City
Council Meeting Minutes
Board
of Adjustment and Appeals Minutes
July 9, 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 July: Johnson; Pust; Roe; McGehee; and Willmus.
City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present.
Mayor Roe noted that Councilmember
Pust had advised that she would be arriving later during the meeting; and she arrived
at approximately 6:53 pm.
2. Approve Agenda
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the agenda as presented.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; 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 advised that the City had
received notice from the State Board of Soil and Water Resources that they had
submitted filing documents to the Secretary of State’s Office to finalize their
encompassing of the former Grass Lakes Water Management Organization
geographical boundaries into the Ramsey-Washington Metro Area Watershed
District. Mayor Roe noted that parts of both the Cities of Shoreview and Roseville
were part of that geographical area.
Mayor Roe announced that, as part
of the annual League of Minnesota Cities recognition of area legislators of
distinction, Representative Bev Scalze had been awarded that honor.
Mayor Roe announced an upcoming
meeting next week of the Fire Relief Board.
5. Recognitions,
Donations, Communications
a.
Proclaim July Parks and Recreation Month
Mayor Roe read a proclamation
(Attachment A) recognizing July as Parks and Recreation Month in the City of
Roseville.
Willmus moved, Johnson seconded,
proclaiming July as Parks and Recreation Month in the City of Roseville.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson;
McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
b.
Proclaim August 7, 2012 Night to Unite
Mayor Roe read a proclamation
(Attachment A) calling upon all Roseville citizens to join Roseville
Neighborhood Watch Groups and the Minnesota Crime Prevention Association in supporting
“Night to Unite” on August 7, 2012.
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
proclaiming August 7, 2012 as “Night to Unite” in Roseville, MN, in conjunction
with Roseville Neighborhood Watch Groups and the Minnesota Crime Prevention
Association in supporting “Night to Unite” activities in the community.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson;
McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee,
City Manager Malinen was charged with researching and reporting on whether a
similar opportunity was available for recognition of efforts of the Public
Works Department and staff.
6. Approve Minutes
Comments and corrections to
draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight’s meeting
and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council
packet.
a.
Approve Minutes of June 18, 2012 Meeting
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the minutes of the June 18, 2012 meeting as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 1, Line 42 (Mayor Roe)
Correct time for reconvening in
Open Session from 6:20 to 6:30 p.m.
·
Page 13, Line 8 Mayor Roe)
Delete “or”
·
Page 14 (Mayor Roe)
Lines 12 – 18, additional
information regarding the Lease Agreement and land purchase to be provided by
Community Development Department staff.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson;
McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus,
City Manager Malinen was charged with researching and reporting on the status
and availability of meeting minutes from the joint School Board No. 623 and
Roseville City Council meeting for review and approval by both bodies.
7.
Approve 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
|
$664,577.32
|
|
66600 – 66826
|
1,035,007.85
|
|
Total
|
$1,699,585.17
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson;
McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
b.
Approve Business and Other Licenses
Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval
of license applications for the following applicants:
|
Applicant/Location
|
Type of
License
|
|
Stephen’s Hair Salon; 2174 Snelling Avenue N, #3
|
Massage Therapy
Establishment
|
|
LifeSpa at Lifetime Fitness, 2480 Fairview Avenue N
|
Massage Therapy
Establishment
|
|
VMH Therapies, 3101 Old Highway 8, #202
|
Massage Therapy
Establishment
|
|
Roger Lee Hinrichs, Delaina Rae Hinrichs & Mary Devitt
at
Mind, Body & Soul Wellness Center; 2201 Lexington
Avenue N, Suite 103
|
Massage Therapist
|
|
Vonnie Hoschette at VMH Therapies; 3101 Old Highway 8,
#202
|
Massage Therapist
|
|
|
|
Saint Rose of Lima Catholic Church; 2048 Hamline Avenue N
|
One-Day Exempt Gambling Permit
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson;
McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
c.
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding
$5,000
Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval
of the following purchases and/or contracts for service:
|
Department
|
Vendor
|
Description
|
Amount
|
|
Streets
|
Brock White Construction
|
Crack Seal Materials
|
$12,6272.07
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson;
McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
d.
Approve 2012-2013 Law Enforcement Legal Services (LELS) Contract
Terms
Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval
of the proposed terms and conditions for the 2012 – 2013 Collective Bargaining
Agreement with LELS as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated
July 09, 2012; and directing City staff to prepare the necessary documents for
execution, subject to City Attorney approval.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson;
McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
e.
Approve Construction Agreement between the University of Minnesota
and the City of Roseville for the Fairview Pathway Project (a/k/a Northeast
Suburban Campus Connector Bike/Pedestrian Project)
Johnson moved, McGehee
seconded, approving the Fairview Pathway Project (a/k/a Northeast Suburban
Campus Connector Bike/Pedestrian Project) Construction Agreement (Attachment A)
between the City of Roseville and the University of Minnesota; and
authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson;
McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
With this section of the pathway
coming into fruition, Councilmember McGehee reiterated her desire that a safe
route be found to cross Snelling Avenue.
Mayor Roe recognized that desire;
however, clarified that this was not in the scope of tonight’s requested action
and this motion.
f.
Set Public Hearing to Consider Approving a 3.2% On-Sale, Sunday
Liquor, and Wine License for Kyoto Sushi at 2011 N Snelling Avenue, Suite 80
Johnson moved, McGehee
seconded, scheduling a Public Hearing for July 23, 2012 at 6:00 p.m.; to
consider approving/denying the change of the requested liquor license for calendar
year 2012.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson;
McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
8.
Consider Items Removed from Consent
12.
General Ordinances for Adoption
a.
Request by Lincoln Drive Properties, LLC for approval of a Zoning
Text Amendment that would allow Academic Instruction as a Use in Commercial
Zoning Districts
Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd
provided a brief summary of the request by Northwestern College’s office
building located at 2803 Lincoln Drive to house their Bachelor of Science Nursing
Degree Program; and recommended approval by the Planning Division and supported
by a 5/1 vote of the Planning Commission at their June 2012 meeting.
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, Mr. Lloyd responded that the Planning Division did not track net
effects of impacts on the City’s tax base of “for profit” or “non-profit” uses,
but were concerned with land use and zoning issues.
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, Mr. Lloyd clarified that the proposed Zoning Text Amendment was
intended to address this type of use in Neighborhood and Community Business
Districts throughout the City; prompted by this request.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus,
City Attorney Gaughan suggested that it may be inappropriate, exclusive of
other debatable reasons, to designate tax status as part of this land use
discussion.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
if the City Attorney could provide examples of other resources in the community
where commercial buildings leased space to post-secondary schools.
Councilmember McGehee advised that she was opposed to further reducing the tax
roll through such uses; however, she noted that her opposition to the requested
action tonight would be based on her safety concerns with additional traffic
adjacent to a senior housing community.
City Attorney Gaughan, in response
to Councilmember McGehee’s request for additional examples of commercial
building use, advised that he would need to consult with the City’s Planning
Division before providing an accurate and more comprehensive accounting of the
those type of uses throughout the community.
Mayor Roe clarified that, from his
research of property taxes for any non-profit entities renting office space in
Roseville, potentially that portion of space rented by a non-profit was excluded
from property taxes.
City Attorney Gaughan advised that
he would need to review that issue further before responding.
Mayor Roe noted that any
non-profit organization in Roseville could contribute to diminishing the City’s
tax base, indicative of past City Council discussions regarding religious
organizations in various zoning districts, as raised by the previously proposed
Chinese Christian Church’s request for church use in an industrial area.
However, Mayor Roe opined that this should not make up the entire finding for
denial of a requested use.
Councilmember Willmus noted that
this discussion had also come up with the recent Presbyterian Homes expansion.
Mayor Roe suggested that the
City’s tax base be a separate discussion at a later date.
Brian Humphries, Associated
Vice President of Campus Operations, Northwestern College
Mr. Humphries provided a brief background
of this request for this type of program; and advised that the rationale of
Northwestern College for use of this building was based on the amount of
available square footage of 7,100, comparable to that required for such a
nursing program. Mr. Humphries advised that other Northwestern College staff
was available to respond to any questions of the City Council as applicable.
Regarding the traffic level at
this site, Mr. Humphries opined that it should prove a reduction from today’s
use, since there were twenty-five (25) college employees currently on that site
that would be relocated to the main campus, primarily admissions staff and
their clients. Mr. Humphries noted that the majority of nursing students would
be using shuttle service provided by Northwestern College from campus and/or
off-campus housing.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee,
Mr. Humphries advised that, of the three (3) floors in this building at 7,000
plus square feet per floor, the second and third floors were currently used by
Northwestern College; with the second floor proposed for the Nursing Program
currently leased out to Edina Realty.
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, Mr. Humphries thought the College paid taxes for the first floor based
on leasing it out to another entity; but not the other two (2) floors.
Dr. Ginger Wolgemuth,
Northwestern College, Nursing Department Chair
Dr. Wolgemuth reviewed the type of
graduate students, limited to 24-30 students total, for this Nursing Program
following their achievement of all other general credits, with the program consisting
of four (4) terms.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee,
Mr. Humphries clarified that the College’s Adult Education Program may lease
other classroom space, but did not own other buildings off campus used for
classroom space.
Regarding traffic safety concerns,
Dr. Wolgemuth advised that a Nursing Advisory Board would be frequently
receiving feedback from the nearby senior housing facility, since the Nursing
Program would provide services to that facility, and should be made immediately
aware of any traffic concerns of pedestrians. Dr. Wolgemuth expressed her
confidence in that ongoing open communication to address any concerns, while
not expecting any.
Councilmember McGehee noted that
Councilmembers were previously assured that there would be no traffic issues
from Northwestern College’s previous use of the building; but now they were
using the argument that there would be less traffic with this use and it would
alleviate current traffic issues.
Mr. Humphries clarified that the
College’s Admissions staff was housed on Nazareth Hall, but that the Adult,
Distance Education and Graduate Program support staff was located in the second
and third floors of the 2803 building. Mr. Humphries advised that that
administrative support staff consisted of counselors, not traditional students,
with that use always located on the main campus.
Regarding pedestrian safety on
area sidewalks, Mr. Humphries advised that the 2803 building had proper
sidewalks, and available and safe entry points. Mr. Humphries noted that residents
of the Presbyterian Homes building were very familiar with the area and were
frequent users of the Northwestern Campus for walking on a daily basis. Mr.
Humphries noted that those walkers accessed the main campus daily across Lydia
Avenue, and appeared to have no concerns in doing so, as well as walking
throughout the busy Northwestern Campus. Mr. Humphries questioned the concept
of safety concerns from pedestrians.
Public Comment
No one appeared to speak for or
against.
Councilmember Johnson, based on
tonight’s discussion, spoke in support of the request.
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, enactment
of Ordinance No. 1427 (Attachment B) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Selected
Text of Sections 1001 (Introduction), 1004 (Commercial and Mixed-Use
Districts), 1006 (Employment Districts), 1007 (Institutional District), 1009
(Procedures), and 1011 (Property Performance Standards) of Title 10 “Zoning
Code” of the Roseville City Code.”
Councilmember Johnson opined that,
from his perspective, there were no traffic issues; and recognized the efforts
of Northwestern College for their work within the Roseville community and
expressed appreciation for their work with the assisted living community. Councilmember
Johnson opined that this provided a great opportunity for students to have
hands-on experience; and stated that he was 100% behind this requested use
change.
Councilmember McGehee spoke in opposition to the request, opining that it set a
bad precedent, whether considering the traffic issue or not, to encourage this
type of activity in a commercial area for a non-profit entity.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of the
motion and ordinance change, opining that it was something to be considered for
the community as a whole. Even though this request was prompted by one
particular applicant, Mayor Roe opined that the revision was in line with the
City’s updated Zoning Code and its intent, and served to clarify initial
intents for the office/business park zoning district. Mayor Roe stated that
this allowed for and followed what the City Council had discussed in 2009 with
the request of the Chinese Christian Church in addressing allowed uses in
non-traditional areas zoned commercial; even though the timing of the Chinese
Christian Church did not work out for them to build, it was comparable. Mayor
Roe opined that this zoning text amendment would more clearly define the City’s
intent.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson;
Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: McGehee.
Motion Carried.
Willmus moved, Johnson seconded,
enactment of Ordinance Summary No. ___ (Attachment C) entitled, “An Ordinance
Amending Selected Text of Sections 1001 (Introduction), 1004 (Commercial and
Mixed-Use Districts), 1006 (Employment Districts), 1007 (Institutional
District), 1009 (Procedures), and 1011 (Property Performance Standards) of
Title 10 “Zoning Code” of the Roseville City Code;” for publication.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson;
McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
13.
Presentations
14.
Public Hearings
Recess Regular Meeting
McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, recessing the
regular meeting of the Roseville City Council, and convening as the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals, at approximately 6:40 p.m.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson;
McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Convene as Board of Adjustments and Appeals
Receive Appeal Regarding City Staff’s Decision that
Wal-Mart is a Permitted Use Under the Zoning Code for the Property located
along County Road C between Prior Avenue and Cleveland Avenue; and refer the
Appeal to the Planning Commission
Chair Roe noted that the Roll Call stood as originally
called, with Members Johnson, McGehee, Willmus and Roe present.
Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon provided a
brief overview of the appeals received as noted and included in the agenda
packet dated July 9, 2012; and requested action by the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals.
Member McGehee sought clarification that the Planning
Commission would hear testimony, as well as the Board of Appeals at the July
16, 2012 meeting.
Mr. Trudgeon assured Members and the public that, while the
Planning Commission meeting was not an official Public Hearing in the
conventional sense, staff had provided notice to appellants and the property
owner, and would take testimony specific to the appeals at the Commission
meeting.
At the request of Member McGehee, Mr. Trudgeon advised that
notice of the meetings had been provided in the usual manner, through the
City’s website and typical media sources, as well as notifying those having
previously requested such notice on the City’s Web list.
City Manager Malinen noted that the City’s on-line news
update for community news had provided information on the meetings as well.
City Manager Malinen advised that staff, in conjunction with the City
Attorney’s Office would provide a basic outline for the Planning Commission and
the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for their role and process in this
quasi-judicial function, which can be followed at the discretion of the
bodies. Mr. Malinen noted that the function of the bodies is to address two
(2) appellants trying to make a case as to why the Administrative Ruling is
inadequate or void, and those were technically the two (2) parties needing to
be heard by both bodies. Mr. Malinen noted that, whether or not either or both
bodies chose to open up testimony to a broader audience was up to those
individual bodies to make that determination, with staff providing the basics
for policies and procedures to be legally followed. Mr. Malinen noted that it
was rare to have an appeal of an administrative decision, therefore, a set of
rules had not been in place to address such an appeal in detail. Mr. Malinen
noted the need to clarify that it was not a formal Public Hearing, and
therefore, how much time either body allowed for testimony was at their
discretion, but not a formal function of the process.
Chair Roe reviewed and clarified the basics of the appeal
process, as Mr. Trudgeon described, for the Planning Commission to hear the
appeals at their July 11 meeting and provide their recommendation and findings
to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for their July 16, 2012 meeting; and
consideration by the Board for final adoption of those findings at their July
23, 2012 meeting.
Chair Roe stated, in his review of City Code regarding the
function of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, that reference was made to
some manner of hearing as part of those proceedings, but not a Public Hearing,
and sought to clarify the process for the Planning Commission and/or Board of
Adjustments and Appeals.
City Manager Malinen advised that the process of both bodies
and the basic outline of that procedure would serve to develop recommendations
of the bodies as well; and advised that staff would provide information to both
bodies.
At the request of Member McGehee, City Attorney Gaughan
advised that the only time limitation in the process is that the Planning
Commission must provide their report or recommendation to the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals within sixty (60) days.
Mr. Trudgeon concurred, further clarifying that the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals had to formally hear the appeals within thirty (30)
days of their receipt.
Member McGehee moved, Member Willmus seconded, receipt of
appeals from Karen Schaffer and from Solidarity of West Area Roseville
Neighbors (SWARN) regarding City Staff’s administrative decision that the
proposed Wal-Mart Store on the property located along County Road C between
Prior and Cleveland Avenues is a PERMITTED USE under City Zoning Code; and referral
of the appeals to the City’s Planning Commission for their July 11, 2012
meeting for their review and recommendation to the City Council for their July
16, 2012 regular meeting.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; McGehee;
Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Mayor Roe reiterated that no public comment would be heard
tonight; but that opportunities for the public to speak would be available both
at the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Wednesday, June 11, 2012 and at
the regular City Council meeting of Monday, July 16, 2012.
Adjourn Board
of Adjustments and Appeals and
Reconvene in
Regular City Council Session
Willmus moved,
McGehee seconded, adjourning the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, and reconvening
in regular City Council session at approximately 6:49 p.m.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson;
McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
15.
Business Items (Action Items)
a.
Request by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for Approval of a Preliminary
Plat of the Land Area Bounded by County Road C, Cleveland Avenue, Twin Lakes
Parkway, and Prior Avenue
Three bench handouts were
available at the meeting, all attached hereto and made a part hereof,
consisting of:
·
Additional e-mails (Gerry McDonald, 2857 Dellwood Avenue in opposition
to Wal-Mart; Kate Finnegan, 2887 N Pascal Street in opposition to Wal-Mart;
Nancy Rooney, 2986 Old Highway 8, in opposition to Wal-Mart; and Bob Worrall,
1866 Skillman Avenue, in opposition to Wal-Mart.
·
Letter from Thaddeus R. Lightfoot, Environmental Law Group, 133
First Avenue N, Minneapolis, MN, dated July 9, 2012 and representing Responsible
Governance for Roseville (RGR), requesting denial of the Preliminary Plat
application at this time.1
·
Memorandum dated July 9, 2012 from the City Attorney Office of Erickson,
Bell, Beckman & Quinn, P.A. providing an updated list of proposed conditions
to any approval of the Twin Lakes Second Addition Preliminary Plat.2
Mayor Roe reviewed the purpose of
tonight’s continued discussion of the Preliminary Plat following previous
TABLING of action following previous public comment and City Council deliberation.
Therefore, since public testimony had already been heard at that meeting and
via written comment, Mayor Roe advised that he was not intending to take any
additional public comment at this meeting. Mayor Roe stated that this request
would proceed to Council deliberation, following staff’s presentation.
City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly
reviewed the request, and previous City Council action in TABLING action to
take up the PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION first so as to avoid any potential
legal complications resulting from taking concurrent action on a Preliminary
and Final Plat. Mr. Paschke referenced the additional list of conditions from
the City Attorney, previously referenced as a bench handout, and made available
to the public.2
Councilmember Pust arrived at this time, approximately 6:53
p.m.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee,
City Attorney Gaughan advised that it was the recommendation of the City
Attorney’s Office that all ten (10) of the conditions be incorporated into any
approval of the Preliminary Plat by the City Council.
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Attorney Gaughan provided his response to the July 9, 2012 letter previously
referenced as a bench handout from Environmental Law Group representing Responsible
Governance for Roseville (RGR)1 and their rationale
in setting forth three (3) reasons for denial of the Preliminary Plat.
1) “…
because the City Attorney has concluded that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance are in conflict.”
City Attorney Gaughan, in his
review of the City Attorney’s original submission, advised that it was not his perception
that this was the conclusion, based on the recommendation for review on a case
by case basis. City Attorney Gaughan opined that the City Attorney’s finding
was not as simple as indicated in the RGR position, and did not serve as an appropriate
basis to deny the Preliminary Plat.
2) “… until
it [City Council] hears and decides the Appeals of the Community Development
Department’s June 21 determination that the Wal-Mart Project complies with
Community Mixed Use District Zoning.” AND
3) “…until
the Minnesota Court of Appeals determines that the AUAR remains valid.”
City Attorney Gaughan advised
that, in the City Attorney’s further review and submission of recommended
conditions as provided tonight, and prior to receipt of this RGR correspondence,
recognized that the two (2) issues addressed remained outstanding. City
Attorney Gaughan advised that, whether further environment review is determined
to be necessary, it was the City Attorney Office’s position that the actual
potential future use of the site did not come into play given how City Code
interacts with State Statute. However, recognizing those two pending
litigation issues, City Attorney Gaughan noted that their recommended conditions
(#9 and #10) would serve as further protection for the City with the project’s
proposer having those conditions addressed per State Code and Environmental
Review. However, City Attorney Gaughan reiterated that it was not the
perception of the City Attorney’s Office that it comes into play regarding the
Preliminary Plat, and thus their office did not recommend denial as proposed in
the Lightfoot letter.
Councilmember McGehee opined that,
in her review of the case law cited by the City Attorney’s Office in their
original legal opinion, she had yet to find anything that served to satisfy her
of that position on the Preliminary Plat and what could or could not be
considered. Councilmember McGehee further opined that this created a
difference between what the City Attorney’s Office proposed, and what she had
found in her research of materials in State Statute, case law, and the League
of Minnesota Cities (LMC) Handbook.
City Attorney Gaughan apologized
that the City Attorney Office’s efforts had not satisfied Councilmember McGehee;
however, noting the attempts made to address those issues raised in past
correspondence and the City Attorney Office’s rationale in reaching their
conclusions for the City Council as a whole, he advised that they stood by
those conclusions.
Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, approval
of the proposed Twin Lakes Second Addition PRELIMINARY PLAT, pursuant to Title
11 of Roseville City Code, for the land area bounded by County Road C,
Cleveland Avenue, Twin Lakes Parkway, and Prior Avenue, including the 4,643
square foot rectangle of land that is the subject of the disposal request;
based on the comments and findings of Sections 4-6, and the recommendation of
Section 7, of the Request for Council Action dated July 9, 2012; amended
to include the ten (10) conditions provided by the City Attorney Memorandum dated
July 9, 2012 and restated as follows:
1.
Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust shall enter into a
Development Agreement pertaining to the Plat which is satisfactory to the City.
2.
Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust shall acquire fee
simple title to all of the real property included in the Plat and provide proof
that there are no liens, encumbrances or other parties having an interest in
the Property at the time the Development Agreement and Plat are recorded; or
make other arrangements which are satisfactory to the City to assure that title
to the property is satisfactory to the City.
3.
Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust shall either dedicate
on the Plat or otherwise convey all roadway, utility, drainage, and other
easements required by the City.
4.
The access points to enter and exit the Property being
plated shall be at locations approved by the City and any other governmental
entity having jurisdiction over adjacent roadways.
5.
Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust shall install
subdivision monuments as reasonably required by the Roseville Public Works
Department and Ramsey County Surveyor.
6.
Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust shall pay all unpaid
subdivision review escrow fees as detailed in the adopted fee schedule for the
City of Roseville prior to the City releasing the Plat for recording.
7.
The applicant shall make all submissions and perform all requirements
pertaining to final plats set forth in Roseville City Code, including Sections
1002.01, 1102.04, 1102.06 and 1102.07.
8.
The applicant shall obtain the written certification from
the Public Works Director described in Section 1102.06 of Roseville City Code.
9.
The City Council, acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals,
shall determine whether the proposed use for the property is a permitted use.
No building permits shall be issued for any use of the property which is not a
permitted use.
10.
No building permits shall be issued for any use of the
property until the conclusion of the appellate matter captioned as “In the
Matter of the Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for a Proposed
“Wal-Mart Store in Roseville, Ramsey County, Minnesota” (Writ of Certiorari
dated June 21, 2012).
Councilmember Pust apologized to
the public and fellow Councilmembers for her late arrival tonight; and asked
patience as she clarified her remaining questions, some of which may have been
addressed prior to her arrival. Councilmember Pust reviewed her perception of
the Appeal process and referral to the Planning Commission for their
recommendation to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Councilmember Pust
questioned when those recommendations would return to the Board of Appeals, and
what opportunities would be provided for public comment and at which body.
Mayor Roe reiterated the process,
with non-formal public testimony opportunities provided at the June 11, 2012
Planning Commission meeting, as well as again at the July 16, 2012 Board of Adjustments
and Appeals meeting.
Councilmember Pust commended
staff’s most recent recommendation in breaking up the Preliminary and Final
Plat approval process, serving to address her previously-expressed concerns
with that process. Councilmember Pust, based on her research, opined that the
Preliminary Plat portion was very important in the decision-making process, and
essentially the only time conditions could be applied to that potential
approval process. Since this is a significant decision, Councilmember Pust
respectfully requested that fellow Councilmembers consider delaying making this
decision for one (1) more week, following recommends of the Planning Commission
and subsequent action by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
Councilmember Pust reviewed her
remaining concerns, beyond those conditions recommended by the City Attorney in
their July 9, 2012 correspondence. While recognizing that disapproval of a
permitted use was not a consideration for Preliminary Plat approval or denial,
based on case law, Councilmember Pust opined that in this instance, the
argument had been made by some members that the proposed Wal-Mart was not a
permitted use. In that context, Councilmember Pust opined that an analysis of
permitted versus non-permitted use became an appropriate part of preliminary
plat consideration.
Councilmember Pust asked what
would result, if the City Council took action tonight on the Preliminary Plat,
and the Planning Commission found that it was not a permitted use, and it was
obvious that this could be a possibility, since it was being sent elsewhere for
a recommendation. Councilmember Pust questioned, if it was found to be a
non-permitted use, but the Preliminary Plat had already been approved, there
would then not be a Final Plat. Based on that scenario, and if the issue was
found for a conflict between the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan,
Councilmember Pust noted that the Comprehensive Plan would then need revised
either way, whether a permitted use or not. Therefore, if the Preliminary Plat
had already been granted, and then the Comprehensive Plan revised, Councilmember
Pust noted that there would be no changes applied to that Preliminary Plat for
one (1) year. Taking the City out of the legal situation and changing its
position based on the timing of this decision, Councilmember Pust opined that
it was then a waste of time for the Planning Commission to make a
recommendation. If a Final Plat was approved, Councilmember Pust noted that it
would take two (2) years to affect this application.
Based on the potential that the
City Council may be wrong in their analysis to-date, Councilmember Pust opined
that she didn’t want the City to come out on the wrong side of that analysis
with this particular application; and reiterated her preference that the City
Council hold off one (1) week on this Preliminary Plat decision, allowing the
Planning Commission to hold their discussion and provide a recommendation.
At the request of Mayor Roe to
provide a response to Councilmember Pust, City Attorney Gaughan noted that the
only reason the decision on the Preliminary Plat was back before the City
Council tonight was due to the applicant voluntarily extending the 120-day
review period until tonight’s meeting. Otherwise, based on the expiration of
the review period, the Preliminary Plat would be approved by default, based on
State Statute (Chapter 462.3454).
Based on the Board of Appeals,
City Attorney Gaughan noted that, as the process was laid out in State Statutes,
a decision could not be made without a recommendation by the Planning
Commission, necessitating their part in the process.
Regarding the controversy of
whether the proposed Wal-Mart is or is not a permitted use, City Attorney
Gaughan noted that to-date, that has not come into play as part of the Plat
analysis because the authority to make that decision had been delegated by the
City Council to staff to make an administrative decision; with no provision
available to have the City Council take back that authority to determine
whether or not a use is permitted. Under City Code, City Attorney Gaughan
advised that the issue came before the City Council only in their role as the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals; and based on the applicant’s request that the
Administrative Appeal be addressed now rather than down the road as additional
funds were expended by the applicant through the permitting process.
City Attorney Gaughan concluded
that this was the mechanics of why and how things were occurring at this point.
Regarding what happens if the City
Council approves the Preliminary Plat now and the Planning Commission
subsequently recommends that this is not a permitted use, and the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals concurred, City Attorney Gaughan noted that their
Offices’ recommended conditions for Preliminary Plat approval would
sufficiently address any outstanding issues and/or pending litigation as
applicable. City Attorney Gaughan noted that, even if not specifically
addressed in conditions, as noted in previous discussions, a Preliminary Plat
was simply redrawing lines, and whether those lines are drawn or not, the
permitted or non-permitted use is not addressed.
City Attorney Gaughan, in
addressing Councilmember Pust’s remaining concerns regarding the timing, noted
that if the proposed Wal-Mart was determined to not be a permitted use, it
would not impact the Preliminary Plat, or lines to be drawn, since those are
distinctions. In allowing a determination by the City Council on approval or
denial of the Preliminary Plat tonight, City Attorney Gaughan opined that this
would keep the process moving, specific to the Preliminary Plat request currently
before the City Council tonight. City Attorney Gaughan encouraged
Councilmembers to keep the two issues distinct, the platting issue and the use
issue.
Mayor Roe asked that City Attorney
Gaughan address the Comprehensive Plan and approval of the Preliminary Plat,
and the process if the applicant was amenable to granting the City an
additional week for a determination on the Preliminary Plat.
City Attorney Gaughan advised
that, if the Preliminary Plat was approved tonight, and it was later determined
that there was a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and the City Zoning
Code regarding the proposed use, with subsequent action taken to correct any
discrepancy as a result of the Planning Commission hearing and a decision of
the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, it would not impact the Preliminary Plat.
Mayor Roe opined that, if the
attempt to solve the problem was through a subsequent determination that a Comprehensive
Plan revision was needed, Wal-Mart would still be exempt from such a use
determination for one (1) year.
Councilmember Pust clarified that
for that reason, action on the Preliminary Plat at tonight’s meeting was bad
either way. Councilmember Pust advised that it was her intent that the process
be as clean and transparent as possible; and allow time for the Comprehensive
Plan to be revised if determined necessary, and to avoid any other litigation.
Councilmember Pust noted that the City Council could deny the Preliminary Plat
tonight, and the applicant could reapply again, starting the review and
approval process clock over again.
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Attorney Gaughan opined that there would be no quick turnaround with such an
action, since the applicant would need to start again at Step 1.
Councilmember Willmus noted the
need for a super majority vote if the appeal before the Planning Commission
resulted in a finding by them and the Board of Adjustments and Appeals that an
error is evident and a Comprehensive Plan amended required. Councilmember
Willmus expressed his hope, if that was the actual result, that the applicant
would return. Councilmember Willmus questioned whether acting on the Preliminary
Plat tonight would have any ill effect as suggested by Councilmember Pust.
Councilmember McGehee opined that,
if the City Council denied the Preliminary Plat tonight, and the applicant
reapplied tomorrow, there would be sufficient time for the Planning Commission
to hear the Appeals and make a recommendation at their meeting this Wednesday
night; and also allowing sufficient time for a formal Public Hearing on the
Preliminary Plat at their August Planning Commission meeting.
City Attorney Gaughan cautioned
that, under that scenario, notice requirements would need for be met for a
formal Public Hearing.
Staff debated the technical notice
requirements, with no clear determination made on that notice schedule.
Councilmember Pust opined that the
discussion was still ripe for consideration; and in response to Councilmember
Willmus’ comment about a super majority vote, cautioned that there should be no
pre-judgment on how individual Councilmembers may vote on whether or not to
amend the Comprehensive Plan if that were to come before the body.
Councilmember Pust opined that her overall goal was to avoid the citizens of
Roseville being embroiled in litigation, noting that this had always been and
continued to be her position. Based on that, Councilmember Pust asked, if it
was the intent of the Mayor to proceed with the motion on the table, that
before voting, additional conditions be applied amending the motion.
Mayor Roe reviewed the process for
amending motions, and suggested that any amendments be considered and moved individually;
with the results becoming part of the original motion, with those amendments
applied as applicable.
Pust moved, McGehee seconded, to
TABLE action on the Preliminary for one (1) week.
After further discussion, and
realization that this was the last day for City Council action on the
Preliminary Plat, or its approval by default, Councilmember Pust withdrew her
motion to table.
Mayor Roe reviewed the motion
currently before the body to approve the Preliminary Plat, inclusive of the ten
(10) enumerated conditions included in the City Attorney’s memorandum dated
July 9, 2012.
At the request of Councilmember
Willmus, Councilmember Pust reviewed her additional conditions beyond those
recommended by the City Attorney’s Office.
Amendments
Councilmember Pust suggested a
condition that the applicant waived the one (1) year time period exemption to
any potential Comprehensive Plan Revision(s).
Councilmember Pust sought
clarification of the word, “conclusion,” in City Attorney Office Condition #10
regarding issuance of any building permits; and suggested that it be more
specific.
Councilmember Pust suggested a
condition specifically addressing hours of operation of the proposed facility,
while recognizing that this could be interpreted as a use issue. However,
Councilmember Pust, based on her research of LMC publications, noted that conditions
are applied to use at the Preliminary Plat stage. In order to assure the
community that this facility not be operated on a 24-hour basis, Councilmember
Pust opined that this was the time to have that conversation.
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Attorney Gaughan opined that the hours of operation were more suited to an
associated Development Agreement, as were the first five (5) conditions
outlined in their July 9, 2012 memorandum of recommended conditions. City
Attorney Gaughan noted that the purpose of the Development Agreement was to
make sure everyone was on the same page on all of those issues.
Councilmember Pust opined that
this was a substantive issue regarding hours of operation; and expressed her
willingness to hear from the applicant on their proposed business model for the
facility. Councilmember Pust suggested that hours of operation not exceed 9:00
pm on weeknights, and 10:00 pm on weekends; ensuring that it not be a 24-hour
business model.
Mayor Roe suggested that that the
hours of operation be encompassed in the Development Agreement acceptable to
the City.
Councilmember Pust opined that the
applicant needed to be aware at this time of the City’s restrictions on hours
of operation.
Councilmember Willmus note that
the City already had another establishment (Cub Foods) that was a 24-hour
operation; and questioned their zoning district designation.
Mayor Roe noted that they were in
a Community Business District, formerly designated “Shopping Center,” before
the Zoning Code was revised.
Councilmember Willmus questioned
how the City would justify differences in that operation in a Community Mixed
Use District versus this applicant.
Councilmember Pust opined that
this proposed operation would have greater impact on adjacent residential
properties; however, she further opined that any operation within a Business District
should not be allowed to have 24-hour retail operations.
Mayor Roe noted that this subject
had been brought up and recognized; and asked that Councilmember Pust provide
any other conditions for consideration by the body.
Councilmember Pust suggested,
given past testimony by the Police Chief Rick Mathwig about the potential increase
in law enforcement services required; and asked for a condition that the
applicant pay for those additional services on a proportional basis.
Councilmember Pust opined that, when evidence was provided that a use would
cost resident more money for additional services provided by the City, an
applicant should be required to pay for those costs.
Condition #11
Pust moved, McGehee
seconded, amendment to the original motion by the addition of Condition #11
that: “Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust shall agree to waive the
requirements of MN Statutes, Section 462.358, Subd. 3.c regarding municipal
prohibition on amendments to a Comprehensive Plan or official control.”
Councilmember
Pust noted that case law made clear that this issue can be negotiated by
parties to a municipal development agreement and cited to the case of Semler
Construction, Inc. v. City of Hanover, 667 N.W.2d 457 (Minn. App. 2003), as
noted by the League of Minnesota Cities in its Subdivision Guide for Cities.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust;
McGehee; Roe.
Nays: Willmus; Johnson.
Motion Carried.
Condition – Hours of
Operation
Pust moved, McGehee
seconded, amendment to the original motion by the addition of a condition that:
“Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust shall agree, in an executed Development
Agreement satisfactory to the City, including a provision to limited hours of
operation not to exceed 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 7:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m. on weekends.”
Councilmember McGehee noted that
this proposed development would be locating in Roseville and be in direct
competition with Target; and questioned what Target’s hours of operation were.
Mayor Roe noted that the hours of
operation most likely varied, and were subject to holiday sales as well.
City Planner Paschke advised that
the City’s Zoning Ordinance did not limit hours of operation, specific to the
Target Store.
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
to call the question.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust;
McGehee.
Nays: Willmus, Johnson, Roe.
Motion failed.
CONDITION #12
Pust moved, Johnson seconded,
amendment to the original motion by the addition of Condition #12 that: “Wal-Mart
Real Estate Business Trust shall agree to enter into a Development Agreement
satisfactory to the City, which includes a provision that Wal-Mart will pay for
any law enforcement costs associated with services provided to their operations
in excess of three hundred (300) calls for service annually.
Prior to consensus of three
hundred (300)calls for service, debate ensued among Councilmembers regarding an
appropriate number of calls.
Councilmember Johnson advised
that, he would find it difficult to support a condition without statistical
evidence pertinent to this community and comparable to services provided to
similar businesses.
At the suggestion of City Manager
Malinen as to whether fire and/or emergency medical calls be factored into that
equation, Councilmember Johnson, with concurrence of other Councilmembers,
excluded those calls from the equation to avoid discouraging their use.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust;
McGehee; Roe.
Nays: Willmus; Johnson.
Motion Failed due to lack of
Super-Majority vote.
Mayor Roe expressed his concern
with this motion as stated being somewhat arbitrary in nature
Councilmember Willmus concurred,
opining that it presents a deterrent to public safety.
Councilmember Johnson duly noted
their point, and clarified that his intent was to get to some statistical
evidence to support an excess of calls; and without a year’s worth of data to
back up the proposed hours, he was reluctant to support a motion simply based
on previously-expressed comments about a Wal-Mart store. Councilmember Johnson
opined that he was willing to stipulate gathering of evidence and leaving it up
to a future City Council, by using more lenient language; but was not totally
convinced that an actual number was needed, but providing for a specific
trigger.
City Attorney Gaughan echoed the
Mayor’s concerns that no arbitrary figure was used, and thereby undermining the
appropriateness of this type of condition. City Attorney Gaughan cautioned the
City Council to avoid moving anywhere near an arbitrary and capricious
situation.
Councilmember Pust respectfully
requested a five minute recess to research past meeting minutes specific to
projected service levels by Chief Mathwig.
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:44 pm and
reconvened at approximately 7:54 pm.
Councilmember Pust advised that
her research specific to proposed Condition #12 had provided projections, from
Chief Mathwig, of between 700-900 additional calls per year with a retailer the
size of the proposed Wal-Mart.
City Manager Malinen advised that
he had consulted with Chief Mathwig by phone during the recess, and Chief
Mathwig advised that the SuperTarget Store in Roseville had an average of 175
service calls per year of various types. City Manager Malinen advised that
Chief Mathwig had opined that a number of 300 calls per year for a similar
operation, and based on the proposed Wal-Mart size and facility, appeared reasonable.
Councilmember Pust opined that
such a condition would also allow a new business to establish their business
model.
City Attorney Gaughan advised that
he was unable to provide a definitive answer as to whether the proposed
language of Councilmember Pust’s amendment (Condition #12) provided sufficient
statistical analysis to avoid any arbitrary or capricious concerns; and based
on the significant retail already in Roseville, questioned how a determination
could be made as to what factors played into those statistics.
CONDITION #12 (REVISED)
Pust moved, Johnson
seconded, amendment to the original motion by the addition of Condition #12
that: “Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust shall agree to enter into a
Development Agreement satisfactory to the City, which includes a provision that
for one (1) year, Wal-Mart will pay for any law enforcement costs associated
with services provided to their operations in excess of a base line of three
hundred (300) calls per annum; with a review of that data after one (1) year)
for any potential adjustment.
Will Matzek, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Civil
Engineer of Record for Wal-Mart Development Team
On behalf of the applicant, Mr. Matzek asked only that
Wal-Mart be treated similar to everyone else within a similar zoning
classification and/or retailers throughout the community in general.
Councilmember Pust opined that this condition would serve to
treat Wal-Mart fairly and similarly.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of the one year review for
comparison and expectations of the applicant and City in order to provide the
best possible services for all parties.
In terms of being treated fairly, Councilmember Johnson
opined that the Wal-Mart representative brought up a fair point; and in the
spirit of that, suggested that going forward in that spirit, that the City
consider a policy in the future with similar language as a City Council
responsibility, rather than setting it forth arbitrarily. Councilmember
Johnson opined that tonight’s debate had served to acknowledge significant
concerns and would set a precedent moving forward with future development.
Councilmember Pust spoke in support of such a future policy;
opining that it would be a good thing for the community as well. Councilmember
Pust noted that there was a considerable amount of misinformation about
Wal-Mart in general; and residents needed to recognize that this business intends
to do its best and be a good corporate citizen. If their service call numbers
came back significantly lower than the base line, Councilmember Pust opined
that residents needed to be aware of that result as well, and having the one
year review would provide that as public information.
Councilmember Johnson opined that this would provide
Wal-Mart a good talking point moving forward into other communities in the
future as well.
Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the proposed
condition, opining that the “look back” provision had swayed him, and concurred
with Councilmembers Johnson and Pust that this was a good starting point moving
forward for application city-wide via a future City Council policy.
Mayor Roe note that this was in line with past discussions
held by the City Council related to providing and funding police services for
the extensive retail community in Roseville; as well as past discussions
between the City and those retailers. Mayor Roe noted that this has been a
long-term challenge for the City; and if such a future policy provided a way to
get that process going and in place, it would serve for the betterment of the
entire community. Mayor Roe spoke in support of the amended language of this
condition.
Councilmember Johnson recognized, speaking on behalf of
Target, their amazing corporate stewardship to the City and its Police
Department, as well as neighborhoods and schools through their community
involvement and monetary donations.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson;
Pust; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Original Motion, as amended
Mayor Roe called the original motion, as amended with
conditions #1-12, and based on the details included in the Request for Council
Action dated July 9, 2012.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: Pust and McGehee.
Motion carried.
For the record, Councilmember McGehee submitted as a bench
handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, her rationale in
opposing the Preliminary Plat approval; entitled “Findings for Denial of
Proposed Preliminary Plat County Road C and Cleveland Avenue, Roseville, MN,
dated July 9, 2012.”
16.
Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
a.
Discuss Neighborhood Traffic Management Program
Mayor Roe called for a brief recess of approximately one (1)
minute at 8:06 pm as people were leaving the Chambers.
City Engineer Debra Bloom reviewed
revisions to the latest draft of the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program
(TMP) dated June 29, 2012 (Attachment A); and highlighted those items revised
following previous presentation to the City Council. At the request of Mayor
Roe, Ms. Bloom briefly highlighted those revisions as outlined in detail in the
Request for Council Action dated July 9, 2012.
Discussion included defining
benefitted area versus affected area; comparisons with other communities for
implementation of and funding for such a program; clarifying intent, goals and
purpose of the TMP; process for receiving feedback from neighborhoods and
defining a petition of support; steps toward implementation and implementation
strategies; and consistencies in potential assessment of costs and the appeal
process.
Ms. Bloom used the Wheeler Avenue closure,
and the Dale Street area as specific and unique examples under such a TMP.
At the request of Councilmember Pust,
Ms. Bloom addressed application of the TMP specific to pathway installation and
mitigation strategies. Ms., Bloom noted the review by the Public Works,
Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC) for consideration of those
pathways listed as priority projects under the Pathway Master Plan and those
addressed in the Parks Implementation Master Plan and how they would be differentiated.
Ms. Bloom noted that those items listed in the Pathway Master Plan as priorities
would not be assessed; and would be clearly defined in an updated Assessment
Policy currently being drafted by the PWETC for recommendation to the City
Council in the near future. Ms. Bloom advised that those not listed in that
Master Plan would then be considered under the TMP.
Councilmember Pust observed that a
lot of people in Roseville supported sidewalks; and this could address the
question of whether that interest remained strong and if they were willing to
pay for them or not.
Ms. Bloom briefly reviewed the
petition process for sidewalks on regional or arterial roads and potential
applicable assessments; and if outside that regional system, but inside the regional
Master Plan system, they would not be assessed.
Councilmember Pust opined that
this made it critical that the City clearly review the Pathway Master Plan now
that the distinction was included, and that it be factored into economic issues
as well.
Ms. Bloom noted that the City
Council had already requested breakouts for the Pathway Master Plan.
In response to Councilmember
McGehee’s question as to how this impacted Municipal State Aid (MSA)-designated
streets, Ms. Bloom advised that the map included in the packet and displayed at
tonight’s meeting identified the specific jurisdictions of all roads within
Roseville, and would be an addendum to the TMP, as outlined in Section 2.0.
While MSA roads had different functions and funding, Mr. Bloom advised that if
a proposed strategy changed any of those items, it would not be proposed.
Regarding costs on Page 11, Table
3, Councilmember McGehee questioned how those costs were arrived at; with Ms.
Bloom advising that they were standard costs identified from the Mpls. ITE, and
each project would be different. However, Ms. Bloom advised that the PWETC
thought it was important that ongoing maintenance costs, while not assessable,
be included in consideration for installation.
Councilmember Willmus spoke in
support of the latest version of the TMP, opining that it had progressed quite
well through the PWETC; and offered his appreciation to them and staff for a
job well-done. Councilmember Willmus suggested the TMP was nearing a point
where action could be taken.
Councilmember Pust suggested
one change in the Unit Cost (Page 11, Table 3) that a date be included as a reminder
to staff to periodically update those costs.
Ms. Bloom concurred with that
suggestion.
McGehee moved, Johnson seconded,
approval of the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (Attachment A), as
presented and dated June 29, 2012, amended to include a date for the Unit Cost
(Page 11, Table 3) to serve as a reminder for staff to periodically update
those costs; and adoption of Resolution No. 10989 (Attachment B) entitled,
“Resolution Ordering Preparation of Feasibility Report for Project No. 13-08
Wheeler Avenue Closure, amended to include a condition of that Feasibility
Report that staff solicit additional support from the benefitted neighborhood;
and authorizing staff to solicit additional neighborhood feedback regarding the
Dale Street speed tables.
Based on Councilmember Pust’s
perception that there may be some discontent among them, Ms. Bloom advised that
staff would review with the Wheeler Avenue neighborhood whether they remained
supportive of the closure through a letter seeking an update of their
interest. With amendment of the original motion, Ms. Bloom advised that staff
would send a letter updating the neighbors and survey their interest.
Mayor Roe offered kudos to the PWETC;
and expressed his interest in how the Wheeler neighborhood responded.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson;
Pust; McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Point of Personal Privilege
With recognition by Mayor Roe, and
for clarification for members of the audience seeking that clarification, Councilmember
Johnson reiterated comments made during previous action and comment tonight by
the Board of Adjustments and Appeals regarding to future opportunities for the
public to comment on the Appeals to the Wal-Mart project. As clarified by
Mayor Roe, Councilmember Johnson confirmed that public comment would be considered
at the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, July 11, 2012 at 6:30 pm; and
during the Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting scheduled for Monday, July
16, 2012 at 6:00 pm.
b.
Discuss Draft Overhead Electric Undergrounding Policy
Public Works Director Duane
Schwartz provided a brief background of the development by the PWETC of the
proposed Underground conversion of Overhead Electric Utility Lines Policy for
the City of Roseville, as detailed in the RCA date July 9, 2012. Mr. Schwartz
reviewed PWETC level discussion and their recommendations as detailed in the
current draft presented for City Council review.
Discussion included various
customer classes and maximum dollar amounts capped by the Public Utilities
Commission (PUC) for community projects and stacking per CRFS as long as they
didn’t exceed that cap; how the PUC might respond to potential neighborhood or
individual requests outside the CRFS and municipal requests; and further
research needed by staff to determine if assessments under Chapter 429 would be
allowed under such a policy.
City Attorney Gaughan advised that
he would add that consideration related to Chapter 429 and assessments for
further research by the City Attorney’s Office.
Further discussion included the
significant costs, approximately $1 million to $2 million per mile depending on
the particular project, for undergrounding.
Councilmember Pust suggested that
the DRAFT Policy be revised, under “Funding of Projects (Page 2)” to state that
they will be “PRIMARILY FUNDED” through utilizing the PUC’s authorized CRFS.
Councilmember Johnson spoke in
support of the policy as a “nice start;” and noted what an amazing aesthetic
difference that undergrounding provided along the Rice Street corridor between
County Road B-2 and Highway 36. While understanding that the cross streets
were part of the discussion and mitigation efforts, Councilmember Johnson
expressed his concern in how expensive that undergrounding was; however, he
opined that it made for a very attractive community.
Under the “Funding of Projects”
portion, Mayor Roe suggested including language addressing cost-sharing with
neighboring jurisdictions for applicable roadways.
14. City Manager Future Agenda Review
City Manager Malinen reviewed
upcoming agenda items.
Councilmember Pust advised that she
would be unavailable for meetings on August 17 and/or August 20, 2012.
Discussion included arrangement of
various items to address length and content of meetings; needed quorum for a
brief special meeting planned for Friday, August 17, 2012 at noon to canvass
municipal election results; breaking up Department Strategic Plan discussions
to allow for more consideration and discussion; upcoming CIP Task Force
recommendations to include on the schedule; and efficiencies of items remaining
on the Consent Agenda.
i.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
ii.
Adjourn
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:48 pm.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; Pust;
McGehee; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.