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

City Council

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







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.


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.