City
Council Meeting Minutes
December 13, 2010
1. Roll Call
Mayor Klausing called to order the
Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed
everyone. (Voting and Seating Order for December: Ihlan; Johnson; Pust; Roe;
and Klausing). City Attorney Charles Bartholdi was also present.
Mayor Klausing apologized to the
public for the brief delay in tonight’s meeting; thanked those having attended
the public reception; and expressed appreciation to City staff for preparing
for and facilitating the event.
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
County Commissioner Jan Parker
Representing the Ramsey County
League of Local Governments (RCCLG), Ramsey County Commissioner Jan Parker presented
certificates to Mayor Craig Klausing and Councilmember Amy Ihlan, providing
special recognition from the RCCLG to outgoing local elected officials.
Commissioner Parker thanked them for their service dedication to the community
and region over the past years.
Mayor Klausing thanked Commissioner
Parker for her work on behalf of the community.
Councilmember Roe thanked the
City’s Public Works Department for their exceptional work in cleaning up after
this past weekend’s major snow event.
Mayor Klausing concurred; and noted
his repeated observations in the difference in Roseville’s efficiencies in snow
removal compared to some of its peer communities.
5. Recognitions, Donations, Communications
a. Recognize
Retiring Planning Commissioner Jim Doherty
Mayor
Klausing noted that the intent was to recognize Jim Doherty tonight on his
retirement from the City’s Planning Commission. However, on a bitter sweet
note, and on behalf of the City Council, community and staff, Mayor Klausing
offered condolences to the family of Jim Doherty in his passing on Saturday,
December 11, 2010; and announced visitation and memorial services dates and
times. Mayor Klausing recognized Jim’s service on the City’s Planning
Commission over the last six (6) years; and expressed his personal appreciation
in working with Jim through the years, and for his involvement in the
community. Mayor Klausing advised that the certificate of recognition intended
for presentation to Mr. Doherty would be presented to the Doherty family.
b. Recognize
Mayor Klausing and Council Members Ihlan and Roe
Mayor
Klausing presented a certificate of appreciation for Councilmember Dan Roe’s
service and dedication as a Councilmember from January of 2007 to December of
2010.
Mayor Klausing presented a
certificate of appreciation and a keepsake rose to Councilmember Amy Ihlan in
honor of her service and dedication as a Councilmember from January of 2004 to
December of 2010; remarking that Councilmember Ihlan was retiring as the senior
member of the City Council; and on behalf of the community, expressed
appreciation for her time and dedication on behalf of the community.
Councilmember Ihlan expressed her
honor in having served the community.
Acting Mayor Jeff Johnson
presented a certificate of appreciation and a keepsake rose to Mayor Craig
Klausing for his distinguished service as Mayor of the City of Roseville from
January of 2004 to December of 2010.
6. Approve Minutes
a.
Approve Minutes of November 29, 2010 Special Meeting and December
6, 2010 Regular Meeting
Johnson moved, Pust seconded,
approval of the minutes of the November 29, 2010 Special meeting as presented;
and approval of the minutes of the December 6, 2010 Regular meeting as presented.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
7. Approve Consent Agenda
There were no additional changes to
the Consent Agenda than those previously noted. At the request of Mayor
Klausing, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered
under the Consent Agenda.
a.
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding
$5,000
A revised RCA dated December 13,
2010 was presented as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part
hereof.
Roe moved, Johnson seconded,
approval of general purchases and/or contracts as follows:
|
Department
|
Vendor
|
Item/Description
|
Amount
|
|
Utilities
|
General Repair
Service
|
Replace
pumps at
Long Lake
lift station
|
$15,240.89
|
|
Utilities
|
Elk River Ford
|
2011 Pickup
truck replacement
|
21,184.66
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
Roe moved, Johnson seconded,
approval of the sale surplus vehicles of equipment as follows:
|
Department
|
Item/Description
|
|
Fire
|
1987
International Fire Engine
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
b.
Adopt a Resolution to Receive Feasibility Report and Order Public
Hearing for 2010 Pavement Management Program (PMP)
Roe moved, Johnson seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 10868 (Attachment A) entitled, Receiving the
Feasibility report (Attachment B) for 2011 Pavement Management Program (MPM)
and Ordering Public Hearing for Improvement;” for the Dale Street
Reconstruction Project to be held on January 10, 2011 at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
c.
Approve an Agreement between the City of Roseville and Capitol Region
Watershed District for the William Street Pond Retrofit Project
At the request of Councilmember
Ihlan, City Manager Malinen advised that funds for Roseville’s portion of this
project would come from its Stormwater Fund.
Councilmember Roe clarified that
the City would be responsible for ongoing maintenance of the stormwater pond;
with the Capitol Region Watershed District responsible for maintenance of the
filter bench.
Roe moved, Johnson seconded, approval
of a Joint Powers Agreement (Attachment A) between the Capitol Region Watershed
District (CRWD) and the City of Roseville for the William Street Pond Retrofit
Project.”
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
d.
Approve DEED Contamination Investigation and RAP Development
Program Grant Contract for the Twin Lakes Corporate Center Project (former PIK
Terminal property)
Roe moved, Johnson seconded,
acceptance of the agreement (Attachment A) with DEED to accept the $50,000 DEED
Contamination Investigation and RAP Development Project Grant for the Twin
Lakes Corporate Center Project.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
e. Accept Donations for K-89 Major’s
Care
Roe moved, Johnson seconded, acceptance
of $10,726.11 in donations received as of December 2, 2010, to assist in defrayment
of the City’s cost of K-9 Major’s hospital bills.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
8. Consider Items Removed from Consent
9. General Ordinances for Adoption
a.
Adopt an Ordinance Amending Title One, Chapter 104, Personnel Policy
City Manager Malinen reviewed the
rewrite and update of the City Employee Handbook, last revised in 1999; with
City Ordinance guiding all legally-required aspects and expectations of
leadership; and the Handbook providing implementation guidance at an
administrative level. Mr. Malinen noted that those items being revised were
highlighted in Chapter 104, Personnel Policy of City Code (Attachment A); and
in the draft City Ordinance (Attachment B); as detailed in the Request for
Council Action (RCA) dated December 13, 2010.
At the request of Councilmember
Johnson, Human Resources Manager Eldona Bacon clarified that smoking was
prohibited on or in any city-owned properties, vehicles, or buildings.
Councilmember Pust alerted Ms.
Bacon to several errors in Attachment A, Page 1, Section 104.01, Subsection
C.1, Line 27, Line 1 referencing the Public Employment Labor Relations Act,
Minnesota Statutes Annotated (MSA) Sections 1798.01 to 1798.25, noting those
numbers did not reflect the Minnesota Statute 179, which was the Minnesota
Employment Labor Relations Act; and suggested that may be intended to reference
federal law; and suggested that it be clarified on the final document.
Councilmember Pust advised the document should be amended to reference MNPELR,
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 179.
Councilmember Pust further noted
that in Attachment A, Page 1, Section 104.01, Subsection C.2, Line 31, language
should be revised to reference the Veterans Preference “Act,” not “Law;” and
that it was actually Section 197.455 of Minnesota State Statute, not Chapter
197.
At the request of Councilmember
Pust, Ms. Bacon clarified that the definition of “sick bank” was retained, even
though employees had “paid time off;” as some union groups were still covered
by sick leave provisions.
Klausing moved, Ihlan seconded,
enactment of Ordinance No. 1401 entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Title I,
Chapter 104, Personnel Policy: 104.01D Definitions; 104.01J Employment of
Relatives; 104.03J Bereavement Leave; 104.05J Smoking Policy; and 104.05L
Alcohol and Drug Use (Attachment B);” as amended and referenced above.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
Klausing moved, Ihlan seconded,
enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1401 entitled, An Ordinance Amending Title
I, Chapter 104, Personnel Policy: 104.01 C Provisions Superseded in Certain
Cases; 104.01D Definitions; 104.01J Employment of Relatives; 104.03J Bereavement
Leave; 104.05J Smoking Policy; and 104.05L Alcohol and Drug Use (Attachment
C).”
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
Councilmember Johnson commended
Ms. Bacon for the work put into these revisions.
Councilmember Roe echoed
commendations to Ms. Bacon; and recognized all staff who had worked on this
extensive project across departments.
10. Presentations
11. Public Hearings
12. Business Items (Action Items)
a. Report on
City Manager Evaluation
Mayor Klausing reviewed meetings
of the City Council in Closed Executive Session on November 22, 2010; and
continued to December 6, 2010 for the annual evaluation of City Manager
Malinen. Mayor Klausing noted that the evaluation was based on topics and
priorities previously established; and reviewed by various community and staff
members; with the results that City Manager Malinen was meeting or exceeding
those goals; and recommended for a step salary increase pursuant to his City
Manager’s Employment Contract.
Klausing moved, Roe seconded, to
formally adopt the annual City Manager evaluation report.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
b. Adopt an
Ordinance Approving new Official Zoning Map and Adopt an Ordinance Approving
new Title Ten Chapters 1001 – 1009, 1011, and 1019
Community Development Director
Patrick Trudgeon introduced the Request for City Council Action (RCA) dated
December 13, 2010, detailing the chapters presented for revisions of the City’s
Zoning Text Amendments, and the Official Zoning Map.
City Planning Thomas Paschke
reviewed those specific chapters that had been modified since the City
Council’s last review on December 6, 2010.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that, at the
request of Councilmember Roe, extracts of Planning Commission meeting minutes
from March 3, 2010 through the final meeting of December 3, 2010, were provided
by staff, as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Mr. Trudgeon reviewed additional
comments and significant concerns received from citizens by staff over the last
few days, following distribution of the Council packet; and suggestions being
brought forward for potential solutions.
1011. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff
had attempted to apply Performance Standards to all Zoning Districts, many as a
direct result of the proposed asphalt plant discussions; and the lack of
objective standards in existing code that didn’t provide clear determination on
those uses permitted or not permitted, or if a use was perceived to be a
nuisance based on specific standards rather than subjective perceptions, allowing
for differences of opinion. Mr. Trudgeon opined that staff had attempted to
make Performance Standards stronger across the board; however, he noted that
some good points had been brought forward that may deserve merit and
consideration. Mr. Trudgeon observed that the goal of all was to move
discussion along and make sure adequate controls were in place; and therefore
suggested that the City Council remove the new draft PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
section of the code, and replace it with the existing PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
currently in place. Mr. Trudgeon opined that, while they needed revision and
improvement, a three-hour debate was unnecessary, and the existing standards
could be used as a base, retaining the status quo, but not going backwards.
Mr. Trudgeon suggested that, in the upcoming months, that chapter be reviewed
as a separate process and amendment allowing for more time and thought to look
at those base performance standards to determine if they can be improved upon.
1009.02-C - CONDITIONAL USE
STANDARDS
Mr. Trudgeon noted that traffic
and/or market value were no longer considered criteria for Conditional Use
standards; however, he suggested that #5 of those standards sufficiently
addressing traffic problems and decline in market values as injurious and part
of the health, safety and general welfare criteria. Mr. Trudgeon advised,
however, that staff was amenable to that language being clarified for City
Council consideration.
Gladstone/Unisys Building Owner
Concerns
Mr. Trudgeon advised that in
industrial areas, Business or Trade School use was a permitted use, and given
further consideration, the Business or Trade School use had been removed and is
no longer in the Use Chart. Mr. Trudgeon advised that, in attempting to
simplify the chart, staff had identified office use definitions, and feel that
the Gladstone parcel is covered; but that staff was again amenable to further
clarify that at the City Council’s direction.
1005. COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE
DISTRICTS
In Section 1001.05, (Uses Not
Provided for Within Zoning Districts), Mr. Trudgeon advised that in reference
to the Chart of Uses, whenever a use is not specifically permitted ad
determined by the Community Development Department staff, and not permitted,
that use is prohibited; with an appeal process outlined for appeal of any
administrative decisions to the City Council. Mr. Trudgeon noted that clarify
is important, and offered to add uses from previous zoning code to the chart at
the direction of the City Council.
1011. PROPERTY PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS
Land Use Zoning Map / Har Mar
Mall Neighborhood
Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the lengthy
history over the years and over the summer months, regarding the proposed
zoning map change seeking to make the zoning map consistent with the 2030
Comprehensive Plan designating the entire site and all parcels on the southern
portion of Har Mar Mall COMMUNITY BUSINESS. Mr. Trudgeon advised that
currently a portion of the southern Har Mar Parking lot was zoned R-1, with the
area adjacent to Cub Foods designated B-1-B. Mr. Trudgeon noted that,
following many discussions by staff, the public and the City Council, staff
retained their position to modify the zoning in compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan, with no recommendation to change the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Trudgeon
advised that the standards applied in the existing SHOPPING CENTER DISTRICT
remained the same in the COMMUNITY BUSINESS chapter with the exception of the
current forty foot (40’) buffer changed to twenty feet (20’) to accommodate
other typical sites zoned COMMUNITY BUSINESS. Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was
not staff’s intent to give the impression that they were supportive of reducing
existing standards; however, they would support revising language for those
standards for a “minimum of 20’ – 40’ as determined by the Community Development
Department;” and referenced that portion of Chapter 1011. PROPERTY PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS (page 35 of the December 13, 2010 draft), Subsection E (Business and
Commercial Uses). Mr. Trudgeon provided a summary of the average buffer area
currently surrounding Har Mar Mall, and reiterated staff’s consensus that they
were not recommending changing that buffer area, but attempting to address
other COMMUNITY BUSINESS sites throughout the community as well.
Mr. Trudgeon reminded
Councilmembers that this zoning map amendment, along with the other twelve (12)
properties recommended for up-zoning throughout the community, required a super
majority (4/5) vote of the City Council.
Considerable discussion was held
by Councilmembers and staff related to the current buffer zone language;
suggested revisions to that language; buffer area between the Mall and
single-family residential properties on the southern end of Har Mar;
protections afforded the neighborhood by the additional 20-40’ buffer area
language; with staff clarifying that the only residential development that
could occur under the new zoning to COMMUNITY BUSINESS would be for residential
above retail establishments.
Further discussion included the
process for any land use applications received and those processed at a staff
level versus those brought forward to the City Council; with Mr. Trudgeon
reiterating the appeal process available for any administrative determination
coming before the City Council, and noticed as a public hearing, as well.
Mr. Trudgeon clarified that the
only PUD for the Har Mar Mall area was for the D’Amico and Sons and Chianti
Grill restaurant uses; with no other specific agreements under which the Mall
currently operated. Mr. Trudgeon further noted that operations have been
carried forward in the proposed code for all business districts, not just the
former Shopping Center District.
Petition – Property Owners
Surrounding 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8
Mr. Trudgeon noted inclusion in
tonight’s meeting materials of a petition, in additional to e-mail
correspondence, from property owners adjacent to 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8 in
opposition to correcting property zoning from R-1 designation to be consistent
with Comprehensive Plan for several decades as HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. Mr.
Trudgeon noted that the City Council had discussed this issue several months
ago and had determined not to take any action. However, with the receipt of
the petitions, staff had brought it forward for the City Council’s attention;
with staff recommending the zoning change from R-1 to HDR, consistent with that
guidance throughout the years. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the current
properties owners at 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8 were supportive of that
rezoning, and had for many years planned redevelopment of the parcels in
accordance with HDR land use designation.
CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS
Councilmember Ihlan suggested
taking the current code criteria language (Chapter 1014.01, Item D, list of six
(6) criteria) and insert that language in the first paragraph for the proposed
code; with the idea that future City Council’s would refine that criteria and
amend them as appropriate.
Mr. Trudgeon opined that the
existing language challenged staff and the City Council to determine the impact
of a specific use, with no declarative statement of what could or could not be
done, allowing for considerable subjectivity. Mr. Trudgeon noted that, while
the proposed code language brought forward by staff didn’t rise to the level of
prohibiting a use, it tried to make it consistent and not injurious to a
neighborhood; or in other words, attempted to make what we have better. Mr.
Trudgeon further opined that the City would be no worse off if it retained
current Performance Standards; however, he advised that it had been staff’s
attempt in the proposed language to respond to public comment.
Public Comment
Rita Mix, President of Woods
Edge Homeowners Association, and Resident at 3207 Old Highway 8
Ms. Mix reiterated concerns in the
zoning change for 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8; and referenced the petition
(Attachment A) in the meeting packet from their neighborhood, expressing their
concern. Ms. Mix noted that the properties had been HDR in the Comprehensive
Plan for many years; however, she noted that the surrounding properties had
evolved over the years inconsistent with that HDR designation. Ms. Mix
provided other anecdotal and historical information on their neighborhood,
including displaying a map of current development in the area, both in
Roseville and in St. Anthony Village. Ms. Mix reiterated concerns with a
pending proposal for development of the3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8 parcels and
concerns of neighbors related to the height and size of that proposed
development compared to existing residential uses; as well as drainage
concerns. Ms. Mix clarified that it was not the intent of the neighbors to
stop the proposed development; however, they asked that they felt the urgency
to speak in support of Medium Density Residential instead that would be
consistent with the neighborhood; and address other concerns related to traffic
control, infrastructure in the area, and safety of area school children.
Sarah Barsel, 1276 Eldridge
Avenue
Ms. Barsel provided written
comment dated December 13, 2010 as a bench handout, attached hereto and
made a part hereof. Ms. Barsel verbally expressed appreciation for the
effort put in on this rezoning process to-date; and further expressed
appreciation to Mr. Trudgeon for his proposed modifications, many of which
addressed the concerns expressed in her written comments. Ms. Barsel
recommended that action on this revised zoning code be postponed for further
public review and comment; deferring any action until a new City Council was
installed after the first of the year.
John Sanocki, 1378 W Ryan, (Har
Mar Mall area)
Mr. Sanocki expressed appreciation
for the proposed language increasing the minimum buffer zones; however, he
noted that currently the southern residential properties had a 450-550’ buffer
zone between the south end of Har Mar parking lot currently zoned as an R-1
residential area that served as a buffer zone for the residential
neighborhood. Mr. Sanocki expressed concern between the existing and proposed
zoning code and potential expansion of the Mall in that area, dramatically and
negatively impacting residents. Mr. Sanocki further addressed parking and
footprint restrictions between current and proposed codes, and potential
increased in traffic, noise, and pollution. Mr. Sanocki opined that this residential
neighborhood of Roseville was unique and needed to have assurances that the
three residential neighborhoods surrounding Har Mar Mall would continue to be
protected
At the request of Councilmember
Johnson, Mr. Trudgeon noted that there may be future development in that area,
but not commercial development. However, Mr. Trudgeon advised that attempts to
retain the single family residential (R-1) designation would not protect the
residential neighborhood as well as the proposed 20-40’ minimum buffer; and a
previous ordinance adopted in 2004 had eliminated language restricting the Har
Mar Mall footprint that had been briefly referenced by Mr. Sanocki.
Discussion among staff, the City
Council, and Mr. Sanocki included a history of the site; regulation of Shopping
Center Districts and efforts when first adopted in the early 1950’s and
amendments through the years to better mitigate or limit impacts on adjacent
residential properties; past moratorium and Ordinance No. 1234 as a direct
result of it addressing 24-hour uses adjacent to residential districts; implementation
of further restrictions in 2000 and ultimate adoption of Ordinance No. 1304.
Further discussion included
misperceptions on actual protections in the current versus proposed code;
additional standards in the proposed code addressing green space and lot
coverage requirements, with Har Mar Mall already over their impervious surface
coverage of 85% at this time, further restricting any potential for expansion;
and confusion among those residents along Har Mar Mall related to past notices
sent regarding the proposed zoning revisions; and concerns that Har Mar
property owners could consider a parking ramp to address parking needs and
expand their building footprint, but recognizing financial restrictions for
developers in considering multi-level parking ramps.
Mr. Sanocki expressed his
appreciation to Mayor Klausing for his leadership and bringing respect back to
the office of the mayor.
Mayor Klausing thanked Mr. Sanocki
for his comments; and noted it was appropriate that his first issue had been
Har Mar Mall when he began his civic involvement in the community through
appointment to the Planning Commission and it seemed appropriate to have that
topic as tonight’s discussion at his last meeting serving as Mayor.
J. L. Thompson, 2808 Asbury
As a fifty-eight (58) year
resident at this location, Mr. Thompson advised that he remained an advocate of
retaining status quo, which seemed to be a good compromise for both commercial
and residential properties. Mr. Thompson expressed confusion in the intended
buffer area and reiterated his preference that the current buffer be left
intact no matter what zoning was chosen, opining that the buffer was what kept
the area from becoming ghettoized.
At the request of Mayor Klausing,
Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the proposed buffer area by staff for a minimum of
20-40’; noting that the proposed code would not remove any buffers at all and
was intended to protect the adjacent residential properties.
Councilmember Ihlan expressed her
suggestion that the new code include language that would retain existing
buffers, with the proposed minimum 20-40’ buffer applicable to new or future
development.
Further discussion and concerns
expressed by Mr. Thompson included concern that there would be additional
access points from commercial development into the residential area (Ryan) that
would negatively impact residential properties and create additional traffic
congestion issues.
Councilmember Roe noted proposed
language under extended hour requirements that there was a statement under
“traffic,” addressing vehicular circulation against residential areas that had
been carried forward from the existing Shopping Center District that would
create challenges for any proposed expansion or redevelopment of Har Mar Mall,
alleviating residential concerns.
Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks
Lake
1001. Introduction
Mr. Grefenberg expressed
appreciation to staff for their extensive work and their recommendations while
offering several minor revisions and/or additions.
Mr. Grefenberg expressed minor
concern in the INTRODUCTION chapter, Section 1011.03 in his review and
comparison of current and proposed code language; and provided recommended
language as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Mr. Grefenberg noted that his proposed language had come as a recommendation of
the former Lot Split Study Group; and opined that it was very consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, and saw no reason to eliminate it from the purpose
statement.
Mr. Grefenberg further addressed
the recommended setback, as previously raised by Councilmember Roe, related to
Medium Density Residential and staff’s proposed additional land use designation
for High Density Residential-2 and proposed side yard setback of ten feet
(10’); and asked that it be increased to twenty to thirty feet (20-30’).
In previous discussions related to
monolithic buildings, Mr. Grefenberg expressed appreciation that the zoning
code was incorporating references to design standards; however, he advised that
citizens were taking the City at its word that the new code was a “living
document” and if its execution began to be laborious for residential neighborhoods,
it would be addressed while considering the overall goal to improve the
character and vitality of neighborhoods.
Mr. Grefenberg expressed his
appreciation to Councilmembers for the way they conducted meetings and for
improving the civic atmosphere of Roseville.
Councilmember-Elect Tam
McGehee, 77 Mid Oaks Lane
Ms. McGehee suggested that Chapter
1004 Residential Districts was an applicable place to insert Mr. Grefenberg’s
recommended language, as it set the tenor for those residential districts.
Ms. McGehee expressed concern in
the document for DESIGN STANDARDS that appeared to be “cut and paste” among
commercial, industrial, and residential districts; and as they were also
applied to INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICTS, they were too restrictive. Ms. McGehee
spoke in support of a broad outline for design standards that would provide
various users as investors of their money in improvements and development,
whether residential or otherwise to bring forward their creative and innovative
designs rather than being restricted by design standards applied by City
staff. Ms. McGehee specifically addressed those proposed design standards as
they related to community churches or schools.
Ms. McGehee spoke in support of
the petitions from adjacent neighbors along Old Highway 8; opining that with
this proposed code, the City Council and/or staff could no longer hold
developers to conditions and terms of a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Agreement that would allow the City, developer and community to negotiate and
work in harmony for transition; creating negative impacts related to height,
setbacks and exterior materials, without any public input.
Ms. McGehee advised that she had
major issues with the LANDSCAPING section, opining that some things were
ludicrous compared to existing code, specifically requirements for staff review
and inspections, with limited staff expertise other than from a part-time
arborist. Ms. McGehee expressed concern in the shift from 30% to 50%
impervious coverage and confusion among the various drafts of the document
between the Planning Commission and City Council; and opined that the proposed
stormwater runoff calculation was too complicated and fee-ridden (Section
1004.08, page 7); and questioned definition of a “rain event;” and undue
burdens placed on homeowners to provide the required data.
Ms. McGehee concurred with the
suggestion of Ms. Barsel that the document be revised further after tonight’s
discussion and public comment; and be brought forward as a clean document to
the incoming City Council for further discussion and consideration prior to
taking action.
Megan Dushin, 2249 St.
Stephen’s Street
Ms. Dushin recognized Mr. Trudgeon
and thanked him for his response and recommended language revisions announced
tonight that addressed a number of her concerns that she had previously
provided in writing, through public comment before the Planning Commission and
City Council, and in discussions with staff. Ms. Dushin advised that she had
spoken with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)-Duluth Office; and
their representative had opined that “nuisance” language was actually useful
for cities, allowing them to accommodate specific neighborhoods and uses,
particularly those too small to be regulated by a state agency (e.g. outside
wood stoves). Ms. Dushin opined that there was a danger in relying on state
agencies and state standards; and noted that the MPCA had offered their input
on additional modifications if requested.
Use of Performance Standards
versus Conditional Use criteria
Ms. Dushin read Chapter 1001.02 –
Environmental Standards, Compliance Standards for clarification; and questioned
if that was new or just for building permits; and whether this was coming from
Performance Standards or applicable to something not in use. Ms. Dushin noted,
specific to the proposed asphalt plant, the City had been fortunate that an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) had been in process; however, she
noted that not everything would have an EAW and what process would apply for
these proposed performance standards versus Conditional Use criteria.
Also, related to when building permits were processed, were similar questioned
asked on those applications to determine if and how the applicant met those
standards; and whether that was part of the administrative process or assumed.
Ms. Dushin addressed CONTROL
MEASURES and where they were now located in the proposed text; opining that
among various drafts, they appeared to have been removed, and Ms. Dushin
expressed her preference that they be reinstated unless they were addressed
elsewhere in the document.
Ms. Dushin noted that the Planning
Commission minutes had not been posted on the City’s website since June of
2010; and asked that they added.
Depending on the PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS response, Ms. Dushin asked that the table addressing chemicals not
involving “noxious” odors be addressed and stated as a positive, rather than
the previous double negative.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that in the
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS, the first statement applied to
all uses; with any existing use needing to comply or correct their actions to
be compliant, or they were not a permitted use.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that all
applicants for building permits must demonstrate compliance, an outcome of previous
discussions over the summer, which will be a new procedure for us, and new
language will be added to building permit application forms as indicated. Mr.
Trudgeon advised that it was the intent of staff that applicants would
demonstration in writing the impacts and how they intend to meet those
standards, at which time staff will review them and determine if they are
acceptable or not.
Related to CONTROL MEASURES, Mr.
Trudgeon advised that the language proposed in I-2A ZONIND DISTRICT was
currently on the books; with only one (1) parcel in the entire City zoned for
that heavy manufacturing use. Mr. Trudgeon advised in staff’s review of the
laundry list in the existing code, several were already contained in other
areas of the proposed code (noise and traffic) and other items (delivery;
security of premises or buildings) were puzzling and staff questioned whether
staff should or could review and/or enforce.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that he had
recently noted the omission of Planning Commission meeting minutes on the
City’s website, and advised that would be corrected at staff’s earliest
convenience.
Related to structures requiring
building permits, Mr. Trudgeon advised that any structure required a building
permit, whether permitted use or not; with very few instances where a
Conditional Use permit was required. However, Mr. Trudgeon noted that once a
Conditional Use was approved, the applicant was still required to apply for a
building permit for any new improvement requiring one.
Neil Nelson, 1442 Ryan
As a resident in the Har Mar Mall
neighborhood, Mr. Nelson opined that many of his neighbors remained unaware of
the proposed rezoning as part of this rezoning code rewrite process. Mr.
Nelson advised that, while the neighbors may not be opposed to development on
that residential parcel on the southern portion of Har Mar, with current
requirements, they would be noticed of any proposed development to provide
public comment. Mr. Nelson expressed concern that if the residential buffer
was lost, the neighborhood would lose the residential buffer, significantly
changing the looks of the neighborhood. Mr. Nelson asked that, as a requirement
to rezone that parcel, 4/5 of the neighbors should also be allowed to be aware
of and be supportive of any zoning changes, similar to the requirements for the
City Council.
Discussion among staff and
Councilmembers confirmed that notice had been provided to those residents
adjacent to Har Mar Mall, specifically regarding the proposed changes to their
properties and linking them to other resources for more detail, as well as
notice to all property owners in the City of Roseville on the proposed zoning
code rewrite; as well numerous community meetings; Public Hearings at the
Planning Commission meeting; and a variety of media regarding upcoming City
Council discussions.
Warren Sweet, 1383 Ryan
Mr. Sweet provided his
recollection of the August meeting attended by residents adjacent to Har Mar
Mall had provided clear direction from the City Council to staff regarding the
uniqueness of that residential neighborhood; and potential negative impacts of
future development. Mr. Sweet opined that, now five (5) months later it
appeared that the same issues remained unresolved; and further opined that with
the snow storm and significant number of elderly residents, they were unable to
attend tonight’s meeting, as well as having presumed that the issue had been resolved
in August of 2010.
Kim Melby, Laurie Road
Ms. Melby expressed her
frustration that there had been no provision in the proposed rewrite to protect
large lot neighborhoods; and opined that both the intent and purpose statement
ran contrary to preserving her neighborhood; with the entire proposal appearing
to be “one size fits all.” Ms. Melby opined that their neighborhood was unique
and different; and further expressed concern with Chapter 1009.05 regarding
Minor Subdivision changes making her nervous, given her past perception of
transparency in certain instances with the Community Development Department and
their lack of advocacy for Roseville citizens. Ms. Melby suggested the need
for a better check and balance system to alleviate her concerns. Ms. Melby
noted that their neighborhood had been subdivided, and if lot sizes were
reduced further, more subdivisions would continue. Ms. Melby expressed
concern, specific to safety in their neighborhood and access to County Road B,
in extremely limited access for emergency vehicles and limited east/west
access, opining that it was a huge concern for their neighborhood.
Pete LeFavre, 2230 Marion Road
Mr. LeFavre recalled the August
2010 meeting and his perceptions of a firm response from the City Council,
referencing a map presented by Councilmember Roe, related to lot sizes and the
projected number of areas impacted by reducing lot size to 9,500 square feet.
Mr. LeFavre further referenced Councilmember Ihlan’s recommendation for a
buffer for large lots; and questioned what happened to those discussions, since
this document made no reference to either discussion.
Mr. Trudgeon clarified that
tonight’s discussion and requested action was specific to amending the City’s
zoning code; with the Subdivision Code not being reviewed at this time, and
retaining the 11,000 square foot minimum lot size; which would be brought
forward for review and revision at a future date. Mr. Trudgeon advised that
any new lot needed to meet that minimum lot size for zoning and be conforming.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that past discussions had provided multiple opinions and
directions, with no clear consensus or direction from the City Council to staff
on minimum lot sizes for any other action at this time; and that staff was not
advocating a specific recommendation at this time.
Jim Stark, Resident and Chair
of the Parks and Recreation Commission
Mr. Stark, in speaking as the
Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission, summarized the lengthy
discussions held to-date by the Commission on proposed zoning ordinance
revisions as they specifically related to parks and recreation; and advised
that his comments had previously been provided in an e-mail, attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
Mr. Stark advised that a concern
of the Commission was that Conditional Uses allowed in parks or through a
variance process would not be consistent with or in accordance with Master
Planning for parks and recreation programs. Mr. Stark reviewed the Master Plan
process and history of the process for proposed changes at parks that involved
citizen input and a flexible approach to meet needs of the park and/or facility
as well as the neighborhood. Mr. Stark noted that the Commission wanted to
ensure that process continued given the uniqueness of the City’s parks and
their uses. Mr. Stark advised that the Commission didn’t feel parks fit the
design standards in the proposed ordinance; and felt it could result in a
duplication of City services complicating proposed changes.
In recent discussions at the
Planning Commission level, Mr. Stark noted recommendation for referencing the
Parks and Recreation Master Plan as a guiding document, while at the same time
placing new restrictions on facilities through the design standards in the
zoning code rewrite; with proposed revisions for the Conditional use process
that would be required for park and recreation improvements may be contrary to
the Parks Master Plan. Mr. Stark noted the most recent example of the
Conditional Use application for a communications tower in one of the City’s
parks that provided for an incompatible use with long-range plans for parks.
Mr. Stark noted that staff and City Council’s change over time, and that it was
the Commission’s concern that the processes and mechanisms in place were
preserved allowing park changes and improvements based on the vision of the
community through the Master Plan process.
Mr. Stark expressed further
Commission concerns that language was unclear related to the exemption of
trails and pathway setbacks; application for proposed screening of dumpsters
and portable facilities due to their seasonal nature and whether those
temporary or portable facilities would be protected under the grandfather
provision or required to go through a Conditional Use process since they were
basically recreated annually or seasonally.
Mr. Stark suggested that the
Master Plan should be the document describing design standards for parks; and
if not included as part of the ordinance, the zoning code should provide a
statement that any design standards for parks should be subject to review by
the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mr. Stark advised that the Commission was
advocating for relaxed design standards to provide the necessary flexibility
for parks and their neighbors; and that the spirit of the ordinance be
consistent with others, but allow that flexibility to recognize the individual
nature of parks and future park applications.
Discussion among Councilmembers
staff and Mr. Stark included clarifying langue in Section 1008.03 DESIGN
STANDARDS, Subsection D and J and various interpretations; staff’s confirmation
that Section I had been revised since the previous draft to further clarify
concerns for trash storage areas and revised language removing type of
materials for screening enclosures.
Mr. Trudgeon clarified that
portable facilities (e.g. dumpsters and portable restroom facilities) were
permitted uses, with revised language reducing financial impacts. Mr. Trudgeon
noted that the discussion regarding nonconformities was relevant, using the
dumpster behind the ice arena as an example of a use not currently screened,
which would not change, as a grandfathered use and seeming to be permanent.
However, for those used in parks and only during the summer, whether a dumpster
or portable restroom facility, it would fall into the “seasonal” category, and
under PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, would lose their nonconforming status if use was
discontinued for a year. Mr. Trudgeon noted that if the units were returned
from one season to the next, they would retain their grandfathered rights.
Councilmember Johnson questioned
whether relocation from one side of a park to another for a more efficient use
of space, or at the request of citizens due to aesthetics, would cause them to
lose their rights.
City Attorney Bartholdi advised
that the location could be changed without impacts, but expansion of the
nonconforming use, such as adding additional dumpsters, would cause the
grandfathered rights to cease.
Mayor Klausing sought specific
concerns of Mr. Stark representing the Commission, as to how Conditional Uses
addressed in the Table of Uses would cause the park system to be any less
flexible, given clarification during this discussion tonight. Mayor Klausing
noted that these standards were required for other property owners throughout
the City, and questioned whether it was prudent or consistent to attempt
enforcement of those standards if not applicable to city-owned property as
well.
Mr. Stark noted that it was the
overall philosophy of the Commission for parks to be flexible and address
concerns of those using the parks and those owning land adjacent to the parks.
Mr. Stark reiterated the consensus of the Commission and their collective
opinion that parks and recreation facilities are unique compared to other land
uses in the community.
Councilmember Johnson opined that
he foresaw these restrictions as a potential hardship for City parks, since the
community and its parks system are propelled by an amazing volunteer base, with
many park facilities built, maintained, and/or funded by those volunteers.
Councilmember Johnson further commented that he didn’t want limited funding
and strict code compliance to hinder the spirit of freedom and creativity among
those enthusiastic and much-appreciated volunteers.
David Nelson, 2280 Highway 36
West
Mr. Nelson thanked Mayor Klausing
and Councilmember Ihlan for their years of service to the community.
Mr. Nelson sought to revisit the
lot split issue for the southwestern portion of Roseville; and past concerns of
neighbors adjacent to Midland Hills and between Highway 36 over to Cleveland
Avenue and Highway 280; with many larger lots still available for potential
split. Mr. Nelson opined that reducing the minimum square footage requirements
would drastically change that neighborhood’s character; in addition to access
issues created by lot splits. Mr. Nelson referenced an ordinance model brought
forward from the City of Edina by Councilmember Ihlan as an example that took
into account surrounding properties dictating what could be done in that area
for development.
Councilmember Johnson clarified
that Mr. Nelson was not supportive of 11,000 square foot lot minimums either,
with Mr. Nelson concurring, and supporting the Edina model ordinance.
Chris Glickman, Gladstone
Company Representative, 2105 Walnut
Mr. Glickman acknowledged staff’s
recommendations related to their concerns and spoke in support of staff’s
recommendations that reflected the vision for their property; and related
zoning map changes.
Megan Dushin
Ms. Dushin requested the inclusion
of noxious odors in the proposed code, similar to that of the existing code;
definitions added for “injurious” and “surrounding neighborhoods;” and in the
Table of Allowable Uses to have both of those items referenced with a “y.”
Recess
Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at approximately 8:50 pm
and reconvened at approximately 9:00 pm.
Council Discussion
Discussion ensued regarding how to
make the amendments to ensure they were incorporated into the appropriate
chapter, and cross-referenced throughout the document; and whether to make the
changes with the ordinance going forward or using this as a working draft for
future presentation prior to adoption.
Mayor Klausing opined that, with
both he and Councilmember Ihlan having worked through the numerous drafts and
revisions to-date, it was their responsibility to take the requested action if
at all possible, rather than putting that burden on a future City Council;
while recognizing that as amendments come forward, there would be additional
opportunities for refinement as indicated.
Mayor Klausing suggested
processing those amendments having Councilmember consensus as a start.
Councilmember Ihlan asked that
each amendment be done in the form of a motion.
Councilmembers Roe, Pust, and
Johnson spoke in support of tracking changes and proceeding with a motion on
the revised document tonight if that point was reached.
1001. Introduction (1001.03
Intent and Purpose)
Pust moved, Johnson seconded,
directing staff to include an additional regulation established to: “Protect
and enhance the character, stability, and vitality of residential neighborhoods
as well as commercial areas;” based on the references by Mr. Grefenberg.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
1001. Introduction (1001.11
Definitions)
Regarding the inclusion of a
definition for “noxious,” Mr. Trudgeon suggested that the definition currently
in place (Chapter 4) be used in the revised zoning code language.
Roe moved, Pust seconded,
directing staff to carry forward the existing definition of “noxious” from the
existing to the new code.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
1002. Administration and
Enforcement (1002.02.03)
Roe moved, Johnson seconded,
directing staff to remove the word “permit” from the revocation statement (line
5) related to Conditional Uses.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
1011. Property Performance
Standards (1011.02 Environmental Regulations in All Districts)
Ihlan moved, Johnson seconded,
directing staff to substitute current PERFORMANCE STANDARDS in the existing
code, deleting those ten (10) items following the introductory statements (A,
B, C) and substituting Items 1 – 5 as indicated by Mr. Trudgeon in his
presentation and as publically displayed.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
1009. Procedures (1009.02
Conditional Uses)
Ihlan moved, Johnson seconded,
directing staff to remove “C-General Standards and Criteria” and substitute the
existing six (6) standards and criteria in current code, Chapter 1014,
replacing those five (5) standards and criteria currently listed on page 5 of
the December 1, 2010 draft document.”
Councilmember Pust questioned
where and when this amendment had been discussed; and the purpose for the
amendment.
Councilmember Ihlan advised that
it had been suggested by several members of the public who had expressed
concern that the new proposed standards didn’t provide the same impact as
current code; and opined that the current industrial performance standards for
Conditional Uses be preserved pending further discussion by the new City
Council.
Councilmember Pust spoke in
opposition to the motion.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan.
Nays: Johnson;
Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Motion failed.
Pust moved, Roe seconded,
directing staff to revise language of Item 5 of Section 1009.02. C to the
language suggested and displayed by Mr. Trudgeon during his presentation to
read as follows: “5. The proposed use will not be injurious [and/or
negatively impact traffic or property values] to the surrounding
neighborhood or otherwise harm the public health, safety, and general welfare.”
Councilmember Roe opined that this
language, rather than the previously proposed revision moved by Councilmember
Ihlan, better clarified the intent; and that the new language addressed those
things not in current code, such as regulating map and code requirements, and
burdens on streets and infrastructure.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
1006. Employment Districts
(1006.03 Table of Allowed Uses, page 2 – 4)
Pust moved, Johnson seconded,
directing staff to amend Table 1006-1 to add “schools: trade or business” as a
Conditional Use for Office/Business Park and as a Permitted Use in the
Industrial District.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
1011. Property Performance
Standards ((1011.12. Additional Standards for Specific Uses in All Districts:
E. Business and Commercial Uses: 1. Extended Hours of Operations adjacent to
all Residential Districts: a. Buffer Area)
Pust moved, Roe seconded,
directing staff to revise language as follows: “Where a Community Business,
Regional Business, and/or Community Mixed Use District abuts a residential
district, [all existing buffer areas shall remain in effect and]
any new site improvements shall include a buffer area of a minimum of 20 [to
40’ as determined by the Community Development Department staff.] …
Mayor Klausing spoke in support of
the motion; opining that everyone’s goal was the same, but many mechanisms had
been suggested to achieve it. Related to Har Mar Mall and adjacent residential
property owners, Mayor Klausing opined that attempting to retain zoning as R-1
was not the best protection for the neighbors; and this language related to the
buffer would address their concerns better.
Councilmember Ihlan clarified that
this amendment, as proposed, didn’t’ have anything to do with whether or not to
rezone the south side of Har Mar Mall, but applied to all business districts as
a whole. Even though this remained a concern, Councilmember Ihlan spoke in
support of this amendment.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
1011.12.e.1. Setbacks
Councilmember Ihlan opined that
there appears to be a discrepancy between this heightened buffering and the
dimensional standards chart for these districts, and needs to be clarified
and/or changed (Chapter 1005, page 8, Section 1005.05, chart under B related to
rear yard setbacks).
Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff
would defer to the more restrictive standard; and suggested that staff be
directed to add an asterisk or note regarding setbacks, such as “unless
heightened requirements are required;” with Mayor Klausing suggesting language
such as “more stringent requirements.
Klausing moved, Johnson seconded,
directing staff to incorporate language for Dimensional Standards, Table 1005-3
similar to “…unless greater setbacks are required.”
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
1008. Park and Recreation
District (1008.02 Table of Uses)
Discussion ensued how best to
memorialize including the Parks and Recreation Commission in the Conditional
Use approval process as it relates to uses in those districts; including
whether to put in Chapter 1008 or in Chapter 1009 for Administrative
Procedures.
Councilmember Roe suggested that
sidebar adjacent to the Table of Uses (1008.02 - Table ) indicate that all
marked “C” were allowed with all applicable standards, “if consistent with the
Parks and Recreation Master Plan as interpreted by the Parks and Recreation staff
and Commission or City Council.”
Councilmember Pust suggested if,
the language was added to Chapter 1008, that it be stronger to indicate that
all Conditional Use applications be approved by the Parks and Recreation staff
and Commission, in addition to the Community Development Department staff.
Mr. Trudgeon sought examples
beyond the City’s Parks and Recreation Department that may be applying to make
an improvement, such as the previous communication tower, which application the
new code made provision for.
Mayor Klausing expressed his
hesitancy in turning over approval functions to multiple departments beyond
that process currently followed.
Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd
clarified any tower application or any other use in a park would be initiated
by the City and part of the process could be that it received comment from
different advisory commissions, but that it remained a city-initiated
application at that point, while there may be co-applicants (such as a cell
phone provider); and questioned any use that would put the Parks and Recreation
Commission in the position of approving an application from someone without
city support of that application.
Councilmember Pust spoke in
support of such an application going before the Parks and Recreation Commission
before moving forward in the process.
Councilmember Ihlan opined that
this issue was part of a larger discussion heard tonight; that these design
standards are too restrictive and are not consistent with the goals of the
Parks and Recreation Commission. Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of more
discussion between the Commission and City Council to ensure that design
standards are more flexible, as well as how Conditional Uses are determined.
Councilmember Johnson concurred
with Councilmember Ihlan; recognizing the need for other uses beyond the City’s
open spaces and how design standards may be necessary for Ramsey County or
others, but questioned whether they were required for the City. Councilmember
Johnson noted that park resources were different and there were different and
limited funding sources, as well as school uses for open space.
Mayor Klausing expressed concern
in basing design standards on the ability to pay that could also be applicable
to small businesses versus the city.
Councilmember Johnson advised that
he was not saying parks and recreation uses on city-owned property should have
lower standards; but opined that the Parks Commission did a fine job in setting
their own standards and branding their parks in a responsible manner; and used
his past experience in raising funds for installation by volunteers for fences.
Mayor Klausing advised that he had
a philosophical problem applying different standards.
Councilmember Roe suggested that
this may be a case where we need to apply consistent minimum standards into
effect, along with implementing the Parks Master Plan, and remold the process
accordingly through practical application. Councilmember Roe opined that he
didn’t see these minimum standards as being terribly restrictive, with language
adjusted to address many of the concerns of the Commission.
Discussion ensued related to the
need to remain cognizant of the 60-day land use review requirements; with
clarification that the review by the Parks and Recreation Commission needed to
be done prior to submission of the formal application process.
1009. Procedures (1009.02
Conditional Uses: B. Applications, second sentence)
Pust moved, Roe seconded, to
direct staff to add language to page 5 of the December 1, 2010 draft as follows:
“… [For applications that pertain to Conditional Uses involving city-owned land
in Parks and Recreation Districts, the application shall initially be reviewed
for recommendation by the Parks and Recreation Commission prior to formal
application submittal.] Complete applications shall be reviewed…”
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
Har Mar Area – Adopting Zoning
Map
Mr. Paschke clarified that the
only way to modify the zoning was to amend the Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Klausing spoke in support of
rezoning to Community Business; correcting the zoning to be consistent with the
proposed use. Mayor Klausing opined that the limited use and buffer zone as
previously addressed were straightforward and would provide protection to the
residents.
Councilmember Johnson noted that
he was torn, given his previous discussions with neighbors and the distinct
impressions they had from the August of 2010 meeting for preservation of the
existing buffer; and the City Council’s attempt to reconcile that with zoning
and Comprehensive Plan guidance while still protecting the residents.
Councilmember Johnson sought more compelling comment from Council colleagues to
give residents more peace of mind.
Councilmember Pust noted the
specific language added for buffers, and limitations on Har Mar Mall based on
impervious surface requirements; and the economic drawbacks for them
considering a multi-level parking facility on site. Councilmember Pust noted
that the commercial and residential properties had resolved multiple conflicts
over the last fifty-one (51) years since Har Mar Mall had been in existence and
its many improvements; with the City Council repeatedly enforcing protections
to retain the character of the neighborhood. Councilmember Pust clarified, for
the benefit of residents, that their attempt to keep it zoned R-1 would have
little protection for them, and that the revised language provided more
protection.
Councilmember Roe, expressing his
concern in keeping the zoning R-1, questioned whether single-family residential
development was a desirable use for that buffer into an existing neighborhood.
Councilmember Roe opined that, if another group of single-family homes was
intended to provide a buffer from commercial for other single-family homes,
where was the buffer for those new single-family residential properties?
Councilmember Ihlan spoke in
opposition to rezoning the property from R-1 to Community Business; reiterating
her previous comments; and opining that if rezoned Community Business, there
could be major changes in the future if Har Mar Mall expanded their building,
including potential for a multi-level parking ramp. Councilmember Ihlan spoke
in support of keeping the status quo to retain protection of the residential neighborhood,
rather than creating a framework that in abstract could facilitate Har Mar Mall
owners to make those future changes.
Mayor Klausing clarified that the
zoning code was being rewritten for a number of reasons and to address other
concerns and make other corrections. In response to Councilmember Johnson’s
concerns, Mayor Klausing opined that additional requirements for minimum green
space; limits on parking and structure, which Har Mar Mall already exceeded;
provided current and future protections, including the requirement to retain
the buffer zone. Mayor Klausing concurred with the point made by Councilmember
Roe; and whether the property remained zoned as R-1 or was rezoned to Community
Business, additional traffic and congestion in the area would be the same; and
opined that this proposal and its various components did a better job in
protecting the residential neighborhoods.
Councilmember Johnson noted that,
in his conversations with Mr. Sanocki earlier today, he thought they were in
agreement with a 40’ buffer; however, tonight, he heard Mr. Sanocki supporting
a 400’ buffer. Councilmember Johnson advised that, in attempting to reconcile
with his Council colleagues and the neighbors, he concurred that the likelihood
of anything happening on the southern border was next to nil when considered
from a business model perspective for Har Mar Mall owners. Councilmember
Johnson spoke in support of rezoning the parcel from R-1 to Community Business.
Further discussion included access
issues addressed in PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, page 36 under B. Traffic, as
previously addressed by Councilmember Roe.
Klausing moved, Roe seconded,
ratifying the recommended corrected rezoning of the southern “Har Mar Mall
parcel” from R-1 to Community Business on the Official Zoning Map, consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson;
Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan.
Motion carried.
Johnson moved, Roe seconded, extending the Council meeting
until 10:30 pm.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson;
Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan.
Motion carried.
Old Highway 8 Properties
Klausing moved, Roe seconded,
ratifying and correcting the zoning designation for 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8
from R-1 to High Density Residential-1 (HDR-1) on the Official Zoning Map, consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Ihlan noted that the
Planning Commission had voted in support of making the zoning designation
Medium Density Residential (MDR); and recommended that the City Council concur
with their recommendation, based on comments and petition received from
adjacent property owners. Councilmember Ihlan opined that this would ensure
traffic, infrastructure and safety issues were addressed; and avoid concerns
with the height for any new development negatively impacting and blocking light
for those adjacent properties. Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern that a
future development proposal could avoid the opportunity to be heard by the City
Council or receive public comment.
At the request of Mayor Klausing,
Mr. Trudgeon clarified that any proposal for changing the zoning to HDR-2 would
require a rezoning process before the City Council.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson;
Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan.
Motion carried.
Minimum Lot Size at 11,000
square feet
Councilmember Ihlan spoke for the
need to avoid reducing the minimum lot size through minor subdivision language
of the zoning code, to ensure clarity that the Subdivision Code remained in
place; and consistent with the recommendation of the Lot Split Study Group.
Councilmember Pust read the actual
recommendation of the Lot Split Study Group and their consensus recommendation
to the City Council, as a citizen advisory group, to designate three levels for
lot sizes; but with no specific recommendation regarding a reduced minimum lot
size of 9,500 square feet; and also not recommending creation of a large lot
zoning district.
Mr. Paschke noted that there were
very few lots that could be subdivided, even if 9,500 square feet was the new
minimum.
At the request of Mayor Klausing,
Mr. Trudgeon clarified the intent of staff in bringing existing residential
city lots from a 50% to a 93% compliance rate to facilitate potential
improvements on their lots; and not to suggest that staff was advocating for
more and smaller lots. Mr. Trudgeon advised that many of the smaller lots had
been in existence since the City’s incorporation in 1959; and some created in
the 1980’s even after the larger minimum lot size of 11,000 square foot was in
place, with no rationale available for allowing creation of that nonconforming
size. Mr. Trudgeon noted that separate standards could be created in the
future for lot sizes, depending on circumstance; however, he advised that staff
was only looking at this from a zoning perspective to accommodate existing
nonconforming properties.
Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her
concerns; and expressed frustration that, given the date and late time now at
tonight’s meeting, the public was not hearing this discussion and potential
creation of major issues for the southwestern portion of the City of Roseville;
and opined that it was inconsistent with the statement of purpose.
Councilmember Ihlan opined that there was no reason to make such a seeping
policy change at this time; and that it should be left as is, with the new City
Council addressing it as part of the Subdivision Code.
Mr. Trudgeon noted that there were
fifty-two (52) lots total in Roseville; recognizing that a number of them were
in the southwest portion of the city.
Councilmember Roe suggested considering
looking at the 3-Parcel Minor Subdivision Standard and Zoning Code to provide a
simple solution to reference size requirements of the Subdivision Code rather
than the Zoning Code.
City Attorney Bartholdi advised
that the broader application would apply, 11,000 square foot minimum, if the
Subdivision Code and Zoning Code conflicted.
1004. Residential Districts
(1004.08 Low Density Residential One-Family – 1 (LDR-1) District: B.
Dimensional Standards
Ihlan moved, Pust seconded, to
direct staff to amend the minimum lot area to the prevailing minimum 11,000
square feet.
Councilmember Roe clarified that
the corner lot depth of current code was not being changed; so not all previous
standards were being maintained.
Councilmember Ihlan amended
the motion to state that the status quo on lot dimensions for single family
residential lots was retained until a future City Council reviews the
Subdivision Code to avoid creating a rash of subdivisions by reducing minimum
lot sizes at this time.
Councilmember Johnson concurred,
based on the perception of residents; opining that it would be irresponsible
for the City Council to leave them at 9,500 square feet in this section until
the City Council reviewed the Subdivision ordinance next year.
City Attorney Bartholdi clarified
that for Minor Subdivisions of 3 lots of less, those could be 9,500 square
feet, with the remainder at 11,000 square feet minimums.
Mayor Klausing spoke in opposition
to the motion; opining that it made sense to bring the zoning code into reality
with the vast majority of the city; and that it behooved the City to not have a
code that wasn’t able to be met by the majority of its residential properties;
and further opined that this was a reasonable way to address that
inconsistency.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Johnson; and Pust.
Nays: Klausing
and Roe.
Motion carried.
Councilmember Ihlan questioned if
solar access protections were included in the new code, with staff responding
that solar standards were included, but no solar right protections.
Councilmember Ihlan further
addressed height exclusions and read the list in the PERFOMRANCE STANDARDS,
page 24, subheading I; with staff responding that those standards were included
in existing code.
Pust moved, Roe seconded,
enactment of Ordinance No. 1402 (Attachment D) entitled, “An Ordinance Adopting
a new Official Zoning Map” for the City of Roseville, MN as amended.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson;
Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan.
Motion carried.
Johnson moved, Pust seconded,
enactment of Ordinance No. 1403 (Attachment E) entitled, “An Ordinance
Amending Title 10, Zoning Ordinance, of the City Code Eliminating and/or
Replacing in their entirety Sections 1001 (General Provisions), 1002 (Rules and
Definitions), 1003 (Zoning Districts and Maps), 1004 (Residence Districts),
1005 (Business Districts), 1006 (Shopping Center District), 1007 (Industrial
Districts), 1008 (Planned Unit Developments), 1009 (Overlay Districts), 1011
(Design Standards), 1012 (Non-Conforming Uses), 1013 (General Regulations), 1014
(Conditional Use Permits; Variances), 1015 (Administration), 1016 (Amendments),
and 1019 (Parking Requirements within the City of Roseville), of the City
Code;” for the City of Roseville, MN as amended.
Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her
concerns that there remained so many things needing review; and recognized
public comment regarding design standards across the board that were too
restrictive and allowed insufficient flexibly or room for innovation.
Councilmember Ihlan noted that there had been no discussion about housing
design standards in the new document (e.g. garage fronts); and opined that
future discussion and consideration was needed to create reasonable regulations
for people to design themselves. Councilmember Ihlan opined that a “lame duck”
City Council should not adopt the zoning code to carry forward without having
more detailed discussion.
Mayor Klausing spoke in support of
the motion; noting the extensive discussions and revisions through staff,
consultants, Planning Commission; public hearings; City Council discussion; and
the numerous community open houses and opportunities for public input. Mayor
Klausing opined that this was not being done on the spur of the moment without
vast study having gone into the process; and as previously noted, remained a
living document that would require further revisions for future City Councils
to work through. Mayor Klausing opined that this provided a good initial
framework.
Ihlan moved amendment to the
INDUSTRIAL USES CHART to add back into the list of prohibited industrial uses,
glue factories, sizing factories, and electrical transmission and power
substations; and to include a straightforward prohibition against uses
involving noxious chemicals.
Mayor Klausing declared the motion
failed due to lack of a second.
Ihlan restated the motion; which
Mayor Klausing declared failed due to lack of a second.
Mr. Trudgeon concurred with
Councilmember Pust’s request that, as a future action item, staff bring back a
list of items that should be on the chart, but are not now included.
Councilmember Pust spoke in
support of the motion; and opined that she had no problem implementing the new
zoning code and accepting that it would need future revision once practically
applied.
Councilmember Roe spoke in support
of the motion; opining that it had far more that he considered good compared to
the existing zoning code than those things needing further refinement and
adjustment. Councilmember Roe opined that he would rather have this code be
the standard from which to continue and adjust rather than the existing code.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson;
Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan.
Motion carried.
Pust moved, Johnson seconded,
enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1403 (Attachment F) entitled, “An Ordinance
Summary for Amendments to Title 10 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Roseville City
Code;” for the City of Roseville, MN.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
Motion carried.
13. Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
14. City Manager Future Agenda Review
15. Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Mayor Klausing expressed his
personal pleasure in having served with the dedicated City of Roseville staff
and Council colleagues, opining that Roseville citizens were well-served by
high caliber, informed and dedicated elected officials in their local government;
and that it had been his pleasure to serve with them and staff.
Councilmember Ihlan echoed Mayor
Klausing’s sentiments; stating that it had been a great honor to serve on the
Roseville City Council; and she expressed her hope to continue being active in
the community in the near future.
Johnson moved, Roe seconded,
extending the Council meeting until 10:40 p.m.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
16. Adjourn
The meeting was
adjourned at approximately 10:37 pm.