City
Council Meeting Minutes
November 8, 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 November: Pust; Johnson; Roe; Ihlan;
and Klausing). City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present.
2.
Approve Agenda
Staff requested removal of Business
Action Item 12.d entitled, “Consider City Abatement for Unresolved Violations
of City Code at 1430 Brenner;” for additional preparation by staff, to be
rescheduled on the November 22, 2010 regular City Council agenda.
Councilmember Ihlan asked that
Agenda Item 15.a entitled, “Discuss Proposed Expansion of Arden Hills
Presbyterian Homes,” that she’d requested as an agenda item, be moved ahead on
the agenda to accommodate a number of citizens in the audience wishing to speak
to this issue. Mayor Klausing suggested hearing the item as the first Business
item following Agenda Item 10.a entitled, “Fire Department Building Facility
needs Committee update.”
By consensus, the agenda was
approved as amended.
3. Public Comment
Mayor Klausing called for public
comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one appeared to
speak at this time.
4.
Council Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Report
5. Recognitions,
Donations, Communications
6. Approve Minutes
a.
Approve Minutes of October 25, 2010 Regular Meeting
Johnson moved, Pust seconded,
approval of the minutes of the October 25, 2010 Regular meeting as presented.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe;
Ihlan; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
7.
Approve Consent Agenda
There were no additional changes to
the Consent Agenda than those previously noted. At the request of Mayor
Klausing, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered
under the Consent Agenda.
a.
Approve Payments
Councilmember Roe noted that the
list of payments made appeared to be in a different format than the past, and
asked that the additional detail previously provided be reinstated for Council
and public information.
City Manager Malinen advised that
this was due to new software, and he would direct Finance Department staff to
reformat the list with additional detail.
Roe moved, Johnson seconded,
approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
|
ACH Payments
|
$348,305.70
|
|
60418-60544
|
1,008,071.68
|
|
Total
|
$1,356,377.38
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe;
Ihlan; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
b.
Set Public Hearing for Annual Liquor License Renewals
Councilmember Johnson sought
additional information from staff on whether the licensees up for renewal were
all current as far any penalties previously implemented by the City’s Police
Department and whether they had all participated in mandatory manager and
server training.
City Manager Malinen advised that,
by the public hearing date, that information would be brought current for
additional Council information.
Roe moved, Johnson seconded, to
schedule a Public Hearing on November 22, 2010 to consider approval or denial
of the annual renewal of liquor licenses as detailed in the Request for Council
Action (RCA) dated November 08, 2010, for the calendar year 2011.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe;
Ihlan; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
c.
Approve Drainage Easements for Rosewood Wetland and Midland Hills
Road Drainage Improvements
Roe moved, Johnson seconded,
approval of a Drainage and Ponding Easement (Attachment A) between the Midland
Hills Country Club, and the City of Roseville for the Rosewood Wetland Drainage
Improvements.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe;
Ihlan; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
Roe moved, Johnson seconded,
approval of a Drainage and Ponding Easement (Attachment B) between the Midland
Hills Country Club, and the City of Roseville for the Midland Hills Road
Drainage Improvements.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe;
Ihlan; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
d.
Adopt a Resolution relating to the 2010 Ramsey County Traffic
Safety Initiative Grant Agreement
Roe moved, Johnson seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 10856 entitled, “Resolution Relating to the
Administration and Implementation of a Traffic Safety Grant by the Roseville
Police Department,” for participation in the 2010 Ramsey County Traffic Safety
Initiative Grant.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe;
Ihlan; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
8.
Consider Items Removed from Consent
9.
General Ordinances for adoption
10.
Presentations
a.
Fire Department Building Facility Needs Committee Update
Fire Chief Timothy O’Neill and
Building Facility Needs Committee members: Commander David Brosnahan, Fire
Marshal John Loftus, and Firefighter Pam Billadeau were present to provide an
update on the Building Facility Needs process to-date. Chief O’Neill advised
that the committee consisted of 12 representatives consisting of current and
retired firefighters, community representatives, and a City Council
representative, having initially met in mid-August of 2010 and continuing to
meet twice monthly with a goal to provide a more detailed update to the City
Council yet this fall, and a final recommendation in January or February of
2011.
Commander Brosnahan provided an
overview of past and current fire operations; noted past station studies
performed in 2002 and again in 2008, providing background and guidance to the
committee; and establishment by the committee of objectives and goals, as well
as a timeline for their work. Commander Brosnahan noted that committee members
had reviewed each facility on paper, as well as a site tour of each.
Fire Marshal John Loftus advised
that the first major decision of the committee had been to determine whether it
was feasible to attempt remodeling and/or repurposing of the existing buildings,
or constructing new facilities. Fire Marshal Loftus advised that the
committee’s areas of consideration included day-to-day operations of the Fire
Department; minimum operating efficiencies; space needed to operations,
training; ADA, National Fire Protection Agency, and OSHA requirements; and fire
and building codes. Fire Marshal Loftus noted that the current facilities have
no separate gender areas for firefighters; little administrative space; and
limited adequate equipment and vehicle storage. In reviewing the various
components and needs, the committee sought the services of an architectural
services firm in Roseville, Buetow and Associates, Inc., who graciously agreed
to look at existing facilities and make recommendations based on their expertise
in constructing facilities, including fire stations, for metropolitan area municipalities.
David Olds and Mod Feders of
Buetow and Associates, Inc. provided a brief history of their firm’s experience
as municipal architects and their general and broad observations of the three
existing stations. Mr. Olds provided a presentation and bench handout, attached
hereto and made a part thereof, assessing five various categories for
consideration at each building, including: Building Code/OSHA/ADA Access Compliance;
Healthy Environment/IAQ (Indoor Air Quality) Control: moisture and ventilation
for pollutant control/comfort; Functional plan/equipment potential for
adaptability and expansion; Total building energy use: insulation, mechanical
and electrical systems; and Sustainability Environment: structure, operation
and maintenance costs, and finishes. Mr. Olds reviewed those five assessments
for Station 1 (Lexington Avenue at City Campus); Station 2 (Fairview Avenue);
and Station 3 (Dale Street).
Chief O’Neill advised that, based
on preliminary information and the committee’s use of a decision matrix to
determine if their focus should be on remodeling any of the three buildings or
new facility(ies), the committee’s findings were to focus on new facilities;
and that the committee would provide additional information in an update to the
City Council in the near future as they complete their due diligence and bring
forward a recommendation.
Councilmember Roe asked if the
committee was looking at other performance models that would include the
Roseville Fire Department as a stand alone, or as a joint department with
other communities, and how that information figured into this process.
Chief O’Neill responded that those
considerations would be the committee’s next step in how the City’s needs fit
into the future perspective of potential shared services.
Councilmember Pust opined that it
seemed premature to make a decision for new construction over remodeling when
it was yet to be determined how many stations were needed. Councilmember Pust
asked that the committee keep their discussions as holistic as possible,
whether the cost of new construction or remodeling and repair, and that those
discussions not be held in isolation of actual revenue sources, keeping viable
options open for either option to provide the most realistic recommendation to
the City Council.
Chief O’Neill responded that the
committee had determined, based on conditions of existing facilities and
remodeling costs, that it would be more cost-efficient to look at new
construction; however, kept open the possibility that once all the facts were
known, it may be necessary to backtrack and consider less attractive options.
Chief O’Neill noted that the committee was cognizant that while the decision-making
was being done in pieces, they understood that in the end, all those pieces
needed to fit together.
Councilmember Ihlan asked that as
the committee moved forward, they keep in mind that remodeling may have to be
the option taken given budget constraints and other capital needs of the City.
Chief O’Neill advised that the
committee understood that it would be prudent to provide a variety of options
to the City Council, taking into consideration funding and timing.
11.
Public Hearings
a.
Public Hearing for a Renewal of Currency Exchange License for
Pawn America, 1715 Rice Street
Community Development Director
Patrick Trudgeon provided a summary of the annual renewal of Pawn America
Minnesota LLC Currency Exchange Licenses as part of process for Department of
Commerce, under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 53A.04 for renewal; as detailed in
the RCA dated November 8, 2010. Mr. Trudgeon noted, as part of the report
materials the October 4, 2010 memorandum from the Roseville Police Criminal
Investigations Unit related to operations at Pawn America.
Councilmember Roe sought
additional information from staff related to the actual Currency Exchange
license processed through the State of Minnesota Department of Commerce, and
whether there was any portion of that license fee that was allocated to the
City; and whether the City realized any additional costs for enforcement of the
currency exchange portion of this business.
Mr. Trudgeon responded that he was
not aware of any portion of the fee allocated to the City, with the Pawn
License itself in the City providing a hefty fee; but no separate or distinct
license for the currency exchange business from a municipal level; and the City
only requested to provide comment to the Department of Commerce as they
reviewed renewals for currency exchange business licenses.
Mayor Klausing opened and closed
the Public Hearing at 6:41 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment on
approving/supporting renewal of the 2011 currency exchange license for Pawn
America, 1715 Rice Street with no one appearing for or against.
12.
Business Items (Action Items)
a.
Consider the Renewal of Currency Exchange License for Pawn America,
1715 Rice Street
Councilmember Pust sought further
clarification on how calls were distinguished between pawn transactions and
currency exchanges; and incident of calls from the City’s Police Department.
Police Chief Rick Mathwig
responded that the Police Department considered any service call to that
address, whether related to the currency exchange portion of the business or
the pawn business. Chief Mathwig advised that Pawn America had been of great
assistance to the Department in tracking digital information; and had no
concern about the operations of either portion of the business.
Councilmember Pust considered the
Chief’s comments to mean that this type of business, by its very nature, caused
more police calls, but if this type of business were to be in the community,
this firm was a good business partner.
Chief Mathwig clarified that given
the location of the Pawn America business, any time you introduced significant
traffic into an area, from his perspective, it created additional issues and service
calls.
Klausing moved, Johnson seconded,
approval/support of the request by Pawn America Minnesota LLC, 1715 N Rice
Street, Roseville, to renew their license to operate currency exchange
businesses in Roseville for the 2011 calendar year.
Councilmember Ihlan spoke in
opposition to the motion, as she had voted against it originally, since it was
not a required part of the pawn shop license and was a separate business
licensed through the Department of Commerce. Councilmember Ihlan expressed
concern with the excessive fees charged by currency exchanges and whether this
was good for the community, when they were operating in a B-2 zoning district;
and were not a bank or financial institution.
Councilmember Pust questioned if
it was because the B-2 zoning district allowed financial institutions that
there were no concerns about this portion of the operation.
Mr. Trudgeon responded
affirmatively, from a zoning perspective.
Councilmember Johnson opined that
there was a niche for this type of service in the community for those not
having bank accounts and who relied on this type of service, and further opined
that it was a legitimate business and service, with a legitimate clientele,
even if they charged a higher rate than normally charged by a bank.
Councilmember Pust expressed her
concerns about this type of business; however, she noted her reliance on the
City’s Police Department’s assurances that this firm is a good citizen.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe;
and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan.
Motion carried.
15.
Councilmember Initiated Items for Future Agendas
a.
Discuss Proposed Expansion of Arden Hills Presbyterian homes –
Councilmember Ihlan
Councilmember Ihlan advised that a
number of residents bordering on Roseville and Arden Hills on County Road D had
made contact with the City of Roseville and expressed concern that Roseville
resident concerns had not been heard or addressed with this proposed
redevelopment of the Presbyterian Homes campus on Lake Johanna Boulevard.
Councilmember Ihlan suggested that the City Council allow their voices to be
heard.
Mayor Klausing asked for
Councilmember Ihlan’s specific proposed course of action.
Councilmember Ihlan advised that
it was her intent to hear and clarify concerns of neighbors and see what the
Roseville City Council could suggested or additional information they could
provide to the Arden Hills City Council through written communication.
Noting that the engineering
services were provided to the City of Arden Hills by the City of Roseville,
Mayor Klausing invited City Engineer Debra Bloom to provide comment and an
explanation of the proposed Presbyterian Home recently heard by the Arden Hills
Planning Commission and City Council.
City Engineer Debra Bloom reviewed
information included in the City Council packet, as well as the shared
jurisdiction along County Road D between Roseville and Arden Hills; and the
homes along Wheeler Street and Shorewood Avenue in Roseville most significantly
impacted by the proposed redevelopment at Presbyterian Homes of their campus,
and reviewed the proposed land use action being considered by the City of Arden
Hills, and the redevelopment itself for the addition of a total of fourteen
(14) additional beds and proposed total residents and number of units.
Ms. Bloom discussed the proposed
shift of access points on the site, their alignment to existing access points
and streets for safety considerations; and the traffic study completed and
number of additional trips per day. Ms. Bloom noted that if it was determined
by the traffic study that conditions warranted an analysis at Wheeler and
County Road D, changes in the redevelopment would be required as a condition of
approval. Ms. Bloom further noted that any intersection analysis needed to
meet a series of criteria based on safety issues, including accident history
and traffic volumes. Ms. Bloom assured residents and Councilmembers that the
City understood their concerns, and had completed a traffic study over the
weekend, and that even under current conditions, a stop at County Road D and
Wheeler may be warranted as a condition if the redevelopment moves forward.
Ms. Bloom advised that, at the direction of the Roseville City Council, the
staff at Arden Hills could be requested to provide additional information on
the concerns raised by Roseville residents and Councilmembers.
Discussion among Councilmembers
and Ms. Bloom included current and proposed access points; intent of
Presbyterian Homes to relocate employee parking and access points from current
practice perceived to create a significant impact on the neighborhood during
rush hour; strains on the neighborhood streets as traffic is negotiated from
Presbyterian Homes as well as Northwestern College off Lydia; and rationale for
vehicles to be routed south rather than north on Lake Johanna Boulevard.
Further discussion included
relocating the proposed driveway to the west on Wheeler; traffic study
assumptions for traffic flow; and proposed reduction in staff by Presbyterian
Homes with the readjustment of type of housing (independent living) intended in
the redevelopment.
Councilmember Pust noted the need
to look at traffic as a regional consideration, not just from one jurisdiction
to another; and reminded Councilmembers of the lack of cooperation by the City
of Arden Hills when asked several years ago with the redevelopment of the
Northwestern College campus to open an access point in Arden Hills for the
college, and their response that all accesses continue to be limited to the
Roseville side. Councilmember Pust opined that the City of Arden Hills needed
to prove to the City of Roseville their interest in finding a cooperative
solution to this traffic issue. Councilmember Pust further opined that it
appeared that the most sensitive thing for Presbyterian Homes would be to make
the circulation and traffic adjustments on their plat rather than dumping
additional traffic into a residential area and increasing an already bogged
down traffic area.
Additional discussion included the
revisions made to the Presbyterian Homes to-date regarding the “triangle area”
previously proposed for development and removal of that part of the proposals
due to concerns with driveways being too close to a busy intersection.
Councilmembers Roe and Johnson
concurred, in reviewing the site, that moving the proposed access site further
west by Fairview would create less of a direct path for traffic into the residential
neighborhood.
Public Comment
Bob Espes, 3656 Shorewood Lane,
Roseville
At the request of the
neighborhood, Mr. Espes advised that he was serving as spokesman for the
Wheeler Street and Shorewood Lane neighborhood, and advised that those
Roseville residents in the area felt that they had been left out of the entire
process to-date; and reviewed the notice area(s) used by Presbyterian Homes for
their neighborhood meetings, and by the City of Arden Hills’ Planning
Commission for the public hearing regarding this proposed redevelopment. Mr.
Espes advised that the main concerns of the residents was the increase in
traffic coming onto those purely residential streets and through the secondary
entrance at Presbyterian Homes, particularly employee traffic during shift
changes and rush hour traffic. Mr. Espes suggested on the Presbyterian Homes’
site map that a cul-de-sac could be designed on the campus and onto the lot at
the soccer field level to provide the same emergency access. Mr. Espes asked,
on behalf of the neighborhood, that the section of the road south of Shorewood
Drive be eliminated, with a service road access provided for townhome
residents, preferably as suggested by Councilmembers Roe and Johnson, west of
their proposed location to facilitate Shorewood Lane, rather than providing a
straight shot. Mr. Espes reviewed a significant increase in area traffic over
the last 10-15, and the common practice of drivers to further complicate the
traffic patterns to avoid intersections; cautioning that Wheeler Street and
Shorewood Lane would become service roads for the Presbyterian Homes
redevelopment. Mr. Espes noted that the access road had previously been
proposed elsewhere, but when Arden Hills residents objected, they were
accommodated. However, he noted that Roseville residents, similarly affected,
did not have the opportunity to voice their opinions, given the lack of notice
of the proposed development by either Presbyterian Homes or the City of Arden
Hills; and asked that they be given the opportunity to have some participation
on the parts of the proposed project having significant impacts on their
neighborhood and quality of life.
Mayor Klausing asked if concerned
Roseville residents had attempted a dialogue with Presbyterian Homes, with Mr.
Espes responding negatively, noting that they had only found out about the
proposal on Monday, but would more than willing to open dialogue if
Presbyterian Homes was willing to sincerely participate in open discussions.
Mr. Espes advised that the neighborhood felt that approaching the Roseville
City Council for their assistance and intervention seemed the only remaining
avenue available to the Roseville residents.
Annette Phillips, 3084
Shorewood Lane
Ms. Phillips referenced a copy of
the traffic study created and presented to the Arden Hills Planning Commission
at their public hearing; and displayed it for Roseville Councilmembers; and
questioned the assumptions of the study and projected trips, reorganization of
the campus and decrease of 58 assisted living units and increase of 71
independent living units and additional vehicles; parking lot and existing
driveways; and number of employees estimated at between 150 and 200 moving in
and out of the campus. Ms. Phillips further noted the on-street parking provided
for Cox Insurance on County Road D at Fairview Avenue, since their parking lot
behind their building was inadequate; and limitations created on the street for
two-way vehicle traffic and parking, as well as impacts to that intersection
from on-street parking. Ms. Phillips also noted that given the proposed height
of the building, at two levels, with underground parking, creating the
appearance of three levels, any plantings intended for screening would have
little impact for a number of years, providing significant aesthetic concerns.
Ms. Phillips opined that, had the Roseville residents been given an opportunity
to provide comment at the Arden Hills public hearing, they could have possibly
negotiated better placement of the buildings and created a larger setback. Ms.
Phillips respectfully requested that the Roseville City Council get involved,
specifically in reviewing the accuracy of the traffic study.
Mr. Pat Phillips, 3083
Shorewood Lane (husband of previous speaker)
Mr. Phillips asked the Roseville City
Council to use their moral authority to entreat the Arden Hills City Council to
strongly encourage Presbyterian Homes to meet seriously and in good faith with
those excluded citizens of Roseville.
Tom Lundberg, 2035 Wheeler
Street
Mr. Lundberg asked that the
proposed access road onto Wheeler Street be modified to a single lane emergency
vehicle road, which would eliminate or significantly reduce traffic onto
Wheeler Street.
Joe Rivard, 3083 Shorewood Lane
Mr. Rivard asked that the
Roseville City Council use their authority against this ill-conceived and
ill-planned project; and that they use their clout with their brethren on the
Arden Hills City Council regarding traffic accumulation, final design of the
proposed project; and noted the significant school bus traffic in that area
with a number of those children having mental and/or physical handicaps. As a
former lawyer, Mr. Rivard asked that the City Council put their actions, if
any, in writing, expressing his distrust of Presbyterian Homes in keeping their
verbal word.
Ms. Kris Kauffman, 3122
Shorewood Drive
Ms. Kauffman advised that she was
not a Roseville or Arden Hills resident, but was a property owner bordering on
Shorewood Drive, but had inherited that property from her mother who had lived
there for eighteen years. Ms. Kauffman opined that the proposed project would
change the entire scope of the neighborhood; was proposed to be a four year
construction project with heavy equipment; additional traffic would be
detrimental; and that the proposed screening for the new buildings offered
little screening for at least seven years. Ms. Kauffman also expressed concern
regarding the health factors with construction dust over a long period of time.
Mayor Klausing thanked speakers
for their comment and proposed a letter from the Roseville City Council to the
Arden Hills City Council, highlighting the following points:
§
Asking for a proposed traffic study south of Wheeler Street and
Shorewood Lane;
§
Asking that Presbyterian Homes consider closing the road from the
brownstone buildings to the main road;
§
Asking that consideration be given to moving the driveway further
west so it doesn’t directly align with Wheeler Street; and .
§
Asking that the City of Arden Hills facilitate conversation
between the Roseville residential neighborhoods and Presbyterian Homes (Councilmember
Pust request).
Councilmember Johnson suggested
that consideration perhaps be given to designating the exit onto County Road D
as right turn only to alleviate traffic onto Wheeler Street.
Councilmember Pust expressed
concern that Roseville residents impacted by the proposed redevelopment had
been excluded from notice of the project.
Councilmember Roe questioned how
state and local municipal requirements were taken into consideration when the
radius of notice was determined.
City Attorney Mark Gaughan advised
that notice requirements didn’t stop at political boundaries.
John Merkens, Representative of
Presbyterian Homes
Councilmember Pust asked Mr.
Merkens how it was that Roseville residents in the vicinity, yet highly
impacted by the proposed redevelopment, had been excluded from the process.
Mr. Merkens admitted that it had
been short-sighted on the part of Presbyterian Homes; noting their attempts in
ensuring notice requirements were met with three specific neighborhoods and the
lake association, and subsequent open houses and/or meetings on seven different
occasions. Mr. Merkens advised that their concerns had focused on relocating
employee parking and they had inadvertently not anticipated significant impact
to the south. However, Mr. Merkens advised that he had heard loud and clear
the concerns of those excluded residents; and expressed his openness to a
meeting the Wheeler Street neighborhood to clarify information and misinformation.
While not recognizing that further discussion would ultimately affect the
design, he noted the need for a fair dialogue to get the correct information
before residents.
Councilmember Pust expressed
interest in making space available at Roseville City Hall to accommodate that
meeting.
Councilmember Ihlan suggested that
the proposed letter to the Arden Hills City Council include language alerting
them to the lack of notice provided to Roseville residents impacted by this
proposed development, and the need to ensure that they were included in the
process as it moves forward, and that their comments be considered.
Mr. Merkens noted that, even while
following ordinance requirements of Arden Hills, the staffs of the two
communities shared significant dialogue from engineering, planning and traffic
standpoints; and Presbyterian Homes believed they were working in good faith
with both communities for a reasonable and adequate review of their
redevelopment plan.
Klausing moved, Roe seconded,
directing staff to memorialize tonight’s discussion with a letter from the
Roseville City Council to the Arden Hills City Council, highlighting the following
points:
§
Asking for a proposed traffic study south of Wheeler Street and
Shorewood Lane;
§
Asking that Presbyterian Homes consider closing the road from the
brownstone buildings to the main road;
§
Asking that consideration be given to moving the driveway further
west so it doesn’t directly align with Wheeler Street;
§
Asking that the City of Arden Hills facilitate conversation
between the Roseville residential neighborhoods and Presbyterian Homes (Councilmember
Pust request); and
§
If the agreement for parking on the north side of County Road D
to accommodate the Cox Insurance building was eliminated as part of the redevelopment,
that the redevelopment needed to provide consideration to deal with that loss
of parking.
Mr. Merkens advised that the
proposed project provided adequate parking to facility that same parking level
now provided (nine stalls) along County Road D.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe;
Ihlan; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
Recess
Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at approximately 7:44 pm
and reconvened at approximately 7:48 pm.
12. Business Items (Action Items)
b.
Canvass General Election
City Manager Bill Malinen
summarized election data for the City of Roseville’s municipal election, noting
the minor correction in votes for Mayoral candidates.
Klausing moved, Johnson seconded,
approval of the final municipal election results of the November 2, 2010 General
Election as presented and amended as follows:
Mayor
Name Total
Votes (as amended)
Dan Roe 9,878
Dan Kelzer 2,814
2815
City Council
Name Total
Votes
Bob Willmus 7,001
Tammy McGehee 6,620
Bob Venters 5,279
Mick Hawton 1,829
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe;
Ihlan; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
c.
Consider City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at
2580 Hamline
Permit Coordinator Munson reviewed
the request for abatement as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA)
dated November 8, 2010; providing a visual update on the property as of today
of this single-family detached home, located at 2580 Hamline Avenue and
currently owned by Mr. Xengku Vang, but currently vacant and in foreclosure.
Mr. Munson summarized the proposed
abatement, neighborhood-complaint-generated, consisting of badly deteriorated
and poorly maintained garage, with total repairs and repainting estimated at
approximately $3,000; along with recent discoveries of debris and junk
deposited on the property. Staff recommended that the Community Development
Department be authorized to abate the unresolved City Code violations at 2580
Hamline. Mr. Munson advised that both the property owner and bank had been
notified of tonight’s abatement hearing before the City Council; but advised
that the property owner was not interested in making any improvements to the
property given the current foreclosure status; and advised that the bank had
not intended to send any representatives to tonight’s meeting either.
Roe moved, Johnson seconded,
directing staff to abate the above-referenced public nuisance violation at 2580
Hamline Avenue by hiring a general contractor to repair and repaint the garage;
as detailed in Request for Council Action dated November 8, 2010, at an
estimated cost of approximately $3,400, revised to include removal
of debris and junk since found on the property; and further directing
that the property owner be billed for all actual and administrative costs; and
if those charges remain unpaid, staff is to recover costs as specified in
Roseville City Code, Section 407.07B; with costs to be reported to the City
Council following the abatement.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe;
Ihlan; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
d.
Consider City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at
1430 Brenner
As previously noted, this item was
removed by staff and will be deferred to the November 22, 2010 meeting agenda.
e.
Consider Adopting a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use for
the Woof Room Doggie Day Care
Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd
briefly summarized the request of Kristen Cici of The Woof Room for approval of
a dog daycare and boarding use at 1430 County Road C, as in Interim Use,
pursuant to City Code, Section 1013.09 (Interim Uses); as detailed in the
Request for Council Action (RCA) dated November 8, 2010. Mr. Lloyd advised
that the primary concerns of both staff and residential property owners to the
south were addressed in the staff report and recommended conditions outlined in
Section 8.0 of the that report. Mr. Lloyd noted that additional written
communication received by staff since the Public Hearing before the Planning
Commission on November 3, 2010 was detailed in Section 7.0 of that report.
Bench handouts, consisting of
written correspondence dated November 7, 2010, from Larry Bittner, 1439 Rose
Place, and an e-mail dated November 5, 2010 from Molly Redmond and Steve Ring,
1455 Rose Place, were provided and are attached hereto and made a part
thereof.
Mr. Lloyd reviewed two outstanding
and unaddressed issues: the final location of the rain garden for storm water
management on the site; and final location of the trash dumpster. Mr. Lloyd
reviewed the pending status of discussions at the staff level with the City of
St. Paul’s licensing division and any issues they’d experienced with similar
operations, including revocation provisions if problems or violations were
found. Mr. Lloyd advised that there were no animal control issues or
complaints with a similar facility on Grand Avenue, a location toured by City
staff several weeks ago; and staff’s due diligence in finding no irresolvable
issues with such an operation.
Discussion among Councilmembers
and staff included considerations and conditions of the location of the rain
garden and trash dumpster; permitted uses versus conditional uses; involvement
of the City’s Public Works and Engineering staff in development, location and
design of the rain garden for filtering rinse water runoff for pet urine
through a natural process rather than directly into the storm sewer system; and
additional measures defined in “Condition H” if barking should become a
nuisance and part of the record for the parcel impacting further continuation
of the Interim Use.
Further discussion included the
process for implementing measures to mitigate issues; proximity of the southern
most part of the building at four feet from residential property lines;
location of recreation areas inside and outside; and approval by the Roseville
Engineering staff of the final design and sloping of the play yard and the rain
garden.
Councilmember Ihlan expressed
concern that no sanitation equipment would be installed in the building; and
questioned whether Ramsey County requirements, as well as the City’s
recently-adopted Illicit Discharge Ordinance, were being met with the proposed
rain garden; and whether the rain garden was sufficient to handle the pet
waste, given the number of dogs being proposed on site.
Applicants: Kristen Cici and
Angela Becker
Applicants took turns responding
to Councilmember questions regarding pet waste, noting that feces would be
bagged with only pet urine filtered through the rain garden; and advised that
they had researched Ramsey County requirements for bagging or flushing feces,
with flushing not appropriate in this situation. Applicants noted the need for
cleansing the turf area to avoid urine odors; and advised that they used
environmentally-friendly and common cleansers, that neutralized the pet urine,
and was specifically made for dog daycares. Applicants ensured Councilmembers
that they wanted to do things effectively and efficiently, but also were
environmentally conscious, thus the rationale for the rain garden.
Further discussion included the
other business proposed by the applicants at the same site (event planning , but
not requiring land use approval or permits; supervision of dogs during the day,
and procedures for overnight stays without staff according to industry
standards and successful operating models; proposed webcams installed
throughout the daycare facility and security system to monitor temperature
control, motion, glass breakage and other incidents indicating a problem
requiring staff to investigate on-site; and experience of the applicants with
pet care and behavior.
Applicants noted the newness but
continual growth of and demand for this type of service in the United States;
and offered their willingness to take any steps recommended by staff to meet
noise requirements and be good neighbors to adjacent residential property
owners. Applicants noted that it was essential to their business as well to
keep noise levels down, and if during the evaluation process for potential
pets, they appeared to have problems adjusting to the facility, they would not
be admitted.
Public
Comment
Mayor Klausing noted the public
comments received as part of the record from the Planning Commission’s Public
Hearing; and opened the meeting to public comment if there was any additional
or new information the City Council should receive.
Molly Redmond, 1455 Rose Place
Ms. Redmond provided her concerns
in writing via e-mail dated November 5, 2010; but read through those nine
concerns at the invitation of Mayor Klausing.
Ms. Redmond expressed concern with
information researched by staff from area residents of similar operations, as
well as the lack of response to-date from the City of St. Paul; whether a rain
garden would neutralize urine and if actual models were in place for that
purpose, or if this was a trial process to flush waste from forty dogs on a
daily basis; and how any resulting concerns expressed by neighbors, such as
noise issues, would be addressed by the City. Ms. Redmond noted the history of
past concerns having not been efficiently or effectively addressed to the
benefit of the neighborhood and their resulting frustration and distrust. Ms.
Redmond expressed further concern that much of the correspondence back and
forth between staff and residents was not included in the packet materials; and
questioned the “sloppiness” of staff and her perception of other slights received
from staff. Ms. Redmond advised that this only served as another potential
liability to adjacent residents who already felt that they were “second class
citizens in a sacrifice area.”
Steve Ring, 1455 Rose Place
(husband of Ms. Redmond)
Mr. Ring expressed interest in
this business succeeding and recognized the need to such a facility; however,
he questioned if the proposed location was prudent, given its close proximity
to residential properties and in an already non-compliance land use area. Mr. Ring
noted his primary concern was to protect the value and liability of adjacent
residential properties; and encouraged Councilmembers to locate the business
elsewhere, limit the time frame for the business, or apply additional
restrictions on the business.
Mayor Klausing ended the public
comment portion of the meeting.
Mayor Klausing clarified that the
City was not involved in locating businesses. Mayor Klausing opined that he
future consideration of a license with annual renewal made some sense; and further
opined that he had no problem reducing the Interim Use period from five to two
years, unless it impacted the applicants’ business model or financing; noting
that any noise issues would be dealt with under the City’s nuisance ordinance.
Mayor Klausing noted the City’s significant experience in establishing and
designing rain gardens, and that their recommendation of a rain garden as
opposed to immediate and direct routing into the City’s storm sewer system made
sense.
Councilmember Roe opined that it made
sense to reduce the Interim Use period; and agreed that future review of an
annual license may be indicated. Councilmember Roe further agreed that a rain
garden, approved by the City Engineer, made sense, and recognized that this was
a new use for the City of Roseville to consider. Councilmember Roe noted that
this location was brought to the City Council, and there were two choices:
either to approve the use on an interim basis with periodic review, or denial.
Councilmember Roe noted that this area was guided toward high residential
zoning in the future, and that the business owners understood that this was not
a long-term site.
Councilmember Ihlan opined that
this was a unique property so close to a residential neighborhood; and
questioned City Code provisions related to kennels; and further opined that the
City should consider licensing such facilities, and not approve this
application until to following conditions were met:
1) Clarification
with Ramsey County that all regulations were being met for proper disposal of
pet urine, inside and out
2) Whether a rain
garden met County and State requirements for pet urine disposal; and
3) That specific
requirements be included to address soundproofing on the south side of the
building, with Condition H providing more specificity indicating that the
applicant will be required to implement measures, including soundproofing
adequate to remove any nuisance.
Councilmember Ihlan noted her
previously-expressed concerns when the PetSmart proposal was heard and her
concerns with noise, but her ultimate approval based on the buffer between the
facility and area residents. Councilmember Ihlan noted that this was a growing
industry; however, opined that it didn’t fit in this area with residents in
such close proximity; and spoke in opposition to its approval without more
information to make that decision; as well as her preference for the Interim
Use to be limited to one year to resolve any pending issues promptly.
At the request of Mayor Klausing,
the applicants asked that the length of the Interim Use be of a minimum three
year duration to coincide with their lease with the landlord.
Discussion among staff and
Councilmembers included the duration of Interim Uses determined by the actual
use and renewal of such; interpretation by staff of the definition and code
provisions of a kennel and this use; and difference in a Conditional Use
permanently applied to a property and the controls offered by an Interim Use.
Klausing moved, Johnson seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 10857 entitled, “A Resolution Approving the Woof
Room, Dog Daycare and Boarding, at 1430 County Road C as an Interim Use in
Accordance with Roseville City Code, Section 1013.09 (PF10-024);” amended
to Conditions of Section 8 to identify additional measures to eliminate, rather
than mitigate, potential problems; and reducing the term of the Interim Use to
three (3) years to expire October 31, 2013 or at the discontinuation of the
facility, whichever comes first.
Mayor Klausing spoke in support of
the motion, noting the significant time he spent considering concerns of the
residential neighbors about their quality of life, noting the negative impact
of barking dogs and balance of the requirements addressing any issues
immediately through conditions of approval. Mayor Klausing opined that future
consideration should be given to a policy-level discussion on whether licensing
of dog daycare facilities was appropriate.
Councilmember Ihlan spoke in
opposition to the motion, based on her previous comments regarding unresolved
issues.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe;
and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan.
Motion carried.
f.
Consider Approving Development Agreement with United Properties
for Dedication of Increment from Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District 19 to
Phase I of Applewood Pointe on Langton Lake Development
Economic Development Associate
Jamie Radel summarized the RCA dated November 8, 2010, requesting approval of
the Development Agreement between the City and United Properties Residential
LLC for dedication of increment from Tax Increment District (TIF) District 19
to Phase I of Applewood…
A bench handout was provided
consisting of a memorandum dated November 8, 2010 to City staff from the City’s
bond counsel, Mary L. Ippel, Briggs and Morgan, as well as a revised Development
Agreement changing the period for default (page 8), both attached hereto
and made a part thereof.
Councilmember Roe questioned the
language related to applicability of TIF proceeds to property acquisition or
infrastructure improvements.
Tony Shertler, Springsted
Representative, the City’s Financial Consultant
Mr. Shertler noted that provisions
were dependent on the type of agreement, and that staff would verify costs as
invoices were presented; and clarified that the City was not putting up any money
upfront in this Agreement, so there was no concern.
From a philosophical standpoint,
Councilmember Roe questioned if the City could stipulate TIF fund use in
developer agreements.
Mr. Shertler responded that many
cities did prioritize uses of TIF funds.
Mayor Klausing noted that the
point raised by Councilmember Roe was good; but from a practical affect, the
costs of this project significantly exceeded what it was likely to generate.
Councilmember Ihlan sought
clarification, from her understanding that the developer already owned the
property; and opined that the City had no business offering public money for
property acquisition and that any language should be removed from the developer
agreement.
Alex Hall, United Properties
representative
Mr. Hall referenced “Exhibit C”
detailing site improvements, and clarified that the developer was seeking
reimbursement for those costs, consisting mostly of putting in the main public
road to access the park, as well as the turnaround connected to the park, as well
as the two public ponds on the site to handle runoff from that road and
infiltration basins, with the land itself deeded over to the City for the
public road. Mr. Hall advised that those infrastructure improvements would be
done upfront by the developer; and that the financial gap was well in excess of
$1 million between Phases I and II, with the TIF well below that gap, bur
requiring site-related costs benefiting both the developer and the City. Mr.
Hall noted that the TIF amount for Phase I was less than $300,000,
approximately $275,000 - $290,000, and less than originally projected. Mr.
Hall noted that Phase II needed to be initiated prior to the developer being
able to access those TIF funds.
Ms. Radel concurred with Mr.
Hall’s comments; and noted that current legislation for this type of project
required construction to be initiated by June of 2011, so the developer would
be severely limited in making use of such a provision.
Councilmember Roe asked if the
developer would have any problem removing the land acquisition language from
the agreement.
Community Development Director
Trudgeon noted other areas of the document addressing land acquisition that
would need revising as well if the City Council so directed.
Mr. Hall advised that the language
in the agreement provided substantial incentive for the developer to proceed
with Phases II and III before the higher figure was even approached; and that
if the developer stopped at Phase I, they would only qualify for tax increment
of between $275,000 - $290,000 to fill that gap. Mr. Hall noted that the
developer was motivated to initiate Phases II and III; but further noted that
the Assisted Living portion had not yet come before the City Council for their
consideration and potential approval.
Council Pust noted other
references (page 6, Section 3.2.1) regarding land acquisition and suggested
that the City’s legal counsel be directed to remove all references as
applicable throughout the document.
Councilmembers concurred.
Further discussion included the
total amount identified to be generated on all three phases at $2.4 million;
but gap financing of only $659,000 strictly identified for Phase I construction
and increment generated on additional phases to complete Phase I; reiterating
legislative restrictions on this type of TIF project for construction to be
implemented by June of 2011; with Mr. hall assuring Councilmembers that the
only portion of the project for which they may consider another TIF request of
the City would be for Phase III, the Assisted Living portion of the project if
so indicated.
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded,
approval of a Development Agreement (Attachment A as revised and distributed as
a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part thereof) between
the City of Roseville and United Properties Residential LLC, dedicating tax
increment from Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District No. 19 to Phase I
development at Applewood Pointe of Roseville at Langton Lake, in substantially
the form shown in Attachment A of this report; subject to modification approved
by the City Manager and the City’s legal counsel; amended to note those
modifications to remove references to land acquisition as discussed tonight and
directed by Council consensus.
Councilmember Ihlan questioned the
status of the park dedication and whether that was incorporated into the TIF
subsidy to the developer.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that there
would be no fees waived, even though requested by the developer, but that the
developer would be submitting the park dedication fee to the City as
applicable.
Councilmember Ihlan noted the need
for removal of a typographical error on the agreement where it referenced “…
health, morals, and safety…” of the community. By consensus, staff was
directed to remove the word, “morals,” from the language.
Councilmember Johnson commended
staff for creating the nexus through TIF financing to move the City forward
toward an Assisted Living facility as guided by the Comprehensive Plan for new
development, providing a tool to accomplish this housing goal.
While appreciating the changes
made to the development agreement, Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to
the motion, based on her comments repeatedly stated at previous meetings
opining that this project was not an appropriate use of TIF.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; Roe; and
Klausing.
Nays: Pust and Ihlan.
Motion carried.
13.
Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
a.
Discuss Asphalt Plant
Mayor Klausing referenced
correspondence included in the packet materials between the City, the MPCA and
the City’s legal counsel and the MPCA’s suspension of its review of the
proposed asphalt plant by Bituminous Roadways for a Conditional Use Permit for
outdoor storage, based on City Council action clarifying the prohibited use for
such a facility.
At the request of Mayor Klausing,
City Manager Malinen confirmed that as of this afternoon, the City had received
no response from the attorneys for Bituminous Roadways, with a final response
date for land use review ending December 28, 2010.
Mayor Klausing suggested action to
schedule a hearing on the proposed Conditional Use Permit if no response from
the company was received withdrawing their application.
Community
Development Director Patrick Trudgeon summarized the land use review process,
proposed for City Council consideration at the November 22, 2010 meeting, with
staff recommending denial based on ordinance language in place; and advised
that staff would alert the City Council to any subsequent correspondence from
the applicant between now and then.
Discussion
among staff and Councilmembers proceeded regarding notice requirements and
possibly expanding that notice area, as well as courtesy notice to those
residents and business owners having expressed interest in the process,
clarifying that this was not a public hearing, but that the City Council would
be taking action at the meeting.
Pust
moved, Johnson seconded, directing staff to expand the City’s standard 500’
notice requirements to a ¾ mile radius from all subject property boundaries,
for future notice related to the proposed Bituminous Roadways Asphalt Plant.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe;
and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan.
Councilmember Ihlan suggested that
additional criteria be used for denial, beyond ordinance amendment, to provide
evidence supporting denial.
Mayor Klausing noted that staff
would make the appropriate recommendations to the City Council, but that the
City Council would make the ultimate decision.
Councilmember Roe asked for
clarification whether, if the City Council was only considering a Conditional
Use application for outdoor storage of aggregate materials, any denial could
not be based on other criteria, such as odors from an asphalt plan.
Councilmember Roe asked that staff so define their recommendations for applying
criteria as applicable.
14.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
City Manager Bill Malinen
distributed upcoming draft agenda items and briefly reviewed those items.
15.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
16.
Adjourn
The meeting was
adjourned at approximately 9:35 pm.