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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

August 23, 2010


1.         Roll Call

Acting Mayor Johnson called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed everyone.  (Voting and Seating Order for August: Ihlan; Pust; Roe; Johnson; and Klausing).  City Attorney Charles Bartholdi was also present.  Acting Mayor Johnson announced that Mayor Klausing would not be available for tonight’s meeting due to illness.



Discuss Settlement Agreement for condemnation Action Against Pikovsky Management, LLC and PIK Terminal Company, 2680 – 2690 Prior Avenue, for Phase I Twin Lakes Infrastructure Project

Acting Mayor Johnson announced that the City Council would be going into Closed Executive Session.


City Attorney Charlie Bartholdi reviewed the purpose of the Closed Executive Session for a confidential discussion related to consideration of a Settlement Agreement for condemnation action against Pikovsky Management, LLC and PIK Terminal Company, 2680 – 2690 Prior Avenue, for the Phase I Twin Lakes Infrastructure Project, in accordance with Minnesota Statute 13D.05, subd. 3.c.  Mr. Bartholdi advised that title had been originally acquired through Quick Take action, but that no determination had been made to-date for compensation.  Mr. Bartholdi noted that tonight’s closed meeting would be to discuss said settlement stipulation for compensation to consider offers or counter-offers for real estate.


Roe moved, Pust seconded, recessing the meeting into Closed Executive Session, at 6:07 p.m., related to attorney/client privilege and confidential discussion by the City Council, staff and legal counsel, in accordance with Minnesota Statute 13D.05, subd. 3.c, specific to discussion of a Settlement Agreement for condemnation action against Pikovsky Management, LLC and PIK Terminal Company, 2680 – 2690 Prior Avenue, for the Phase I Twin Lakes Infrastructure Project.


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Johnson.

Nays: None.


Acting Mayor Johnson recessed the meeting at approximately 6:07 pm and reconvened in Executive Session at approximately 6:08 pm.



Acting Mayor Johnson recessed the Executive Session at approximately 6:15 pm and reconvened at approximately 6:16 pm in Regular Session. 


2.            Approve Agenda

By consensus, the agenda was approved as presented.


3.         Public Comment

Acting Mayor Johnson 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


a.         Housing & Redevelopment Authority Quarterly Report

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon and Chair Dean Maschka presented the quarterly HRA report, advising that the HRA Board was recommending that the requested 2011 HRA Levy remain at the 2010 level in the amount of $353,000 in order to continue funding current activities and programs, with no new initiatives being sought for 2011.


Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the first cycle of free energy audits for eighty-three (83) Roseville homeowners and other free energy audits available for income-qualified residents in Roseville through the Neighborhood Energy Connection (NEC), providing a comprehensive whole house inspection that identified various money-saving energy savings.


Mr. Trudgeon also provided a foreclosure update noting that 2010 foreclosures were similar to 2009, with 49 foreclosures in 2009 and 46 to-date; and advised that staff was watching for cluster areas; and further noted that some abatements currently coming forward were on foreclosed homes, with staff attempting to link residents to available programs that could assist them.


Councilmember Pust requested that staff provide an over lay of 2008, 2009 and 2010 foreclosures to-date in order to capture additional data on any potential cluster areas of concern.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff would do so; and noted that many of the foreclosures were evidenced on County Roads or more visible corridors that bordered commercial areas.


5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications


a.            Recognize and Accept Minnesota Recreation and Park Association (MRPA) Sponsorship/Partnership Award of Excellence for the Central Park Muriel Sahlin Arboretum Center

Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Jill Anfang introduced Ms. Tracy Petersen, a member of the MRPA Board and Recreation Superintendent for the City of Inver Grove Heights, in attendance to present the award, as well as to recognize staff member Jill Anfang for this successful community collaborative. 


Jill asked representatives of Central Park Foundation in attendance tonight to stand and be recognized, at which time they were applauded for their continued work.


Tracy Petersen briefly summarized the work of the MRPA and their work throughout the State of MN and explained how projects were awarded over seven (7) different categories; and presented the award.


Acting Mayor Johnson thanked Ms. Petersen for the work of the MRPA, and recognized the Central Park Foundation as well.


Roe moved, Pust seconded, authorizing acceptance of the MRPA 2009 “Award of Excellence” for Sponsorships and Partnerships and recognizing the valuable, ongoing Roseville Central Park Foundation Partnership for the Muriel Sahlin Arboretum Center.


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Johnson.

Nays: None.


b.         Recognize and Accept General Donations

Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Jill Anfang reviewed donations individually.


Pust moved, Johnson seconded, authorizing acceptance and recognition of the following donations:





Roseville Fire Angels

Cash for scholarship program

$  500

North Suburban

Evening Lions

Cash for scholarship program


Metro Men’s Singers

Cash for programs and facilities


North Suburban Gavel


Cash for programs and facilities


AA Group

Cash for programs and facilities


Community Resource Bank

Cash for programs and facilities



Cash for Parade


Sharon, Dennis &

David Brown Families

Cash for Muriel Sahlin Arboretum


Betty Line Ettel

and Roger Ettel

Cash for bench at Roseville Skating Center


Steve Sertich Family

Bench for Roseville Skating Center


Friends of Roseville Parks

(FOR Parks)

Cash for Lexington Avenue flowers


Roseville Central Park


Bench for Roseville Central park


Patti Sullivan

76 plants to the Muriel Sahlin Arboretum


Joan Cooper

185 plants to the Muriel Sahlin Arboretum


Richard Rasmussen

Shuffleboard Set



Gift Basket for programs



Gift Basket for programs


Aurelios Pizza

Gift Basket for programs



Gift Basket for programs


Kinderberry Hills

Gift Basket for programs



Acting Mayor Johnson thanked those donors for their ongoing support of the City’s youth, and park and recreation programs, as well as beautification of the City.

Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Johnson.

Nays: None.


          Communications and Announcements

Acting Mayor Johnson noted the unfortunate passing of former Roseville Parks and Recreation Commissioner Todd Anderson, who passed away unexpectedly in Central Park over this last weekend; and on behalf of the community, staff and City Council, offered heartfelt condolences to the Anderson family.


Councilmember Pust announced the upcoming fall semester of Roseville University, providing a behind-the-scenes view of municipal government, programs and services; and encouraged attendance by citizens at these educational opportunities to understand where their tax dollars were used for day-to-day operations of the City.  Councilmember Pust noted that the registration deadline had been extended to August 30 for this seven week course beginning on September 7, 2010 from 2:00 – 4:30 p.m. at the City Hall Campus, with additional information and/or registration forms available at, or by phone at 792-7001.


6.         Approve Minutes


a.            Approve Minutes of August 16, 2010 Regular Meeting

Roe moved, Pust seconded, approval of the minutes of the August 16, 2010 Regular meeting as presented.


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

Abstentions: Johnson.


7.         Approve Consent Agenda

There were no changes to the Consent Agenda.  At the request of Acting Mayor Johnson, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.


a.            Approve Payments

Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.   

ACH Payments







                                       Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Johnson.

Nays: None.


b.            Approve Business Licenses

          Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, for applicants as follows:


Business / Address

Type of License

PETCO #602, 2575 N Fairview Avenue

Veterinarian Examination &

Inoculation Center


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Johnson.

Nays: None.


c.            Adopt Resolution Receiving Assessment Roll and Setting Assessment Hearing Date for the Roselawn Avenue Reconstruction Project to be Assessed in 2010

Pust  moved, Ihlan seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10836 entitled, “Resolution Receiving Proposed Special Assessment Roll for P-09-02 Roselawn Avenue Reconstruction Project and Providing for Hearings;” setting an assessment hearing date for September 20, 2010, for City Project P-ST-SW-09-02: Roselawn Avenue Reconstruction Hamline Avenue to Victoria Street.”


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Johnson.

Nays: None.


8.         Consider Items Removed from Consent


9.            General Ordinances for adoption


10.         Presentations



a.            Joint Meeting with Police Civil Service Commission

Police Civil Service Commissioners present were Chair James Campbell; Vice Chair Teresa Bailey; and Recording Secretary Donald Drackert.


Chair Campbell reviewed the provisions and purposes of the Commission; and thanked Police Chief Rick Mathwig for his superb service to the community and in his work with the Commission.  Chair Campbell noted that the most recent goal of the Commission was to update the Rules and Regulations, specific to the Purpose and Scope of the Commission in order to carry out the purposes of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 419, and Roseville City Code, Chapter 202.  Chair Campbell noted that the Commission had made comparisons with peer communities to provide a benchmark for best practices; and revised the documents with the latest draft completed in late May of 2010, and reviewed by the City Attorney; and provided a summary of the Purpose Statement and Scope as “Attachment A” for this agenda item.  Chair Campbell advised that pursuit of the final draft for approval would be forthcoming, with an information copy made available in the near future, at which time it would then be communicated to the Police Department and posted as required by State Statute and made available to the public through the City Office.


Chair Campbell thanked recently-retired Commissioner Mary Jean Anderson for her involvement in this revision and for her service on the Commission.


Vice Chair Bailey noted the need to clarify the previous documents with Statute; defining who the rules cover, with only sworn employees of the Department with the exception of the Chief and Deputy Chief positions, but not all non-sworn municipal employees on assignment to the Department who are governed by separate and distinct hiring and promotion regulations issued by the City of Roseville.


Commissioner Drackert expressed the Commission’s confidence in the revised Rules and Regulations that will be of benefit to the Police Department.


Discussion among Commissioners and Councilmembers included how these Rules and Regulations tracked with the personnel regulations developed by the City’s Human Resources Department and regulations for other employees, with clarification by Commissioners that the former City Attorney and the City’s Human Resources Director were involved in reviewing the revised documents and how they fit together; with Commissioners noting that collective bargaining agreements may override some things in the revised document, creating the need to revise language of that document.  Commissioners advised that the City’s Human Resources Director would be invited to participate in any future hiring for the Police Department.


Further discussion included concurrence of the revised document by the City Manager, City Attorney and Chief Mathwig, with one last review intended prior to adoption by the Commission. 


City Manager Malinen thanked the Commissioners for their time and effort, and multiple meetings, in development and review of the proposed documents.


It was noted that the document would be provided for City Councilmember review, consideration and comment, but would not be brought before them as an action item, normally adopted by the commission.


Acting Mayor Johnson thanked Commissioners for their work, and for their update to Councilmembers.


11.         Public Hearings


a.            Public Hearing for Noise Variance to Extend Working Hours for Twin Lakes Infrastructure Construction Project

Public Works Director Duane Schwartz briefly reviewed the request as detailed in the August 23, 2010 Request for Council Action (RCA).


Mr. Schwartz advised one e-mail had been received from an area business in support of the extended hours if it meant completing the work in a more timely fashion.


Acting Mayor Johnson opened and closed the Public Hearing at 6:47 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment on the proposed request for a noise variance to extend working hours for the MnDOT/Ramsey County/City Rice Street Project, with no one appearing for or against.


12.         Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Consider Noise Variance to Extend Working Hours for Twin Lakes Infrastructure Construction Project

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the request to extend working hours for the Twin Lakes Infrastructure Phase II Construction Project for up to three (3) nights between August 24 and September 10, 2010, depending on weather conditions, for completion of water main construction work between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Johnson.

Nays: None.


11.      Public Hearings


b.         Public Hearing for Streetlight Utility Ordinance

Finance Director Chris Miller and Public Works Director Duane Schwartz provided additional information as previously requested by Councilmembers for continued discussion and consideration of a potential street light fee and ordinance as an alternative revenue source, including tonight’s scheduled Public Hearing to solicit public comment, as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated August 23, 2010.  Mr. Miller noted that staff had identified five (5) potential rate structures for City Council discussion and consideration.


Discussion included rationale for distinctions between single-family and multi-family rates, based on current solid waste recycling rate structures and comparison with peer communities and their rates ranging from 50% and higher for multi-family rates compared to single-family rates; commercial rates developed on an acreage basis similar to storm drainage fees.


Councilmember Pust questioned the proposed rate structure differentiating between single-family and multi-family rates as proposed; since everyone benefitted from street lights and signal lights, whether in their neighborhoods or throughout the community.


Councilmember Ihlan suggested that commercial properties may serve as the largest consumers of street lighting, specifically in commercial areas, and should possibly pay more based on that argument.


Further discussion included exemptions for those property owners or homeowner associations currently owning and maintaining light systems on City rights-of-way, such as Applewood Pointe at Terrace and Arona, with them paying for the lights and related energy costs; and other situations for payment by those preferring decorative fixtures above and beyond the minimum standard fixture costs and the City picking up the energy usage costs.


Councilmember Roe suggested an ordinance language providing for a differential fee, from a policy point of view, for those areas with petitioned special street lighting needing exemption beyond normal utility rates of property tax levies for lighting.  Councilmember Roe further clarified with staff that city-owned property was exempt from water, sewer, storm sewer, as well as lighting, fees.


Councilmember Pust clarified any public misconceptions that this was a separate tax for street lights, noting that everyone benefited from street and signal lights from a safety standpoint; and that this proposed fee was not tied to whether or not there were street lights in front of a particular home or business.  Councilmember Pust spoke in support of taking over the lighting for Applewood Pointe consistency, based on that concept, rather than carving them out as an exception.


Councilmember Roe clarified language in the ordinance addressing “special lighting systems,” with staff advising that this referred to traffic signals, pedestrian lighting and/or street rights-of-way lighting that may not fall into specific categories in other areas of the ordinance.  Councilmember Roe suggested a need to consider changing the designation so “lighting” for all public safety aspects.


Acting Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Roe.


Acting Mayor Johnson opened and closed the Public Hearing at 6:58 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment on the proposed request for a noise variance to extend working hours for the MnDOT/Ramsey County/City Rice Street Project, with no one appearing for or against.


Written comment related to this item were provided as bench handouts, attached hereto and made a part thereof.


12.      Business Items (Action Items)


b.            Consider Adopting Streetlight Utility Ordinance

Councilmember Roe noted that his initial rationale in considering this fee was not as an additional revenue source, but one that the City had more control over, not subject to fiscal disparities or changing legislation for how property taxes are distributed back to cities.  Councilmember Roe opined that it made sense to look at this designated fee, along with City policy to diversify revenue sources, that was a specific cost and revenue source to cover that cost, rather than mysteriously collected as a group tax.  Councilmember Roe clarified that fees were essentially taxes; and advised that he looked at it as a substitute for current levy funding, while needing to review how all City costs and levels of service fit together.


Acting Mayor Johnson questioned whether Councilmember Roe would consider this a temporary fee if the levy limits were to be rescinded by the State, and then this cost would revert back to the levy.


Councilmember Roe advised that he didn’t anticipate this as a short-term fee so as not to make its administration cumbersome; and noted that the need was not apparent to take final action on this prior to setting the Preliminary Levy, noting that the final levy could be reduced if this fee were imposed.


Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to this proposed fee at this point, based on public input received to-date and past Council discussions, and based on fairness concerns with whether or not to exempt properties; residential properties appearing to bear more of the burden than commercial properties.  Councilmember Ihlan advised that the only way she could consider supporting such a fee would be if it was tied to a reduction in property taxes accordingly; with ordinance language included forcing the City Council to make related adjustments annually to ensure citizens were not being charged double for street lights.


Councilmember Pust advised that, if the fee was enacted, she could see an advantage in making the collection pie larger by collecting from commercial properties not currently paying for street lights; however, she didn’t like the concept that lighting was something paid for any differently than using the road and services benefitting the entire community, rather than a fee indicating something that was optional depending on need and/or perceived need.  Councilmember Pust noted that lighting as it involved public safety was not an option, and should be considered as a tax.  Councilmember Pust was supportive of street lighting as a tax for residential properties and a fee for commercial properties, if that was possible, and keep the tax structure based on the ability to pay, not whether there was a street light on a specific street.


Councilmember Roe clarified that commercial properties paid significant property taxes in comparison to residential properties; and noted that it was not optional to pay or not to pay recycling and/or storm water user fees, even though those were more based on usage over and above a base fee.


Councilmember Pust noted conservation built into water rates, but that this would not be possible with a lighting fee.


Acting Mayor Johnson noted that the discussion points brought up, as well as the comments provided by the public in writing, were all good points.  However, from a practical matter, Acting Mayor Johnson noted that the City was financially challenged, based on State levy limits and guidelines, as well as the level of services expected from customers/citizens.  Acting Mayor Johnson expressed interest in continuing to discuss this potential idea and see how it matures, even though he had strong reservations. 


Further discussion included clarification that tax deductions were a philosophical discussion and not based on a dollar for dollar basis; and clarification on rates for single-family and multi-family or condominiums based on the number of units per acre, with four (4) units the maximum no matter the total number of units in consideration of the acreage fee allotted to all units.


Consensus of the majority of Councilmembers was that there didn’t seem to be a rationale for a rate structure similar to recycling fees; and to direct staff to develop two (2) rates, one for single-family and one for all other non-single-family properties, consistent with what residents are currently paying on their property taxes for lighting.


Councilmember Pust noted the differing viewpoints in the need for more revenue and the need to reduce the levy in accordance with any additional fee(s).


Mr. Schwartz noted that by designating a specific fee for the street lighting as an Enterprise Fund, the fee would be specific and restricted to meeting current unmet needs for capital replacement costs rather than sharing in the available pot.  Mr. Schwartz clarified that street and signal lights were fairly uniformly located throughout the City, based on the available power grid.


Further majority consensus was for staff to continue looking at and refining the proposed fee and rate structure.


Councilmember Pust expressed some reluctance in proceeding, opining that she hoped staff was able to return with answers to those concerns expressed.


c.            Consider Amendments to Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations of 70 Anomaly Properties and Rezone Accordingly (PROJ0017)

City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly reviewed the request for Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Designation for a number of anomaly properties in Roseville as discussed during the zoning ordinance update for compliance with the recently-adopted Comprehensive Plan update, as detailed in RCA dated August 23, 2010 (Attachment A).  Mr. Paschke advised that these items had been reviewed at the July Planning Commission meeting and unanimously recommended to the City Council for action as indicated.


Discussion included city-owned property and recommended designations, and whether right-of-way or parks/open space designation was indicated and rationale for such designation; easements versus rights-of-way designation; wetland parcels; and potential conveyance back to property owner(s) if a parcel was deemed no longer needed or not needed in the future for city purposes.


Councilmember Ihlan expressed puzzlement in needing to change the Comprehensive Plan designation to comply with current use when the Comprehensive Plan was guiding property toward a future use; opining that a future park/open space (POS) land use may be indicated, using Langton Lake Park as an example, even if homes were currently located on the properties guided for future POS use.


Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon concurred that the Comprehensive Plan document was a future-looking document; however, noted the need for the Plan and the City’s Zoning Code to correlate.  Mr. Trudgeon used several examples of nonconforming uses and limited potential improvements of such a property based on current zoning.  Mr. Trudgeon opined that the City was better served to match up the Plan and Zoning Code; and noted that the completion of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan process would designate future areas for expansion and  use, and would be incorporated in future planning, and if necessary, land use designation changed accordingly.


Councilmember Roe brought forward several considerations of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Team and discussions on current and future eland use inconsistencies; noting that it was not a precise process, with different approaches considered to achieve the best possible scenario.


Mr. Trudgeon noted the challenges for staff and property owners in making sure their properties were consistent for future improvements and uses; and assured that the recommended changes would not reduce potential park space.


Councilmember Ihlan questioned if some of the recommended changes in land use designation were being driven by property owners.


Mr. Paschke assured Councilmembers and the public that none of these recommended changes were being proposed by property owners.  Mr. Paschke advised that property owners were noticed on the proposed changes as presented, and may not be coming forward if they were supportive of that designation, many of long durations in inconsistency and/or incorrect designations.  Mr. Paschke advised that staff from various departments had reviewed the anomaly properties and were concurrent in the recommended amendments.


At the request of Councilmember Roe, Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke advised that the properties around Langton lake were identified by the Parks Master Plan for interest in future purchase for a trail around the lake.


After further discussion, Councilmembers noted a lack of consensus for action; and it was confirmed by City Attorney Bartholdi that a super majority vote would be necessary.


Councilmember Ihlan expressed her preference to have the entire City Council present to avoid conflict.


Mr. Trudgeon asked that Councilmembers identify for staff those specific parcels needing further review.


Councilmember Pust requested page numbers for slides for better clarification; as well as a chart for the properties, with their specific uses and rationale for changes made available for a better record of why the changes were being made.


Johnson moved, Ihlan seconded, tabling action on this request to an upcoming meeting.

Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Johnson.

Nays: None.


d.            Give Direction on Providing Comments to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regarding the Bituminous Roadway, Inc. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon noted the extension by the MPCA of the comment period for the Bituminous Roadways EAW to September 10, 2010, as detailed in the RCA dated August 23, 2010.  Mr. Trudgeon requested staff authorization to provide city comments related to the project as identified in the RCA, and others as may become apparent during further discussions. 


Councilmember Ihlan expressed support of the City weighing in on those items listed, and drawing on public comments shared to-date with the City Council and staff, both those addressed to the PCA and copied to the City Council, in order to reinforce those comments by putting the City’s voice behind it.


City Manager Malinen clarified that the direction was authorizing staff to seek additional information including an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).


Councilmembers concurred with City Manager Malinen’s clarification; and Acting Mayor Johnson provided contact information, and available website links, for the public to submit their comments in writing to the MPCA by September 10, 2010.

Public Comment

Randy Neprash, 1276 Eldridge Avenue

Mr. Neprash complimented staff on the new approach to development project in the community and information available on the City’s website and links to relevant documents.


Mr. Neprash spoke in strong support of having the City staff prepare and submit a letter to the MPCA from the City’s perspective, and requested that the City Council authorize staff to formally request an EIS if enough items needing clarification or further review were found.  Mr. Neprash noted the number of items he and his wife had found that they thought were either inaccurate or insufficient in just a brief review of the EAW, many based on traffic.  Mr. Neprash advised that he had provided a copy of their formal statement to City staff.


Mr. Neprash, on behalf of his role in the Roseville Citizen’s League (RCL) noted submission to City staff earlier today of the RCL’s formal comments, requesting that the public review process be initiated from square one once the MPCA has completed their initial review of the EAW and Air Emission Permit review, based on the following rationale:

1)    The first time this came up, virtually all public notice focused on the decision at hand, that of a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor storage piles and heavy equipment, with mention of a proposed asphalt plant during that 2009 review coming in under the radar;

2)    Current number of issues with adjacent communities and agencies that were not originally factored in (e.g., U of MN; City of Mpls. Park Board; other adjacent communities);

3)    A lot more information is now available than before, due to the MPCA processes;

4)    It appears that a lot of original information was not accurate compared to most recent documentation


Dick Click, 2099 Fairway Lane (home abuts first green at Midland Hills)

Mr. Click requested consideration of decreased property values in the affected area, and offered data to staff from other properties affected when within a 1-2 mile radius, and their specific references.  Mr. Click noted available data regarding noise tolerance within a 1 mile radius as well and impacts to surrounding properties.


Ham Ramalingen, 2280 Acorn Road

Mr. Ramalingen expressed disappointment with MPCA staff available at recent meetings to answer questions; and questioned their professional expertise and their data sent back (e.g., noise decibel data).


Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff would also like to request authorization to speak to the Air Emissions Permit comments as recommended by Mr. Neprash.


Further discussion included the EIS and Air Emission Permit processes and time periods for comment; with Councilmembers concurring that the City should take a leadership role in seeking additional information and/or clarification as indicated.


Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, authorizing staff to write and submit a letter to the MPCA requesting additional information and commenting on Bituminous Roadways EAW and Air Emissions Permit; and if indicated for formally request an EIS.


Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of the motion for staff to request an EIS, opining the importance of such a request coming from the  City, not simply a compilation of citizen comments.


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Johnson.

Nays: None.


Acting Mayor Johnson recessed the meeting at approximately 8:08 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:17 p.m.


13.         Business Items – Presentations/Discussions


a.            Discuss Zoning Text Amendment for new regulations for Title 10, Zoning Regulations, pertaining to Employment Districts (PROJ0017)

City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly reviewed this item, seeking City Council input into the new Employment Districts standards in the text portion of Title 10, as detailed in the RCA dated August 23, 2010, with modifications listed in Section 4 of that report; with design/performance standards for all districts to be contained in a separate section of the code, currently under development.  Mr. Paschke noted three modifications to the proposed draft as a result of the Public Hearing held at the Planning Commission level, and incorporation of those modifications, as indicated in blue, to the proposed draft.


Public Comment

Bob Venters, 1964 Fairview Avenue N

Mr. Venters requested assurance that the performance standards listed in the existing Zoning Code, Chapter 1007 (Industrial Districts) related to smoke, noise, particulate matter, etc. be incorporated into and evidenced in the proposed code.


Megan Dushin, 2249 St. Stephens Street

Ms. Dushin provided e-mail comments to the City; and staff responses to her comments were included as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part thereof


Ms. Dushin reiterated her concerns that one portion of the code could be adopted when other sections were still being developed, and whether it wouldn’t be more prudent to adopt the entire document all-inclusive of all portions.


Ms. Dushin noted concerns with performance standards and restrictions related to manufacturing processes in industrial zones and comparison between current and proposed code.  Ms. Dushin asked that the City Council consider air and noise pollution related to buffer zones between industry and residential properties, and potential uses for those areas.


Discussion among Councilmembers and staff included clarifying that performance standards were a different chapter and would tie into all districts as appropriate once completely developed, along with other chapters (e.g., official zoning map; zoning districts; performance standards; and definitions) deemed critical to meeting the nine (9) month timeframe of the Metropolitan Council, as per State Statute, to bring the City’s Zoning Code into compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan.  Mr. Paschke advised that further revisions, of a less critical or high priority nature, would then be developed and incorporated.


Councilmember Ihlan opined that the current Zoning Code rewrite was way beyond what was necessary to bring it into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.  Councilmember Ihlan further opined the need for the current and proposed codes to be provided for comparison purposes to provide a more careful review by the City Council and public on those things being deleted, added or amended, rather than through the piecemeal process currently being processed.


Community Development Director Trudgeon clarified the process and rationale for such a process and staff’s attempt to bring portions forward for more timely and periodic discussions on a regular basis, seeking comment from the public and City Council, as the document proceeds.  Mr. Trudgeon admitted that the process was meant to allow for sharing back and forth to ensure all considerations were addressed.  However, Mr. Trudgeon advised if this process was too confusing on a chapter by chapter basis, staff could package the entire Code together for discussion and consideration at one time, for an extended period of discussion for this several hundred page document.  However, Mr. Trudgeon opined that this would be daunting and require a lengthy meeting; and further opined that staff thought this was a more feasible approach.  Mr. Trudgeon noted the difficulties in providing a comparison of old and new documents, given the changes in formatting and attempted simplification of the new document.


Further discussion included clarification of those items allowed and those not allowed in industrial zones, with staff assurances that current restrictions and regulations will serve as a basis and be built upon from there for more stringent oversight rather than less oversight; and that those things actually removed from the current to proposed code would be very minimal based on current indicators.


Councilmember Roe opined that it made sense to review current and new districts in order to make comparisons, based on review of districts already seen and discussions to-date; but that from a process point of view it made sense to review sections similar to the current process, followed by a review of the document in totality once completed.


Additional discussion included clarifying that there was no intent to remove design or performance standards for Industrial Districts that were based on health, safety and environmental restrictions; whether to have performance standards addressed across the board of specific to each chapter or land use designation; and staff’s preference to hear comments and concerns from the public and Councilmembers as they continued to develop the Code.


Further discussion included clarifications in the Industrial District specific to allowed uses, those identified and those not identified; preferences for clearly identifying those uses not permitted or ruled out altogether; the need to include or improve upon environmentally protected restrictions; and what mechanism would be in place or scientific standard or methodology available to enforce specific performance standards and their respective thresholds to allow proactive rather than reactive enforcement.



Discussion ensued related to whether it was more prudent to list distinct manufacturing and processing uses rather than attempting to anticipate every possible use that may come forward; impacts of proposed uses; designation of high impact industrial activities, whether permitted of conditional uses, and if they go beyond the established standard or threshold, and if mitigation is not evidenced, they proceed to an EAW to make that determination; keeping the code user-friendly but providing for sufficient controls for uses having significant impacts; use of an EAW as a way to measure established standards and enforcement of environmental issues beyond the City’s authority and/or expertise, and addressed by the MPCA or another authority.


Further discussion included whether all performance standards should tie into some other regulatory body for Industrial uses, noting changes based on science or citizen tolerance changes and the subjective nature of various performance standards; those uses needing City Council scrutiny above that of staff and those uses entrusted to staff to make a determination on whether they met established standards or not; with it up to the City Council to determine if the public health, safety and welfare was impacted, based on performance standards when considered at the onset of a particular use.


Additional discussion included those items asterisked and needing clarification; the need to make a clear designation between improvement surface area and impervious surface area to avoid confusion and for consistency throughout the document.


Mr. Trudgeon thanked Councilmembers and the public for their discussion; and asked that additional comments, concerns, or areas needing clarification be directed to staff at their earliest convenience as development of the document continued toward a final draft for review.


b.            Discussion Zoning Text Amendment for new regulations for Title 10, Zoning Regulations, pertaining to Commercial and Mixed Use Districts (PROJ0017)

City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly reviewed this item, seeking City Council input into the new Commercial and Mixed Use Districts standards in the text portion of Title 10, Zoning Regulations of the City Code, for revision and future consideration of final approval, as detailed in the RCA dated August 23, 2010, with modifications listed in Section 4 of that report; with design/performance standards for all districts to be contained in a separate section of the code, currently under development.


Acting Mayor Johnson opened the meeting for public comment, with no one appearing to speak at this time.



Councilmember Roe suggested including Institutional uses under the Community Business, Regional Business and Neighborhood Business Districts; and whether they should be included in this draft of brought forward later; with staff recommending that they be included on the Table of Uses as applicable in this draft, as they were text amendments not systematic changes to the Comprehensive Plan at the Metropolitan Council level.


Councilmember Ihlan addressed the former Shopping Center District and her concerns related to preserving the buffer zone along the south side of the Har Mar Mall in the proposed code as addressed and ensured under the current code.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that the recent letter from Mayor Klausing to a resident, copied to Councilmembers, may be misleading.


Staff was asked to ensure that standards for buffer zones apply across the board unless specific to a particular Business use to ensure those standards remain as currently stated or enhanced as appropriate or within a certain footage area of a specific use as applicable.


Mr. Paschke noted that some of the standards were universal and would apply to Employment Districts – Office/Business Park, and Industrial, and others would be specific to Shopping Center-type uses.


Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern with the distinctions between Business categories as finally adopted and compared to discussion at the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee level regarding square footage guidelines for specific business districts.  Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her advocacy for a code similar to the City of Edina model and its fairly detailed description of permitted sues woven into square footage limitations or other descriptions for infrastructure required to support them.  As a bench handout, Councilmember Ihlan provided a sample of the Edina Code, and copies of the City of Roseville’s current Zoning Code, Chapters 1001 and 1002, 1005, 1006 and 1007, attached hereto and made a part thereof, for comparison purposes.


Public Comment

John Sanocki, 1378 West Ryan, Har Mar Mall neighborhood

Mr. Sanocki expressed confusion on his part and that of many of his neighbors, regarding what the new designation meant to those residential properties on the south side of Har Mar Mall and protections provided in the current and proposed Zoning Codes. 


As discussed at the Planning Commission level, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the current and proposed Zoning Code were essentially unchanged as it related to the Har Mar neighborhood concerns.  However, Mr. Trudgeon advised that the City needed to find a solution to ensure that the neighbors maintained what they now have into the future, and that keeping the buffer area zoned as R-1 as proposed by the residential property owners, may not be prudent and may cause them to lose all buffer protections in the Regional Business District, which in reality could become single-family homes in the future; noting the need to determine which standard was better served for all parties.


Discussion among staff, Mr. Sanocki and Councilmembers included how to provide those protections; additional clarity needed to address neighborhood concerns; buffers there to protect neighborhood from commercial; changes addressed in 2000 and 2001 to further protect the residential neighborhood from commercial development; and the need to address Har Mar Mall area residential and commercial concerns and interests, as well as those other Regional Business Districts.


J. L. Thompson, 2008 Asbury

Mr. Thompson, a fifty-nine (59)-year resident at this location, referenced and identified himself as the recipient of Mayor Klausing’s letter as previously referenced by Councilmember Ihlan.  Mr. Thompson noted that this was an ongoing problem adjacent to Har Mar Mall for many years; and opined that everyone today seemed satisfied with the existing buffer zone, no additional access or egress to the Shopping Center from that area; and adequate drainage of the mall site.  Mr. Thompson noted that the only concern was in retaining it the way it was or whether the proposed zoning would create more of a problem, since at this time those past problems had been resolved.  Mr. Thompson suggested that the situation remain status quo to retain the control now available to residential property owners in the area; and asked that the staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council find a way to keep the buffers and fences in place.


c.            Discuss Residential Lot Size

City Planner Thomas Paschke noted that staff was returning to City Council for clarification and better direction on residential districts based on discussion and concerns raised at their July 26, 2010 meeting, and subsequent review by staff of the record and analysis for the proposed reduction in standard lot size and maps to better understand that recommendation, as detailed in the RCA dated August 23, 2010.


Mr. Trudgeon clarified that staff is only seeking discussion tonight, with no action, and providing additional information to facilitate that discussion, based on analysis of the Lot Split Study Group and their recommendations, and comparisons with other communities in determining lot sizes.


Councilmember Roe had provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part thereof, a graphic showing his interpretation of “pockets of conformity,” as an effort in addressing lot size standards.  Councilmember Roe noted the fairly large number of areas already conforming to current standards; recommendation of the Lot Split Study Group for maintaining current standards, and addition of a Small Lot Standard for those lots not conforming to current standards.

Councilmember Ihlan opined that the minimum lot size issue had nothing to do with the Comprehensive Plan and not needed as part of the discussion for Zoning Code changes.  Councilmember Ihlan suggested that this discussion was hugely complicated and that it be considered at a later date if necessary, and that consideration be given to her previous suggestions for a sliding lot scale similar to that of the City of Edina to address protections to the character of neighborhoods and ensuring that those large lots could not be subdivided for future development.


Acting Mayor Johnson spoke in support of the general provisions of Councilmember Roe’s proposal, recognizing the goal to get as many parcels as possible into conformity; while noting the desire of a multitude of neighborhoods in preserving their lots.


Councilmember Roe noted that, while there was a concern in some neighborhoods about subdivisions or the potential for multiple small lots in their neighborhood that was currently made up of large lots; this proposal made sense to have a lot standard more reflective of actual reality for a number of small lots throughout the community.


Councilmember Ihlan cautiously supported Councilmember Roe’s approach; however, she suggested that if other neighborhoods wanted to be included in the “pockets of conformity,” that they petition the City accordingly to allow as much protection of neighborhood character as possible rather than attempting to make things retroactively to a standard.


Mr. Trudgeon noted that the City was substantially made up of smaller lots; and that it was not staff’s intent to make more developable lots, but to bring existing lots into compliance to facilitate their owners making improvements for the benefit of the overall community.  From a Planner’s perspective, Mr. Trudgeon expressed some concern of Councilmember Roe’s proposal; however, noted that staff would administer it at the direction of the City Council.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that, if the minimum lot size remained at 11,000 square feet, it would still allow for subdivision to occur in Roseville, and would not solve any issues for those property owners of noncompliant, smaller lots; and asked that a solution be found for those property owners and their neighborhood character as well.


Councilmember Roe concurred with the need to preserve respective neighborhood character, and suggested that a two-tier approach could address those concerns and should prove administrable.  Councilmember Roe suggested that this process continue refinement to gain some level of conformity and further address remaining issues to consider.


10:00 p.m. Council Rules of Procedure

Roe moved, Johnson seconded, extending the meeting curfew time to complete discussion of Item 13.d.

Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Johnson.

Nays: None.

Public Comment

Pete McKeever

Mr. McKeever opined that their neighborhood was under attack with the proposed plan for reducing lots; and questioned the number of lots currently subdividable and those that could be subdivided under the proposed minimum lot size reduction.  Mr. McKeever cited several examples of subdivisions already in their neighborhood and opined that of those he polled in his neighborhood, they were universally opposed to smaller lots.


John Bachuber, 2223 Marion Road

Mr. Bachuber opined that those lots used on the example maps were inaccurate and that the actual number of lots that could be subdivided and impacts to those neighborhoods was grossly underestimated.


Carolyn Silflow, 2230 Marion

Ms. Silflow addressed her perception of the RCA comments, Section 2.3 and staff recommendations without sufficient justification for smaller lots; while not addressing neighborhood protections from larger lots for environmental and health concerns.  Ms. Silflow asked that the City Council direct staff to consider those citizen concerns in their recommendations.

Councilmember Roe clarified that the comments in Section 2.3 of the staff report were referencing recommendations of the Lot Split Study Group, not those of staff.


Ms. Sam Shadegg

Ms. Shadegg provided pictures for Councilmembers and asked that someone needed to question why staff was so adamant about reducing lot sizes; and suggested that the Planning staff was overstepping their authority.  Ms. Shadegg advised that their large lots were protected under covenant.


Pete McKeever

Mr. McKeever questioned how staff could justify recommending flag lots.


Mr. Paschke clarified that staff was not advocating flag lots, but that it had come up as part of a discussion for the Lot Split Study Group.


Councilmember Roe noted that staff was making no recommendation either way on flag lots.


d.            Request for Direction on a Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Amendment and Rezoning of two Parcels at the SE Corner of Dale Street and County Road C (PROJ0017)

City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the request for direction following the Public Hearing held on June 2, 2010 at the Planning Commission and their subsequent recommendation to the City Council; as detailed in the RCA dated August 23, 2010.


Discussion included the property owner’s intent to build a single-family home on the parcel; topography of the site; and current land use designation for High Density Residential; and adjacent Reiling Trust property and it’s land use designation.


Public Comment

Cedric Adams, small parcel owner of PIN 12-29-23-22-0003

Mr. Adams noted the current zoning of the entire corner as Single-family Residence and his intent when purchasing the property ten years ago to build a single-family home on the property; difficult topography and required setbacks from County Road C south for the parcel; and additional ten feet easement from the roadway due to that additional easement footage; and area watershed considerations.  Based on these hardships, Mr. Adams requested that the City Council retain Single-Family zoning for the parcels to allow him to construct a single-family home on that lot.


Discussion continued among staff and Councilmembers on the notice for the Reiling property sent to the owner of record; and guidance of the Reiling property as High Density Residential since 1979.


Pust moved, Roe seconded, directing the Planning staff to proceed with Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Map amendment from High Density Residential to Low Density Residential and Rezoned accordingly for the parcel identified as PIN #12-29-23-22-000.


Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Johnson.

Nays: None.


14.         City Manager Future Agenda Review


15.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings


16.         Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:21 pm.