City
Council Meeting Minutes
October 25, 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 October: Johnson; Roe; Ihlan; Pust; and
Klausing). City Attorney Charles Bartholdi was also present.
Councilmember Pust arrived at approximately 6:08 pm.
2.
Approve Agenda
By consensus, the agenda was approved
as presented.
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
5. Recognitions,
Donations, Communications
a. Proclaim
November 2010 National American Indian Heritage Month
Mayor
Klausing read a proclamation recognizing November 2010 as National American
Indian Heritage Month.
Johnson
moved, Ihlan seconded, proclaiming November 2010 as National American Indian
Heritage Month.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; Roe; Ihlan; Pust;
and Klausing.
Nays: None.
6. Approve Minutes
a.
Approve Minutes of October 18, 2010 Regular Meeting
Roe moved, Johnson seconded,
approval of the minutes of the October 18, 2010 Regular meeting as presented.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; Roe; Ihlan; and
Pust.
Nays: None.
Abstentions: Klausing.
Motion carried.
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 Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent
Agenda.
a.
Approve Payments
Johnson moved, Pust seconded,
approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
|
ACH Payments
|
$153,175.85
|
|
60320-60417
|
69,754.57
|
|
Total
|
$222,930.42
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; Roe; Ihlan;
Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
b.
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing City Manager to apply for SCORE
Grant
Johnson moved, Pust seconded, adoption
of Resolution No. 10852 entitled, “Resolution Requesting 2011 SCORE Funding
Grant for Use in Roseville’s Residential Recycling Program;” authorizing the
City Manager to submit a grant application to Ramsey County for a 2011 SCORE
Grant in the amount of $70,327.00.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; Roe; Ihlan;
Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
c.
Energy Use Update
Councilmember Roe suggested that
this information be publicized for the benefit of the public; with Mayor
Klausing concurring, and offering kudos to the staff on behalf of the City
Council and taxpayers.
Johnson moved, Pust seconded, accepted
staff’s periodic update on the City’s energy consumption through cooperative
staff efforts.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; Roe; Ihlan;
Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
d.
Award Bid for Rosewood Wetland and Midland Hills Road Drainage Improvements
Johnson moved, Pust seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 10853 entitled, “Resolution Awarding Bids for
Rosewood Wetland and Midland Hills Road Drainage Improvements;” to Minnesota
Dirt Works, Inc.. in the amount of $219,169.90; contingent upon easement
acquisition; and approving Drainage and Ponding Easement #08-13-17-13-02 from
2195 Rosewood Lane N (Attachment B), Drainage and Ponding Easement
#08-13-17-13-03 from 2201 N Rosewood Lane (Attachment C), and Drainage and
Ponding Easement #08-13-17-13-04 from 2211 N Rosewood Lane (Attachment D)
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; Roe; Ihlan;
Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
8. Consider Items Removed from Consent
9. General
Ordinances for adoption
10. Presentations
11. Public Hearings
a. Public Hearing for a
Minor Subdivision at 3053 Chatsworth
City Planner Thomas Paschke
briefly reviewed the request for a MINOR SUBDIVISION creating one additional
residential parcel out of a single existing parcel. Mr. Paschke noted additional
clarification done earlier today, following distribution of the Council agenda
packet, on minor revisions to actual locations of lot lines and the actual lot
width. Mr. Paschke noted that this created a slightly larger lot of the north
lot at from 102’ (48,450 square feet) to 112 – 119’ and making it between
53,000 – 56,000 plus square feet; with the lot to the south not changing and
remaining at 85’ in width.
Mr. Paschke noted that
modifications had been made in staff’s recommended conditions as outlined in
the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated October 25, 2010, to accommodate
potential lot drainage if improved, as well as addressing topography issues,
all to be accomplished prior to recording the plat, with Condition A
specifically addressing certain provisions of existing drainage concerns; as
well as Condition C addressing location of driveway and modifications to accommodate
a structure and meet setback requirements.
Revised conditions, provided by
staff, from those listed in Section 7.0 of the staff report are as follows:
a.
The applicant shall submit a topographic survey and grading/storm
water management plan for City approval, and implementation of the approved
plan shall be a necessary condition of the administrative approval of the final
survey as required in City Code, Section 10104.04E;
b.
The applicant shall verify that setback between the existing home
and the proposed property boundary and, if the setback is less than ten feet
(10’)’, an appropriate amount of the existing “greenhouse” structure shall be
removed to achieve the required setback;
c.
At least five feet (5’) of the existing horseshoe driveway shall
be removed by July 1, 2011 to conform to the required setback from the southern
parcel boundary; and
d.
The existing accessory structure and horseshoe driveway shall be
removed from the southern parcel by July 1, 2011. If plans for new home
construction utilizing the existing driveway have been submitted by June 1,
2011, the bulk of the driveway may remain, but that pavement which is within
the required five foot (5’) setback from the northern parcel boundary shall be
removed by July 1, 2011.
Discussion among staff and
Councilmembers included clarification of the revised conditions; minimum
separation required and the existing horseshoe drive in relationship to setback
requirements; administrative review of any future building permit applications
with lot lines and setback requirements to remove existing driveway to being
into compliance with City Code; and the process of City Code in applicants
meeting conditions for approval.
Councilmember Ihlan questioned
where a new structure would potentially be located and restrictions on the
location of a home in comparison to adjacent lots; with staff reviewing setback
and City Code requirements for placement in relationship to adjacent homes.
Councilmember Ihlan expressed
concern that if the home were located closer to the rear yard, trees that
currently blend in with Ramsey County Open Space would be removed, as already
expressed to her by a member of the public.
Mayor Klausing clarified the
purpose of tonight’s requested action and Public Hearing was specific to
ensuring minimum requirements were met for lot width and coverage, not future
improvements on the lot, with staff applying City Code standards in their
review of applications for those future improvements.
Councilmember Roe noted that it
was unusual to apply conditions to a Minor Subdivision request requiring a
topographic survey and storm water management plan as part of this action, rather
than associated with the building plan process.
Mr. Paschke advised that, while
not out of the ordinary, there had been drainage issues raised by adjoining
property owners, causing staff to seek additional information and apply
additional conditions to accommodate those concerns for both lots and recorded
with the property for future reference.
Mayor Klausing noted that any
plans would need to meet City Code requirements that neither lot created any
net increase in runoff.
Mayor Klausing opened the Public
Hearing at 6:26 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment on creation of a
Minor Subdivision at 3053 Chatsworth.
Public
Comment
Joan Bulfer, 3030 Chatsworth Street
Ms. Bulfer advised that her
concerns with building on the second lot were related to drainage, having lived
across from the property for 21 years, and having observed drainage issues
after heavy rains. Ms. Bulfer reviewed the map and how the property drained,
advising that the City storm sewer did not handle heavy rains and Chatsworth
Street flooded – both north and south - with the entire lot filling up with
water, running like a river from both sides of the driveway. Ms. Bulfer
thought that the natural depression on the lot used to be a creek, but later
filled in; and a bridge across the horseshoe driveway with a culvert under it,
even though water often ran over the driveway. Ms. Bulfer opined that the
second lot currently served as a major drainage area; and asked that both the
City and the Rice Creek Watershed District both approve this proposed
subdivision, as well as Ramsey County to address their Open Space, within 1,000
feet of the proposed subdivision.
Mike Weihe, 3001 Chatsworth
Street
Mr. Weihe concurred with the
comments of Ms. Bulfer related to drainage, noting that the lot served as a
natural drainage area with a depression, bridge and culvert, as well as a
cistern going 40’ and emptying into a gully, with a huge storm sewer outlet
feeding the wetland. Mr. Weihe noted that this served not just the lot, but
the entire area, with multiple areas of drainage occurring; and noted there
were two City storm sewers, one on each side of the driveway; and that water
often flowed down Lydia Circle and then back. Mr. Weihe opined that if that
area were built up and the ditch removed, it would affect people on either
side.
Pat Jacoby, 3011 N Chatsworth
(just south of proposed projection)
Mr. Jacoby noted that this lot
served as a low point for the neighborhood and there had been a meandering
creek near the center of the property, flowing through a culvert under the
horseshoe drive. Mr. Jacoby noted the hilly terrain at the rear of the
property, opining that the natural water flow had created a gorge; and if the
water were diverted, it would require planning to do so.
Nancy Nelson, 998 Brenner
Ms. Nelson noted that her backyard
adjoined the property in question; and that Rice Creek Watershed District
issues had been previously addressed, with Ramsey County providing extensive
money into improving Lake Josephine Beach; opining that any changes will affect
the lake and the watershed. Ms. Nelson noted that land for sale north of this
property was also in the Lake Josephine watershed area and could also be
developed, with both areas needing to be addressed for any future planning.
Mayor Klausing closed the Public
Hearing at 6:38 p.m.
City Engineer Debra Bloom addressed
those drainage concerns expressed; noting that any future development of the
lot(s) would require a permit from Rice Creek Watershed District as well as the
City when a Building Permit application was submitted, but not at this platting
level, since even though it is under an acre, it was adjacent to a protected
wetland and that the developer would need to be incompliance.
At the request of Mayor Klausing,
Ms. Bloom responded to concerns with existing drainage issues, noting that this
was a low point on Chatsworth, and concurring with the location of two catch
basins as described by residents, and their presentation of the area’s
drainage. Ms. Bloom advised that the area was part of the City’s comprehensive
surface water management system, and that staff was aware of problems in the
area, thus their rationale for applying the condition for approval.
Councilmember Johnson observed
that if the subdivision was approved and given drainage issues and not changing
the natural drainage flow, it seemed prohibitive that a building be located on
the front of that lot; or questioned what other remedies were available to
mediate water flow; and questioned if rain gardens could work on this lot or if
the topography was too severe.
Ms. Bloom advised that any future
improvements would need to be reviewed to ensure that they didn’t block
drainage and that outlets were at elevations similar to those today, with no
grading permitted that would increase the elevation; but that the lot(s) could
be re-graded to make a drainage swale work; but that rain gardens would not
work as they usually could only facilitate 1” rains.
Ms. Bloom expressed appreciation
for the knowledge provided by residents compared to and consistent with her
observations from walking the site.
Further discussion included
assurances required and standards applied by staff in granting administrative
approval, such as any grading plans that could change the topography; location
of future structures and how drainage would be accommodated; overland flow of
water on this lot to move water to the wetland on the west; and options,
including biofiltration, to treat storm water; sufficient drainage and existing
swales; calculations to ensure a swale is adequately sized to move water; use
of existing pipe versus installing a new pipe; and utility easements in place
on both sides.
Councilmember Roe clarified that,
if the applicant could not come up with a plan, as detailed in Condition A, for
City approval, would the subdivision become void.
City Attorney Bartholdi advised
that if the plat was not recorded in a certain amount of time, based on meeting
City approval of a drainage plan, then the applicant would not have met the conditions
for approval.
12. Business Items (Action
Items)
a.
Consider a Minor Subdivision at 3053 Chatsworth
Roe moved, Klausing seconded,
approval of a MINOR SUBDIVISION at 3053 Chatsworth Street, based on the input
received during the public hearing; and comments and findings of Sections 4 and
5, and the recommendation of Section 6 of the Request for Council Action dated
October 25, 2010; with those conditions revised as follows:
e.
The applicant shall submit a topographic survey and grading/storm
water management plan for City approval, and implementation of the approved
plan shall be a necessary condition of the administrative approval of the final
survey as required in City Code, Section 10104.04E;
f.
The applicant shall verify that setback between the existing home
and the proposed property boundary and, if the setback is less than ten feet
(10’)’, an appropriate amount of the existing “greenhouse” structure shall be
removed to achieve the required setback;
g.
At least five feet (5’) of the existing horseshoe driveway shall
be removed from each parcel by July 1, 2011 to conform to the required setback
from the joint parcel boundary; and
h.
The existing accessory structure and horseshoe driveway shall be
removed from the southern parcel by July 1, 2011. If plans for new home
construction utilizing the existing driveway have been submitted by June 1,
2011, the bulk of the driveway may remain, but that pavement which is within
the required five foot (5’) setback from the northern parcel boundary shall be
removed by July 1, 2011.
Councilmember Ihlan spoke in
opposition to the motion, opining that it was premature for the City Council to
approve a plat now without a drainage plan before them; expressing her desire
to know if the drainage plan made the lot buildable, and a firm determination
of the proposed location and type of a house. Councilmember Ihlan opined that
action should be tabled until input was received from the developer and Rice
Creed Watershed District. Councilmember Ihlan noted that this would not come
back to the City Council for any future approvals, but would be done
administratively by staff.
Councilmember Johnson noted
revised staff-recommended conditions requiring the potential developer to
provide proof that the current runoff could not be changed; with those
conditions addressing concerns raised by residents. Councilmember Johnson
expressed his trust in staff’s monitoring of these conditions to ensure
compliance to address this serious drainage issue.
Councilmember Roe noted that, as a
Councilmember, he didn’t have the expertise to determine whether a grading plan
was adequate, thus his reliance on staff’s expertise in providing their
assurances to the City Council and residents. Councilmember Roe opined that it
made sense to proceed as outlined, allowing for expertise of staff members in
their various field.
Mayor Klausing requested that
staff report back to the City Council if and when conditions were met.
Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her
concern that the final decision for approval would be by staff, when it should
be the City Council.
Councilmember Johnson noted that
staff was given strict guidelines in ordinances, adopted by the City Council,
to ensure compliance of applicants; and again expressed his confidence that
they would do so.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; Roe; Pust;
and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan.
Motion carried.
It was Council consensus to direct
staff to return to the City Council if the applicant met the conditions as
outlined; simply as a presentation or on the Consent Agenda, as a way to bring
closure and a comfort level for the City Council.
At the request of Mayor Klausing,
Ms. Bloom confirmed that the final documents would be public and available for
residents to review as well.
b.
Consider Community Survey
Councilmember Pust expressed
several concerns regarding a proposed survey, related to whether the City
Council had actually deleted the survey from the 2009 budget, and if so, why it
was approved in the 2010 budget; and if it was actually included in the
Communications Fund budget and not adopted line by line by the City Council,
could that Fund be used for the Parks & Recreation Master Plan survey.
Councilmember Pust recalled that funding for the survey had been called out in
2010 budget presentations, reviewed and approved in 2009, and was not included
in the 2010 budget. Councilmember Pust opined that it was possible that the
last discussion was for the 2008 budget, and with new people on the Council, it
was put in place in the budget, but not identified.
City Manager Malinen recalled that
the survey, as a communication tool, was in the Communications budget, which
was not levy-supported.
Councilmember Pust noted the
apparent and more immediate need for a Parks and Recreation survey, even though
told by the Committee that the two surveys could not be combined; and
questioned if the Communications Fund could be used for the Parks and
Recreation survey; and whether the budget could accommodate that survey.
City Manager Malinen noted that
the Communication Fund was used for a number of publications, such as the
newsletter and other communication and outreach efforts; and that a similar
$10,000 would be allotted in the 2011 budget.
At the request of Councilmember
Pust, City Manager Malinen confirmed that the funds could also be utilized to
allow more air time for Roseville community events and/or public meetings for
those residents unable to attend in person.
Councilmember Johnson addressed
ideas he’d heard in the community, including why only 1,500 households were
targeted; and whether some demographics would be missed if a survey was sent
out with utility bills in an effort to save postage.
City Manager Malinen advised that
staff was reliant on the recommendation of the survey company and their
expertise in the size of the survey for households that would represent the
community and be statistically valid.
Mayor Klausing noted the need for
valid sampling and responses to ensure they were random rather than
representing a self-selection of responses that may not represent the community
at large.
Councilmember Roe noted that
surveys sent to utility bill customers or any other means and resulting
responses would need to have a valid representation of Roseville statistically,
and also verified against various criteria and population demographics to
ensure proper proportions of the representative sample, and requiring
significant statistical analysis, which was a value added for someone other
than staff performing the survey. Councilmember Roe noted the comparable importance
of the Parks and Recreation survey. Councilmember Roe noted his concerns with
a survey being included in tax-supported or Communication Fund budgets and the
relationship to priority discussions held to-date and the need to consider the
entire budget picture by City Council review of non-levy supported and
levy-supported budgets. Councilmember Roe expressed his personal displeasure
that the survey was included in the 2010 budget, when he was under the impression
that the City Council had not included it. Councilmember Roe opined that, if a
survey was to be done, he didn’t want it to be a “feel good” survey with
innocuous questions, but to be meaningful, further opining that the City Council,
as ultimate decision-makers, therefore sign off on the questions prior to distribution,
ensuring that meaningful and significant points and issues were included,
similar to the survey completed for recycling and refuse removal.
Councilmember Johnson concurred
with the comments of Councilmembers Pust and Roe that such items be more
transparent in the budget. Councilmember Johnson opined that he was inclined
to support a survey as a part of the new budgetary process establishing
priorities to ensure Councilmembers were tracking with public sentiment, on a
one-time basis. Councilmember Johnson expressed his disappointment in the
budget process last year and lack of citizen involvement and attendance in the
public meeting opportunities; opining that a survey might be another option to
engage citizens.
Klausing moved, Johnson seconded,
approval of a contract between the City of Roseville and Cobalt Community
Research for a resident survey at a cost not to exceed $9,600.00 as funded in
the 2010 Budget amount of $10,000 for a citizen survey in the Communications
division budget – a non-property tax-supported division.
Councilmember Ihlan, related to
budget transparency, expressed her desire that fellow Councilmembers would join
her in requesting line item budget documents from staff in a more timely
fashion than presented previously. Councilmember Ihlan opined that she did not
support two surveys and remained unconvinced that the two could not be
combined, or at least to use the same firm to perform both surveys
concurrently. Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion to perform
the survey.
Councilmember Pust spoke in
opposition to the motion; and questioned why a vendor had already been chosen
for the survey without a Request for Proposals (RFP) process, as indicated by
the City’s Professional Services Policy on how vendors were selected; and
questioned how she should respond to other firms seeking information on why
they were not considered in the selection process. Councilmember Pust noted
that the Professional Technical process ensured a more a more transparent,
public process.
Councilmember Pust opined that,
with all due respect, $10,000 was not well-spent on this type of survey and
would not help her decide how to spend citizen tax dollars. Councilmember Pust
reminded Councilmembers and the public of the City Council’s serious
consideration to shutting down the City’s hockey rinks as part of budget
reductions, and noted that this expenditure represented 25% of that $40,000
allotment.
City Manager Malinen noted the
limited number of firms providing this type of survey; his participation in a
webinar sponsored by Cobalt and his determination that they met the City’s
interests and needs, as well as the cost-savings from previously-used or
reviewed survey firms. Mr. Malinen noted that this firm allowed the City to
customize questions including budget areas, and served as a dynamic tool,
through use of on-line surveying of residents distinct and separate from a statistical
survey. Mr. Malinen assured Councilmembers that staff using a best value
process in selecting this firm would have been more staff-intensive than the
RFP process.
Friendly Amendment to Original
Motion
Roe moved, Klausing seconded,
to amend the original motion as follows:
1. Questions
must come before the City Council prior to their release; and
2. The
Budget module must reflect the priorities as considered in the annual Budgeting
for Priorities process, including non-levy areas of the budget.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; Roe; Ihlan;
Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
Mayor Klausing spoke in support of
the motion as an additional information tool for decision-making.
Councilmember Johnson questioned
if the firm would provide for dissemination of information for the raw data, or
wrap it up in summary form.
City Manager Malinen advised that
the City Council would receive a draft report, not necessarily raw data, but
categorized; and further advised that he would seek more specifics from the
Cobalt firm.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; Roe; and
Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan and Pust.
Motion carried.
c.
Consider Changing the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan
Designation and Subsequent Rezoning of the Unaddressed Parcel West of 556
County Road C from High Density Residential to Low Density Residential
City Planner Thomas Paschke
briefly reviewed the request as detailed in the RCA dated October 25, 2010;
noting that the requested action required a super-majority vote.
Discussion included clarification of errors on the map attached to the report.
No one appeared for public comment
on this item.
Klausing moved, Pust seconded,
adoption of Resolution No.10854 (Attachment B) entitled, “A Resolution Amending
Roseville’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Map to Change the Designation of
the Cedric Adams Property.”
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; Roe; Ihlan;
Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
d.
Consider Changing the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan
Designation and Rezoning of 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8 from High Density
Residential to Low Density Residential
City Planner Thomas Paschke
briefly reviewed the request as detailed in the RCA dated October 25, 2010;
noting further staff analysis as directed by the City Council at their July 12,
2010 meeting and a subsequent public open house and Public Hearing before the
Planning Commission. Mr. Paschke highlighted the history of this area,
specifically addressed in Section 2.3 of the RCA; and noted those comments
received to-date from adjacent property owners, included in the staff report,
and in opposition to High Density Residential (HDR) designation; while the
property owners of the two subject parcels were in favor of that designation,
with interest expressed by a current developer for purchase of the parcels at
the HDR designation. Mr. Paschke noted that the Planning Commission voted 5/2
in support of a designation of Medium Density Residential (MDR; with staff recommending
that the designation remain as it is today, HDR; rationalizing that such
designation is appropriate and does not warrant a correction.
Discussion among staff and
Councilmembers included land use designation of those properties on the other
side of the city limits in St. Anthony Village; and tank farm land use
designation as Industrial; and clarification that these parcels had been
removed from the original list of anomaly properties presented by staff for
further consideration based on public comment at that time.
Public
Comment
Karen Hagen,
2485 West County Road C-2, Roseville
Ms. Hagen noted her previous
comments related to safety concerns, following her son being struck by a
vehicle last year at this vicinity; and the increasing traffic concerns since
her purchase of the property in 1999, with traffic on the trunk highway. Ms.
Hagen asked that consideration be given to this trunk highway as the City
Council makes its determination. Ms. Hagen referenced Ramsey County’s 2030
Comprehensive Plan and whether the municipalities took that into consideration
in its review, specifically Ramsey County’s comments in their Plan, Section
B-6, in future design implementations and precedents of traffic safety
concerns.
Rita Mix, 3207 Old Highway 8,
St. Anthony (townhome) and President of Woods Edge Homeowners Association
Ms. Mix noted that she had read
her comments into the record at last week’s meeting, and had nothing more to
add, but reiterated her main points related to traffic, lack of infrastructure
(e.g. bike trails or sidewalks); and not public transportation. Ms. Mix
addressed drainage issues on their property and evaluation of that drainage
problem by the City Engineer and installation of sump pumps to drain into their
pond. Ms. Mix opined that HDR designation would significantly impact that
drainage system, as well as increasing traffic, and devaluing their property.
Rebecca Johnson, 3517 County
Road C-2 (directly across where proposed driveway would be)
Ms. Johnson opined that if a 37-unit
building was constructed, one could only imagine the additional vehicles,
increasing an already very congested area; and negatively impacting safety and
traffic, in addition to the number of school buses in that area. Ms. Johnson
spoke in support of Low Density Residential (LDR), or MDR at the maximum.
Carolee Lindsey, 3242 Old
Highway 8, St. Anthony
Ms. Lindsey addressed safety
issues for residents at that intersection on the St. Anthony side; and opined
that Old Highway 8 in that area was inadequately designed to accommodate any
additional traffic, since there were already significant issues in residents
accessing their driveways. Ms. Lindsey further addressed drainage issues on
the 3253 lot and impacts if a large parking lot was installed; and the negative
impacts to their property value. Ms. Lindsey advised that, when residents had
purchased their townhomes, they didn’t anticipate having large buildings across
from them and elimination of the wooded area that would also be impacted by the
proposed development
Diane Dunn, 3203 Old Highway 8,
St. Anthony
Ms. Dunn questioned whether those
residents living in the townhomes on the St. Anthony Village portion had any
voice in this matter; opining that the decision should be a joint decision
between the two communities, not just Roseville. Ms. Dunn asked the City
Council to personally review that five-intersection area; opining that this was
not a good idea to designate HDR; and asked that they table it and review the
site in its reality during afternoon rush hour.
Mr. Paschke, as well as Mayor Klausing,
reviewed the request before the City Council; existing land use designation of
HDR requiring no action by the City Council; and the Comprehensive Plan process
and review of that plan by 7 – 11 adjacent municipalities and the Metropolitan
Council, and in place and repeatedly reviewed since the 1970’s.
Joe Genitti
Mr. Genetti spoke in opposition to
HDR designation, and referenced proposed development plans for construction of
a five-story apartment building, placing the townhomes in a “tunnel” and having
negative impacts. Mr. Genitti opined that these parcels should serve as an
aesthetic buffer between the Industrial area and HDR apartments; and spoke in
support of LDR or MDR designation.
Susan McCloskey, 2525 County
Road C-2, Roseville (on corner)
Ms. McCloskey reviewed traffic
issues on her lot, with truck driving over the curbs, her front lawn and
sprinkler heads; and opined that there was already too much traffic from
trucks, and that the intersection needed a signal light, including pedestrians,
to ensure safety. Ms. McCloskey also addressed the proposed development and
additional and negative vehicle traffic impacts, and lack of enforced traffic
control now. Ms. McCloskey noted the natural wildlife area and its demise with
a new development; and addressed concerns related to diminished sunlight for
the entire block; and spoke in support of LDR or MDR designation.
Page Buck, single-family home, 3609
33rd Avenue, St. Anthony
Ms. Buck echoed comments heart
previously; and addressed traffic concerns; asking that the City Council
consider LDR or MDR designation.
Derrick Yen
Mr. Yen addressed traffic and
noise levels as his biggest concern; and traffic congestion at the intersection
of Highway 8 and County Road C-2, especially safety concerns for children
walking to area schools. Mr. Yen asked for LDR designation.
John Runquist, Trustee of John
P. Hines Trust, 3253 Old Highway 8 (property owner)
Mr. Runquist addressed his fiduciary
responsibility to maximize profits of the property, an ongoing process for the
last two years; and in accord with the Roseville Comprehensive Plan and land
use designation for these parcels for the last thirty years. Mr. Runquist
advised that changing the land use designation at this tie would force him to
accept almost one-half of the sales price; and opined that this parcel was
attractive for HDR and was the best use of this parcel. Mr. Runquist noted
that future development fit in well with existing residential density housing
already on three sides; and would be a significant increase in the City’s tax
base without significant increase in the City’s infrastructure for this development.
Mr. Runquist asked that any consideration given by the City Council to
disregard staff recommendations to leave the parcels as currently designated
would provide financial harm to the Trust, and would need to withstand transparency
in findings to do so. Mr. Runquist noted difficulties to-date and delays in
the process due to title issues with the PUD development on the south.
Jim Reasoner, 3254 Old Highway
8, St. Anthony
Mr. Reisner opined that driveways were
already unusable for residents; that there were no parklands handy to the
townhomes, and that if anther 37 units were added, there would be no where to
go, but more use of those driveways to seek other options, further increasing
existing problems with traffic and problematic intersections.
Tom Brutenello
Mr. Brutenello noted that this
property had been in his family since the 1940’s and had been purchased as an
investment property; and slated in the 1970’s as HRD, and asked that the City
Council retain its HDR designation.
Jerry Nordenstrom, Equity Interest
Party in 3253 Old Highway 8
Mr. Nordenstrom addressed
misrepresentations presented tonight regarding the proposed development;
advising that plans were not for a five-story building; plans were in place to
save every possible tree and retain green space in the range of 50-60% for
these units; and to provide underground parking for all resident parking
needs. Mr. Nordenstrom noted that the townhomes had 70% impervious surface
areas and the townhomes and their driveways provided no green space. Mr.
Nordenstrom noted that Executive Manor was located entirely in St. Anthony, and
that it was unfair to address a proposal that was not yet finalized. Mr. Nordenstrom
further addressed drainage issues at the townhomes that were draining onto the
3253 property; with the Trustee of the parcel generous enough to provide the
townhomes with a drainage easement. Mr. Nordenstrom also noted lack of
compliance to setback requirements of the townhomes.
Mayor Klausing refocused
discussion and public comment on the issue before the City Council.
Mr. Nordenstrom asked that the
City Council be aware that the public comments are not reflective of the actual
proposal by the developer and property owner; and actual realities being taken
into consideration by them related to safety, green space, drainage and trees.
At the request of Councilmember
Roe, Mr. Nordenstrom confirmed that the development was proposed for Roseville
only, and that the adjacent triangle parcel in St. Anthony was currently zoned
Light Industrial.
Bonnie Revering, 3211 Old
Highway 8, St. Anthony
Ms. Revering opined that, when
considering all surrounding properties, and their designation as HDR, LDR and
Single-family homes, proper designation of these parcels should serve as
transition from HDR to LDR as MDR as proposed by the majority of the Planning
Commission.
Mayor Klausing thanked speakers
for their input; and moved to Council discussion.
Councilmember Ihlan opined that in
every other anomaly case, the Comprehensive Plan designation had been changed
to be consistent with zoning; and expressed concern with what was actually
taking place with this property; and the application for a zoning change to HDR
from the currently zoned LDR; and questioned the basis for this request if
there may be future development that the City Council won’t support or
approve. Councilmember Ihlan opined that the City Council did not have
adequate information, in addition to those extensive comments and concerns
raised by the public, to make a decision. Councilmember Ihlan further opined
that this property “flew under the radar” when HDR designation was approved;
and opined that she would have questioned it had it come forward earlier; and
opined that the designation should conform to current use.
Mayor Klausing noted that the request was to change the Comprehensive Plan designation,
not zoning.
Councilmember Ihlan moved to
change the designation to LDR.
The Chair declared the motion
failed for lack of a second.
Mr. Paschke clarified that these
two parcels were not anomalies, but had come up during Zoning Map discussion,
and currently identified as HDR with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning in
accordance; but never identified as anomaly properties.
Councilmember Johnson, noting his
service on the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee, failed to recall
discussion about any changes for this property; and therefore opined it must
have been their decision to retain HDR designation, or other recommendations
would have been pursued.
Discussion included the process
to-date for this long-term HDR designation on this property; differentiation
between the land use designation and zoning in relationship to any proposed
development requiring City approval through a normal application process; with
no development proposal currently before the City Council.
Also as a member of the
Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee, Councilmember Roe questioned whether
this property came under any great scrutiny during that process; however,
didn’t know if it should be characterized that it was apparently reconfirmed as
previously designated.
Staff clarified the RCA dated
October 25, 2010, and actions or lack thereof, depending on consensus, with
those properties, along with hundreds of others, taken care of when the City
Council adopted the final Zoning Map in the near future.
Councilmember Ihlan polled the
audience on their knowledge of the Comprehensive Plan process and land use
designations; and opined that this was a huge decision for the neighborhood;
and expressed frustration in sitting among Councilmembers who apparently would
do nothing.
In response to Councilmember Ihlan,
Mayor Klausing assured Councilmember Ihlan and the public that he had heard her
comments, as well as those comments and concerns expressed by the public.
Mayor Klausing noted that those concerns will be addressed as part of a future
land use application process, depending on the actual request.
Councilmember Roe noted that,
while not every proposal in Roseville came before the City Council, the City
Council – as Roseville’s policy-making body – did establish land use
parameters. Councilmember Roe noted this avoided proposals becoming
politicized by the City Council body beyond those standards already in place.
Mayor Klausing concurred, and
further noted that code provisions were in place to address drainage concerns
as expressed during public comment.
Councilmember Pust noted that the
City Council couldn’t predict a future proposal at this time; and tonight’s
decision needed to be separate from a future development proposal.
Councilmember Pust questioned what could be done about existing problems at
this intersection today; and suggested staff be directed to work jointly with
St. Anthony to consider safety issues.
Public Works Director Schwartz
confirmed that the intersection was jointly administered by both the City of
Roseville and St. Anthony Village; and advised that staff could review to see
if it warranted a signal or round-about.
By consensus, Mayor Klausing directed
staff to perform a comprehensive review and history of that intersection; and
to make that review public information.
No action was taken to change land
use designation from HDR.
e.
Consider Corrections/Amendments and Rezoning of Approximately 16 Parcels
to be Consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly
reviewed the 16 anomaly properties as detailed in the RCA dated October 25,
2010; and the recent Open House, as well as the Public Hearing held at the
Planning Commission level.
Councilmember Roe followed up on
previous e-mails to staff on the two Minnesota Commercial railroad properties
(Slides #11 and #14) that recommended changes from designation of Railroad
Right-of-Way to industrial and Commercial to Industrial respectively and
staff’s rationale for those recommendations.
Mr. Paschke reviewed adjacent
properties and guidance of those parcels similar to recommendations.
Discussion included the number of
parcels identified during this comprehensive zoning review; rationale in
recommended designations; with Councilmembers concurring that the parcel
identified in Slide #14 be removed for further consideration of its
designation.
Mr. Paschke noted that this action
required a super-majority vote.
Klausing moved, Pust seconded, adoption
of Resolution No. 10855 (Attachment C) entitled, “A Resolution Amending
Roseville’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Map, amended to correct 15
parcels; eliminating the Parcel on Slide #14.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; Roe; Ihlan;
Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
Recess
Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at approximately 8:38 p.m.
and reconvened at approximately 8:44 p.m.
13. Business Items –
Presentations/Discussions
a. Discuss
2011 Street Work Plan
Public Works Director Duane
Schwartz briefly summarized the 2011 Public works Work Plan as detailed in the
RCA dated October 25, 2010. Mr. Schwartz noted certain pavement failures from
construction projects done in the 1990’s and current studies being performed on
the materials used. Mr. Schwartz reviewed the PMP projects for mill and
overlay, and reconstruction and their locations, funding sources and cost
estimates; utility work for sanitary sewer lining and/or replacement; water main
replacement; and sealcoat or crack seal maintenance projects.
Mr. Schwartz briefly reviewed
projects of other jurisdictions affecting the City of Roseville, including Rice
Street improvements – Phase II for bridge and interchange replacement; and area
watershed district projects impacting the City.
Discussion among staff and
Councilmembers included projections for anticipated construction bids
continuing; upcoming feasibility report and pathway construction along Dale
Street addressing safety concerns and pedestrian and bicycle traffic; reductions
in interest earnings in the PMP and limited use of principal funds and reduction
in MSA allocations for street maintenance at approximately 1/3 of the City’s
needs.
Further discussion included
potential projects currently on hold and possibly put back into the work plan
as bid alternates and depending on funding sources; and use of reserves and
loss of interest versus the minimal amount of interest currently being earned
and long-term cost savings by doing projects at this time and in this bid climate.
At the request of Councilmember
Roe, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that the PMP was tax-supported funds, and that when
the City Council made adjustments in the 2010 budget, the PMP was scaled back
in the maintenance areas but has been returned to previous levels this year.
Klausing moved, Johnson seconded,
approval of the 2011 Public Works Work Plan as presented, and as detailed in
the RCA dated October 25, 2010.
Roll Call
Ayes:
Johnson; Roe; Ihlan; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays:
None.
b. Discuss
Asphalt Plant
Councilmember Ihlan summarized her
comments and proposals as detailed in Attachment F to the RCA dated October 25,
2010; and requested public comment on her proposal to move forward with denying
the proposed asphalt plant at this time.
.
Mayor Klausing opened the meeting
to public comment on this issue.
Public Comment
Randy Neprash, 1276 Eldridge
Avenue
Mr. Neprash noted his professional
work with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and his familiarity
with their procedures and protocols. Mr. Neprash spoke in support of
Councilmember Ihlan’s proposals and referenced e-mails between Gregg Downing,
Environmental Review Coordinator with the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Ms.
Ihlan and the City’s Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon over the
last few weeks. Mr. Neprash further referenced his personal review of the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) related to the proposed asphalt plant.
Mr. Neprash opined that it would be prudent, and save time and money for all
parties, if the City Council proceeded with denial of the plant at this time.
Mr. Neprash further opined that relative to performance standards, there was a
long list of items in the EAW supporting denial.
Joseph Olson, Lawyer, RV
Resident, downwind of where this is proposed
Mr. Olson referenced the October
14, 2010 letter from City Attorney Bartholdi and Caroline Bell-Beckman
(Attachment A) and existing code provisions prohibiting this use; and speaking
in support of Councilmember Ihlan’s proposals to protect Roseville residents
and provide clear guidance to developers that the City put the health and
safety of its residents above an increased tax base.
Tam McGehee, 77 Mid Oaks Lane
Ms. McGehee asked if sufficient
documentation and opinions were in the record to support the ability of the
City to deny this request prior to completion of environmental review, in the
opinion of the City Attorney.
City Attorney Bartholdi referenced
his written opinion dated October 14, 2010 (Attachment A) and clarified that
his opinion had changed based on recent amendment to City ordinance making the
asphalt plant a non-permitted use. Mr. Bartholdi noted his previous opinion
based on a lack of environmental factors; and advise to the City Council as to
whether they should proceed at that time or not. However, noting the ordinance
amendment, he advised that the City Council could deny the use if it so determined.
However, Mr. Bartholdi recommended that the applicant be provided sufficient
written notification on denial of the CUP, since this is the only permit being
requested at this time; and the original information they had received that
this CUP was associated with a permitted use based on interpretation that
asphalt was a manufacturing use, without clarification that this was only one
aspect of the proposed use, later determined to include crushing operations and
outdoor liquid storage, neither of which would be permitted uses based on existing
performance standards.
Ms. McGehee referenced an opinion
from an Environmental Attorney, supporting denial at this time with no need to
complete the environmental review.
Nancy Nelson, 2154 Bloom, south
of proposed site
Ms. Nelson addressed concerns
related to potential reductions in residential and/or commercial property
values in that area if a plant was permitted; and questioned if those property
owners had recourse against the City or the asphalt plant to reimburse them for
their losses. Ms. Nelson opined that she did not want to have her property
value decrease due to smelling asphalt.
Councilmember Pust cautioned the
City Council to not take any action until they had procedurally confirmed the
entire process to minimize litigation for the City, including sufficient notice
to the applicant.
City Attorney Bartholdi concurred
with Councilmember Pust regarding notice recommendations.
Megan Dushin, 2249 St. Stephen
Street
Ms. Dushin questioned whether
Bituminous Roadways had a vested interest; and questioned if the City Attorney
was confident Issue of whether the City Attorney was confident that the
ordinance amendment served to support the proposed action of Councilmember
Ihlan.
City Attorney Bartholdi opined
that Bituminous Roadways did not have a vested interest based on the status of
their application process and no start to their construction of the proposed
plant and similar case law; however, he did not preclude any future litigation
they may choose to pursue.
Councilmember Johnson noted
ongoing discussions at the staff level based on performance standards and
criteria and what triggers a CUP in zones.
Mayor Klausing reviewed his
interpretations of the issue and whether or not the asphalt plant met land use
requirements; and a decision as to whether the City Council could deny the
request should be premised on several points:
1) Since the City
Council approved an amendment to City Code Section 1007.015 clarifying
permitted uses in Industrial Zoning Districts and that an asphalt plant was not
a permitted use, the attorney for Bituminous Roadways had argued that that
amendment to the zoning code was not retroactive; and
2) City
Councilmember Ihlan’s memorandum indicated that the asphalt plant was never a
permitted use under City Code as it was unable to meet a number of City Code
standards; and
3) City Attorney
analysis and opinion that, based on environmental review process issues, the
use would have a negative impact;
4) The attorney for
Bituminous Roadways letter refutes that analysis as well.
Therefore, Mayor Klausing spoke in
support of not taking any action at this time in order to put the City in the
best position to protect its residents and defend potential litigation. Based
on past experience by the City, Mayor Klausing opined that the City should
allow the MPCA to continue with its environmental review process, noting the
City Council’s unanimous support of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to
the MPCA; and by proceeding with that review it put the City in the best
position, whether from applying the opinion that Bituminous Roadway had no
vested interest, as well as from an environmental position.
Councilmember Ihlan provided
greater explanation for her intended City Council action tonight, and clarified
that she was not proposing that the City Council deny approval tonight.
Councilmember concurred with Councilmember Pust’s recommendation for written
notice to the applicant; and sought additional information on potential grounds
for denial based on the information now in hand, and detailed in her memorandum,
the three bullet points on page 1 and including land use and environmental
issues; and not totally dependent on the recent ordinance amendment.
Councilmember Ihlan noted the greater costs and continued uncertainty by
allowing the process to continue. Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of the
first item of her proposed actions, detailed on page 2 of her memorandum.
Councilmember Pust suggested
further discussion on potential litigation in closed executive session.
City Attorney Bartholdi advised
that the Council could not meet in closed session to discuss threatened
litigation since no litigation has been threatened at this time.
Councilmember Roe questioned what
action the City could take to deny when the applicant had only applied for a
CUP for outdoor storage of aggregate at this time.
Councilmember Ihlan noted that the
City Attorney suggested one possible action, that it was not a permitted use
based on the information currently before the City Council.
Councilmember Roe questioned if
the CUP for outdoor storage was denied based on environmental impacts of a
proposed asphalt plant, was that proper grounds for denial; and opined that the
City Council needed to know the definitive answer to that prior to proceeding
further toward denial.
Councilmember Ihlan noted that
this was Item #1 of her proposed actions in directing staff and the City
Attorney to provide that analysis based on the pieces of information available
and whether it supported that denial.
Ihlan moved, Pust seconded, that
staff and the City Attorney be directed to analyze and report on possible
grounds for the City Council to deny approval of the proposed asphalt plant, or
any proposed Conditional Use Permit; with a friendly amendment offered by
Councilmember Roe to clarify that the motion be amended to provide the information
for the “City” rather than the “City Council..
Councilmember Pust noted that any
legal advice would be received by the City Council in public session.
Mayor Klausing opined that there
was still no proposal to build an asphalt plant, and how could you deny
something that had yet to be requested. Mayor Klausing further opined that it
seemed more prudent to look at evidence to support a conclusion, rather than
attempting to having already reached a conclusion and seeking justification for
that conclusion. Mayor Klausing spoke in opposition to the motion, opining
that “we’re borrowing trouble.”
Councilmember Roe noted that, with
the additional information requested, it would provide additional specificity
and answers to questions as a basis to deny CUP application and consider
impacts of asphalt plant.
Councilmember Pust noted that the
City didn’t have the statutory authority to approve the application in its
current status in the process.
Councilmember Johnson spoke in
support of the motion; opining that it was the City Council’s responsibility to
look at all options.
Roll Call
Ayes:
Johnson; Roe; Ihlan; and Pust.
Nays: Klausing.
Motion carried
City Manager Malinen advised that
staff would report at the next meeting for City Council consideration of
subsequent actions.
14. City Manager Future Agenda
Review
City Manager Bill Malinen distributed
upcoming draft agenda items and briefly reviewed those items.
Discussion included the December
meeting schedule as it related to public comment and Truth in Taxation Hearing
requirement related the 2011 budget and levy.
15. Councilmember-Initiated
Items for Future Meetings
16. Adjourn
The meeting was
adjourned at approximately 9:55 pm.