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

City Council

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:







General Repair Service

Replace pumps at

Long Lake lift station



Elk River Ford

2011 Pickup truck replacement







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:





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.



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.



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. 



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.



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.



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.”


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.