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

City Council

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







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.


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:


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.