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
|
$95,865.23
|
|
58503-58560
|
162,608.55
|
|
Total
|
$258,473.78
|
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.
Recess
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.