View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
City Council Meeting Minutes
May 11, 2009
1. Call Roll
Mayor Klausing called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed everyone.
(Voting and Seating Order for May: Roe; Johnson; Ihlan; Pust; and Klausing)
Mayor Klausing advised that Councilmember Pust has been detained at work and would be arriving approximately ten minutes late to the meeting.
City Attorney Jay Squires was also present.
2. Approve Agenda
Councilmember Ihlan requested removal of Consent Item 7.d entitled, "Approve Twin Lakes Right-of-Way Stipulation Agreements" for discussion.
The agenda was approved by consensus, 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.
4. Council Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and Redevelopment Authority Report
5. Recognitions, Donations, Communications
Councilmember Roe recognized and congratulated individual students participating in a competition of the MN Future Problem Solvers held in mid-April among various Roseville Area Schools, several of those Middle School students who had placed second and will proceed to national competition at Michigan State University.
Councilmember Roe announced that, along with several members of staff, he had attended an award ceremony several weeks ago at the Humphrey Institute at the University of MN, sponsored by the League of Minnesota Cities and the Non-Profit Leadership Center, where city staff had accepted two awards. One of the awards was for the geo-thermal project at the Skating Center, recognizing the innovative and cost saving nature of the project; and the other award was for the City's participation in the East Metro Swat Team, recognized for agency and municipal cooperation and efficiency. Councilmember Roe congratulated staff on these recognitions.
Mayor Klausing thanked Councilmember Roe for representing the City at that award ceremony; and also recognized Meghan Brady, and eighth grader at Parkview and recent Human Rights Commission Essay Contest winner, and her award of second place at the state level. Mayor Klausing noted that Ms. Brady will be recognized and honored by the State Human Rights League at a ceremony on May 16, 2009.
6. Approve Minutes
a. Approve Minutes of April 27, 2009 Regular Meeting
Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the minutes of the April 27, 2009 Regular Meeting as presented.
Ayes: Roe; Johnson; Ihlan; and Klausing.
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 Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.
a. Approve Payments
Johnson moved, Roe seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
54961 - 55092
b. Approve General Purchases or Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding $5,000
Johnson moved, Roe seconded, approval of general purchases and/or contracts as follows:
500 Badger water meters
c. Receive First Quarter Financial Report
No action required.
8. Consider Items Removed from Consent
a. Approve Twin Lakes Right-of-Way Stipulation Agreements (former Consent Item 7.d)
At the request of Mayor Klausing, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed this item, as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated May 11, 2009.
Councilmember Ihlan noted that, later on tonight's agenda, a report would be provided on maintenance code violations in the Twin Lakes area, with this property being the subject of some of those potential code enforcement actions. Ms. Ihlan questioned the actual ownership of the properties and noted the number of unresolved code issues. Councilmember Ihlan questioned why a stipulation agreement would be brought forward to acquire the property when those outstanding code issues may impact the value of the property. Councilmember Ihlan further requested that staff provide a detailed itemization of the costs representing the $2,082,700 the City will be depositing with the courts.
Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon noted that the stipulation agreement was for the City's advantage in obtaining the property sooner, rather than later; and further advised that the appraisal cost for the property, a portion of the Indianhead parcel, and another parcel at the intersection of Cleveland and Twin Lakes Parkway, were the only properties being purchased to allow possession of the land for right-of-way for the proposed Twin Lakes Parkway and to facilitate construction schedules for pending development.
Discussion included land and building values; scheduling of the right-of-way acquisition and Eminent Domain proceedings for appraisal of the properties, with the property owners signing the stipulation agreement as indicated; and appraisal amounts taking the building condition into consideration.
Councilmember Pust arrived at this time, approximately 6:18 pm.
Councilmember Roe clarified that the deposit was made to the Ramsey County Courts as a bond for the Eminent Domain proceedings; and that the ultimate amount would be paid through that court process; with the stipulation agreement a normal part of the process between the property owner giving up possession of the property rather than waiting for final resolution.
Roe moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the City of Roseville entering into a stipulation agreement with Roseville Acquisitions regarding purchase of property for the Twin Lakes Phase I Infrastructure Project.
Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion; opining that the code enforcement issue and the purchase of the property needed to be linked; and that no action should be taken until the code violations had been addressed.
Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the motion, again reviewing the process for acquiring the property for public purpose, and noting the value of the property and buildings and the ultimate calculations of their value during the appraisal process.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that the appraised value reflects the diminished value of the properties and structures thereon, and that the stipulation agreement simply allows the City to acquire the properties prior to settlement to avoid construction details. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the appraisals would come before the City Council at a later date for their consideration and formal action.
Ayes: Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.
9. General Ordinances for Adoption
a. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission
Mr. Trudgeon introduced those members of the Planning Commission present tonight for a joint meeting of the Commission and City Council. Those members were Vice Chair Daniel Boerigter and Commissioners Joe Wozniak, John Gisselquist and Glenn Cook. Mr. Trudgeon provided a bench handout to Councilmembers entitled, "Roseville Planning Commission - 2009 Work Plan;" and reviewed that work plan developed by staff and the Commission, in addition to their normal schedule for hearing land use issues before the City. Mr. Trudgeon briefly reviewed the work completed by the Commission, including an accounting of land use cases, since the last joint meeting of the two groups.
Mayor Klausing welcomed Commissioners and thanked them for their ongoing work on many complex issues. Mayor Klausing specifically expressed appreciation for the Commission's handling of many emotionally-charged land use cases, and for their care in respecting and acknowledging the interests of all parties.
Dan Boerigter, Planning Commission Vice Chair
Vice Chair Boerigter addressed the upcoming zoning code revisions as part of the nine month period mandated for bringing the Code into consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Update and its pending formal approval. Mr. Boerigter sought an indication from the City Council as to the Planning Commission's role, timing of that role, and the process immediately following hiring of the consultant. Mr. Boerigter noted the need for all parties to be in clear agreement as to the type of zoning desired in the City and how that new code should look. Mr. Boerigter recognized that the final decision would be at the City Council level, but respectfully requested that the City involve the Planning Commission in initial and ongoing dialogue.
Mayor Klausing thanked Mr. Boerigter for sharing his research on form-based zoning with the City Council, opining that he found it very interesting.
Roundtable discussion among Commissioners and Councilmembers included potential hybrid of form-based zoning for the City; how the dialogue was best handled between the bodies during the process; research needed and implications of zoning code revisions; timesaving for the City Council by reviewing deliberations and discussion at the Commission level and review of those minutes; and efficiencies of City Council time in accepting recommendations to the City Council on land use cases.
Further discussion included ideals or goals versus realities of zoning issues (i.e., urbanism and locating buildings closer to streets; or higher density to meet Metropolitan Council mandates); more educational presentations at the Commission level that Councilmembers could attend and/or review via tape; comparisons by the Planning Commission to the Council on options, potential conflicts, and other considerations in various zoning issues, rather than a formal recommendation, but still allowing for the education and dialogue.
Additional discussion included how tonight?s dialogue could help staff prepare educational components prior to final scoping for the consultant's Request for Proposals (RFP), with 1-2 hours dedicated for that educational component at the Planning Commission level, followed by shaping the RFP to the Planning Commission and then forwarded onto the City Council.
Discussion regarding perspectives from the Planning Commission and City Council levels was addressed; along with deference and frustration from both perspectives; attempting to balance both to various factors and objectives; and the public hearing process at the Planning Commission level allowing for a better sense of what is realistic and beyond an academic planner.
Councilmembers Pust and Johnson opined that they didn't have hours to spend reviewing which type of zoning should be provided or continued in the City, and expressed appreciation for the research and deliberations to be provided at the Planning Commission level and their recommendations proceeding to the City Council.
Further discussion included areas proposed for review in the zoning code rewrite (i.e., shoreland ordinances); defining a "complete street" and educational aspects planned for that concept; and the need for more emphasis on bicycle and pedestrian accesses, including incorporating them into the Park Master Plan process.
Councilmember Roe advised that he would like to see smaller portions of bicycle and pedestrian access points and sections completed during redevelopment projects (i.e., apartment building rehabilitations) to allow easier access to transit options that may not be included in the Pathway Master Plan.
Additional discussion included anticipated projects; clearer understanding of the City's housing market and demographics as under review by the City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA); Metropolitan Council guidelines for a certain number of units by 2020 and to alleviate sprawl and environmental impacts; grant monies and implications in meeting those mandates as resources; and how multi-family buildings can transition throughout the years.
Councilmember Ihlan requested adding a possible tree preservation, or at a minimum a tree replacement ordinance, as ranked high on the Imagine Roseville 2025 goals; noting that the City was behind many suburbs who already had one in place. Councilmember Ihlan expressed her interest in participating in such a discussion.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that the ordinance was part of the rezoning picture.
Councilmember Roe recommended reading, on the City of New Brighton's website, their Northwest Quadrant Market Study, providing lots of good information about the local marketplace.
Councilmember Johnson expressed his interest, with all advisory boards and commissions, in receiving a copy of their meeting minutes via e-mail rather than individually seeking the information on the City's website.
Further discussion included whether the City Council would like the Commission to do anything different; appreciation by the City Council for the Commission's work and their willingness to deliberate issues and seek additional information in a comprehensive way, saving the City Council substantial time; and a suggestion that the meeting minutes include the rationale for a Commissioner voting against a project or land use to allow the City Council their specific perspective.
Mayor Klausing thanked Commissioners for their attendance and their work.
b. 2008 Storm Water Report
City Engineer Debra Bloom presented the City's 2008 Storm Water Report summarizing the City's Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan, detailing development changes, capital improvements, and other surface water management-related issues over the past year.
Ms. Bloom reviewed various problem areas throughout the City; several projects allowing for substantial improvements to overall storm water runoff reduction; lack of any new major problem areas since last year's report, and substantially due to the City's policy for developers to correct existing areas upon any redevelopment; the addition of several rain gardens in the City through various partnership opportunities; and other items as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated May 11, 2009.
Ms. Bloom noted that one of the City Council goals from last year was to work with the public on educational aspects of storm water management in their private yards; and she reviewed several of those educational opportunities and/or seminars provided by the City to-date.
Ms. Bloom provided for display a rain barrel available to residents for purchase from City Hall. Ms. Bloom advised that the City had found a vendor for this type of barrel for residential use, and would like to purchase 130 of them for a trial sale to residents in response to many inquiries fielded at City Hall. Ms. Bloom noted that this would be an upfront investment for the City, in addition to storing them until they sell; and advised that, if approved by the City Council, she would report with next year's annual storm water report, the success of the venture.
Ms. Bloom advised that staff was in discussion, and would make a determination, prior to ordering them, as to their allowance in City Code.
Pust moved, Roe seconded, approval of staff's purchase of 130 rain barrels for resale to residents at cost.
Ayes: Roe; Johnson; Ihlan; Pust; and Klausing.
Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of staff's 2009 storm water action items, as presented.
Councilmember Roe addressed the area of St. Rose of Lima and an action plan.
Ms. Bloom advised that storm water storage in that area would be required, most likely at the adjacent park, and would need initial modeling; and suggested that this could be added to the 2010 Work Plan as part of the Capital Improvement Plan.
Councilmember Roe suggested that this be included in the City's Park Master Plan as well.
11. Public Hearings
12. Business Items (Action Items)
a. Adopt Resolution to Approve Art Mueller request for a Comprehensive Land Use Map Amendment, Rezoning, and Approve General Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) to redevelop the property at 2025 County Road B into a Senior Living Community (PF09-002)
City Planner Thomas Paschke provided a brief review of the request by Art Mueller for a Comprehensive Land Use Map Amendment, rezoning and general concept planned unit development to redevelop the property at 2025 County Road B into a senior living community; as detailed in the staff report dated May 11, 2009.
Staff recommended approval of the three separate actions, and a draft resolution was distributed by staff as a bench handout.
Mayor Klausing questioned, with the numerous changes made by the applicant following the last Planning Commission Public Hearing, why this case was not back before the Planning Commission for further hearing.
Mr. Paschke advised that the changes, while numerous, were not considered significant in the overall project; noting that the concept plan itself was only conceptual or schematic, and was intended to only meet general parameters, at which time the architects and engineers would move forward with a final plan for approval.
Councilmember Johnson noted, in reviewing the Planning Commission meeting minutes, nothing indicated why the PUD was turned down.
Mr. Paschke advised that the Commission didn't support the proposal before them that evening, based on the density and building design; however, noted that the revised design addressed a number of their concerns.
Councilmember Ihlan questioned whether this project would fit better in an R-7 Zone, rather than an R-3, with underlying PUD.
Mr. Paschke advised that staff had reviewed the application against an R-3 Zoning District, and that he therefore couldn't comment on the R-7 District.
Applicants: Developer Art Mueller; Tim Johnson, Station 19 Architects; and
Property Owner Andrew (Andy) Weyer
Mr. Johnson provided several bench handouts for City Council information, including additional elevations from the Steve Enzler property; and a project team sheet listing participants. Those participants included: Project Team: Art Mueller, Team Lead and Project Developer; Robert Mueller & Tom Palermo, Project Partner; Janet Palermo, Project Manager; Lynnae LeBarron, Advisor; Amie Hill, Registered Nurse/Advisor and the Design Team: Tim Johnson, Project Planner; Richard Brownlee, Project Architect; Darrel LeBarron, AIA, President, Station 19 Architects; and Brian Krystofiak, Project Engineer
Mr. Johnson reviewed elevations from various perspectives, in relationship to a to-scale rendering of the building.
Mr. Mueller responded to previously-expressed public questions and his personal history and history of his involvement with the property and Mr. Weyer, including his specific parcel ownership. Mr. Mueller reviewed past developments in the community and advantages of such projects in bringing in new families to those homes vacated by residents needing this type of senior housing development.
Mr. Mueller opined that, while people don't like change, there were no guarantees for adjacent properties that they would remain unchanged, with the City of Roseville's continued redevelopment over the years. Mr. Mueller further opined that this is one of the better projects he's developed in the community, and asked that the neighbors support it.
Mayor Klausing respectfully requested that, while the anecdotal information is interesting to him personally, he asked that the comments focus on the land use issue before the City Council tonight. Mayor Klausing noted that there appeared to be an oversight in not addressing the zoning designation of this property before now from single-family to medium or high-density. Mayor Klausing advised that his personal concerns, and apparently those of the public as well, appeared to be related to the extent of the building's mass, architectural renderings and use of space; and asked that applicant, and public comments address more of those specifics.
Mr. Mueller and Mr. Johnson provided several displays comparing the new proposed building's design and appearance and setbacks, and removal of one proposed driveway.
Mr. Weyer provided a history of the project; creation of the Midland Grove housing project due to substantive utility assessments to his family farm and their need to sell off a portion of the property. Mr. Weyer expressed his personal support of this project, and opined that his family would also approve of it.
Mr. Weyer submitted a petition with signatures from residents throughout the City of Roseville, in support of the project; provided as a bench handout and for the record.
Mayor Klausing invited public comment from those in attendance.
For the record, bench handouts providing written comment via e-mail or U. S. Mail included: Marie and Tom Woehlke, 2181 Ferris lane - speaking in opposition; Gary & Rita Stenson, 2179 Ferris Lane - speaking opposition; and a Ferriswood Petition against the Orchard Project from Barbara Heinemann, Secretary.
Peter Coyle, Attorney on behalf of Ferriswood Townhome Association
Mr. Coyle noted the long-term interest of Mr. Weyer and Mr. Mueller in developing the community, and assured all that his comments were not of a personal nature. Mr. Coyle addressed the broad-based legislative powers of the City Council in considering at least two components of this approval process. Mr. Coyle opined that the project currently before the City Council, with insignificant changes to building alignment and the roofing structure, appears to be the same project before the Planning Commission in March; and that it remained too large. Mr. Coyle advised that the primary objection of his clients in the Ferriswood Association is to the mass of the structure and the size of the building on such a small site; and that the objection was not about whether senior housing was needed in Roseville or if high-density may be appropriate to this particular property. Mr. Coyle opined that this proposed adjacent project would dwarf the Ferriswood property and noted that additional information from the applicant shared as bench handouts tonight with the City Council had not been shared with him or his clients. Mr. Coyle suggested that the 60-day review period still allowed additional time for modifications to make this project a better fit on the property; and urged Councilmembers to table or deny the project this evening.
At the request of Mayor Klausing, Mr. Coyle opined that his clients felt the building was too tall; there was too much mass occupying the west facing view for Ferriswood Townhome owners; changes to the façade were insignificant; and that visual effects of the mass required more work.
Scott Roste, Acting President of Midland Grove Apartments (174 units)
Mr. Roste advised that he was expressing his views, as well as those of the entire association. Mr. Roste sought clarification on the ownership of a portion of Midland Grove Road, as detailed in the staff report, Section 5.1, noting that the Midland Grove Association had been maintaining the property in question for some time. Mr. Roste opined that any extra land should not be used to increase the project parcel to justify the size of the proposed building on this site. Mr. Roste noted that the original petition against the project remained valid, and concurred with Attorney Coyle?s comments. Mr. Roste advised that residents remained concerned with additional traffic and safety issues related to outflow of traffic from the sites; and opined that there was consistent lack of clarity for this projected project, including the type of housing, funding sources, and other concerns in this housing market. Mr. Roste encouraged Councilmembers to deny the project until a better project is proposed or that it be returned to the Planning Commission for further review.
John Homer, President of Ferriswood Condominium Association
Mr. Homer noted that Attorney Coyle represented the Association; and assured Councilmembers that residents were not opposed to the development; but that they were opposed to rezoning the parcel allowing high-density development on that site. Mr. Homer opined that the applicant had not provided a view from Ferriswood that would indicate blocking by the proposed building of two of the more valuable units at Ferriswood. Mr. Homer suggested that the developer build something else there that fit in better in the neighborhood and allowed Ferriswood to retain the value of their condominium units.
Steve Enzler, adjoining property owner
Mr. Enzler, having seen the most recent elevations, advised that he still hadn?t been able to rationalize the view and architectural renderings and perspectives versus the mass of trees; concluding that it's not an accurate rendering and that the structure was closer than shown on the renderings.
Mr. Enzler reviewed the status of his single-family residence, and reiterated that his major objection is to the mass of the proposed building. Mr. Enzler assured Councilmembers and the developer that he was not adverse to in-fill development there; and noted his support of the neighbors and Mr. Mueller. Mr. Enzler advised that he was concerned about light, air and views from his property. Mr. Enzler supported maximizing the value of the adjacent parcel, however, not at the cost to adjoining properties and transferring value from those existing properties. Mr. Enzler noted the boundary issues already prevalent on his property; and asked that no more be added until those are resolved.
Sherri Enzler, Sister to Steve Enzler and an Environmental Attorney for 15 years
Ms. Enzler reviewed her credentials in providing an opinion on this matter, specific to her work on site impacts to water quality and quantity and the relationship of water-based eco-systems,
Ms. Enzler reviewed the immediate concerns she had when reviewing this proposed development related to storm water management on site and impacts to the area; slow water absorption of heavily-forested lands; and dramatic water quality reduction from impervious surfaces. Ms. Enzler encouraged that environmentally appropriate development be considered for this size of property that won?t significantly increase storm water runoff.
Mr. Roland Wilsey, Midland Grove Townhome Association
Mr. Wilsey addressed his expertise in the transportation industry; and existing safety concerns with accessing roadways in the area, given the make up of the roadways, adjacent intersections, and traffic from the interstate system into the area. Mr. Wilsey encouraged Councilmembers to deny this proposed project, in consideration of the safety of existing residents and their use of the roadway.
Andy Weyer, Property Owner
Mr. Weyer presented the Sunday, May 10, 2009 Pioneer Press article on Roseville and past controversial development projects.
Mr. Weyer opined that there had been misinformation delivered to the City Council on property ownership and use, and that this issue would be cleared up shortly. Mr. Weyer provided additional historical information on his family's property, and original development of the Midland Grove and Ferriswood projects. Mr. Weyer asked that the City support this project in the spirit of change in Roseville as evidenced in the past with other developments.
Richard Taylor, Midland Grove Condominiums (SW corner on 3rd floor)
Mr. Taylor addressed traffic issues and uses on Midland Grove Road; as well as the building's mass, and description of the area in Section 5.6 of the staff report. Mr. Taylor noted topography of the site; proposed height of the building; and spoke in support of town homes as an extension of existing use, rather than anything of greater density. Mr. Taylor suggested that, whether this project comes to fruition or not, that the City retain their existing rights-of-way for future reconfiguration of the roadway if applicable.
Joyce Thielen, Midland Grove Condominiums
Ms. Thielen noted the existing drainage issues at Midland Grove, and the $600,000 rehabilitation of that area currently underway to address that issue and prevent further deterioration of their underground garage. Ms. Thielen advised that she was awaiting additional information on storm water drainage in the area from the MPCA, and asked that this was an important consideration for the City Council before providing their approval of this project.
Aileen Wiley, resident at Midland Grove
Ms. Wiley questioned the actual size of the property; and the location of the parcel adjacent to three major thoroughfares; and questioned the conclusion of the Planning Division in their report.
Art Mueller and Tim Johnson
Mr. Mueller provided the original survey completed on the property in 1969 and the actual acreage being used, exclusive of the roadway easement in question.
Mr. Mueller addressed audience questions related to access points to his proposed project; 32' roadway width for Midland Grove Road; and proposed 24' driveway width.
Mr. Tim Johnson addressed the building's height and R-3 Zoning standards allowing for a three story building, similar to Midland Grove except that theirs had a flat roof.
Mr. Mueller addressed storm water and impervious coverage, as developed by their engineer, and preliminarily approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD), based on the original 77-unit proposal.
Mr. Johnson advised that a more accurate imperious surface calculation would be provided to the City Council as soon as possible, based on the 2.23 or 2.61 acres, whichever indicated by staff.
Mayor Klausing thanked those in attendance for their comments.
Mayor Klausing opined that his previous concerns related to traffic and storm water drainage had been adequately vetted. Mayor Klausing clarified that funding issues for the project were not a Council consideration, with a privately-funded project. Mayor Klausing opined that his remaining concerns were related to concerns about moving from R-1 low density to high density zoning, while balancing competing interests; recognizing that single-family housing was not indicated, but those existing property owners could expect some reasonable considerations. Mayor Klausing further opined that, while staff had determined that there was no significant deviation requiring a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission level for the revised project, the public process may have been short-circuited.
Councilmember Ihlan opined that she has many problems with the proposal as it stands; and questioned why it made sense for the City to consider zoning and comprehensive plan amendments if the concept plan was not going to be approved. Councilmember Ihlan suggested that the City Council take seriously the requested action; and should they not consider approving the concept plan, that they have a separate discussion beyond this project related to density. Councilmember Ihlan advised that she was not prepared to vote to support the project or other requested actions tonight.
Councilmember Pust opined that she was not inclined to support an amendment to the comprehensive plan and rezoning of the parcel without further deliberation, independent of the proposed project.
Councilmember Johnson opined that he was confused between the project and the practicalities of rezoning. Councilmember Johnson expressed his respectful appreciation to the neighbors and for their input, but asked that they realize that the City Council needed to act on behalf of the entire community. Councilmember Johnson noted that many of those speaking were living in high-density facilities, and recognized that they were concerned with their views being impeded; however, he questioned if the project would not be of great benefit to the City as a whole. Councilmember Johnson advised that he was inclined not to support the land use at this point, based on his lack of support for the project itself. Councilmember Johnson opined that he believed that a high-density project could work in that area and may be good for the entire community; but advised that at this point, he could not support this project or the proposed land use.
Discussion among Councilmembers, staff and City Attorney Squires included the 60-day land use review period and timing for action on this project; how this area's designation was not considered in the recent comprehensive plan updates; planning versus reacting; process in basic planning and decision-making based on projects coming forward; maximum versus minimum standards on which to base those decisions; and how the property should be designated: medium or high density.
Mr. Paschke clarified that, at the last Planning Commission meeting, the actual vote of the Commission was 4/3 supporting comprehensive plan amendment; with a 1/6 failed vote on the concept plan, based on building footprint and aesthetics.
City Attorney Squires reviewed the three proposed action items, with the first two (i.e., comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning) being legislative in nature; and the additional action for approval of the concept a separate issue that shouldn't be linked to the other decisions.
Further discussion was related to the next available meeting of the City Planning Commission for the opportunity of another Public Hearing; practicalities of providing mailed and published notice of such a Hearing; and the City Council's charge to the Commission in further review of this request.
Councilmember Pust advised that her remaining concerns were related to the mass of the building on that site; but that her concerns related to traffic seemed to have been alleviated.
Councilmember Ihlan advised that she had ongoing and major concerns with the concept plan; and the need for policy discussions for changing the comprehensive plan designation when other changes were made to the updated comprehensive plan. Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to any and all of the requests currently before the Council related to this project.
Additional discussion included rationale for having further review at the Planning Commission level; recognizing the lengthy meeting and previous review by the Commission and potential value of their re-examining their rationale; remaining concerns of Councilmembers related to the building taking up too much space on the available property from a visual and environmental perspective; challenges to shrinking or enlarging the building?s footprint to address height and/or building to parcel ratios and meet setback requirements; and the desire for a more formal public hearing process to ensure sufficient public comment is heard and considered.
Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of the project going back to the Planning Commission level for further deliberation after the changes made by the applicant since the last hearing.
Councilmember Roe concurred with Councilmember Johnson; however, opined that the City Council provide specific direction to the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Pust advised that she would be unavailable for the remaining two Council meetings in June, only being available for the June 8, 2009 meeting.
Mayor Klausing noted that he would be unavailable for the June 8, 2009 meeting.
Councilmember Roe suggested that the applicant voluntarily extend the review period.
City Attorney Squires advised that the applicant could do so; and clarified that on voting for a comprehensive plan amendment, it required a 2/3 vote of the entire City Council regardless of the number of Council Members present at the meeting.
Mr. Mueller verbally agreed to extend the 60-day review period to allow additional time for consideration by stating "I'll approve that," when asked by the City Attorney if he would do so.
Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern that Mr. Mueller's agreement was verbal and not documented, and questioned the appropriateness of this procedure and expressed her preference that a more formal written agreement be pursued.
Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, tabling this matter and referring the specific question of the General Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) back to the Planning Commission for Public Hearing at their June 3, 2009 meeting and recommendation, based on the revisions made since their last review of this case; authorizing staff to provide standard published and mailed notice; that staff will seek written verification from Mr. Mueller of his extension of the 60-day review period; and those items for consideration and review by the Planning Commission to include:
§ Review of the appropriate impervious coverage calculations on the site
§ Review of the building's relative height based on sight lines and topography of the site;
§ Review of actual scale perspectives relative to height issues from various angles and giving consideration to roof slopes, number of stories, etc.
§ Review whether sufficient improvements have been made with respect to distances from adjacent properties based on setback requirements and perspectives from adjacent properties
§ Review of the safety of access points and traffic issues on Midland Grove Road, not only based on number of vehicles, but more specifically density of the area and design of the road; and connections to various and major intersections in that area (i.e., County Road B at Midland Grove Road).
Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion; opining that as elected officials, it was up to the City Council to make a decision. Councilmember Ihlan, however, did note the need for further review of safety of the accesses and traffic issues on Midland Grove Road, citing her personal experience on that roadway.
Ayes: Roe; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.
b. Authorize a Joint Fiber Optic Installation Project
Finance Director Chris Miller introduced the request for expanding the joint fiber optic system in conjunction with Roseville Area Schools and the Ramsey County Library?s construction project. Mr. Miller recognized that this would be a capital investment today, but that it would benefit the City of Roseville both today and for future generations.
City of Roseville Information Technology Manager Terre Heiser
Mr. Heiser introduced Director of the Ramsey County Library System Susan Nimitz and Roseville Area School District Information Technology Director Gina Clausen.
Mr. Heiser addressed the partnerships to-date between the parties in installing fiber optic capital improvements; and the opportunity to improve services again in conjunction with the library's construction project.
Susan Nimitz, RC Library Director
Ms. Nimitz reviewed operations to-date and the number of people waiting for computer use at the Library, in addition to the slowness of the current broadband system. Ms. Nimitz updated Councilmembers on proposed units in the new facility for general use of computers, as well as those in the teen center. Ms. Nimitz sought City Council support of including fiber as an affordable option to the library.
Gina Clausen, School District IT
Ms. Clausen reviewed the importance of technology use in today's school system; and the opportunity available to all parties in extending this fiber optic installation to the remaining schools in the system, as well as other public facilities. Ms. Clausen thanked Mr. Heiser and the City for their ongoing maintenance and support, particularly the engineering details. Ms. Clausen encouraged the City's support in establishing this solid infrastructure for the future in meeting needs.
Mr. Heiser summarized the proposed route, facilities to be serviced, and the three separate sections as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated May 11, 2009. Mr. Heiser noted existing areas (i.e., lift stations) available to address the installation; and noted that the greater the number of buildings on the system, the lower the cost to all users.
Mr. Heiser advised that, once these three segments were completed, all Roseville School facilities would be completed, and then staff proposed to initiate discussions with other communities in connecting to the system to further reduce the City's actual costs.
Mr. Heiser addressed costs and cost-sharing opportunities, with a total cost to the City of $134,000, with the balance of the $275,000 total project cost to be paid by the library and school district.
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, extending the meeting to complete discussion.
Johnson moved, Roe seconded, authorizing staff to solicit proposals for the 2009 Joint Fiber Outlay project with the Roseville School District and Ramsey County Library, as detailed in the staff report dated May 11, 2009.
Discussion included monies in the 2009 Budget of $150,000, and other partnership opportunities for cost-sharing of the build out; future maintenance costs; and impacts of pending lease expiration with Comcast for public access.
c. Approve Wellington Management request for Rezoning of 1126 Sandhurst Drive and 2167 Lexington Avenue to Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Approve General Concept PUD (PF09-003)
City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the request of Wellington Management for REZONING and approval of a GENERAL CONCEPT PLANEND UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) for redevelopment of the northwest quadrant of the intersection of County Road B and Lexington Avenue, replacing the existing TCF bank structure at 2167 Lexington Avenue and the adjacent single-family residence at 1126 Sandhurst Drive with an 11,250 square foot commercial office building and parking area.
Staff recommended approval, based on the comments and findings outlined in Sections 4 and 5 of the staff report dated May 11, 2009, for rezoning of the parcels at 1126 Sandhurst Drive and 2167 Lexington Avenue to PUD from R-1 and B-3, respectively; and approval of the request for a General Concept PUD to allow the proposed redevelopment, based on comments and findings outlined in Sections 4 ? 8 of the report, and subject to conditions detailed in Section 7.2 of the report.
Mr. Paschke advised that, since the previous meetings of the applicant and City Council, various issues have been addressed at the staff level with the applicant, and will continue to be pursued. However, Mr. Paschke noted that some impacts and concerns, such as the driveway access, may not be fully realized until the project is in place, at which time they may need to be more effectively addressed.
Mr. Trudgeon concurred, noting that the proposed visual impacts with the driveway access and notch may be able to be addressed through signing, lights, or other warning options. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the developer had heard the concerns loud and clear, and would attempt to resolve the situation, and if not, a condition would be recommended by staff prior to final approval.
Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, approval of REZONING parcels at 1126 Sandhurst Drive and 2167 Lexington Avenue to Planned Unit Development (PUD) from R-1 and B-3 respectively, as detailed in Sections 4-5 of the project report dated May 11, 2009.
Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion; opining that, from her perspective, the applicant had not fully addressed the size of the parking lot and impervious lot coverage, with her calculations indicating 64%, which was a significant amount. Councilmember Ihlan further noted that the storm water management plan yet to be finalized, and suggested further analysis of the number of parking spaces needed for a dental office. Councilmember Ihlan advised that, until those issues are resolved, she could not vote on the General Concept.
Klausing moved, Roe seconded, approval of the GENERAL CONCEPT PUD for Wellington Management to allow proposed redevelopment of 1126 Sandhurst Drive and 2167 Lexington Avenue; based on the comments and findings of Section 5 - 6, and the conditions of Section 7 of the project report dated May 11, 2009.
Discussion included calculation of the parking spaces; noting that part of the impervious surface discussion was driven by City Code; the applicant's enlarging the parking lot islands to provide more green space; the applicant's allotment at a minimal level over City Code (4 spaces); need to avoid cars from the office building parking on residential streets; and typical process for development of a storm water management plan after the concept plan and before final approval.
Councilmember Pust suggested that, as a policy discussion, further discussion be held in the future as to the standards for parking stalls, which had been developed in the 1970s, and may need further review and potential revision in today's reality and with other methods of transportation available.
Councilmember Ihlan suggested that, as a policy matter, the City Council consider issues, such as storm water management, at the concept level approval.
Councilmember Johnson advised that he conducted his own on-site review of site lines and driveway access related to the sidewalk and his safety concerns for pedestrians and bicycles, and strongly suggested formal signage for the site prior to final approval.
Councilmember Roe addressed lot coverage, in his review of aerials of the site and the existing bank use, and opined that the proposed coverage would be similar overall. Councilmember Roe concurred with the safety concerns on site and pedestrians and bicycles using the sidewalk.
Due to time constraints, the following items were held over for a future Council meeting.
d. Approve 2009 Budget Adjustments, and Consider Alternative Revenue Sources
13. Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
a. Discuss Twin Lakes Code Enforcement
b. Discuss Recovery of Environmental Clean-up Costs at Twin Lakes
14. City Manager Future Agenda Review
15. Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Councilmember Ihlan requested discussion and action at the next meeting on Twin Lakes Code Enforcement.
Councilmember Johnson requested that staff provide the City Council with meeting minutes from all advisory commissions via e-mail, for additional information during Council discussions and deliberations.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:17 pm.