record of this corporate citizen elsewhere.  Specific questions of Mr. Gregory included: 1) the impact on taxes to Roseville compared to what they’re paying versus City costs; 2) impact to local roads; 3) impact to local roadways (maintenance and clean-up); and crime statistics of other Wal-Mart stores (e.g., Vadnais Heights store).


Sue Gilbertson, 2000 Cleveland Avenue N (SWARN)

Ms. Gilbertson shared crime statistics that she had researched from the Ramsey County Sheriff’s office, and incidents at the Vadnais Heights Wal-Mart Store over a five (5) year period, and comparing those statistics between Wal-Mart and the Target store in that same vicinity at 975 and 850 County Road E respectively.  Mr. Gilbertson reviewed the number and type of calls.  Ms. Gilbertson also referenced her discussions with Roseville Police Lt. Loren Rosand and Chief Mathwig for their anticipated annual call rate of between 900-1000 calls with this Wal-Mart development in Roseville, exclusive of related officer, squad car and support staff costs.


Megan Dushin, 2249 St. Stephen Street (SWARN)

Ms. Dushin opined that legal language could be interpreted as anyone’s discretion; however, she further opined that the City Council had sufficient language in the Comprehensive Plan and other documents to fully support its denial of this proposed development.


Ms. Dushin referenced CMU zoning provisions, regional trip calculations, and definition of this as a regional business, questioning the logic in such a definition for this proposed use.  Ms. Dushin referenced Chapter 4 (page 8) of the Comprehensive Plan for definitions of Regional Business and various sections (1005.05.f) included as Attachment C in the meeting packet (page 3) related to surface parking on large development sites, and other areas this did not meet requirements.  Ms. Dushin asked why these discrepancies were not being addressed.


Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane (SWARN)

Mr. Grefenberg referenced the written comments of SWARN in making his points in opposition to this development.  Mr. Grefenberg alleged that staff had been proposing and advocating for this development all along, whether at the Planning Commission or City Council level.  Mr. Grefenberg opined that SWARN disputed whether or not the Comprehensive Plan or the Twin Lakes Master Plan ever recommended a development of this type.  Mr. Grefenberg stated that, as part of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee, on which he had participated, he had been led to believe that the Twin Lakes Master Plan would be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan; however, something happened between the Steering Committee final recommendation and City Council adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.  Mr. Grefenberg alleged that staff selectively picked what they thought was or was not important; without any findings of fact presented to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Grefenberg opined that the Comprehensive Plan recommended against this type of big box retailer; and if the Twin Lakes Master Plan had been made a part of the Comprehensive Plan, that specific prohibition against large scale retail operations, which a lot of citizens had spent time debating, there would be no current dispute or consideration of this type of development.


At a minimum, Mr. Grefenberg advised that SWARN was asking for the opportunity, before a Building Permit for this development was issued, notice to formally appeal the administrative decision to issue the permit.   From his perspective, Mr. Grefenberg opined that there had never been a really adequate discussion of Comprehensive Plan policies, a number included in packet materials that clearly contradicted allowing such a development. Mr. Grefenberg disputed the assumption provided by staff to the Planning Commission that the proposed development meets the Comprehensive Plan or Twin Lakes Master Plan.  Mr. Grefenberg opined that if the City Council allowed this signature piece to be a Wal-Mart or Target store, it should not expect much quality residential or retail development to follow in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.  Mr. Grefenberg referenced the Implementation Section of the Comprehensive Plan, addressing patience as the City moved toward its future goals, and willingly promoted public and private development that fit that vision, dissuading those that did not. If the City Council proceeds with Plat approval, Mr. Grefenberg asked that it direct staff to notify residents with adequate time to appeal the administrative decision for issuance of the Building Permit once the developer’s plans were submitted.  Mr. Grefenberg opined that Roseville citizens, to-date, had not gotten a fair hearing of this issue.


Megan Dushin (SWARN)

Ms. Dushin referenced numerous quotes from Chapter 4 (page 423) of the Comprehensive Plan; and sought clarification if the Twin Lakes Master Plan was included or not included in the Comprehensive Plan, since she had heard two (2) different versions, based on her research of a September 12, 2011 staff report, and page 423 of the Comprehensive Plan, and page 9, Section 2, and page 11 of the Twin Lakes Master Plan and comments about big box retail and  incorporation of the 2011 Twin Lakes Master Plan guiding future development.  Ms. Dushin further referenced surface parking restrictions addressed in Section 14 of the Land Use Section (page 20) of the Twin Lakes Master Plan.


In conclusion, Ms. Dushin questioned the policy for expanding retail in the area, and whether this development would provide head of household job opportunities stipulated by the City’s Comprehensive Plan.


Gary Grefenberg (SWARN)

Mr. Grefenberg specifically addressed traffic analyses, referencing the MnDOT letter dated May 9, 2012 to staff; opining that Wal-Mart’s expense to the City over the next decade would far exceed Wal-Mart’s payment of $400,000 for infrastructure improvements.  In the meantime, Mr. Grefenberg opined that Roseville residents would suffer the penalties while private profits would go to Arkansas.


Mr. Grefenberg asked Councilmembers why they were rushing to approve the Preliminary and Final Plats, when there were so many unanswered questions yet remaining.  As requested in the written comments of SWARN, Mr. Grefenberg asked the City Council to direct the Planning Division to hold an Open House if and when Wal-Mart development plans evolve to provide answers to those citizen questions.  Mr. Grefenberg expressed his disillusionment that financial aspects of the Development Agreement had not been provided to the public until late this afternoon, not allowing any review or informed reaction by the public.  Mr. Grefenberg asked that the City Council hold off on approving the Development Agreement to allow due process for the public, given the significant impact this proposal will have on the community.


Megan Dushin (SWARN)

Ms. Dushin suggested additional conditions for the City to apply to this development, such as limiting operating hours and reducing the amount of public subsidy to this developer.


Gary Grefenberg (SWARN)

Mr. Grefenberg questioned, if tax increment financing (TIF) funds were allocated to pay off costs, who paid for additional costs to the City, including police protection, and how this represented a public purpose.


Janet Olson, 418 Glenwood Avenue

Given the history of concern in this area of Roseville, Ms. Olson questioned why the City didn’t make more of an effort to provide notice to citizens about this development.  Ms. Olson opined that the neighborhood had poured their heart and soul into making this a positive area of the community; and opined that the City had an obligation to its own citizens. Ms. Olson also questioned how the City could designate this development as “community” rather than “regional” business, based on her interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map.


Jan Bielke, 2070 N Cleveland (1 mile north of proposed Wal-Mart)

Ms. Bielke stated that she was appalled at how this whole thing has been handled.  Ms. Bielke referenced past development proposals directly across from her home that she and her neighbors had fought very hard to oppose.  However, Ms. Bielke opined that at least the neighborhood had been adequately noticed at that time to allow their voices to be heard.  Ms. Bielke opined that it was terrible that citizens were not made more aware of this proposed development; and while not intending offense to Wal-Mart since it was not a store that she frequented based on her perception of their treatment and pay for their employees, she expressed her disappointment to the City Council and asked that they reconsider this proposal.  Ms. Bielke opined that there was a lot of angst among citizens once they become aware of the proposal.


Tim Callaghan

Mr. Callaghan advised that he was still waiting for the answer to his question of what mitigation was intended for traffic at Fairview Avenue and County Road D; whether it would continue to be graded as an “f” now and with future development, and why this did not seem to be important.  Mr. Callaghan disputed staff’s previous comments related to current stresses on the system creating the problem, since at least four (4) years ago, the intersection had been rated “f,” and questioned if inaction by the City Council was acceptable.  Mr. Callaghan also questioned the feasibility of building another Wal-Mart store two (2) miles from another one, and questioned the odds of both remaining open in the foreseeable future.  Mr. Callaghan provided his perspective on the operating characteristics of Wal-Mart when stores are opened in close proximity, based on his own research and personal observations.  Mr. Callaghan questioned the City’s intent when the property became vacant; and opined that it would be typical of Wal-Mart to hold the property vacant to minimize their tax burden with no regard to the negative impacts to a community.  Mr. Callaghan opined that a Wal-Mart store in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area was inconsistent with any of citizen plans, with no big box supported and having planned businesses within a viable walking area and easily accessed by residents.  With Wal-Mart drawing shoppers from 2-4 miles away, Mr. Callaghan disputed that this was a local store versus a regional store no matter if staff considered it “limited retail.” 


Mr. Rafael Fernandez 1966 Sharondale Ave.

Mr. Fernandez  concurred with previous remarks about the lack of information and notice provided to citizens; and opined whether a legal requirement or not, it was prudent to keep citizens informed.  Given the short amount of time he had to research and prepare his remarks, Mr. Fernandez asked the following questions: 1) What type of jobs and what wages will this store provide; 2) are employees anticipated to come from the community or from other communities; and 3)  what additional expenses will those employees create for Roseville and at  whose expense.


Mr. Fernandez questioned why the City Council would not protect its community rather than leaving it vulnerable to proposals such as this, or will Wal-Mart sufficiently compensate the community for the additional infrastructure, public safety, traffic congestion and delays, and increased crime victims; as well as what will happen to the local, small businesses established in Roseville and providing its character and quality of life.  Mr. Fernandez opined that Roseville was fine as it is, and asked that it be left alone.


Vivian Ramalingam, 2182 Acorn Road

Ms. Ramalingam  sought clarification on the responsibility for construction and maintenance of roadways around this proposed development.


Tim Kotecki, 3078 Mount Ridge Road

Mr. Kotecki questioned what the three (3) most attractive reasons Wal-Mart had for building in Roseville; whether surrounding retail bothered Wal-Mart or the City Council; whether TIF was part of this development and if so, would Wal-Mart develop in Roseville without TIF.  In fairness to Wal-Mart, Mr. Kotecki reviewed his mileage calculations of other Wal-Marts in the immediate metropolitan area (Saint Anthony Village, University at Prior Avenues) and questioned if it was normal practice for them to build that close to their other stores.  Mr. Kotecki questioned the accuracy of traffic studies and their projections, and safety of cars potentially stacking on the freeway for others going at or over speed as they encountered that stacking.


Jane Auger, 1880 Roselawn Avenue W

As a twenty (20) year resident of Roseville, Ms. Auger opined that having Wal-Mart so close to their neighborhood would decrease their quality of life and property values.  Ms. Auger advised that this may cause her to re-evaluate her choice to remain in Roseville.  Ms. Auger questioned the designation of Wal-Mart at “limited retail” and opined that there must be other prime vendors looking to locate in Roseville; and expressed her opposition to the proposed Wal-Mart development.


Mary Alexander, 14 Mid Oaks Road

Ms. Alexander questioned what was in it for Roseville from the City Council’s perspective; and whether money received by the City would serve to further improve community parks and roads.  Ms. Alexander noted the significant tax money being allocated to ensure the best park system possible for the community; and questioned what was wrong with Roseville aspiring to be the best rather than dragging it down with such a development as proposed.  Ms. Alexander questioned if the City would feature a Wal-Mart store on the front cover of the Roseville Visitor’s Association (RVA) promotional materials; opining that this was not something communities chose to advertise as a positive in their community.  Ms. Alexander noted her confusion in the Comprehensive and Master Plans, but opined that her perception was that both consistently supported local businesses supporting area families, not big box stores in any of their recommendations.  Ms. Alexander displayed and referenced her copy of the March 2012 Consumers’ Report magazine that had rated ten (10) big box stores, with Wal-Mart scoring the lowest of those ten (10) for customer satisfaction.  Ms. Alexander questioned why a retail store should be put in the midst of Roseville when customers were not satisfied with this retailer; and opined that it only provide a recipe for failure.


Mayor Roe closed public comment at this time, as no more speakers were apparent.

At the invitation of Mayor Roe to Ms. Sue Steinwall         for comments or responses, Ms. Steinwall advised that they would stand for questions as asked.



Mayor Roe responded that while the subject property will be contributing increments, the developer would not receive any to fund their proposal other than for the City using it for City costs for infrastructure improvements contemplated or anticipated.


                   Twin Lakes Master Plan as a part of the Comprehensive Plan

Mayor Roe sought clarification from staff that while the Master Plan was removed as part of the 2009 Comprehensive Plan, it continued to be referenced for consideration; with specific language in regard to it remaining an official control document. 


Mr. Trudgeon clarified that the Twin Lakes Master Plan was referenced as an “official control” (page 423, Section 4) in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan.


Mayor Roe further clarified the intent of “official control” terminology related to regulating a certain area.  Based on his recollection of Comprehensive Plan discussions, the intent was that a document designated as an “official control” was related to enforcement, and not carrying the same weight under State Statutes as the Zoning Code, but remaining part of the review process to determine what was or was not appropriate.


Councilmember Johnson opined that he did find this language a bit of a conundrum; and sought clarification from staff of a process at the Planning Commission level several years ago in reviewing all Master Plans throughout the City to determine which were and which were not included in the Comprehensive Plan update.  Councilmember Johnson questioned what the outcome for the Twin lakes Master Plan had been as a result of those discussions and decisions.

Mr. Trudgeon advised that the determination was that the Twin Lakes Master Plan was not included as part of the updated Comprehensive Plan, but that it remained relevant with a limited ability to accomplish everything desired in the area.


Councilmember Johnson opined that, based on that, there would appear to be a discrepancy between the Twin Lakes Master Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Zoning Code. 


Mr. Trudgeon did not concur with that synopsis.


Councilmember Johnson suggested that this appeared to put the Master Plan on a different plane than the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, and if there was a discrepancy, the City was obliged to abide by the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan.


With all due respect, Councilmember Pust opined that the term “official control” did have legal meaning, not just what the City chose to have it mean, with case law defining “official control.”  If the Twin Lakes Master Plan was defined in the Comprehensive Plan as an “official control,” Councilmember Pust opined that a legal argument could be made that the Master Plan then needed to be followed.  While not the Zoning Code, Councilmember Pust opined that it could not be ignored.  Councilmember Pust noted that Zoning Codes and Comprehensive Plans were official controls, but was unsure if the Master Plan was in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.


Public Safety Concern/Increased Police Call Volumes

Police Chief Rick Mathwig

At the request of Mayor Roe to respond to public concerns about an increase in police call volume with a Wal-Mart development, Police Chief Mathwig responded, that his actual projections were for between 700-900 additional calls annually, or two (2) per 24-hour period.  While not able to predict the future, Chief Mathwig advised that, just based on the potential 24-hour operations for the proposed store, there would be an obvious increase in calls for service.  Chief Mathwig advised that his projections were based on his research of crime rates from the Cities of Eagan, Saint Anthony and Coon Rapids when Wal-Mart stores were constructed in those communities.  Chief Mathwig noted that crime statistics were variable, and would depend on the specific community, bus routes, and a store’s proximity to the inner core.


Councilmember Johnson asked if the expansion of the Super Target in Roseville had caused police calls to spike as well, Chief Mathwig responded that there had been no significant spike.


Councilmember Johnson questioned what Chief Mathwig’s opinion was on the impact of calls if Target had chosen to go with a 24-hour operation.


Chief Mathwig responded that they would have probably had the potential to be higher, with any such 24 hour operation versus a 12 hour operation creating the probability of more calls.


Surface Parking/Parking Lot Design

At the request of Mayor Roe regarding the question on whether the proposed design met parking regulations, Mr. Trudgeon advised that City Code was referenced for the design by the developer and review of the design by staff for Community Business District zoning restrictions, and met those requirements.  Mr. Trudgeon clarified that Community Business District zoning had a different standard that that erroneously cited.


While staff did not have the information available, Councilmember Willmus questioned the approximate amount of existing office space square footage in Twin Lakes.  Councilmember Willmus explained his rationale in asking the question based on whether or not this 160,000 square foot retail center would skew the overall use within Twin Lakes.


Due Process Concerns with Revisions to the Development Agreement

Mayor Roe asked that staff respond to concerns regarding due process with revisions provided by staff this afternoon related to the Development Agreement.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that financial information had been included in the information released with the draft Development Agreement included as part of the agenda packet materials, and had not been changed with the revisions released today.  As previously noted in staff’s presentation, the revisions were minor in nature and basically consisted of typographical and grammatical corrections, and additional exhibits as supporting documents referenced in the body of the Agreement.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that the summary of the Development Agreement and a significant portion of the exhibits were included in the packet available and/or distributed last Thursday.


Councilmember Pust noted that the total dollars were included, just not the detailed breakdown.


At approximately 9:59 pm, Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, extending the meeting curfew to 10:30 pm.

Roll Call

            Ayes: Pust; Willmus; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.        

            Nays: None.


Mayor Roe deferred response to the office versus retail portion until the City Council discussion.


Traffic Mitigation at Fairview Avenue and County Road D

Mayor Roe asked City Engineer Bloom to respond to the comment that this development did not trigger mitigation for the Fairview Avenue and County Road D intersection and that its service level would be maintained at level “f.”


Ms. Bloom responded that, while not having that information available at this time, she could verify that there was no change indicated at that intersection.  Ms. Bloom noted that there were a number of intersections within the community currently rated at “d” or “f” service levels today; and the Wal-Mart development did not trigger any additional mitigation based on projected impacts to the intersection.


Ms. Bloom referenced a letter addressed to her from MnDOT dated April 12, 2012, addressing the projected 6,000 vehicles per hour to Wal-Mart.  Quoting directly from that correspondence, Ms. Bloom noted that I-35W carried greater than 100,000 trips daily.  Ms. Bloom summarized that the increased traffic projected for the future was 6,000 vehicles per hour for northbound I-35W some portion of which may utilize the interchange, but clarified that they would not all be accessing the Wal-Mart development specifically.


Ms. Bloom displayed a map showing the Twin Lakes Parkway interchange, and proposed interchange improvements to address cuing concerns of MnDOT and S.R.F. Consulting, both included as attachments to the staff reports as background material, and potential stacking concerns impacting I-35W, creating the required improvement shown in the Development Agreement.


Regarding the City requirement to make sure access was made available to the Wal-Mart site, Ms. Bloom and Mr. Trudgeon were in agreement that they didn’t foresee a delay in providing permanent access, without the need to provide a temporary means.  However, Ms. Bloom advised that the City would be obligated to provide access, whether temporary or permanent in accordance with the terms of the Development Agreement.  At the request of Mayor Roe regarding public comment on who would pay for the rest of the cost of the I-35W improvements, Ms. Bloom advised that, while that remains to be determined, grant funds and Chapter 429 assessments to benefitting property owners were both options.  Ms. Bloom noted that the City’s request for grant funds had been scored very favorably, but was still not awarded, and expressed cautious optimism that funding would be made available, but not yet in place.


Current level of retail in Roseville and Potential Impacts for Wal-Mart

At the invitation of Mayor Roe, Ms. Steinwall responded that, while she was not privy to Wal-Mart’s business plan, market research had found that Roseville citizens were shopping at Wal-Mart.  Ms. Steinwall noted that her client was obviously confident that there were unfilled retail needs in the community, and they recognized Roseville as a terrific community and were excited to become part of that community.   Ms. Steinwall advised that trends supported the fact that the more retail available in an area, the better the market was for everyone; and advised there was no concern by Wal-Mart with existing retail in Roseville.


Spacing of Stores/Potential Closures

At the invitation of Mayor Roe, Ms. Steinwall responded that, while again not privy to her client’s business and/or future plans, in observing other big box retailer space throughout the Twin Cities area (e.g. Target), there were similarities for locating close to other stores.  Whether one store may close due to another store being built in Roseville, Ms. Steinwall noted that she was unable to predict the future; however, she anticipated that a vast majority of customers will visit this Wal-Mart from within a two (2) mile radius.


Roseville Design Standards/Development Process

Councilmember Johnson asked Ms. Steinwall if the Wal-Mart development team had found the City of Roseville to be more stringent about design and/or architectural standards not normally found in a Wal-Mart setting.


Ms. Steinwall responded with a resounding “yes,” based on the team’s experience, and noted that Wal-Mart’s approach was to achieve 100% compliance with the City’s new Zoning Code which had proven quite particular about design elements and building orientation, design and parking lot size, and assuring that the development was more pedestrian friendly and accessible.  However, Ms. Steinwall expressed the team’s appreciation for City staff during the process, even while being very, very particular in meeting City Code requirements, while at the same time providing the development team with a great abundance of details and requirements.


Council Discussion

Regarding Community and Regional Business Zoning designation, Councilmember Pust referenced a memorandum from the City Attorney’s office dated December 9, 2011 defining CMU designation as a mix of land uses, and CB as community and regional business in the context of the scale of the customer base and access to interchanges.  Regional Business is defined as free-standing, large square foot stores, with Community Business defined as business limited to the local market area including free-standing businesses promoting community orientation, smaller than free-standing stores.


Mr. Trudgeon was somewhat in agreement with that summary.


Councilmember Pust opined that size was not generally an issue, but that the entire discussion of the Task Force was the scale of size, with CMU area referred to as community businesses, not regional business; while other areas in the Comprehensive Plan referring to regional business.  Councilmember Pust opined that there appeared to be inconsistencies between the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan, and there was to be no conflict between the two.  If that is the case, Councilmember Pust opined that the definition of “official control” then becomes important.


Mr. Trudgeon admitted that it was a complex issue; but clarified that the Community Business definition addressed the local market area within a two (2) mile area of Roseville, and supplying daily needs (e.g. groceries, clothes, and other household goods), all of which a Wal-Mart would sell.


Councilmember Pust, however, when assessing that interpretation against the definition of a free-standing, large format store, felt there was general agreement on how they fit together.  Councilmember Pust expressed concern that, if there was any potential for disagreement, there were a lot of citizens who would also disagree.  While recognizing City Attorney Gaughan’s legal opinion in suggesting that the Comprehensive Plan may not apply, there were other cases of Metropolitan Council approved Comprehensive Plans that flagged this as a potential legal issue.  Councilmember Pust also recognized that City Ordinance, Chapter 1102, defined the process and requirements for Preliminary Plat approval with that ordinance serving as the City’s legal authority.


Mr. Trudgeon, in context of subdivisions and for this process, concurred.


Councilmember Pust opined that the City, through its ordinance, was given that authority from the State, and when ordinances were enacted, the public was assured of their fair and equal treatment based on the same criteria without arbitrary issues.  However, in referencing Chapter 1102, Councilmember Pust noted that it specifically stated that the City would have a Preliminary Plat approval process, then a Final Plat approval process.  Councilmember Pust advised that she could find nothing in City ordinance combining those two processes, causing her to question if the City had the statutory authority to combine that approval process in one action.  Councilmember Pust opined that the City Council therefore, should not take action tonight on this issue.


City Attorney Gaughan responded regarding the issue of potential conflicts with the Zoning Code, Comprehensive Plan, and the Twin Lakes Master Plan.  Mr. Gaughan noted the importance, for this discussion and the Development Agreement addressing infrastructure, that the focus was not on potential or future ultimate use of the property, but simply platting currently subdivided property, or redrawing lines.  Mr. Gaughan advised, when considering whether this application conformed to the City’s Zoning Code and Subdivision regulations, it was not based on future use, but whether dividing the property into three (3) parcels conformed to those controls.

Regarding whether this use  fits into the CMU or Regional Business, as brought up correctly by Mr. Grefenberg, Mr. Gaughan advised that it only came into play when the Community Development Department issued the building permit.  Once the Building Permit is issued, Mr. Gaughan noted that there was a ten (10) day window for appeal of that decision if an argument is made that this project’s actual use does not conform to whatever the official control was.  Mr. Gaughan confirmed that this would be an appropriate process for such a debate at that time.  However, Mr. Gaughan again clarified that the purpose of tonight’s request for action was for the purpose of redrawing lines regardless of their use.  Mr. Gaughan advised that the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) has confirmed that the City can’t take the potential use into account in making that decision.


Regarding Preliminary and Final Plat approval or denial, Mr. Gaughan advised that, state-wide, cities have the ability to consolidate those processes, even if the Roseville City Code does not specifically consolidate them in its current language, it does not specify that it won’t consolidate them.  Mr. Gaughan noted that the Final Plat must be completed within sixty (60) days, and while there appeared to be some ambiguity, he expressed more interest in City Code, Chapter 1102.04, Items b.9 and 10 and requirements of what must occur before Final Plat approval.  Mr. Gaughan expressed his concern that staff do a final review to assure that all those requirements have been completed as per City Code before Final Plat approval or denial to ensure all those “ducks are in a row” and the Final Plat is in compliance.  Precluding that assurance, Mr. Gaughan suggested that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat, subject to conditions of the ordinance and hold off on Final Plat approval.


Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the steps followed in assuring that compliance, and those items found on the Preliminary Plat, from staff’s perspective, needing additional work.


In response to City Attorney Gaughan, Councilmember Pust opined that, regarding Community versus Regional Business designation, she thought there was a conflict between the Zoning Code including reference to “official control” of the Comprehensive Plan and the Twin Lakes Master Plan.  Councilmember Pust concurred with Mr. Gaughan in general, if all that was being done was platting, those issues may not rise to the level, since it was a concept or drawing lines, not determining a particular use.  However, Councilmember Pust opined that she did not believe it to be accurate that citizens had more rights than a sitting City Council in having the authority to say “no” to something that might allow enough ambiguity to prompt another lawsuit.  Councilmember Pust expressed her frustration with those past attempts to stifle a project, and opined that she was also tired of the continued waste of public monies in defending the City’s past actions and/or positions.


Councilmember Pust, opined that an argument could come up that the City didn’t have the authority to do what has been proposed, and since she was unable to personally ignore ordinance language, even if State Statute says it was appropriate to combine approval of a Preliminary and Final Plat, the City can revise their own ordinance to combine that approval process, removing any such ambiguity about the process.  No matter if the City of Roseville has just done it that way, without written ordinance language providing that clear authority and a process outlined, Councilmember Pust opined that she was confident there would be another lawsuit since the development was proposed in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, an obvious area of dispute in the community.  Councilmember Pust opined that since there had already been a delay to ensure that all the “ducks were in a row,” the City Council should delay further to get its “ducks in a row” to confident action by the City Council majority.  Therefore, Councilmember Pust spoke in support of not taking any action at tonight’s meeting.


Councilmember Johnson stated that he heard the logic of Councilmember Pust, and agreed that she had some valid points.  Along with comments heard from other Councilmembers, Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of moving forward with the Preliminary Plat only tonight, since it was consistent with State Statute and City Ordinance.  However, Councilmember Johnson expressed his hesitation and lack of comfort going outside that realm at this point.  However, in the interest of time and the 60-day review period, Councilmember Johnson questioned how much more time was available in the review period.  Councilmember Johnson also recognized the lateness of the hour in having additional discussion on this, or in any other making any other significant decisions tonight.


Regarding the Preliminary Plat, Mayor Roe expressed concern about whether a determination would be available related to whether use should be considered at the time of Plat approval.  While recognizing that the Preliminary Plat was far along the road toward a Final Plat, without application of unrealistic conditions, Mayor Roe opined that the City Council was not currently in a position to approve a Final Plat tonight.


Councilmember McGehee advised that she had personally researched those issues raised by Councilmember Pust tonight with three other independent attorneys, including one with the LMC, who concurred with Councilmember Pust’s interpretation.  Councilmember McGehee noted that this was her rationale in addressing some of those issues in her memorandums as previously referenced as bench handouts.  Councilmember McGehee stated that she specifically tied the use to the Plat, based on her conversations with the LMC and the City’s Zoning Code, addressing those topics raised by the public tonight.  Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of waiting to take action.  Councilmember McGehee also stated that her understanding of preliminary and final plat was quite a bit more than “just drawling lines.”  The preliminary plat, she said, is where all the points are made.

City Attorney Gaughan noted that the City Council could schedule a special meeting to address the land use 60-day review period that only had fourteen (14) days remaining.


Mr. Trudgeon noted that the applicant could choose to extend the review period, however the City could not as it had already done so, as well as the development clock stopping during the RGU review of the citizens’ petition.


Councilmember Pust asked for a response from the applicant’s representative regarding their preference to extend the review period or table action beyond the original sixty (60) days unless a special meeting was scheduled.


Sue Steinwall, Legal Counsel for Wal-Mart

Ms. Steinwall advised that she could not respond without first consulting her client.


Mr. Trudgeon reminded Councilmembers that lack of action on the part of the City Council on the land use issue by not meeting the review deadline would automatically serve as an approval by the City of the Preliminary Plat without a Development Agreement in place.


Pust moved, McGehee seconded, TABLING this discussion to a date uncertain for staff and the City Attorney to provide additional information and clarify those discussion items brought forward tonight regarding Preliminary and Final Plat processes and the Development Agreement provisions and process.


Roll Call

            Ayes: Pust; McGehee; and Roe.    

            Nays: Willmus; Johnson.

            Motion carried.


Discussion among staff, City Attorney Gaughan, and Councilmembers included the option of calling a special meeting prior to the review deadline; and whether, once consulted, the Wal-Mart Corporate Office could choose to provide a letter authorizing another extension; and the need for the City Attorney and staff to consult further on this particular issue before any decisions are made by the City Council.


16.         Business Items – Presentations/Discussions


17.         City Manager Future Agenda Review


18.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings


19.         Adjourn

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:35 pm.


Roll Call

            Ayes: Pust; Willmus; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.       

            Nays: None.