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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

May 24, 2010


1.         Roll Call

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


2.            Approve Agenda

Mayor Klausing noted that tonight’s agenda had been revised to delete Item 12.d entitled, “Adopt a Resolution regarding the Request by Twin City Chinese Christian Church for approval of a Zoning Text Amendment to allow Contemporary Church Uses at 2755 Long Lake Road and in General Business (B-3) Districts generally (PF10-006);” due to the receipt of a formal withdrawal by the applicant.  City Manager Malinen advised that the public agenda had been revised when the formal withdrawal had been received Friday afternoon, May 21, 2010, following distribution of the agenda packet.


Councilmember Ihlan requested removal of Consent Item 7.b entitled, “Adopt a Resolution approving the Request by FedEx Freight, Inc. to expand the existing Motor Freight Terminal as an approved Conditional Use at 2323 Terminal Road (PF10-013).”


By consensus, the agenda was approved 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 at this time.


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

Mayor Klausing announced an upcoming Regional Human Rights meeting focusing on state and local government efforts to enforce the MN Human Rights Act on Thursday, May 27 at 5:00 pm at the Skating Center.


Councilmember Roe noted continuation of the Park Master Plan process, with a public workshop held last week with members of the community, and now the public again invited to participate in developing concept plans for parks located in the southwest corner of Roseville, scheduled for Wednesday, June 2, 2010 at the Olympic Room at the Skating Center.


Councilmember Roe announced that a Public Hearing was scheduled for the City’s Zoning Map Update and review of several Districts, at the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for June 2, 2010 at 6:30 pm in the City Hall Council Chambers.

Councilmember Pust reminded everyone of the upcoming Rosefest from June 21 – July 5, and the parade scheduled for June 21, 2010 at 6:00 pm.


5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications


a.         Recognize Girl Scout Gold Award Recipients

Mayor Klausing, on behalf of the City Council, community and staff, recognized the following Girl Scouts in achieving the Girl Scout Gold Award, and recognizing May 24, 2010 to be Girl Scout Day in the City of Roseville: Bridget Bakko; Marcelline Gangle; Rose Gangle; Kayla Gastecki; Caroline Jones; Elise Kendall; Bayley Lawrence; Megan Lawrence; Alicia Moder; Erica Mumm; Rebecca Shuman.  Those present at tonight’s meeting were Marcelline and Rose Gangle, who were personally congratulated, along with their leaders, by the Mayor, City Council and public in attendance.


Roe moved, Pust seconded, recognizing the following Girl Scouts in achieving the Girl Scout Gold Award, and recognizing May 24, 2010 to be Girl Scout Day in the City of Roseville: Bridget Bakko; Marcelline Gangle; Rose Gangle; Kayla Gastecki; Caroline Jones; Elise Kendall; Bayley Lawrence; Megan Lawrence; Alicia Moder; Erica Mumm; Rebecca Shuman.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


6.         Approve Minutes


a.            Approve Minutes of May 17, 2010 Regular Meeting

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, approval of the minutes of the May 17, 2010 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 requested identification of the payment on page 9 of the register in the amount of $99,856.36 to the Westwood Village Contingency Fund; with City Manager Malinen advising that he would have Finance Director Chris Miller provide that information to the City Council at his earliest convenience.

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


ACH Payments







Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


c.         Adopt a Resolution Awarding Bid for 2010 Sanitary Sewer Main Lining

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10815 entitled, “Resolution Awarding Bids for 2010 Sanitary Sewer Main Lining;” to Instituform Technologies USA, Inc. of Chesterfield, Missouri, in an amount not to exceed $197,446.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


8.         Consider Items Removed from Consent


a.            Adopt a Resolution approving the Request by FedEx Freight, Inc. to expand the existing Motor Freight Terminal as an approved Conditional Use at 2323 Terminal Road (PF10-013)

Councilmember Ihlan requested a clarification on the intended expansion and/or upgrading of the existing use and structures on the site.


Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd advised that the project, as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated May 24, 2010, included redesign of the entire site, expansion of the facility and general improvements to the dock space and paved parking area expansion and drainage mitigation.


Councilmember Roe clarified that this type of use required a Conditional Use in this Zoning District, as a legal, nonconforming use, since the business was established prior to that use.


Johnson moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10816 entitled, “A Resolution Approving the Motor Freight Terminal at 2323 Terminal Road as a Conditional Use in Accordance with Roseville City C ode, Section 1014.01 (PF10-008).”

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


9.            General Ordinances for adoption


10.         Presentations


a.            Fire Department Building Facility Needs Committee Presentation

Acting Fire Chief Timothy O’Neill; Fire Marshal John Loftus; Shift  Commander David Brosnahan presented a preliminary overview of Fire Department Building Facility Needs.


Acting Chief O’Neill provided a history of and evaluation of each fire station and their locations, changes in response and staffing, and how best to provide for future options, including potentially reducing stations or relocating them in the community.  Chief O’Neill noted that the biggest changes over the last decade had been in response and staffing, specifically since the 2002 Study, with the Department now staffed 24/7, and now no longer valid.


Fire Marshal John Loftus reviewed each Fire Station, their locations, existing status, and potential needs and use.


Station No. 1 (Lexington Avenue), was built in the 1930s, originally as a car dealership and converted to a Fire Station in the 1950s; and has experienced ongoing water and mold issues over the last two decades, with mold remediation not proving effective, and in need of other major repairs, including a new roof and further mold remediation.


Station No. 2 (Fairview Avenue), was built in 1967 as a call-back station and is currently on non-active status, with many pending maintenance issues, having originally been built to service Rosedale Mall, and now used as a back-up station, engine storage, and for Fire Explorer training.


Station No. 3 (Dale Street) is the newest station built in 1986, and serves as a call-back station; it was remodeled in 2001 to accommodate on-duty staffing, but is currently over-crowded and has many pending maintenance needs.


Shift  Commander Brosnahan noted previous station location studies completed and presented in both 2001, and updated in 2008, by TriData, and entitled, “Fire Station Location Report to CC; in 2008, presented a TriData Station Location Report to CC; 2008, information.” Shift  Commander Brosnahan advised that, while providing a good analysis, the study left all options open, and didn’t provide direct information being sought to improve efficiencies and effectiveness.  At this time, staff was seeking input and analysis from a community-wide, short-term committee, potentially consisting of one Councilmember, 2-4 members of the community, a retired firefighter, and a current firefighter, with a committee of up to 12 participants anticipated. A timeline for the committee was suggested for committee recruitment (June), first meeting in July, committee working time of 6-9 months, and a report back on findings to the City Council in the spring of 2011.


Chief O’Neill provided some of the committee objectives, including: review current condition of existing stations and make recommendations; repairs needed; cost of repairs; compliance issues; gender accommodation; service review – response times; firefighter call-back effects; potential for further apparatus reduction; what funding is available for repairs; three-station station concept – the right number and why – service delivery model; shared services model – how does the potential for future opportunities for shared service impact number and location of stations and consolidation scenarios; potential locations for a new station (e.g., eminent domain, available open land, cost of purchasing land, available city-owned property, city campus location); cost of new facility (i.e., one centralized station, one centralized station and a call-back station, cost of building new versus repairing old); opportunities; low cost future building maintenance; partnership with the Parks and Recreation Department; utilities cost savings; on campus location advantages; training space; potential opportunities for further reduction in apparatus; gender accommodation


Chief O’Neill advised that staff was seeking authorization for the Fire Department to form and administer a committee to evaluate future building needs, and to report those findings and recommendations back to the City Council for future consideration.


Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, authorizing the Fire Department to form and administer a committee to evaluate future building needs, and to report those findings and recommendations back to the City Council for future consideration.


Councilmembers Roe and Johnson concurred that such a review was prudent.


Mayor Klausing sought volunteers for a City Council representative, with Councilmember Johnson volunteering, and approved by consensus.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


11.         Public Hearings


12.         Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Adopt a Resolution Approving the proposed INTERIM USE for Minnesota Irrigation Distribution Company to allow the Outdoor Storage of Irrigation Supplies at 1450 County Road C (PF10-014)

Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed the request of Minnesota Irrigation Distribution Center (MIDC) for outdoor storage of irrigation system supplies, pursuant to Roseville City Code, Section 1013.09 (Interim Use) in order to account for existing nonconforming use, as detailed in the report Request for Council Action (RCA) dated May 24, 2010


Mr. Lloyd reviewed the ongoing screening issue between this commercial property owner and adjacent residential property owners along the south side, and results of staff and the property owner working together on a resolution, and submission by the applicant of a site plan.  Mr. Lloyd advised that progress was being made; reported on the Public Hearing process held at the Planning Commission level and recommended conditions of staff and the Commission; screening objectives;  planting of Evergreen trees and other plantings, with ultimate review by the City’s landscape architect and arborist, with proposed vegetation installed before year-end, with the applicant required to have those desirable planting materials on hand before fall to ensure they will be available for planting at that time.


Discussion included the flexibility of a vegetation screen planting plan at the staff level rather than at the City Council level for approval; stipulations and enforceable actions between the City and the applicant, not any private agreements between the adjacent residential property owners and the applicant; possible addition of a condition that such a formal agreement be in place, similar to a shared parking agreement; and noting that the current use if outside City Code, with litigation pending on other code compliance issues.


Mr. Lloyd noted that the other option, if not an Interim Use, was that this business was no longer able to operate; but that, given the lack of documentation of past records and/or actions, the more feasible legally sound option appeared to be the Interim Use, allowing the City to have the conditions on record and fully enforceable from this date forward.


Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon reviewed past discussion between the property owner and staff to seek mutual resolution and reasonable accommodation without relying on court determination, given that the property has not been in compliance with City Code for decades, but no apparent City action has been taken during that time.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that there had been significant improvement on the property, along with those other properties owned along this corridor by the applicant; with the Interim Use allowing the City to more properly regulate any future violations.


Further discussion included assurances that the applicant would not clean up the one site at 1450 County Road C and simply relocate items to their other properties; lack of clarification on the status of the court case and potential impacts on the end results; and a review of the sixty-day review period (ending June 7, 2010).


By consensus, Councilmembers sought further information on the pending court enforcement action; follow-up on City Code for open storage in Industrial 1 Districts; and rationale for not enforcing existing code and impacts to this business.


Public Comment

Steven Ring & Molly Redmond, 1455 Rose Place (property owners directly south, their property entirely bordered by property in question)

Mr. Ring reviewed and provided photos of the topography and elevation of their home; the previous vegetative border and its current condition.  Mr. Ring opined that more plantings were needed to shield the commercial property from residential properties on the south.


Ms. Redmond advised that the old trees, originally planted by Mr. Albrecht, had formed a nice shield for many years, but now needed replacement to maintain that Evergreen buffer zone of 15’. Ms. Redmond noted the historical and anecdotal information available from residential property owners regarding the history of the screening before and after purchase of the property by Mr. Albrecht.  Ms. Redmond further opined that Mr. Scott Wicklund was a good neighbor, and it was not the intent of the neighbors to no longer have him operate his business; however, as residential stakeholders in the community, they needed to be given ample consideration as well.  Ms. Redmond repeated her invitation for Councilmembers and/or staff to view the property from inside their home for a more clear perspective on the topography issues.


Mr. Ring, speaking on behalf of the property owner at 1447 Rose Place, who was unable to attend tonight, provided additional photos from that specific property.  Mr. Ring advised that this property was currently for sale, and comments from potential buyers and realtors were their concern with the view from the backyard. 


Mr. Ring concluded by saying that the neighbors have continued to support Mr. Wicklund and his business ventures; however, part of the previous agreement was to provide sufficient screening and buffers between the properties.  Mr. Ring requested that any mitigation plans be reviewed from the residential perspective, as well as the commercial perspective; and that residents be included in those discussions to ensure a good solution was found for all parties.


Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, TABLING this matter until staff returns with additional information on litigation; and requesting staff to administratively extend the 60-day review period to consider outdoor storage of irrigation equipment and materials at 1450 County Road C as an INTERIM USE in Accordance with Roseville City Code, Section1013.09 (PF10-014).


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Appeal the Administrative Ruling that the Single-Family Residence (R-1) District does not Regulate Community Gardens

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon clarified the specifics of this process appealing the administrative ruling and interpretation of Planning Division staff that Single-Family Residence Districts (R-1) do not regulate community gardens, as detailed in Section 2.4 of the RCA, specific to City Code, Section 1015.04C specifying evidence provisions.  Mr. Trudgeon asked that, if the City Council findings supported that appeal that Planning Division staff erred in its administration of the zoning code, that they also discuss and determine whether a community garden may be allowed in an R-1 District; and if so, what process would be required to allow them.


Mr. Trudgeon noted receipt of numerous written correspondence and e-mails, attached to the RCA dated May 24, 2010 (Attachment D), as well as later ones provided as bench handouts. 


Mr. Trudgeon, in opening statements, assured Councilmembers and the public that this decision was not a subjective finding by staff or done “on a whim,” as suggested in an e-mail; but was based on staff’s interpretation of specific guidance in City Code for low and moderate uses, and staff’s determination that a community garden use was a low impact use, not requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application process. 


Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the history of the garden, the City’s advertising of it on the City’s website through the Parks and Recreation Department at the request of the church for supporting local food shelves, and unknown to the either his or the Parks and Recreation Director’s knowledge, and simply staff seeking to support community-sponsored events, but not endorsed or being “pushed” by the City.


Mr. Trudgeon further advised that the City Attorney’s response to the appeal was included in the packet materials (Attachment B).


Mayor Klausing noted the differences in local government and presumptions that people were free to do as they chose on their private property without the government permitting it unless there was an existing government restriction in place to regulate use, in consideration of the need to protect the health, welfare and safety of the community.


Discussion included the definition of low and moderate impacts in the land use chart.

Public Comment

Additional Bench Handouts at meeting included: written and/or e-mail correspondence in opposition from Lois V. Nyman, 1720 N Chatsworth Street; Larry Leiendecker; Marilyn Salay; and  Marty Marchio, 962 West Larpenteur Avenue.


Larry Leiendecker, 983 Larpenteur Avenue W, Attorney

Mr. Leiendecker’s written comments we included in the RCA through a letter of appeal dated April 26, 2010 (Attachment A); as well as an e-mail dated May 21, 2010, provided as a bench handout, responding to RCA documents.  Mr. Leiendecker verbally reviewed the points from those comments, alleging that the administration determination was not based on a quasi-public use determination, as nothing in the letter to North Como Presbyterian Church (NCPC) from Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd indicated that such a low impact decision was made, as well as nothing in the subsequent e-mail from the Department to Ms. Kimberly Spear.  Mr. Leiendecker opined that if the religious nature of the church were removed, it would be a non-profit operating in a business district, on R-1 land and needing to abide by those rules.


Marty Marchio, 962 West Larpenteur Avenue (directly across from proposed garden)

Mr. Marchio’s written comments were provided as a bench handout.  Mr. Marchio opined that he had always maintained a good relationship with NCPC, with no previous problem, even with the number of businesses run from the church.  Mr. Marchio provided photos, also included in his written comments; expressing concerns with the visual impact in this gateway to Roseville; liability concerns; on-site storage; actual number of garden plots intended; and number of “employees” to plant and maintain the gardens. Mr. Marchio opined that the first step in the church considering such a public use should have been involving the neighbors early in the planning process.


Kimberly Spear, 1509 Pascal Street N; member and representative of NCPC, and close neighbor

Ms. Spear’s written comments were included in the packet materials (Attachment C.  Ms. Spear provided a history of this community garden process to-date from the church’s perspective, with her originally asked by their Pastor to lead a planning committee to review feasibility of bringing a community garden to their property, as part of their efforts to renew and revitalize their congregation and the church community.  Ms. Spear noted receipt of nominally grant funds, and the Pastor’s charge for this committee to: look at the feasibility of a community garden; determine if it was something that could be done; whether there was sufficient church property available; is it sustainable by the church; and did it make sense at that location.  Ms. Spear advised that the committee toured other community gardens throughout the metropolitan area, and found many different varieties and the potentials.  At that time, the committee presented their findings to the NCPC congregation in the fall of 2009, with three different efforts identified for the community garden: congregation, neighborhood, and outreach, in that order.  Ms. Spear noted that their congregation was small, but that they received a commitment from a small group of the congregation to participation in the food shelf portion, but that there had been little interest in the congregation portion of a garden; therefore moving them forward more quickly than intended to the community outreach portion, originally intended to be offered to members of an immigrant portion of the community having a history of farming (e.g. Karen community), but that they had not been able to participate at this time.  At that time, Ms. Spear noted that they had moved onto the neighborhood to determine their interest.  Ms. Spear advised that there was never any intent by the church to not involve the neighborhood; however, she noted that the leaders of this effort were all volunteers.   Ms. Spear advised that flyers were distributed by those volunteers to adjacent neighbors, with two meetings hosted by them on May 1 and May 2, 2010 to gather community input; at which time, the neighbors provided their comments, many of which were “not in my backyard (NIMBY)” under any conditions, and others who were very supportive.  Ms. Spear admitted that it was a very spirited meeting, with many strong opinions voiced, a number of whom were also present at tonight’s meeting.  Ms. Spear assured neighbors and the City Council that they had attempted to involve the neighborhood, with this being the third public meeting on this issue.


Ms. Spear advised that it was the Church’s intent to do the right thing, whatever that meant, and that they were open to the findings of the City Council as to whether staff’s interpretation was correct, or if there was a need to proceed with a Conditional Use application, which they were willing to do.  Ms. Spear advised that members of their congregation who’s careers were as attorneys had reviewed the Twin Cities Community Garden Start-up Guide, reviewed NCPC liability insurance and deemed it sufficient; and had also reviewed the location of the gardens, nuisance issues, parking and traffic issues, and determined they were all sufficiently addressed.  Ms. Spear assured the City Council and neighbors that the church wanted to be a good neighbor and try to accommodate and facilitate any concerns of the neighbors, including those who are interested in a local community garden.


Ms. Spear noted that the purpose of a church is to gather people; and offered to cut back the number of plots the first year as things were worked out, and for the community garden to be ultimately successful.  Ms. Spear provided the proposed sod cuts and garden plot templates, continually revised by their landscape architect to address any concerns.  Ms. Spear advised that the compost pile had been removed; however, she clarified that the compost was natural, clean compost of plant materials, not manure, to provide seed-free nutrients to be plowed back into the garden, and did not smell. 


Ms. Spear assured Councilmembers that NCPC was willing to work with staff, and neighbors, to improve or correct any traffic or safety issues; and again expressed their commitment to make the community garden work.


Discussion among Councilmembers and Ms. Spear included identifying the total number of staff-approved garden plots at 24 – 26, depending on the final configuration; and that 2 plots had been dedicated for food shelf product; and raised beds available for preschool children and those in wheelchairs.  Ms. Spear advised that an Eagle Scout would be building those raised beds to handicapped dimensions.


Ferrol Robinson, 975 Roselawn (corner of Chatsworth and Roselawn)

Mr. Robinson advised that it was not his personal intent to stop the community garden, and expressed appreciation for the comments of Ms. Spear and NCPC’s intent.  Mr. Robinson requested that the project be done in the right way; and opined that the community garden concept was legitimate to the church’s objectives.  Mr. Robinson expressed concern that the immediate neighbors were not notified sooner; and noted that all gardens, whether boulevard or community, were all about maintenance to ensure that the visual aspects were not an eyesore.  Mr. Robinson opined that the reason for the neighbor strong opposition was due to their perception that there was no prior notice, and it came as a surprise to them. Mr. Robinson suggested that, since there was no rush, and NCPC seemed willing to accept the guidance of the City Council and follow a Conditional Use application, it seemed that all would be happier in the end and the church could achieve it’s objectives as well.


Vince Pallin, 1699 Chatsworth Street

Mr. Pallin expressed concern that neither he, nor his 97-year old neighbor were aware of the plans of NCPC for a community garden; and suggested that the church’s representative, Ms. Spear, had exaggerated their attempts to notify the neighbors.  Mr. Pallin expressed further concern that City staff did not review this further before making their determination; and opined that it would be the neighbors who would deal with the negatives from visibility of outdoor storage and debris from the garden.


Marilyn Salay, directly across from church

Ms. Salay’s written e-mail comments were provided as a bench handout.  Ms. Salay concurred that neighbors, including her, were not involved in this process at all, and only found out about it at the tail end.  Ms. Salay expressed concern about safety and nuisances; Chatsworth traffic issues, for vehicles, children, pedestrians, and use of the street as a cut through to avoid other major thoroughfares, often at high speeds; as well as lack of access for emergency vehicles due to increased traffic.  Ms. Salay noted her observance of raccoons in the neighborhood, and expressed concern that they would multiply, as well as others (i.e., deer, mice, snakes), their fecal material, and migrate to adjacent homes during the winter months.  Ms. Salay noted safety concerns for unattended children playing near Chatsworth Street; and opined that it would definitely be a moderate, not low, impact to their neighborhood from a health and safety standpoint.


Charles Anderson, member of NCPC

As a long-term gardener with lots of experience, Mr. Anderson noted the common and popular interest in the avocation throughout the country.  Mr. Anderson suggested that having a garden in Roseville’s gateway may make the City seem more inviting and homey.  Mr. Anderson noted other such amenities throughout Roseville, currently being maintained.  Mr. Anderson addressed concerns with deer and other varmints who were around in the cemetery already; and suggested that raccoons were interested in the food in dumpsters west of restaurants, not compost.  Mr. Anderson used the City’s compost site as an example of the lack of smell evidenced; and offered to extend the flower screen along the gardens.


Lois Nyman, 1720 Chatsworth (immediately north of NCPS)

Ms. Nyman’s written comments were provided as a bench handout.  Ms. Nyman provided two specific examples, expressing concern with parents not attending children when picking them up from the NCPC daycare; and children throwing sticks and rocks into her yard, causing safety concerns for those mowing her lawn.  Ms. Nyman expressed concern that she had not received any response from NCPC from her May 3, 2010 letter expressing these concerns.


Mary Montagne, 1523 Canfield Avenue

As an avid gardener, Ms. Montagne expressed interest in having a plot at this site, some other community gardens were full, with current demand greatly exceeding supply.  Ms. Montagne expressed her appreciation the church for proposing this opportunity and sharing their property, as well as providing physical activity for families; sharing with the community and the local food shelves; and noted NCPC’s efforts to address community concerns related to visual impacts, traffic and parking.  Ms. Montagne noted that the church had asked the community to register their observations and complaints for resolution by NCPC.


Robert Koppy, resident of RV

Mr. Koppy addressed previous traffic concerns in the area, as well as on Chatsworth; and lack of response from the City to-date in resolving traffic control issues.  Mr. Koppy expressed concern with additional traffic generated from a community garden; and questioned how traffic, compost, toilet facilities, and unauthorized people on-site or in the building housing a daycare would be monitored by NCPC, given their minimal budget.  Mr. Koppy expressed concern with the proposed fence location and its proximity to the trees.


Carol Rust, 1826 Alameda

Ms. Rust advised that she had been a member of NCPC since its inception; and advised that she had spoken with Jill Anfang of the City’s Parks and Recreation Department to hear of their experiences with community gardens (Oasis), and she had noted no problem with animals or vandalism, and had expressed excitement about having another community garden in the City, noting the great interest and need for additional plots, with the City’s Master Plan process seeking to expand them as well.  Ms. Rust advised that she had also spoken with the City’s Police Department Community Liaison Sarah Mahmud, who noted that they were actually a determent for crime and vandalism and provided a positive effect to communities, as long as any screening between private and public property was not too dense and deemed counterproductive to safety issues.


Ms. Rust reviewed the history of this area and it’s identification as “Rose Way” along Larpenteur Avenue with the numerous garden shops and nurseries.  Ms. Rust noted that several participants having plots were within a two block vicinity to the church and already in the neighborhood, and that they were excited about the garden plots.  Ms. Rust noted that the church’s parking lot entry was on Victoria, not Chatsworth and bordered the cemetery, not residential properties.  Ms. Rust noted the agreements to be signed by plot participants related to their maintenance, care of children, limiting those in attendance on site, and other conditions.


Ms. Rust advised that she had received Ms. Lyman’s letter and had reported the two incidents directly to the head of the preschool, who was addressing them with parents.  Ms. Rust advised that the plots for children were for their preschool and Sunday School children’s use; and sited several examples from Philadelphia and Minneapolis of the success of community gardens in bringing the community together and actually reducing vandalism.


Ms. Nyman

Ms. Nyman clarified that the entrance to NCPC was not limited to Victoria Street, but that there was also an entrance on Chatsworth immediately adjacent to her property.


Discussion among Councilmembers, staff and Ms. Spear as the NCPC representative included, clarification of the requested action by the City Council.


In the interest of disclosure, Councilmember Ihlan advised that she had a garden plot in the Oasis Community Gardens and understood their value and demand and the many positives from them.  However, Councilmember Ihlan recognized the legitimate concerns expressed by the neighbors, as well as NCPC wanting to do this project correctly.  Councilmember Ihlan suggested that it may make sense to go through the Conditional Use process to ensure that formal conditions are in place and that the church is ultimately responsible to ensure maintenance of the gardens and to accommodate all parties. Specific to staff’s interpretation of City Code, Councilmember Ihlan opined that she was not opposed to looking at the use as a quasi-public requirement with low impact; however, she tended to lean toward the use as moderate impact, and again suggested that the Conditional Use process be used to impose reasonable conditions.


Councilmember Johnson advised that that he was not opposed to the project, opining that is had many positives for the neighborhood and would further promote flexibility in the community.  As to whether it was a low or moderate impact, Councilmember Johnson advised that his only concern in leaning toward low rather than moderate impact was based on the ten employees on site and whether volunteers or other people on the property could be classed as “employees” or independent contractors under strict language interpretation.


Councilmember Pust, from her analysis as an employment lawyer, opined that if the argument was that volunteers or gardeners were like employees that criteria would fit under both the low and moderate impact categories.


Councilmember Roe interpreted the table in the staff report to read that low impact uses required no more than ten employees, and more than that would be considered moderate impact.  Councilmember Roe, attempting to determine the rationale for how this City Code was written, opined that the number of employees would indicate the continual number of employees on a daily basis, rather than this situation with periodic and random or intermittent availability on site.  In his overall analysis in determining minor or moderate impact, Councilmember Roe opined that he tended toward low impact, with the City’s nuisance code providing recourse for any blight unsightliness or if the fence didn’t meet code requirements; and setback requirements for outdoor storage.  Councilmember Roe noted that the first step in resolving issues was that the City notified the property owner of any violations to resolve issues.  Councilmember Roe advised that he interpreted the impact as low, and concurred with staff’s opinion.


Mayor Klausing advised that he viewed this as a low impact, quasi-public use; and reminded the City Council and public, that there were elements to be met for either low or moderate impact uses; and that he affirmed staff’s determination.


Mayor Klausing suggested that, if there were parking issues on Chatsworth, that they could be looked at separately by the City’s Public Works Department; and if there were other safety or health issues (e.g. children playing in the street; weeds; non-maintained property) that they could also be addressed as separate issues.


Mayor Klausing noted, from past experience as well, that when property owners didn’t proactively engage their immediate and adjacent neighbors, they received this “push back” and people being upset.  Mayor Klausing opined that even if this or another situation was a good proposal and issues could be worked through, unless that communication existed early in the process, similar reactions were found.  However, Mayor Klausing advised that, as he listened to the issues expressed, and in his review of the ordinance, as well as all materials included in the staff repot, he was not persuaded that staff’s determination was not accurate.


Councilmember Pust explored the distinctions in the current process in affirming staff’s determination, and the other option to say the impact was moderate and was a quasi-public use, requiring a Conditional Use permit application.  Councilmember Pust noted that, if the CUP process was followed, the same presentation and concerns would be heard, with the church expressing their willingness to abide by any conditions indicated; with the same results in either case.  Councilmember Pust questioned if the community had gotten to the point that they had to think the church would willingly violate any agreement made in writing.  Councilmember Pust suggested that either process would achieve the same results; and the need was to find workable solutions and concentrate on legitimate problems.  Councilmember Pust questioned the timing issue if a CUP application was done; and provisions for restroom facilities or leaving the church open.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that if it was determined by the City Council to reverse staff’s decision and require a CUP process, it would take approximately forty-five (45) days; however, he noted that based on City Attorney advise, this application process was being treated as also under a 60 day review period from the date the petition of appeal was received on April 27, 2010, and expiring 60 days after receipt. 


Ms. Spear advised that there was church staff on site with a security bell who could allow someone use of the indoor facilities; however, she noted that the church was not open or staffed 24/7 and gardeners would need to make other accommodations by going back home or to the neighborhood SuperAmerica.  Ms. Spear advised that the church had thought of attempting to have a porta-potty on site was not necessary; and assured residents that volunteer gardeners would not be “peeing in the bushes.”


At the request of Councilmember Ihlan, Ms. Spear advised that early plants were not longer viable this late in the season; and later growing plants would now be considered, specifically for food shelf donations.  Ms. Spear advised that the church originally intended to have sod cutting and tilling completed in early May; however, that was prior to her understanding and receipt of the appeal letter specifying that no action be taken, at which time those plans had been cancelled.


Klausing moved, Roe seconded, affirmed Planning Division staff’s interpretation of regulations and intent of the City’s Zoning Code pertaining to community gardens in an R-1 District; and APPROVAL of a community garden as an allowed use in an R-1 District, based on staff findings detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) and attachments dated May 24, 2010; and DENIED the filed appeal to that determination.


Councilmember Ihlan expressed her full support of the garden; but noted her difficulty in supporting the motion, when she preferred a CUP process to more formally condition this use, rather than relying on a good faith or voluntary set of conditions and intents.


Mayor Klausing, in response to Councilmember Ihlan, expressed discomfort in trying to place conditions on any potential CUP application not addressed in code; and expressed his confidence that NCPC would continue to work with the neighbors.  Mayor Klausing advised that, if further review of future community gardens and any necessary code requirements for their use through the CUP process was indicated, that this was a separate issue.


City Planner Thomas Paschke clarified that a community garden, if determined as a nonconforming use, would cease to exist, in accordance with recent legislation and revised State Statute, after abandonment of that use for a one year period.


Councilmember Roe noted that the initial phase of the community garden is smaller than originally envisioned; and in future review a threshold could be determined with a certain percentage of property as a consideration; and any future expansion triggering a CUP.


Councilmember Pust addressed the determination of low impact, quasi-public uses, and generation of people and activity on-site, making her lean toward moderate impact.  Councilmember Pust, however, noted that, if NPCP came forward with a CUP application, she would support it, and allow the garden to go forward conditionally to meet public concerns.


Councilmember Johnson expressed his preference for a CUP process, but spoke in support of the motion, based on the limited criteria provided, and the need for the City Council to determine if it met the five criteria and his literal interpretation of the definition of “employee.”


Councilmember Pust clarified that, even though interpreting the code differently, each individual Councilmember was doing their job.


Councilmember Ihlan advised that she would be voting against the motion; but was supportive of the community garden, and would support a CUP; however, opined that she found this to be a moderate, quasi-use within the code.


Roll Call

Ayes: Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: Pust and Ihlan.

Motion carried.


Mayor Klausing requested a future review of community gardens and their impacts in the context of various zoning districts.


Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at approximately 9:16 pm and reconvened at approximately 9:24 pm.


c.            Appoint Grass Lake Watershed Management Organization (GLWMO) Board Member

Public Works Director Duane Schwartz reviewed the GLWMO and member representation from the Cites of Shoreview and Roseville, for the northeast corner of the City draining into Lake Owasso, as detailed in the RCA dated May 24, 2010.  Mr. Schwartz advised that three applications had been received for the one vacant position, from Mary Kay Von De Linde; Rebecca Galkiewicz; and Johnathan Miller


Pust moved, Johnson seconded, appointment of Mary Kay Von De Linde to the Grass Lake Watershed Management Organization (GLWMO) Board for the remainder of a three year term to expire on December 31, 2012.


Councilmember Roe suggested that, when there were multiple candidates, interviews be scheduled for this type of vacancy as well as the City’s Advisory Commissions.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


13.         Business Items – Presentations/Discussions


14.         City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen distributed upcoming agenda items.


15.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

Councilmember Roe requested additional discussion of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) on June 14, 2010, as well as more discussion on the ranking approach to be used in the Budget process.


Councilmember Johnson concurred.


16.         Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:33 pm.