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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

July 23, 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: McGehee; Pust; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe).  City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present. 


2.         Approve Agenda

Mayor Roe suggested an additional item to tonight’s agenda, Item 10.c entitled, “Staff Presentation on Information Request Related to City E-mails.”  At the request of Councilmember Johnson, Mayor Roe confirmed that the topic could be addressed during that time, as well as earlier in the meeting during “Public Comment” for those not wanting to stay for the duration of the meeting.


Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Consent Agenda Item 7.c entitled, “Receive IR 2025 Quarterly Update.”


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, the agenda was approved as amended.


Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.                              


3.         Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. 


a.            Cynthia White, 2829 Churchill Street

Ms. White addressed City staff’s decision to distribute personal e-mail address of Roseville citizens; and provided her personal comments, recommendations, and requests related to that issue.


While being more comfortable using technology than some residents may be, Ms. White stated that she did make the choice of when and with whom to share her e-mail addresses, and had implemented security measures to protect her personal e-mail address accordingly.  While distributing e-mails may be legal, Ms. White opined that it was a poor decision to do so; as well as to not alert citizens to that distribution until after the fact.  Ms. White, as a recommendation to the City for future consideration, asked that at the very least, notice be included on the City’s website that the City could distribute personal e-mail addresses, and to include that information wherever pertinent.  Ms. White opined that this provided notice to citizens to get off the City database if they chose to do so, at which time the City’s database could have been purged, and only those interested in remaining on the list(s) could have signed back on.  Ms. White further suggested that providers have an option of citizens being able to opt out of having their e-mail addresses shared elsewhere.  Ms. White noted that signing up for e-mail notifications at the City provided police alerts and other information of use to citizens.


Ms. White advised that, in communication with staff earlier today, she had un-subscribed all electronic notifications from the City; however, she expressed concern that e-mails already provided to the City Council or staff may still be in the database and provided to other parties, with no way to remedy that distribution.  Ms. White noted her serious concern that her electronic payment via credit card of her utility bill may now be available for e-mail; and questioned how much access these third parties would have to that information: whether her credit card and/or account information, or simply water usage information.  For electronic payment of utility bills, Ms. White noted that you could not sign off without an e-mail address filled in.  Ms. White asked that staff attempt to correct this situation immediately; stating that she did not want her e-mail address distributed by the City without her prior approval; and asked for assurances from staff that her e-mail, credit card, and account information was no longer in the City’s database, especially assurances that her phone number, bank and credit card information were not in the e-mail records staff provided to the third party at their request.


Ms. White opined that it made it difficult to be an informed citizen when personal information is readily available to anyone making a request for that data from outside the City system.


Dick Lambert, 800 Brenner Avenue

Mr. Lambert echoed Ms. White’s comments.  Mr. Lambert noted that, from his research, he had determined that the City had this information request for three (3) weeks, but staff didn’t inform the public of the request until a Friday afternoon, after the information had been provided.  Mr. Lambert suggested that as block captain for his block, police alerts and other vital information for him to share with the neighbors, would not be as readily available for him to share, since he now found it necessary to un-subscribe from the City’s e-mail lists.  


Mr. Lambert suggested that the City launch an investigation from this individual requesting his e-mail and other personal information to ensure that no laws had been broken; and expressed his frustration that the information had been provided prior to citizens being made aware of the distribution that would have allowed them to be proactive in removing their e-mail information.


Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane

Mr. Grefenberg emphatically echoed the comments of Ms. White; and asked for a legal opinion on why the request needed to be complied with, and additional information on whom this person was making the request.  Mr. Grefenberg also questioned if other municipalities were receiving similar requests, and how they were responding. 


Mr. Grefenberg expressed concern that this notice to citizens of the action taken by staff in distributing the information had been provided at 3:15 on a Friday afternoon; and opined that it was similar to Washington, D.C. distributing unsavory information immediately prior to a weekend.  Mr. Grefenberg opined that it would have been better to alert citizens to who was requesting the information; and expressed concern that this would make it even more difficult to get people involved in Roseville, without this breach of trust.  Mr. Grefenberg stated that when he had signed up for the e-mail list with the City, he had been assured that this e-mail information would not be shared with anyone outside the City; and questioned why that promise was broken for residents of Roseville.  


Mr. Grefenberg also suggested that a policy be developed, addressing the value of e-mail listings identifying Roseville citizens interested in civic affairs.  Mr. Grefenberg opined that this raised many issues; and asked for responses to his questions: who sent it; whether this practice will extend to any time an e-mail is sent to individual City Councilmembers or directed confidentially to staff; and does this affect all disbursements lists on the City’s database.  Mr. Grefenberg reiterated his concern with how and when this occurred.


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


5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications


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 July 16, 2012 Meeting

Mayor Roe noted suggested revisions to the meeting minutes provided by SWARN that had just been received tonight as a bench handout, with the City Council not having had time to review their suggestions for incorporation.


Councilmember McGehee provided written findings of her position for denial of the proposed preliminary plat, originally distributed at the July 9, 2012 City Council meeting.


At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen reviewed the process for draft minutes established by City Council policy some years ago, not typically publicly distributed, unless specifically requested of staff until the City Council reviewed them and made corrections.


Given the need to review additional revisions received since City Council review, consensus was to table action until the next regular business meeting.


Pust moved, Johnson seconded, TABLING approval of the July 16, 2012 City Council meeting minutes; allowing testifiers to make sure their comments were correct before formal adoption.


Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


7.            Approve Consent Agenda

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


a.            Approve Payments

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

ACH Payments


66883 -  66997





Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


b.            Approve Business and Other Licenses

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



Type of License

Chee Ly, Matthew Williamson, Wade Wutschke, Amy Christiansen, Erna Janssens-Verbelen, Saowalak Mortenson, Mark Burns, Rebecca Hill & Jacqueline Slak

At Massage Envy – Roseville

2480 Fairview Avenue, Suite 120

Massage Therapist


Cedarholm Golf Course, 2323 Hamline Avenue


On-Sale Liquor       

Roseville Central Park Foundation at Dale Street Athletic Fields; 2555 Dale Street N

Off-Site Gambling


Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


d.            Receive Shared Services Quarterly Report

          McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, receipt of the shared services quarterly update as presented.

Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


e.            Receive Grant Application Quarterly Report

          McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, receipt of grant applications quarterly update as presented.


Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


f.             Approve Special Meeting on Friday, August 17, 2012 to Canvass Municipal Primary Election Results

          McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, scheduling a Special Meeting of the Roseville City Council to canvass municipal primary election results, Friday, August 17, 2012 at 12:00 p.m.


Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


g.            Set Public Hearing to Consider On-Sale and Off-Sale Liquor Licenses for Pour Decisions Brewery

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, scheduling a public hearing on August 13, 2012, to consider approving Pour Decision Brewery’s request for an On-Sale and Sunday Brewer Taproom License and Off-Sale Brewery Liquor License, 1744 Terrace Drive.

Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


8.            Consider Items Removed from Consent


c.            Receive Imagine Roseville 2025 Quarterly Update

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed the purpose of the Quarterly Update of Imagine Roseville 2025 Medium and Long-Term Goals.


Councilmember McGehee, for the benefit of the public and City Council members, noted that this particular update (Attachment A), the HRA had incorporated economic development as priority of their goals, moving it from being  Housing Redevelopment Authority to an Economic Development Authority.  Councilmember McGehee opined that, since this was being made very clear, and with this body having taxing authority and members appointed by the Mayor alone, to have them perform housing and economic development was a rather broad charge for them.  Councilmember McGehee opined that, given the general way the HRA interacts with the City Council, as a citizen and Councilmember, she questioned whether the City Council wished to give the HRA body that authority rather than it being retained by the City Council.  While agreeing with the efforts outlined in the listed goals, Councilmember McGehee questioned if Roseville citizens would prefer to have more of these initiatives and efforts done by their elected officials on the City Council, rather than by an appointed body by one member of the City Council.


Mayor Roe suggested that this topic may come up for discussion in the HRA’s annual joint meeting with the City Council, and presentation of their draft strategic plan for 2012 – 2016, later on tonight’s agenda.


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, receipt of the quarterly update of the Imagine Roseville 2025 Medium and Long-Term Goals a presented.


Mayor Roe further suggested that the City Council should revisit this from their point of view for the City Council’s strategic planning and other City Council documents, for medium and long-term goals, many of which had been on the table for a considerable amount of time.  Mayor Roe noted that it made sense to fold the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning goals and strategies into the City Council’s strategic planning, providing a more cohesive and continuous process to follow moving forward.  Mayor Roe suggested that this be taken up for discussion by the City Council on a future agenda.


Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


12.         General Ordinances for Adoption


13.         Presentations


a.            Central Park Foundation

Mayor Roe welcomed members of the Central Park Foundation.


Patricia Johnson Nygaard, President of the Foundation, and Ms. Carol Erickson were the presenters, with Foundation Board Member Mr. Harvey Moen in the audience.


Ms. Nygaard announced the upcoming “Flying Colors Community Festival” on Thursday, August 9, 2012 from 5:00 – 9:00 p.m. at the Dale Street entrance; and sponsored by the Central Park Foundation.  Ms. Nygaard invited everyone to attend this fundraiser to support Central Park improvements.


Ms. Erickson echoed that invitation, and encouraged attendance to “fly a kite” and have the opportunity for hot air balloon rides.


b.            Joint Meeting with Housing & Redevelopment Authority

HRA Members present were: Chair Dean Maschka; Vice Chair Bill Majerus; and Members Sue Elkin; William Masche; Kelly Quam; Vicki Lee.  HRA Executive Director Patrick Trudgeon and Housing Program Coordinator Jeanne Kelsey were present from staff.


Mayor Roe welcomed HRA members to this annual joint meeting of the bodies.


Chair Maschka, in his opening remarks, advised Councilmembers that the HRA had just completed an update of their Strategic Plan form 2012-2016, included in tonight’s packet, along with an Action Plan to pursue those outlined activities at the direction of the City Council.  Chair Maschka opined that this had been one of the more productive and dynamic strategy sessions held by the HRA to-date, and expressed appreciation to the facilitation by Ms. Barbara Raye in those efforts.  Chair Maschka advised that Vice Chair Majerus and Member Masche would speak to sections included in Attachment A of materials; and he would conclude comments, at which time the HRA sought feedback from the City Council on the updated Strategic Plan going forward.


Vice Chair Bill Majerus reviewed the history to-date of the HRA established in 2002, and first meeting in 2003; reviewing the original mission, operating principles and vision statement developed and detailed in Attachment A.  Vice Chair Majerus noted that the HRA had moved from a consultant-based Board to dedicated staffing through Community Development Director Trudgeon serving as the Executive Director of the HRA and a dedicated staff position of part-time Housing Program Coordinator Jeanne Kelsey.  Vice Chair Majerus noted that over the years since its inception, nineteen (19) member volunteers had served on the HRA Board; each providing their passions in serving the community and promoting HRA efforts on behalf of the City of Roseville.


Member William Masche highlighted accomplishments of the body from 2008 – 2012 as an annual work plan was developed as staffing was provided for HRA efforts.  Member Masche noted initiating the successful and well-received Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP); development of the “Living Smarter” marketing campaign and website, and updating of the annual Home and Garden Fair; various housing efforts; development of the on-line Green Remodeling Book, and other green efforts; as well as research and study to keep updated on successful programs used elsewhere to provide learning opportunities for the group and the community.


One of the success stories, was the Sienna Green project, with Member Masche noting their grand opening scheduled for tomorrow; and expounded on the various amenities and assets in that one area.


On a personal note, beginning his second term on the HRA Board, Member Masche expressed his excitement about the updated Strategic Plan for 2012-2016: the plan itself, strategies outlined, and Mission Statement; and how the HRA was evolving since its inception.  Member Masche noted that synergy now evident among staff and other departments, allowing the HRA to develop into a cohesive organization designed to accomplish specific goals.  Member Masche opined that this was a great change, and expressed appreciation for Chair Maschka and former Chair Majerus’ leadership; allowing for a carefully-staged transition over the years, providing great benefit for the citizens of Roseville.  Member Masche, personally and on behalf of the HRA Board, expressed appreciation to the City Council for their support of past plans, and anticipated their support of and excitement about the new Mission of the HRA; as well expressing appreciation for the City Council’s support of past levies.  Member Masche concluded by stating that he felt privileged to serve on the HRA Board.


Chair Maschka highlighted the five (5) core principles provided in the updated four (4) year HRA Strategic Plan moving forward for 2012 – 2016, listed below and detailed in the materials:

·         Foster, promote, and effectively communicate the advantages of living in Roseville;

·         Create and maintain high quality, sustainable multi-family housing options;

·         Create and maintain high quality, sustainable single-family housing options;


·         Prevent and eliminate blight on individual properties, neighborhoods and the entire community; and

·         Retain and attract desirable housing and businesses that lead to employment, investment and commitment to the community.


Chair Maschka noted some of the action plans for these core principles, provided in the spread sheet in packet materials; highlighting some of them, including providing housing for young people to get them into Roseville, confident that they would then stay here; addressing some significant multi-family housing issues in some areas of the community, especially due to the age of some of those buildings and complexes; expansion of the NEP program to include commercial and business properties; and to pro-actively seek economic development opportunities, as well as seeking to serve the existing business community to obtain their feedback and address their needs.


Chair Maschka reviewed the HRA’s new Mission Statement, included in packet materials that summarized the core principles noted.  Chair Maschka recognized Member Lee for her suggestion that strategic planning for housing include not only its current use, but how it can be modified to meet future needs.


With that background, Chair Maschka reviewed the goals and objectives of the HRA’s Strategic Plan for 2012 – 2016, for City Council information and feedback on those initiatives; as well as the Action Plan spreadsheet attached.


As a point of clarification, Councilmember and HRA Member Willmus noted that those items listed in green were already in process and carried forward from past plans; and those items shown in white were new and resulted from the 2012-2016 Strategic Planning sessions.


Chair Maschka expounded on some of the goals and objectives, using examples throughout the community; and based on the brainstorming from those planning sessions.  Chair Maschka noted the need to continue to utilize all the tools available for these efforts as the market came back (e.g. housing); and to create a “sense of place” for Roseville and its citizenry.  Chair Maschka noted that, due to this expanded Action Plan, the HRA expected to return to the City Council with a maximum levy request this year, noting that this ambitious Plan was not without its cost.


As the newest member of the HRA, Mayor Roe asked Councilmember Willmus to comment.


Councilmember Willmus recognized that there was a lot on the HRA plate right now; and while this was the first look for the City Council, as a new HRA member, he asked that the City Council look over the information, and if any items raised a flag, to let the HRA know as soon as possible and upfront as they moved into more detail in planning and staffing discussions.


Councilmember Johnson opined that this was a great document, and even though ambitious, it was needed for marketing the City and moving forward.  Councilmember Johnson sought projections on additional staffing costs required to accomplish these goals; with Ms. Kelsey responding that estimates for budget implications were between $50,000 and $60,000 additional dollars.


At the request of Councilmember Johnson as to when in the next 12-24 months those additional funds would be required; Chair Maschka anticipated that it would be the far side of twelve (12) months.


With new internet and wireless communication technologies, Councilmember Johnson opined that it was a “no brainer” to cement bonds with the business community; and offered his support for those efforts, opining that it was a great idea; and asked that an asterisk be placed by that one as a high priority; and suggested that assistance may be available from volunteers within the community to accomplish this goal.  Councilmember Johnson opined that this was a great start, and as pointed out by Councilmember Willmus, it was good to differentiate between the green and white boxes on the Action Plan spreadsheet in reviewing the numerous goals, both current, I process, and proposed.


As a former HRA Member, Councilmember Pust opined that this looks like a great process.  Councilmember Pust noted the recent community comments on their preferences for businesses they do and do not want to see in Roseville; and questioned how the HRA would develop their criteria in pursuing various businesses.


Chair Maschka opined that the first step would be to talk with existing local businesses to determine what was and/or was not working for them, and what they needed.  Chair Maschka noted that, for many businesses, this will the first time, or the first time in a long time since he and former Roseville Mayor Wall had done so, in them being approached by the City or the City showing any interest in them.  Chair Maschka noted that this conversation would also ultimately need to start by dealing with the question of who and what Roseville is; understanding that it had a lot of retailers; however, the community seemed to serve as a great incubator for higher paying, technical jobs, but seemed unable to retain them when they reached a critical mass and needed to expand.


Regarding a discussion scheduled later on tonight’s agenda, Councilmember Pust asked, from an HRA perspective, their feedback on the number of off-sale liquor licenses the City should have, currently at ten (10) licenses, all of which are filled. Councilmember Pust questioned the role of government in creating that market, or protecting that market; and whether limiting the number served to protect small businesses or not.  While recognizing that a broader discussion was needed, Councilmember Pust sought HRA comment.


Councilmember McGehee thanked the HRA for their presentation; opining that it was a good plan, but she did have several questions.  When the HRA was talking about the rental market, in the past, when rental properties had been converted into condominiums, they had not been originally well-constructed, resulting in their deterioration almost beyond repair. Going forward, Councilmember McGehee asked how the HRA could guarantee good quality rental properties for the next 100 years; and how to set the bar to determine and retain that level of quality.


Chair Maschka noted several options would include developing and enforcing building standards for new construction; and determining when a building became obsolete and needed replacing, and whether or not the marketplace supported that.  From his personal perspective, Chair Maschka opined that development of building standards and continuing this type of discussion was a crucial element to accomplish that effort.  Chair Maschka opined that future Baby Boomers were going to seek a different type of senior housing than the high rise buildings of the past to fit their more active lifestyles and desire to remain involved.  Chair Maschka opined that those upcoming seniors would choose rental housing for a lot longer than current seniors did; and discussion on how to keep those people involved, through volunteering, part-time jobs, changing career goals, and other efforts needed to be included in building concepts in the future.  To address deteriorating housing, Chair Maschka suggested that a Trust may make sense in some situations, similar to that used in the City of Burnsville recently; however, he suggested there may be a better process and available options besides condemnation and eviction.  Chair Maschka noted the need to look at the age of the Roseville community, and the construction of those buildings, some 70-80 years old, not being of the same standards as today’s standards.


 Councilmember McGehee noted the need to make improvements to the aging infrastructure as well, with a significant amount of updating and/or replacement needed.


Councilmember McGehee, referencing the intergenerational and affordable housing market, used Sienna Green as an example, of which she had been and continued to be a critic, due to the lack of amenities (e.g. green space) for the typical renter in that complex.   Councilmember McGehee opined that she didn’t see the type of housing amenities the community would like to offer.    Councilmember McGehee recognized that even though a portion of the complex was renovated, not newly constructed, she wanted to ensure accessibility and sprinkler systems even in existing buildings to address safety concerns.


Chair Maschka opined that he would then argue that  sprinkler systems be included in City Code for renovations as well as new construction.


Councilmember McGehee concurred; and noted her advocacy attempts for additional green space for Sienna Green as well, opining that there really wasn’t any there.


Member Masche expressed his understanding that there was a significant courtyard for use by the residents; with Councilmember McGehee opining that it was only sixteen feet (16’) in diameter with an edge, and really didn’t suffice.


Councilmember McGehee opined that she came from past experience for a different model than Sienna Green, and her awareness of market rate housing in other communities with which she was familiar; with a mix of some units set aside at standard rates.


Chair Maschka opined that, historically, those had proven the most successful complexes; and used the opposite end of the spectrum for the towers build in Chicago, as an example, having become examples of tenements.  Chair Maschka spoke in support of integrating parcels for the best success.


Councilmember McGehee suggested that the HRA come forward with recommended policies to incorporate into City Code to bring the building code up-to-date to accomplish these goals as part of the efforts to market Roseville; and to avoid examples in multi-family housing such as seen in Chicago and Wayzata.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her strong concern about the Sienna Green II building and where children would play.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her support for this HRA Strategic Plan, and further expressed her delight if the HRA would initiate discussions with the Roseville business community.  While having requested this several times, Councilmember McGehee stated that she had been told that it required too much staff time, and suggested that if the HRA could do it, it would be very nice.


While Councilmember McGehee observed that only a portion of the HRA Board spoke, Chair Maschka assured her and the City Council that the discussions during the Strategic Planning sessions had been very lively and provided a free-for-all for each member to express their viewpoints.


Referencing a discussion held at a recent City Council meeting upon reappointing HRA Members Maschka and Majerus, Councilmember Johnson sought the HRA Board’s opinion on term limits for this group, currently not restricted, with other citizen advisory commissions held to two (2), three (3) year terms.  For future reference, Councilmember Johnson sought input from the HRA.

Chair Maschka noted that there had been good turnover on the HRA Board to-date; recognizing that term limits had their pros and cons; with one of the positives being one of historical significance and continuity.  Chair Maschka alluded to the various resources and expertise brought to the Board by the current group: from banking and finance, to other qualities.  Chair Maschka opined that this current group was a very good, dynamic group; and given the amount of turnover to-date had not allowed the Board to become stagnant.  Chair Maschka noted that the history and new ideas combined to make a very dynamic organization; and opined that he would hate to put in an artificial term limit.


Member Vicki Lee concurred with Chair Maschka, opining that there was great synergy going in the group; and if that was not evident, the HRA Board might have a different opinion.


Chair Maschka opined that, to-date, he did not think turnover had been an issue.


Member Masche opined that it depended on the number of volunteer applicants interested in serving; and since it was a Mayoral appointment, he didn’t see that the Board could self-perpetuate themselves in any way.


As a relatively new member of the HRA, Member Kelly Quam opined that it was of great benefit to her to have the institutional history in place; further opining that the group was well-integrated; and was without prohibitions or bounds in expressing their views and opinions, as well as their differing perspectives.  Member Quam opined that the body worked very well.


Councilmember Johnson thanked HRA Members for their responses.


Mayor Roe, in terms of the proposed Strategic Plan and the HRA’s request for City Council feedback; he opined that he didn’t envision the HRA going off on their own once the Plan was in place.

Chair Maschka assured Mayor Roe and Councilmembers that the HRA as a body viewed this Strategic Plan as a dynamic partnership of the City Council and HRA; and had no intention of moving forward without the support of the City Council.


Member Lee opined that the HRA is an asset for the City Council and the community; providing a body of experts in their various fields, serving to enhance the work of the elected body to make better use of their time and energy.


Mayor Roe concurred, that he envisioned this Strategic Plan as a partnership of the City Council and HRA, especially given the number of pieces involved; opining that there was no way the HRA could do this by themselves, without it being a team effort of the City Council and HRA.  Mayor Roe noted comparisons between the HRA Strategic Plan and that of the City Council (e.g. make better connections with the business community); and noted that it was difficult to find time to organize such efforts as a Councilmember and/or Mayor; and suggested that a way for the City Council to accomplish those efforts was through helping with additional staffing requests, as indicated in the HRA Action Plan.  Mayor Roe noted that, as the City Council saw the proposal come forward for the upcoming HRA levies that would serve to alert the City Council of the needs and efforts of the HRA.  Mayor Roe noted that this would have ramifications for Roseville taxpayers, and that this would be an area of concern during discussions and in determining the goals and needs of the community as a whole.


Councilmember Willmus noted the spreadsheet figures, and the estimated costs listed at the bottom of the chart to implement those goals and strategies.  Councilmember Willmus asked that, if there were areas of concern for individual Councilmembers about those costs, that they make it over clear over the next week or month to the HRA.  Councilmember Willmus suggested one way to keep the communication more consistent among the HRA and City Council would be, instead of the HRA Chair’s quarterly update to the City council, the City Council and HRA Board get more aggressive, and have a sit-down quarterly, if not more frequently, to compare notes on the direction moving forward.

Chair Maschka concurred with Councilmember Willmus’ suggestion; especially as projects moved forward.


Mayor Roe, related to the budget, asked the HRA to review other funding sources if appropriate to implement as a City, other than through a levy; using the City of St. Louis Park as an example; and other ideas gleaned from other communities; and to bring those forward to the City Council at their earliest convenience.


Chair Maschka noted that this Action Plan required some of that drilling down yet; as brought up by Councilmember Pust, do we know what we have and what is working in Roseville; going beyond the talking points and how to facilitate the Action Plan.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Chair Maschka clarified that the proposed additional levy request was an additional $350,000, recognizing the maximum HRA levy limits under State Statute as a percentage of the City’s total levy capacity.  Chair Maschka advised that where the current HRA budget is at for the end of the third quarter of 2012 would determine the timeline going into 2013 and 2014 and the rate of speed for moving forward.  Chair Maschka opined that the Strategic Plan and Action Plan provided a good structure, with the next phase determining how to implement those items discussed tonight.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of Councilmember Willmus’ approach in meeting jointly on a more frequent basis.  Councilmember McGehee asked that, as meetings with businesses are held, a list be provided, similar to that database for residential properties, and maintained by the City for future reference.


Chair Maschka noted the amazing results in holding the periodic meetings with area realtors; and their feedback about what they had learned about the amenities offered by Roseville that they were unaware of before.  Chair Maschka spoke in support of developing that business database and assembling appropriate lists of business types, etc.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Chair Maschka advised that to-date, the HRA as a body did not have much interaction with the Roseville Visitor’s Association (RVA), but duly noted interaction with them as a great idea, and providing yet another possibility for partnering.


Member Sue Elkins expressed her happiness to be back on the HRA Board, and in her previous career with Bremer Bank, advised that she had done extensive work with other communities through her banking network; and had provided some of that programming information to the HRA and staff.  Member Elkins spoke in support of the programs being proposed in the 2012-2016 Strategic Plan; especially the contact with area businesses, and providing options for them.  Noting Mayor Roe’s example of the City of St. Louis Park, Member Elkins advised that she had worked closely with that City on some of those programs, and had turned over documents to Roseville staff similar to that she had provided to the City of St. Louis Park, highlighting from her personal perspective the “Live Where You Work” program.  Personally, Member Elkins thanked the City Council for reappointing her to serve on the HRA Board.


Mayor Roe briefly recessed the meeting at 7:23 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 7:26 p.m.

c.         Public Information Request Related to City E-mails (New Item)

At the request of Mayor Roe, and for the benefit of the public and the City Council, City Manager Malinen provided a review of the public information request received and process by staff last week.


Mr. Malinen displayed an e-mail received by the City’s Communications Specialist Carolyn Curti, who monitors and manages the City’s Data Privacy Act records management and information requests.  In this e-mail request from Kevin Berglund, dated June 29, 2012, the request was for e-mail addresses sent or received through the City.  Mr. Malinen advised that Ms. Curti immediately began to work with the City’s Information Technology (IT) staff to understand the scope of this undertaking to meet the information request, as required under the Data Privacy Act in the State of MN. 


Mr. Malinen noted that, on July 9, 2012, Ms. Curti had sent a letter to Mr. Berglund, under the City Manager’s signature, advising him of the staff time and cost to process such an extensive request and asked him to narrow his request.  At that time, Mr. Malinen advised that Ms. Curti and the IT Department staff estimated approximately forty (40) hours of staff time to extract e-mails.  By State Statute, a copy of which was also displayed by Mr. Malinen, the City is obligated to provide this information, deemed public information, but is able to recoup costs for staff time to do so, estimated at approximately $1,400.00. 


City Manager Malinen advised that Mr. Berglund responded to Ms. Curti’s July 9, 2012 letter on July 18, 2012; while during this time staff was consulting with the City Attorney’s Office as well on complying with this request.  City Manager Malinen advised that staff was also relying, in some part, on a State of MN Department of Administration Opinion, also displayed, Chapter 13 of which identifies the classification of public data, including e-mails, phone numbers and addresses, all determined to be considered public information.


At that point, City Manager Malinen and staff sought an opinion as to whether or not the City could purge information or delete some that staff was obviously aware were not preferred for distribution; however, under the Data Practices Act, City Manager Malinen advised that they were told this was not legal for the City to do.


With those rulings in place, City Manager Malinen advised that a CD with the addresses, as requested by Mr. Berglund as an outside party, had been provided by the City Manager’s Office.  City Manager Malinen shared the concerns expressed by those residents and others whose addresses had been distributed.  In an attempt to make  people aware, City Manager Malinen advised that staff had let those people shown on e-mail lists of various kinds in the City’s database of this situation as quickly as possible, alerting them that the City had replied to this request for public information. 


City Manager Malinen noted that the timing of this, last Friday afternoon, was unfortunate, however, due to Ms. Curti being off this week, she was seeking to get things taken care of before she left the office on Friday, and without further delay.  City Manager Malinen assured the public and Councilmembers that there was no devious attempt on the part of staff to delay advising those whose e-mail addresses had been distributed. 


City Manager Malinen advised that it was his understanding, in consulting with other communities, that everyone within a particular congressional district had received a similar request; and further noted that the City of Roseville, based on their research on handling this request, was serving as a resource for other cities.  City Manager Malinen noted that this was also in part due to the City of Roseville serving as data storage for those cities in partnership with the City for IT services and support, under various Joint Powers Agreements (JPA’s).


City Manager Malinen, in response to public comments about a “statement” or “promise” not to share e-mail information, advised that he was not aware of such a statement; however he advised that staff would be amenable to an appropriate statement alerting participants of such a possibility again in the future.  City Manager Malinen questioned if the City could allow cancellation, since they were unable to purge any addresses prior to releasing it for this public information request, and to the extend the City held those kinds of records, and obliged to provide the data upon request.


Mayor Roe advised that he had researched the statement on the City’s Website related to a privacy statement; and proceeded to read a copy of it.  However, from his personal perspective, Mayor Roe opined that it didn’t make it clear what people were getting into.


Councilmember Willmus sought clarification on the original request of Mr. Berglund; and staff’s response to it and how the scope of information provided was finally determined, whether defined by Mr. Berglund or volunteered by staff.  Councilmember Willmus also questioned who made the decision to put the information on a CD for Mr. Berglund, and why not go with the letter of the law and bill Mr. Berglund the full $1,400.00.


City Manager Malinen advised that the actual data provided had been narrowed down from the original request of Mr. Berglund.  City Manager Malinen advised that providing the information via CD was at the request of Mr. Berglund; and noted that the law allows the data to be provided in electronic format.


Councilmember McGehee opined that staff did the right thing, in terms of getting the information to Mr. Berglund; and opined that essentially the data consisted of e-mail addresses only.  Councilmember McGehee, while recognizing that it is unfortunate that the State of MN Data Privacy Act considers anything public information, she didn’t think citizens should be discouraged from participating in list serves that provide civic information and opportunities to engage in their community.  Councilmember McGehee noted the options for securing e-mail addresses and avoiding spam through various e-mail servers and setting up separate accounts to filter information.  Councilmember McGehee stated that she didn’t want citizens to fail to receive public notices in the future because of this request.


Councilmember Pust noted that setting up separate e-mail addresses worked both ways, and if you use a junk e-mail account for City information, and you happen to be a block captain, that creates a problem.  However, Councilmember Pust recognized that the City was obligated under State law to satisfy the request.  Councilmember Pust stated that her only concern with this situation was that the City Council had not been alerted by staff as well allowing them to provide a more informed response to citizens who were making contact with them personally over the weekend.  Councilmember Pust opined that she would have appreciated staff thinking about following through in advising the City Council of the situation.


City Manager Malinen reiterated that it was not staff’s intent to send out bad news over the weekend; but that Ms. Curti was leaving for vacation and attempting to get things caught up before she left the office.


Mayor Roe stated that how the timing issue had played out was now more evident and understandable.


Councilmember McGehee questioned if it would have been appropriate for staff to request a Department of Administration Opinion on this specific request to clarify whether or not the data was private or public; and then notify people ahead of time what was going to occur, allowing them to unsubscribe.


At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan responded that, in this Department of Administration Opinion from 2001, in addition to a further Opinion dated 2008 discussing third parties collecting e-mail addresses and notices for subscribers through contract with the City, it had been determined that this information was classified as public data.  City Attorney Gaughan advised that, when his office is contacted regarding this type of request and whether information is private or public, their response, based on their review of Opinions and their office’s analysis, is the presumption that all information is public data unless specifically defined through legislative action that it is excluded.  City Attorney Gaughan advised that, in order to deem something private, it requires a special legislative mandate.  Therefore, City Attorney Gaughan advised that the presumption that all data collected by a government entity, unless otherwise excluded, is public.  Regarding any attempt to delay providing that information to the party requesting it, City Attorney Gaughan cautioned that this would not be a good idea for the City.  Once it is collected by a government entity, City Attorney Gaughan advised that the government cannot purge the data; and this serves as an example of some very difficult decisions cities find themselves in with data laws; reiterating that the presumption should be that all information is public.


Councilmember Johnson, while understanding what was being addressed by the City Attorney, opined that the bigger problem is the ethics of electronic communications from the City’s perspective.  Councilmember Johnson opined that the public, himself included, is not aware of those Data Privacy Act rules and those particular ethics, especially with their private e-mails.  Councilmember Johnson advised that he was aware of the ethical behavior under which he, as an elected municipal official, needed to operate; however, he admitted that he was not as aware of the situation with citizen e-mails.  Councilmember Johnson advised that the point that was of the most concern to him was the diminished trust in the City because of this situation.  While understanding that people were unaware of the rulings, he questioned how to move forward and keep people engaged in police alerts and other civic information to keep the dialogue open for information that is of importance to engage citizens while avoiding such a conflict as this has created.  Councilmember Johnson questioned if there was any way to circumvent such a similar situation in the future; and questioned if any further disclaimer really served of any benefit, since it was covered by State law.  However, in order to avoid any future concerns for residents, Councilmember Johnson opined that perhaps it was a good idea to put additional information in the City’s disclaimer; or any other positive steps to get back some level of confidence in communication among the City, its staff and elected officials, and citizens.


City Attorney Gaughan advised that there can be further additions or clarifications to any disclaimers; and referencing his own Google search, he used the City of Hopkins’ disclaimer as an example.  City Attorney Gaughan advised that it put resident on notice, or reminded the City Council and residents, that the City served as a gatekeeper for determining what data was public or private, as dictated by the legislature; reiterating that everything was public data unless specifically addressed by the legislature.  City Attorney Gaughan noted that the only other remedy open to the City was to seek amendment of current legislation that eliminated e-mails from public data.


Councilmember Pust opined that it was clear that the City needed to ensure its citizens had a clear understanding, further opining that now that this discussion has been held publically, there would probably be additional requests from other political candidates in this race and others, and selling the data to other candidates.  While noting that the legislature could be lobbied to change the law, Councilmember Pust noted that they also run for office, and new technology had created an avenue for communication with voters electronically.  Councilmember Pust noted that this was the new reality for citizens and the City to admit; expressing her hope that citizens would sign back up, realizing that they would need to delete spam as applicable.  However, Councilmember Pust opined that this small dilemma did not negate being involved with your local government and civically engaged.  Councilmember Pust admitted that this had created a bump in the road; and was not communicated as well as it should have been before responding to the data request; however, Councilmember Pust noted that there was nothing wrong with the request, but there should have been a process in place to let citizens and the City Council be made aware in a more timely manner of what was occurring.


Regarding concerns raised by Ms. White, Mayor Roe questioned the City Attorney on whether personal banking and/or utility billing information was considered public data.


City Attorney Gaughan assured the public and City Council that personal financial records were not considered public data, they were private.  City Attorney Gaughan was unsure on what portion of a utility bill was considered public (e.g. usage, address).


At the request of Mayor Roe as to whether there were any limits to data requests or the sale of that data by a third party, City Attorney Gaughan responded negatively, that public data is public data, and it could not be disclosed with any restrictions placed upon it.


Discussion ensued regarding remedies in the future through lobbying the legislature based on current electronic data issues; how staff defined the dollar amount or the formula used to determine staff time in providing the information; and requesting additional information from City Manager Malinen on how many e-mail addresses were provided for this specific request.


Public Comment

Ms. White questioned what prohibited Mr. Berglund from distributing the information; and City Attorney Gaughan responded that there were no prohibitions, that it was public information.


Matthew Snyder, 2201 Draper Avenue

Responding to Mayor Roe’s mention of limiting data, and from his experience in working with that in the past, Mr. Snyder suggested that it may be worthwhile to consider if other limitations could be made for public data, referencing other state models that differed from the State of MN.  Mr. Snyder questioned if there were any City systems requiring e-mails to function (e.g. sign up for Park and Recreation classes or programs), and if so, suggested that those be reviewed.  Mr. Snyder questioned if the City purchased data from any third party lists that would result in that data becoming public, and suggested that those parties may then not be interested in working with the City.


Mayor Roe noted that there were options beyond electronic methods to sign up for Parks and Recreation classes and programs; however, in Data Privacy Act presentations given during Roseville University sessions, it was his understanding that once provided, that information also became public data.


Mayor Roe noted that there were many ways information became public; however, he emphasized that the City did not actively sell data on its own; however, once a request is made and fulfilled as required by law, the information is out there.


City Manager Malinen apologized to the public and the City Council for the angst caused by this situation and release of e-mail addresses; however, he stated that staff believed it was complying with the requirements of the Data Privacy Act, and while the timing may have been problematic in alerting those participants of the situation, the results wouldn’t have changed.  City Manager Malinen advised that staff felt bad about the situation as well.


At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan clarified that once an e-mail address has been provided and becomes public data, it doesn’t matter if they unsubscribe or not, the information is in the public realm.


Mayor Roe noted that this had been a very difficult and unpleasant learning experience for everyone involved.


14.         Public Hearings


a.            Request for a 3.2% On-Sale, Sunday Liquor and Wine License for Kyoto Sushi at 2100 N Snelling Avenue, Suite 80

Finance Director Chris Miller briefly reviewed this request for a 3.2% On-Sale Sunday Liquor and Wine License for Kyoto Sushi at 2100 N Snelling Avenue, Suite 80 (former location of Buffalo Wild Wings), as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated July 23, 2012.  Mr. Miller advised that staff recommends approval based on their analysis of the application.


The applicant was not present at tonight’s meeting.


Mayor Roe opened and closed the Public Hearing at approximately 7:59 p.m., with no one appearing for or against.


15.         Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Consider a 3.2% On-Sale Sunday Liquor and Wine License for Kyoto Sushi at 2011 N Snelling Avenue, Suite 80

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the request by Kyoto Sushi for an On-Sale and Sunday Liquor License at 2100 N Snelling Avenue, Suite 80


Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


b.            Approve Brown-Wilbert Minor Subdivision

Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd summarized this request by Brown-Wilbert, Inc. for approval of a RECOMBINATION MINOR SUBDIVISION at 2280 Hamline Avenue and 2253 Dellwood Street, as detailed in the RCA dated July 23, 2012.  Mr. Lloyd reviewed highlights of staff’s analysis, and review by the Development Review Committee (DRC), addressing conditions applied.


Mr. Lloyd noted existing long-term storm water management issues in this area, outside the realm of this request or this property, and outlined in Section 5.00 of the report.  Parts of those issues were proposed for some resolution through dedication of additional easements from the applicant to meet the existing storm sewer easements, as conditioned.


Mr. Lloyd reviewed several maps of the property, noting the complexities of the configuration, in addition to zoning of the properties from Office/Business Park to Low-Density Residential-1.  Mr. Lloyd opined that this was probably designated as such according to and because of the direct relationship to the Roseville branch of the Ramsey County Library further south, and its recent expansion.  Mr. Lloyd advised that Brown-Wilbert owned the residential property, and zoning was still guided in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning, even with this request, assuring that they can’t expand into those areas without addressing those underlying documents and designations, ultimately locking in the current function of the property.


Councilmember Willmus stated that he didn’t have any over-reaching concerns, other than potential changes over time to this home site at 2253 Dellwood; and questioned if the applicant had any problem with an additional condition addressing ingress/egress across that parcel, and that it remain only for residential uses.  Councilmember Willmus expressed his curiosity in the applicant’s future  intent for that parcel, if not for a single-family home.


Mr. Lloyd advised that he was not aware of any plans of the applicant, but staff would have no problem with the additional condition.


Discussion ensued on whether that would be an appropriate condition for this type of subdivision application; status of and location of the existing garage on the residential parcel based on survey information prepared to-date, with the garage situated 2.5 feet from the property line, while recognizing some inaccuracies of the survey at this time for the parcel at 2253 Dellwood.


Mr. Lloyd clarified that, if the garage was found to actually be closer to the lot line than the regulated 5’, the subdivision could not be approved without some remedy to that situation, whether removal, relocation, a variance, or shifting property line boundaries to the west for additional room.  Mr. Lloyd noted that one of the recommended conditions from staff was specifically related to this issue.


Councilmember McGehee stated that, as long as the parcel remains residential and retained some type of garage, she was amenable. However, as things continue to change over time, Councilmember McGehee sought assurances that the parcel could not be changed to provide another egress/ingress into that site, since it was in a residential neighborhood and would only create truck traffic between two (2) residential homes.


Mr. Lloyd advised that the safeguard against such a possibility was that the main entrance to Brown-Wilbert had a signal light; and the neighborhood to the east was smaller residential streets and a cul-de-sac; and would serve to no advantage to the firm at all.


Councilmember McGehee sought more of a guarantee than what staff perceived could or could not happen, with that guarantee regulated by retaining residential zoning without any future option to change that zoning designation.


At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan advised that, as a residential parcel, any regularity for ingress/egress that would create a business use or activity in a residential area would not be allowed.  However, City Attorney Gaughan advised that an additional condition could be applied to the subdivision to prohibit ingress/egress into that property at 2253 Dellwood Street.


Staff recommends approval of the RECOMBINATION MINOR SUBDIVISION, as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated July 23, 2012.




Bruce Bratan, President, and Jack Ascheman, Vice President of Brown-Wilbert, Inc.

At the request of Mayor Roe as whether they had any concern with an additional condition preventing ingress/egress, Mr. Bratan advised that they had no problem with such a condition; and clarified that their intent was to sell the home as a residence.


Mr. Ascheman advised that the adjacent house at 2263 Dellwood was located two feet (2’) off the boundary with the garage off a ten foot (10’) easement that could not be used.  Mr. Ascheman questioned if the City was going to force their firm to obtain a variance, or if other options were available for them to pursue.  Mr. Ascheman noted that the application was for a one foot (1’) variance; and asked if the City could allow such a deviation if they guaranteed they weren’t going to use that area.  Mr. Ascheman noted the hardship caused by this additional easement, with other properties not losing any of their land for the easement.


Mayor Roe confirmed that the recommendation was for a condition of approval that did not create a non-conforming use; and provided a number of options if the survey determined the actual footage.  Mayor Roe clarified that the reason a variance was not being considered tonight was that the City Council was not the body to grant variances; and based on multiple options available, the City Council was therefore trying to accomplish the same thing through conditions, while not making it too restrictive.  However, Mayor Roe noted that, as part of the process, the applicant would need to find an option that worked.


Public Comment

Jim Tschida, 2247 Dellwood

Mr. Tschida, as an adjacent resident to the site, expressed his concern with the garage not having the required five foot (5’) setback. 


Further, Mr. Tschida expressed concern that he, and the neighbors, had not received this information until today; and asked that action be tabled until the neighborhood had more time to get together and discuss this.  Mr. Tschida advised that he had talked to Mr. Lloyd several times this spring when rumors of the land purchase were heard and a surveying company was seeking information from neighbors, and that was the last he had heard.  Now, with the application before the City Council, Mr. Tschida opined that he and his neighbors were concerned that they had not had more time to review this application.  Some of the questions Mr. Tschida brought forward included the fence on the north side of the property, whether it would remain, be removed or moved onto his property line, since he already has a three foot (3’) fence there.  Mr. Tschida noted that the Dellwood parcel would be landlocked and unable to be used for any other purpose, unless the applicant sought a variance to expand their business.  Mr. Tschida opined that the only useful purpose for the parcel was for residential use.


Mr. Tschida referenced Section 6.0 of the staff report addressing public comment; however, he questioned how much, if any, contact the applicant had with adjacent property owners, since the first time many became aware of it was today.  Mr. Tschida noted that the neighborhood had just received a letter from staff about two (2) weeks before regarding water issues in the neighborhood, and possible remedies.  Mr. Tschida opined that some of this runoff was created by expansion on the library site.  Mr. Tschida expressed concern of what this proposal would do to further that storm water runoff issue, even though assured by the City’s Engineering Department that it should not impact them at al.  Mr. Tschida noted the ponding currently occurring, and questioned such guarantees without further review and discussion.  While staff is considering further remedies in 2013 to address the runoff, Mr. Tschida noted that this project will already be completed.


Mr. Tschida reiterated his request to table action on this until neighborhood concerns are addressed.


Donald Wright, 2271 Dellwood

As the resident directly behind the vault company, Mr. Wright noted that his main concern always had been, and remained, that of water.  While some storm water projects are in process by the City, Mr. Wright opined that snow storage by the applicant did create problems in the neighborhood, especially in the spring with snow melt, even though the staff report (Section 5.3) suggested that any storm water runoff problems are not caused by the applicant.  However, Mr. Wright advised that the applicant stored their snow on the easement behind 2271 and 2263, where snow melt did create runoff issues.  Mr. Wright opined that, while agreeing that spreading the snow out may help, to state that the applicant was not part of the problem was inaccurate.  Also, Mr. Wright opined that, with the storm drains in place back there, they were not capable of taking that amount of water, partly due to the applicant’s property consisting of mostly pavement or structures, and the water needing to run somewhere.


Mr. Wright referenced Section 5.1 of the staff report stating that the proposal did not reach the threshold for storm water mitigation; however, he opined that special consideration was needed in this case; and concurred with Mr. Tschida that the neighborhood needed more time to review this application and potential ramifications. Mr. Wright opined that more neighbors are interested in the situation, based on his discussions with them; however, they were unable to attend tonight’s meeting given the limited time they had in becoming aware of it.  Mr. Wright reiterated his request to delay action for the neighborhood to seek additional information.


Mayor Roe asked staff to address the public notice process; the potential fence/screening of the property to the south; and snow storage in relation to storm water runoff.


Regarding public notice requirements, Mr. Lloyd noted that this was a Minor Subdivision, with no additional parcels created, and requiring no formal notification under current City Code.  Mr. Lloyd advised that at the time of his conversations with Mr. Tschida during the spring, he was not them aware of this application coming forward, and based his responses only on his conversations with the surveyor to-date.  Therefore, Mr. Lloyd advised that he was unable to let the neighbors know what to expect for public notice until an actual application came forward, with staff proceeding as per City Code.


Regarding fencing, Mr. Lloyd noted that there had been some discussion of that as a condition of approval (Section 7.c of the staff report), with gates installed on existing fencing as applicable if the easements are obstructed in anyway.


Councilmember McGehee noted the discussion prior to this of the violation of public trust; and questioned how Mr. Lloyd could defend staff’s perception that this wasn’t issue, when he had apparently received phone calls from neighbors.  Whether required specifically by code or not, Councilmember McGehee opined that staff needed to use common sense and courtesy to notify citizens. 


Regarding the fencing, Councilmember McGehee suggested that staff facilitate discussions among the neighbors and applicant to determine the issues, referencing the informational meetings held by City Engineer Debra Bloom as that department worked with neighborhoods.  Councilmember McGehee opined that these were important issues to this community; and referenced previous staff comments regarding them not being aware that a proposed asphalt plant was problematic.  Councilmember McGehee noted that the City was aware that the storm sewer system was not capable of handling rain falls received recently, and was fully aware of this existing problem. 


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of the request to table action until additional information can be provided to neighbors.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Lloyd advised that it was not his understanding that a fence was part of the proposal, or something being recommended by staff.


City Engineer Debra Bloom advised that staff had been working with this neighborhood for a decade to add capacity, with the Sherren/Dellwood area identified as a problem area in the City’s Storm Water Management Plan.   Ms. Bloom reviewed the various problems in that area, already identified over the last year, and extensive modeling currently underway and scheduled for completion yet this year, to mitigate a portion of this issues.  Ms. Bloom clarified that this had all been undertaken well before this application came before staff for review.  Specific to this application, Ms. Bloom recognized that there was a catch basin that always clogged with debris, and this application provided a perfect opportunity to address flooding issues through acquiring the easements as part of the condition for approval of this request, therefore improving drainage somewhat.  Ms. Bloom advised that staff would be bringing information forward to the City Council for authorization to address this watershed area within the next 6-8 months, at which time staff would meet with the neighborhood to review those mitigation efforts with them.


Because the applicant is not proposing to pave anything additional, Ms. Bloom noted that this was the rationale for staff’s comments in the staff report about the application not requiring any mitigation as it didn’t meet the threshold to do so.  Ms. Bloom noted that the area in the back would remain grass; and the condition that no snow be stored in that area in the future, should further alleviate issues for the neighborhood.  Ms. Bloom addressed the unfortunate route for runoff through Mr. Leopold’s garage, and the Storm Water Plan currently in process to address that situation and provide alternative routing; thus negating the need for the applicant to provide a storm water mitigation plan.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bloom confirmed that a Storm Water Plan for this, as well as other problematic areas of the City, was currently underway and would be brought forward to the City Council upon its completion in order to receive their direction and authorization to proceed.  Ms. Bloom noted that this was an infrastructure issue and a high priority for the City.


Councilmember Willmus asked if the applicant would be willing to extend the City’s 60-day review period to allow time for them to interact with the neighborhood and staff to reach a resolution or clarify the application.


Mr. Barton responded negatively, based on their need to proceed with the subdivision and put the residential property on the market as soon as possible to recoup their expenses.


At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that this action would make the existing commercial property larger and the residential parcel smaller.  Councilmember Pust asked if the addition to the existing parcel, already having significant structure/asphalt on it, triggered any different analysis for impervious surface coverage for that lot, or if they were grandfathered in.


Mr. Lloyd advised that, if the application caused some of that existing property to be paved or further expanded it would change the analysis; however, additional green space was actually being added through staff’s recommended conditions, seen as an improvement from their perspective.


At the request of Councilmember Pust, Ms. Bloom advised that the zoning designation for commercial areas such as that of the applicant did not create a minimum or maximum impervious coverage determination; with Mr. Lloyd noting that commercial parcels had the potential for 85% coverage.


At the request of Mayor Roe (referencing Section 5.1 of the staff report), Mr. Lloyd clarified that the new parcel boundary was not approved until the garage option had been resolved; and noted that staff’s conservative measurement for that parcel’s impervious coverage fell well short of 30%.


Mayor Roe noted that, if any use or zoning change from the Low Density Residential (LDR) was to occur, it would require an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, and take a 4/5 super majority vote.  Mayor Roe opined that this provided a fair amount of safeguard that the use could not be changed on that parcel without that super majority support of the City Council; essentially assuring that the use would remain single-family even though landlocked.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Bloom confirmed that, from her perspective, the portion of the parcel(s) currently used for snow storage should not change significantly; or raise undesirable issues or concerns for the neighbors.


At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mayor Roe and City Attorney Gaughan confirmed that, if the Council chose to take no action, the application was automatically approved.  Therefore, Councilmember Pust opined that the City didn’t have the luxury of not taking action to ensure conditions were addressed.


Pust moved, Willmus seconded, approval of a RECOMBINATION MINOR SUBDIVISION, pursuant to City Code, Section 1104.04 (Minor Subdivisions) at 2280 Hamline Avenue and 2253 Dellwood Street; based on the comments and findings of Sections 4 – 6, and the recommendation and conditions of Section 7; as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated July 23, 2012; amended to include an additional condition as follows:

·         No part of the reconstituted residential lot at 2253 Dellwood Street can be used for commercial purposes, including ingress/egress into commercial parcel


Councilmember Pust recognized the neighborhood concerns that they weren’t consulted; however, she noted the City’s need to act on the application within the review period.  Councilmember Pust noted the City’s attempt to improve drainage issues to some extent through the required easements.


Councilmember McGehee opined that she could not support this request moving forward; and expressed her dismay that the applicant was unwilling to grant a reasonable ten (10) day extension until the August 13, 2012 City Council meeting to allow time to meet with neighbors.  Given the current real estate market, Councilmember McGehee opined that this seemed unreasonable from her perspective.


Councilmember Willmus stated that he was inclined to agree with Councilmember McGehee; and encouraged the applicant to grant an additional ten (10) days to work with residents and then bring the application back before the City Council.


Councilmember Johnson concurred with Councilmembers McGehee and Willmus; opining that this provided an opportunity for open dialogue among neighbors, the applicant and staff; and if the applicant had no willingness to move in that direction, he was not willing to support their request.


Mayor Roe asked individual Councilmembers to restate their concerns with the application.


Councilmember Willmus expressed with drainage concerns of surrounding neighbors to the applicant.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bloom advised that staff would meet with the neighborhood in the near future, but could not be prepared to do so within the next ten (10) days, since the Water Management Plan for this area was still in process, with other projects also in play.  Ms. Bloom advised that a final design would not be available until this fall, with subsequent meetings with the neighborhood to follow upon completion of that proposed plan.


Even though a plan wasn’t ready yet, Councilmember McGehee opined that this didn’t remove the need to provide an opportunity for residents to be informed and talk with staff and the applicant.  Councilmember McGehee opined that there may be issues in the neighborhood that are currently unknown to staff or the applicant; and since they weren’t notified, they hadn’t had any opportunity to voice those concerns.


Councilmember Pust questioned if the City Council could deny the application based solely on whether or not the neighborhood had been consulted.


Amendment to Motion

Pust moved an additional condition, through amendment to the motion as follows:

·         Additional condition – applicant must provide, and staff accepts, a plan with regard to snow removal and its effect on area drainage; and until that plan is approved, the project cannot go forward.


Given further discussions, Councilmember McGehee questioned if the applicant was willing to reconsider a ten (10) day extension.


Mr. Barton advised that they would amenable to a limited extension not exceeding ten (10) days, to the August 13, 2012 City Council meeting.  Mr. Barton clarified that they were willing to grant this extension, as long as it was clear that there was not any snow removal plan available for their firm to produce, since they had previously stored snow on the neighbor’s lot with his permission; and now they would be storing snow on a lot they owned, but would be excluded from storing any on the easement areas.  Mr. Barton advised that this, in effect, constituted their snow plan.


Councilmember Pust clarified that they can either take action and the applicant met that condition, or the applicant could grant the additional ten (10) day extension for further discussions with staff; and tabling action to August 13, 2012, without that condition.


Councilmember Pust withdrew her original motion, and the proposed amendment.


Pust moved, McGehee seconded, TABLING action on this request to the August 13, 2012 meeting.


At the request of Councilmember Pust, City Attorney Gaughan noted that it would be a routine request to ask the applicant to formally memorialize their granting of the ten (10) day extension and to provide that written confirmation to staff sometime between now and August 3, 2012.


Councilmember Pust expressed appreciation to the applicant for their willingness to grant this brief extension; and also thanked them for continuing to keep their holiday sign on top of their building, opining that it served as a Roseville landmark and she appreciated it.


Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


c.            Authorize Community Development Department to Perform an Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 2211 Draper Avenue

Permit Coordinator Don Munson reviewed violations at this single-family, apparently vacant home, located at 2211 Draper Avenue; current owners listed as Ming Ouyang and Ye Ran.  Mr. Munson advised that the owners have not responded to our notices to-date.


Mr. Munson provided an update, including pictures, of current violations, consisting of fascia boards with peeling paint and some sections rotted, various windows with peeling point, deck sagging badly and protective paint mostly peeled off, lower garage door panel in need of protective paint (all violations of City Code, Sections 407.02.J & K); and piles of dead brush in the yard (violation of City Code, Section 407.02.D).  Mr. Munson estimated that the abatement, consisting of replacing rotted fascia, painting fascia and windows where replaced and/or where paint is peeling, painting the deck and lower garage door panel; disposal of dead brush; and disposal of empty plastic jugs would cost approximately $2,250.00


Mr. Munson noted that the owner was not present at tonight’s meeting.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Munson advised that staff had been unable to confirm that this home was actually in foreclosure; and clarified the process in assessing the property for an abatement and eventual recovery of the money.

Public Comment

Matthew Snyder, 2201 Draper Avenue (next door)

Mr. Snyder clarified that this house had been vacant for approximately one (1) year; and he had last observed the owner this past spring.  Mr. Snyder advised that it was his understanding that the owner currently lived in Bloomington, MN, and was not currently interested in selling the home, but that he did not understand the house to be in foreclosure or at risk of foreclosure.  Mr. Snyder noted that the neighbors had paid to have the lawn mown periodically, and that the home continued to need additional upkeep, with staff only addressing a few of those items.  Mr. Snyder opined that the roof was in very bad shape, and suspected it was leaking, and suggested that when the abatement was performed, staff may become aware of that additional issue.  Since the owner, when she visits the property, frequently opens the windows for extended times, Mr. Snyder opined that he also suspected development of a mold issue due to this apparent leaking roof.


Johnson moved, Pust seconded, authorization to the Community Development staff to abate the public nuisance violations at 2211 Draper Avenue, by hiring a general contractor to replace rotted fascia, paint fascia where replaced and where paint is peeling, paint windows where paint is peeling, and fix deck supports where sagging, paint deck and lower garage door panel, dispose of dead brush, and dispose of empty plastic jugs; at an estimated cost of $2,250.00; with actual abatement and administrative costs billed to the property owner; and if not paid, staff is directed to recover costs as specified in City Code, Section 407.07B.


Councilmember McGehee asked that staff also inspect the roof as noted by Mr. Snyder.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Munson advised that, if staff or their general contractor observed work needed that was more extensive than anticipated or authorized, they would return to the City Council for further direction.  Mr. Munson, specific to the roof, advised that it had been inspected by staff, and while old and needing replacement, no leaking had been observed at this point.


Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


d.            Authorize Community Development Department to Perform an Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 2609 Snelling Curve

Permit Coordinator Don Munson reviewed violations at this single-family home, vacant and for sale, located at 2609 Snelling Curve; with current owners listed as Olta Holdings, LLC.  Mr. Munson noted that this nuisance notice had been originated by staff.


Mr. Munson advised that the latest notice to the property owner had resulted in a request by the owner for additional time, with the buildings remaining as is until they could be sold.  However, Mr. Munson advised that staff continued to recommend the abatement, with no additional time allowed given the accessory building’s present condition with that structure being considered for immediate abatement under the Hazardous Building Statute.


Mr. Munson provided an update, including pictures, of current violations, consisting of the single-family home and accessory building in disrepair (violations of City Code, Sections 407.02.J & K).  Mr. Munson estimated that the cost of the abatement for repair of portions of the house; and repair of the roof structure and/or re-roof the accessory building at a total amount of $25,000.00.


Mr. Munson advised that the property owner was present at tonight’s meeting, and wished to comment.


Property Owner Joe Taylor

Mr. Taylor advised that he was one of two owners for this property; and noted that to the extent of the condition of the home and the holes in the accessory building, they had recently secured that accessory structure.  Mr. Taylor advised that he had spoken with Mr. Talbot regarding using this as a burn house; however, had been told this annual exercise had been completed this year, and another opportunity would not be available until 2013.  Mr. Taylor advised that the house was not currently in use, and was quite dilapidated with no intention to correct it or sell it in its current condition.  Mr. Taylor advised that it was their intent to demolish the property until the issue came up with the holes in the accessory building roof, prompting their request for an extension.


Mr. Taylor alleged that they had never been notified that the house had any issues; and advised that their firm was struggling to obtain a loan at this time to demolish and rebuild on that site.  Mr. Taylor defended the requested extension by opining that the property was not in a visual line of neighboring properties or the apartment complex across the street, and that the house was behind a number of Evergreen trees, and not within a line of vision.  Mr. Taylor acknowledged the need to secure the buildings for safety; and advised that it was his understanding that staff had re-inspected the property after they had secured it.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Taylor advised that they had owned the property for 3.5 years.  Councilmember Willmus asked staff if there was some assistance available for demolishing the structures and billing back the property owner.


Mr. Munson responded that the only option would be through applying the Hazardous Building Law provisions; and at the request of Mayor Roe, clarified that only the garage would meet that requirement, not the home.  Mr. Munson advised that he could not allow the accessory structure to remain over another winter in its condition and ramifications of a snow load on the structure, based on the health, safety and welfare of Roseville citizens.


Councilmember McGehee suggested that this may be a candidate site for the HRA to consider or an opportunity for a public/private partnership.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff had not given that consideration to-date as an option; however, if that was the direction of the City Council, staff could pursue that option, noting that the property was guided for Medium Density Zoning.


At the request of Mr. Taylor, Councilmember McGehee  reviewed previous discussions and interest of the HRA and potential loans or programs available for a private/public partnership if found to fit City needs; with Mr. Taylor expressing interest in pursuing that as an option.


Councilmember Willmus noted that, ultimately, a decision needed to be made on this property for the benefit of the neighbors who had to look at it on a daily basis.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Munson estimated that $5,000 of the abatement was specific to the house, with the remaining $20,000 specific to the accessory structure.  Mr. Munson clarified that notice had been sent to Olta Holdings, LLC, the property owner of record, on two (2) different occasions.


Mr. Taylor advised that he didn’t see the notifications, however admitted that they had maybe gone to his partner in ownership of this property.


Councilmember Johnson opined that he couldn’t see a need to abate anything on a structure considered a hazardous building; or why the applicant would put any money into a roof on that structure.


Councilmember McGehee suggested that this item be tabled to allow the applicant time to work with Mr. Munson and come up with a figure to demolish all structures on the property; also allowing the applicant time to discuss other options with Mr. Trudgeon.


Pust moved, Johnson seconded, TABLING action the public nuisance violations at 2609 Snelling Curve, until August 13, 2012 to allow staff and the applicant to come up with a better plan for City Council consideration.


Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 9:14 pm and reconvened at approximately 9:21 pm.

Convene as Board of Adjustments and Appeals

Adopt Wal-Mart Appeal Finding

Member McGehee moved, Member Johnson seconded, recessing the regular City Council meeting at approximately 9:21 p.m., reconvening as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals at approximately 9:22 p.m. for the purpose of adopting Wal-Mart Appeal findings.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Chair Roe noted that the roll call stands as originally called.


Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon provided a brief update on the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their July 16, 2012 meeting; and subsequent requested action tonight to formally adopt those findings regarding their decision.


Mr. Trudgeon noted that Chair Roe had provided a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, suggested additional language detailing those findings.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff had reviewed that additional language and had no objection, noting that they further detailed specific findings of the body.


City Attorney Gaughan concurred with the language as long as it reflected actual findings of the Board.


Chair Roe advised that this was his intent; and apologized to the Board for not getting them submitted before today.  Chair Roe clarified that his proposed language did not change any findings of fact as presented; however, expressed his willingness for consideration and comment of that proposed language by the Board.


Chair Roe opened the meeting for brief public comments, specific to the findings of fact proposed, asking that comments remain succinct given the hour; and noted subsequent City Council action tonight on the Final Plat and Development Agreement for the Wal-Mart proposal.


Public Comment

Applicant Representative Sue Steinwall, Fredrikson, Byron, legal counsel for Wal-Mart

Ms. Steinwall advised that her only suggestion would be to consider, in the introductory “Whereas” clauses, an additional reference to the Planning Commission action of July 11, 2012.


Chair Roe thanked Ms. Steinwall for that suggestion; and recommended inserting that reference on Line 30, as another “Whereas” clause to memorialize the action of the Planning Commission, opining that it was an appropriate addition to the resolution.


By consensus, the addition was approved.


Willmus  moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10994 (Attachment A) entitled, “A Resolution Regarding the Determination of a Permitted Use Within the Community Mixed Use Zoning District;” as amended to include reference to the Planning Commission meeting of July 11, 2012; and to include the additional language for  Findings of Fact as submitted by Mayor Roe.


Member Pust agreed that the Resolution, as amended, accurately reflected the motions raised at the July 16, 2012 meeting; however, she noted that she would vote in opposition to it for reasons stated at that prior meeting.


Member McGehee concurred, noting that she would vote in opposition, based on the previous submission of her personal findings, both written and verbal, at previous meetings, basically still not believing that this is a permitted use and that there is a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code.


Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Willmus; and Roe. 

Nays: McGehee; Pust.

Motion carried.


Member Willmus moved, Member Johnson seconded, adjourning the Board of Appeals and Adjustments and reconvening in regular City Council session at approximately 9:30 pm.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Business Items (Action Items – Continued)


e.            Approve Wal-Mart Final Plat and Development Agreement

Community Development Director Trudgeon briefly reviewed the request for Final Plat and Development Agreement approval, specifically referencing several conditions detailed in the RCA dated July 23, 2012.


Condition J (Line 77)

Mr. Trudgeon noted that the City Attorney recommends removal of this condition as part of the Final Plat and Development Agreement, since their intent had been for the interim period between Preliminary and Final Plat approval, making them moot for the Final Plat. 


Condition K (Line 84)

Mr. Trudgeon noted a similar recommendation of the City Attorney that this condition be removed as part of the Final Plat.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that rationale in recommending removal of those conditions, since their intent had been for the interim period between Preliminary and Final Plat approval, making them moot for the Final Plat.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the applicant had expressed some concern about including that as a condition in the first place, since they were not in agreement with it. 


Condition L (Line 93)

Mr. Trudgeon noted that this condition had been approved on July 9, 2012; based on information then available.  However, since that time, Mr. Trudgeon noted that Police Chief Mathwig had suggested a more proactive alternative to that language through creation of a Security Plan with Wal-Mart that would incorporate special measures during the planning stages for the development, as well as monitored periodically, to ensure measures were taken to reduce or eliminate crime through use of modern technology options and security staff.


Mr. Trudgeon noted that this recommendation by staff would provide revised language for a condition, or a NEW CONDITION.


Easement Vacations

Mr. Trudgeon noted that part of the Final Plat approval process would include finalizing the easement vacations.


Development Agreement

Mr. Trudgeon briefly reviewed language included in the Development Agreement that were represented in materials presented to-date at various meetings, incorporating a Response Action Plan regulated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), applicable fees, right-of-way acquisition for internal parking, and other items as detailed in the DRAFT Agreement as presented.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff was recommending additional language be inserted in the Development Agreement to outline the Security Plan for the Wal-Mart Store, detailed in Condition L, as previously noted.   Mr. Trudgeon advised that, while a Security Plan was desirable, language would default back to the 300 call threshold triggering charges for calls above and beyond that.


City Attorney Gaughan addressed recommendations regarding Condition J, and pending EAW Appeal, rationalizing his recommendation that this condition be omitted from the Final Plat specifically as it could have unintended consequences for current litigation that could serve to prolong litigation by litigants even if deemed unnecessary.  City Attorney Gaughan opined that it was in the best interest of the City to avoid any climate of litigation and to not create any artificial or perceived incentives to carry on litigation with any provisions; and strongly recommended removing this condition.


At the request of Councilmember Pust, City Attorney provided his analysis if pending litigation against the City is decided against the City indicating further EAW litigation is required.  Councilmember Pust questioned the ramifications for the City if this condition was eliminated, the Final Plat approved, and then further environmental ligation found in favor of additional environmental review, via an EAW.  Councilmember Pust expressed concern that this would leave the City open to a claim from Wal-Mart as a result of removing this condition.


City Attorney Gaughan advised that, if the ruling by the Appellate Court ruled against the City, their order would mean additional environmental study was necessary.  However, City Attorney Gaughan noted that such an order would preclude any actions against the City, and if the court order directed further environmental review must occur, environmental statutes require that this must occur before any other action; and the project would therefore essentially stop at that point.

At the request of Councilmember Pust as to that application specific to this project, City Attorney Gaughan responded affirmatively.


Recognizing that he was not a legal expert, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) would be incorporated into an approved Development Agreement, and serve to identify potential environmental issues and a mitigation plan.  If an EAW is determined to be required through court action, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the project would need to pause for those mitigation efforts to be implemented.


Councilmember Pust opined that, if the City had already executed a Development Agreement with the developer, it will have waived its rights by excluding this condition.


Mr. Trudgeon noted that the City typically collects costs from the developer, and would be compelled to amend the Development Agreement to address any mitigation requirements.


Councilmember Pust opined that it would make sense to amend the Development Agreement now to address incorporation of any ordered mitigation required as a result of litigation, no matter the timing of it, thereby removing any argument that could occur later.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff would be amenable to such a revision; however, he was not sure if the developer would be in agreement.


Councilmember Pust clarified that she needed to ensure that the best interests of the City were represented.


Further discussion ensued, with Mr. Trudgeon pointing that Section III.C of the draft Development Agreement addressed payment of those items.


Councilmember Pust opined that this section proved her point should the court say something didn’t work anymore (e.g. the 2007 AUAR), further proving that assumptions previously relied on may not be sufficient; and further opining that the clause as written didn’t cover that eventuality.  Councilmember Pust suggested adding a Section VI. Referencing the existing lawsuit and ending resulting mitigation required.


Mayor Roe and Councilmember McGehee concurred that this was a reasonable solution.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Police Chief Rick Mathwig reviewed the intended Security Plan, based on experiences in the redevelopment at Rosedale 6-8 years ago, and the Police Department not addressing additional security needs with the redevelopment. 


Chief Mathwig noted that this plan is not meant specific to Wal-Mart, but was based on the impacts to the Police Department from any big box retailer, as well as support retailers in the vicinity.  Also, Chief Mathwig noted that this Twin Lakes area has been a “sleepy area” of vacant land and truck terminals until now, and did not overly tax his department.  Chief Mathwig noted that typical calls have been for theft of copper wire, transients, or occasional semi-trailers stolen.  However, as the area proceeded to develop, he anticipated ramifications, and the proposed Security Plan was intended to address those impacts, at least in part, and hopefully serve as a foundation for future redevelopment throughout the community and police service requirements. Chief Mathwig opined that it was obvious that once large retailers and businesses developed in any area, police response needs would dramatically increase.  Chief Mathwig noted that this became obvious with the redevelopment of Rosedale, and hadn’t been proactively addressed at that time, but evident in hindsight.


Chief Mathwig advised that staff was currently in discussions with Wal-Mart representatives about security, and plan details were not yet finalized; however, he noted that Wal-Mart was very receptive to agreeing to work on these security issues. 


Chief Mathwig used several examples (e.g. parking area lighting, full-time security personnel staffing).  Chief Mathwig opined that the proposed location would certainly be visible to I-35W traffic, creating a potentially larger volume of traffic than normal, and was an unintended by-product of retail.  Chief Mathwig advised that this Plan would be a response protocol asked of any larger stores by the Police Department to provide us with their losses in detail to provide sufficient documentation for the City Attorney to prosecute violators.  Chief Mathwig advised that this could incorporate on-site loss prevention staffing; state-of-the-art camera systems at point of sale sites; and sophisticated IT as the backbone to support that data, such as identifiable imaging for tracking purposes.


Councilmember McGehee opined that the suggested enhanced lighting sounded like a prison yard; and would definitely have negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods, as well as limiting future residential development adjacent to this area.  Councilmember McGehee further questioned the cost to the City to interface with these sophisticated data systems.


Chief Mathwig advised that the City’s IT system is already available, and there should be no additional cost to the City; and the identifiable imagine was simply indicating digital photos, which most larger retailers already provide.  Chief Mathwig advised that the only staff time involved, and subsequent costs, would be for negotiation and approval processes related to the Security Plan itself.


Councilmember Pust, noted that Chief Mathwig, in past presentations, had talked about recouping costs from larger commercial developments, an ongoing discussion in her eight (8) years serving on the City Council, supporting evidence that new commercial development is directly tied to new crime along with the other positive benefits it provided.  However, Councilmember Pust opined that she was now hearing a different tone from Chief Mathwig of what he thought was appropriate for a larger commercial retailer.  Councilmember Pust sought specifics as to Wal-Mart’s typical design of their stores (e.g. lighting, full-time security staffing), and opined that the City may be attempting to take credit for things already in place by Wal-Mart in their typical business model.


Chief Mathwig advised that development of a Security Plan was intended to reduce the number of calls; and noted that most of the Roseville Police Detectives’ work to-date with Wal-Mart was through their University Avenue store, and that data transfer and technology did not meet his expectations for this store.


Councilmember Pust opined that many of the suggestions were already done by Wal-Mart in their own self-interest; however, they did not address City costs.  Councilmember Pust asked for language in the Security Plan seeking contribution by Wal-Mart to the City for extra time needed from law enforcement staff; and expressed her confidence in Chief Mathwig to pursue that in the best interest to the City.  Councilmember Pust stated that she was not happy to simply see infrastructure development addressed, since her expectations were that Wal-Mart would be doing that anyway.


Chief Mathwig advised that such an option for cost reimbursement was presented to Wal-Mart, but not found acceptable.


Councilmember Pust expressed her lack of interest in whether or not Wal-Mart found a condition acceptable; opining that every new condition added at the previous meeting was now being stripped away, and based on discussion tonight, she might be able to agree to those actions.  However, Councilmember Pust opined that this Security Plan had not been talked about previously, and if it was intended to address the additional costs for the City of Roseville, she strongly suggested that staff come up with language to address that cost, and for the overall benefit of Roseville citizens.


Chief Mathwig opined that he thought this proposed Security Plan was a better recommendation than the previous cap of 300 calls, as it provided an incentive for Wal-Mart to work cooperatively with the City’s Police Department to mitigate issues.


Councilmember Pust opined that it still didn’t address economic costs, and suggested the original language for paying for over 300 calls was better.


Mayor Roe suggested that the Security Plan recommended by Chief Mathwig be incorporated; but to retain the one (1) year review and revisit the issue.  Mayor Roe opined that this could put more enforcement into the Plan by mandating the cost contribution if calls were over 300 per year.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that, if this is a strong consensus of the City Council, staff would incorporate into the language.  However, Mr. Trudgeon expressed concern in the City appearing to single out Wal-Mart when others were not forced to pay such a fee; and cautioned that this may be a slippery slope without a policy in place that would apply to all.


Councilmember Pust opined that this provision and a corresponding policy would absolutely apply to all equally.  However, since this project has been fast-tracked, and this issue has been raised before, it created a need to have it in the context of this Development Agreement; but a policy would be developed and apply across-the-board in the immediate future.


At 10:00 p.m. Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, to extend the meeting for two (2) hours.


Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Willmus; and Roe. 

Nays: McGehee; Pust.

Motion carried.


Phil Ramsey, Wal-Mart Asset Protection Manager, based on Coon Rapids, MN

As he and Chief Mathwig had previously discussed, Mr. Ramsey reviewed some of the steps taken by Wal-Mart as a company to make sure a good facility protection plan was in place, using various law enforcement intelligence currently available.  Mr. Ramsey advised that each store was graded based on various models for external and internal security expectations and needs and reviewed periodically as that data is reported and recorded, with adjustments made accordingly as applicable. As an example, Mr. Ramsey addressed lighting, noting that it didn’t necessarily mean use of a higher voltage for lighting, and would need to meet Wal-Mart expectations, as well as community regulations.  Mr. Ramsey noted that he had worked with the Roseville Police Department before on various cases, and he was well aware of their expectations for the prosecution process, and was confident that good cases were provided in the past and would continue to be provided for the Department by Wal-Mart.


Mr. Ramsey noted that, while he was fully aware of the high standards of the Roseville Police Department in prosecuting offenses, Wal-Mart also had high standards.  Mr. Ramsey reviewed the various areas in which Wal-Mart addressed those standards, whether through on-site personnel, a salaried manager responsible for the safety and security of the store at all times, and evolving CCTV technology and equipment.  Mr. Ramsey noted that this is also addressed through basic facility design, lighting, signage, surveillance camera quality and placement. 


Mr. Ramsey expressed his expressed his continued interest in working with Chief Mathwig in developing the Security Plan, anticipating that City expectations will be met or exceeded.

Public Comment

Vivian Ramalingam, 2182 Acorn Road

Ms. Ramalingam noted that her biggest concern had already voted on, but it bore repeating, opining that there was a discrepancy between the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code.  Ms. Ramalingam expressed further concern, as noted by Councilmember Pust, that when the applicant objects to a condition, it was removed.  Ms. Ramalingam expressed her personal concern with the haste for these deliberations, especially as she reviewed the comments made by fellow citizens at previous meetings.  Ms. Ramalingam opined that no other Roseville business contemplated a police interference rate to the same degree as Wal-Mart, whether or not Wal-Mart paid for that service.  Ms. Ramalingam expressed further concern with the additional traffic and impediments for vehicular and pedestrian traffic.


Peter Strohmeier, 2735 Rice Street, Apt. #206

Mr. Strohmeier clarified that he was speaking as a private citizen and not in his capacity as a Roseville Planning Commissioner; and duly noted that he was one of two Commissioners opposing the most recent finding that Wal-Mart was a permitted use.


Mr. Strohmeier asked that the City oppose the Final Plat based on the following:

1)    Wal-Mart is a free-standing store, and should be designated as a Regional Business, consistent with that of Target, a comparable and competing business.

2)    There is an obvious conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, citing the December 9, 2011 City Attorney Letter and case law supporting that position (e.g. 2006 Mendota Heights land use case); and a presentation made by the Attorney firm of Fredrikson & Byron on land use.

3)    To allow time to step back, stop the rush, and allow Roseville as a suburban community with little space remaining for development.

4)    The significant number of people opposed to this proposal.

Mr. Strohmeier opined that this was a big deal for the community, and he had heard from numerous people telling him they are opposed to a Wal-Mart locating in Roseville.  In his role working with elected officials on a daily basis, Mr. Strohmeier acknowledged the difficult role of the City Council.  Mr. Strohmeier concluded by stating, if the proposal should go through, he was in full support of Councilmember Pust’s intent to keep public safety concerns in the forefront and to proactively address them.


Mayor Roe, as Councilmembers proceeded to deliberate, opined that the primary issue is the condition related to police calls and an agreement for a Security Plan.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Trudgeon responded that dollar figures for infrastructure improvements were provided in the draft Development Agreement versus percentages, but represented roughly 25%, as negotiated by the parties.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that they could be revised at the direction of the City Council; however, staff was recommending this figure based on its review of the potential funds that could be realized if a Chapter 429 process for assessment was followed that would only provide approximately 10% versus 25%  as currently negotiated in the Agreement.  Even though there could be some cost differential, Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff felt the $400,000 was more than sufficient for Wal-Mart’s portion of the redevelopment area.


Councilmember McGehee, for the protection of taxpayers, opined that a percentage would be better; and urged the City Council to change to a percentage rather than a fixed dollar amount.


Councilmember McGehee opined that there was nothing in the Development Agreement stating that Wal-Mart had to build on that land, and expressed concern that Wal-Mart could hold it as uncompleted or vacant land.  Councilmember McGehee alleged that Wal-Mart has a history of vacating buildings and leaving them hard to re-use due to their size and design, as well as not maintaining those vacant buildings, and suggested a provision in the Development Agreement that the project had to proceed.  Councilmember McGehee sought to provide protection for Roseville residents that should Wal-Mart close after they open for business, the City would have some protection against that possibility.


Mr. Trudgeon noted that this meant the land would remain in its current condition; and advised that the project was required to be initiated within one (1) year of approval or the process needed to start over, and if approved tonight, it would become null and void.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that Wal-Mart does not yet have clear title to the property; and if not constructed within a year, they would need to start from scratch with this entire process.


Councilmember McGehee noted that, in her review of Wal-Mart’s website and this area code, it listed sixteen (16) Wal-Marts, with only seven (7) of them being 24/7 stores.  Councilmember McGehee sought City Council action that this store not be operated 24/7. 


Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmember Pust that Condition K remain in the Final Plat, opining that the Preliminary Plat allowed the conditions, and the Final Plat was simply pro forma to match the Preliminary Plat, and should match.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Attorney Gaughan provided justification for recommended alterations form the Preliminary to Final Plats, with the Preliminary Plat conditions needing to be met before the Final Plat can be approved.  If the City Council determined that any of those conditions were inappropriate, City Attorney Gaughan noted that they can then take appropriate action.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee regarding Condition K, City Attorney Gaughan responded that the platting processed resolved this Statute requirement.


Councilmember Pust clarified that she no longer had a legal basis to insist that Condition K remain, since the decision had already made by the majority that there was no conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code.


Councilmember Pust advised that she did have some suggested changes to the Development Agreement, and asked that they be considered as separate motions.  By reference, Councilmember Pust noted that, on page 5 of 7 of the RCA dated July 23, 2012, it indicates that Exhibit B incorporates the Development Agreement.


Additional Condition (Subparagraph 1, Line 223, RCA page 6 of 7)

Pust moved, Willmus seconded, deletion of staff recommended subparagraph “i;” and an additional condition be included in the Development Agreement (Attachment B) that Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust shall pay for environmental mitigation efforts in the matter of the petition for an EAW, should a court order determine an EAW should be ordered to protect the City from pending litigation and potential negative ruling by the Court.


Discussion ensued among Councilmembers, with City Attorney Gaughan opining that this proposed language was more palatable than the original condition previously discussed regarding the pending environmental litigation.


Roll Call

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

            Nays: None. 


Section 8.0 (RCA page 5 of 7), Subpart a. and part of Exhibit B to the Development Agreement

Pust moved, McGehee seconded, that line 180 of Subpart a. be revised as follows:

“…communicate with the Police Department. [, and which also includes a cost-sharing proposal relevant to law enforcement costs associated with the development, which proposal is acceptable to the City Council.]”; with the remainder of the language to remain ensuring that the City Council majority determines if the Plan remains in place and is serving its intent.


Councilmember Johnson expressed concern in whether this prohibits incentive for people contacting the Police Department, based on their perceptions for ramifications or penalties to which their business could be subjected.  Councilmember Johnson expressed confidence that Chief Mathwig had illustrated eloquently that with his Security Plan and provisions and ability for an annual review by the City Council, additional language was not needed; and spoke in opposition to this motion.


Councilmember McGehee opined that, if the City Council felt so strongly about a policy for businesses throughout the City, perhaps a policy should be addressed now.


Councilmember Willmus concurred with Councilmember Johnson.


Councilmember Pust asked Councilmembers to explain how having to pay for something, or agree to cost-sharing, served to disincentive anyone from calling the Police Department.  Councilmember Pust noted that Wal-Mart would be at the table negotiating the criteria, and she could not understand the argument that this language would provide any disincentive to report crime.


Councilmember Johnson opined that he was going to trust the Police Chief, with a twelve-month review, and if found detrimental at that point, was confident that a future City Council would take proper action.


Mayor Roe questioned whether Councilmember Pust was suggesting an amount for cost-share; with Councilmember Pust responding that she would leave that to the Police Chief and Wal-Mart to negotiate and bring to the City Council for approval.


Councilmember Pust noted that if Councilmembers found it unfair to identify Wal-Mart with this revision, they could vote it down at this time.


Councilmember Johnson clarified that it was not his point of what was fair to Wal-Mart, but for every business, and opined that it would be better dealt with as a separate issue away from the Wal-Mart issue itself.


Mayor Roe, based on this discussion, opined that he was comfortable adding the language proposed by Councilmember Pust, noting that it didn’t define the outcome of negotiations, and still provided for review and subsequent approval by the City Council.  Mayor Roe noted that it still defaults back to the 300 call threshold, and in either case provided for the one year review, which he totally supported.  Mayor Roe opined that, if at that time, the cost-share was determined to be unfair, a future City Council should be able to perform that review.


Councilmember Johnson asked if Councilmember Pust would consider a friendly amendment to apply this to all businesses in Roseville, not just Wal-Mart.


Councilmember Pust noted, with concurrence by City Attorney Gaughan, that it would be inappropriate to include that generalization within a Development Agreement contract specific to Wal-Mart and no other businesses.  However, Councilmember Pust expressed her willingness to bring back such a policy to the next meeting of the City Council.


Councilmember Johnson reiterated his concern and spirit from which he spoke, that his intent was to not single out Wal-Mart, but what is best for Roseville and all of its businesses related to security and public safety, and to focus on that not using this route.


In light of Councilmember Johnson’s expressed intent, as well as that of Councilmember Pust, Councilmember Willmus asked the City Attorney whether Wal-Mart would be included and subject to a future policy provision approved at a later date.


City Attorney Gaughan advised that, if that policy applied across all existing business and was adopted, it could be applied to Wal-Mart.  However, without seeing an actually policy and what all it involved, City Attorney Gaughan expressed his hesitation in clearly stating how enforceable such a policy would be.  However, assuming such a policy was put into place for existing businesses, City Attorney Gaughan noted that Wal-Mart would be considered one of them.


With that clarification, Councilmember Johnson advised he was amenable to the revisions, and would support the motion.


Roll Call

            Ayes: McGehee; Pust; Johnson; and Roe. 

            Nays: Willmus.        

Motion carried.


Development Agreement, Page 6, Item H (I-35W Intersection Improvements) Line 233

McGehee moved, Pust seconded for discussion purposes, that line 233, page 6 of the Development Agreement be revised to state that 25% of any costs would apply going forward rather than the $400,000 contribution toward the interchange identified by staff, in order not to provide any future unfair burden on citizens.


At the request of Councilmember Johnson, Mr. Trudgeon clarified that this could go either way, higher or lower.


City Attorney Gaughan pointed out that this provision as a whole contemplates an actual check written and delivered to the City prior to it releasing the Final plat.  City Attorney Gaughan questioned how either party could know what the City was to receive, if a percentage was used; and encouraged the City Council to keep that in mind, noting that if approved as a percentage, the entire mechanism would need to be restructured.


City Manager Malinen concurred, noting that under the Chapter 429 process, other properties would be paying a cost for improvements; and citizens owning properties in that area would be included as studies are undertaking in the near future to determine actual costs to those benefited properties.


At the request Councilmember McGehee as to how this study would be any different than those already tossed out by the Courts, City Manager Malinen clarified that they would follow the State Statute 429 process.


Councilmember McGehee opined that the Development Agreement could be restructured; noting that it was a huge document only received on the Thursday before tonight’s meeting, and it was pointless and absurd to be working on it on the fly this late at night.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the interchange could become less expensive in the future with the value of money greater.


Councilmember Johnson noted actual economic indicators over the last 2-3 years; with costs for building materials going down, not up.


Mayor Roe noted that, if the motion passed, it would be staff’s responsibility to change the language of the Development Agreement as applicable.


Roll Call

            Ayes: McGehee.      

            Nays: Pust; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.   

Motion failed.


Councilmember Pust thanked staff for ensuring that there was no parking along roadways, anticipating future problems and concerns that would be heard from the community (Development Agreement, Page 8, Lines 211-213).


Development Agreement, Page 9, Subparagraph P (Costs), Line 341

At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Trudgeon noted the mechanism for billable costs through an escrow account tracking staff hours for planning, preparation of materials, meeting times, various discussions, and other tracking to the greatest extent possible.


Councilmember Pust suggested that in other areas of the Development Agreement (e.g. twice on page 10, line388 and page 11, line 433), Wal-Mart was to reimburse the City for costs to enforce the agreement, including all reasonable attorney fees.  Councilmember Pust noted that this provision provided various options if people didn’t play by the rules, and suggested that attorney fees would be included if there was a need for the City to bring legal action in the future.


Pust moved, Johnson seconded, Page 9 of the Development Agreement be revised at lines 355-360 to include in the indemnification clause that it be specified “including reasonable attorney fees.”


Roll Call

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

            Nays: None. 


          Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10995 (Attachment G) entitled, “A Resolution Approving the Twin Lakes Second Addition Plat and Associated Development Agreement (PF-12-001);” as amended as above-referenced.


            Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the motion, with the realization that while Wal-Mart may not be what he had ultimately envisioned on that parcel, it was compliant with the City’s Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. 


          Councilmember Willmus disclosed that, earlier this year, he had reached out to the SWARN membership and Mr. Grefenberg suggesting they work together as a group to acquire the parcel, but from his understanding when SWARN members were approached, they were not interested in acquiring the parcel.  At that point, Councilmember Willmus advised that he stopped pursuing it; and still found it difficult to not be able to see the City take a more active role in this.  However, ultimately development went in a different direction, resulting in tonight’s action.


Councilmember Willmus noted that, early on in the process, the question was asked, “What’s in it for Roseville?”  In looking at the history of Twin Lakes and its under-utilization compared to a similar revitalization effort in Saint Anthony Village and development of the former Apache Plaza site, Councilmember Willmus noted how that had developed with Wal-Mart as an anchor and support businesses that followed.  Councilmember Willmus opined that a large retailer, such as Wal-Mart, served to generator interest from people; further opining that he didn’t see Wal-Mart degrading the local economy or community, anticipating that it will be the opposite.  Councilmember Willmus referenced a Federal Reserve Study showing the genuine effects of a Wal-Mart on an area economy.  Councilmember Willmus admitted that Wal-Mart was not what he had envisioned, but it conformed, and he would support the motion.


Councilmember Johnson concurred with Willmus on the Zoning and Comprehensive Plan with Wal-Mart as a permitted use.  Councilmember Johnson advised that he had vowed, going into this issue, that he would keep his review based specifically on that, and not one business model versus another.  Councilmember Johnson admitted that he found this challenging, since he was aware that Wal-Mart could bring out the best or the worst.  Councilmember Johnson applauded Mr. Trudgeon and staff that throughout this entire process they had ensured that Roseville standards were applied, many of which were not typical Wal-Mart design standards. In acknowledging public sentiment telling Councilmembers to vote on public safety and the well-being of the community, Councilmember Johnson noted that when he compared the Saint Anthony Wal-Mart model to potential police calls projected by Chief Mathwig, he found he was unable to make a case based on that, since there were significantly lower.  Councilmember Johnson expressed confidence that a good Security and Policing Plan would be created for Wal-Mart and all Roseville business properties.  Councilmember Johnson noted that this entire process was difficult from the perspective of the communication process, and acknowledged that it could serve as a learning process, especially for him personally with the entire planning process.  Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of the motion.

Councilmember Pust thanked the Wal-Mart development team for their professionalism even during differing views.  However, Councilmember Pust spoke in opposition to the motion, not because of Wal-Mart, but based on her continuing disagreement that this was not a permitted use in a Community Mixed Use zoning district, but only in a Regional District; and her assertion that there remained a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code.  Councilmember Pust thanked residents and developers for their input and informative discussion.


Councilmember McGehee opined that this had never been about Wal-Mart; noting that she ran for office on a platform of diversification of the City’s tax base, and this did not achieve that goal, as well as not enhancing safe neighborhoods and lower traffic in those neighborhoods.  Councilmember McGehee stated that she felt strongly about the Comprehensive Plan, and opined that this use did not fit here.  Councilmember McGehee spoke in opposition, as she had historically continued to do with this proposal.  Councilmember McGehee opined that she believed she was speaking in opposition but in support of the majority or Roseville residents opposing additional retail.


Councilmember McGehee further stated that she would be leaving the meeting immediately following this vote, and had no intention of remaining for another two (2) hours. 


Mayor Roe, responding to the question, “What’s in it for Roseville?” opined that the community has looked at this area for some time, at least throughout the last 10-15 years, with some development coming forward as a commercial use at County Road C and Cleveland Avenue.  Mayor Roe opined that retail is part of commercial use, and since the rulings have already been made that it was a permitted use under the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, the community finally had an opportunity to see a conclusion in achieving a goal of the City.  Mayor Roe acknowledged that there was no question that these issues were difficult to go through, but noted that it had not been a fast decision either, with the original Public Hearing held at the Planning Commission meeting on February 1, 2012.  Mayor Roe opined that this should speak to how the system and process was set up to involve the community and receive input on these decisions.  Mayor Roe acknowledged that there remained improvements needed in the process, but noted that those would be for another day; and spoke in support of the motion.


Roll Call

            Ayes: Johnson; Willmus; and Roe. 

            Nays: McGehee; and Pust.

            Motion carried.


Councilmember McGehee left at this time, approximately 11:00 pm.


13.      Business Items – Presentations/Discussions


            a.         Discuss Redevelopment of the Hagen Property at 2785 Fairview Avenue

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon provided a brief overview of this current concept plan for market-rate apartments for redevelopment of the Hagen Property at 2785 Fairview Avenue as detailed in the RCA dated July 23, 2012.  Mr. Trudgeon introduced a representative of the property owner to speak to the specifics of this concept.


Cary Osborn, CEO of AHMC Asset Management headquartered in Eau Claire, WI, and representing the Hagen Property owner

Mr. Osborn reviewed some of the specifics of the proposal, with the goal for redevelopment of the site in three (3) phases, and proposed total for 215 market-rate rental apartments, and a 4,500 square foot amenity building.  Mr. Osborn noted that it was the intent of phasing the project to capture the current market.  Mr. Osborn noted that the development was intended to provide for high quality, long-lasting building materials, walkable areas and access to mass transit, incorporate innovative design and architectural detail and storm water management techniques, along with interior amenities that included full-time, on-site staffing, and underground heated parking to eliminate as much surface parking as possible.


Mr. Osborn reviewed portions of a Maxfield Research Group study commissioned by their firm supporting this proposal.  Mr. Osborn expressed excitement in the results from the market study area (Roseville, Arden Hills, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Saint Anthony Village, Shoreview) with indications that people working in this area remained unable to find appealing residential rentals, with a current 2.6% vacancy rate, indicating ongoing demand for additional units. Mr. Osborn noted that rental rates in Roseville have remained on the low end, basically due to the age of current buildings and older properties, the most recent built twenty-three (23) years ago (Lexington Apartments).  Mr. Osborn noted that there wasn’t much developable land in the community, making infill development the only remaining option.  Mr. Osborn expressed confidence that this site could capture 10% of the market, anticipating that the most likely age group would be between 18-45 years old.  Mr. Osborn noted that the goal prior to proceeding would be for 20% of the units to be pre-leased.


Mr. Osborn sought the City Council’s feedback and direction as to whether they should proceed.


Mr. Trudgeon noted that, part of this concept, included acknowledgement of a gap in funding for the project, and a potential for tax increment financing (TIF) funding by the developer.  Mr. Trudgeon expressed confidence that the project met the “but for” test; however, he asked the Council upfront if they were interested in pursuing the concept under those circumstances.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that this could serve as the entryway into Twin Lakes, and staff was in agreement that this could be a great project.  However, Mr. Trudgeon noted the need to determine if it was economically feasible, a determination that had yet to be made.


Discussion among staff, Mr. Osborn and Councilmembers included identifying the actual location (Historical Society storage in the rear of the existing structure); ownership by the City of a portion of the project area; other projects by the developer, with their last new construction in 2000 based on market conditions and their refocus in acquiring existing facilities rather than new construction, with their business model changing with the economy; and the firm’s preference to acquire existing facilities under ten (10) years in age, and not requiring significant remodeling.


Further discussion included phasing of the project; rationale for 2-3 bedroom units versus a majority of three (3) bedroom units based on economies; lack of interest by the developer in government subsidized rental units; impacts of area commercial uses on initial rental rates versus market rate ranges; and the history of the developer as a long-term investor in their properties.


Councilmember Willmus expressed interest in further discussions; however, he cautioned that his ultimate support would depend on the level of TIF requested and based on TIF reserves.


At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Osborn responded that they would like to have approvals in place by mid-fall in order to break ground in the spring of 2013.


Mr. Trudgeon reiterated that the most challenging aspect will be TIF; however, he expressed his confidence that this was a permitted use on this parcel.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the developer recognized that the City had a lot of obligations for using its TIF reserves, and the need for the City to be prudent in its decision-making and determination of what this proposal could generate.


Councilmembers Pust and Johnson noted that they wouldn’t be serving on the City Council when this decision came forward.


At the request of Mayor Roe regarding the interest of the HRA for involvement in financing, Mr. Trudgeon responded that this required a broader policy discussion, since the HRA currently focused on affordable housing, with only minimal and infrequent discussions beyond that, and not sure whether it was applicable at this time.


Mayor Roe opined that he would be more inclined to support this proposal in order to mitigate environmental issues and use of TIF for road and utility costs; while acknowledging that the project could not achieve higher rental rates due to current conditions of the surrounding area.


In addressing attracting young families, Councilmember Pust suggested the need to consider where they would play, since there didn’t appear to be a lot of green space on the concept plans presented other than trees.  While Langton Lake was across the road and owned by the City, Councilmember Pust questioned whether that was a suitable amenity if the developer proposed it to be family-oriented.


Mr. Osborn expressed appreciation for tonight’s feedback.


Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Osborn for his patience in waiting, given tonight’s lengthy meeting.  Mayor Roe wished Mr. Osborn’s team well as they moved forward with further discussions with staff.


b.         Consider Amending City Code, Chapter 302 Regarding the Allowable Number of Off-Sale Liquor Licenses

Three bench handouts were provided related to this discussion, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consisting of:

·         Mayor Roe memorandum to City Manager Malinen memorandum dated June 13, 2012 regarding Off-Sale Liquor License Quantity discussion points.

·         Councilmember Johnson’s comparison and comments of cities, their population, and number of municipal and/or private facilities; and

·         A map showing Off-Sale Liquor Store locations inside Roseville and the immediate area outside Roseville.


Finance Director Chris Miller reviewed how this discussion had been initiated, at the request of various applicants seeking to change City Code allowing them to locate in Roseville, as detailed in the RCA dated July 23, 2012.


Mr. Miller advised that representatives of World Market/Cost Plus were at tonight’s meeting and wished to address the City Council.


Barry Feldt, CEO of Cost Plus World Market

Mr. Feldt noted that their organization, headquartered in the bay area of Oregon had an objective to return to the mid-west area and further south and east as a result of the improving economic market.


Mr. Feldt advised that they currently operated 260 stores; and had made commitments to management and employees in communities where they had been forced to close stores, that they would re-enter those markets and reinstitute their expansion plans and reopen stores when the market improved.  Mr. Feldt noted that one of those locations was here in Roseville. 


Mr. Feldt noted that their intent was to be able to sell within the entertainment industry with unique beers and wines from around world.  In the spirit of full disclosure, Mr. Feldt advised that it was their intent to reopen the Roseville store with or without this license; however, he noted that if they were able to obtain a license, they could generate a higher sales volume, and thus employ more people.


Tom Erlich, President of Tanner Developments, Management/Owner

Mr. Erlich noted their development of this facility in 1984, and their ownership of Rosedale Commons and Rosedale Marketplace, where Cost Plus plan to reopen.  Mr. Erlich advised that they had invested $12 million in those centers, and over the last two (2) years had invested $2.5 million in renovating them in an attempt to attract new and unique tenants.  Mr. Erlich noted that retail tenants have many choices, and it was critical to offer them the ability to provide full product offerings, thus their interest in obtaining this license for Cost Plus World Market.  Mr. Erlich noted that it was extremely competitive out there to market space, with over 250 current vacancies of 10,000 square feet or more.  When retailers look for space, Mr. Erlich noted that they considered financing and location competitiveness in their perspectives; and advised that his management firm had been approached by multiple retailers on a preliminary basis for their centers in Roseville; however, they had not pursued it since there was no additional license available for that type of food store.  Mr. Erlich therefore concluded that it was important from their perspective that City Code be amended to allow the best retailers to enter the community and be able to offer their full product.


Mr. Erlich referenced the comparisons provided by Councilmember Johnson on what is happening in the Twin Cities and different business models being used by retailers, and offering a full merchandise mix.  Mr. Erlich noted, that this didn’t allow Roseville to be very competitive, noting that tenants are looking for the regional or trade area for Roseville to serve a full merchandise mix, including liquor sales.


Howard Roston, Fredrikson & Byron Law Firm, Legal Counsel

Mr. Roston clarified that they were requesting that the City amend their ordinance or create a separate license category to facilitate these additional retail opportunities.   Mr. Roston noted that getting a temperature of the City Council tonight was the first step to determine if they should have further discussion with staff on how to facilitate these additional retail opportunities.  Mr. Roston noted several options, whether through an additional liquor license category or through restrictions on radii as other cities have done.  Mr. Roston reiterated that their request of the City Council tonight was simply to determine if the Council was open to pursuing these options.  Mr. Roston opined that it made sense from their perspective; however, they needed to know if it made sense from the City’s perspective as well before moving forward.  Mr. Roston provided a handout on World Market Cost Plus operations, attached hereto and made a part hereof.


Councilmember Johnson noted the various options available, based on his research and discussions while performing that due diligence, and suggested that this provided an edge for their market area.  Councilmember Johnson opined that of the City’s ten (10) license holders, he considered three as large facilities (e.g. Rainbow, MGM, Wine Cellars) and the remaining seven (7) as having stores with a fairly small footprint and sales volume.  Councilmember Johnson opined that he considered World Market to have some grandfathered rights in Roseville; and expressed his appreciation in their willingness to relocate in Roseville.  Councilmember Johnson asked their representatives if they considered themselves a large or small seller and the amount of volume their wine and beer sales represented in their overall merchandising total.


Mr. Feldt responded that they considered themselves a small retailer, and their business model was to only sell beer and wine from around the world, and as an enhancement to the foods sold from those areas.  Mr. Feldt noted that this was largely related to the holiday seasons; and assured Councilmembers that they prided themselves that none of their international product was made in China, but specialized in bringing artisan products from other states, countries, and the immediate area, and only those alcoholic beverages supported through that business model and mission.


Mr. Feldt thanked Councilmember Johnson for welcoming them back into the community, opining that there was nothing more painful for a business owner than to close stores and lay off people.  Mr. Feldt reiterated their commitment to return to health, and expressed their pleasure in returning to those markets.  Mr. Feldt noted that the Roseville store had significant volume in the past, one of the largest small specialty stores in the region.  Mr. Feldt noted that it was common for them to incubate or generate entrepreneurial businesses until they became large enough or had enough of a presence to spin off on their own.


Mayor Roe questioned whether World Market had attempted to purchase one of the existing ten (10) licenses.


Ms. Ann Maranti, Cost Plus

Ms. Maranti advised that they had attempted to contact existing license holders, using a list provided by staff.  However, to-date, Ms. Maranti advised that they had been unsuccessful in convincing any of them to release their licenses, whether through unwillingness to return phone calls or talk.  Ms. Maranti advised that they had not yet given up on that endeavor.


Councilmember Pust welcomed the firm back into the community, and while not sure about Councilmember Johnson’s concept of being grandfathered into the community, she did note the ongoing talk in Roseville about supporting its business community.  Councilmember Pust opined that this provided a good example of putting that talk into action; with this discussion bring public the rationale for considering amending the number of licenses allowed in the community.  Councilmember Pust offered her willingness to revisit this issue.


Mayor Roe concurred, expressing his willingness to revisit the issue as well.  Mayor Roe referenced his memorandum and asked that some discussion on those issues occur, to understand the rationale for having limits, any concerns within the community and how to address those concerns, and other areas touched upon in his memorandum.


Councilmember Johnson questioned whether another option would be to only issue a wine and beer license, with City Manager Malinen responding that this was not an option, as the State only has one liquor license category in this instance, and unable to further restrict state law categories.


Councilmember Pust opined that by limiting licenses, it provides someone obtaining a license and not using it for a period of time to allow them an economic advantage or value.


Discussion ensued on the map and Councilmember Johnson’s comparison, and big box retail settings versus municipal liquor store enterprises.


Councilmember Pust opined that when the limit was originally adopted decades ago, the intent in limiting them may have been based on social concerns about drinking versus today’s climate of brew pubs and the recent economic considerations held by the City Council in encouraging these small businesses.


Councilmember Willmus stated that he truthfully didn’t know where he stood on this issue; and if forced to make a decision tonight, would not support increasing the number of allowable licenses.  Councilmember Willmus noted that this didn’t mean that he couldn’t be convinced one way or the other, and expressed his appreciation for World Market returning to Roseville; but was unable to provide strong guidance one way or the other without doing further research.


City Manager Malinen referenced an e-mail sent by Mr. Erlich (no copy available) suggesting areas to ponder; including linking to zoning around regional commercial areas or tied to ancillary sales based on square footage.  City Manager Malinen referenced the map, noting that it indicated another ten (10) license holders outside the City boundaries, but within the immediate trade area, suggesting that a larger market is out there, but property owners and businesses in Roseville couldn’t participate in that market due to current license limitations.


In reviewing the map, Councilmember Willmus observed that there was almost one (1) store in each of the City’s commercial centers right now, and adding another could put those stores on top of each other, opining that this may not be advantageous either.


Mr. Feldt assured Councilmembers that their organization was not cannibalistic in the market place, with 85-90% of their clientele made up of women and children.  Mr. Feldt did not feel that they would be any threat to existing liquor retailers or diminish their markets, since their sales were more specific and related to other food sales.


Mayor Roe suggested that there appeared to be interest on the Council of revising this issue; however, he noted that the devil was in the details.


City Manager Malinen noted that it was helpful to have the alternative approaches provided in Mr. Erlich’s e-mail; and offered to provide a copy to the City Council again.

16. Adjourn

Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 11:50 pm.

Roll Call

            Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.   

            Nays: None.