City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

December 6, 2010

 

1.         Roll Call

Mayor Klausing called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 5:30 pm and welcomed everyone.  City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present.  Mayor Klausing advised that Councilmember Pust would be arriving late due to a family scheduling conflict.

CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION

Mayor Klausing announced that the City Council would be going into Closed Executive Session; and asked that City Attorney Gaughan review the authority of the City Council in moving into closed session.

 

Discuss City Manager Performance Evaluation

City Attorney Gaughan reviewed the specific statutory authority, Minnesota State Statutes, Chapter 13D.05, subd. 3.a, and its provision for closing a meeting for the purpose of employee evaluation of employees under its jurisdiction, identifying that employee as City Manager’s Malinen for his annual review; and stipulation that a summary of discussion during closed session was to be summarized in open session for public information purposes.

 

Mayor Klausing advised that this was a continuation of a previous Closed Executive Session for the City Manager’s annual evaluation, where they had requested additional information for this meeting.

 

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, recessing the meeting into Closed Executive Session, at 5:33 pm, related to confidential discussion by the City Council, staff and legal counsel, in accordance with Minnesota Statute 13D.05, subd. 3.a, specific to confidential personnel-related discussions for the annual City Manager Performance Evaluation.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

Recess

Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at approximately 5:34 pm and reconvened in Executive Session at approximately 5:36 pm.

 

Councilmember Pust arrived at approximately 5:43 pm and joined the Closed Executive Session already in progress.

 

Recess

Mayor Klausing recessed the Executive Session at approximately 6:07 pm and reconvened at approximately 6:11 pm in Regular Session. 

 

Mayor Klausing provided a brief summary of the Closed Executive Session for the annual review of the City Manager, in accordance with his contract and the recently-preformed 360 degree review through which he was evaluated; with formal City Council action scheduled for the December 13, 2010 regular meeting agenda.

 

            Roll Call

 

(Voting and Seating Order for December: Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing).

6:00 pm         2011 Budget Hearing

Prior to the Public hearing, and at the request of Mayor Klausing, Finance Director Chris Miller provided an overview of the purpose of the hearing, including to present an overview of the City’s 2011 spending plan; to establish the need for a property tax levy and increase; to summarize the tax impact to property owners; and to allow comments and suggestions from the general public.  Mr. Miller reminded the public that tonight’s presentation and questions to be entertained were only related to the City’s portion of their property tax bill, not those of other taxing jurisdictions.  Mr. Miller’s presentation was provided as part of the Council meeting packet dated December 6, 2010; and included a list of budget impact items; a summary of the proposed 2011 budget; property taxes in perspective; and 2010 City tax comparisons with other metropolitan-area cities of similar population, based on an average single-family home valuation of $235,000; and is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 

 

Discussion among Councilmembers and staff included 2010/2011 budget comparisons for Emerald Ash Borer (EAB), with the 2010 budget setting aside $50,000 for general maintenance on hazardous and diseased trees, and $100,000 allotted for 2011 for anticipated EAB infestation treatment and elimination; and separation of code enforcement costs. 

 

Further discussion included the significant increase in local tax rate comparisons for Roseville and peer cities in 2002, based on a structural change in how the State of MN shifted state aid to cities and corresponding increases in local state aid, with individual property tax payers supposed to receive comparable credits on their taxes; staff’s rationale and projections for revenue source reductions, and staff’s review of their calculations and assumptions in projecting those revenue reductions.  Mr. Miller provided several examples, including reduced transaction volume at the License Center due to general demand and the current economy and impacts to vehicle sales and passports; and potential funding formula changes on the state and federal level that may impact some street maintenance programs.

 

Councilmember Ihlan noted that staff was proposing to increase tax levy dollars to replace revenue reductions rather than seeking those funds from other sources; and requested City Council consideration, following public comment, to go through budget impact items and make decisions at the City Council level. 

 

Mr. Miller advised that whether to address revenue reductions with further budget reductions was at the City Council’s direction; and that the proposed recommendations were staff’s projections to retain services and programs at existing standards, with the two choices being to raise property taxes or repurpose money form other programs.

 

Councilmember Ihlan noted the reallocation of a new program for code enforcement in the General Fund tax-supported levy rather than its previous funding source through building permit

 

Mayor Klausing reminded the public that their property valuations were determining their taxes, and were calculated by Ramsey County, not the City of Roseville, and asked Mr. Miller to review that process and any appeal recourse for taxpayers.

 

Mr. Miller noted that Ramsey Council annually reviewed market value projections, through use of sales data of similar homes; and advised taxpayers that they can dispute and appeal the value of their properties each spring at Ramsey County when their tax notes are mailed out, with the next mailing in the spring of 2011; and suggested taxpayers could also contact Ramsey County Property Taxes at any time with specific questions related to property values.

 

Mayor Klausing opened the Public Hearing at approximately 6:44 pm.

 

Public Comment

Dick Lambert, 800 Brenner Avenue

Mr. Lambert provided graphs of his comments by bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consisting of his comparisons with other metropolitan area communities of resident wage increases and cumulative City of Roseville property tax levy increases per person versus resident wage increases for multiple years and their negative disparities.  Mr. Lambert requested that the City of Roseville adopt a policy that taxes (spending) goes up or down in accordance with resident wages.

 

Greg Ryan, Roseville Resident

Mr. Ryan expressed his frustration in the decline in his construction business between 1984 and today; and the continuing struggles of individuals and businesses during the economic downturn.  Mr. Ryan opined that it was incumbent that the City seriously take that current situation into account and bring property taxes in line with the economic situation; rather than continue to raise taxes and fees when property values continued to decline and businesses were struggling to maintain their employees and livelihoods.  Mr. Ryan further opined that if the City wanted to be competitive and see the City grow, they should cut business owner tax liabilities in half in Roseville, and the City would see phenomenal construction growth and people moving into the community.  Mr. Ryan provided anecdotal information on his business and rental properties and the significant reductions in rental income, and inability to sell the property due to the current economy.  Mr. Ryan expressed surprise that more residents were not present to voice their opinions on the proposed tax levy increase; when employees and employers were seeing reductions in their incomes; and suggested that the City employees be subject to the same wage situations as John Q. Public and that all city contracts, including labor contracts needed to be renegotiated.  Mr. Ryan noted the differences in the presentations of Mr. Lambert and Mr. Miller; and opined that the business climate hasn’t been this bad in his years of business since 1984; and expressed frustration that everyone working in the public sector appeared to be protected, but not those in the private sector.  Mr. Ryan further opined that business owners were forced to use their money to meet government mandates rather than put that money back into the business; and that he was forced to charge his employees more for their health benefits.  Mr. Ryan reiterated his frustration and lack of concern of the City in what was going on with the general public; and opined that it was irresponsible to pass a budget with any levy increase at all.

 

Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane

Mr. Grefenberg referenced Mr. Lambert’s annual presentation on wages and property values going down in comparison to Mr. Miller’s presentation.  Mr. Grefenberg noted that, based on property values, his property taxes went up 9%, but his value went down; and opined that this was comparable for his neighbors as well. 

 

Mr. Grefenberg questioned whether the City was still contributing to the Chamber of Commerce, a political lobbying body; and the projected amount for 2011 conferences.

 

Mayor Klausing advised that the City Council had not been a member of the North Suburban Chamber of Commerce for several years; and had eliminated membership in the St. Paul Chamber of Commerce at least eight (8) years ago.

 

City Manager Malinen recalled that the 2011 conference and training allotment of $36,000 was comparable to that of 2010.

 

Mr. Grefenberg expressed his concern that sacrifices from the current economy be shared by the private and public sectors, the City and its constituents; with no one getting pay increases.  Mr. Grefenberg noted his understanding that the proposed Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) proposed at one percent (1%) would be neutral when increased employee health care and pension costs were taken into consideration; however, he requested that any step increases be reconsidered.  Mr. Grefenberg expressed appreciation for the administrative review of the Community Development Department in reducing the pay grade for one position, with another position eliminated, even though that position was of value to the City during its tenure.  Mr. Grefenberg suggested other areas for review that are not critical to the government operation, including a freeze on conference spending, to provide another sign to taxpayers that the City Council is taking seriously that it can no longer keep increasing the tax levy. 

 

Mayor Klausing provided his personal perspective on conferences allowing employees to do their jobs more effectively, to compare best management practices (BMP’s) with their peers; and to bring back skills and/or ideas that will improve the efficiency of them and their fellow employees, providing a greater return on taxpayer investment, and were not a perk for employees, but provided them the ability to provide better services to taxpayers.  Mayor Klausing noted that it was a regular practice in past City Councils for Mayors and individual Councilmembers to attend national organization meetings; however, he advised that this had not occurred during his tenure.

 

Mr. Grefenberg suggested that, based on the economy, new technologies such as internet, phone, or web conferences, needed to be considered.  Mr. Grefenberg expressed appreciation for the progress made to-date; however, he opined that there was still work to be done.

 

Mayor Klausing closed the Public Hearing at 7:05 pm with no one else appearing to speak.

2.         Approve Agenda

By consensus, the agenda was approved as presented.   

3.         Public Comment

Mayor Klausing called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.  No one appeared to speak at this time.

4.         Council Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Report

 

Mayor Klausing offered the City’s congratulation to Parkview School having been named a 2010 National Blue Ribbon School; and offered his congratulations to two (2) Roseville High School graduates recently named 2011 Rhodes Scholars.

 

Councilmember Pust apologized to the public for not having a written statement prepared for the City Council to read into the record at their November 29, 2010 Special Meeting related to the asphalt plant.  Councilmember Pust explained that her family was currently dealing with a medical issue, and therefore, she was unable to prepare her statement.  Councilmember Pust advised that her vote would have been “Nay” for those reasons included in the recorded findings; and encouraged constituents to contact her through her City website or phone if they had questions on her positions.

 

Councilmember Roe, in his role as the City’s representative on the North Suburban Communications Commission (NSCC) and the Access Corporation, reviewed several recent developments at NSCC.  Councilmember Roe advised that they had received notification from Comcast on the upcoming franchise renewal, a complicated three-year process; and also that City Manager Malinen had agreed to be on a small working group to facilitate that process.  Councilmember Roe further advised that, for some time, CTV had been operating out of the old Owasso School building on Woodhill, and that the building had significant challenges and unpleasant conditions for its employees; and advised that a new lease was recently approved for CTV to move to the same facility as the temporary Ramsey County Library – Roseville had been located during remodeling of the library facility; with some of the operations moving in a few weeks, and the move anticipated for completion in May of 2011.

5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications

6.         Approve Minutes

 

a.            Approve Minutes of November 22, 2010 Regular Meeting

Roe moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the minutes of the November 22, 2010 Regular meeting as presented.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None

Abstentions: Pust.

Motion carried.

 

b.            Approve Minutes of November 29, 2010 Special Meeting

Councilmember Ihlan provided, as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, her amendments to the November 29, 2010 Special Council meeting minutes.

 

Councilmember Johnson had several corrections on page 10 of the meeting minutes:

§  Line 20, change “sent” to “sense” and

§  Line 25, change “mild” to “warm” temperature

 

City Attorney Gaughan noted that City Attorney Bartholdi was out-of-state, and since he had served as the City Attorney at that meeting, asked that action on the meeting minutes of November 29, 2010 be deferred until City Attorney Bartholdi was able to review and approve them.  By consensus, Councilmembers concurred.

7.         Approve Consent Agenda

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

 

a.            Approve Payments

Councilmember Roe thanked staff for following through and updating the formatting of the Check Register; however, he noted the need to use account names rather than account numbers for easier understanding.

 

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.         

ACH Payments	$267,198.80
60840 – 60951	685,151.43
Total	$952,350.23

 

              Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

 

b.            Approve Business Licenses

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

 

Business / Address	Type of License
DMTS, LLC, d/b/a Roseville Marathon 2216 West County Road D	Cigarette / Tobacco Produces
Rod Petroleum, Inc. d/b/a Roseville Winner 2163 N Snelling Avenue	Cigarette / Tobacco Products
DMTS, LLC, d/b/a Roseville Marathon 2216 W County Road D	Gasoline Station
Rod Petroleum, Inc., d/b/a Roseville Winner 2163 N Snelling Avenue	Gasoline Station
Tabitha J. Leske at VMH Therapies 3101 Old Highway 8, Suite 202	Massage Therapist
Allied Waste Services of the Twin Cities 2951 Weeks Avenue SE; Mpls., MN	Recycling Hauler
Gene’s Disposal Service, Inc. 5661 – 152nd Street N; Hugo, MN	Recycling Hauler
The Neighborhood Recycling Corp., d/b/a Eureka Recycling; 2828 Kennedy Street NE Mpls., MN	Recycling Hauler
International Paper 2425 Terminal Road; Roseville	Recycling Hauler
Veolia ES; 309 Como Avenue; St. Paul	Recycling Hauler
Walters Recycling & Refuse P. O . Box 67; Circle Pines, MN	Recycling Hauler
Allied Waste Services of the Twin Cities 4354 East 66th Street; Inver Grove Heights, MN	Solid Waste Hauler
Ace Solid Waste, Inc. 6601 McKinley Street NW; Ramsey, MN	Solid Waste Hauler
Aspen Waste Systems, Inc. 2951 Weeks Avenue SE; Mpls., MN	Solid Waste Hauler
Garbage Man; 7473 Meadowwood Court Brooklyn Park, MN	Solid Waste Hauler
Gene’s Disposal Service, Inc. 5661 – 152nd Street; Hugo, MN	Solid Waste Hauler
Keith Krupenny & Son Disposal Service, Inc. 1214 Hall Avenue; West St. Paul	Solid Waste Hauler
Randy’s Sanitation, Inc. P. O. Box 169; Delano, MN	Solid Waste Hauler
Ray Anderson & Sons Co., Inc. Dumpster Box Services 930 Duluth Street, St. Paul	Solid Waste Hauler
Veolia ES, 309 Como Avenue, St. Paul	Solid Waste Hauler
Walter’s Recycling & Refuse; P. O. Box 65; Circle Pines, MN	Solid Waste Hauler

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

 

          c.         Approve 2011 City Council Meeting Calendar

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the 2011 City Council regular meeting dates as presented in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated December 6, 2010.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

 

d.         Adopt a Resolution of Support for Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Municipal Infiltration and Inflow Grant

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10862 entitled, “Resolution Supporting Application for Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Municipal Infiltration/Inflow Grant;” for improvements to the City’s sanitary sewer infrastructure to reduce inflow and infiltration.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

 

e.         Approve 954 Millwood Avenue Encroachment Agreement

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the 954 Millwood Avenue Encroachment Agreement between the City of Roseville and property owner Ms. Ye Ying Cen.

Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

 

f.         Adopt a Resolution of Support for Transportation Economic Development Program Grant for Twin Lakes Infrastructure

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10863 entitled, “Resolution Supporting Application for Transportation Economic Development Program Grant for Twin Lakes Infrastructure.”

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

8.         Consider Items Removed from Consent

9.         General Ordinances for adoption

10.      Presentations

11.      Public Hearings

12.      Business Items (Action Items)

 

a.            Consider the Disposition of Excess Proceeds on the Centre Pointe Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District

Finance Director Chris Miller summarized this discussion as detailed on the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated December 6, 2010; at the request of Councilmembers at a previous meeting. 

 

From a procedural standpoint, Mayor Klausing clarified that there was no staff recommended action, and that this was for discussion purposes only.

 

Mr. Miller advised that action was at the City Council’s discretion if they chose to designate or repurpose these excess funds, currently in the City’s General Fund reserves for future use.

 

Councilmember Ihlan provided several suggestions for these one-time funds.  Councilmember Ihlan noted several areas that were chronically underfunded, yet received lots of public interest:

Construction of sidewalks and pathways, and other traffic safety issues

Councilmember Ihlan opined that pathway and pathway maintenance funds had been insufficiently funded for some time; and suggested that some of the excess money be set aside to replenish those funds.

Tree Replacement/Maintenance

Councilmember Ihlan opined that another area for using the one-time funds would be for tree replacement at public parks, and/or tree maintenance.  Councilmember Ihlan suggested that it would be appropriate to earmark some of this cash reserve money for future EAB infestations, rather than putting undo pressure on the tax levy.

 

Councilmember Roe requested clarification from Mr. Miller on the City’s temporary loan process from the General Fund reserves, while awaiting the semi-annual tax payments from Ramsey County.

 

Mr. Miller advised that the City’s investments were pooled and the internal loan didn’t have to be officially documented since it was only temporary and was not taking place at year-end.   If not having sufficient reserve funds available, Mr. Miller anticipated temporarily borrowing those funds from Capital Investment Plan (CIP) or Enterprise Funds on a temporary basis.

 

Councilmember Pust clarified that the City historically borrowed among its funds, and that it was not a unique situation to the economic downturn of the last few years.

 

Mr. Miller advised that the internal borrowing was done some in the past, but not consistently.

 

Discussion included the need for internal borrowing to meet monthly expenses while major revenue from tax payments to Ramsey County was only processed twice annually; guidelines from the State Auditor’s Office for City’s to retain at least a 25% level of reserves, based on the strength of the City’s General Fund, cash flow strength and general guidelines, while deferring that to local decision-making based on local conditions; and the City’s Reserve Policy designating a 50% reserve level.

 

Further discussion included addressing citizen concerns about the City having those reserves, while considering other issues in that context, including a periodic review of that policy based on economic circumstances; and impacts to the City’s bond rating.

 

Councilmember Roe noted that it was appropriate to have this discussion now before going into budget discussions; but also could be periodically addressed in the future as well.

 

No action taken.

 

b.            Adopt the Final 2011 Tax Levy and Budget

Councilmember Ihlan asked that the City Council work through the new tax levy dollars tentatively earmarked in the RCA dated December 6, 2010, page 1 and 2, lines 22 – 33, to determine if there were other options rather than tax increases.  Councilmember Ihlan sought clarification that the proposed 2011 budget was essentially the 2010 budget with some new obligations as outlined, with few recommendations for decreased funding.

 

Mr. Miller concurred that that was a fair assumption in a general sense, noting that some employee positions had changed, and that other existing positions were recommended to remain vacant and unfunded; and that some program cuts were increased in 2011 from 2010.

 

Councilmember Ihlan sought a summary of those positions remaining unfunded or vacant.

 

Mr. Miller advised that there were several positions in public safety; an existing police officer; and the Assistant Fire Chief position; in addition to one downgraded position and one elimination in the Community Development Department.

 

Councilmember Johnson questioned if the three (3) retiring police officers were intended to be replaced, with Mr. Miller responding affirmatively. 

 

Councilmember Roe questioned if the Assistant Fire Chief position had been funded in 2010, but not proposed for 2011; with Mr. Miller responding affirmatively.

 

Councilmember Ihlan referenced Mr. Grefenberg’s questions related to conferences, in particular travel, and whether funding for 2011 for training and conferences was the same as 2010.

 

Mr. Miller advised that staff was recommending no changes, and that the same amount had been allocated for 2011 as in 2010 for travel and training; noting that Department Heads had yet to solidify which employees would be attending conferences, based on changing mandates, and depending on staff and where training needs are most needed.

 

Discussion included City Council approval for any out-of-state conferences; with City Manager Malinen reminding Councilmembers that their action of 2010 had been to limit training to only mandatory training and to eliminate travel, lodging and meals for attendance at any of those conferences.

 

Councilmember Johnson recalled that those items were considered by the City Council on the Consent Agenda; with City Manager Malinen advising that they were presented for City Council consideration after the first of the year for one action.

 

At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Malinen confirmed that, to his knowledge, no additional conferences or training occurred than those approved on the list presented at the beginning of 2010.

 

Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her request to work through the list of new tax levy dollars to seek further reductions.

 

Prior to further discussion, Councilmember Pust clarified with Mr. Miller that the $236,375 allotment for Capital improvements and equipment purchases (line 28 of the RCA) was duplicated on line 36 as a reduction in the net tax levy increase and taken from cash reserves, via previous City Council action for use of the TIF proceeds.  Councilmember Pust suggested, for the historical record, that this be more accurately detailed to avoid confusion that this money was taken from long-term reserve funds.

 

Councilmember Pust further noted that the combined 1% employee COLA and step increases and the PERA and Healthcare increases (lines 29 and 30 of the RCA) appeared to total an approximate aggregate amount of 4%, and sought an estimate from Mr. Miller on how much was related to healthcare increases.

 

Mr. Miller estimated that $60-70,000 was health-care insurance-related, with the rest PERA.

 

Councilmember Pust clarified that PERA was a statutory requirement, not within local control; and that healthcare was within local control, and had been kept down to the extent possible; and opined that during her tenure, she had never seen an annual increase as low as had been achieved for 2011.  Councilmember Pust noted that the only thing within the City’s discretion was the 1% COLA and step increases.  Councilmember Pust, for the benefit of comments received during the Public Hearing, reiterated that pension benefits were mandated by law; and that health care costs were at the lowest and best rates possible to achieve.

 

Line 22 and 23 (RCA)

In reviewing the list of new tax levy dollars, Councilmember Ihlan noted her concerns with increasing the tax levy for replacing revenue reduction in market value homestead credit aid ($25,000) and replacing revenue reduction in interest earnings, court fines, and other state aids, and surplus monies from the License Center ($218,660).  Councilmember Ihlan noted the comments heard regarding the poor economy, low property values and high unemployment, and reduced wages, including no COLA for Social Security recipients given the large senior population in Roseville; as well as the overall business climate; and suggested that it wasn’t prudent to raise taxes to facilitate lost revenue as may be possible during better economic times.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that specifically the $25,000 seemed an insignificant amount that could be found from other revenue sources or budget cuts.

 

Ihlan moved. Pust seconded (for discussion purposes), to remove $25,000 and $218,660 as above-referenced from the 2011 tax levy and budget.

 

Councilmember Pust sought additional information from Mr. Miller on court fine revenue.

 

Mr. Miller expressed hope that projections would be better, but based on current trending, the level or arrests and/or prosecutions revenue was down.

 

City Attorney Gaughan concurred with Mr. Miller, noting from an anecdotal point of view for prosecution, while their case load had not diminished, they were seeing Ramsey County judges being more cognizant of people coming through the system in the current economy and their ability to pay being diminished, with fines reduced accordingly over the past few years.

 

Councilmember Pust opined that it was unlikely that it would change in 2011; and further opined that the reduced interest revenue made sense as well in this economy.  Councilmember Pust questioned what the surplus monies form the License Center indicated.

 

Mr. Miller advised that historically, due to the Center’s increasing efficiencies and volume, surplus revenue had gone into other General Fund services; however both vehicle transactions and passport activity was down due to the current economy. 

Councilmember Johnson questioned if the License Center was overstaffed; and if there was any anticipation for increased activity trending for 2011.

 

Mr. Miller advised that repeated staffing reductions had been made over the last three (3) years, mostly through attrition, with those positions not filled.  Mr. Miller noted that, while 2010 may end up looking better than 2009 and while trending was moving up, it was not significant to offset revenue generation of any magnitude at this point.

 

Mayor Klausing asked if Councilmember Ihlan’s intent with the motion was to absorb those revenue losses into the budget or address them from reserves.

 

Councilmember Ihlan opined that she would anticipate budget reductions in other areas; and in the worst case scenario, that funds be taken from reserves.  Councilmember Ihlan advised that her rationale in making the motion was to avoid the assumption that if revenue projections are reduced, taxes be raised accordingly without the ability to justify that for taxpayers, when their ability to pay is decreasing as well.

 

Councilmember Roe questioned if Councilmember Ihlan’s intent was to reduce the tax levy and budget as well.

Councilmember Ihlan responded affirmatively unless it was impossible to fund essential services and after other strategies had been considered; at which point she expected staff to return for Council authorization to use reserves.

 

Mayor Klausing spoke in opposition to the motion; supporting staff’s recommendations based on their observations and projections, noting their explanations for their recommended budget and levy.  Mayor Klausing expressed his preference that if Councilmembers were looking for specific budget and levy cuts, they had already addressed them at previous meetings.

 

Councilmember Roe recognized the concern in replacing other sources of revenue with other revenue in this particular area; but clarified that the recommended budget was essentially maintaining the 2010 budget to preserve essential services for those maintained costs with tax monies, not increases to the budget.  Councilmember Roe advised that those two items were included by staff to maintain what we now have with property taxes as opposed to other revenue sources; and in managing City finances, it made sense.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan.

Nays: Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Motion failed.

 

Line 25 (RCA)

Councilmember Ihlan suggested that, instead of raising the tax levy, $100,000 in TIF reserve monies be used to create a fund for EAB response if and when needed; but also be available for other tree replacement and maintenance issues.  Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her concern that once the levy was increased, it builds in increases in future years, compounding the problems.

 

Ihlan moved, Pust seconded, removing the $100,000 allotment for the new Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) program from the tax levy and fund it from TIF proceed cash reserves adequate for that purpose.

 

City Manager Malinen noted that this program ranked 25 out of 85 by the City Council in their ranking process.

 

Councilmember Pust recognized that the high ranking indicated monies needed to be set aside; however, she spoke in support of using the one-time TIF dollars, due to this bad economy; and opined that the funding be evaluated during next year’s budget process to determine if funding needed to be continued.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: Klausing and Johnson.

Motion carried.

 

Line 26 (RCA)

Councilmember Ihlan noted that this new program for Code Enforcement $165,000 had been previously funded from the Community Development Department’s building permit fees and suggested that it should not be a General Fund expenditure, but fit better with the role of the HRA and should be funded from their levy dollars or remain in the Community Development Department.

 

Ihlan moved, if Code Enforcement was not fully funded by the Community Development Department fees-supported revenue, it should be funded by HRA Levy funds, not shifted to the General Fund tax levy.

 

Councilmember Pust advised that she could not support this motion, opining that is exactly a service that should be tax-supported, as it benefits the entire City, and had been of great benefit over the last four years from HRA funding.  Councilmember Pust further opined that it was not a function of the HRA to ensure ongoing quality of life issues affecting the entire City and should be tax-supported through the General Fund.  Councilmember Pust noted that, without funding this program in the past, the City would be forced to reduce this vital service or eliminate it completely; and further noted the significant and positive comments from the majority of its citizens related to the positive benefits to property values and their quality of life.

 

The Mayor ruled the motion failed for lack of a second.

 

Lines 27 & 31-33 (RCA)

Councilmember Ihlan noted the need to reduce the $62,000 for contractual obligations (dispatch, legal, audit, etc.) as another area that was minimal and could be absorbed internally.

 

Ihlan moved, to remove these $62,000, and $36,000, $37,000, and $35,870 amounts from the 2011 levy and find other ways to absorb them in the budget or other revenue sources.

 

Councilmember Pust clarified with City Manager Malinen that Ramsey County dispatch services were mandatory, as well as legal and audit costs in accordance with negotiated agreements and/or contracts; and that the City was legally obligated to pay or break the contracts.

 

Councilmember Ihlan suggested that the $37,000 additional allotted for supplies and materials should not cause the levy to increase, but should be incorporated into the Preliminary Budget and Levy or cut  from the budget and funded by other revenue sources; or in extreme circumstances, authorized as a reserve expenditure, but not an automatic tax levy increase.

 

Councilmember Pust further addressed lines 31 -33 for temporary/seasonal wages for parks & recreation and fire employees ($36,000); supplies & materials ($37,000); and contract maintenance and professional services ($35,870) as the cost of doing business. While recognizing the wage comparisons used during public comments, Councilmember Pust noted that wages couldn’t be the only economic measure, but the cost of doing the actual business needed to be taken into consideration; and the expenses didn’t represent discretionary spending, just the cost of business costing more and the City needing to absorb those costs, similar to the private sector.

 

The Mayor declared the motion failed for lack of a second.

 

Line 29 (RCA)

Councilmember Ihlan noted that this discussion had been held last year, and while she appreciated the reduction to 1% proposed COLA increase for employees, she opined that the Council needed to base their decisions on the taxpayer’s ability to pay during current economic conditions; and suggested a wage freeze, including COLA and step increases, consistent with the private sector jobs and high unemployment rates, as well as no COLA increases for senior citizens receiving Social Security.

 

Ihlan moved, to remove the 1% employee COLA and step increases form the 2011 tax levy; and to freeze wages for the 2011 budget year.

 

As a point of information, Mayor Klausing requested clarification of the percentage of employees the City was under union contract with to provide for as negotiated or be subject to arbitration.

 

City Manager Malinen advised that a number of those employees were union and under contract, with several groups currently in negotiation.

 

Mayor Klausing noted the proposed action suggested by Councilmember Ihlan would cause disparity between union and non-union employees.

 

City Manager Malinen concurred, noting that it would be similar to what occurred in 2010 and would serve to further expand the difference between union contracted employees receiving larger increases than the bulk of non-represented employees.  City Manager Malinen further noted that the 1% COLA was an attempt to provide employees with a break-even point for those facing an actual decrease in net pay due to increases in out-of-pocket health care costs and pension dollars; and to recognize the sacrifices made by employees to-date, as well as their positive impact in keeping the City’s health care rates down as indicated by 2011 rates. City Manager Malinen concurred that all COLA adjustments had been identified and eliminated in 2010.

 

The Mayor ruled the motion failed for lack of a second.

 

Councilmember Ihlan questioned how many employees were eligible for step increases and how much of the $195,910 was COLA and how much for step increases. 

 

Mr. Miller estimated that approximately one-half of the City’s employees were eligible for step increases.

 

Ihlan moved, to keep the 1% COLA employee increase, but to eliminate any step increases for 2011.

 

Councilmember Pust asked for the impacts for all employees.

 

City Manager Malinen advised that it would impact some who are represented under union contract, as well as some not represented; however, he noted that those under union contract would be eligible for a step increase based on the contract, but those not represented would not receive step increases, creating additional disparity.

 

Councilmember Pust noted this could result in more representation as a result.

 

City Manager Malinen concurred.

 

The Mayor ruled the motion failed for lack of a second.

 

Klausing moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10864 entitled, “Resolution Submitting the Final Property Tax Levy on Real Estate to the Ramsey County Auditor for the Fiscal Year of 2011 (Attachment A);” amended for a total amount of  $14,703,044 and a Programs and Services amount of $13,213.044.”

 

At the request of Councilmember Roe, Mr. Miller advised that there would be some reduction in the “Programs and Services” portion of the General Fund tax levy, with some of the reductions occurring in the Park Maintenance Fund, not a tax-supported budget.

 

At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Miller advised that this reduced the levy increase for 2011 to approximately 2.9%, saving the average taxpayer approximately $0.40 monthly, or $5 annually.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.

 

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10865 entitled, “Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Adjust the Approved Tax Levy for 2011 Bonded Debt (Attachment B);” in the amount of $487,420.95.”

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

 

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10866 entitled, “Resolution Adopting the Final 2011 Annual Budget for the City of Roseville (Attachment C);” in the amount of $39,236,435, with $18,931,869  designated for the property tax-supported programs.

 

City Manager Malinen provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, a substitute for “Attachment D” in the packet, providing a more detailed budget summary by program and department, as suggested by Councilmember Roe.  Mr. Malinen noted that this included the breakdown of the Code Enforcement activities under tax-supported portion of the Community Development Department budget.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.

 

c.            Adopt the Final 2011 HRA Levy

Mr. Miller advised that the request for the 2011 HRA Levy remained as presented and approved in the Preliminary Budget and Levy request.

 

Councilmember Ihlan noted her e-mail request and staff’s response to include the proposed HRA budget at tonight’s meeting, attached hereto and made a part hereof.

 

Councilmember Roe noted that staff had provided a further detail to him of 2010 budget versus actual spending through the 3rd quarter, and questioned why, in reviewing the multi-family rehabilitation funding, no funds appeared to be expended in 2010, but yet the line item was carried over in 2011.

 

At the request of Councilmember Roe, Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the intent of funding in the multi-family rehabilitation program as a revolving loan fund for multi-family buildings, with the intended total funding of $300,000 built up over several years of incremental funding.  Mr. Trudgeon anticipated that an average loan for a multi-family building would be within the parameter of $50,000, with the long-term goal for that fund to be self-sufficient, similar to that of the single-family home rehabilitation funding initiated in past years.  Mr. Trudgeon noted the current research by the HRA and staff to understand the needs in the community; and anticipated that once the program is marketed more effectively and the economy picks up, and when capital funds are more readily available for those owners; rehabilitation requests for multi-family buildings could be quite extensive, and potentially tied to energy conservation,. 

 

Councilmember Ihlan questioned the Home and Garden Fair amounts for 2011 being similar to 2010, with the exception of an additional $14,000 for professional services and staff.

 

Mr. Trudgeon advised that this was a reallocation of a position under the Professional Services within Community Development budget in the past, rather than the HRA; but a portion of the work of the position would now be exclusive to the Home and Garden Fair.

 

Councilmember Ihlan questioned the fund request for Marketing and Studies being the same for 2011 as in 2010; and asked for a breakdown for those funds.

 

Mr. Trudgeon advised that those funds represented ongoing costs for design and marketing; recurring costs for normal marketing and postage costs; printing of mailers on various programs; and that the Living Smarter, Living Green marketing program was included in this as well.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that $20,000 had been carried over from 2010, with an additional $20,000 in new dollars for a total of $40,000 to continue those efforts.

 

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10867 entitled, “A Resolution Submitting the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, in and for the City of Roseville, Special Property Tax Levy on Real Estate to the Ramsey County Auditor for the Fiscal Year of 2011 (Attachment A):” in the amount of $353,500.

Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

 

d.            Confirm Advisory Commission Reappointment and Appointment Process

Mayor Klausing noted that an additional vacancy for the Planning Commission had been received from Commissioner Jim Doherty who was resigning immediately.

 

City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed the RCA, noting the schedule for those seeking reappointment, as well as those new applicants applying for positions and the subsequent interview process.  Mr. Malinen noted that terms expire on March 31, 2011, allowing time for the process.

 

Councilmember Roe questioned if Planning Commissioner Doherty’s immediate resignation created any operational issues for the Planning Commission over the next four (4) months.

Mr. Trudgeon advised that Vice Chair, Commissioner Daniel Boerigter, would be asked to step up to Chair meetings; and unless there were tie votes, there should be no other operational issues before current Commissioners’ terms expired in March of 2011.

Recess

Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at approximately 8:22 pm and reconvened at approximately 8:27 pm.

13.      Business Items – Presentations/Discussions

 

e.            Zoning Code Update Review

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon; City Planner Thomas Paschke; and Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd were present for this review of the DRAFT Zoning Map and Text Amendments to the City’s Zoning Code; anticipating that it would be formally presented at the December 13, 2010 regular City Council meeting.

 

A bench handout was provided, consisting of a memorandum from Steve Enzler to the City Council and City Planner Paschke dated December 5, 2010, and attached hereto and made a part hereof.

 

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon

Throughout the review of the draft, staff highlighted provisions and/or changes to each existing district and new districts, incorporating Vision and Policy Statements contained in the Imagine Roseville 2025 document and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; detailed in their Power Point presentation materials, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 

 

Mr. Trudgeon provided a background of the process, including public meetings; and focus on physical form and relationship to surrounding areas, and use of graphics and photos to supplement the zoning code text and provide examples for users of the code.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the City’s original zoning code had been enacted in 1959 with multiple revisions through the years; and that starting over from that foundation with a new code had been a monumental task.

 

Mr. Trudgeon cautioned that this task involved updating a large majority of the code, but that it was still seen by staff as a “living document” with staff estimating that 80% of the existing code language had been encapsulated in this draft; and unlike the Comprehensive Plan mandated by the Metropolitan Council for updating every ten (10) years, with any changes taken seriously and processed as amendments; this zoning document needed to be reflective of City Council policy and functional.  Mr. Trudgeon guaranteed that, once adopted and put into practical use, there would be multiple items found in the regulatory framework not working in practice or function, or not anticipated when originally written; and requiring continual updating.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that everyone needed to be aware that those improvements were welcome to make the document more effective, and recognizing ever-changing styles,  principles, and policies. 

 

Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the additional work anticipated for completion in 2011 of the remaining chapters, a complete review of cross references in other chapters of code, and the Subdivision Code (Chapter 11), a vital chapter that would incorporate discussion on lot sizes, but not proposed to be changed at this time.  Mr. Trudgeon noted other chapters not yet done, nor included in this zoning code rewrite including: 1010 sign regulations; 1017 shoreland, wetland and stormwater management; 1018 erosion and sedimentation; and 1020 sexually oriented uses.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that, in an effort to keep the chapters in the rewrite as consistent to the previous zoning code, there were some gaps as chapter numbers were kept for familiarity; and that the number gaps would be reserved for future amendments.

 

Mr. Trudgeon noted that the Official Zoning map was also part of this rewrite consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, in accordance with State Law; further noting that, as part of that map revision process, numerous and previously-identified anomaly properties had been brought forward to the City Council. Mr. Trudgeon advised that, while the entire City was being rezoned as part of this process, most only were related to different names to existing zoning districts, and that the zoning map would indicate those districts and be part of the adoption of the zoning text.

 

Proposed Zoning Districts were identified in the presentation, including what existing districts they simplified, combined or conformed.  Staff noted that no properties were currently proposed as HDR-2 on the zoning map, but was included to provide for more dense housing for an urban environment based on guidance of the Comprehensive Plan and mandate for increased housing density by the Metropolitan Council.  Staff noted that including this district should not cause concern for citizens, as any proposals would need to be fully vetted through City Council policy provisions and the planning application process; reiterating that nothing on the zoning map was currently zoned or designated HDR-2.

 

Proposed Residential Zoning Districts

Low Density Residential 1 (LDR-1) up to 3-4.5 units/acre

Low Density Residential 2 (LDR-2) up to 8 units/acre

Medium Density Residential (MDR) 5-12 units/acre

High Density Residential 1 (HDR-1) 12-24 units/acre

High Density Residential (HDR-2) 24 plus units/acre

 

Proposed Business/Commercial Districts

Neighborhood Business District (NB); Community Business District (CB); Regional Business (RB); and Community Mixed Use District (CMU).

 

Employment Zoning District

Office/Business Park District

Industrial Districts – new district government buildings and uses, schools and churches

 

Institutional District

 

Park and Recreation District

 

A zoning map, providing more clarity that that included in the meeting packet was distributed as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.

 

Mayor Klausing noted that the zoning map did not connect the Twin Lakes Parkway, now an official road, and Mr. Trudgeon duly noted the need to correct that.

 

Introduction Chapter 1001

Staff reviewed development of this newly-created chapter, in conjunction with the City Attorney, to better clarify the zoning ordinance, with the current code absent this section.  Staff advised that it was the intent of this chapter to make the code more understandable and consolidate general provisions, rules and revised/enhances definitions; and address additional areas of the code’s intent and purpose and relationship to the Comprehensive Plan; jurisdiction and application and authority. Staff noted that sidebars would be provided throughout the code for further clarification or items of special note.

 

Mr. Trudgeon noted that this had been the most challenging portion of the zoning code rewrite; and reminded Councilmembers and the public that the document was dynamic, and changes were anticipated; and welcomed additional suggestions for definitions or to make the document more user-friendly.

 

Discussion among staff and Councilmembers including models used by staff in their initial template definitions through review of 25-30 different codes and their various aspects, including those of neighboring communities, as an initial base for introductions; with the City of Madison using a form-based code that incorporated many of the initial definitions, and providing the most extensive list; but pared down by staff to be consistent and essential to the needs of Roseville.

 

Further discussion included appreciation of inclusion of those items not listed, but needing further research or study to determine whether they were an appropriate use or not, with that process initiated by citizens, the City Council or the Planning Commission; and providing general statements, rather than a litany of inappropriate or inappropriate uses in a specific category; and the appeal process for administrative rulings to the City Council.

 

Administration and Enforcement Chapter 1002

Staff noted that this chapter was developed in cooperation with staff and the City Attorney’s office, and reviewed specific additions and/or inclusions to address the validity of the zoning ordinance; detailing enforcement of all provisions, defining non-conforming use; addressing official map and/or chapter amendments; and specifically identifying the roles of the Community Development Department; Design Review Committee; Administrative Deviation Committee; Master Sign Plan Committee; Variance  Board; Planning Commission; City Council; and Board of Adjustments  and Appeals.

 

Residential Districts Chapter 1004

Staff reviewed the main points and modifications of this chapter:

§  Reduced minimum lot size for Low Density Residential (LDR) to achieve lot size compliance in the community, for a minimum width of 75’ and 9,500 square feet

§  Proposed limits of LDR-1 and LDR-2 Districts to a maximum of two (2) accessory structures and a total maximum allowance of 1,008 square feet; defining accessory structure to include a garden shed and to eliminate confusion over the type and number of accessory structures

§  Proposed design standards for single-family residences to limit the amount of space garage doors may occupy on the street frontage to reduce visual prominence of garages on residences and enhance the pedestrian environment

§  Established specific design standards for multiple family dwellings that promote architecturally interesting buildings

§  Creation of a new HDR-2 district that has no density limitations, but instead relies on meeting other site and height limitations to determine density

§  Modification of certain dimensional standards such as reduction in certain setback areas; establishing height in feet, not number of stories; clarifying improvement area versus impervious coverage

§  Allows accessory dwelling units, live/work units, and bed and breakfasts – previously not allowed as a permitted use, only through a Conditional Use Permit (page 5 and 6 of the Use Chart)

 

Discussion included definition of accessory dwelling units (e.g. mother-in-law units) allowing for flexibility for senior citizens or parents to live on the same property but have some independence; specific standards listed under Performance Standards for when those uses come forward; and clarification of a “Reverse Corner” that will be illustrated in a sidebar in the final document.

 

HDR Districts, Page 11, Dimensional Standards

Councilmember Roe expressed some concern and requested further staff review about side yard setbacks next to other residential districts; with commercial districts offering greater setbacks.  Councilmember Roe questioned whether similar setbacks or a separate setback standard be considered for multi-family districts (larger buildings) adjacent to lower residential districts to ensure height and shadow issues are addressed.  Councilmember Roe also questioned whether the proposed setback was sufficient to address the maximum building height up to 90’.

 

Councilmember Roe referenced a letter from Mr. Steve Enzler related to HDR-2 properties adjacent to LDR properties.

 

Staff concurred that they would further review setbacks; noting that the HDR-2 District was difficult to envision, as there was no example and it was hard to conceptualize, given its more urban nature; however, they addressed their cognizance of the need to consider adjacent land uses and the need to create a buffer and not make things too dense or unlivable. 

 

Councilmember Pust suggested that code may need to state that an HDR-2 would not be envisioned next to LDR.

 

Councilmember Roe suggested that topographical differences also be taken into consideration for impacts to adjacent properties.

 

Councilmember Ihlan questioned how HDR-2 related to the Comprehensive Plan map; with Mr. Trudgeon advising that anything zoned HDR-2 would need to be guided accordingly and require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map.  Councilmember Ihlan expressed her serious concern in this HDR-2 District, noting past vigorous discussions with single-family residential homes adjacent to multi-family units; and the huge change this proposed district created.  Councilmember Ihlan questioned why staff was proposing to create a new district in the abstract, when no examples or placement had been thought through, not just those of dimensions and setbacks.

 

Mayor Klausing expressed appreciation for tonight’s discussion and the need to be sensitive to existing neighborhoods; however, he spoke in support of and noted that consideration needed to be given to future redevelopment in the City and higher density, different uses, and a more urban redevelopment of the City than currently known; and the need to have forethought and provide flexibility for that development as a first-ring suburb.

 

Councilmember Ihlan questioned the inclusion of minimum lot size, considering previous City Council discussion and her recollection of the consensus to keep the minimum lot size at 11,500 square feet.  Councilmember Ihlan expressed frustration in not being able to track the multiple drafts of the zoning document to address proposed revisions from the existing code to the proposed code.

 

Mr. Trudgeon noted the challenges in reviewing the existing and proposed given the revised formatting; but assured Councilmember Ihlan and the public that past discussions had not been ignored, but that no vote or direction had been provided, and the minimum lot size of 9,500 square feet and 75’ minimum lot width had been included as a point of discussion, recognizing the variety of opinions.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that including the proposed language was not an attempt to change lot sizes or to attempt to cram more density in, but was a way to attempt compliance for 93% of the City’s existing properties.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that, more importantly, discussion should be directed to how it impacts new lots, and that portion had yet to be resolved until a future rewrite of the City’s Subdivision Code was undertaken, which addressed any new subdivisions and continued to retain the 85’ lot width and 11,500 square foot requirements; and the requirement for any new subdivisions to continue to meet that standard.

 

Further discussion included the Use Charts; and permitted uses; “y” notations indicating and referencing additional information available in the Property Performance Standard section of code specifically related to a particular use, addressing multiple issues over many years that had been documented by staff and included in this rewrite.

 

Councilmember Ihlan requested staff’s identification of new design or placement standards for comparison purposes between the old and proposed codes.

 

Commercial and Mixed-Use (CMU) Districts Chapter 1005

Staff reviewed proposed design standards to minimize impacts; a simplification of the Use Table; clarification and update of dimensional standards; Mixed Use District initially encompassing the Twin lakes Redevelopment Area; inclusion of the former Shopping Center District requirements in the Regional Business District, but placing heightened requirements in the Property Standards chapter under Commercial Uses.  If adopted, staff advised that they would then proceed to move forward on a regulating map to address the type and general placement of structures at specific locations, through development of the regulating map and district for the Twin lakes Redevelopment Area itself.

 

Councilmember Roe expressed similar comments to those of multi-family and  HDR-2 Districts next to  LDR properties; and the need to also address larger side yard setbacks ( e.g. 30’) for CD, RB, and CMU Districts, specifically those adjacent to residential properties; recognizing that NB is a more scaled to neighborhoods.

 

Staff noted the new buffer and screening requirements in the Performance Standards section that may mitigate some of those concerns, but advised they would review those setbacks.

 

Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern with current standards for the current Shopping Center District and whether those standards had been incorporated or removed.

 

Staff advised that they had been incorporated and slightly revised in the Property Performance Standards chapter (page 35), some modified to be consistent with the zoning code, and to reasonably mitigate impacts.  Staff cautioned that huge buffer areas could not realistically be incorporated in all cases, since those standards would not be applicable to other business districts across the board. 

 

Councilmember Ihlan specifically addressed Har Mar Mall and its proposed zoning designation Community Business; with staff concurring that this was consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan

 

Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern that those adjacent residents may be under a misconception, based on the number of “thank you” notes received by the City Council following previous discussions.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that it was her understanding that the Har Mar property adjacent to the residential properties would remain R-1.

 

Staff advised that their understanding was not consistent with that of Councilmember Ihlan, and that the only way those properties would remain as currently zoned would be for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change to Neighborhood Business (NB) or Low Density Residential-1 (LDR-1); neither of which had been directed by the City Council or indications provided to those residents.

 

Discussion ensued regarding the land use designation and zoning of the entire parcel and concerns of adjacent residential properties on the south of Har Mar that may be impacted by future redevelopment of the parcel or relaxation of standards; with staff assuring Councilmember Ihlan that the intent was to continue buffering those properties; and once the new code was adopted the old regulations would cease to exist and be replaced by new regulations, with everything in the new code applying to Har Mar, along with any mitigation requirements in place based on adjacent residential uses, and based on how any future proposals would come in and how those proposals met code requirements.

 

Mr. Trudgeon noted the challenge of Har Mar designated as Community Business, and provided examples of other properties with similar designation (e.g. properties at the intersection of Larpenteur and Lexington Avenues) and how application of those standards would not apply there.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that, if Har Mar was zoned Regional Business (RB), then greater standards could be applied, such as a 40’ rather than 20’ buffer.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was staff’s collective opinion that the buffer could be accommodated without burdening other CB properties in other locations within the community with onerous standards that they could not meet for any redevelopment of their properties. 

 

Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern that the current Shopping District code and standing agreement, based on many years of negotiations and agreements to provide flexibility in meeting the needs of that residential neighborhood, would no longer be applicable or become violated under a set of standards across the entire City; no longer protecting the neighborhood.

 

Staff advised that they were unaware of any Shopping Center Agreement, and that under the Planned Unit Development (PUD), and any amendments to that PUD, under which Har Mar Mall was developed and/or redeveloped, any modifications would require going through a PUD Amendment process.  Staff advised that Har Mar Mall operated under two (2) separate development agreements for the site; with an amendment when the 24-hour, Cub Foods use was approved, which required heightened requirements, that were also in place in the Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) chapter of the proposed zoning code, still requiring that they adhere to those requirements for everything other than having the 40’ rather than 20’ buffer.

 

Councilmember Roe questioned, in general, what impact the proposed code would have on existing PUD agreements.

 

Mr. Trudgeon responded that PUD agreements would remain in place and enforceable; with any changes to those developments requiring amendment to the PUD.  However, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the Zoning Map would not designate PUD’s; and that staff would not be supporting future PUD’s.

 

Employment Districts Chapter 1006

Staff noted that this District combined three (3) existing industrial districts into a single district; with high-tech industrial uses formally in I-1 or I-2 now in Office/Business Park Districts; and all remaining parcels that were predominantly zoned I-2 now in a single Industrial District.  Staff reviewed the design standards for minimizing impacts; simplification of the Use Table; clarification and update of dimensional standards regarding height and building coverage versus impervious coverage; performance standards currently found in general requirements of industrial districts relocated to Property Performance Standards

 

Councilmember Roe addressed Dimensional Standards (page 5) suggested further staff review of the HDR-2 and its more urban standards to accommodate future applications; for review under the Office Business Park District as well, as a future exercise by the department and potential recommendation as a Text Amendment, but not for immediate consideration in this draft.

 

Staff noted that they would take that under advisement, for the potential of creating another district; noting that in the Use Table, there was a particular conditional use addressing additional office building height, and it could be considered there in any of those office park properties.

 

Councilmember Ihlan questioned the current B-6 zoning district for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, and whether that was incorporated into the new code.

 

Staff advised that the green or open space requirement was not proposed as part of this code.

 

Mr. Trudgeon advised that the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area was zoned Mixed Use with no minimum green space requirement.

Councilmember Ihlan opined that that was a fairly significant change for the business park and a property could end up with 85% impervious coverage; and may require additional discussion.

 

Institutional District Chapter 1007

Staff advised that this was a new district designed around many schools, churches and a number of civic uses currently zoned Single Family Residential; with its main purpose to establish standards and regulations that better align with the uses identified by the Planning Division and afford them similar improvement/development opportunities; with design standards for institutional uses allowed in commercial districts; with any special or object-oriented buildings uniquely designed requiring specific review and approval by the City Council.

 

Park and Recreation District Chapter 1008

Staff noted that the current code had no supporting standards or regulations governing any exiting permitted or conditional park/recreation use; and that that lack of clarity had created challenges for staff.  Staff advised that identified standards and regulations that were deemed appropriate and necessary to this chapter were similar to those from the draft residential and institutional districts to this district.  Staff noted that those uses identified as part of the Parks Master Plan would not be required to go through a Conditional Use process; that the Use Table was general with some typical permitted uses illustrated; and that design standards were similar to those in the Institutional District, with any special or object-oriented buildings uniquely designed requiring specific review and approval by the City Council.

 

Discussion included what applications to which the design standards applied; and whether design standards of the zoning code trumped the Master Plan process.

 

Staff advised that the Park Master plan was not a regulation or standard, but a process to create or plan for future parks; however, it did not establish setbacks or parking lot requirements, etc., but the zoning code did.  Staff noted that based on certain improvements, there needed to be consistent uses and standards to allow for improvements, without being onerous.  Staff noted that this District applied to county parks and beaches and their facilities, private golf courses and their facilities, and other future uses, and not specifically to City parks.  Staff reiterated that there was no attempt to be restrictive, and they wanted to recognize the Master Plan, but if parts didn’t mesh, it allowed things to be brought to the table for discussion and vetting.  Staff advised that, if the City Council was otherwise directing staff to have no zoning code for parks, this would be the time to make that known.

 

Mayor Klausing opined that it was prudent to be consistent and have a standard apply to City uses as well as the rest of the community, not to have one standard for government and another for citizens; similar to that applied to signs placed by the City.  Mayor Klausing further opined that, while it makes sense to make sure the design standards are complimentary with the use and neighborhood character, he was not inclined to say City parks should not be subject to the same standards as other uses.

 

Councilmember Johnson questioned the design standards proposed for enclosures for waste and recycling areas; and whether that was applicable to existing parks or future developments.  Councilmember Johnson noted that he’d received comments from neighbors that the enclosures would be more open to vandalism, potential shelter for vagrants, and questioned how staff would address that.  Councilmember Johnson further questioned how the 20’ setback would be applied for future pathways. 

 

Staff advised that the code applied to new improvements, not existing; that the enclosures were for large dumpsters and usually applicable by parking areas; examples of uses at Central Park and the OVAL.  Staff noted that, upon review of the draft zoning code, Ramsey County had brought forward concerns regarding the buffer strip area and its relationship to pathways.

 

Councilmember Johnson suggested an exception be made providing more leeway to facilitate future connectivity and pathway/trails development.

 

Councilmember Roe noted that on Page 3 of the Design Standards (d) exclusions were listed, including abutting pathways residential districts.

 

Staff concurred.

 

Procedures Chapter 1009

Staff advised that the purpose of this chapter was to specify how zoning-related applications are reviewed and processed; a reorganization of how different land use applications are processed; how existing procedures are dispersed in current code, with all now combined in the Procedures chapter.  Staff advised that more robust requirements for most conditional uses were applied; additional types of administration deviations clarified in order to accommodate minor improvements since variances are practically unavailable with recent restrictive state legislation; and references to Subdivision and Comprehensive Plan changes eliminated as these processes are regulated elsewhere (e.g. Subdivisions).

 

Councilmember Roe expressed his appreciation for how this section was put together, its clarity; and how the Conditional Use criteria were now basically incorporated rather than as separate conditions applied in past Conditional Use applications.

 

Property Performance Standards Chapter 1011

Staff advised that current Performance Standards had been revised, with the cooperation of the City Attorney; and included new Environmental Standards for all non-residential districts requiring compliance prior to Building Permits being issues; a new section created for tree preservation, essentially for new development/redevelopment and significant commercial improvements; updated requirement for screening and buffering with two (2) separate sections with heightened standards for extended hour operations adjacent to residential uses; and updated landscaping requirements.

 

Parking and Loading Areas Chapter 1019

Staff reviewed this section, noting that in general, fewer spaces are now required for each use; but additional spaces may be installed up to a specific maximum; developers may provide formal parking studies to support parking less/greater than minimum/maximum requirements; formalized requirements for bicycle parking and pedestrian access/circulation.

 

Mayor Klausing suggested in the “Minimum Parking” section, that staff provide designations for schools possibly “K-12” or “8-12 grade,” rather than defining them in the old terminology.

 

Mayor Klausing sought any significant concerns from the Planning Commission and/or the public that staff had received on the overall code.

 

Staff advised that one Planning Commissioner was opposed to garage setback standards.

 

Staff advised that, during staff’s review of the Traffic Visibility Triangle and attempts to simply text, the final draft proposed after consultation with Engineering and Public Works staff would suggest a less simple version, but provide better accountability in context.

 

Staff noted that the next draft would include the most changes in the Definitions chapter, in addition to formatting modifications for content for Performance Standards; and that staff was still working through those revisions. 

 

Staff concluded their overview, and thanked Councilmembers for their comments and discussion.

 

Mayor Klausing noted that this would return to the City Council at their last 2010 meeting on December 13; and requested that individual Councilmembers provide staff with any additional feedback prior to that meeting.

14.      City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Bill Malinen distributed upcoming draft agenda items and briefly City Manager Bill Malinen distributed upcoming draft agenda items and briefly reviewed those items.

15.      Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

Related to the upcoming Lawful Gambling Change Request in January of 2011, Councilmember Pust noted pending changes for City Ordinance for the Roseville Area Foundation to be compliance with the Foundation’s needs.  In her role with the Foundation, Councilmember Pust requested that if the City Ordinance was going to be reviewed for a different purpose, the discussion be amended to include the Foundation’s needs as well; and asked that staff provide information to her prior to that discussion for her review and comment. 

16.      Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:03 pm.