City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

Regular Meeting

July 13, 2009

1.         Call Roll

Mayor Klausing called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed everyone.

(Voting and Seating Order for July: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson and Klausing)

City Attorney Scott Anderson was also present.

Closed Executive Session – Performance Evaluation of City Manager

Mayor Klausing noted that an on-line survey evaluation had been recently completed to provide feedback for the annual review of City Manager Malinen.

City Attorney Scott Anderson reviewed the reason for going into Closed Executive Session in accordance with Minnesota Statute 13D.01; and Minnesota Statute 13D.05, subd. 3.a for employee evaluations.  City Attorney Scott Anderson advised that, initially the City Council could discuss personnel matters in Closed Executive Session, specifically to evaluate the performance of the City Manager; provided the employee was provided notice and given the option of requesting discussion in open session; and that discussion during the closed meeting be recorded.  City Attorney Anderson advised that, at the next open meeting, the City Council should provide a summary of the conclusions of that evaluation.

City Manager Malinen advised that he had received notice, and opted not to request discussion in an open meeting.

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, recessing the meeting into Closed Executive Session, at 6:02 pm, in accordance with Minnesota Statute, 13D.05, subd. 3a, for the purpose of evaluation of the City Manager.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

Recess

Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at approximately 6:02 pm and reconvened at approximately 7:09 pm in Regular session. 

Upon reconvening in open session, Mayor Klausing advised that the City Council had completed an annual evaluation of the City Manager in accordance with his contract, through use of an on-line survey tool with input received from City Councilmembers, staff members, community members, and others in the community who had occasion to work directly with City Manager Malinen.  Mayor Klausing advised that the City Manager had received a favorable review, meeting and/or exceeding expectations; with Councilmembers concurring that a step salary increase was in order, pursuant to the policy governing other City employees.

Klausing moved, Roe seconded, authorizing a step increase (Step E) at a salary of $130,104; with the salary to be posted on the website as per Minnesota Statute requirements.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

Mayor Klausing, on behalf of the City Council, staff and community thanked City Manager Malinen for his management of the City.

City Manager Malinen thanked the City Council for performing the annual review, and for their vote of confidence; and expressed his anticipation in working with them over the next year.

2.         Approve Agenda

Councilmember Ihlan requested removal of Consent Agenda Item 7.e entitled, “Adopt a Resolution Approving Vacation of a portion of Mount Ridge right-of-way and Conveyance of land owned by the City for road purposes.”

The agenda was approved by consensus as amended.

3.         Public Comment

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

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

            Mayor Klausing noted a series of four upcoming community meetings, as a continuation of Imagine Roseville 2025, to discuss various city issues.  Mayor Klausing encouraged citizens to attend, and provided the times and dates structured and varied to provide more options for participation.

          Councilmember Pust noted that the Roseville Housing HRA had held a strategic planning work session last week, with staff collating information to report back to the next regular HRA meeting.

5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications

            a.         Proclaim August 4, 2009 National Night Out

Community Relations Coordinator with the Roseville Police Department Sarah Mahmud introduced a request for City Council  proclamation of August 4, 2009 as National Night Out, sponsored by the National Association of Town Watch, a neighborhood crime and drug prevention event to strengthen neighborhood spirit and community-police partnerships.  Ms. Mahmud noted that the preceding evening, Monday, August 3, 2009 would be the Family Night Out.

Klausing moved, Ihlan seconded, designating August 4, 2009 at National Night Out in Roseville.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

6.         Approve Minutes

a.                 Approve Minutes of June 29, 2009 Regular Meeting

Roe moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the minutes of the June 29, 2009 Regular Meeting as presented.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

7.                 Approve Consent Agenda

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

a.                 Approve Payments

Councilmember Ihlan noted payment (page 15) for right-of-way acquisition, and questioned if those were negotiated without City Council discussion and/or involvement; and if so, that further detail be included in a future Council agenda packet for information purposes.

City Manager Malinen advised that the costs were in accordance with the City Council-approved Stipulation Agreement, with the City obliged by that agreement to deposit funds for the appraised value of the properties.

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

                        Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

                        Nays: None.

b.                 Approve Business Licenses

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one year, for the following applicants:

                  Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

                        Nays: None.

c.                  Set July 27, 2009 Public Hearing for EVADO, Inc. d/b/a ZPizza application for an On-Sale 3.2% Liquor and On-Sale Wine License at 1607 West County Road C

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approval to set a public hearing for the ON-Sale 3.2% Liquor and On-Sale Wine License, for Zpizza, for Monday, July 27, 2009.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

                        Nays: None.

d.                 Approve General Purchases or Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding $5,000

Councilmember Johnson questioned if the cost of diseased tree removal was from parks or boulevards.

Parks & Recreation Director Brokke advised that most of the trees were primarily to be removed from boulevards

Councilmember Johnson highlighted, for the record that the money for this removal was coming from the Parks Improvement Fund (PIP); and substantially continued to decimate the PIP Fund.

Councilmember Pust clarified that Councilmember Johnson thought use of funds from the PIP was inappropriate; and sought suggestions as to where it should come from.

Councilmember Johnson confirmed his concern in using those funds, while suggesting further debate on a more appropriate fund for boulevard tree removal.

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approval of general purchases and/or contracts as follows:

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

                        Nays: None.

8.         Consider Items Removed from Consent

a.                 Adopt a Resolution Approving Vacation of a portion of Mount Ridge right-of-way and Conveyance of land owned by the City for road purposes (former Consent Item 7.e)

At the request of Mayor Klausing, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed this item, as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated July 13, 2009.

City Manager Malinen advised that staff was proposing vacation of the roadway to adjacent property owners in the development area as taxable property, with unanimous support and recommendation of the Planning Commission.

Councilmember Ihlan opined that, since there was not a pending development request for this property, and considering the potential for change should Twin Lakes Parkway not developed to connect through to Fairview Avenue, there may be a future need for this right-of-way.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that this action was premature and may predicate the City needing to re-acquire the roadway in the future, at public expense.

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed the right-of-way locations; with Prior Avenue specifically designated in future County Road C improvements, to accommodate a signalized intersection; and at best,  the right-of-way to be vacated could only accommodate right-in, right-out access for either property, and would better serve meeting traffic from private development for those purposes.

Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern with the proposal; given lack of information on future development needs and the potential cost from public dollars if the City needed to acquire it for right-of-way purposes.  Councilmember Ihlan noted that this determination should be made by the City Council based on public interest, rather than at the request for vacation made by Roseville Properties as part of their negotiation settlement with the City and approved by the Council majority.

Councilmember Pust, in reviewing Attachment B in the agenda packet, noted location of the round about and apparent location of a dead end adjacent to the parcels proposed for vacation; and sought clarification as to future plans for connections.  Councilmember Pust questioned if, in the future it was determined that a right-in or right-out was needed for access, it could be a private road and not built at public expense.

Mr. Trudgeon advised that there was no intention of using this as public right-of-way, and the area highlighted by Councilmember Pust was proposed to finish up the round about and as a maneuvering area to facilitate it.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that, in reviewing the worst case scenarios in the AUAR, there was no indication of using this right-of-way; and noted that any new development would need to be approved by the City Council, and as part of that approval they could demand right-of-way, without expenditure of City monies.

Councilmember Roe noted that the need for the City’s land acquisition costs recently negotiated was based on the lack of a plat, and the City’s initiation of the roadway project.

Mr. Trudgeon concurred with Councilmember Roe’s observations.

Roe moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10733 entitled, “A Resolution Vacating a Portion of Mt. Ridge Public Right-of-Way (ProJ0021).”

Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion, opining that this would increase the value of Roseville Properties land with no public benefit.

Councilmember Roe noted that, as ongoing practice, if right-of-way was deemed unnecessary for future roadway plans, the property should revert back to the property owner.  Councilmember Roe noted that, given the alignment of this roadway, and designation of Prior Avenue as the primary connection, there appeared to be no likelihood for a road in that area; and spoke in support of the motion.

City Manager Malinen clarified that the $2 million acquisition cost referred to by Councilmember Ihlan, while paid upfront by the City, would be allocated to the development costs for the area.  City Manager Malinen noted that the roadway and round about referenced in this discussion was already under construction and the right-of-way was already being utilized, and that this vacated area did not align with that roadway.

Councilmember Johnson concurred with the comments of Councilmember Roe, and spoke in support of the motion; opining that Prior Avenue provided and supported sufficient north/south access for future roadway construction.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.

Roe moved, Johnson seconded, conveying, through Quit Claim Deed, the two ten-foot  strips shown on Attachment B and legally described in Attachment D of the Request for Council Action dated July 13, 2009, to the adjoining property owners.

Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to this motion for those reasons previously stated.

Councilmember Roe reiterated his comments related to the City’s past practice of returning rights-of-way back to property owners if there was no public use proposed.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.

9.                 General Ordinances for Adoption

a.                 Adopt an Ordinance Amending Title 4 of the City Code Regarding Yard Requirements and Regulation of Residential Composting

Recycling Coordinator Tim Pratt provided a brief update to Councilmembers on revisions and clarifications made to the draft ordinance amending Title 4 of City Code related to yard requirements and regulation of residential composting, as previously discussed by Councilmembers and staff.  These clarifications were detailed in the Request for Council Action dated July 13, 2009, and related to Section 407.02, and addition of a new chapter regarding compost bins.

Mr. Pratt noted that Councilmember Ihlan had proposed additional Discussion, provided as a bench handout by staff, however, further noted that staff was not recommending those additional amendments to ensure that the City was not limited in the intent and in their ability to enforce compost storage.  Mr. Pratt advised that a property owner may be storing brush or inappropriate materials on areas of their property, rather than transporting them off-site to free Ramsey County yard waste areas, creating concern for neighbors related to aesthetics, odor and/or rodents.  Mr. Pratt advised that the draft ordinance was modeled after those of the Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, and had not prohibited residents to compost.  Mr. Pratt assured Councilmembers, and the public, that staff did not monitor each and every compost container, but should they receive complaints, they would then determine compliance.

Councilmember Pust expressed concern that the proposed location of a compost bin was only one foot, rather than five feet from a property line; and sought staff’s rationale.  Councilmember Pust proposed that, at the onset, the location be revised from one foot (to five feet.

Mr. Pratt advised that the one foot provision was in the sample ordinances; and noted that, if managed properly, compost should not have an odor, and if it did, no matter where located, it was in violation.

Discussion included sizes for compost containers and their construction dimensions; location of compost areas and materials; and whether proposed language was too restrictive.

Councilmember Ihlan noted that her proposed language was to avoid being too restrictive, and allowing residents to compost successfully without use of a container; advising that her sample language revisions were taken from a similar ordinance in the City of Falcon Heights, and more indicative of larger lot sizes such as Roseville, rather than those smaller lots in Minneapolis and St. Paul, requiring more restrictive provisions.

Public Comment

Professor Carl J. Rosen

Professor Rosen advised that previous discussion had addressed any comments he may include; however, noted that composting without a container may prove easier and could be done successfully.

Mayor Klausing clarified with City Attorney Scott Anderson whether any currently existing compost sites outside proper containers could be considered as legal, non-conforming uses, making enforcement more difficult.

City Attorney Anderson advised that such legal, non-conforming uses applied to the City’s zoning ordinance, and that this was related to nuisance and health code enforcement and would not be applicable.

Further discussion included definition of structures, not applicable to compost bins since they are movable and not permanent structures; location of garbage bins inside a structure; what constituted the definition of “container;” and clarifying the intent of a resident related to proper management of compost materials.

Ihlan moved, Johnson seconded, including Councilmember’s suggested amended language as follows; including revising location from one foot to five feet from neighboring properties:

Section 409.03 Compost Areas or Containers

“Composting shall be conducted within a composting area(s) or a compost container(s) not to exceed five feet in length, width or height.  Lots of up to ten thousand (10,000) square feet in area may have up to two  composting areas or two compost containers per lot and lots greater than 10,000 square feet in area may have up to three composting areas or three compost containers per lot.  Compost containers shall be constructed or made of a durable material; including, but not limited to sturdy woven wire fencing, rot-resistant wood, or a commercially purchased composting unit that will provide for adequate aeration.  Containers shall be constructed and maintained in a structurally sound manner.

Section 409.04 Location on Property

Composting areas or compost containers(s) shall be located in the rear yard no closer than one foot five feet to any rear or side property line and no closer than 20 feet to any habitable building other than the resident’s own home.

Mayor Klausing spoke in opposition to the amendment, opining that the proposed amendments were not necessary.

Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of the motion, opining that there were a number of people composting without a container, and he didn’t want to discourage those successfully managing their compost from doing so with or without a container.

Councilmember Roe spoke in support of the amendment, opining that any issues related to maintenance should be addressed in Section 409.06 of the ordinance.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; and Johnson.

Nays: Klausing.

Motion carried.

Klausing moved, Ihlan seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1384 entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Title 4, Chapter 407, Health and Sanitation, and Adding Chapter 409, Residential Composting;” as amended.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

Klausing moved, Ihlan seconded, adoption of Ordinance Summary No. 1384___ entitled, “An Ordinance Summary Relating to Amendments to Title 4 of the City Code Regarding Yard Vegetation Requirements and Residential Composting Regulation;” describing the amendments to Title 4 of City Code for official publication; as amended if applicable.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

10.             Presentations

11.             Public Hearings

12.             Business Items (Action Items)

a.                 Approve a Contract with LHB/Cornejo Consulting for the Development of a Park and Recreation System Master Plan Update

Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke presented proposals and related information, as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated July 13, 2009.  Parks Superintendent Jeff Evenson was also present.

Mr. Brokke reviewed the project’s background information; the nine proposals received; the evaluation process using best value procurement filter processes; and rationale for interview of four firms and recommendation of the firm of LHB/Cornejo Consulting in the amount of $125,300 to be used from the City Park Dedication Fund.  Mr. Brokke reviewed the scope of the Master Planning process; community dialogue; marketing efforts and a needs index/assessment outside the current scope; and the consultant’s interest in involving Mr. Evenson for his expertise and to potentially reduce costs, as his other workload permits his involvement.  Mr. Brokke assured Councilmember that staff would be heavily involved throughout the process; and that the proposal was consistent with City policy objectives and practices, as well as the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning process and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan in involving the community. 

Mr. Brokke advised that, should additional marketing and assessment/index costs be indicated, staff’s recommendation would be to take those funds from the 2008 Imagine Roseville 2025 set-aside funds.

Mr. Brokke reviewed the next steps in finalizing the agreement, and establishing a Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Team; recommending composition of the Team to include at a minimum one Councilmember, two Parks & Recreation Commissioners; and further recommended that Jake Jacobson serve as citizen facilitator for the Team.  Mr. Brokke noted Mr. Jacobson’s previous involvement on the HANC and OVAL Task Force groups, and his interest in serving.  Mr. Brokke advised that other members of the team were yet to be determined, based on discussions with the Commission and consultant.

Discussion included 2009 budget line item including this expenditure, but without a dollar amount or funding source (unfunded expenditure);

Councilmember Ihlan questioned the appropriateness of using Park Dedication Funds for a consultant, based on her interpretation of State Statute, with those funds stipulated for property acquisition.

City Attorney Anderson advised that his office and staff had discussed this prior to bringing it forward to the City Council, and based on his office's review and research of State Statute, Chapter 462.358, subd. 2(b)(g); park dedication funds or those taken in dedication for subdivisions exacting those fees, are appropriate to be used for acquisition OR development or improvements; and that the planning process for the future was a legitimate use of those funds.  Mr. Anderson noted that the funds could not be used for ongoing operations and/or maintenance, but that this was not indicated.

Councilmember Pust clarified that, should additional funding be required for marketing and/or a needs assessment, would staff come before the City Council for further approval.

Mr. Brokke responded affirmatively.

Johnson moved, Roe seconded, authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement between the City of Roseville and LHB/Cornejo Consulting, as specified in the proposal, attached to the Request for Council Action dated July 13, 2009; for planning services to guide and implement a Parks and Recreation System Master Plan update for a cost not to exceed $125,300, to be funded from the City Park Dedication Fund.

Mayor Klausing expressed his concern in undertaking this expenditure while facing the loss of additional state funding due to depreciating property values and other financial constraints, but recognized the long-term value in this master planning process.

Mr. Brokke recognized the concerns; however, noted that with the park system having been originally developed in the 1970’s and 1980’s, with many needs and wants, it was important to prioritize those needs and involve the community in understanding the decision-making process for the future.

Councilmember Johnson noted the hundreds of interested residents attending the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning meetings, specifically the Parks and Open Space Subcommittee, and their overwhelming and emotional support of parks and recreation planning.  Councilmember Johnson also noted that the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee had purposely avoided making provisions for parks and open spaces in anticipation of the proposed Master Planning process.  Councilmember Johnson opined that it was imperative for the City to plan responsibly for the future; and spoke in support of the motion.

Councilmember Roe expressed his support of the Master Planning process, noting two key elements: the deliverables in Stage 4 of the process with recommendation for phasing, and identification of capital funding sources.  Councilmember Roe opined that these were both key outputs of this, and that the needs assessment was also a critical component.  Councilmember Roe recognized current economics; however, opined that this served as a careful use of public monies and made sense, in addition to use of park dedication fees, and sooner than later.

Councilmember Ihlan opined that $125,000 was a lot of public money to spend on consultants; and that the study should be done with in-house resources, even if time was tight, especially during this tough economy and during tight budget years.  Councilmember Ihlan noted that there were not sufficient funds in the Park Improvement Fund (PIP) to do current and necessary repairs; and opined that it was wrong to spend this money on consultants.  Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her interpretation of state law regarding use of the Park Dedication Fund for this.

City Manager Malinen advised, along with Mr. Brokke that in-house staff resources were unavailable, nor did sufficient expertise indicate that route; along with reminding Councilmembers that the most recent budget reductions had included reducing the Parks Department Budget by $170,000 and by 1.5 FTE (Full-Time Employee Equivalent).

Councilmember Roe noted that, while the money was being used for a consultant, the City was receiving a product in return, providing a plan for long-range park planning, a component that was sorely lacking right now, making decision-making problematic and without a process for involving the community and creating a long-term vision.  Councilmember Roe opined that the current lack of planning caused poor decision-making, deferred asset maintenance, and more spending in the long-term.

Mayor Klausing noted that the City of Roseville ran an extremely lean operation, making it difficult to have staff resources available for such projects as this, in addition to the extra expertise required.  Mayor Klausing opined that this expenditure was money well spent at this point in the process to move the City’s park system forward into the future; and that while he had some concern with the expenditure, he would support the motion.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.

Mayor Klausing sought individual Councilmember interest in serving on this Team, with Councilmember Johnson contemplating his interest in serving; and Councilmember Roe expressing his interest in serving, based on his concern with facilities within the park system.

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, appointment of Councilmember Roe to the Park and Recreation Master Plan Update Team (PARMPUT).

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

b.                 Adopt a Resolution Approving a Modification to the Development Program for Municipal Development District No. 1 and establishing Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District No. 18 (Har Mar Apartments Project) within Development District No. 1, and approving the Tax Increment Financing Plan

Economic Development Associate Jamie Radel introduced this presentation, and provided a bench handout of the overhead presentation by Presentation by Mikaela Huot, Assistant Vice President/Consultant with Springsted, the City’s financial consultant.

Ms. Radel clarified that tonight’s request was only for creation of a TIF District, and not for funding until the financing request and package was finalized by AEON.  Ms. Radel advised that representatives of AEON were also present at tonight’s meeting should the Council have any questions of them.

Ms. Huot made her presentation, noting that there was an approximately $914,000 gap projected in financing; and it was recommended that the District be created at this time to capture increment of the Phase I portion of the project, and thus provide another revenue source for Phase II of the project.

Discussion among Mr. Huot, Ms. Radel and Councilmembers included use of TIF revenue to buy down land and acquisition costs for AEON to acquire the property anticipating that another entity will purchase the sublot from AEON for Phase II; market value of $5 million with improvements; impact letters sent to Ramsey County and the School District without comment to-date; ability for the City to expend TIF housing funds for affordable housing anywhere within the City and not just restricted to that TIF District if within four years of certification; term reduction if AEON’s financial gap is determined to be less than anticipated; flexibility of housing districts versus economic or development districts; and delay in the City’s request for certification of the district until AEON is ready to move forward, based on the four year rule. 

Ms. Radel noted changes in figures to page three of the draft resolution, lines 85 – 90 as follows:

§                     The estimated increase in the market value that will result from the redevelopment to be assisted with tax increment financing is $16,917,395 (from $5,000,000 to $23,025,963); and

§                     The present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the TIF District permitted by the TIF Plan is $938,650.

Klausing moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10734___ entitled, Approving a Modification to the Development Program for Municipal Development District No. 1 and Establishing Tax Increment Financing (Housing) District No. 18 (Har Mar Apartments Project) within Development District No. 1 and approving the Tax Increment Financing Plan Therefore” as amended.

Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the motion; opining that this was a worthwhile project for updating a problem property. Mayor Klausing spoke highly of other AEON-managed properties in the metropolitan area, and opined that this was a prudent use of TIF funds.

Councilmember Pust spoke in support of the motion, opining that use of TIF for affordable housing was the highest and best use of TIF.

Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of the motion; however, cautioned how TIF funds were used, opining that it was a subsidy and took monies from the City, School District and County.  Councilmember Ihlan advised that her support was based on the specific description of affordable housing criteria to be followed and public purpose and guidelines for the City’s expectations, as well as the pay-as-you-go process for the developer rather than requiring the City to bond upfront.

Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of the motion, based on his research of AEON and their management principles at other facilities, and welcomed their involvement in housing in the City of Roseville.  Councilmember Johnson opined that the proposed project met TIF criteria as he understood it.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

c.                  Adopt an Ordinance Approving Wellington Management’s request to Rezone 1126 Sandhurst Drive and 2167 Lexington Avenue to Planned Unit Development (PUD) from Single Family Residence District and General Business District respectively, and Approval of a PUD Agreement and Final PUD  to allow the construction of a multi-tenant commercial office property (PF09-003)

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon summarized the Request for  Council Action dated July 13, 2009, and revisions to the original concept plan review previously before the City Council.  Mr. Trudgeon reviewed those changes, including expansion of the landscape islands to almost double the previous concept plan, with elimination of one parking space; shifting of the original building location by two feet to the west from Lexington Avenue to better address staff and Council concerns for better site lines at access points to avoid pedestrians; pavement markings and signage for vehicular traffic to be aware of pedestrians; and reduced parking, now at minimum requirement, by alternating landscaping and parking spaces.

Klausing moved, Roe seconded, enacting Ordinance No. 1385 entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Title 10 of the City Code, Changing the Zoning Map Designation of Certain Real Property at 1126 Sandhurst Drive and 2167 Lexington Avenue to Planned Unit Development from Single Family Residence District and General Business District Respectively.”

Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion, as a matter of policy, based on her concern in rezoning without an underlying zone; and amount of deviation required from the zoning code.  Councilmember Ihlan advised that her primary concerns were with setbacks, amount of remaining impervious surface and lack of green space. 

Councilmember Ihlan suggested that the City Council look into the existing parking code.

Mayor Klausing sought clarification from City Attorney Anderson related to super or simple majority vote on this request.

City Attorney Anderson advised that his office had researched this issue and found nothing specifically referencing the need for a super majority vote for PUDs in Minnesota law.  However, City Attorney noted that, since the PUD was being created by rezoning a former residential portion to commercial use, state law did stipulate that a super majority was needed for that.  City Attorney Anderson advised that, to be safe, the Council should seek a super majority vote.

Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the motion; opining that the project improved the intersection and has had extensive review.  Mayor Klausing expressed appreciation to the developer, Planning Commissioners, staff and the neighborhood in achieving the current proposed project; opining that they resulted in significant improvements that should create a plus for the neighborhood itself and the community as a whole.

Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of the motion; opining that as a neighbor, his family would be impacted; however, advised that he couldn’t be happier with Wellington and staff in listening to concerns and reacting to constructive criticism.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried (super majority vote required/achieved).

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the FINAL PUD AND PUD AGREEMENT No. 1385 comprising the redevelopment plans and the development contract between the City of Roseville and Roseville Crossing pertaining to the Planned Unit Development at 1126 Sandhurst Drive and 2167 Lexington Avenue; and establishing the PUD zoning district standards; based on the comments and findings of Sections 4-5 and the conditions of Section 6 of the Request for Council Action dated July1 3, 2009.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.

Recess

Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at approximately 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 9:00 p.m.

d.                 Adopt a Resolution Approving Request by Art Mueller for a Comprehensive Land Use Map Amendment, a motion to support Rezoning, and a motion approving the General Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) to redevelop the property at 2025 County Road B into a senior living community (PF09-002)

City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly updated Councilmembers on the Request for Council Action dated July 13, 2009, following the City Council’s previous consideration of this case at their May 11, 2009 meeting, and their action forwarding the matter back to the Planning Commission for further review based on numerous changes to the General Concept Proposal since it was originally heard before the Commissioners.  Mr. Paschke noted that the City Council had specifically charged the Planning Commission’s review of five items as detailed in the report; and on a 5/2 vote the Planning Commission recommended support of the project as revised.  At the request of Mayor Klausing and for the information of the public attending, Mr. Paschke addressed those specific items, including staff’s analysis in Section 9 (9.9 – 9.16) of the report and meeting minutes of the Planning Commission indicating their discussion and consideration.

Mayor Klausing noted that there were three specific actions requested for action by the City Council at tonight’s meeting; and sought clarification from City Attorney Anderson related to super or simple majority voting requirements on these actions.

City Attorney Anderson noted that, under State Statute, Chapter 462.355, subd. 2, any amendment to the comprehensive plan required a 2/3 majority vote, indicating four affirmative votes of the City Council.

Mayor Klausing noted that this item had been heard before the Planning Commission and City Council multiple times to-date.  Mayor Klausing further noted, for the benefit of the City Council and public, that if there was insufficient support for amending the comprehensive plan, the other requested actions became academic as they were prefaced on changing the comprehensive plan.  Therefore, Mayor Klausing invited public comment, asking that it be kept brief, and specifically addressing the comprehensive plan amendment for high density rezoning as much as possible. Mayor Klausing further requested that speakers keep the five (5) minute time limit in mind.

Public Comment

Written Comment, in the form of a bench handout, was received in opposition to the project from Gertrude Coad, 2200 – 306 Midland Grove Road.

Scott Roste, President of Midland Grove Condominium Association

Mr. Roste expressed appreciation to the City Council, Planning Commission, staff and developers for their time and attention to concerns expressed previously.  Mr. Roste opined that this developer’s request was unique in the need for comprehensive plan amendment in addition to the need for a PUD to allow significant deviation of code requirements, and not comparable to other projects used by staff in their report as comparable projects.  Mr. Roste reminded Councilmembers of the vocal and significantly numbered public opposition originally expressed, and continuing concerns, especially from those within the neighborhood that is to be significantly impacted by the proposed development.  Mr. Roste addressed the previously-submitted petition in opposition from the surrounding neighbors and their continuing opposition based on the density of the proposed project on this size of a lot.  Mr. Roste opined that many residents would support medium density zoning, or a project allowing that density on that specific property; but could not support high density so close to other properties and lack of green space preservation.  Mr. Roste reiterated previously-addressed concerns of petitioner related to traffic concerns, drainage issues, minimal pedestrian access for the property, and financing and management of the project.  Mr. Roste respectfully requested that the City Council deny this project and any comprehensive plan amendment at this time; and after further consideration if this orphan property needed to be rezoned to rezone it as medium density, but not high density.

Mayor Klausing expressed his personal appreciation to Mr. Roste for his civility during this process.

Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane

Mr. Grefenberg provided his written comments as a bench handout to Councilmembers.

Mr. Grefenberg spoke as a resident and as a participant of the Roseville Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee, opining that there was insufficient rationale presented to amend the comprehensive plan to high density.  Mr. Grefenberg referenced portions of the staff report in his written comments, and provided his perspective as a member of the Steering Committee and the land use designation of this particular property.  Mr. Grefenberg opined that, while the land could respond to a higher density (i.e., medium density), this proposal was not he highest and best use and would be more appropriate for additional park space, given the virgin timber and last remnants of Roseville heritage at the orchard.  Mr. Grefenberg asked that the City Council give consideration to the immediate neighbors and overall good of the community.

Steve Enzler, 1995 West County Road B, (single-family residence neighbor)

Mr. Enzler noted his previous written and verbal comments in opposition to this dense of a project; and asked that the City Council consider reasonable use of the space in retaining green space in this quadrant of Roseville versus the proposed high density project; and whether medium density designation was more appropriate from a comprehensive plan standpoint. Mr. Enzler expressed concern with the City Council making a two-step jump in land use designation and density from low to high density, and possible ramifications in setting such a precedent to other residents and development project.

Gary Stenson, 2179 Ferris Lane

Mr. Stenson reviewed each comparable project detailed in the staff report (Section 9.7), and provided commentary on those specific projects as they related to surrounding uses, access, nearest single-family or townhome parcels; and related green space.  Mr. Stenson opined that the proposed project was too small for the scope of the project, and due to requested setback deviations, negatively impacted green space.  Mr. Stenson provided one copy of his comparisons to the Recording Secretary as a bench handout. 

John Homer, President of Ferriswood Condominium Association

Mr. Homer opined that it was not appropriate to jump from low to high density for designation for this property; opining that it was the understanding of those purchasing property in that area in the past that the orchard property was medium density, not low density.  Mr. Homer spoke in opposition to rezoning to high density; while supporting redevelopment of the property, but only for medium density.

Peter Coyle, Land Use Attorney with Larkin, Hoffman, et al, 7800 Xerxes Avenue, Bloomington, MN; Legal Counsel for Ferriswood, Midland Grove, and Mr. Enzler

Mr. Coyle addressed the legislative authority of the City Council, and super-majority requirement for rezoning by amendment to the comprehensive plan; and thanked the Planning Commission and City Council for the time taken to consider this proposed project.  Mr. Coyle asked that the City Council use their maximum discretion in making this decision; and if approving the request, to require a final plan as part of that approval.  Mr. Coyle respectfully suggested that the number of policy deviations requested by the developer should raise sufficient concern for the Council in not granting the request; and suggested that the City Council defer a decision given the amount of opposition, uncertainties of the final product, and current market conditions.

Mr. Paschke clarified that staff viewed the current zoning of the Enzler property as medium density and PUD, not single-family zoning.

 Carl Albing, 2020 W Co Rd B

Mr. Albing expressed concern for his family in the property jumping to high density, and impacts to his frontage and lack of green transition.  Mr. Albing opined that a park or medium density would be much more appealing to him and his neighbors across the street in a row of single-family homes.  Mr. Albing spoke in support of medium density for the parcel.

Applicant Response: Darrel LeBarron and Tim Johnson with Station 19 Architects (Mr. LeBarron is a Roseville resident at 2101 West County Road B)

Mr. LeBarron noted that there were several in the audience in support of the project, who were willing to speak to the project, if the Council so-desired.  Mr. LeBarron also noted his willingness to make the presentation on the Orchard Project, as previously presented to the Planning Commission.

Mayor Klausing thanked Mr. LeBarron; however, noted that the presentation would be outside the merits of the question currently before the City Council related to change in comprehensive plan designation.

Mr. LeBarron briefly spoke to the size of the project, one of the smallest projects of this type to-date for his firm; the lack of economic viability of projects before 50units;  the quality, experience and expertise of the design team; and careful preparation of this good and careful plan for this property.  Mr. LeBarron recognized his friends in the audience from the neighborhood, and in all fairness, asked that facts rather than emotions be given full consideration.  Mr. LeBarron opined that this was a relatively small and reasonable project, with sufficient and generous distances and separations.  Mr. LeBarron provided specifics from an architectural perspective, and corrections to zoning and drainage issues due to this project.  Mr. LeBarron spoke in support of the project and encouraged cooperation with surrounding property owners to solve any outstanding issues; assuring that The Orchard project would be a good neighbor.  Mr. LeBarron noted the additional pervious surface applied to the proposed project reducing drainage impacts and allowing more control.

Tim Johnson, Station 19 Architects

Mr. Johnson spoke to the expertise of City staff and their recommendation for support in moving the comprehensive plan amendment forward.

Mayor Klausing thanked all for their comments, and directed discussion to the City Council.

Discussion among City Councilmembers and staff included clarifying the comparable properties included in the staff report to address their proximity to other uses such as single-family uses and adjacent roadways and traffic areas, in addition to other areas of concern addressed through various public comments and germane to tonight’s discussion; approval of those comparable projects from 2001 to-date; no requirements for impervious coverage calculations other than in R-1 and/or R-2 areas; and lack of guarantees that a PUD would be required to shape, protect or mitigate development with a medium rather than large density land use designation, provided any project met minimum standards.

At 10:00 p.m., Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, under the City Council’s Rules of Procedure, to continue the meeting until 11:00 p.m. to complete discussion of this item.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

Further discussion included interpretation of impervious surface requirements in City Code and whether that coverage was limited to 30% across the board for any land use designation; rationale for guiding to high rather than medium density residential; and specific zoning of Mr. Enzler’s property at this time.

Mayor Klausing opined that, based on staff’s recommendation to amend the comprehensive plan from low to high density, something other than single-family residence fit in this area.  Mayor Klausing noted that, if the property designation was for  medium rather than high density, impacts to green space, and no longer preserving the orchard, would still be felt.  Mayor Klausing opined that the omission of this property during review of the comprehensive plan was simply an oversight, and a use other than single-family residential seemed obvious from his perspective.  Mayor Klausing further opined that, while originally supporting medium density as intuitively less of an impact, he was coming to the conclusion that high density provided the City with greater discretion and control, since medium density may or may not require a PUD.  Mayor Klausing clarified that the City Council was not acting in haste regarding this proposal, since it had been under discussion and consideration since March of 2009, and had been before staff and Planning Commission for some time prior to that.

Councilmember Ihlan opined that the comprehensive plan did not need to be amended tonight; and further opined that the comprehensive planning process should be community-based, not driven by developers. Councilmember Ihlan noted that the City Council had democratic authority to make plans for the overall best interest of the community; and opined that there remained much dissention regarding how to proceed with rezoning beyond this particular project.

[11.1]

Klausing moved, Roe seconded, adoption of a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution Approving a Comprehensive Land Use Map Designation Amendment from Low Density Residential (LF) to High Density Residential (HR) at 2025 County Road B (PF-09-002).”

Councilmember Roe opined that the real question, as apparent from the public comment consensus, was whether something more intense than single-family or low density was appropriate for this parcel; then what actual designation was most appropriate.  Councilmember Roe noted the difficulty in making this decision; with medium density having a range of 5 -1 2 units per acre; and high density allowing for over 13 units per acre, while allowing the City more flexibility in what can be developed with high density designation, based on the flexibility of a PUD. Therefore, Councilmember Roe, spoke in support of comprehensive plan guidance to high density residential to allow the City more control and flexibility over potential development and the merits of specific proposals and public input during that process, rather than potential lack of control or medium density designation.

Councilmember Ihlan opined that, if the project was turned down, it should be for the right reasons, and opined that it should be based on a policy discussion.  Councilmember Ihlan further opined that the proposed high density project served to emphasize why it would be bad policy to change the comprehensive plan designation to high density, based on the common sense nature of planning problems created.  Councilmember Ihlan addressed access issues using Midland Grove Road and safety issues currently existing at the curve along that roadway, and only being compounded with this proposal; additional traffic in the immediate area with another 55-units as proposed, with this building identified by the developer as a “small” high density building;  excessive height, setback and impervious surface issues; diminishing green space; storm water drainage pressures on the system; and her perspective that planning policy indicates that this site is too small for high density use. 

Councilmember Ihlan concurred with Mr. Grefenberg’s comments related to this site not coming up for potential change of land use classification during the year-long comprehensive plan update process, even though lots of brainstorming and discussion was held related to potential areas for high density to accommodate the charge of the Metropolitan Council for additional housing. Councilmember Ihlan opined that the City Council needed to take seriously the neighborhood input provided for common sense issues during the process; and cautioned about possible projects if the property is classified high density and if this project didn’t materialize.

Councilmember Ihlan questioned if age-restrictive housing was what the Metropolitan Council was referring to in their mandate for high density housing; and concurred with Mr. Enzler’s concerns that, if this project proceeded on a super majority vote, others in single-family homes next to such a site could not rely on comprehensive plan designation either.  Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the Comprehensive Plan amendment, opining that the site was too small and had inappropriate access; and that the City Council should make any zoning changes after more careful consideration, and not based on a single development request.

Councilmember Pust stated, for the record that while she had missed several recent Council meetings, she had been present each time this project had been discussed.  Councilmember Pust noted her interest in public comments expressed; and thanked audience members for their respectful participation. 

Councilmember Pust recognized Mr. Enzler’s request that the City Council make a decision based on process, and noted her service on the Comprehensive Plan Update Steering Committee, and limitations of time in completing an extensive review of every parcel within the City and whether specific zoning should change on a parcel-by-parcel basis.  Councilmember Pust noted that, had the Steering Committee held such a discussion on this parcel, it would have been similar to that provided during the Planning Commission and City Council meeting discussions and public input, and that given that input, she opined that the Steering Committee would have most likely recommended guiding the land for medium density at the very least.  Councilmember Pust noted that, while staff had provided a list of comparable projects within the City over the last ten years, other projects had been done in the last 20-40 years, under different circumstances, different City Councils, and based on different rationale.  Councilmember Pust opined that, while those comparable projects may have made perfect sense in the past and had served as informational, they didn’t make sense in this particular case, and spoke in opposition to the motion.

Councilmember Johnson thanked the public for their participation in this process and for providing interesting perspectives and for being forthright during the decision-making process.  Councilmember Johnson opined that the City Council had been performing substantial due diligence throughout the process, and had worked hard to come to a conclusion.  Councilmember Johnson, respectful of each speaker, opined that unfortunately, he supported rezoning to high density; concurring with observations made by Mayor Klausing and Councilmember Roe. 

Councilmember Roe clarified for the record, that he was supporting this motion based on a land use change and not the proposal itself.  Councilmember Roe reiterated his previous comments related to the additional control and flexibility allowed for high density versus medium density, based on units per acre; and should other valid proposals come forward.  Councilmember Roe echoed Councilmember appreciation on the public comment provided.

Roll Call [11.1]

Ayes: Roe; Johnson and Klausing.

Nays: Pust and Ihlan.

Motion failed (requires super majority vote).

Staff requested action denying the related requests for the record.

City Attorney Anderson requested specific language for denial based on the findings that the requests are inconsistent with current comprehensive plan designation, given the previous motion.

[11.2]

Roe moved, Johnson seconded, DENIAL of the requested REZONING of 2025 County Road B from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Planned Unit Development (PUD; based on findings that the request is inconsistent with current comprehensive plan designation.

Roll Call [11.2]

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

 [11.3]

Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, DENIAL of the GENERAL CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, as prepared for the July 13, 2009 City Council meeting, subject to the conditions of Section 10 of the Request for Council Action dated July 13, 2009; based on findings that the request is inconsistent with current comprehensive plan designation.

Roll Call [11.3]

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

Due to the lateness of the hour, these items were not discussed, the meeting was adjourned at this time.

13.             Business Items – Presentations/Discussions

a.                 Discussion regarding Hazardous Building Law

b.                 Discussion regarding Appraisals for property purchased from Roseville Acquisitions for Twin Lakes Phase I Infrastructure

14.             City Manager Future Agenda Review

15.             Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

16.      Adjourn

          The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:28 pm.