Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012_0709_Packet Agenda City Council Monday, July 9, 2012 6:00 p.m. City Council Chambers (Times are Approximate) 1. Roll Call 6:00 p.m. Voting & Seating Order for July: Johnson, Pust, Roe, McGehee, Willmus 2. Approve Agenda 6:02 p.m. 3. Public Comment 6:05 p.m. 4. Council Communications, Reports, Announcements and 6:10 p.m. Housing and Redevelopment Authority Report 5. Recognitions, Donations, Communications 6:15 p.m. a. Proclaim July Parks & Recreation Month b. Proclaim August 7, 2012 Night to Unite 6. Approve Minutes 6:20 p.m. a.Approve Minutes of June 18, 2012 Meeting 7. Approve Consent Agenda 6:25 p.m. a.Approve Payments b.Approve Business & Other Licenses c.Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus items in excess of $5000 d.Approve 2012-2013 Law Enforcement Legal Services (LELS) Contract Terms e.Approve Construction Agreement between the University of Minnesota and the City of Roseville for the Fairview Pathway Project (aka Northeast Suburban Campus Connector Bike/ Pedestrian Project) f.Set Public Hearing to Consider Approving a 3.2% On- Sale, Sunday Liquor, and Wine license for Kyoto Sushi at 2100 N. Snelling Ave., Suite 80 8. Consider Items Removed from Consent 9. General Ordinances for Adoption . 6:35 p.m. aRequest by Lincoln Drive Properties, LLC, for approval of a zoning text amendment which would allow academic instruction as a use in commercial zoning districts 10. Presentations 11. Public Hearings Recess Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. Convene as Board of Adjustments and Appeals Receive Appeal regarding City Staff’s decision that Wal-Mart is a permitted use under the zoning code for the property located along County Road C between Prior Ave. and Cleveland Ave. and refer the appeal to the Planning Commission. Adjourn Board of Adjustments and Appeals Reconvene Regular Meeting 12. Business Items (Action Items) 7:15 p.m. a.Request by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for approval of a preliminary platof the land area bounded by County Road C, Cleveland Avenue, Twin Lakes Parkway, and Prior Avenue 13. Business Items – Presentations/Discussions 8:10 p.m. a. Discuss Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 8:25 p.m. b. Discuss Draft Overhead Electric Undergrounding Policy 14. City Manager Future Agenda Review 8:40 p.m. 15. Councilmember Initiated Items for Future Meetings 8:45 p.m. 16. Adjourn 9:00 p.m. Some Upcoming Public Meetings……… Wednesday Jul 11 6:30 p.m. Planning Commission Monday Jul 16 6:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Monday Jul 23 6:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Tuesday Jul 24 6:30 p.m. Public Works, Environment & Transportation Commission August Wednesday Aug 1 6:30 p.m. Planning Commission Tuesday Aug 7 8:00 p.m. Parks & Recreation Commission (Natl Night Out til 8) Wednesday Aug 8 6:30 p.m. Ethics Commission Monday Aug 13 6:00 p.m. City Council Meeting REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 7-9-12 Item No.: 5.a Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Proclaim July, 2012 as Parks and Recreation Month B ACKGROUND 1 The City of Roseville has historically recognized the importance of Parks and Recreation and has identified 2 it as an essential service in the Parks and Recreation System Master Plan that was adopted in November of 3 2010. 4 5 In 2012, the U.S. House of Representatives designated July as Parks and Recreation Month and encourages 6 communities around the country to do the same. 7 PO OLICYBJECTIVE 8 This is consistent with the policies outlined in the Parks and Recreation System Master Plan adopted in 9 November 2010. 10 FI INANCIALMPACTS 11 None 12 SR TAFF ECOMMENDATION 13 Staff recommends that the month of July, 2012 be proclaimed Parks and Recreation Month in Roseville. 14 RCA EQUESTEDOUNCILCTION 15 Motion adopting the proclamation 16 17 Prepared by: Lonnie Brokke, Director of Parks and Recreation Attachments: A. Proclamation Page 1 of 3 Attachment A PROCLAMATION 18 19 JULY AS PARKS AND RECREATION MONTH 20 21 JULY 2012 22 23 24 WHEREAS parks and recreation programs are an essential part of the Roseville Community; and 25 26 WHEREAS parks and recreation are vitally important to establishing and maintaining the quality of life 27 in Roseville and contribute to the economic and environmental well-being of Roseville and the larger 28 community; and 29 30 WHEREAS our parks and recreation programs build healthy, active communities that aid in the 31 prevention of chronic disease, promote social bonds by uniting neighbors and also improve and ensure 32 the physical, mental and emotional health of all citizens; and 33 34 WHEREAS our parks and recreation programs increase Roseville’s economic prosperity through 35 increased property values, increased tourism, the attraction and retention of residents and businesses, 36 and crime reduction; and 37 38 WHEREAS our parks and natural recreation areas improve water quality, protect groundwater, prevent 39 flooding, improve the quality of the air we breathe, provide vegetative buffers to development, and 40 produce habitat for wildlife; and 41 42 WHEREAS our parks and natural recreation areas ensure the ecological beauty of our community and 43 provide a place for children and adults to connect with nature and recreate outdoors; and 44 45 WHEREAS the U.S. House of Representatives has designated July as Parks and Recreation Month; and 46 47 WHEREAS Roseville Minnesota recognizes the benefits derived from parks and recreation resources 48 49 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Roseville City Council that July is recognized as 50 Park and Recreation Month in the City of Roseville. 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Page 2 of 3 62 63 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Roseville does hereby 64 proclaim July, 2012 as Parks and Recreation month in the City of Roseville. 65 66 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Roseville to be 67 th affixed this 9 day of July, 2012. 68 69 70 71 72 ________________________________ 73 Daniel J. Roe, Mayor 74 (SEAL) 75 76 Page 3 of 3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 7/9/2012 Item No.:5.b Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Proclaim August 7, 2012 Night to Unite in Roseville B ACKGROUND 1 Night to Unite, sponsored by the MINNESOTA CRIME PREVENTION ASSOCIATION, is a 2 neighborhood crime prevention event that occurs annually on the first Tuesday in August and is 3 celebrated in hundreds of cities throughout Minnesota. A similar campaign, National Night Out, 4 takes place on the same evening in thousands of cities, towns and villages throughout the 5 Country. In addition to increasing awareness of crime prevention programs, Night to Unite 6 strengthens neighborhood spirit and community-police partnerships, while sending a message to 7 criminals that neighborhoods are organized and fighting back against crime. 8 BI UDGET MPLICATIONS 9 Proclaiming August 7, 2012 as Night to Unite in Roseville will have no financial impact on the 10 city. 11 SR TAFF ECOMMENDATION 12 Staff recommends August 7, 2012 be proclaimed Night to Unite in Roseville. 13 RCA EQUESTED OUNCIL CTION 14 Motion to adopt 2012 Night to Unite Proclamation. 15 Prepared by: Corey Yunke, Community Relations Coordinator, Roseville Police Department Attachments: A: 2012 Night to Unite Proclamation Page 1 of 1 AttachmentA Date:July9,2012 Item:6.a ApproveJune18,2012 CouncilMinutes REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 7/09/2012 Item No.: 7.a Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Approval of Payments B ACKGROUND 1 State Statute requires the City Council to approve all payment of claims. The following summary of claims 2 has been submitted to the City for payment. 3 4 Check Series # Amount ACH Payments $664,577.32 66600-66826 $1,035,007.85 Total $1,699,585.17 5 A detailed report of the claims is attached. City Staff has reviewed the claims and considers them to be 6 appropriate for the goods and services received. 7 PO OLICYBJECTIVE 8 Under Mn State Statute, all claims are required to be paid within 35 days of receipt. 9 FI INANCIALMPACTS 10 All expenditures listed above have been funded by the current budget, from donated monies, or from cash 11 reserves. 12 SR TAFF ECOMMENDATION 13 Staff recommends approval of all payment of claims. 14 RCA EQUESTEDOUNCILCTION 15 Motion to approve the payment of claims as submitted 16 17 Prepared by: Chris Miller, Finance Director 18 Attachments: A: Checks For Approval 19 20 Page 1 of 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 07/09/2012 Item No.: 7.b Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Approval of 2012/2013 Business and Other Licenses B ACKGROUND 1 Chapter 301 of the City Code requires all applications for business and other licenses to be submitted to the 2 City Council for approval. The following application(s) is (are) submitted for consideration 3 4 Massage Therapy Establishment 5 Stephen’s Hair Salon 6 2174 Snelling Ave N #3 7 Roseville, MN 55113 8 9 LifeSpa at Lifetime Fitness 10 2480 Fairview Ave N. 11 Roseville, MN 55113 12 13 VMH Therapies 14 3101 Old Highway 8 #202 15 Roseville, MN 55113 16 17 Massage Therapist License 18 Roger Lee Hinrichs, Delaina Rae Hinrichs, & Mary Devitt at Mind, Body, & Soul Wellness Center 19 2201 Lexington Ave. N, Suite 103 20 Roseville, MN 55113 21 22 Vonnie Hoschette at VMH Therapies 23 3101 Old Highway 8 #202 24 Roseville, MN 55113 25 26 Debra Ann Ther Harrsn-Streff & James Brotzmann at Massage Envy Roseville 27 2480 Fairview Ave., Suite 120 28 Roseville, MN 55113 29 30 One-Day Exempt Gambling Permit 31 Saint Rose of Lima Catholic Church 32 2048 Hamline Ave. N. 33 Roseville, MN 55113 34 35 Saint Rose of Lima Catholic Church is applying for a One-Day Gambling Permit to hold a Raffle on September 36 15, 2012. 37 38 PO OLICYBJECTIVE 39 Required by City Code 40 FI INANCIALMPACTS 41 The correct fees were paid to the City at the time the application(s) were made. 42 SR TAFF ECOMMENDATION 43 Staff has reviewed the applications and has determined that the applicant(s) meet all City requirements. Staff 44 recommends approval of the license(s). 45 RCA EQUESTEDOUNCILCTION 46 47 Motion to approve the business and other license application(s) as submitted. 48 Prepared by: Chris Miller, Finance Director Attachments: A: Applications Page 2 of 2 AttachmentA REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 7/09/2012 Item No.: 7.c Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Approve General Purchases or Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding $5,000 B ACKGROUND 1 City Code section 103.05 establishes the requirement that all general purchases and/or contracts in 2 excess of $5,000 be approved by the Council. In addition, State Statutes require that the Council 3 authorize the sale of surplus vehicles and equipment. 4 5 General Purchases or Contracts 6 City Staff have submitted the following items for Council review and approval: 7 DepartmentVendorDescriptionAmount StreetsBrock White Construction Crack seal materials (a) 12,627.07 8 Comments/Description: 9 a)Annual crack sealing of 15-20 miles of City streets. Brock White was the lowest of 3 bids. 10 11 Sale of Surplus Vehicles or Equipment 12 City Staff have identified surplus vehicles and equipment that have been replaced and/or are no longer 13 needed to deliver City programs and services. These surplus items will either be traded in on replacement 14 items or will be sold in a public auction or bid process. The items include the following: 15 16 DepartmentItem / Description PO OLICYBJECTIVE 17 Required under City Code 103.05. 18 FI INANCIALMPACTS 19 Funding for all items is provided for in the current operating or capital budget. 20 SR TAFF ECOMMENDATION 21 Staff recommends the City Council approve the submitted purchases or contracts for service and, if 22 applicable, authorize the trade-in/sale of surplus items. 23 Page 1 of 2 RCA EQUESTEDOUNCILCTION 24 Motion to approve the submitted list of general purchases, contracts for services, and if applicable, the 25 trade-in/sale of surplus equipment. 26 27 28 Prepared by: Chris Miller, Finance Director Attachments: A: None 29 Page 2 of 2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 7/9/12 Item No.:7.d Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Approve 2012-2013 Law Enforcement Legal Services- (“LELS”) Contract Terms B ACKGROUND 1 The City of Roseville currently has three collective bargaining units. This report is for the 2 Police Officer’s unit, which has 39 city employees participating in the LELS bargaining unit. 3 They are comprised of non-supervisory licensed law enforcement officers. 4 5 Although city employee wages are provided in six different plans, the City maintains a policy of 6 overall parity for all employees. According to this philosophy, the City strives for comparable 7 cost of living increases and benefits for these five employee groups. In addition, the City 8 benchmarks itself with comparable municipalities. 9 10 Council has provided for a 1% wage increase in the 2012 budget. However, since 2004 Police 11 Officers, when compared internally, have received slightly higher cost of living wage increases 12 compared with other staff to keep them in a steady position with their peers in comparable 13 communities. 14 15 The Union and the City reached a tentative agreement during mediation on June 13, 2012. 16 Based on the most recent internal and external data available the proposed and tentative 17 agreement terms between the union and the City are the following: 18 19 Description of Proposed Agreement 20 21 1.COMPARISON CITIES BEGINNING 2012: 22 23 New 10 City Comparison Group - drop Minnetonka, Edina, Apple Valley and St. 24 Louis Park from the group and add Oakdale, Savage, Fridley, and White Bear Lake utilizing 25 the new 2010 census data and keeping with our 5 just larger and 5 just smaller in population 26 size. Thus, making the new (2012 and on) comparable Cities for this group in order of 27 population size Maplewood, Oakdale, Shakopee, Cottage Grove, Inver Grove Hghts., 28 Richfield, Brooklyn Center, Savage, Fridley and White Bear Lake . 29 30 Page 1 of 4 2.CONTRACT DURATION: 31 32 Term of 2 years from 1/1/12 - 12/31/13 33 34 3.WAGES: 35 36 1/1/12 increase all LELS union classifications 1%. 37 1/1/13 increase all LELS union classifications 2%. 38 39 4.LONGEVITY: 40 41 Same increase as the wage increase for both years. 42 43 5.INSURANCE: 44 45 Same as City Council has provided to all other City staff. 46 47 6.SPECIALTY PAY: 48 49 Increase specialty pay by $25 per month bringing it to $260/mo. for the contract term. 50 51 7.UNIFORMS: 52 53 Increase uniform allowance by $50 to $770 for uniformed Officer’s and $705 for 54 plain clothes Officers for the contract term. 55 56 57 *All other groups are settled for the year 2012. 58 PO OLICYBJECTIVE 59 Each year the City budgets wage and benefit adjustments for all employees. The adjustments 60 stem from the best information known or anticipated from the metro labor market, labor 61 settlements, and consumer price index. 62 63 The City’s compensation policy objectives include: 64 65 Internal Equity – maintaining a compensation and benefit package that is as consistent as 66 possible between the City’s three union and two non-union groups. 67 68 External Equity- maintaining compensation and benefits packages that are equivalent to 69 comparable cities for comparable positions. 70 71 BI UDGETMPLICATIONS 72 This proposed package will cost the City a total of $3,750 beyond what was approved or 73 proposed by the Council for the two year contract term. 74 Page 2 of 4 SR TAFF ECOMMENDATION 75 Staff recommends approval of the 2012-13 LELS contract. 76 RCA EQUESTEDOUNCILCTION 77 Motion to approve the proposed terms and conditions for the 2012-2013 collective bargaining 78 agreement with the LELS, directing City staff to prepare the necessary documents for 79 execution, subject to City Attorney approval. 80 Prepared by: Eldona Bacon, Human Resources Manager Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 7/9/12 Item No.: 7.e Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Approve Construction Agreement between the University of Minnesota and the City of Roseville for the Fairview Pathway Project (aka Northeast Suburban Campus Connector Bike/ Pedestrian Project) B ACKGROUND 1 Since 2009, the cities of Falcon Heights and Roseville, along with the University of Minnesota, 2 have been developing plans for a pedestrian and bicycle trail along Fairview Avenue. This 3 project, the Northeast Suburban Campus Connector (NESCC), was awarded grant funds in the 4 amount of $1,079,000. Phase 1 of the project was awarded to TA Schifsky and Sons at the 5 August 22nd council meeting. The majority of the improvements included in Phase 1 of this 6 project were completed last year. The work at the University of Minnesota did not proceed 7 because they did not want Gortner Avenue under construction during the school year. 8 Construction is scheduled to start in July. The work covered by this agreement is as follows: 9 Reclamation of the entire width of Gortner Avenue from Larpenteur Ave to Folwell Ave. 10 Construction of a concrete sidewalk from Larpenteur Avenue to Folwell Avenue. 11 Striping of bike lanes from Larpenteur Avenue to the intercampus transitway. 12 Final plans have been approved by MnDOT for the second phase of this project. Staff will be 13 soliciting bids in July, with construction to be completed in late summer/ early fall. Phase 2 of 14 the project includes: 15 Construction of a sidewalk along the north side of Larpenteur Avenue between Cleveland 16 Ave and Coffman Ave in Falcon Heights. 17 Construction of segments of sidewalk along the east side of Fairview Ave between 18 County Road B and the Fairview entrance into Rosedale. 19 Reconstruction of the sidewalk along the west side of Fairview Ave between Gluek Lane 20 and the Fairview entrance into Rosedale. 21 Upgrading all signal systems to meet ADA standards, including audible pedestrian 22 countdown timers and truncated dome pedestrian ramps. 23 PO OLICYBJECTIVE 24 A construction agreement with the University of Minnesota is attached, which spells out the role 25 of each agency for the construction of Phase 1 of this project. While the construction costs for 26 this project are fully grant funded, there are portions of the project that are being funded by the 27 University of Minnesota and the agreement will ensure that we have a formal understanding with 28 the University regarding cost. It also defines ownership of the improvements once constructed. 29 FD INANCIALISCUSSION 30 The contract amount for this project is $711,758.00. The total amount of Federal eligible costs 31 for Phase 1 of this project is $595,010.90. The project will be funded as follows: 32 Page 1 of 2 Segment Description Federal Eligible Local Cost Costs Roseville$277,689.90$34,680.00 Falcon Heights $205,284.10$0 University of Minnesota $112,036.90$82,067.10 Subtotals $595,010.90$116,747.10 Project Total $711,758.00 SR TAFF ECOMMENDATION 33 Staff recommends the approval of the Fairview Pathway Project (aka Northeast Suburban Campus 34 Connector Bike/ Pedestrian Project) Construction Agreement with the University of Minnesota. 35 RCA EQUESTEDOUNCILCTION 36 Motion approving of the Fairview Pathway Project (aka Northeast Suburban Campus Connector 37 Bike/ Pedestrian Project) Construction Agreement with the University of Minnesota 38 Prepared by: Debra Bloom, City Engineer Attachments: A: Agreement Page 2 of 2 AttachmentA License No. UA-1484 1 2 3 AGREEMENT 4 5 6 THIS AGREEMENT Agreement (the “”) is entered into effective as of the date of last 7 Effective Date signature below (the “”) by and between Regents of the University of Minnesota, 8 “University a Minnesota constitutional corporation (the ”), and the City of Roseville, a 9 Licensee Minnesota municipal corporation (the “”) (either of which is also referred to herein as a 10 PartyParties “” and, collectively, they are referred to herein as “”). This Agreement is entered 11 into by the University through the Real Estate Office. 12 13 1.Grant of License. 14 15 1.1 University hereby grants to Licensee a non-exclusive, revocable license over, 16 Exhibit A under, and across the portion of real property approximately 50 feet wide depicted on 17 University Property (the “”) to reconstruct Gortner Avenue, including the addition of new 18 sidewalk on the east side of Gortner, between Folwell and Larpenteur Avenues and to restripe 19 the entire length of Gortner Avenue to designate a recreational trail for pedestrian and non- 20 motorized bicycle traffic for the purpose of extending the Northeast Suburban Campus 21 Connection Bicycle/Pedestrian Project from County Road B-2 in Roseville to the University’s 22 Project Twin Cities campuses (the “”). Licensee’s construction of the Project shall be in 23 accordance with Final Project Plans (defined in Section 3.2.1). The preliminary engineering 24 Preliminary Project Plans drawings, specifications and construction plans (“”) attached as 25 Exhibit B . 26 27 1.2 This Agreement will begin on June ___, 2012 and end upon completion of 28 construction of the Project, but not later than July 31, 2012, unless earlier terminated as provided 29 herein. Time is of the essence in completion of construction of the Project. 30 31 1.3 This Agreement is subject to: (a) any and all existing restrictions, covenants, 32 easements, licenses, permits, leases and other encumbrances relating to the University Property; 33 and (b) all applicable federal, state, and local laws, statutes, regulations, ordinances, rules, and 34 requirements and applicable University ordinances, policies, and procedures. 35 36 1.4 Licensee accepts all rights granted under this Agreement in an “AS IS” and 37 “WITH ALL FAULTS” condition, and subject to all limitations on University’s rights, interests, 38 and title to the University Property. 39 40 1.5 Licensee represents that it has inspected the University Property and enters into 41 this Agreement with knowledge of the condition thereof. Licensee shall determine the suitability 42 of the University Property for its intended use, including without limitation geotechnical, 43 structural, environmental, and health or safety conditions. Licensee acknowledges that this 44 Agreement does not contain any implied warranties by University that Licensee or Licensee’s 45 contractors or consultants can successfully construct the Project on the University Property. 46 1 47 2. Fee. The non-refundable fee for this license is $1.00. 48 49 3. Use and Maintenance. 50 51 3.1 Licensee agrees to use the University Property solely for the purposes stated in 52 Section 1.1. 53 54 3.2 Design and Construction. 55 56 3.2.1 Licensee shall submit to University (Steve Sanders of University’s 57 Parking & Transportation Services, 612-525-1333) for its prior approval final Project 58 Final Project Plans Plans (“”) and a detailed schedule for construction of the Project 59 within 10 days following the signing of this Agreement. University shall provide its 60 comments on the Final Project Plans and construction schedule to Licensee within 10 61 business days from the date of receipt. Licensee shall construct the Project in accordance 62 with the University approved Final Project Plans and approved construction schedule. 63 University’s approval of the Final Project Plans and the construction schedule will in no 64 way be deemed to be (i) an acceptance or approval of any element therein which is in 65 violation of any applicable law, or (ii) an assurance that License’s Work (as herein 66 defined) done pursuant to the approved Final Project Plans and construction schedule will 67 comply with all applicable laws or other requirements in this Agreement. Any deficiency 68 of design or construction shall be the sole responsibility of Licensee. 69 70 3.2.2 If University’s irrigation system needs repair or relocation as result of the 71 Project, University’s Landcare shall perform such irrigation work at Licensee’s sole 72 expense to be promptly paid upon receipt of an invoice from University. Licensee shall 73 contact Chad Schmidt at 612-624-5678 to coordinate University’s irrigation work into 74 Licensee’s construction schedule. 75 76 3.2.3 The Final Project Plans will reflect the reclamation of the entire width of 77 Gortner Avenue from Larpenteur Avenue to Folwell Avenue estimated to cost 78 $194,104.00. Federal funding in the amount of $112,036.90 is available to reclaim the 6 79 foot wide shoulders (total 12 feet wide) on Gortner between Larpenteur and Folwell 80 Avenues. University agrees to pay the remaining cost to reclaim and overlay the rest of 81 the roadway along Gortner Avenue (19 feet wide) in an amount not to exceed 82 $82,067.10. 83 84 3.2.4 The Final Project Plans will reflect University’s removal of two light poles 85 on the east side of Gortner Avenue required for the relocation of the sidewalk and 86 Licensee’s construction of the sidewalk extension requested by University at the 87 intersection of Gortner and Folwell Avenues as shown on the Preliminary Project Plans. 88 University’s cost to remove the two light poles (estimated to be $5,398.00) will be 89 equally shared between University and Licensee upon completion of the Project, unless 90 Licensee provides written evidence satisfactory to University that Licensee’s federal 91 funding and contingency funds have been depleted by other Project cost overrides, in 92 2 which case the costs for removal of light poles will be borne by University. Licensee’s 93 cost to extend the sidewalk (estimated to be $3,612.00) will be paid by Licensee, unless 94 Licensee provides written evidence satisfactory to University that Licensee’s federal 95 funding and contingency funds will not cover such costs, in which case the amount not 96 covered by such funds will be borne by University. 97 98 3.2.5 Licensee shall perform the design, construction and installation of the 99 Licensee’s Work Project (collectively, “”) according to the rights granted herein in a safe, 100 good and workman-like manner, in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local 101 laws, statutes, regulations, ordinances, rules, and requirements and University ordinances, 102 policies, procedures, including the University’s storm water compliance procedure, and 103 the University’s construction standards, where applicable. 104 105 3.2.6 Licensee shall keep the University Property free of any and all 106 mechanics’, material supplier’s, and other liens arising out of any work, labor done, 107 services performed, or materials furnished for Licensee or its contractors or consultants 108 or claimed to have been furnished for Licensee or its contractors or consultants. 109 110 3.3 Restoration Obligation. 111 112 3.3.1 Promptly after completion of Licensee’s Work, Licensee at its sole cost 113 and expense shall: (i) remove all equipment and other property placed upon the 114 University Property by Licensee or its contractors or consultants; (ii) remove all debris 115 resulting therefrom; (iii) restore the University Property as shown on the Final Project 116 Plans, as well as any other University property damaged as a result of the Project, in 117 accordance with the requirements of University’s Division of Land Care and Department 118 of Parking & Transportation Services; and (iv) furnish to University without charge 119 electronic copies of “as-built” drawings and specifications for the Project in CAD format. 120 121 3.3.2 If University restores such damage due to Licensee’s failure to do so 122 within 30 days following written notice from University to Licensee requesting Licensee 123 to do so, Licensee shall upon demand reimburse the University for the reasonable costs 124 incurred by University in restoring such damage. 125 126 3.3.3 Licensee’s obligations under this Section 3.3 shall survive the expiration 127 or earlier termination of this Agreement. 128 129 3.4 University reserves the right to use, and grant others the right to use, the 130 University Property for any purpose whatsoever provided that such use does not unreasonably 131 interfere with Licensee’s Work. Licensee agrees not to disturb University’s use and enjoyment of 132 the University Property, so long as University’s use of the University Property is consistent with 133 Licensee’s rights under this Agreement. University shall have the right to enter the University 134 Property and inspect Licensee’s Work at any time to ensure compliance with this Agreement. 135 136 3.5 Licensee shall provide to University electronic copies of any test results and 137 reports it or its contractors or consultants obtain pertaining to the University Property. All test 138 3 results and reports shall be sent to the University of Minnesota, Real Estate Office, 424 139 th Donhowe Building, 319 15 Avenue Southeast, Minneapolis, MN 55455-0199, prior to 140 submission to any regulatory agency. University may comment separately on said results and 141 reports to any regulatory agency, but shall not alter any submission from Licensee to any 142 regulatory agency. 143 144 3.6 Upon completion of Licensee’s Work, the Project and all improvements related 145 thereto shall be owned, operated and maintained by University. 146 147 4. Environmental. 148 149 4.1 Licensee shall not—and shall ensure that its contractors and consultants do not— 150 release, install, use, generate, store, locate, produce, process, treat, transport, incorporate, 151 discharge, emit, deposit, or dispose of Hazardous Substances in, upon, under, over or from the 152 University Property or violate any Environmental Laws on or near the University Property. 153 154 4.2 Definitions. 155 156 Environmental Laws 4.2.1 “” means any and all federal, state, local, or 157 municipal laws, rules, orders, regulations, statutes, ordinances, codes, decrees, or 158 requirements of any governmental authority regulating, relating to, or imposing liability 159 or standards of conduct concerning any Hazardous Substances, environmental protection, 160 or health and safety, as now or may at any time hereafter be in effect and as amended 161 from time to time, as well as the regulations adopted and promulgated thereunder, 162 including without limitation: the Clean Water Act, also known as the Federal Water 163 Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.; the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 164 Section 7401 et seq.; the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. 165 Section 136 et seq.; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 166 Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et seq.; the Superfund Amendments and 167 Reauthorization Act of 1986, Public Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613; the Emergency 168 Planning and Community Right to Know Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 11001 et seq.; the 169 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, also known as the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 170 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.; and the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act, 171 Minnesota Statutes Chapter 115B. 172 173 Hazardous Substance 4.2.2 “” means (i) hazardous materials, hazardous 174 wastes, and hazardous substances as those terms are defined under any Environmental 175 Laws; (ii) petroleum, petroleum products, and by-products, including crude oil and any 176 fractions thereof; (iii) natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, synthetic gas, 177 and any mixtures thereof; (iv) asbestos or any material that contains any hydrated 178 magnesium silicate minerals that crystallize as bundles of long, thin fibers that readily 179 separate when broken or crushed; (vi) radon; (vii) any other hazardous or radioactive 180 substance, material, contaminant, pollutant, or waste; (viii) any substance with respect to 181 which any federal, state, or local Environmental Law or governmental agency requires 182 environmental investigation, monitoring ,or remediation; and (ix) any other substance or 183 4 material now or in the future deemed to be hazardous, dangerous, toxic, or a pollutant or 184 contaminant under any Environmental Laws. 185 186 Release 4.2.3 “” means the definition set forth in Minn. Stat. Section 115B.02, 187 Subd 15 of a Hazardous Substance into or out of the University Property. 188 189 4.3 Licensee, at its sole cost and expense, shall: 190 191 a. Notify University prior to any activity on the University Property by Licensee or 192 its contractors pursuant to this Agreement, which involves the Release, use, storage, 193 generation, treatment, transportation, disposal, or handling of any Hazardous Substance; 194 195 b. Comply with all Environmental Laws governing the Release, use, storage, 196 generation, treatment, transportation, disposal, or handling of Hazardous Substances by 197 Licensee or its contractors (including, without limitation, the abandonment or disposal of 198 any barrels, containers, or other closed receptacles containing any Hazardous Substance); 199 200 c. Immediately stop construction or any other activity if Licensee or its contractor 201 encounters a Hazardous Substance; 202 203 d. Give immediate notice to University’s Department of Environmental Health and 204 Safety at 612-626-6002 or, after normal business hours, the Police Department dispatcher 205 at 612-624-2677 (i) if Licensee encounters a Hazardous Substance; (ii) if a Hazardous 206 Substance is Released by Licensee or its contractor on or from the University Property; 207 (iii) of a violation of any Environmental Laws by Licensee or its contractors; (iv) of an 208 inspection or inquiry by any governmental agency with respect to Licensee’s or its 209 contractor’s use of the University Property; or (v) if Licensee receives any notice from 210 any governmental agency alleging that any Environmental Laws have been violated by 211 Licensee with respect to Licensee’s or its contractor’s use of the University Property; 212 213 e. Promptly investigate and remediate any Release of Hazardous Substances that is 214 uncovered or moved as a result of Licensee’s or its contractor’s or consultant’s use of the 215 University Property and promptly perform any investigative, remedial or other activities 216 necessary to avoid or minimize injury or liability to any person, or to prevent the Release 217 or spread of contamination as a result of Licensee’s or its contractor’s activities pursuant 218 to this Agreement; and 219 220 f. Promptly respond to and comply with any notice, order, request, or demand 221 relating to potential or actual contamination on the University Property resulting from 222 Licensee’s or its contractor’s activities pursuant to this Agreement. 223 224 4.4 If University has reason to believe that a Hazardous Substance has been released 225 on or from the University Property by Licensee or its contractors or consultants, then University 226 has the right, but not the obligation, to require Licensee, at Licensee’s sole cost and expense, to 227 perform an environmental audit of the results of the alleged release by an environmental 228 consultant satisfactory to University. Unless not reasonably practical, such an investigation shall 229 5 be commenced within 10 days after University’s request, and thereafter be diligently prosecuted 230 to completion. In any event, such an investigation shall be commenced as soon as reasonably 231 practicable and thereafter be diligently prosecuted to completion. Licensee shall provide to 232 University an electronic copy of the environmental audit immediately after it is available to 233 Licensee. 234 235 4.5 If Licensee fails to perform its obligations under this section, the University shall 236 have the right, but not the obligation, to perform Licensee’s obligations and charge Licensee for 237 the costs and expenses reasonably incurred by University in doing so. Licensee shall reimburse 238 the University for all such costs and expenses within 30 days after receipt of an invoice together 239 with a detailed explanation of the basis for the charges contained in the invoice. University shall 240 provide to Licensee an electronic copy of any environmental audit undertaken by or on behalf of 241 the University for the University Property promptly after it is available to University. 242 243 4.6 Licensee hereby authorizes any and all governmental entities with responsibility 244 for enforcement of Environmental Laws to release to University (or provide University with 245 access to) all files related to alleged violations of Environmental Laws at the University 246 Property. 247 248 5. Insurance. 249 250 5.1 Licensee’s Insurance Requirements: Licensee, at its sole cost and expense, shall 251 obtain and keep in force the following insurance: 252 253 a. Commercial General Liability with limits required in Minnesota Statute Section 254 466 (effective July 1, 2009, $500,000 per person and $1,500,000 per occurrence). Policy 255 shall be Occurrence based, written on ISO Form CG 00 01 or its equivalent, and include 256 coverage for Products/Completed Operations which shall be maintained for a period of 257 three (3) years after the expiration of the Term. Regents of the University of Minnesota 258 shall be added as an additional insured for ongoing and completed operations on ISO 259 Forms CG 20 10 07 04 and CG 20 37 07 04 or equivalent. 260 261 b. Business Automobile Liability Insurance with limits required in Minnesota 262 Statues Section 466 (effective July 1, 2009, $500,000 per person and $1,500,000 per 263 occurrence). Policy shall be written on ISO form CA 00 01 or equivalent and apply to all 264 owned, hired and non-owned automobiles. 265 266 c. Workers Compensation Insurance. Workers’ compensation insurance in 267 compliance with all statutory requirements of the State of Minnesota. 268 269 d. Employer’s Liability Insurance. Limits of $100,000 bodily injury by disease per 270 employee; $100,000 bodily injury by disease aggregate; and $100,000 bodily injury by 271 accident. 272 273 e. Licensee shall provide to University prior to the Effective Date fully executed 274 Certificates of Insurance evidencing that it has the required coverage. 275 6 276 f. Licensee may self-insure with respect to the requirements of this section. 277 278 g. All policies required shall provide that the policy will not be canceled, materially 279 changed, or non-renewed without at least 30 days’ prior written notice to University. 280 281 h. Licensee’s General Liability and Automobile Liability policies will be primary 282 and any insurance maintained by University is excess and non-contributory. The 283 certificate of insurances must reflect that the above wording is included in the required 284 policies. 285 286 5.2 Contractors’ and Consultants’ Insurance Requirements. Licensee shall require its 287 contractors and consultants entering onto the University Property to obtain and keep in force the 288 following insurance: 289 290 a. Commercial General Liability with minimum limits of $5,000,000 each 291 occurrence, $5,000,000 Products/Completed operations aggregate and $5,000,000 general 292 aggregate per project. Policy shall be on ISO Form CG 00 01 or its equivalent and 293 include coverage for Products/Completed Operations which shall be maintained for a 294 period of three (3) years after completion of any work on the University Property. 295 Regents of the University of Minnesota shall be named as an additional insured for 296 ongoing and completed operations by endorsement on ISO forms CG 2010 07 04 and CG 297 2037 07 04 (or their equivalent as approved by University). 298 299 b. Business Automobile Liability Insurance with minimum limits of $1,000,000 any 300 one accident or loss. Policy shall be written on ISO Form CA 00 01 or equivalent and 301 apply to all owned, hired and non-owned automobiles. Regents of the University of 302 Minnesota shall be named as an additional insured. Pollution liability coverage equivalent 303 to that provided by ISO pollution liability-broadened coverage for autos endorsement CA 304 99 48 and the Motor Carrier Act endorsement MCS90 shall be included. 305 306 c. Workers’ Compensation Insurance. Workers’ compensation insurance in 307 compliance with all statutory requirements of the State of Minnesota. 308 309 d. Employer’s Liability Insurance. Minimum limits of $1,000,000 bodily injury by 310 disease per employee; $1,000,000 bodily injury by disease aggregate; and $1,000,000 311 bodily injury by accident. 312 313 e. Contractor’s Pollution Liability Insurance, if applicable to Contractor’s Work, 314 with minimum limits of $1,000,000 each occurrence/annual aggregate. 315 316 e. All policies required shall provide that the policy will not be canceled, materially 317 changed, or non-renewed without at least 30 days’ prior written notice to University. 318 319 f. All policies, through endorsement (including self-insurance programs if 320 applicable), must state that the policy is primary and any insurance maintained by 321 7 University is excess and non-contributory. The certificate of insurances must reflect that 322 the above wording is included in the required policies. 323 324 g. All policies shall be written by a reputable insurance company with a current AM 325 Best Rating of A-VII or better, and authorized to do business in Minnesota. 326 327 h. Licensee shall require that its contractors and consultants of every tier waive all 328 subrogation and recovery rights against University for General Liability and Workers 329 Compensation. 330 331 i. No endorsements, except those expressly stated herein, may be included on any 332 policy limiting coverage. 333 334 j. Licensee’s contractors and consultants shall provide to University prior to 335 entering onto the University Property fully executed Certificates of Insurance evidencing 336 that they have obtained the required coverage and endorsements. 337 338 6. Permits. In additional to any other approvals required by this Agreement, Licensee shall 339 obtain from University’s Building Code Office any permits required for Licensee’s construction 340 of the Project on the University Property. 341 342 7. Default. Default Licensee shall be in default (“”) of this Agreement if Licensee violates 343 or fails to perform or observe any covenant, condition, or obligation of this Agreement for a 344 period of 10 days after Licensee’s receipt of written notice from University describing the 345 alleged violation or failure, except with respect to Section 4.3, for which Licensee shall be in 346 Default if it fails to commence correction of the unperformed covenant, condition, or obligation 347 within 1 day after receipt of written notice and to thereafter diligently pursue such correction to 348 completion. In the event of any such written notice by University to Licensee, University agrees 349 that, upon request of Licensee, University representatives will meet and confer with 350 representatives of Licensee to assist Licensee in understanding the alleged violation or failure 351 and how it may be cured to the satisfaction of University. In the event of a Default, the 352 University, in its sole discretion, may: (i) seek specific performance of the unperformed 353 obligation; (ii) seek an injunction restraining a violation of this Agreement; (iii) perform 354 Licensee’s obligations and charge Licensee for its costs reasonably incurred in doing so; or (iv) 355 terminate this Agreement. Licensee shall promptly reimburse University for costs the University 356 incurs under this section. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 7, (a) in the 357 event that correction of the condition which is alleged by University to constitute a failure by 358 Licensee to perform or observe a covenant, condition or obligation of this Agreement requires 359 work which is impractical due to reasonably foreseeable weather conditions during said 10 day 360 period, provided that Licensee diligently pursues correction of the unperformed covenant, 361 condition or obligation, Licensee shall be entitled to 30 days after Licensor’s written notice to 362 complete the work which is required to perform the alleged unperformed obligation; (b) if 363 Licensee’s Default poses an imminent hazard or threat to human health or the environment, the 364 University is required to give Licensee written notice before the University shall have the right to 365 do any of the following: (i) seek specific performance of the unperformed obligation; (ii) seek an 366 8 injunction restraining a breach of this Agreement; or (iii) perform Licensee’s obligations and 367 charge Licensee for its costs reasonably incurred in doing so. 368 369 8. Notices. A notice, communication, or demand by either party to the other shall be in 370 writing and shall be sufficiently given or delivered upon receipt if sent by overnight delivery, if 371 personally delivered, or three days after sent by U.S. registered mail or certified mail, postage 372 prepaid, return receipt requested; and if the notice, communication or demand: 373 374 (i) in the case of University, is addressed or personally delivered to: 375 376 Regents of the University of Minnesota 377 c/o Real Estate Office 378 th 319 15 Avenue SE, Suite 424 379 Minneapolis MN 55455 380 381 and 382 383 University of Minnesota 384 Office of the General Counsel 385 Attn: Transactional Law Services Group 386 360 McNamara Alumni Center 387 200 Oak Street SE 388 Minneapolis, MN 55455-2006 389 390 (ii) in the case of Licensee, is addressed to or delivered personally to: 391 392 City of Roseville 393 Attn: DebraBloom 394 2660 Civic Center Drive 395 Roseville, MN55113 396 397 or at such other address with respect to either such Party as that Party may, from time to time, 398 designate by written notice to the other Party. 399 400 9. Liability; Indemnification. Subject to the limitations of Minn. Stat. Chap. 466, as 401 amended from time to time, and except to the extent caused by the University’s negligence: (a) 402 Licensee shall be liable for all loss, damage, or claims resulting from its or its invitee’s, 403 contractor’s and/or consultant’s use of the University Property. Licensee shall defend, indemnify 404 and hold harmless University from and against any and all claims, loss, damage, recoveries, 405 judgments, costs or expenses related thereto (including attorney’s fees) arising from or in any 406 manner connected with (a) Licensee’s or its invitees, contractor’s and/or consultant’s use of the 407 University Property; and/or (b) any breach of this Agreement. Licensee’s obligations under this 408 section shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. 409 410 9 10. Damages. IN NO EVENT SHALL UNIVERSITY BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, 411 CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, LOST PROFITS OR LIKE EXPECTANCY DAMAGES 412 ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT. 413 414 11. Miscellaneous. 415 416 11.1 Assignment. Licensee shall not assign its rights under this Agreement without 417 University’s prior written consent, which University may grant, withhold, or condition in its sole 418 discretion. 419 420 11.2 License Only. Licensee acknowledges that this Agreement represents a grant of a 421 revocable license only, and not an easement or lease, except as provided in Section 1.1. 422 423 11.3 Survival. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, to the extent applicable, the 424 terms of this Agreement shall survive expiration or termination of the Term. 425 426 11.4 Counterparts. This Agreement is executed in any number of counterparts, each 427 of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. 428 429 11.5 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal or 430 otherwise unenforceable, that provision shall be deemed to have been severed from this 431 Agreement and the remainder of this Agreement shall otherwise remain in full force and effect. 432 433 11.6 Complete Agreement. This Agreement (including all exhibits) constitutes the 434 complete agreement between the parties with respect to the matters addressed herein. This 435 Agreement shall be amended only in a writing duly executed by authorized signatories of the 436 parties to this Agreement. 437 438 439 [Signatures on following page] 440 441 10 442 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties execute this Agreement. 443 444 Regents of the University of Minnesota City of Roseville 445 446 447 By: By: 448 Name: Name: 449 Title: Title: 450 Date:Date: 451 11 EXHIBIT A University Property A-1 EXHIBIT B Preliminary Project Plans B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 07/09/12 Item No.:7.f Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Set Public Hearing to Consider Approving a 3.2% On-Sale, Sunday Liquor, and Wine license for Kyoto Sushi at 2100 N. Snelling Ave., Suite 80 B ACKGROUND 1 Under City Code, a public hearing is required to consider approving liquor licenses for the following 2 calendar year. The City has received an application for a Liquor Licnese for 2012 as follows: 3 4 Kyoto Sushi –3.2 On Sale, Sunday Liquor, and Wine License 5 6 Neither State Statute nor City Code limits the number of licenses that can be issued for On Sale & 7 Sunday licenses. 8 PO OLICYBJECTIVE 9 The regulation of establishments that sell alcoholic beverages has been a long-standing practice by the 10 State and the City. 11 FI INANCIAL MPACTS 12 The revenue that is generated from the license fees is used to offset the cost of police compliance 13 checks, background investigations, enforcement of liquor laws, and license administration. 14 RCA EQUESTED OUNCIL CTION 15 To set public hearing for July 23, 2012 to consider approving/denying the change of the requested 16 liquor license for calendar year 2012. 17 Prepared by: Chris Miller, Finance Director Attachments: A: Application Page 1 of 1 AttachmentA REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 7/9/2012 ITEM NO: 9.a Department Approval City Manager Approval zoning text Item Description: Request by Lincoln Drive Properties, LLC, for approval of a amendment which would allow academic instruction as a use in commercial zoning districts (PF12-008). Application Review Details RCA prepared: July 3, 2012 Public hearing: June 6, 2012 City Council action: July 9, 2012 Statutory action deadline: July 14, 2012 Action taken on a zoning change request is legislative in nature ; the City has broad discretion in making land use decisions based on protecting or advancing the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. 1.0RA EQUESTEDCTION 1 Lincoln Drive Properties, LLC, a property management subsidiary of Northwestern 2 College, is requesting a to allow academic classes to be taught in ZONING TEXT CHANGE 3 office settings in addition to more traditional campus settings. 4 2.0SR UMMARY OF ECOMMENDATION 5 Planning Division staff concurs with the recommendation (5-1) of the Planning 6 Commission to approve the proposed ; see Section 7 of this report ZONING TEXT CHANGE 7 for the detailed recommendation. 8 3.0SSA UMMARY OF UGGESTEDCTION 9 3.1Based on the comments in this report and the input received during the public hearing, 10 adopt an ordinance approving the proposed ; see Section 8 of this ZONING TEXT CHANGE 11 . report for the detailed action 12 3.2Approve an ordinance summary for publication. 13 PF12-008_RCA_070912 Page 1 of 4 4.0B ACKGROUND 14 4.1The requested zoning amendment stems from the desire to teach classes in support of a 15 Bachelor of Science degree program in nursing in Northwestern College’s office building 16 located at 2803 Lincoln Drive. This property is located in City Planning District 10, has a 17 Comprehensive Plan designation of Community Business (CB) and has a corresponding 18 zoning classification of Community Business (CB) District. This specific location 19 becomes less important, however, if a is approved because the ZONING TEXT CHANGE 20 change would apply to every property within the zoning district(s) in which the change is 21 made. 22 4.2Presently, a college/post-secondary school is a permitted use within the Community 23 Mixed Use (CMU) and Regional Business (RB) Districts, but is prohibited in the 24 Neighborhood Business (NB) and CB Districts. Colleges or other post-secondary schools 25 are conditional uses in the Institutional (INST) District, and business schools are 26 conditional uses in the Office/Business Park (O/BP) District. 27 5.0ZTCA ONINGEXT HANGENALYSIS 28 5.1The zoning code’s definition of a college/post-secondary school is as follows: 29 “An institution for post-secondary education, public or private, offering courses in 30 general, technical, or religious education, which operates in buildings owned or leased by 31 the institution for administrative and faculty offices, classrooms, laboratories, chapels, 32 auditoriums, lecture halls, libraries, student and faculty centers, athletic facilities, 33 dormitories, fraternities, and sororities.” 34 Certainly, this definition can describe a traditional campus setting, and the requirements 35 of the INST, RB, and CMU Districts are intended to ensure that accesses to campuses are 36 limited to higher-intensity roadways to minimize the traffic impacts through residential 37 neighborhoods and to provide buffering and screening between campuses and their 38 surrounding neighbors. The distinction between campuses being conditional uses in the 39 INST District and permitted uses in the more intensive commercial districts seems to be a 40 recognition that a campus is likely to have less of an impact on commercial neighbors 41 than residential neighbors, and the conditional use process allows for greater public input 42 to identify and mitigate potential negative impacts in the more sensitive locations. 43 5.2Planning Division staff believes that the above definition is also meant to describe the 44 kind of nontraditional classrooms that are commonly found in office buildings. Examples 45 could be larger facilities like University of Phoenix (in St. Louis Park), Rasmussen 46 Business College, or National American University (in Roseville at 1500 Highway 36), 47 and smaller ones like Minneapolis Business College (in the Rosewood Office Plaza at 48 1711 County Road B) or “satellite” classrooms for Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota 49 (in Woodbury) and University of Wisconsin-River Falls’ Hudson Center. These facilities 50 don’t have many of the features of conventional campuses and they function more like 51 offices, but they are nonetheless dedicated to academic instruction as opposed to 52 commercial office activities. Allowing such office-based academic instruction seems to 53 be reasonable, and Planning Division staff believes that “colleges/post-secondary 54 schools” were unintentionally excluded from the CB and NB Districts because of the 55 code’s broad definition describing campus and non-campus environments, not because 56 teaching and learning is out of place in an office setting. A similar case can be made for 57 the conditionally-permitted “school of business or trades” in the O/BP District; in this 58 PF12-008_RCA_070912 Page 2 of 4 instance, the zoning code neither defines the use nor offers any regulations that help to 59 explain why office-based classes are treated differently than other office uses in a zoning 60 district designed for exactly that. 61 5.3To address these kinds of changes in the zoning code, Planning Division staff is 62 proposing to make the following general amendments: 63 a. Add a second definition for colleges/post-secondary schools to clarify the distinction 64 between campuses and office settings; 65 b. Add the office-based educational facility as a permitted use in the CB District, and as 66 permitted uses with heightened screening requirements in the NB District; and 67 c. Replace the “school of business or trades” use in the O/BP District with the office- 68 based academic use and allow it as a permitted use rather than as a conditional use. 69 The full, proposed amendment in draft ordinance form is included with this report as 70 bold Attachment B, and is shown in and strikethrough text. Please note that Attachment 71 B omits large portions of the zoning code and only includes those portions which are 72 subject to the proposed amendment, along with selected content to provide additional 73 context surrounding the proposed changes; nothing is proposed to be added or deleted 74 from the zoning code which is not explicitly shown. 75 6.0PC UBLICOMMENT 76 6.1As of the time this report was prepared, Planning Division staff has received one phone 77 call about the proposed , and the same subjects of the phone ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 78 call were discussed in detail at the duly-noticed public hearing held by the Planning 79 Commission on June 6, 2012; draft minutes of the public hearing are included with this 80 staff report as Attachment A. 81 6.2Several questions pertaining to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan were raised at the public 82 hearing, but not all of them were answered at the time. One outstanding question was 83 whether 2803 Lincoln Drive, a property with a CB land use designation, conforms to the 84 Comprehensive Plan’s description of CB properties being located on streets classified in 85 the Transportation Plan as “A Minor Augmenter” or “A Minor Reliever;” neither Lincoln 86 Drive nor Terrace Drive is classified as such in the Transportation chapter of the 87 Comprehensive Plan. In fact, many streets circulating through CB-designated areas are 88 not minor-arterial-class streets—many of the streets in these commercial areas are local 89 streets. This is not a violation of the Comprehensive Plan. Instead, it a reflection of the 90 fact that the minor arterial classification designates metropolitan-level roadways that 91 augment the network of principal arterials and relieve overflow traffic rather than 92 denoting streets with the minimum qualifications for handling commercial traffic. 93 Planning Division staff believes that the Comprehensive Plan promotes locating CB- 94 designated properties on the A Minor Augmenter and Reliever streets in order to 95 minimize commercial traffic on local residential streets rather than minimizing traffic on 96 localcommercial streets like Lincoln and Terrace Drives in that location. 97 6.3The question also seems to linger as to whether teaching, be it in a conventional school 98 setting or in an office setting, is an “institutional” activity to be limited to areas guided by 99 the Comprehensive Plan for Institutional land uses. Music and dance studios, martial arts 100 dojos, tutoring centers, and the like are places where teaching and learning take place, 101 and which are often located in commercial-type properties. Although Elementary 102 PF12-008_RCA_070912 Page 3 of 4 schools, secondary schools, and college campuses have been designated as Institutional 103 properties in the Comprehensive Plan, Planning Division staff believes this designation is 104 primarily related to the fact that such facilities typically include playground equipment, 105 ball fields, running tracks, public address systems, intensive bus service, and other 106 potential sources of off-site impacts. Planning Division staff further contends that the 107 teaching and learning that occurs within conventional school buildings is not the main 108 factor contributing to the Institutional land use designation and, therefore, that teaching 109 and learning activities that occur within a commercial-type property do not by themselves 110 constitute “institutional” use of that property. 111 7.0R ECOMMENDATION 112 Based on the comments and findings outlined in Sections 4 – 6 of this report, the 113 Planning Division recommends approval of the . ZONING TEXT CHANGE 114 8.0SA UGGESTEDCTION 115 Pass an ordinance adopting the proposed 8.1, based on the ZONING TEXT CHANGE 116 comments and findings of Sections 4 – 6 and the recommendation of Section 7 of this 117 staff report. 118 8.2By motion, approve the proposed ordinance summary for publication. 119 Prepared by: Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd 651-792-7073 | bryan.lloyd@ci.roseville.mn.us Draft ordinance Attachments: A: Draft public hearing minutes B: Ordinance summary C: PF12-008_RCA_070912 Page 4 of 4 AttachmentA 1 PLANNING FILE 12-008 2 Request by Lincoln Drive Properties, LLC, for approval of a zoning text amendment which would 3 allow academic instruction as a use in commercial zoning districts 4 Vice Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for File 12-008 at approximately 6:37 p.m. 5 Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly summarized the request for a ZONING TEXT CHANGE to allow 6 academic classes to be taught in office settings in addition to more traditional campus settings; as 7 detailed in the Request for Planning Commission Action dated June 2, 2012. 8 Staff recommended approval of the proposed ZONING TEXT CHANGE to Chapters 1001 (Introduction), 9 Chapter 1005 (Commercial and Mixed Use Districts), Chapter 1006 (Employment Districts), 1007 10 (Institutional District), Chapter 1009 (Procedures), and Chapter 1011 (Property Performance Standards) 11 as detailed in Section 7 of the staff report (Attachment A) to facilitate such office-based classes as a use 12 versus other educational facilities. 13 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd reviewed distinctions between uses allowed and those 14 prohibited under current text, explaining that a college’s administrative office functions (e.g., bursar) 15 would be allowed because of its essential office nature even though the office may be owned by or 16 operated for an institutional, college entity. 17 Applicant 18 Brian Humphries, Northwestern College, Associate Vice President of Campus Operations 19 Mr. Humphries reviewed the background of why this building (i.e., 2803 Lincoln Drive), already owned by 20 Northwestern College, had been chosen to house their nursing program. Mr. Humphries noted that the 21 State called for a certain square footage for such a nursing program; and this amount, 7,300 square feet, 22 was available in the 2803 building currently owned by the College, and not currently used at full capacity. 23 Mr. Humphries advised that the first floor of the office building was currently leased out to Edina Realty, 24 with the other floors occupied by the College, mostly for office space. Mr. Humphries opined that this was 25 the logical location for the nursing program; and that no other academic buildings or space on the campus 26 proper was currently available for a program of that size. 27 Bruce Simat, Northwestern College, Biology Department Chair 28 Having helped to start the biology program, and in his eighteen (18) years tenure at Northwestern 29 College, Mr. Simat opined that a nursing program was the next logical step for the College to initiate. Mr. 30 Simat advised that such a program and been discussed for the last decade, and more seriously 31 considered over the last five (5) years. 32 Mr. Simat advised that projections indicated that the program would not be immediately filled to its State- 33 monitored capacity, but could be filled in the future. Mr. Simat noted that it was not the College’s intent to 34 expand the program in an effort to keep the program manageable and of high-quality. Mr. Simat noted 35 that students currently receiving medical education of one nature or another at Northwestern College 36 were known in the industry to be of high quality, with a 90% placement rate for Northwestern College 37 students in medical professions, based on that high quality. 38 From his professional perspective regarding the proposed space itself, Mr. Simat opined that it has the 39 right professional appearance for now; and if and when possible, the program could come back onto the 40 campus proper; however, he advised that this was not anticipated to occur in the near future. 41 At the request of Member Strohmeier, Mr. Humphries advised that the current enrollment at Northwestern 42 College was 1,700 traditional students. 43 At the request of Member Strohmeier regarding projections for how many additional students would be 44 enrolled as a result of adding this nursing program, Mr. Humphries advised that about two (2) classes of 45 twelve (12) students each was anticipated initially; with the maximum as the program grew to be no more 46 than thirty-six (36) for each class, or a maximum total of seventy-two (72) nursing students. 47 At the request of Member Strohmeier regarding the number of additional administrative staff, Mr. 48 Humphries advised that five (5) additional professors were anticipated, but not much support staff, as 49 most of the nursing space would be utilized for simulation labs. 50 At the request of Vice Chair Gisselquist, Mr. Lloyd reviewed parking related to an amended use at this 51 site. Mr. Lloyd advised that staff’s review of the request did not present any parking concerns with the 52 proposed use of the existing facility for simulation/lab space, and no greater traffic or parking generation 53 than a typical office use. Regarding Vice Chair Gisselquist’s comment regarding any potential future use Page1of6 AttachmentA 54 this amendment could allow for a larger campus in this zoning district beyond the Northwestern College 55 use, Mr. Lloyd noted that this office building had more parking per square foot than required for office 56 uses, and more parking per square foot than the Minneapolis Business College (i.e., in the Rosewood 57 Office Building which has not posed any parking issues or concerns. Conceptually, Mr. Lloyd advised that 58 it was anticipated that parking needs with this use would be similar to that of other office space uses. 59 Mr. Humphries advised that no more than twenty-five (25) vehicles would be anticipated daily for students 60 and staff; and further advised that a majority of the students would arrive to the site by campus shuttle. 61 Vice Chair Gisselquist noted that the rationale for his concern regarding parking was based on his 62 observations with the University of St. Thomas that overwhelmed the adjacent residential neighborhood 63 on evenings and/or weekends. However, Vice Chair Gisselquist advised that this use, as well as most 64 other such uses in Roseville didn’t compare to that intensity. 65 City Planner Thomas Paschke concurred, noting that St. Thomas is a campus, and essentially different 66 than this office-based use. 67 Member Strohmeier asked the applicant, as a private college, to highlight some of the benefits or 68 activities on a broader basis that Northwestern College provided to the community beyond a high-quality 69 educational experience. 70 Mr. Simat noted, from a personal perspective, the number of biology majors currently employed by ACR 71 Homes and student interning and experiences serving as PCA’s as part of their education. Mr. Simat also 72 reviewed other facilities where his students were working in the community, as well as at Presbyterian 73 Homes’ Eagle Crest and the MN Zoo. Within his realm as a pre-med advisory, Mr. Simat advised that all 74 of his 75-100 students were doing something within the community; and also noted that this was required 75 on their individual resumes as well as to confirm that this was their career choice. Mr. Simat noted that 76 ACR loved the students from Northwestern College for their quality, as previously addressed. 77 Public Comments 78 Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane 79 Mr. Grefenberg advised that he was speaking for himself and not as a representative of SWARN; and 80 expressed his concerns about the continual expansion of Northwestern College off their campus and their 81 ever-increasing number of students. As an example, Mr. Grefenberg noted the student dormitories on the 82 east side of Snelling Avenue in an area zoned residential; the KTIS radio station replacing a property-tax 83 paying automobile agency; and now this additional expansion. 84 From another perspective, Mr. Grefenberg noted Northwestern College’s position of open opposition to 85 the gay and lesbian community. 86 Mr. Grefenberg expressed concern about the continual increase in traffic and demand for public services 87 of Northwestern College; and expansion into areas that the City’s Comprehensive Plan didn’t envision; 88 opining that this issue is more significant than a Zoning Text Amendment. Mr. Grefenberg expressed 89 further concern in his perception that the Planning Commission considered the Comprehensive Plan was 90 an element without legal authority. However, Mr. Grefenberg noted that the City Council had recently had 91 a second opinion on that as it related specifically to the Wal-Mart proposal before that body. 92 Mr. Grefenberg advised that he had an opportunity to discuss his concerns with Mr. Lloyd prior to 93 tonight’s meeting, and his concerns about parking had been reassured by Mr. Lloyd. However, Mr. 94 Grefenberg noted that he had remaining concerns with Roseville citizens being continually asked to pay 95 for these services provided for a tax exempt institution. While recognizing the intent of that exemption, 96 and not under scrutiny for tonight’s request, Mr. Grefenberg referenced language of Attachment A to the 97 staff report (page 3, Item 3.b) that appears to eliminate the need or prevent the City from asking for a City 98 Council-approved campus Master Plan for expansion of Northwestern College. Mr. Grefenberg noted the 99 expansion having taken place over the last decade as the College campus continues to expand within the 100 community, with a corresponding and increased demand for services. 101 Mr. Grefenberg questioned what steps had been taken for payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT). Mr. 102 Grefenberg expressed further concern with making this a permitted use rather than a Conditional Use; 103 opining that the City may find itself with another expansion of a tax-exempt entity using this Text 104 Amendment. From his motivation, Mr. Grefenberg expressed his realization that this seemed to create a 105 backdoor to change the Comprehensive Plan yet again. 106 Mr. Paschke asked Mr. Grefenberg which portion of the Comprehensive Plan he was referring to. Page2of6 AttachmentA 107 Mr. Grefenberg advised that he was referencing District 10 of the Comprehensive Plan and the definition 108 of Community Business. 109 Mr. Paschke asked whether the definition specifically stated “no educational use.” Mr. Grefenberg opined 110 that there were two (2) areas where the Comprehensive Plan contradicted expansion on this specific site; 111 and expressed further concern about the specific requirement and whether the City’s requirements were 112 being relaxed for the Northwestern College Master Plan under page 2 of Attachment A. 113 Vice Chair Gisselquist asked Mr. Grefenberg to enlighten the Commission on how this proposal would 114 directly violate or violate the spirit of District 10 of the Comprehensive Plan. 115 Mr. Grefenberg stated that he could not do so; and asked that staff enlighten the Commission and him 116 first, since that was what they were paid for. Mr. Grefenberg read a portion of the Comprehensive Plan 117 language, with an Institutional District use approximately ½ mile to the north with boundaries; and under 118 land use, there was no language addressing educational use under Section 10. 119 Vice Chair Gisselquist asked staff to respond to Mr. Grefenberg as to whether there was any obvious 120 violation addressed with the Comprehensive Plan. 121 Mr. Paschke responded that, as a short answer, his response would be “no.” For a broader response to 122 the question, Mr. Paschke noted that the Comprehensive Plan did not list out a litany of uses, since the 123 City’s Zoning Ordinance provided regulation that incorporated the general or broad definitions and goals 124 and policies stated within the Comprehensive Plan. To the extent that those definitions for any one of the 125 Zoning Districts indicated, Mr. Paschke noted that you may or may not find similar uses listed in Zoning 126 District designations. From staff’s perspective, Mr. Paschke advised that staff’s analysis that may be 127 summarized or not even detailed in the staff report, included a thorough review consistent with the written 128 report, indicating that an office use for this nursing program or some other form of office-based 129 educational use was permitted in an office space. Mr. Paschke opined that such a use seemed to be 130 similar to those uses currently supported under that District and under different Comprehensive Plan 131 designations. 132 Mr. Lloyd concurred; and noted, consistent with his previous conversations with Mr. Grefenberg, that the 133 description of use designation within the Comprehensive Plan didn’t indicate that Institutional uses should 134 be allowed. Mr. Lloyd clarified that Zoning Code definitions leaned toward post-secondary educational 135 campus institutions; however, office space like this proposed use was more distinct from that campus 136 institution. Setting aside the not-for-profit nature of this particular educational entity that Mr. Lloyd opined 137 was beside the point, since he thinks that the Minneapolis Business College and/or National American 138 University may both be for-profit institutions, but still considered to be teaching, rather than a more 139 institutional feeling similar to that of a college campus. Since this is not a campus, and doesn’t appear to 140 be an institutional use infiltrating a business district, which he took to be of concern to some 141 Commissioners and Mr. Grefenberg, Mr. Lloyd opined that the office environment and activity proposed 142 were distinct from an institutional or campus use. 143 Mr. Grefenberg referenced pages 4-8 of the Comprehensive Plan and definition of “Community 144 Business;” and examples provided of what was included. Mr. Grefenberg noted that this section also 145 stated, it would encourage access and traffic management, when those areas were located on A-minor 146 augmenters or relievers as defined in the Transportation Plan. Mr. Grefenberg questioned if this use met 147 that requirement. 148 Mr. Paschke responded that he was unable to answer that particular question of Mr. Grefenberg. 149 Mr. Grefenberg expressed appreciation that shuttle service would be provided, since the Comprehensive 150 Plan indicated a strong orientation to pedestrian and bicycle access. While reassured by staff related to 151 his concerns with parking, Mr. Grefenberg noted that he remained concerned that this proposed use and 152 Text Amendment was a significant departure from the Comprehensive Plan; and without a satisfactory 153 answer to his questions, why waste time doing a Comprehensive Plan at all. 154 Mr. Grefenberg opined that this issue had come up before; and further opined that the City apparently 155 wasn’t learning from past mistakes. While recognizing that the Commission may not be prepared to 156 respond to his questions as a citizen or those of the volunteer Commission, at tonight’s meeting, he 157 stated that he would like some answers. Mr. Grefenberg advised that his remaining questions were: 1) 158 clarifying the clear distinction between a campus setting and non-educational land use; 2) whether there 159 was some way that the Planning Division and Planning Commission could collaboratively work with Page3of6 AttachmentA 160 Northwestern College to determine the extent of their future expansion needs to addressed their 161 increased need for services and demand on the City’s infrastructure. 162 Mr. Paschke advised that Northwestern College had a Master Plan that outlined those details, and if not 163 available online, suggested that Mr. Grefenberg request a copy from the College. 164 Mr. Grefenberg advised that he had looked for such a Master Plan on the College website; however, he 165 was unable to find anything outside the campus, with the Master Plan apparently focused on the 166 College’s purpose, goals and mission, but not addressing the physical plant itself. 167 Member Boguszewski asked the applicant to verify that they had no intent to make any physical 168 modification to the building or site, or access points; and that this request simply allowed for changes in 169 the function of some of the rooms within the existing building. 170 Mr. Lloyd verified that intent, with concurrence by the applicant. 171 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Humphries addressed current uses or tenants in the building, 172 stating that the first floor was currently leased to Edina Realty; with the other two (2) floors used by 173 Northwestern College employees as offices and conference rooms. 174 Member Boguszewski, based on the applicant representative’s response, noted that this use would not 175 be much different from its current use, with all activities occurring in a building that already existed and 176 rooms within it for a new, but different function. Member Boguszewski observed that this should then in 177 no way materially or negatively affect traffic. 178 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Humphries advised that, while he was unsure of the number 179 of employees currently occupying the Edina Realty space on a daily basis, there were twenty-five (25) 180 Northwestern College employees on the site. 181 Dr. Ginger Wolgemuth, Northwestern College, Nursing Department Chair 182 Ms. Wolgemuth advised that there would be no increase from current to future employees or students on 183 that site, as most of the students throughout the day would be based at agencies and/or clinics around 184 the metropolitan area. Ms. Wolgemuth further noted that the number of students per square foot was 185 stringently calculated and enforced by the State for average space per student. 186 Member Boguszewski verified with the applicant that the number of people on site in the future may 187 actually be less than currently found, since the students would be involved in simulation labs using hands- 188 on equipment; and that the site would not be used as a campus dormitory, lecture hall or classroom use, 189 but more one-on-one personal labs. 190 Ms. Wolgemuth concurred with Member Boguszewski’s assessment; further noting that the State Board 191 of Nursing requirements were for a 1/8 ratio for clinical and labs, meaning one (1) professor per eight (8) 192 students. 193 Member Olsen asked if there were any tax implications to the City with Edina Realty leaving the space 194 versus this proposed school use. Member Olsen questioned if the school, as a non-profit entity, was 195 paying taxes on this building. 196 Mr. Paschke advised that the building, currently owned by Northwestern College, or any owners of any 197 other office buildings for that matter, could have multiple tenants coming and going freely without having 198 to pay property tax. Mr. Paschke clarified that property taxes were borne by the property owner, and a 199 tenant’s lease was negotiated to cover those costs. From his personal perspective, Mr. Paschke was 200 unable to confirm or deny that this particular site was a property tax payer. 201 Member Olsen opined that this was an important question relative to the use of space; whether this would 202 detrimentally impact the City’s tax base. 203 Member Boguszewski clarified that the ownership of the building was not changing, and if Edina Realty 204 left as a tenant, whether or not their lease covered the cost of any taxes, nothing else was changing with 205 the proposed use. Member Boguszewski noted that, if a non-profit entity used space for its own purposes, 206 and paid nothing for a tax obligation, this proposed use didn’t change their tax status; and opined that 207 either way, it didn’t matter respective to this discussion. 208 Vice Chair Gisselquist concurred with Member Boguszewski’s comments. 209 Mr. Paschke reminded Commissioners that property taxes were not a zoning issue and they were not a 210 function of the Planning Commission or of the City’s Zoning Code. Mr. Paschke stated that such a Page4of6 AttachmentA 211 broader discussion could be held at the City Council level for them to set a policy in their Zoning 212 Ordinance. Mr. Paschke noted that non-profits come and go; the building could exchange hands; it could 213 be on or off the tax rolls; but any or all of those situations were not related to zoning. Mr. Paschke 214 recognized the overall implications of tax burdens; however, reiterated that the broader issue would not 215 be solidified through zoning, or who owned the building or who paid or didn’t pay taxes. With all due 216 respect, Mr. Paschke reiterated that this was not a concern of the Planning Commission related to this 217 specific request. 218 Member Strohmeier, respectful of Mr. Paschke note of caution; opined that the Commission was being 219 asked to turn around zoning for this applicant, a non-profit, to buy an office building and remove it from 220 the tax rolls. By adding this use, Member Strohmeier concurred that there would be no change to that 221 status; however, the Commission would be opening up the City for a similar use in the community allowed 222 more specifically in the Zoning Ordinance. 223 Vice Chair Gisselquist and Mr. Paschke in turn reminded Commissioners that Northwestern College 224 already owned this building, and was not purchasing it. 225 Member Boguszewski, respecting Mr. Grefenberg’s concerns, opined that they didn’t apply; since those 226 concerns were related to something changing the function of those occupying the space, while this 227 request didn’t change anything about the character or nature of an activity already occurring. 228 Member Boguszewski opined that the request was for a similar use to that already occurring on site, with 229 no one raising any concern or contention that the current use was in violation of the Comprehensive Plan 230 or nature of what use could happen there; and further opined that therefore, this proposed use should not 231 raise any concerns either. Member Boguszewski opined that this use was not in violation of or not in the 232 spirit of the Comprehensive Plan. While it may not address Mr. Grefenberg’s concerns about the 233 Comprehensive Plan or if the City Council or other bodies were ignoring parts of that Plan in their 234 deliberations, Member Boguszewski offered his support of the proposed use and Text Amendment. 235 Member Olsen opined that this was a change from office space to teaching, essentially expanding the 236 campus, and whether good, bad or indifferent, it still represented a change and raised questions, as 237 expressed by Mr. Grefenberg, in expansion of the Northwestern College campus. From that perspective, 238 and true intended use as a teaching space, not another office space, Member Olsen opined that the use 239 was new and different. 240 At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Humphries advised that the College could not afford to build 241 additional facilities on their campus proper. While this may be a consideration at some future point, and 242 allowed under the College’s footprint for their Planned Unit Development (PUD), Mr. Humphries 243 confirmed that the College didn’t have the available resources to proceed with a new facility on campus at 244 this time, thus their request for this option. 245 Member Cunningham noted that here areas of most concern were in the campus appearing to spill out 246 into the community, affecting residents and businesses in those areas. However, Member Cunningham 247 advised that she would probably support this request; but hoped that the City Council considered those 248 implications as well during their deliberations. 249 Vice Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing for File 12-008 at approximately 7:19 p.m. 250 MOTION 251 Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Lester to recommend to the City Council 252 APPROVAL OF THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT for Lincoln Drive Properties, LLC, a property 253 management subsidiary of Northwestern College, to allow academic classes to be taught in office 254 settings in addition to more traditional campus settings; based on the comments and findings of 255 Sections 4-6 and the recommendations of Section 7 of the staff report dated June 6, 2012. 256 Member Strohmeier opined that this request put people on edge as it was essentially Northwestern 257 College expanding again; and noted the rocky past and controversial issues in the past as well. While not 258 sure of his feelings, Member Strohmeier opined that some of the questions raised needed to be 259 addressed at the City Council level and urged them to flag those issues (e.g. property tax roll status and 260 impacts). Despite the opinions expressed by Member Boguszewski, Member Strohmeier opined that this 261 was a change, and with the location of the building adjacent to Eagle Crest with many seniors walking on 262 Lincoln Drive to parks and shopping, it created concerns. Member Strohmeier advised that he had heard 263 residents from that facility, as well as in the area, express their grave concerns with the continued 264 expansion of Northwestern College and the multiple and negative impacts of the expansion. Member Page5of6 AttachmentA 265 Strohmeier opined that the traffic issue should be looked at more closely by staff prior to their 266 presentation to the City Council, specific to County Road C-2 and Lincoln Drive, as well as in the general 267 area, given the uniqueness of that road. 268 Member Strohmeier stated that he would support this request, given his recognition of the critical need for 269 nurses; however, he admonished that the College needed to be a good partner with the City of Roseville; 270 and should not expand without community input. 271 Mr. Paschke asked Member Strohmeier if the use, a nursing school, wasn’t associated or affiliated with 272 Northwestern College, would he still have the same issues or concerns. 273 Member Strohmeier responded “yes,” with his concerns mostly related to traffic. 274 Mr. Paschke asked that the Commission as a whole consider this use specific to a building they already 275 own, and not associated with campus expansion. Mr. Paschke clarified that, in theory, the College had 276 already expanded off-site as owner of the building in question, and the request was whether the building 277 could be used as a nursing school. Mr. Paschke suggested that the Commission keep some separation 278 between the College and the use itself when considering this and other requests from a broader sense. 279 While recognizing the concerns about the campus expanding, Mr. Paschke questioned if this request 280 rises to that level of consideration for additional off-site expansion. 281 Member Lester noted that when this particular building was constructed, roads, access, parking, and 282 square footage were all in reality addressed at that time for the structure. Member Lester opined that the 283 only consideration by the Commission was related to the internal use of an existing building. 284 Mr. Paschke concurred with Member Lester’s observation. 285 To further address Member Strohmeier’s concerns with traffic, Mr. Paschke agreed that higher education 286 facilities create concern for increasing traffic; however, he opined that this type of use occupying an 287 existing building did not. Mr. Paschke noted that, as part of staff’s analysis of the request, consideration 288 was given to whether the proposed use was an appropriate fit in a given area or building; whether there 289 would be any dramatic increase in traffic or whether the existing roads could support it. As part of staff’s 290 overall review, as always but not necessarily detailed in the staff report, Mr. Paschke noted that staff’s 291 experience indicated office buildings generate more traffic and staff had all agreed that the proposed 292 classroom use would generate similar numbers. Even if the building was to be completely used for higher 293 education, Mr. Paschke advised that he was not sure if there would be any detrimental impact on traffic. 294 Mr. Paschke assured Commissioners that staff internally reviewed each application based on a broad 295 array of topics as outlined in City Code; and attempted to apply that Code consistently for any and all 296 applications under review. 297 Member Strohmeier clarified with the applicant that shuttle service would be provided, and thanked the 298 applicant for that service; opining that that was actually part of his rationale in supporting the request. 299 However, Member Strohmeier continued to be concerned with traffic, especially for seniors walking in that 300 area, and reiterated his request that those concerns be flagged or City Council consideration. 301 Vice Chair Gisselquist stated that he would support the request; and opined that, from his perspective; he 302 had appreciated the discussion, finding the proposed use good and instructive in finding out the intent of 303 Northwestern College for this site. From his personal perspective, Vice Chair Gisselquist opined that 304 Northwestern College had proven to be a good partner with the City; and further opined that this use was 305 appropriate; and welcomed those involved in that use and overall benefits to Roseville and the broader 306 community to allow this type of nursing instruction. Vice Chair Gisselquist opined that his only concern 307 was who else may take advantage of the proposed Zoning Text Amendment and Zoning Code that could 308 prove not to be a positive result. Vice Chair Gisselquist questioned the comment regarding the rocky past 309 or confrontational issues; and opined that this request was reasonable in consideration of the other 310 existing educational uses in Roseville as a model. Vice 311 Chair Gisselquist suggested that, whether there was a fear for further Northwestern College campus 312 expansion, others at the City Council level could address those concerns; but he would support this 313 Zoning Code change. 314 Ayes: 5 315 Nays: 1 (Olsen) 316 Motion carried. 317 Staff advised that anticipated City Council action was scheduled for June 18, 2012. Page6of6 AttachmentB City of Roseville ORDINANCE NO. ________ 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SELECTED TEXT OF SECTIONS 1001 (INTRODUCTION), 1005 2 (COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE DISTRICTS), 1006 (EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS), 1007 3 (INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT), 1009 (PROCEDURES), AND 1011 (PROPERTY PERFORMANCE 4 STANDARDS) OF TITLE 10 “ZONING CODE” OF THE ROSEVILLE CITY CODE 5 THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS: 6 SECTION 1. Purpose: The Roseville City Code is hereby amended to better differentiate campus- and 7 office-based academic activities and to allow and regulate office-based academic land uses more broadly in 8 commercial properties. 9 SECTION 2. Section 1001 is hereby amended as follows: 10 1001.10: Definitions 11 POST-, CAMPUS COLLEGE OR POST SECONDARY SCHOOL: An institution for post-secondary 12 education, public or private, offering courses in general, technical, or religious education, which 13 incorporates operates in buildings owned or leased by the institution for administrative and faculty 14 offices, classrooms, laboratories, chapels, auditoriums, lecture halls, libraries, student and faculty 15 , and/or other related facilities in a centers, athletic facilities, dormitories, fraternities, and sororities 16 campus environment . 17 COLLEGE OR POST-SECONDARY SCHOOL, OFFICE-BASED: An institution for post- 18 secondary education, public or private, offering courses in general, technical, or religious 19 education, which operates in commercial-type buildings, wholly or partially owned or leased by 20 the institution for administrative and faculty offices, classrooms, laboratories, and/or other related 21 facilities. 22 SECTION 3. Section 1005 is hereby amended as follows: 23 Table 1005-1 NB CB RB CMU Standards Office Uses Office P PPP Clinic, medical, dental or optical P P P P Commercial Uses Retail, general and personal service* P P P P Civic and Institutional Uses or , campus College,post-secondary schoolNP NP P P Y College or post-secondary school, office- PPPPY based Community center, library, municipal NP NP P P building Place of assembly P P P P Y School, elementary or secondary NP NP P P Y Theater, performing arts center NP NP P P Y Page1of3 AttachmentB SECTION 4. Section 1006 is hereby amended as follows: 24 Table 1006-1 O/BP I Standards Office and Health Care Uses Office P P Clinic, medical, dental, or optical PNP Hospital C NP Office showroom PP College or post- School of business or trades P CP secondary school, office-based SECTION 5. Section 1007 is hereby amended as follows: 25 Table 1007-2 INST Standards Civic/Institutional or, campus College, post-secondary schoolCY Community centerP Emergency services (police, fire, ambulance)P Government officeP LibraryP Museum, cultural centerP Multi-purpose recreation facility, publicP Place of assemblyPY School, elementary or secondaryP SECTION 6. Section 1009 is hereby amended as follows: 26 1009.02: Conditional Uses 27 D. Specific Standards and Criteria: When approving the conditional uses identified below, all of the 28 additional, specific standards and criteria shall apply. 29 or , Campus 6. College, Post-secondary School: 30 a. A facility established after the effective date of this ordinance shall have vehicular access to a 31 collector or higher classification street. 32 shall to b. A campus master plan may be required. Such plan shall address the management of 33 pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular circulation, relationship to surrounding land uses, and buffering and 34 screening of adjacent uses to mitigate any impacts of a new or expanded/intensified campus. 35 SECTION 7. Section 1011 is hereby amended as follows: 36 1011.12: Additional Standards for Specific Uses in All Districts 37 C. Civic and Institutional Uses: 38 1. Church, Religious Institution: A facility established after the effective date of this ordinance within a 39 predominantly residential or mixed-use area shall have vehicular access to a collector or higher 40 classification street. 41 2. School, Elementary or Secondary: A facility established after the effective date of this ordinance 42 within a predominantly residential or mixed-use area shall have vehicular access to a collector or higher 43 classification street. 44 or 3. College, Post-secondary School: 45 Page2of3 AttachmentB a.An office-based within a A facility established after the effective date of this ordinance 46 Neighborhood Business district, shall have vehicular access to a collector or higher classification street 47 and shall have buffer area screening consistent with Section 1011.03B of this Title . 48 b. for campus facilities A campus master plan, approved by the City Council, may be required for 49 to expansion of existing facilities. The plan shall address the management of pedestrian, bicycle and 50 vehicular circulation, relationship to surrounding land uses, and buffering and screening of adjacent uses 51 a new or expanded/intensified campus to mitigate any impacts of the expansion. 52 4. Theater (Live Performance) Performing Arts Center: A facility established after the effective date of 53 this ordinance shall have vehicular access to a collector or higher classification street. 54 SECTION 8. Effective Date: This ordinance amendment to the Roseville City Code shall take effect 55 upon passage and publication. 56 th Passed this 9 day of July 2012 57 Page3of3 Attachment C City of Roseville ORDINANCE SUMMARY NO. ___ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SELECTED TEXT OF SECTIONS 1001 (INTRODUCTION), 1005 (COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE DISTRICTS), 1006 (EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS), 1007 (INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT), 1009 (PROCEDURES), AND 1011 (PROPERTY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS) OF TITLE 10 “ZONING CODE” OF THE ROSEVILLE CITY CODE The following is the official summary of Ordinance No. ____ approved by the City Council of Roseville on July 9, 2012: The Roseville City Code, Title 10, Zoning Ordinance, has been amended to better differentiate campus- and office-based academic activities and to allow and regulate office-based academic land uses more broadly in commercial properties. A printed copy of the ordinance is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours in the office of the City Manager at the Roseville City Hall, 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113. A copy of the ordinance and summary shall also be posted at the Reference Desk of the Roseville Branch of the Ramsey County Library, 2180 Hamline Avenue North, and on the Internet web page of the City of Roseville (www.ci.roseville.mn.us). Attest: ______________________________________ William J. Malinen, City Manager REQUEST FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS ACTION Date: July 9, 2012 Item No.: BOA Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Receive appeals from Karen Schaffer and from Solidarity of West Area Roseville Neighbors regarding City staff’s administrative decision that Wal-Mart is a permitted use under the zoning code for the property located along County Road C between Prior Ave. and Cleveland Ave. and refer the appeal to the Planning Commission 1.0B ACKGROUND 1 1.1On July 2, 2012, the City Manager received appeals of the administrative decision that the 2 proposed Wal-Mart store along County Road C between Prior Ave. and Cleveland Ave. is a 3 permitted use. The appeals, submitted by Karen Schaffer and by Solidarity of West Area 4 Roseville Neighbors, were prompted by the June 21, 2012 letter from City staff to Wal-Mart 5 Corporation containing the most recent statement of the decision. 6 1.2Appeals of an administrative decision made by the Community Development Department, under 7 Chapter 1009.08, are required to go the City Council acting as the Board of Adjustment and 8 Appeals. 9 2.0SR TAFF ECOMMENDATION 10 th The City Attorney recommends that these appeals be sent to the July 11 Planning Commission 11 meeting for the Commission’s review and recommendation. 12 3.0RBAA EQUESTEDOARD OF DJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS CTION 13 By motion, refer the appeals regarding the administrative decision that the Wal-Mart store 14 proposed along County Road C between Prior Ave. and Cleveland Ave. is a permitted use to the 15 July 11, 2012 Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. 16 Prepared by: Patrick Trudgeon, Community Development Director (651) 792-7071 Attachments: A: Karen Schaffer appeal of the City use determination letter dated June 21, 2012 B: Solidarity of West Area Roseville Neighbors appeal of the City use determination letter dated June 21, 2012 C: Letter dated June 8, 2012 from Sue Steinwall representing Wal-Mart Stores requesting staff make a zoning use determination on the proposed Wal-Mart use. D: Letter dated June 21, 2012 for City Staff affirming that the proposed Wal-Mart store is a permitted use under the Roseville Zoning Code. Page 1 of 1 AttachmentA Page1of2 AttachmentA Page2of2 AttachmentB Administrative Appeal by SWARN (Solidarity of West Area of Roseville Neighbors) Regarding the As to the Compliance of the Wal-Mart proposal with Roseville Policies, Plans, and Zoning Ordinance (Prepared June 30, 2012 for Roseville City Council members and the general public by the Strategies Committee of Solidarity of West Area Roseville Neighbors (SWARN)) I: NTRODUCTION This appeal was drafted by the SWARN Strategies Committee which a steering committee for this Roseville neighborhood association we represent over 67 households in the western area of Roseville Committee members signing this Appeal are a quorum of the commit all property owners residing in Roseville. Below you will find our concerns and issues regarding the propos development and its compliance with City policies and the requir Zoning Ordinance. This appeal was developed by Roseville residents without legal consultation and in words which we hope convey our frustra system which requires residents to appeal a decision by city emp for our elected officials to make a decision which we had naivel only theirs to make. We also submit this appeal in the hope that our elected official as an honest and candid articulation of issues which many reside have not up to now sufficiently considered, explained, or justif We do not speak for all the people of Roseville, we speak for ou members. And we speak from our experience as Roseville resident been engaged in this community, understand that all of us have rights and responsibilities, and that to appeal a staff determination is not to suggest improper motivation or malfeasance on their part. We also recognize, however, that this appeal is in itself recogn process could and should be improved so that future residents do have recourse to legal representation, and can feel confident th and perceptions will be acknowledged, respected, and responded t elected officials and public employees. We regret that it took a letter from a high- powered law firm serving t justification from city staff when similar requests from residen payers went unanswered. SWARN Appeal--July 2, 2012 1 Page1of18 AttachmentB GA: ROUNDS FOR PPEAL 1)Basis for Appeal Includes the Complete Record regarding the Compliance of the Wal-Mart development with City of Roseville Policies, Plans, and Regulations We find it necessary to state that a determination of compliance before the request of Walmart (Attorney Susan Steinwall letter of June 8, 2012) and the response from the Community Development Department dated stst 21.) The June 21 Community Development Letter is just the last of several statements of compliance issued by city staff, and for the recor st therefore restricting ourselves to the June 21 determination signed by Community Development Director Pat Trudgeon and City Planner Tho Paschke. In fact several residents requested a similar explanation as to Wal-Mart proposal was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan st February 1 Planning Commission meeting, but their request was ignored. We are basing our appeal on the various communications to the Co City Attorney beginning with City Attorney Charles Bartholdi let and the reports and recommendations made by staff beginning with th September 26, 2011, Request for Council Action on Approving a Tw Overlay District and continuing throughout this review process, st February 1 public hearing held by the Planning Commission and extending st through the May 21 City Council meeting on the plat subdivision and the public comments offered at that time. , st At the February 1 Planning Commission public hearing several residents 1 presented their concerns that the Planning first analysis failed to present any rationale as to how the Wal-Mart proposal met more than several of the goals and objectives of the Roseville Comprehensive Plan. In fact one resident asked that the Commission send the staff recommendation back to the Community Development Department with the 2 Comprehensive Plan. At that meeting the Planning Staff presented their determination that the Wal- Mart proposal was in compliance with the Roseville Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Note the following statements excerpted from the February 1, 2012, staff 3 report: Planning Division staff believes that the proposed development is consistent wit other citywide, non-transportation- 1 Cr. February 1, 2012, Minutes of the Roseville Planning Commission, including all attachements 2 Remarks of Roseville Resident Gary Grefenberg as distributed to Planning Commission February 1, 2012 3 Staff Report dated SWARN Appeal--July 2, 2012 2 Page2of18 AttachmentB specific goals and policies, and that the proposed development does not appear to be in conflict with any of them. The Comprehensive Plan addresses development of the Twin Lakes area in the greatest detail in its discussion of Planning District 10. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan says that future development in Twin Lakes may include retail uses (although retail uses should not be the primary focus of the redevelopment area), and that development proposals should be evaluated against the zoning regulations, the Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan, the Twin Lakes Alternative Urban Area wide Review, and the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area Design Principles; analysis of the proposed development against these items is provided below. a.TLAUA WIN AKES LTERNATIVE RBANREAWIDE b. TLBPMP WIN AKES USINESSARK ASTER c.ZRTLRAD ONING EGULATIONS AND WIN AKES EDEVELOPMENT REAESIGN PBecause the entire zoning code has been updated over the past couple of years to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, a development that meets the zoning requirements would be, by definition, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. For all of the reasons detailed above, Planning Division staff believes that the proposed development facilitated by disposal of the City-owned land identified on the is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. PRELIMINARY PLAT Theabove statement, namely that the zoning code is supposed to be consistent with the Comp Plan and that if the Wal-Mart proposal meets the zoning requirements it is therefore consistent with the Comp Plan, is more an aspiration than a statement of fact. Such a statement of faith is more appropriate for a forum of shared faith believers than a staff presentation at a public hearing. When this assertion was challenged by several residents at the public hearing, the response ignored their questions by focusing on the subdivision issues. (See referenced Minutes and written comments.) We also find the February 1, 2012, assertion that the Wal-Mart proposal does not appear to be in conflict with any of them, referring to the Comp , not credible. Attached is a highlighted ch clearly demonstrate non-compliance (See Attachment #2). We find it both curious and confusing that this first determination of compliance is now being overshadowed by all the emphasis on the latest determination of compliance issued by the Community Development Department in response to a request from the Wal-attorney.It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Wal-Mart in effect wanted to give the City an opportunity to issue a more SWARN Appeal--July 2, 2012 3 Page3of18 AttachmentB compelling and cogent defense of its February assertion that the Wal-Mart project was in compliance with city policies and regulations. To believe that city staff had not made a determination as to st compliance when the city review process first began well before the June 21 Determination of Compliance letter is to suggest that city staff is incompetent or failed to perform its duties We therefore request that the record for this administrative appeal include the st February 1 Planning Commission minutes, the written communications submitted by residents at that time, and the staff recommendation to the Planning Commission. 2) Zoning Ordinance is in Conflict with Comprehensive Plan The city staff determination avoids one key conflict with the a) Comprehensive Plan: This district is Community Mixed-Use, which is described in the Comprehensive Plan in Chapter 4 on Land Useas - and High-Density Residential, Office, Community Business, Institutional, and Parks and Open Wal-Mart does not qualify as a (page 4-8). In our view, community business, but rather as a regional business which is defined in the Comp Plan as-format stores [that] are located in places with visibility and access from the regional highway system (page 4-8). According to a legal counsel letter from city attorney Charles Bartholdi b) dated December 9,2011, Bill Malinen, the Comprehensive Plan is in conflict with the Zoning Ordinance with respect to allowing a Regional Business to develop in the Community Mixed-Use (CMU) district, and that, he indicates, is problematic and ought to be changed: i.Regional Business use is allowed in a Community Mixed-Use District under the Zoning Code, there is an apparent conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning st (page 3, 1 paragraph). ii. Additionally, the lawyer advises that t in the event of a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and the nd (page 3, 2 paragraph). iii. And finally, the city attorney concludes that to the extent the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code may SWARN Appeal--July 2, 2012 4 Page4of18 AttachmentB rd (page 3, 3 paragrap h). 3) The Wal- Plan in the following additional ways ( see chapter 4 on District 10: Twin Lakes): a.W.®  ££¨³¨®­ « ¢®¬¬¤±¢¨ «±¤³ ¨« £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ®¥ ³§¨² ²¢ «¤ (¨­ ±¤¥¤±¤­¢¤ ³® 2®²¤£ «¤ 3°´ ±¤  ­£ 2®²¤µ¨««¤ #±®²²¨­¦²) ¨² ¯« ­­¤£ ¥®± $¨²³±¨¢³ ”“W (page 4-23). The zoning ordinance fails to take this into account by not . prohibiting large-scale retail business W4¶¨­ , ª¤² ²§®´«£ ­®³ ¡¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¤£ ¶¨³§ ²§®¯¯¨­¦  ² ³§¤ ¯±¨¬ ±¸ b. (page 4-23).The zoning ordinance fails to take this into account by not prohibiting limiting retail business in this area. "4§¤ £¤²¨±¤ ³® § µ¤ ¤¬¯«®¸¬¤­³  ² ³§¤ ¯±¨¬ ±¸ ®±¨¤­³ ³¨®­ ®¥ ¥´³´ c. This proposal is retail oriented, not employment. d. Additional conflicts with the Economic Development Goals and Objectives are listed on Attachment #2 of this appeal. 4) The Zoning Ordinance is in Conflict with the Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan It appears the Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan also guides development : a in this area because) the Comprehensive Plan states:The City intends to rely on the following official controls and environmental studies to guide land use and to (¯ ¦¤ “‘’)ÿ b and) city staff indicated in their report from just last fall (dated 9/12/11) for the Request to approve the Twin Lakes Sub-Area 1 Regulating Plan for City Council that The City will continue to follow the 2001 Twin Lakes Business The Wal-Mart proposal is incompatible with the Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan (see Section V on Proposed Land Use) in the following ways: 1. The proposed future land use is 0% retail (see page 9). The plan was, in fact, withdrawn from review by Met Council when asked to provide additional information regarding retail traffic and its impacts on 35W because there will not be retail in the area (section II, page 2). SWARN Appeal--July 2, 2012 5 Page5of18 AttachmentB Big box retail is not recommended 2. because of the following elements (see page 11), all of which are going to be an issue for Roseville if and when this Wal-Mart is built: i. Increased level of traffic ii. Longer hours of operation (this would be 24/7) iii. Reduce quality and quantity of jobs created 1. Lower value of building finish 2. Large parking lots required due to parking demands 3. Section XIV on Land Use and Zoning states (see page 20):Retail is not encouraged especially large scale regional and subregional big box developments.The City has adopted a policy of not expanding retail area. In addition, the City policy for redevelopment is to attract head-of- 4. In addition, the AUAR which governs this development and which formed the basis of the Traffic Impact Analysis, did not take into account this scale of development. At the time the AUAR was finalized in 2007 (and the Twin Lakes BP Master Plan was finalized in 2001), this land was considered Business Park district. Currently, BPD requires general retail sale to adhere to Standards (see Table 1006-1 of Allowable Uses for Employment Districts) which provide additional protections to the city. This is no longer the case, and therefore the AUAR, based on a set of assumptions set forth in the zoning, becomes less relevant to this development proposal. 5) The Most Recent Staff Determination of Compliance Fundamentally Misunderstands the Role of the Roseville Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan and its Land Use chapter is not a vision statement, as articulated in the June 21st Staff Determination (page 6); but a guide for uture development and a blueprint for the development of a Zoning Ordinance. City staff argue in their June 21st Determination letter (under Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations)thats are general 4 developments.That is not the language which was used by city staff when the Comp Plan was first drafted by city staff and reviewed and revised by the Steering Committee. In fact, the vision statement element was found in the previous community engagement process of Imagine Roseville 2025. 4 SWARN Appeal--July 2, 2012 6 Page6of18 AttachmentB The staff spin at thetime the Comprehensive Plan was being formulated was that this would be a compact between the residents of Roseville and its city government,, This is the message most Roseville residents who participated in the public process resulting in the Comprehensive Plan heard at the time of the recollection reiterated in the testimony of several residents at the May 21st City Council discussion on the plat division. To argue that the Comprehensive Plan does not prohibit Big Box Retail and thus the Wal-Mart development is consistent with the Plan is a reductio adabsurdum argument, as if every prohibited use needs to be specifically cited. That has never been the criteria for previous decisions by the City acting as a zoning authority, and so its use as a justification in this case is spurious. The Comp Plan is provides guidance for future development. It is intended to lay out the goals and objectives for future land use which the Zoning Code then is instructed by state law to codify. The very first two paragraphs of the 2030 Comp Plan state its purpose as follows: The Comp Plan must reflect the land use described in the Comp Plan. The legal codification of Comp Plan was the blueprint for the Zoning Code development, and not a The zoning ordinance is clearly an official control, and we also question whether the Financial Agreement for this development is not a fiscal device. SWARN Appeal--July 2, 2012 7 Page7of18 AttachmentB describes this relationship between the Comp Plan and Zoning in its Intent and Purpose provision (1001.03). as follows: This Title shall divide the City into districts and establish re regard to land and the buildings thereon. These regulations are established to: A. Protect and to promote the public health, safety, peace, comf convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the community an its people through the establishment of minimum regulations governing land development and use; B. Protect and enhance the character, stability, and vitality of residential neighborhoods as well as commercial areas; C. Promote orderly development and redevelopment; D. Assist in the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. (Emphasis Added) E. Foster a harmonious, workable relationship among land uses; F. Promote the stability of existing land uses that conform with t Comprehensive Plan and to protect them from inharmonious influences and harmful intrusions; G. Insure that public and private lands ultimately are used for purposes which are most appropriate and most beneficial for the City as a whole; Note that these Code provision above (subdivision A) describes its regulations in minimum terms of meeting requirements; it does not describe its provisions in terms indicating that anything not prohibited is therefore allowed. This Code provision subdivision G most appropriate and most beneficial for the City as a whole) in language which clearly allows some discretionary judgment to elected officials. In addition the Code in subdivision D also clearly speaks to the relationship between itself and the Comprehensive Plan. Risking oversimplification, the Comp Plan Speaks and the Zoning Implements. If the zoning ordinance does not adequately reflect the Comp Plan then the Zoning Ordinance is defective in those aspects wherein such inadequateness is found. And pursuant toMinnesota Statutes 473.864, subdivision 2,a local government unit shall not adopt any fiscal device or official control which is in conflict with its comprehensive plan. st City staff agrees with this assessment. In the June 21 Determination city staff state the following on page 5: The City Attorney has advised staff that to the extent that a zoning code is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, the zoning code should be amended to reflect the SWARN Appeal--July 2, 2012 8 Page8of18 AttachmentB comprehensive plan. Therefore staff has prepared an analysis reviewing the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. City staff concludes in its latest determination of compliance, however,with the following statement with which we respectfully and vigorously disagree. s that the Roseville Zoning Code is consistent with Comprehensive Plan and therefore the regulations within the Zoning Code are enforceable 6) The existing Zoning Ordinance allows rejection of Wal-Mart According to our reading, this proposal is not permitted in our current zoning and should not have been approved by city planning staff. This district is Community Mixed-Use, which is described in the Comprehensive Plan in Chapter 4 on Land Use as, - and High-Density (page 4-8). Note that there is absolutely no reference to retail uses. If one assumes the current staff criteria that it is permitted since retail is not specifically prohibited, then rationally heavy industrial and mining would also be allowed. , In our view, Wal-Mart does not qualify as a community businessbut rather as a regional business. Regional business, according to the Comp Plan, includes -format stores [and] is located in places with visibility and access (page 4-8). The Target store location is situated in a land-use designated Regional Business. There was an effort made during the Comprehensive Plan update several years ago to designate the area Community Business, but several council members, staff, and the Planning Commission insisted that its land use category fit the regional nature of this big-box retailer. Itis noteworthy that this comparison is no longer being made by those who insisted on this land use designation but are now arguing that Wal-Mart is a community business use. The current zoning ordinance allows some discretion to the City the question of approving plats. Section 1017.23 entitled Subdiv Provisions states under subdivision B the following: SWARN Appeal--July 2, 2012 9 Page9of18 AttachmentB Signed: SWARN - Strategies Committee Mark Bradley 1851 Shryer Ave Roseville, MN 55113 Megan Dushin 2249 St. Stephens Roseville, MN 55113 Sue Gilbertson 2000 Cleveland Ave. Roseville MN 55113 Gary Grefenberg 91 Mid Oaks Lane Roseville, MN 55113 Dave Nelson 2280 Highway 26 W Roseville, MN 55113 Attachments: May 21, 2012, written SWARN statement to the City Council February 1. 2012. Compilation of Economic Development Chapter with the Marl-Wart development SWARN Appeal--July 2, 2012 10 Page10of18 AttachmentB ATTACHMENTS To SWARN Administrative Appeal Solidarity of West Area Roseville Neighbors SWARN A#1: TTACHMENT Concerns Re: Proposed Wal-Mart Development And legal reasons to vote No Monday May 21 on Agenda Item 12b Prepared May 19, 2012 for Roseville City Council members and the general public by members of Solidarity of West Area Roseville Neighbors (SWARN). We represent over 67 households in the city of Roseville. Below you will find our concerns regarding the proposed preliminary plat: 4) 4§¤ -. ,¤ ¦´¤ ®¥ #¨³¨¤² ²³  ±¤¥¤±¤­¢¤£  ±¤  ¬ ²³¤± ¯« ­ ¦´¨£¤ ¹®­¨­¦  ­£ ²´¡£¨µ¨²¨®­ ®±£¨­ ­ 5 (®¶¤µ¤±þ ¨²²´¤² ¢®­¢¤±­¨­¦ ³§¤ #®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ 0« ­ ( ­£  ±¤  4¶¨­ , ª¤² - ²³¤± 0« ­)  ±¤ ­®³ ¢®­²¨£¤±¤£ £¤¢¨²¨®­þ  ¢¢®±£¨­¦ ³® ³§¤ ²³ ¥¥ ±¤¯®±³þ   ¢®­¢«´²¨®­ ¶¨³§ ¶§¨¢§ ­®³  ¦±¤¤ 5) 4§¤ $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ !¦±¤¤¬¤­³ ¯´³² ³§¤ #¨³¸ ¨­ ³§¤ ¯®²¨³¨®­ ®¥ subsidizing 7 «- ±³ ³® ³§¤ ³´­¤ ®¥ a• ¬¨««¨®­ 4§¤ :®­¨­¦ /±£¨­ ­¢¤ £®¤² ­®³ ±¤¥«¤¢³ ³§¤ #®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ 0« ­ or ³§¤ 4¶¨­ , ª¤² - ²³¤± 0« ­  ­£ ²® ¨³ ­¤¤£² ³® ¡¤ ¢§ ­¦¤£ 7 «- ±³ ²§®´«£ ­®³ ¡¤ ¢®­²¨£¤±¤--­®± £® ¶¤ ¡¤«¨¤µ¤ ³§¤ ¢¨³¨¹¤­² ®¥ 2®²¤µ¨««¤--¢®­²¨£¤± 7 «- ±³   ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¡ ²¤£ ¡´²¨­¤²² -¨ª¤ '±¤¦®±¸ ¶¨«« ²´¬¬ ±¨¹¤   ²¤±¨¤² ®¥ ´­¡¨ ²¤£  ¢ £¤¬¨¢ ²³´£¨¤ £¤¬®­²³± ³¤ ³§¤ ¤¢®­®¬¨¢  ­£ ²®¢¨ « ¨¬¯ ¢³²   £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ²´¢§   - ±³ § ² ®­ ¨³² §®²³ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ 4§¤²¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³² ¢®­³± £¨¢³ ³§¤ #®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ 0« ­  ­£ 4¶¨­ , ª¤² - ²³¤± 0« ­² ¥®± 2®²¤µ¨««¤ 5 According to the Handbook for Minnesota Cities, current development in administering its zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance.The city environmental features, and character. Finally, the city zoning ordinance regulates the use and SWARN Appeal--July 2, 2012 11 Page11of18 AttachmentB We need systemically to explore our current zoning process and consider the need for PUD or other changes to allow our elected officials to make these decisions that are in the best interests of the residents of Roseville. 6) ,®¢ « ¤·¯¤±¨¤­¢¤ ¶¨³§ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤£ £¤¬ ­£ ¥®± 0®«¨¢¤ ²¤±µ¨¢¤² ±¤°´¨ 7 «- ±³ ¢®¬¯ ±¤£ ³®  ­®³§¤± "¨¦ "®· ±¤³ ¨«¤± (£ ³  ¯±¤²¤­³¤£ ®­ ®µ¤±§¤ £ ¨­£¨¢ ³¨­¦ 7 «- ±³ ¨­ 6 £­ ¨² (¤¨¦§³² § £ — ³¨¬¤² ³§¤ ¢ ««² ³§ ­ 4 ±¦¤³ ¨­ ³§¤ ² ¬¤  ±¤   ­£ ­®³¤² ¥±®¬   ¢®­µ¤±² ³¨®­ 2®²¤µ¨««¤ ¯®«¨¢¤ £¤¯ ±³¬¤­³ ±¤¦ ±£¨­¦ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ ¨­ ¢ ««²  ­£ £®«« ¥®±  ££¨³¨®­ « ¯®«¨¢¤ ³® ¬®­¨³®± ³§¤  ±¤ ) 7) 4§¤ #®´­¢¨« ¢«¤ ±«¸ § ² ³§¤  ´³§®±¨³¸ ´­£¤± #¨³¸ #®£¤ ’ ³ ³§¨² ¯±®¯®²¤£ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ 1001.03: Intent and Purpose This Title shall divide the City into districts and establish regulations in regard to land and the buildings thereon. These regulations are established to: A. Protect and to promote the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the community and its people through the establishment of minimum regulations governing land development and use; B. Protect and enhance the character, stability, and vitality of residential neighborhoods as well as commercial areas; C. Promote orderly development and redevelopment; D. Assist in the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan; 8) 4§¤ #®´­¢¨«  «²® § ² ³§¤  ¡¨«¨³¸ ´­£¤± ³§¤ 0« ³³¨­¦ #®£¤ ·š ©;¨Òz©; -w“m;­ “;-;­­©ä Eš© ·w; w;Œ·wr ­E;·är m;“;©Œ Þ;ŒE©; “7 -š“Ý;“z;“-; šE ·w; /z·ä 9) !¢¢®±£¨­¦ ³® ®´± ±¤ £¨­¦þ ³§¨² ¯±®¯®² « ¨² ­®³ ¯¤±¬¨³³¤£ ¨­ ®´± ¹®­¨­¦  ­£ ²§®´«£ ­®³ § µ¤ ¡¤¤­  ¯¯±®µ¤£ ¡¸ ¢¨³¸ ¯« ­­¨­¦ ²³ ¥¥ £¨²³±¨¢³ ¨² #®¬¬´­¨³¸ -¨·¤£5²¤þ ¶§¨¢§ ¨² £¤²¢±¨¡¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ #®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ 0« ­ ¨­ #§ ¯³¤± “ ®­ , ­£ 5²¤  ²þ ,³§ ³- ¬ ¸ ¨­¢«´£¤ -¤£¨´¬  ­£ (¨¦§$¤­²¨³¸ 2¤²¨£¤­³¨ «þ /¥¥¨¢¤þ #®¬¬´­¨³¸ "´²¨­¤²²þ )­²³¨³´³¨®­ «þ  ­£ 0 ±ª²  ­£ /¯¤­ 3¯ ¢¤ ´²¤² (¯ ¦¤ “8) )­ ®´± µ¨¤¶þ 7 «- ±³ £®¤² ­®³ °´ «¨¥¸  ²   ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¡´²¨­¤²²þ ¡´³ ± ³§¤±  ²   ±¤¦¨®­ « ¡´²¨­¤²² 2¤¦¨®­ « ¡´²¨­¤²²þ  ¢¢®±£¨­¦ ¥®±¬ ³ ²³®±¤² , ­£-  ±¤ «®¢ ³¤£ ¨­ ¯« ¢¤² ¶¨³§ µ¨²¨¡¨«¨³¸  ­£  ¢¢¤²² ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ±¤¦¨®­ « —) SWARN Appeal--July 2, 2012 12 Page12of18 AttachmentB 10) 4§¨² ¯±®¯®² « ¨² ¨­¢®#®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ 0« ­ ¨­ ³§¤ ¥®««®¶¨­¦  ££¨³¨®­ « ¶ ¸² (²¤¤ ¢§ ¯³¤± “ ®­ $¨²³±¨¢³  , ª¤²) e.S.®  ££¨³¨®­ « ¢®¬¬¤±¢¨ «±¤³ ¨« £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ®¥ ³§¨² ²¢ «¤ (¨­ ±¤¥¤±¤­¢¤ ³® 2®²¤£ «¤ 3°´ ±¤  ­£ 2®²¤µ¨««¤ #±®²²¨­¦²) ¨² ¯« ­­¤£ Di²³±¨¢³ S (¯ ¦¤ “‘’) 4§¤ ¹®­¨­¦ ®±£¨­ ­¢¤ ¥ ¨«² ³® ³ ª¤ ³§¨² ¨­³®  ¢¢®´­³ ¡¸ ­®³ ¯±®§¨¡¨³¨­¦ « ±¦¤²¢ «¤ ±¤³ ¨« ¡´²¨­¤²² f.S4¶¨­ , ª¤² ²§®´«£ ­®³ ¡¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¤£ ¶¨³§ ²§®¯¯¨­¦  ² ³§¤ ¯±¨¬ ±¸ ‘’) 4§¤ ¹®­¨­¦ ®±£¨­ ­¢¤ ¥ ¨«² ³® ³ ª¤ ³§¨² ¨­³®  ¢¢®´­³ ¡¸ ­®³ ¯±®§¨¡¨³¨­¦ «¨¬¨³¨­¦ ±¤³ ¨« ¡´²¨­¤ ¨­ ³§¨²  ±¤  g.S4§¤ £¤²¨±¤ ³® § µ¤ ¤¬¯«®¸¬¤­³  ² ³§¤ ¯±¨¬ ±¸ ®±¨¤­³ ³¨®­ ®¥ ¥´³ 0 ¦¤ “‘’) 4§¨² ¯±®¯®² « ¨² ±¤³ ¨« ®±¨¤­³¤£þ ­®³ employment. )³  ¯¯¤ ±² ³§¤ 4¶¨­ , ª¤² "´²¨­¤²² 0 ±ª - ²³¤± 0« ­  «²® ¦´¨£¤² £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¨­ ³§¨²  ±¤  h. ³§¤ 4¶¨­ , ª¤² 3´¡ ¶¨«« ¢®­³¨­´¤ ³® ¥®««®¶ ³§¤ ‘ 4¶¨­ , ª¤² "´²¨­¤²² 0 ±ª - ²³¤± i.)­ ³§¤ #®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ 0« ­ (²¤¤ ¢§ ¯³¤± “ ®­ $¨²³±¨¢³  i.4§¤ #¨³¸ ¨­³¤­£² ³® ±¤«¸ ®­ ³§¤ ¥®««®¶¨­¦ ®¥¥¨¢¨ « ¢®­³±®«²  ­£ enµ¨±®­¬¤­³ « ²³´£¨¤² ³® ¦´¨£¤ « ­£ ´²¤  ­£ ³® ¤µ «´ ³¤ ‘’) ii.  ¢§¨¤µ¤£þ   ¬®±¤ £¤³ ¨«¤£ ²¬ «« ±¤  ¯« ­þ ¬ ²³¤± ¯« ­þ  ­£®±  ±¤ ²¯¤¢¨¥¨¢ £¤²¨¦­ ¯±¨­¢¨¯«¤² ¨² ±¤°´¨±¤£ ³® ¦´¨£¤ ¨­£¨µ¨£´ « £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³² ¶¨³§¨­ ³§¤ ®µ¤± «« ¬¨·¤£—) 7¤ ¯±¤²´¬¤ ³§¨² ¬¤ ­² ³§¤ 4¶¨­ , ª¤² "´²¨­¤²² 0 ±ª - ²³¤± 0« ­ '¨µ¤­ ³§ ³ ³§¤ 4¶¨­ , ª¤² "´²¨­¤²² 0 ±ª - ²³¤± 0« ­  ¯¯«¨¤² ³®  ­¸ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¯±®¯®² «² ¨­ ³§¤ £¨²³±¨¢³ ( ² ­®³¤£  ¡®µ¤)ÿ ³§¨² ¯±® inc®¬¯ ³¨¡«¤ ¨­ ³§¤ ¥®««®¶¨­¦ ¶ ¸² j.3¤¢³¨®­ 6 ®­ 0±®¯®²¤£ , ­£ 5²¤ ¨­£¨¢ ³¤² ³§ ³ i.4§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¥´³´±¤ « ­£ ´²¤ ¨² Å ±¤³ ¨« (²¤¤ ¯ ¦¤ ˜)þ ¸¤³ ³§¨² ¯±®¯®² « ¨² ³§¤ ¤¯¨³®¬¤ ®¥ « ±¦¤²¢ «¤ ±¤³ ¨« 4§¤ ¯« ­ ¶ ² ¨­ ¥ ¢³ ¶¨³§£± ¶­ ¥±®¬ ±¤µ¨¤¶ ¡¸ -¤³ #®´­¢¨« ¶§¤­  ²ª¤£ ³® ¯±®µ¨£¤  ££¨³¨®­ « ¨­¥®±¬ ³¨®­ ±¤¦ ±£¨­¦ ±¤³ ¨« ³± ¥¥¨¢  ­£ ¨³² ¨¬¯ ¢³² ®­ ’”7 ¡¤¢ ´²¤ ³§¤±¤ ¶¨«« ­®³ ¡¤ ±¤³ ¨« ¨­ ³§¤  ±¤  (²¤¢³¨®­ ))þ ¯ ¦¤ ‘) SWARN Appeal--July 2, 2012 13 Page13of18 AttachmentB ii."¨¦ ¡®· ±¤³ ¨« ¨² ­®³ ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£¤£ ¡¤¢ ´²¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¥®««®¶¨­¦ ¤«¤¬¤­³² (²¤¤ ¯ ¦¤ )þ  «« ®¥ ¶§¨¢§  ±¤ ¦®¨­¦ ³® ¡¤  ­ ¨²²´¤ ¥® 2®²¤µ¨««¤ ¨¥  ­£ ¶§¤­ ³§¨² 7 «- ±³ ¨² ¡´¨«³ 1.)­¢±¤ ²¤£ «¤µ¤« ®¥ ³± ¥¥¨¢ 2.,®­¦¤± §®´±² ®¥ ®¯¤± ³¨®­ (³§¨² ¶®´«£ ¡¤ ‘“–) 3.2¤£´¢¤ °´ «¨³¸  ­£ °´ ­³¨³¸ ®¥ ©®¡² ¢±¤ ³¤£ 4.,®¶¤± µ «´¤ ®¥ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ¥¨­¨²§ 5., ±¦¤ ¯ ±ª¨­¦ «®³² ±¤°´¨±¤£ £´¤ ³® ¯ ±ª¨­¦ £¤¬ ­£² k.3¤¢³¨®­ 8)6 ®­ , ­£ 5²¤  ­£ :®­¨­¦ ²³ ³¤² Retail is not (see page 20) encouraged especially large scale regional and subregional big b developments.The City has adopted a policy of not expanding retail area. attract head- of-household job opportunities to the City and nearby workforce.Are Wal--of-houMost definitely !­£ not. Was it achieved by zoning this area as a CMU district? l.4¶¨­ , ª¤² "´²¨­¤²² 0 ±ª !5!2 ±¤µ¨²¤£ ¨­ ‘– ¦®µ¤±­² ¬´¢§ ®¥ ³§¨² £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³þ  ­£ ¸¤³ ¨³ ¨² ®´³£ ³¤£ i.4§¤ 4± ¥¥¨¢ )¬¯ ¢³ !­ «¸²¨² ¶ ² ¡ ²¤£ ®­ ³§¤ !5!2 ¶§¨¢§þ  ² ­®³¤£  ¡®µ¤  ­£ ¨­ ³§¤ «¤³³¤± ¥±®¬ -­$/4 ®­ ‘‘“‘ ¶ ² ¡ ²¤£ ®­   «®¶¤± µ®«´¬¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¦¤­¤± ³®± ii.3§®´«£ ­®³ ³§¤ #®´­¢¨«  ¶ ¨³ ³§¤ ­¤¶ !5!2 ±¤°´¨±¤£ ¡¸ /¢³®¡¤± ”þ ‘‘þ ¡¤¥®±¤ ¦¨µ¨­¦ ¥¨­ «  ¯¯±®µ « 7§¸ £® ¨³  ¥³¤± ³§¤ ¥ ¢³ iii.!³ ³§¤ ³¨¬¤ ³§¨² £®¢´¬¤­³ ¶ ² ¥¨­ «¨¹¤£þ ³§¨²  ±¤  ¶ ² ¢®­²¨£¤±¤£ "´²¨­¤²² 0 ±ª £¨²³±¨¢³ (³§´² ³§¤ ³¨³«¤ ®¥ ³§¤ £®¢´¬¤­³)þ ¶§¨¢§  «²® £¨£ ­®³ ¨­³¤­£ ³® ¡¤ ¥®± « ±¦¤²¢ «¤ ±¤³ ¨«þ §®¶¤µ¤± ¨³ § £ ¦±¤ ³¤± ¯±®³¤¢³¨®­² (²¤¤ 4 ¡«¤ • ®¥ !««®¶ ¡«¤ 5²¤² ¥®± %¬¯«®¸¬¤­³ $¨²³±¨¢³² ¨² ¯¤±¬¨²²¨¡«¤ §®¶¤µ¤± ¨³ ¬´²³  £§¤±¤ ³® ²³ ­£ ±£²) 11) )­²´¥¥¨¢¨¤­³ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ²´¯¯®±³ ¯« ­þ ¡®³§ «®¢ ««¸  ­£ ®­ ¢®±±¨£®±² m.4§¤±¤  ±¤ ²¤µ¤± « ¨²²´¤² ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ²³´£¸þ  ² ­®³¤£ ¡¸ 32% «¤³³¤± £ ³¤£ ’  ­£  ² ­®³¤£ ¡¸ -­$/4 ¨­ ³§¤ «¤³³¤± £ ³¤£ ¨²²´¤² ¶¤±¤  ££±¤²²¤£ n.4§¤ ®±¨¦¨­ « ²³´£¸ ¶ ² ¢®­£´¢³¤£  ³   ³¨¬¤ ¶§¤­ ‘ ®¥ ³§¤ ¢±¨³¨¢  ±® £¶ ¸² ¶¤±¤ ¢«®²¤£ ³® ³± ¥¥¨¢ £´¤ ³® ¢®­²³±´¢³¨®­ o.!«« ³± ¥¥¨¢ ²³´£¨¤²  ­£ ¬¨³¨¦ ³¨®­ ¯« ­² ¥ ¨« ³®  ££±¤²² ¢®±±¨£® ¢®­¦¤²³¨®­  ³ ¡®³§ )’”7  ­£ (¨¦§¶ ¸ ’•þ ¡®³§ ®¥ ¶§¨¢§ § µ¤ ²³®¯  ­£ ¦® ³± ¥¥¨¢ ³¶¨¢¤ £ ¨«¸ 12) 7¤ ¶¨«« § µ¤ ³® ¯ ¸ ¬®±¤ ¨­ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ³ ·¤² ³® ²´¯¯®±³ ³§¤  ££¨³¨®­ « ¢¨³¸ ²¤±µ¨¢ SWARN Appeal--July 2, 2012 14 Page14of18 AttachmentB ¨­¥± ²³±´¢³´±¤ ­¤¤£² ®¥ ³§¨² £¤µ¤«®¯¤± "%#!53% ³§¨² ²¨³¤ ¨² ¶¨ 4¶¨­ , ª¤² $¨²³±¨¢³ ¶§¨¢§ ¨²   4 ·)­¢±¤¬¤­³ $¨²³±¨¢³ ³§¤±¤ ¬´²³ ¯´¡«¨¢ ¯´±¯®²¤  ¢§¨¤µ¤£ ¡¸ ³§¨² £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ 7§ ³ ¯´¡«¨¢ ¯´±¯®²¤ ¨² ²¤±µ¤£ ¡¸  ««®¶¨­¦ 7 «- ±³ ³® ¡¤­¤¥¨³ ¥±®¬  «« ³§¤ ¯ ²³ ¯´¡«¨¢ ¨¬¯±®µ¤¬¤­³² ¶¨³§¨­ ³§¨² 4 · )­¢±¤¬¤­³ $¨²³±¨¢³ 3¨­¢¤ !«« ¨­¢±¤ ²¤£ ³ ·¤² ±¤²´«³¨­¦ ¥±®¬ ³§¨² £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¥«®¶ ¨ )­¢±¤¬¤­³ $¨²³±¨¢³ ³® ¯ ¸ ¥®± past ¯´¡«¨¢ ¨¬¯±®µ¤¬¤­³² ¨­ ³§¤ 4¶¨­ , ª¤² $¨²³±¨¢³  ­£ ­®¥®± ³§¤ ­¤·³ ˜ ¸¤ ±² 2®²¤µ¨««¤ §®¬¤®¶­¤±²  ­£ «®¢ « ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ¶¨««  «²® § µ¤ ³® ²´¡²¨£¨¹¤ ³§¤ « ±¦¤²³ ¢®±¯®± ³¨®­ ³® ¯ ¸ ¥®± 7 «  ­¸ ­¤¢¤²² ±¸ ²³±¤¤³  ­£ ´³¨«¨³¨¤² ¨¬¯±®µ¤¬¤­³² ­®³ ­®¶ ¥®±¤²¤¤­ ¬¤ ²´±¤² ³® ¬¨³¨¦ ³¤ ¥´³´±¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¢®­¦¤²³¨®­ !­®³§¤± ¤· ¬¯«¤ %­³¤±¯±¨²¤ ¥®± ³§¤ -¨££«¤ #« ²²þ 3®¢¨ «¨²¬ ¥®± ³§¤ 2¨¢§ 4§¤±¤¥®±¤ ³§¤ #®´­¢¨« ²§®´«£ ¯´³ ®¥¥ ¥¨­ « ¯« ³  ¯¯±®µ «  ­£ ¡´¨  ¯¯±®µ « ´­³¨« ³§¤²¤ °´¤²³¨®­² ¢ ­ ¡¤  ££±¤²²¤£ "¸  ¯¯±®µ¨­¦ ³®­¨¦§³ ¸®´ ¶¨«« ¡¤ £¨²±¤¦ ±£¨­¦  «« ³§¤ ¶®±ª ¸®´  ­£ ®³§¤± 2®²¤ ±¤²¨£¤­³² ¯´³ ¨­ £´±¨­¦ ³§¤ 4¶¨­ , ª¤² ¯« ­­¨­¦ ¯±®¢¤²²  ­£ ³§¤ #®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ 0« ­ .®± £® ¸®´ ­¤¤£ ³® £® ²® ³®­¨¦§³ (4§¤ :®­¨ /±£¨­ ­¢¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤² ¥®± separate ¢®­²¨£¤± ³¨®­ ¥®± ³§¤²¤ £¨²³¨­¢³ ¯« ³  ¯¯±®µ «²) 4§¤²¤ ¨²²´¤²  ±¤ ³®® ¢±¨³¨¢ « ³® ¢®¬¬¨³¬¤­³ ³® ¨³² ±¤²¨£¤­³²  ² ¥®´­£ ¨­ ³§¤ #®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ 0« ­   4¶¨­ , ª¤² - ²³¤± 0« ­ ³® ­®³ ¡¤  ££±¤²²¤£ ¡¤¥®±¤ ¥¨­ «  ¯¯±®µ « 7¤ ¶®´«£ ±¤²¯¤¢³¥´««¸ ±¤°´¤²³   ¶±¨³³¤­  ­²¶¤± ¥±®¬ ²³ ¥¥ ¡¤¥®±¤ ­¤·³  ££±¤²²¤² ³§¤²¤ ¨²²´¤² 4§¤²¤ °´¤²³¨®­²  ±¤ ³® ¨¬¯®±³ ­³ ³  ££±¤²²¤£ ³®­¨¦§³ ¨­  ­ ¨¬¯±®¬¯³´ ¬ ­­¤± ¡¸ ²³ ¥¥þ   ²³ ¥¥  ³ ³§ £¨µ¨²¨®­ «¤µ¤«  ¯¯¤ ±² ³® ´² ³® § µ¤ ¡¤¤­ ¬®³¨µ ³¤£ ¥®± ²¤µ¤± «  £µ®¢ ³¤ ¥®± ³§¨² ¯±®©¤¢³ 3´¬¬ ±¸ 2¤°´¤²³² 4§¤±¤¥®±¤þ ¶¤ ±¤²¯¤¢³¥´««¸ ±¤°´¤²³ ³§ ³ ³§¤ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨« 1..®³ ²¨¦­   £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³  ¦±¤¤¬¤­³ ¶§¨¢§ ¶ ² ¨­¢®¬¯«¤³¤ ´­³¨« ­®®­  ­£ ³§¤±¤¥®±¤ § ² ­®³ § £  ­¸ ®¯¯®±³´­¨³¸ ¥®± ¯´¡«¨¢ ±¤µ¨¤¶ÿ 2..®³  ¯¯±®µ¤ ³§¤ ¥¨­ « ¯« ³ (®±  ­¸ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ¯¤±¬¨³²) ´­³¨« ³§¤ ! ´¯£ ³¤£ÿ 3.!¬¤­£ ³§¤ ¹®­¨­¦ ®±£¨­ ­¢¤ ³® ¡¤³³¤± ±¤¥«¤¢³ ³§¤ #®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤   , ª¤² - ²³¤± 0« ­²þ  ² ­®³¤£  ¡®µ¤ÿ 4.#®­²¨£¤± ®³§¤± ¶ ¸² ³® ¨­µ®«µ¤ 2®²¤µ¨««¤ ±¤²¨£¤­³² ¨­ ¢¨³¸ £¤¢¨² ²³ ¥¥ ¡¤¢®¬¤²  £µ®¢ ³¤² ®¥ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¯« ­²þ  £µ®¢ ³¤² ¡®³§ ³® 0« ­­¨­¦ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­  ­£ ³§¤ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨«þ ²´¢§  ² ±¤°´¨±¨­¦ #®¬¬ -¤¤³¨­¦² ®­ ¨¬¯®±³ ­³ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¯±®¯®² « ¶¨³§ ¢¨³¸¶¨£¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ±¤¨­³±®£´¢³¨®­ £¨²²®«´³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ 0« ­­¤£ 5­¨³ $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¯±®¢¤ SWARN Appeal--July 2, 2012 15 Page15of18 AttachmentB 5.2¤°´¤²³ ³§ ³ ³ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³² ¶§¨¢§ ¶¨«« § µ¤   ¢¨³¸¶¨£¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ®­ ³§¤ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¢®²³¤¥¥¤¢³¨µ¤ ¢§ ­­¤«²þ ²´¢§  ² ³§¤ ­¤¶ ­¤¨¦§¡®±§®®£ ¢®¬¬´­¨¢ ³ .¤·³£®®±¢®¬  ² ¶¤««  ² ¯±¤²² ±¤«¤ ²¤² ³® «®¢ « ­¤¶² ¬¤£¨  ¥®± ³ ²¨¦­¤£ ´¯ 3§®´«£ ³§¨² ¯±®¯®² « ¡¤  ¢¢¤¯³¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨«þ ¶¤ ±¤°´¤²³ 1.!££ ³§¤ ¥®««®¶¨­¦ ¢®­£¨³¨®­² ³® ³§¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³  ¦±¤¤¬¤­³ a.0±®§¨¡¨³ ‘“– ®¯¤± ³¨®­  ­£ ²´¡²¤°´¤­³ ®µ¤±­¨¦§³ 26  ­£ ³±´¢ª¨­¦ ¯ ±ª¨­¦  ««®¶ ­¢¤²  ² ¨² ¢®¬¬®­  ¬®­¦ 7 «- ±³² ­ ³¨®­¶¨£¤ b.4± ¥¥¨¢ ¢®­¦¤²³¨®­ ¡¤ ¬¨³¨¦ ³¤£ (¶¨³§ 7 «- ±³ ¯ ±³¨¢¨¯ ³¨­¦ ¨­ ¢®²³² ¨­   ‘ ¬¨«¤ ± £¨´² ®­ ³§¤ ¢®±±¨£®±²þ  ² ¶¤««  ² ²¨£¤ ²³±¤¤ 2.$¨±¤¢³ 0« ­­¨­¦ $¤¯ ±³¬¤­³ ³® §®«£  ­ ®¯¤­ §®´²¤ ¥®± ³§¤ ¢®¬¬´­¨  ­£ ¨¥ 7 «¬ ±³ ¯« ­² ¤µ®«µ¤ 3..®³¨¥¸ ´² ²¯¤¢¨¥¨¢ ««¸  ³ swarn@gmail.com ¨¥  ­£ ¶§¤­   ¯¤±¬¨³  ¯¯«¨¢ ³¨®­ § ² ¡¤¤­ ²´¡¬¨³³¤£ 3¨¦­¤£ - ±ª "± £«¤¸ -¤¦ ­ $´²§¨­ 3´¤ '¨«¡¤±³²®­ ' ±¸ '±¤¥¤­¡¤±¦ -¨ª¤ '±¤¦®±¸ $ µ¤ .¤«²®­ SWARN Appeal--July 2, 2012 16 Page16of18 AttachmentC Page1of9 AttachmentC Page2of9 AttachmentC Page3of9 AttachmentC Page4of9 AttachmentC Page5of9 AttachmentC Page6of9 AttachmentC Page7of9 AttachmentC Page8of9 AttachmentC Page9of9 AttachmentD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT June 21, 2012 Ms. Susan Steinwall Mr. Mark Rancone Fredrickson and Byron P.A. Roseville Properties 200 South Sixth Street 2575 Fairview Avenue North Suite 4000 Suite 250 Minneapolis, MN 55402Roseville, MN 55113 RE: Request for Zoning Compliance of Retail Use in the Community Mixed-Use District Dear Ms. Steinwall and Mr. Rancone: The Roseville Community Development Department has received and reviewed your request dated June 8, 2012 for a zoning use determination for the proposed Wal-Mart store to be generally located at County Road C and Cleveland Avenue, and within the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. As a point of reference, when the Community Development Department begins initial discussions with a prospective developer, we employ a professional understanding of the zoning ordinance (which was adopted to be consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to determine whether a use is permitted, conditional or prohibited for a given zoning district. If necessary, the Department also reviews other important documents to determine whether additional information will need to be provided to City Staff to determine other necessary and/or required improvements. As you know, when the potential Wal-Mart store was brought to City Staff’s attention in 2011, staff followed its typical procedure and reviewed the proposed use with the zoning ordinance and verbally confirmed that the proposed Wal-Mart store was permitted in the Community Mixed Use Zoning District, subject to complying with zoning regulations. However, there continues to be community concern regarding the use and size of the proposed Wal-Mart which has led us to provide you with a more detailed analysis of all documents that may have some authority over the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. These include:the 2030 Roseville Comprehensive Plan, Title 10 Zoning Ordinance, Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan, Twin Lakes Urban Design Principles, Twin Lakes AUAR, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals decision of 2006, File # C3-05-44. This review and analysis however, is limited to the use and does not address site improvement or building design compliance with the zoning ordinance. S UMMARY The Community Development Department finds that a retail development of 160,000 sq. ft. within the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area (the Wal-Mart project) is under the thresholds of the Twin Lakes AUAR, is not prohibited by the 2001 Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan nor the 2030 Roseville Comprehensive Plan, and is permitted by the Roseville Zoning Ordinance. Page1of27 AttachmentD The following is our detailed analysis of the proposed Wal-Mart project. I.ZC ONINGODE The Wal-Mart project is proposed to be located on property within the Community Mixed Use Zoning District (CMU). Regulations covering development within the CMU district are generally contained in Chapter 1005 (Commercial and Mixed Use Districts) and specifically within Chapter 1005.07 (Community Mixed Use District). 1.) The Community Development Department finds that the Statement of Purpose within Section 1005.01 of the zoning ordinance allows for the Wal-Mart project since it does not include any prohibitions or limitations regarding use or size, and that the purpose statement is merely a guide for future development. Words like “promote”, “provide”, “improve”, and “encourage”, individually or collectively, do not limit a specific use, nor do they require something. On the contrary, these words provide general direction and guidance for the requirements that follow later in the zoning ordinance. ZO ONINGRDINANCE CM-UD OMMERCIAL AND IXEDSEISTRICTS 1005.01 Statement of Purpose The commercial and mixed-use district is designed to: A.Promote an appropriate mix of commercial development types within the community; B.Provide attractive, inviting, high-quality retail shopping and service areas that are conveniently and safely accessible by multiple travel modes including transit, walking, and bicycling; C.Improve the community’s mix of land uses by encouraging mixed medium- and high-density residential uses with high quality commercial and employment uses in designated areas; D.Encourage appropriate transitions between higher-intensity uses within commercial and mixed use centers and adjacent lower-density residential districts; and E.Encourage sustainable design practices that apply to buildings, private development sites, and the public realm in order to enhance the natural environment. 2 Page2of27 AttachmentD 2.) The Community Development Department finds that the proposed Wal-Mart is permitted since general retail, banks, personal service, and grocery stores are listed as permitted use within the (CMU) district without specific limitations, restrictions, or prohibitions on the size of such uses. 1005.03-TAU ABLE OF LLOWED SES Table 1005.01 NB CB RB CMU Standards Office Uses Office p p p p Clinic, medical, dental, optical p p p p Office showroom np p p p Commercial Uses Retail, general and personal service* p p p p Animal boarding, kennel/day care (indoor) p p p p Y Animal boarding, kennel/day care (outdoor) np c c np Y Animal hospital, veterinary clinic p p p p Y Bank, financial institution p p p p Club or lodge, private p p p p Daycare center p p p p Y Grocery store p p p p np = not permitted, c = conditional use, p = permitted use, y = standards in procedures and/or property performance standards sections of the code. (The asterisk refers to a sidebar in the code that references typical uses under the retail category. They include, but are not limited to Clothing and Accessories Sales, Pharmacy, Electronic Sales, Office Supplies). 3.) The Community Development Department finds that the statement of purpose for the Community Mixed Use (CMU) District does not preclude the Wal-Mart project since it does not limit, restrict and/or prohibit retail use or any size retail use use. The purpose statement is a guide emphasizing words like “designed to encourage” “should be organized”, and “intended” as a means for the Community Development Department to promote the standards or regulations that are found in the CMU District and/or the Regulating Plan of the Zoning Ordinance. 1005.07CM-U(CMU)D OMMUNITY IXEDSE ISTRICT A.SP TATEMENT OF URPOSE The Community Mixed-Use District is designed to encourage the development or redevelopment of mixed-use centers that may include housing, office, commercial, park, civic, institutional, and open space uses. Complementary uses should be organized into cohesive districts in which mixed- or single-use buildings are connected by streets, sidewalks and trails, and open space to create a pedestrian-oriented environment. The CMU District is intended to be applied to areas of the City guided for redevelopment or intensification. 3 Page3of27 AttachmentD 4.) The Community Development Department finds that the Twin Lakes Sub-Area 1 Regulating Plan does not control use nor limit overall building size and therefore does not prohibit the Wal-Mart project. The Regulating Plan is a set of strict standards that apply to building design and placement and certain/specific site improvements, and which regulations do not take a use into account. B. Regulating Plan The CMU District must be guided by a regulating plan for each location where it is applied. A regulating plan uses graphics and text to establish requirements pertaining to the [site development] parameters. Where the requirements for an area governed by a regulating plan are in conflict with the design standards established in Section 1005.02 of this Title, the requirements of the regulating plan shall supersede, and were the requirements for an area governed by a regulating plan are silent, Section 1005.02 shall control. II. 2006TLCAD WINAKES OURT OF PPEALS ECISION The Community Development Department finds that the 2006 Court of Appeals Twin Lakes decision supports the determination that the Wal-Mart project is a permitted use. The Court of Appeals decision regarding a “big box” use on the same piece of land as the proposed Wal-Mart project concluded that without stated limitations on size or use, or a prohibition on use, within either, the comprehensive plan or the zoning ordinance, a large retail use, is permitted. Although the 2006 decision was predicated on the B-6 zoning district, the Court of Appeals decision and its application to our current comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance is still very much relevant and applicable. 2006CAD OURT OF PPEALS ECISION “The City code does not specify any maximum or minimum land-use ratio for the different types of permitted uses within the designated B-6 zone. And although the city’s comprehensive plan does not recommend big box retail, the comprehensive plan does not prohibit such a retail store. Generally, this court “narrowly construe[s] any restrictions that a zoning ordinance imposes upon a property owner.” See Mendota Golf, 708 N.W.2d at 172. Therefore, any “restrictions on land use must clearly be expressed.” Because the B-6 zoning designation does not prohibit retail, including big-box, or multi- family housing, or provide any restrictions on the amount of these land uses in proportion to other allowed land uses, we conclude that it was not reasonable for the city to determine that the Rottlund project, which includes retail, multi-family, and office land uses, is consistent with the B-6 zoning designation.” III2030RCP . OSEVILLE OMPREHENSIVE LAN nd As part of the consideration of the proposed Twin Lakes 2 Addition plat, the subdivision that will facilitate the Wal-Mart development, the City Council has heard extensive testimony from 4 Page4of27 AttachmentD the public that the proposed use is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It has been suggested that the Comprehensive Plan limits “big box” and the proposed Wal-Mart store is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore the use is not permitted since the Zoning Code is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A Comprehensive Plan is a broad vision and general guide for cities to follow in achieving their desired goals, objectives, and policies. A comprehensive plan is not a document that is directly utilized to enforce the identified goals and objectives. Zoning Codes and other ordinances and City programs are utilized to implement the goals and objectives identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The overall Comprehensive Plan should not be construed as an enforcement mechanism for property development. In fact, Minnesota State Statutes recognizes this fact in Chapter 462.356 (2) and requires adoption of a zoning code to put the Comprehensive Plan into effect and the Comprehensive Plan includes a chapter on using the Plan to make progress towards achieving its goals. Therefore, it is clear that the Comprehensive Plan cannot be directly used to directly regulate development. The City Attorney has advised staff that to the extent that a zoning code is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, the zoning code should be amended to reflect the comprehensive plan. Therefore staff has prepared an analysis reviewing the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. Staff’s analysis finds that the Roseville Zoning Code is consistent with Comprehensive Plan and therefore the regulations within the Zoning Code are enforceable. A. BSFL UILDING QUARE OOT IMITATIONS Before we get into the analysis, it would be worthwhile to do a quick review of the discussion around “big box” in the context of the Comprehensive Plan. Starting in 2008, a steering committee comprised of citizens, commission members and elected officials spent over a year preparing and reviewing the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. One of the most discussed topics of the steering committee was whether to include size limitations of buildings within the “Community Business” and “Regional Business” land use designations. By a slim vote of the Steering Committee, the size limitations were retained in the draft Comprehensive Plan forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council. (See September 11, 2008 Steering Committee notes). At the Planning Commission on October 1, 2008, the Planning Commission removed the square footage limitations contained in the draft Comprehensive Plan. The City Council, at both its October 13, 2008 and January 26, 2009 meetings, agreed with the Planning Commission’s changes and did not reinsert square footage limitations in the Community Business and Regional Business land use categories. This is important to note given the persistence of the notion that there are prohibitions on having “big box” developments. While there was much discussion about limiting these types of uses, in the end, nothing was included in the Comprehensive Plan that had size limitations. Therefore, the lack of a guideline for sizes of buildings within the zoning districts demonstrates that the Zoning Code is no inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Community Development Department finds that due to the exclusion of any square footage limitations regarding building size in the Comprehensive Plan, the Roseville Zoning Code is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore the Wal-Mart project is permitted under the Comprehensive Plan. 5 Page5of27 AttachmentD CPLUD B. OMPREHENSIVE LANANDSE ESIGNATIONS The Community Development Department finds that the land use categories in the Comprehensive Plan contain general vision statements of the sorts of things that are desired within a specific land use designation including a range of uses, but do not have specific guidance for individual parcels or developments. These thoughts, visions, and ideas are further expounded upon in the Goals and Policies sections of the Comprehensive Plan and are to be implemented over a long timeframe. The Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area is guided Community Mixed Use in the Comprehensive Plan and the uses for this land use designation include many different types, including those within the broadly defined community business land use area, or others not specifically defined here, but rather those regulated under the zoning ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan is not expected to list every potential use; that is for the zoning code to do. Instead, the Comprehensive Plan provides a general range of uses as a guide. It is as part of the zoning code adoption that more specificity is created for the actual uses allowed. The Wal-Mart project is located in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area and is guided as Community Mixed Use (CMU) in the Comprehensive Plan. Below is the description of the CMU district from the Comprehensive Plan. Community Mixed Use (CMU) Community Mixed Use areas are intended to contain a mix of complementary uses that may include housing, office, civic, commercial, park, and open space uses. Community Mixed Use areas organize uses into a cohesive district, neighborhood, or corridor, connecting uses in common structures and with sidewalks and trails, and using density, structured parking, shared parking, and other approaches to create green space and public places within the areas. The mix of land uses may include Medium- and High- Density Residential, Office, Community Business, Institutional, and Parks and Open Space uses. Residential land uses should generally represent between 25% and 50% of the overall mixed use area. The mix of uses may be in a common site, development area, or building. Individual developments may consist of a mix of two or more complementary uses that are compatible and connected to surrounding land-use patterns. To ensure that the desired mix of uses and connections are achieved, a more detailed small-area plan, master plan, and/or area-specific design principles is required to guide individual developments within the overall mixed-use area. The Community Development Department finds that the Wal-Mart project is allowed since CMU description neither restricts nor limits specific uses or sizes and further finds that the zoning code has incorporated a small-area plan and design principles to ensure the mix of uses and connections through the Twin Lake Regulating Plan contained in Chapter 1005.07 (E) of City Code in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan The description of the CMU land use district mentions Community Business uses as part of the mix of land use that could occur on the CMU guided properties. Below is the description of the Community Business land use category from the Comprehensive Plan. 6 Page6of27 AttachmentD Community Business (CB) Community Business uses are commercial areas oriented toward businesses involved with the sale of goods and services to a local market area. Community business areas include shopping centers and freestanding businesses that promote community orientation and scale. To provide access and manage traffic, community business areas are located on streets designated as A Minor Augmentor or A Minor Reliever in the Transportation Plan. Community Business areas should have a strong orientation to pedestrian and bicycle access to the area and movement within the area. Residential uses, generally with a density greater than 12 units per acre, may be located in Community Business areas only as part of mixed-use buildings with allowable business uses on the ground floor. The Community Development Department finds that the Wal-Mart project is allowed since the Community Business description neither restricts nor limits specific uses or sizes and further finds that the zoning code has incorporated design standards that promote community orientation and scale through the Twin Lake Regulating Plan contained in Chapter 1005.07 (E) of City Code in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted that the Wal-Mart project Area has frontage on Cleveland Ave. and County Road C, both classified as A Minor Reliever, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for Community Business uses. C.CPG OMPREHENSIVE LANOALS AND POLICIES The next area analyzed by the Community Development Department is the Goals and Policies sections of the Comprehensive Plan. These sections include words such as “facilitate”, “encourage”, “promote”, “seek”, “emphasize”, “ensure”, “maintain”, and “establish”, which do not provide strict limits, thresholds, or prohibitions and are not by themselves regulations. They are, in fact, part of a broader paragraph or statement that directs the creation of the Zoning Ordinance and other requirements and programs. The Community Development Department would like to stress that projects that walk in the door are not to be reviewed against each goal and/or policy stated in the Comprehensive Plan, since the goals and policies are a collection of broad based desires of the community and no one project can meet or achieve each and every general goal or policy statement. The Community Development Department has however prepared a concise analysis of all goals and policies contained in the Land Use, Economic Development and Redevelopment, and Environmental Protection chapters of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The analysis focuses on how or whether the goal and/or policy is advanced via the use or size of the proposed Wal-Mart and whether the goal or policy has been addressed in the zoning ordinance to achieve consistency between the two documents as required by law. Based on that analysis, the Community Development Department finds that the Roseville Zoning Ordinance is consistent with and has incorporated the goals and policies identified in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 7 Page7of27 AttachmentD The detailed analysis is included as Attachment A. IV.TLBPMP WINAKESUSINESSARKASTERLAN The Community Development Department finds that the Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan, approved by the City Council on June 26, 2001, is a guiding document and not a regulatory document. The Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan (or any master plan for that matter) does not have regulatory authority under Minnesota State Statutes. The Twin Lakes Master Plan is not included as a integral part of the Roseville Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the master plan’s goals and policies and renewal strategies sections include words that merely advocate and not require certain things to occur,. Even though the master plan is not a regulatory document, staff has reviewed the master plan and has found consistency between the master plan and the zoning code. Specifically, the Community Development Department finds that the zoning ordinance has embraced the Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan by including specific regulations into the Chapter 1005.07 (CMU district and the Twin Lakes Regulating Plan). The master plan relied on a set of design guidelines that was later (2007) approved by the City Council in a resolution as the Urban Design Principles. This document, a collection of checks and balances based upon the desires of the plan, were to be reviewed against projects within Twin Lakes. In 2010, numerous references within the Urban Design Principles were incorporated as zoning requirements into Chapter 1005.07 of the City Code. The Community Development Department further finds that the issue of lot coverage, open space, and/or impervious area, is consistent between the master plan and the zoning ordinance where by both advocate a 15% minimum green area. The master plan states (#24.b; pg. 8) that development retain a minimum of 15% of each site in green space and/or ponding; and in the zoning ordinance it states: lot coverage shall not exceed 85%. The Community Development also finds that references regarding big-box retail development as not recommended or not encouraged do not embody a limitation or prohibition on such a use, and therefore retail of any size as a use within Twin Lakes is permissible under the Master Plan. As the master plan is not regulatory document, this point is somewhat moot, but the statement that “big box” is not recommended isn’t the same as a “big box” use being prohibited. It is surmised the creators wanted to maintain flexibility in uses, including the possibility of a big box. Otherwise, the plan would directly state that “big box” uses should not be allowed. V.TAUAR(AUAR) HELTERNATIVE RBANREAWIDE EVIEW The Twin Lakes Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) is not a land use or zoning document, it does not regulate use or size of buildings, and it is not a regulatory document per se. The AUAR is however, an environmental review document that is used by the City to determine a proposed project’s impact thresholds and the required mitigations to make that project consistent with the AUAR. Specifically, the Twin Lakes AUAR analyzed three different redevelopment scenarios for possible environmental impacts. Scenario “A” is identified as the “worst case,” or the scenario that would lead to the greatest potential for environmental impact. As explained in Item 7 of the 8 Page8of27 AttachmentD AUAR, Scenario A was developed by reviewing the four different future land use maps depicted in the 2001 Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan and assuming that each of the redevelopment Blocks was developed with the most intensive of those possible future land uses in order to identify strategies for effectively mitigating the potential impacts of such a “worst case” development. The proposed Wal-Mart development is situated within Block 4 for the purposes of the AUAR’s analysis. In addition to high levels of development throughout the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, Scenario A evaluated Block 4, the location of the proposed Wal-Mart development, for 240,000 square feet of a land use referred to as “service mix.” The AUAR defines “service mix” as consisting of “retail, a hotel, a day care facility, a health club facility and restaurant uses that would be complementary to the other uses in the Twin Lakes Business Park,” and notes that “Service Mix [was] analyzed from a retail perspective as retail generates greater impacts than the other potential uses described within service mix, thus providing the ‘worst case’ development scenario.” Since the proposed development comprises a 160,000-square-foot retail store, Block 4 could still accommodate another 80,000 square feet of retail, hotel, day care, health club, restaurant, or other uses without exceeding the capacity assumed in the AUAR analysis. The Community Development Department finds that the proposed Wal-Mart project is not inconsistent with the Twin Lakes AUAR and can proceed forward under the terms and/or mitigations addressed within the AUAR document. In addition, on May 21, 2012, the City Council determined that the Wal-Mart project was within the thresholds of the existing Twin Lakes AUAR and no further environmental review is needed. C ONCLUSION In summary, the Community Development Department finds that Wal-Mart project is a permitted use under Chapter 10 (Zoning) of the Roseville City Code and that Chapter 10 (Zoning) of the Roseville City Code is consistent with the 2030 Roseville Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the Wal-Mart project adheres to and is consistent with the 2001 Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan and Twin Lakes AUAR. 9 Page9of27 AttachmentD Should there be any questions or comments regarding this review, please do not hesitate to contact Community Development staff. Respectfully CITY OF ROSEVILLE Thomas R. Paschke Patrick Trudgeon City Planner Community Development Director Attachment: Analysis of 2030 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 10 Page10of27 AttachmentD 2030RC ANALYSIS OF GOALS AND POLICIES IN OSEVILLE OMPREHENSIVE PLAN PR REPARED BY OSEVILLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF M-UAGP IXEDSE REA OALS AND OLICIES Goal 13: Improve the community’s mix of land uses by encouraging mixed medium- and high-density residential uses with high-quality commercial and employment uses in designated areas. The Community Development Department finds that the generalized goal has been applied to the zoning ordinance and is enforced through the table of uses and the specific standards throughout each commercial zoning district, specifically the Community Mixed Use District. The Community Development Department further finds that Twin Lakes is a designated area for retail development that is supported by this goal and the zoning ordinance. Policy 13.1: Facilitate the improvement, environmental remediation, and redevelopment of underutilized, heavy industrial land and trucking facilities in designated locations into a compatible mixture of residential and employment uses. The Community Development Department finds that any development within Twin Lakes will be required via the Alternative Urban Areawide Review to improve the property, remediate the contaminated soil, and reuse underutilized former trucking facilities, and that the area is planned for a mixture of uses. The Community Development Department further finds that a retail establishment of any type of size is not restricted, limited, or prohibited, by this policy. Policy 13.2: Develop and utilize master plans, as official controls, for redevelopment areas in order to achieve an appropriate mixture of uses in the mixed-use areas designated on the 2030 Future Land Use Map. The Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area does have a master plan that provides further guidance regarding redevelopment desires. Unfortunately, master plans do not have regulatory standing or authority, much like a comprehensive plan does not. The City Code, and specifically the Zoning Ordinance, is the only regulatory document that applies to the Twin Lakes Area. Specific to the Twin Lakes, the Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan renewal strategy that was approved on June 26, 2001, provides more detailed guidance regarding mixed–use development as a vision for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. The document discusses big-box in one area and that is on Page 11 where big-box (and strip centers) are not recommended. The Community Development Department finds that the Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan does not prohibit big-box use, it only recommends against it, and while a Walmart qualifies as a big-box, there have been no restrictions, limitations, or prohibitions established in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan or the Zoning Ordinance denying such a development from constructing in Twin Lakes. 1 Page11of27 AttachmentD Goal 14: Promote and support the development of mixed-use areas that have a rich mix of related and mutually reinforcing uses within walking distance of each other. The Community Development Department finds that the CMU District supports a broad mix of related and mutually reinforcing uses and promotes walkability especially through the Regulating Plan. It is anticipated that the proposed Walmart will have a small collection of uses, including pharmacy, banking, grocery, photo lab, garden store, and two restaurants on outlots, all of which uses are walkable from near-by businesses. Policy 14.1: Encourage a mix of two or more uses within each development project either within the same building or horizontally on the site. The CMU design standards and the uses permitted address the mix and the regulating plan for Twin Lakes Sub-Area 1 address vertical and/or horizontal design, placement of buildings on parcels. It is anticipated that the proposed Walmart will have a small collection of uses, including pharmacy, banking, grocery, photo lab, garden store, and two restaurants on outlots, all of which uses are walkable from near-by businesses. Twin Lakes is planned and zoned to allow for a mix of uses, with retail being only one of these allowable uses. Policy 14.2: Use official controls to ensure all mixed use development is cohesive, compact, and pedestrian oriented, consisting of high-quality design, efficient parking strategies, and appropriate site landscaping. The zoning ordinance has been developed to ensure organized development consistent with policy, especially in the CMU district where emphasis has been placed on pedestrian friendly design/orientation, high quality design (including four sided architecture, horizontal/vertical articulation, and a top, bottom and middle design to name a few), new parking standards that reduce parking minimums and maximums, and new landscaping requirements. Any development within Twin Lakes will be required to meet or exceed all requirements of the zoning ordinance specifically the CMU design standards and the regulating plan requirements. Policy 14.3: Promote and support the provision of a robust system of public spaces within mixed-use areas such as parks, plazas, pathways, streets, and civic uses to encourage community gathering and connections. The Zoning Code [1005.07(E) – Twin Lakes Regulating Plan] seeks the creation of pedestrian corridors to connect to the existing public amenity in the area and seeks the provision of additional open space to save/protect mature oak trees. The Regulating Plan also requires an additional buffer to further protect Langton Lake Park from development. Sub-Area 1 of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area includes a robust system of sidewalks and paths that the City installed over the past two years. Through the review of the Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan, the CMU District, and the Regulating Plan, each development will be required to provide additional public spaces and/or amenities. The location of the proposed Walmart is surrounded by existing sidewalk and/or pathways. The site will be required to provide a pedestrian connection through the parking lot and will be required to extend sidewalk to existing public facilities. The Walmart project will also have 2 Page12of27 AttachmentD public seating areas at the corner of County Road C and Prior and Twin Lakes Parkway and Prior. Policy 14.4: Discourage piecemeal development that does not achieve the goals and policies for mixed-use areas. It is true that policy 14.4 states we should “discourage piecemeal development”, however it is not stating to prohibit such development. In the case of Twin Lakes absent a master developer, piecemeal development will occur. CAGP OMMERCIAL REAOALS AND OLICIES Goal 9: Provide attractive, inviting, high-quality retail shopping and service areas that are conveniently and safely accessible by multiple travel modes including transit, walking, and bicycling. The Community Development Department finds that the Zoning Code provides for attractive and inviting shopping through the regulations and design standards contained Chapter 1005 of the code. Policy 9.1: Encourage commercial areas to make efficient use of land, provide for safe vehicular and pedestrian movements, provide adequate parking areas, provide appropriate site landscaping, and create quality and enduring aesthetic character. The CMU district and the regulating plan establish requirements which advance these items. The proposed Walmart development will need to meet all requirements pertaining to this policy. These include placement of buildings, provision of pedestrian connections through parking lots and to existing public sidewalks/trails, minimum/maximum parking stalls, landscaping meeting all code requirements, and numerous architectural features. Policy 9.2: Promote commercial development that is accessible by transit, automobile, walking, and bicycle. Twin Lakes is currently accessible to all modes and so too will be the Walmart development, where the CMU district or the regulating plan requires such improvements. Policy 9.3: Seek to make on-site transit stops part of commercial development and redevelopment. Unfortunately we as a city have limited ability to “make” such things occur. Met Council controls transit and transit stops and although such an item could be beneficial to the employees and patrons, the likelihood is limited. However, Twin Lakes has an existing park and ride facility that could offer reverse service, or be expanded or transit added to the area, should the numbers of employees be high enough for Met Council to add to their capital program. Goal 10: Promote an appropriate mix of commercial development types within the community. Specific to the Walmart proposal, the Community Development Department finds that the 2007 updated AUAR has analyzed mixes of uses and their potential impacts and identified specific 3 Page13of27 AttachmentD and detailed mitigations that would need to be implemented should a specific use trigger such infrastructure improvements. Since there is not a limitation, restriction, or prohibition on the size of a retail use explicitly stated in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the CMU designation, such a use is then permitted as part of the mix. It scale is further regulated by the CMU district and the Regulating Plan. Policy 10.1: Use the Comprehensive Plan to guide new commercial development to locations appropriate for its scale and use. The Community Development Department finds that the Zoning Code’s Commercial and Mixed Use Zoning District provide for effective regulations regarding scale and use within each district. More specifically, the CMU zoning district creates strict standards regarding scale and design. Policy 10.2: Emphasize the development of commercial uses that meet the needs of existing and future Roseville residents. The Community Development Department has emphasized through discussions and implementation of the Zoning Ordinance that such new uses attempt as best as possible to meet the needs of the community. However, “emphasize” is not a requirement to support one type of use over another, and since we as a City do not own or control the land, the “market” will come forward to address what it believes meets the needs of Roseville residents. The Community Development Department finds that the Zoning Ordinance allows for uses consistent with meeting the needs of the community, now and in the future. In the case of the Walmart proposal, without specific limitations, restrictions and/or prohibitions regarding use and size of building, the use and its large size is permitted. Policy 10.3: Support neighborhood-scale commercial areas that provide convenient access to goods and services at appropriate locations within the community. The Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area is not a neighborhood scale development. The Master Plan indicates that Twin Lakes is intended to serve a larger geographical area with uses such as a corporate office campus, high-tech flex and laboratory space, and hospitality uses such as hotels and restaurants. GLUGP ENERAL ANDSE OALS AND OLICIES Goal 1: Maintain and improve Roseville as an attractive place to live, work, and play by promoting sustainable land-use patterns, land-use changes, and new developments that contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the community’s vitality and sense of identity. The Community Development Department finds that this generalized goal for Roseville is addressed by establishing requirements of a similar nature throughout each zoning district, property performance standards, sign regulations, and parking and loading standards. 4 Page14of27 AttachmentD Policy 1.1: Promote and provide for informed and meaningful citizen participation in planning and review processes. The Community Development Department promotes and provides for such participation in accordance with the City Code. In the past and specifically regarding the proposed Walmart development, the Community Development Department has been criticized for not providing more notice or hearings or public meetings. The Community Development Department has provided the required notice under city ordinances and state statutes. Policy 1.2: Ensure that the City’s official controls are maintained to be consistent with the 2030 Land Use Plan. The Community Development Department finds that the zoning ordinance (City’s official control) was amended and adopted to be consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Policy 1.3: Ensure high-quality design, innovation, sustainability, and aesthetic appeal in private and public development and redevelopment, with emphasis on efficient site access, appropriately sized parking areas, and overall beautification through the adoption and utilization of year-round landscaping and site design standards, guidelines, principles, and other criteria. All specific zoning districts of the zoning ordinance have some form of heightened design elements added that were not present in the previous ordinance. The CMU district and the regulating plan specific to the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area includes numerous heightened elements. The proposed Walmart building and site will be required to meet all requirements of the zoning ordinance and regulating plan. Policy 1.4: Maintain orderly transitions between different land uses in accord with the general land-use guidance of the Comprehensive Plan by establishing or strengthening development design standards. Section 1011 of City Code specifically regulates transitional needs between uses such as from commercial to residential. Policy 1.5: Promote well-planned and coordinated development. Since Roseville can’t compel coordinated development among Twin Lakes land owners, the Twin Lakes Regulating Plan was adopted into Section 1005 of City Code as a way to enforce certain planning and development principles to cause the piecemeal development to appear more coordinated. The Walmart development will need to meet these requirements. Policy 1.6: Encourage improvements to the connectivity and walkability between and within the community’s neighborhoods, gathering places and commercial areas through new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects. The zoning ordinance in general addresses this throughout the city, and Walmart will have to comply with all such applicable requirements. The CMU design standards and the regulating 5 Page15of27 AttachmentD plan specifically address this policy for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area by requiring pedestrian friendly design and the provision of connections. Policy 1.7: Create a higher aesthetic level for the community through use of redevelopment and infrastructure improvements to reduce or eliminate visual pollutants such as overhead power, cable, and telephone lines, traffic controllers, junction boxes, and inappropriate signage. The zoning ordinance attempts to create standards that achieve higher levels of aesthetic architecture appeal. However, the zoning ordinance does not control what occurs within the public right-of-way. In the case of the Walmart proposal and all development projects within Twin Lakes, the type of visual clutter addressed in the policy will be eliminated and/or screened properly on the site. Policy 1.8: Reduce land consumption for surface parking by encouraging construction of multilevel and underground parking facilities, shared parking facilities, and other strategies that minimize surface parking areas while providing adequate off-street parking. The zoning ordinance reduced parking requirements and in certain instances established the minimum parking number as the maximum allowed. In the CMU Zoning District, the amount of required parking stalls is more limited than in any other zoning district as a means to have less impervious surface and to encourage shared parking. Policy 1.9: Encourage and support new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure improvements that incorporate and protect alternative energy sources, such as solar access, geothermal, wind, and biomass. The zoning ordinance supports these typed of improvements, however does not require them. Nevertheless, the proposed Walmart will be incorporating skylights and numerous indoor sustainable practices to reduce energy consumption. Goal 2: Maintain and improve the mix of residential, commercial, employment, parks, and civic land uses throughout the community to promote a balanced tax base and to anticipate long-term economic and social changes. The Community Development Department finds that there are numerous offerings in the zoning code that promote maintenance or better improve and grow existing property in Roseville. The Community Development Department finds that the construction of retail within Twin Lakes is not impacted by this generalized goal or the subsequent policies and therefore a compliance consistence is not appropriate or applicable. Policy 2.1: Review the Land Use Plan regularly to ensure its usefulness as a practical guide to current and future development. Whenever practicable, coordinate the Plan with the plans of neighboring communities, the county, school districts, and the most current Metropolitan Council system plans. Although the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is only in its third year, the Community Development Department regularly reviews its content to determine whether certain decisions have been made in the best interest of the community. 6 Page16of27 AttachmentD Policy 2.2: Promote and support transit-oriented development and redevelopment near existing and future transit corridors. The Community Development Department finds that the zoning ordinance supports this policy within the Section 1018, Parking and Loading Requirements and specifically under the subsection related to reduction of minimum parking requirements, which allows fewer spaces where transit service is available. Policy 2.3: Encourage a broad mix of commercial businesses within the community to diversify and strengthen the tax base and employment opportunities. The Community Development Department finds that the zoning ordinance supports this policy statement by the broad allowance of permitted uses. Goal 3: Identify underutilized, deteriorated, or blighted properties and guide them toward revitalization, reinvestment, or redevelopment consistent with community goals and good planning and development principles. The Community Development Department finds the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area includes a number of these properties; that the Comprehensive Plan and Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan support redevelopment of such properties; and that the zoning ordinance contains numerous regulations and requirements to assist in completing such changes in the best interest of the community. Policy 3.1: Support the use of master plans for small redevelopment areas. The Community Development Department finds that Twin Lakes is not a small redevelopment area and it already has a master plan and therefore is not applicable to the Walmart development. Policy 3.2: Promote redevelopment that reduces blight, expands the tax base, enhances the mix of land uses in the community, and achieves other community objectives. The Community Development Department finds that the Walmart proposal achieves this policy statement and that the zoning ordinance includes specific regulations within the CMU district and regulating plan to achieve the needs, desires and objectives of the community as well as increasing the taxable value of the property. Policy 3.3: Apply strategies to effectively enforce City codes related to the maintenance of buildings and property. The Community Development Department finds that the zoning ordinance is not the mechanism for implementing this policy statement and that the City does have requirements regarding property maintenance located within Title 4, Health and Sanitation of the City Code. Goal 4: Protect, improve, and expand the community’s natural amenities and environmental quality. The Community Development Department finds that the zoning ordinance where applicable and appropriate has created standards and/or regulations that address such a goal, and when 7 Page17of27 AttachmentD applicable, the proposed Walmart will be required to meet such applicable regulations and/or standards. Policy 4.1: Promote the use of energy-saving and sustainable design practices during all phases of development including land uses, site design, technologies, buildings, and construction techniques. The Community Development Department finds that the City does promote such sustainable practices. As an example, the Zoning Code permits the use solar energy on homes and businesses and encourages innovative stormwater techniques and for less impervious surface. Policy 4.2: Seek to use environmental best practices for further protection, maintenance, and enhancement of natural ecological systems including lakes, lakeshore, wetlands, natural and man-made storm water ponding areas, aquifers, and drainage areas. The Community Development Department finds that the Shoreland, Wetland, and Storm Water Management section of the zoning ordinance address this policy statement. The Department further concludes that the Public Works and Engineering Department is responsible for the issuance of erosion control permits and review of storm water management plans consistent with city code requirements and that a given project has received the approval of the watershed organization it is located within. The proposed Walmart will be required to meet these standards and regulations as a component of their building permit approval. Policy 4.3: Promote preservation, replacement, and addition of trees within the community. The Community Development Department finds that the zoning ordinance contains a tree preservation ordinance that specifically addresses this policy statement. The proposed Wal-Mart project will need to meet the standards contained in section 1011.04 of the zoning ordinance like all development proposals. Policy 4.4: Existing and future development of business and industry, shopping, transportation, housing, entertainment, leisure, and recreation opportunities shall be in harmony with the commitment Roseville has made to its environment and quality of life, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The Community Development Department finds that the zoning ordinance has established numerous standards to address this policy statement. The construction of a Walmart within the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area will be required to meet all requirements of the zoning ordinance, including those associated with the commitment to environment, walkability, and other quality of life considerations. Goal 5: Create meaningful opportunities for community and neighborhood engagement in land-use decisions. The Community Development Department finds that the Community Development Department has implemented or created many meaningful ways to engage, educate, and inform the citizenry 8 Page18of27 AttachmentD of Roseville on most all projects that occur. However, all projects have their limitation, no matter how important a certain project might be to the community. The Walmart project has been discussed in some form for over a year. Permitted uses do not require public engagement and staff feels it would be inappropriate to offer such meetings, open houses, or create hearings on select projects due to due process concerns. Policy 5.1: Utilize traditional and innovative ways to notify the public, the community, and neighborhoods about upcoming land-use decisions as early as possible in the review process. The Community Development Department finds that it has either adopted into the City Code or as practice has utilized innovative and traditional ways to notify the public about specific developments in Roseville. These include an extended distance of notification greater that State Statutes requires (500 feet versus 350 feet) and open house meetings between applicant and residents for comp plan amendments, rezoning, and interim use, as well as using the Internet to provide notice and information. The Walmart project has followed the requirements of notification and/or the policies of the Community Development Department for notifying the public of this development possibility. Policy 5.2: Require meetings between the land-use applicant and affected persons and/or neighborhoods for changes in land-use designations and projects that have significant impacts, prior to submittal of the request to the City. The Community Development Department finds that the zoning ordinance has implemented a public meeting process for specific land use applications with the potential for significant impacts. Since the Community Development Department finds that the retail use is permitted within the CMU district without restrictions, limitations, and/or prohibitions, the code did not require such a meeting between residents and the developer. Policy 5.3: Provide for and promote opportunities for informed citizen participation at all levels in the planning and review processes at both the neighborhood and community level. The Community Development Department finds that similar to policy statement 5.1 there are limits that can be required of developments. Once the Department receives formal building plans for review and approval of a building permit such documents can be made available to the public. However, the Department does not feel that public interaction into this administrative process is beneficial to the overall development of the City. Similar to the above sections, the chapter on economic development and redevelopment and specifically the goals and policies section, includes words such as foster, encourage, promote, ensure, work with, support, improve, and integrate, which words do not provide strict limits, thresholds, or prohibitions and are not by themselves regulations. The zoning ordinance has taken these broad or generalized terms and developed specific regulations to address them. However, the Community Development Department finds that none of the economic development and redevelopment goals or policies would preclude a Walmart from being constructed within Twin Lakes. The Community Development Department has also reviewed the discussion of the District 10 area within the Comprehensive Plan and finds that although the forth bullet point under “future 9 Page19of27 AttachmentD land use” states that Twin Lakes should not be developed with shopping being the primary focus, there is nothing limiting, restricting, or prohibiting shopping from becoming a use within Twin Lakes, especially a 14 acre development within the greater 275 acre redevelopment area. The Community Development Department further finds no mention of big-box or large-format retail within the discussion points and general information within District 10 and concludes that such a use would be permitted. EDRGP CONOMIC EVELOPMENT AND EDEVELOPMENT OALS AND OLICIES Goal 1: Foster economic development and redevelopment in order to achieve Roseville’s vision, create sustainable development, and anticipate long-term economic and social changes. The Community Development Department finds that as this goal is more of a vision for the whole City and the wording is describing more of an approach, that this is not applicable to the zoning code per se. However, the Community Development Department finds that the zoning ordinance and regulating plan for Sub-Area 1 in Twin Lakes has incorporated many of the nuances indicated in the City’s vision. Policy 1.1: Use planning studies to evaluate options and to establish plans for reinvestment, revitalization, and redevelopment of key areas and corridors. The Community Development Department finds that this policy is a planning exercise and not applicable to the development of a Walmart within Twin Lakes. Policy 1.2: Ensure that local controls allow for contemporary retail, office, and industrial uses that are part of the community vision. The zoning ordinance adopted in December of 2010 incorporated a number of design elements to address many of the nuances discussed in the community’s vision both generally for the whole City and specifically for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. Policy 1.3: Encourage an open dialogue between project proposers, the surrounding neighborhood, and the broader community through individual and neighborhood meetings and use of technology. When projects are permitted under the zoning ordinance, it is difficult for the Community Development Department to pick and choose which projects should or should not be encouraged to offer such a meeting. Since the Community Development Department finds that the retail use is not limited, restricted, or prohibited under the CMU district, the Department has no regulation to utilize to require such a meeting, even if for educational purposes. The Community Development Department has modified the zoning ordinance to require such meetings for certain application processed and/or land use requests. However, permitted uses are not required to conduct such meetings. Policy 1.4: Enhance communication of the community’s objectives for promoting business development to enhance the quality of life in Roseville. The Community Development Department finds that while more can be always be done to support this policy, lack of resources have limited the City’s ability to undertake this task. 10 Page20of27 AttachmentD Policy 1.5: Where appropriate, use public-private partnerships to achieve the community’s economic development and redevelopment goals. The proposed Walmart development is not a public-private partnership. All costs for the development will be borne by the private sector. Goal 2: Enhance opportunities for business expansion and development that maintains a diverse revenue base in Roseville. The Community Development Department finds that the zoning ordinance has encouraged business opportunities in new and existing facilities and that a Walmart will add to the diversity of the tax base in Roseville. Policy 2.1: Foster strong relationships with existing and prospective businesses to understand their needs and to maximize opportunities for business retention, growth, and development. The Community Development Department finds that the policy is for those existing business that for some reason cannot realize their desires without some form of City assistance. The proposed Walmart is a new permitted project that is not seeking any such assistance. Policy 2.2: Support existing businesses and welcome new businesses to serve Roseville’s diverse population and/or provide attractive employment options that encourage people to live within the community. The Community Development Department finds that a Walmart will be a new business in Roseville to serve its diverse population and one that may allow for residents in Roseville to work and live in their community. Policy 2.3: Improve the awareness of community assets and opportunities that Roseville offers prospective businesses through ongoing participation in regional economic development organizations and coordination with county and regional agencies. The Community Development Department finds that this policy is not applicable to Walmart. Policy 2.4: Encourage locally owned and/or small businesses to locate or expand in Roseville. The Community Development Department finds that although a Walmart is not locally owned or a small business, the Department has not strayed away from its encouragement of such businesses in Roseville. Goal 3: Establish an infrastructure system to meet the needs of current businesses and facilitate future growth. The city has constructed much of the public infrastructure to make Twin Lakes development- ready. Policy 3.1: Work with local businesses and the Metropolitan Council to improve transit service to, from, and within Roseville. The Community Development finds that in order to compel a conversation with Met Council on improved transit anywhere in Roseville, there needs to be the density to support such 11 Page21of27 AttachmentD Metropolitan Systems. The proposed Wal-Mart development, although vehicle oriented (like most of Roseville and many other suburbs) is but one piece of the puzzle known as Twin Lakes, and that after more density and development comes to fruition, the City will have those conversations to determine whether existing service can be modified in such a manner fulfill this broad policy statement. Policy 3.2: Work with Ramsey County, MnDOT, and the Metropolitan Council to promote, coordinate, and facilitate regional improvements to the roadway system, as well as to communicate planned roadway improvements to the general public in advance of construction. The City will continue to work with the above governmental agencies to address future transportation needs not solely caused by Twin Lakes as a redevelopment project that is anticipated to add traffic back into the system. Policy 3.3: Ensure that adequate public utilities (e.g., sewer and water) will be available to serve future commercial and industrial development. Adequate public infrastructural services have been established for a large portion of the Sub- Area 1, Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. However, more infrastructure improvements are anticipated to accommodate additional future developments, as identified in the Twin Lakes AUAR. Policy 3.4 Encourage and promote the development of advanced, state-of-the-art telecommunication and information technology infrastructure to and within Roseville. The Community Development Department finds that this policy only applies to individual developers to the extent that infrastructure is a component of their specific development. Policy 3.5: Work with service providers to ensure adequate supplies and reliable distribution systems for electricity and natural gas. The Community Development finds that this policy only applies to suppliers of natural gas and electricity. Goal 4: Encourage reinvestment, revitalization, and redevelopment of retail, office, and industrial properties to maintain a stable tax base, provide new living wage job opportunities, and increase the aesthetic appeal of the city. The Community Development Department finds that the Walmart project contributes to achieving this general or broad based goal. Policy 4.1: Encourage and facilitate infill commercial, industrial, and office development on vacant commercial parcels to ensure maximum efficiency of land use. The Community Development Department finds that Twin Lakes is, to some extent, a rather large infill development area, and that the proposed development of a Walmart at the corner of Cleveland Avenue and County Road C, will be designed and constructed utilizing the efficiencies regulated within the zoning ordinance. 12 Page22of27 AttachmentD Policy 4.2: Encourage and facilitate redevelopment of or distressed commercial, industrial, and retail properties into viable developments by working with property owners and interested developers. The Community Development Department finds that the Walmart project contributes to the redevelopment of distressed property. Policy 4.3: Foster environmental remediation of polluted property through partnerships with property owners and funding agencies. The Community Development Department finds that the city will participate where applicable and appropriate in the remediation of pollution on the Walmart site. However, at the very least the City will review and approve certain remediation plans consistent with the city’s regulations, policies and ordinances. Policy 4.4: Use inspections and code enforcement to promote the maintenance of property, identify ongoing issues, and prevent the spread of potential blighting factors. The Community Development Department finds that this policy is not applicable to the development of a property, but is rather to ensure on-going maintenance. Policy 4.5: Continue to give attention to creating and maintaining aesthetic quality in all neighborhoods and business districts. The Community Development Department finds that the requirements of the CMU district and its design standards, the regulating plan, and the property performance standards, the updated zoning ordinance contributes to achieving this policy. Goal 5: Make effective use of available financial resources to facilitate community economic development and redevelopment objectives. The Community Development Department finds that such financial support is discretionary and existing policies regarding such financial support traditionally do not support retail projects. The Community Development Department further finds that the proposed Walmart development seeks no financial support and as such, allows any existing and/or future funds to be considered for other economic development or redevelopment projects in Twin Lakes or elsewhere in Roseville. Policy 5.1: Establish a strong working knowledge of the type and purpose of available municipal, regional, state, and federal development incentive programs. The Community Development finds that this policy offers instruction for the City in support of effective use of financial and other development tools; this policy does not apply to developers. Policy 5.2: Review new and innovative economic development incentives for application in Roseville. The Community Development finds that this policy applies to City Staff and their continued efforts to promote business in Roseville; Incentives are to be offered from the City to a 13 Page23of27 AttachmentD prospective development/applicant, but not held against a development that desires to enter the community without seeking such incentives. Policy 5.3: Establish guidelines for the use of financial incentives to promote the most effective use of limited resources, including tax revenues. The Community Development finds that it is continuing to discuss such policies and that since the proposed Walmart development does not seek any funds or incentives, this policy does not apply. Goal 6: Integrate environmental stewardship practices into commercial development. The Community Development Department finds that there are certain state requirements for environmental stewardship including environmental remediation of soils, as well as those contained in the City Code including storm water management, landscaping, buffering, and preservation, to name a few, that apply to all development in Roseville. Policy 6.1: Foster transit-supportive development along existing and planned transit corridors. The Community Development Department finds that Twin Lakes can support transit and that this “fostering” is a broader topic than just one development within Sub-Area 1. Policy 6.2: Support official controls and programs that incorporate state-of-the-art technology for new construction or rehabilitation of existing commercial buildings that promotes innovative and sustainable building methods. The Community Development Department finds that the zoning ordinance offers several methods to incorporate newer methods to promote innovative and sustainable building methods, including the ability to use solar panels, innovative stormwater techniques and building density credit for structured parking. Policy 6.3: Encourage the use of high-quality, durable, and energy-efficient building materials and construction products in renovations of existing buildings and construction of new buildings to promote decreased energy and land consumption, resource efficiency, indoor environmental quality, and water conservation, and to lessen site and community impacts. The Community Development Department finds that the zoning ordinance goes a step further than encouraging, where, within the design standards, there are specific required elements related to vertical and horizontal articulation, window and door openings, four sided design, and building materials, that compel one to design buildings consistent with this policy. Policy 6.4: Encourage third-party certification (e.g., LEED) of “green” building practices for new and renovated commercial structures. The Community Development Department finds that it has encouraged in both meetings and discussions with potential developments, as well as has incorporated certain requirements that provide for greener building.It is the Community Development’s understanding that the proposed Walmart continues to add greener technologies to the building and site. 14 Page24of27 AttachmentD Policy 6.5: Create ongoing resources to educate the development community about “green” renovation and “healthy building” construction techniques. This item is not applicable to the Walmart project. However, the Living Smarter Fair held each February provides a number of education materials on being greener, including some construction methods and/or techniques. Policy 6.6: Encourage the use of low-impact and low-maintenance landscaping within commercial development to decrease natural resources consumed by landscape maintenance. The Community Development Department finds that the zoning ordinance includes a landscape section listing requirements for incorporating low-maintenance materials or zero-scape into their development project. Policy 6.7: Encourage the reduction of impervious surfaces, including consideration of decreasing parking requirements in return for additional landscaping and pervious surfaces The Community Development Department finds that the zoning ordinance within the parking and loading chapter has reduced on-site parking requirements, which has resulted in smaller parking fields than previously required. EPGP NVIRONMENTAL ROTECTION OALS AND OLICIES Goal 1: Protect, preserve, and enhance Roseville’s water, land, air, and wildlife resources for current and future generations. The Community Development Department finds that the zoning ordinance and other ordinances and policies of the City address the preservation and enhancement of the above items and more. Specific to Twin Lakes there is the CMU district, the regulating plan, the AUAR, and the master plan for Langton Lake Park, that address these items in their own way. Policy 1.1: Enforce all local, regional, and federal codes, ordinances, and laws that protect the environment. The Community Development Department finds that all applicable laws regarding the protection of the environment will be enforced regarding the Walmart project. Policy 1.2: Ensure that the natural environment is an integral part of the Roseville urban landscape. The Community Development Department finds that this policy is applicable to Walmart insofar as it lies within the Twin Lakes Redevelopment area for which standards and regulations apply. The Community Development Department further finds that the natural environment of Twin Lakes is Langton Lake Park which has a specific plan found in the Park’s Master Plan and which park is to be surrounded by a buffer as required by Chapter 1005.07(E) of the City Code. Policy 1.3: Protect and enhance terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitat, including grasslands, wooded areas, wetlands, ponds, shorelands, and lakes. The Community Development finds that there are no grasslands, wooded areas, wetlands, ponds, shoreline or lakes being directly impacted by the proposed development site. 15 Page25of27 AttachmentD Policy 1.4: Preserve and enhance natural resources within public open space by implementing best- management practices systems, including invasive-plant removal, rain gardens, bio filtration, and native-plant selection. The Community Development Department finds that all development sited in Roseville are required to implement best management practices. However, this policy is applicable to public open space areas and not a private development. Goal 2: Maintain the functions and values of the City’s drainage features (e.g. lakes, ponds, and wetlands). The Community Development finds that this goal, to the extent feasible, is being enforced through specific policies and Code requirements. That said, the proposed Walmart development is not altering any existing drainage features, and will provide storm water management that regulates the rate of run-off and holds back run-off as a means to clean the water prior to entering the City’s ponds, wetlands, and lakes. Policy 2.1: Protect and improve surface water quality in the City’s lakes, ponds, and wetlands to meet established standards. The Community Development Department finds that the Walmart project will be required to meet the latest standards that address surface water quality and control. However, this policy is more tied to the development of regulations than it is to the implementation of those adopted regulations. Policy 2.2: Identify and plan means to effectively protect and improve surface and groundwater quality through good “housekeeping” methods, such as street sweeping sensitive areas and monitoring water quality. The Community Development Department finds that this policy applies to the City Staff and their wherewithal to identify and address such items. Policy 2.3: Protect, preserve, and utilize surface- and ground-water storage and retention systems. The Community Development finds that all new development in Roseville is required to design storm water management systems that address this policy. Policy 2.4: Work with the watershed districts to collect water-quality data on lakes within the city. The Community Development finds that this policy applies to the City as an active participant in a relationship with a given watershed management organization in the collection of specific date and does not apply to a developer. Policy 2.5: Promote groundwater recharge by reducing stormwater runoff. The Community Development Department finds that to the extent feasible, developments will be allowed and possibly required to recharge the area’s groundwater, but only as such storm water management plans are approved by the applicable water management organization. 16 Page26of27 AttachmentD Goal 3: Prevent erosion into the City’s lakes, ponds, and wetlands. The Community Development finds that to the extent feasible, the City attempts to address erosion through enforcement and regulations. All developments are required to install erosion control fabric around the site perimeter so that should erosion occur, it is contained on-site and not impact adjacent public systems and/or ponds, wetlands, or lakes. Policy 3.1: Require storm-water management and erosion-control plans for urban development and redevelopment projects. The Community Development Department finds that all projects in Roseville are required to receive approval of a storm water management plan (by the city and water management organization) and is required to receive an erosion control permit. Policy 3.2: Enforce development controls to reduce non-point-source pollutant load in surface water runoff using best management practices, such as rain gardens, bio filtration, and ponding. The Community Development Department finds that the City’s storm water regulations address this policy, which requirements will apply to the Walmart development. Policy 3.3: Continue to cooperate with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in enforcing nonpoint source discharge standards. The Community Development finds that the City has adopted regulations consistent with or in support of nonpoint source pollution that are reviewed through a developments storm water management plan. . 17 Page27of27 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 7/9/2012 ITEM NO: 12.a Department Approval City Manager Approval preliminary plat Item Description: Request by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for approval of a of the land area bounded by County Road C, Cleveland Avenue, Twin Lakes Parkway, and Prior Avenue . (PF12-001) Application Review Details Public hearing: February 1, 2012 RCA prepared: June 29, 2012 City Council action: July 9, 2012 Action deadline (extended by applicant): July 9, 2012 quasi- Action taken on a plat proposal is judicial ; the City’s role is to determine the facts associated with the request, and apply those facts to the legal standards contained in State Statute and City Code. 1.0RA EQUESTEDCTION 1 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., in conjunction with Roseville Properties and University Financial 2 preliminary Corporation, current owners of the subject properties, seeks approval of 3 plat for the portion of Twin Lakes sub-area 1 bounded by County Road C, Cleveland 4 Avenue, Twin Lakes Parkway, and Prior Avenue . 5 2.0SR UMMARY OF ECOMMENDATION 6 The Planning Division concurs with the Planning Commission, which voted (5-1) to 7 recommend approval of the proposed ; see Section 8 of this report for PRELIMINARY PLAT 8 the detailed recommendation. 9 3.0SSA UMMARY OF UGGESTEDCTION 10 ND By motion, approve the proposed TL2A, PRELIMINARYWIN AKESDDITION PLAT 11 pursuant to Title 11 (Subdivisions) of the City Code; see Section 9 of this report for the 12 detailed action. 13 PF12-001_RCA_070912 Page 1 of 3 4.0B ACKGROUND 14 4.1The subject property has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Community Mixed Use 15 (CMU) and a corresponding zoning classification of Community Mixed Use (CMU) 16 District. The proposal has been prompted by plans to develop an PRELIMINARYPLAT 17 approximately 160,000-square-foot Walmart store in the eastern portion of the site and 18 two smaller future developments on the western side of the property, along Cleveland 19 Avenue. When exercising the so-called “quasi-judicial” authority when acting on a plat 20 request, the role of the City is to determine the facts associated with a particular request 21 and apply those facts to the legal standards contained in the ordinance and relevant state 22 law. In general, if the facts indicate the applicant meets the relevant legal standard, then 23 they are likely entitled to the plat approval, although the City is able to add conditions of 24 approval to ensure that the likely impacts to roads, storm sewers, and other public 25 infrastructure on and around the subject property are adequately addressed. 26 4.2While the City Council is only responsible for reviewing and acting on the proposal to 27 rearrange the parcel boundaries of the subject property rather than approving or denying 28 the overall development or the use itself, a rendering of the overall development concept 29 has been submitted to assist Public Works Department staff with understanding what will 30 be required for adequate storm water management; the concept rendering is included with 31 this report as Attachment C. 32 4.3This application, in conjunction with a final plat application and development agreement, 33 was first brought to the City Council on May 25, 2012; an excerpt of the meeting minutes 34 are included with this report as Attachment . At that time, the Council tabled the item in 35 order to take up the application first so as to avoid possible legal PRELIMINARY PLAT 36 complications resulting from taking concurrent action on a preliminary and final plat. 37 4.4Regardless of whether the proposed plat is approved, any future land use of the property 38 must either be a permitted use or receive any necessary zoning approvals; approval of the 39 does not change the zoning requirements pertaining to land uses. PRELIMINARY PLAT 40 5.0PA LATNALYSIS 41 5.1Plat proposals are reviewed primarily for the purpose of ensuring that all proposed lots 42 meet the minimum size requirements of the zoning code, that adequate streets and other 43 public infrastructure are in place or identified and constructed, and that storm water is 44 addressed to prevent problems either on nearby property or within the storm water 45 system. As a plat of a commercial property, the proposal leaves no zoning issues to be 46 addressed since the Zoning Code does not establish minimum lot dimensions or area. The 47 proposed is included with this report as Attachment D. PRELIMINARYPLAT 48 5.2Roseville’s Development Review Committee (DRC), a body comprising staff from 49 various City departments, met on January 12 and January 19, 2012 to discuss the 50 application. The DRC did not have any major concerns about the proposed PRELIMINARY 51 , but representatives of the Public Works Department have been working with the PLAT 52 applicant to address the typical public needs related to rights-of-way on adjacent 53 roadways as well as the overall site grading and storm water management. 54 5.3The includes a City-owned 4,643-square-foot (approximately 0.11- PRELIMINARY PLAT 55 acre) rectangle projecting south from the Mount Ridge Road/Twin Lakes Parkway 56 roundabout. Most of this “disposal area” can be simply sold to the applicants if the City 57 Council decides to do so; the terms of such sale would be included among a development 58 PF12-001_RCA_070912 Page 2 of 3 agreement that would accompany a future application for final plat approval. The western 59 10 feet of this area is, however, encumbered by a particular roadway easement associated 60 with (but legally independent from) the former Mount Ridge Road right-of-way in this 61 location. The dedicated Mount Ridge Road right-of-way was vacated in 2009 but, owing 62 to confusion over legal subtleties, the roadway easement on the 10-foot strip within the 63 disposal area was not vacated. If the City Council sees fit to sell the disposal area to the 64 applicants, formal vacation of the 10-foot strip will be the subject of a future application. 65 5.4Roseville’s Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the proposed PRELIMINARY PLAT 66 against the park dedication requirements of §1103.07 of the City Code, beginning on 67 December 6, 2011 and continuing the discussion on January 3, 2012; the minutes of the 68 Commission’s discussions are included with this report as Attachment E. 69 6.0PC UBLICOMMENT 70 6.1The duly-noticed public hearing for the application was held by the PRELIMINARY PLAT 71 Planning Commission on February 1, 2012; the approved minutes are included with this 72 report as Attachment F. After taking public testimony, the Planning Commission 73 discussed the application and voted 5-1 to recommend its approval. 74 6.2Email communications about the proposal received by the time this report was prepared 75 are included as Attachment G; no phone calls have thus far been received. In addition to 76 the written comments, an individual came to the Community Development counter to 77 express her support for the proposal. Because many of the comments express opposition 78 that is primarily grounded in concern about Wal-Mart’s corporate practices or preference 79 for a higher quality retailer or some other development type, it seems worth noting that 80 cities do not have the ability to discriminate between retailers or development types— 81 whether the reasons to discriminate are superficial or significant—in zoning districts 82 where a proposal represents a permitted type of land use. 83 7.0R ECOMMENDATION 84 Based on the comments and findings outlined in Sections 4 – 6 of this report, Planning 85 Division staff concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve 86 the proposed , pursuant to Title 11 of the Roseville City Code, with PRELIMINARY PLAT 87 the condition that a development agreement be executed in conjunction with the approval 88 of a subsequent application. FINAL PLAT 89 8.0SA UGGESTEDCTION 90 ND By motion, approve the proposed T2A WIN LAKES DDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT 91 pursuant to Title 11 of the City Code for the land area bounded by County Road C, 92 Cleveland Avenue, Twin Lakes Parkway, and Prior Avenue, including the 4,643-square- 93 foot rectangle of land that is the subject of the disposal request, based on the comments 94 and findings of Sections 4 – 6 and the recommendation of Section 7 of this report. 95 Prepared by: Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd 651-792-7073 | bryan.lloyd@ci.roseville.mn.us Attachments: A: Area map E:Parks and Recreation Commission minutes B:Aerial photo F:Minutes from 2/1/2012 public hearing C:Concept rendering G:Public comments D:Preliminary plat H:Minutes from 5/21/2012 Council meeting PF12-001_RCA_070912 Page 3 of 3 ARTHUR ST ADDITION STORE # 3404-05 TWIN LAKES 2ND CLEVELAND AVE & CR C PRELIMINARY PLAT ROSEVILLE, MN AttachmentE December 6, 2011 – excerpt of approved minutes 1 Preliminary information on park dedication for the 17.8 acres at Cleveland and County Road C 2 were presented to the Commission by Brokke. A proposal to develop the property into a Walmart 3 Shopping Center has begun to be reviewed by City staff. The role of the commission is to make 4 recommendation to the Council whether to accept land, cash or a combination of to satisfy the 5 park dedication requirement. 6 A recent potential proposal from the Walmart Representatives was to provide land dedication in 7 another area of Langton Lake. There is a possibility of a combination of land and cash as well as 8 the traditional all land dedication or all cash payment. The park dedication fees could contribute 9 to possible Master Plan projects. Commissioner Ristow suggested the commission consider 10 recommending the cash in lieu of land based on past needs and recent financial discussions. 11 January 3, 2012 – excerpt of draft minutes 12 Etten continued the discussion of park dedication considerations for the proposed Walmart 13 development in Twin Lakes. Earlier considerations included a parcel of land in an area away 14 from the development that might have served as a nice addition to Langton Lake Park. This land 15 dedication is no longer an option to fulfill the park dedication requirements. Etten also clarified 16 that the actual size of the parcel is 13.94 acres, rather than the 17.8 acres reported earlier. This 17 change in size is due to 3.86 acres being sold earlier to the City for the Twin Lakes Parkway. The 18 updated land equivalency for park dedication is .68 acres and the updated cash payment would 19 be $411,115, based on 5% of the FMV. 20 Commission Recommendation: 21 Motion by Doneen, second by Ristow to recommend the Roseville City Council accept cash in 22 lieu of land for park dedication in the proposed Walmart development. Commission questions 23 followed. 24 D. Holt inquired into what the land options were/are for the site. Brokke explained that 25 there were no appropriate park development options for this site. 26 Azer asked for a clarification of how the park dedication funds can be used. Brokke 27 clarified that the funds cannot be used for maintenance or ongoing costs but can be used 28 for land acquisitions, park development, and facility enhancement. The park dedication 29 funds could be used to further expand the projects identified by the Parks and Recreation 30 Renewal Program. 31 Motion passed unanimously. 32 Note: Greg Simbeck favored the cash in lieu of land option through his email to notify staff of 33 his absence from tonight’s meeting. 34 Page1of1 AttachmentF PLANNING FILE 12-001 1 Request by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for approval of a PRELIMINARY PLAT of the land area 2 bounded by County Road C, Cleveland Avenue, Twin Lakes Parkway, and Prior Avenue 3 Chair Boerigter opened the Public Hearing at 6:35 p.m. 4 Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd summarized the request of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in conjunction with 5 Roseville Properties, owner of the subject property, seeking approval of a PRELIMINARY PLAT of the 6 land area as identified and detailed in the staff report, and creating three (3) lots. 7 Mr. Lloyd advised that the request also included the transfer of ownership of a small portion of City- 8 owned land adjacent to the Mount Ridge Road roundabout. Mr. Lloyd clarified that this request for a 9 disposal of land by the City, was NOT a Vacation request, per se; but in lieu of a public hearing, and in 10 accordance with State Statute, the Planning Commission must review the proposed disposal of land and 11 determine whether it would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 12 Staff recommended approval of the proposed PRELIMINARY PLAT of the land area bounded by 13 County Road C, Cleveland Avenue, Twin Lakes Parkway, and Prior Avenue; along with the 14 recommendation that the Commission determine that the proposed transfer of ownership of land area 15 specified in the Preliminary Plat is in compliance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; based on the 16 comments and findings of Section 4-7, and the recommendation of Section 8 of the staff report dated 17 February 1, 2012. 18 Chair Boerigter sought clarification on the original intent in the City acquiring the property for creation 19 of Twin Lakes Parkway, and now the City’s determination that it was no longer needed and could be 20 disposed of. 21 Mr. Lloyd advised that the property had been originally acquired from the property owner for its 22 potential use in connection with the roundabout as access to the redevelopment property, but had not 23 been intended to create a public street south of the roundabout. 24 Chair Boerigter requested more detailed information from the City’s Engineer. 25 City Engineer Debra Bloom 26 Ms. Bloom concurred with Mr. Lloyd’s analysis of the City’s original intent in using the property as the 27 fourth leg of the roundabout for landscaping treatments. However, Ms. Bloom noted that this was prior 28 to the City knowing final roadway design, the type or size of the development that may occur in this 29 area, and that acquisition was for the most part precautionary in planning ahead; however, the City’s 30 need ended at the crosswalk and this property was no longer needed. 31 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd advised that the overall acreage of the 32 Walmart/Roseville Properties property was approximately fourteen (14) acres. 33 Member Strohmeier asked how staff responded to his interpretation of various areas in city-wide plans 34 versus Planning District 10 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Chapters 4 and 7) and development of a 35 big box retailer in the Twin Lakes area. 36 Mr. Lloyd noted staff comments that it was odd for a given development proposal to be reviewed by the 37 Planning Commission against the Comprehensive Plan, since it was not intended for that purpose, and 38 provided a misapplication of individual goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan if it were used as 39 a lens for this or any development. Mr. Lloyd noted that the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan was to 40 serve as a guide for creating specific requirements attempting to meet its policies, for instance the 41 zoning code update now addressing goals like walkable communities that were not addressed in 42 previous code. Mr. Lloyd opined that no one business was going to achieve entirely the goal of walkable 43 streets; however, walkable communities remained an overarching goal. 44 Page1of14 AttachmentF Member Strohmeier stated that he still had issues of apparent conflict, when focusing on District 10, 45 Future Land Use Section, and the portion about Twin Lakes and shopping as a primary focus of land 46 use. 47 Mr. Lloyd advised that the Twin Lakes area was generally described from Cleveland Avenue west to 48 almost Snelling Avenue, and north to County Road C-2 and even beyond excluding Langton Lake Park. 49 Mr. Lloyd noted that this was a large area with many existing developments that are relatively new (e.g. 50 medical office) that were not retail; however, he also noted that there were a significant number of 51 parcels that remained vacant and were ready for development. The fact that this is the first proposal for 52 redevelopment in the area, Mr. Lloyd noted, just happened to be a retail use. Mr. Lloyd responded from 53 staff’s perspective, that there remained a lot of room for other uses as the area develops; and if it became 54 apparent that retail was becoming the main focus for development in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment 55 Area, it would then no longer be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 56 City Planner Thomas Paschke referenced the AUAR for Subarea 1, bounded by Cleveland Avenue, 57 County Road C, and Fairview Avenue, which document gauges maximum thresholds in place governing 58 the types of uses; noting that the AUAR identified retail for the subject area and noted that further 59 development may create a threshold for too much retail in a given area. Mr. Paschke noted that, 60 obviously, that would only become apparent as the area expanded further, and that the AUAR document 61 would be used in judging any and all development or redevelopment, and tied to the recently-adopted 62 overlay district requirements. 63 Based on his personal review, Member Strohmeier opined that the staff report’s contention that this 64 proposal was consistent with the Twin Lakes Master Plan (page 11) suggests that the area should not be 65 recommended for large scale, big box retail, and sought staff’s response. 66 Mr. Lloyd advised that the simplest response would be that it was also not prohibited; and that it was not 67 a goal of the Master Redevelopment Plan to prohibit big box retail as it prohibited some industrial uses. 68 As with any review, Mr. Lloyd noted that this development proposal may not fully achieve every goal 69 and aspiration of the document, but this proposal was more or less consistent, and this specific retail use 70 provides for some of the same things recommended in the Plan. 71 Member Wozniak questioned if this was the only Public Hearing on this development; with Mr. Lloyd 72 responding that it was the only legally required hearing. Mr. Lloyd advised that the only reason for the 73 Public Hearing requirement was due to the applicant’s request for the disposal of the property and the 74 Plat itself, and the need for discussion in this venue and format. Mr. Lloyd noted that the Preliminary 75 Plat would not live or die with the analysis of the land proposed for disposal by the City; with nothing 76 else in the proposed development triggering a Public Hearing, unless Wal-Mart found the need for a 77 variance or other site issue in the future as the project developed. 78 Chair Boerigter sought clarification of the interaction of Preliminary Plat approval with the 79 Comprehensive Plan, AUAR and Twin Lakes Plan. Chair Boerigter questioned if additional traffic 80 control measures were part of the Preliminary Plat approval. 81 Mr. Lloyd advised that, as for the Plat itself, there was really no correlation with any of those 82 documents, other than superficially, since the Comprehensive Plan addressed transportation, but the 83 AUAR addressed transportation more specifically. Mr. Lloyd noted that when Twin Lakes Parkway was 84 constructed as part of the City of Roseville’s proactive infrastructure investment to facilitate 85 redevelopment in the Twin Lakes area, it was not related to this specific development but the overall 86 Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, with each project, including this proposed Wal-Mart development, 87 reliant on roadway connections. Mr. Lloyd advised that the traffic analysis for this particular 88 development, as a requirement for all proposals, was still under preparation, to determine if additional 89 traffic amenities were indicated (e.g. signals or additional turn lanes), staff did not anticipate that this 90 Page2of14 AttachmentF particular project would trigger those additional amenities, but that they would realistically be triggered 91 as additional developments came forward. Mr. Lloyd advised that roadway and traffic control 92 considerations would be considerations for any development as they related to the Comprehensive Plan 93 and AUAR, but had no bearing to other documents. 94 Chair Boerigter referenced Section 6.1 of the staff report, the last sentence, related to the Planning 95 Commission’s review of the requested City property disposal to make a determination about whether the 96 proposed development facilitated by the disposal was in compliance with the City’s Comprehensive 97 Plan, and asked that staff explain it more clearly. 98 Mr. Lloyd explained that the staff report talked about the proposed use in general, not the specific site 99 plan design under consideration, but whether the proposed retail use was consistent with the 100 Comprehensive Plan. 101 Chair Boerigter confirmed the language of that sentence again, clarifying the applicable standard for 102 which the Commission needed to make its determination. 103 Member Gisselquist questioned how intertwined the two recommended actions are, and whether the 104 development could be platted without the disposal of City property. 105 Mr. Lloyd opined that the Plat could probably be designed without the additional property. 106 Mr. Paschke advised that the request for disposal of the land was not so much a platting issue as a site 107 plan design issue; and opined that the developer could engineer the site if it was the City’s determination 108 not to sell back that piece of land, and that it was not necessarily needed to make the proposed 109 development work. 110 Chair Boerigter asked if the land would then remain available for City right-of-way; to which Mr. 111 Paschke clarified that the property was not City right-of-way, nor was it needed as such. 112 Mr. Lloyd concurred, noting that this was the reason a formal vacation was not being requested, since 113 the property had originally been intended to be used in conjunction with the roadway, but not strictly for 114 right-of-way purposes. 115 Member Gisselquist noted his understanding of the decision currently before the Commission based 116 strictly on land use, with parcels being brought together by private owners, with the land disposal 117 considered in light of the Twin Lakes Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan. Member Gisselquist 118 advised that the disposal of City land was of concern to him, understanding that plat itself allowed little 119 decision-making by the Commission. However, Member Gisselquist noted that, with the land disposal, it 120 brought to the forefront the documents worked on over several years by citizens (e.g. Zoning Code, 121 Comprehensive Plan, etc.). 122 Mr. Lloyd indicated that the most fundamental way staff reviewed the proposal was seeing it as 123 Comprehensive Plan amenable, noting that it was the purpose of the revised Zoning Code, and bringing 124 it into consistency with the goals and policies of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, not just for the entire 125 City but specifically for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area as well. While the Zoning Code revisions 126 are still fresh, Mr. Lloyd noted that staff made their recommendation after a thorough review and 127 confidence that the development met zoning requirements, and fell under the guidance of the 128 Comprehensive Plan. 129 Member Strohmeier expressed concern with the public notice issue after hearing from various neighbors 130 who had also expressed their concerns about the public notice for this proposed development. Member 131 Strohmeier questioned the trigger for requiring a community open house; opining that this was a pretty 132 substantial planning decision, and questioned why it hadn’t mandated an open house. 133 Page3of14 AttachmentF Mr. Lloyd advised that open houses are mandated for would-be applicants or applications that deviated 134 from City Code, or those things not in the usual realm of a particular Zoning District. Mr. Lloyd noted 135 that this plat had more to do with the Subdivision Code and realignment of parcels, and provided several 136 examples of developments requiring open houses. 137 Member Strohmeier opined that the community, as well as he, had been caught off guard by this 138 proposal. 139 Member Lester questioned what other land uses were proposed for this parcel in the future. 140 Mr. Lloyd advised that the overall Site Plan indicated several smaller restaurant uses on the smaller lots, 141 but the Plan also facilitated ownership of parcels for other allowable uses. Mr. Lloyd opined that 142 restaurant uses would typically follow a Wal-Mart development, but the buildings illustrated on the Site 143 Plan presented were simply included to address potential zoning requirements as an example, but may 144 not be their exact use as the parcel develops in the future. 145 At the request of Member Wozniak as to what other uses may occur, Mr. Lloyd advised that whatever 146 was allowed as a use in a Community Mixed Use District. 147 Applicant Representatives: 148 Will Matzek, Engineer of Record for Wal-Mart development team 149 Mr. Matzeck thanked the Planning Commission for their time and consideration of the two requested 150 actions, and concurred with staff’s review of the proposal details. Mr. Matzeck advised that of the 151 overall Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area of approximately 179 acres, this portion was approximately 152 fourteen (14) acres. Mr. Matzeck noted that the zoning designation and AUAR both looked at the 153 possibility of a retail site in the Redevelopment Area, anticipating 175,000 square feet of retail at this 154 location; noting that the actual area of the proposed Wal-Mart was somewhat less than that square 155 footage. Mr. Matzeck advised that Wal-Mart intended to comply with all Zoning requirements and 156 conditions as proscribed by staff in their report. 157 Member Boguszewski questioned if, for whatever reason, the Commission did not concur with 158 disposing the City parcel of land, how that would affect Wal-Mart’s plans or whether they could work 159 around that. 160 Mr. Matzeck advised that, generally speaking, the rationale for their request was that the additional 161 parcel would allow the site to function better and operate in a better and more efficient manner for the 162 City of Roseville as well as Wal-Mart. Mr. Matzeck opined that the roundabout and City infrastructure 163 in place will work well whether the City-owned property was purchased or not, and Wal-Mart engineers 164 could modify the Site Plan accordingly, while that would not be their preference. Mr. Matzeck clarified 165 that he didn’t anticipate that failure to transfer the property would not halt the project. 166 Public Comment 167 Chair Boerigter opened the meeting to public comment at this time. 168 Written comments received by staff to-date via various sources were included in the staff report dated 169 February 1, 2012, and included as Attachment F. Written comments via various sources received after 170 distribution of the agenda packet, are also included for the record, will be attached hereto and made a 171 part hereof, from the following residents: 172 Wendy Thompson , no address given (in opposition to Wal-Mart as the choice retailer); 173 Cary and Shannon Cunningham , 2920 Fairview Avenue N (in opposition to the development of a 174 big box retailer); 175 Page4of14 AttachmentF Doug Nonemaker , 2179 Dellwood Avenue (in opposition to the development of a big box retailer); 176 and 177 Gary Grefenberg , 91 Mid Oaks Lane (requesting delay of action at this time for further review of 178 the proposed development with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan). 179 Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane 180 As noted in Mr. Grefenberg’s written comments, and for full disclosure purposes, Mr. Grefenberg serves 181 on the City’s Human Resources Commission, and as Chair of that Commission’s Civic Engagement 182 Task Force as a subcommittee. 183 Mr. Grefenberg’s written comments and excerpt of the City’s Comprehensive Plan (Economic 184 Development and Redevelopment Sections 7.2, 7.3 and page 7.5) were provided by and included in the 185 agenda packet attachments to the staff report. Mr. Grefenberg verbalized his written comments, and 186 displayed the excerpted portion of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan during his comments; and referenced 187 portions of the staff report that he opined were not sufficiently vetted by staff and allegedly inconsistent 188 with the intent and goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Grefenberg asked that a decision 189 on this request be deferred until that additional vetting was done, and various areas specifically 190 evaluated and addressed by staff and Wal-Mart representatives. 191 Mr. Grefenberg noted the specific concerns in his neighborhood, and asked that staff address how this 192 development would not destroy his quality of life or provide rationale as to why specific questions were 193 not addressed by staff. Opining that Wal-Mart represented one of the richest companies in the country, 194 Mr. Grefenberg questioned why this development should be allowed to negatively impact Roseville 195 residents; and opined that the community deserved more than a shallow and superficial statement by 196 staff that the proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 197 Steve Gjerdingen, 2211 N Albert Street, Apt. #102 198 For full disclosure purposes, Mr. Gjerdingen serves as a member of the City’s Public Works, 199 Environment and Transportation Citizen Advisory Commission. 200 Speaking as a resident, Mr. Gjerdingen noted design standards for Mixed Use Zoning Districts for 201 placement of buildings on corner lots and their alignment to the property line; and questioned how this 202 development appeared to deviate from that standard, as well as questioning what the actual front of the 203 building was. Mr. Gjerdingen also questioned how this project would enhance or promote the primary 204 statement of purpose to increase pedestrian and multi-modal travel opportunities rather than relying on 205 vehicular transportation. Mr. Gjerdingen concurred with the comments of Mr. Grefenberg that action on 206 this proposal be deferred until all questions had been answered. 207 Chair Boerigter interrupted public comment to reiterate that the purpose of tonight’s meeting was not to 208 react to a specific Site Plan, only to consider the Preliminary Plat and disposal of city-owned land. Chair 209 Boerigter advised that, if the development itself was eventually approved, it would be required to meet 210 all conditions of the City’s Zoning Code. 211 At the request of Chair Boerigter, Mr. Lloyd responded to some of the items raised during public 212 comment to-date. Mr. Lloyd concurred with Chair Boerigter that the location of access doors, frontage 213 of the structure, and all other zoning requirements of the City would have to be met in order for the City 214 to issue building permits; with no development allowed short of meeting those codes or application for a 215 variance to deviate from any of them. Mr. Lloyd advised that the building front would be determined by 216 whatever street address it was given by the City, once design of structures had been completed; and he 217 anticipated that the primary street seeing the most traffic would indicate Mount Ridge Road as the front, 218 on the northwest corner of the site, or possibly Twin Lakes Parkway itself. 219 Page5of14 AttachmentF Whatever the final designation was, Mr. Lloyd noted that the Twin Lakes Regulating Plan had been 220 adopted late last year, and since codification of City Code only happened semi-annually, after which the 221 website was updated, he suggested that the documents on the City’s website pertaining to Community 222 Mixed Use may not reflect that most recent adoption of the Twin Lakes Regulating Plan and its 223 requirements that replaced previous code. Mr. Lloyd suggested that residents, when searching the 224 website for the most up-to-date zoning requirements, rely on HTML texts rather the PDF version, since 225 the revised text and the Overlay District may not yet be on the website in their entirety. 226 Member Strohmeier referenced the Statement of Purpose in Section 1005.07 of Zoning Code, 227 Community Mixed Use District, for complimentary uses organized in cohesive uses, and connecting to 228 trails, etc. to create pedestrian-oriented development. Member Strohmeier questioned how this Wal-Mart 229 proposal was pedestrian-centered, since he saw it as more vehicle-centered; and asked for staff’s 230 response. 231 Mr. Lloyd advised that staff did not address that specifically for this Preliminary Plat, as Wal-Mart 232 would become part of a larger redevelopment area of mixed uses, including offices, stand-along 233 businesses, residences, and other allowed uses under the Regulating Plan, and pedestrian corridors 234 would most likely be along the perimeters and would be cohesive for the overall redevelopment area. 235 Mr. Lloyd opined that Wal-Mart, as the first and as an individual project would not achieve that 236 pedestrian-friendly goal all at once or in a vacuum, but would be plugged into the pieces under that 237 overarching Regulating Plan. 238 Mr. Paschke added that we (Roseville) an auto-oriented community like most all uses, but advised that 239 the whole purpose of Mixed Use and Twin Lakes Regulating Plan was to promote other modes of 240 transportation in the future. Mr. Paschke noted that sidewalks and trails were already in place throughout 241 the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area as part of the public infrastructure investment built to-date. Mr. 242 Paschke advised that, within the Site Plan and as part of the Regulating Plan, the developer would be 243 required to perform additional work to achieve those requirements, as would other development projects 244 as they came forward. 245 Tim Kotecki, 3078 Mount Ridge Road 246 In addition to questioning if this development fit with the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Kotecki further 247 questioned whether this development would be part of a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District. 248 Mr. Paschke advised that the entire Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area was currently within a TIF 249 District; however, he clarified that the developer had not requested any TIF financing for their project. 250 Mr. Kotecki further questioned how much retail was currently within a two (2) mile radius of the 251 Rosedale Mall and including this area. Mr. Kotecki further questioned the ratio of shoppers anticipated 252 from within the confines of Roseville, and those anticipated from outside Roseville. Mr. Kotecki 253 questioned how many Wal-Marts had been built to-date in the Twin Cities area, and how many had 254 closed in that same area since 2001. 255 Sue Steinwall, Land Use Attorney for Wal-Mart in Minnesota, with the firm of Frederickson, 256 Byron, et al 257 In response to Mr. Kotecki’s questions, and with recognition by Chair Boerigter, Ms. Steinwall advised 258 that her client anticipated this Roseville Wal-Mart would serve primarily Roseville residents within a 259 two-mile radius of the store. In the Twin Cities area, Ms. Steinwall estimated twenty (20) existing Wal- 260 Mart stores; with five (5) of those within a ten (10) mile radius of this proposed store, with the closest 261 locations being on University Avenue in St. Paul and in St. Anthony Village. 262 To her knowledge, Ms. Steinwall was unaware of any Wal-Mart closings in the metropolitan area; and 263 was unable to respond to the amount of retail currently within two (2) miles of the Rosedale Mall area. 264 Page6of14 AttachmentF Mr. Kotecki questioned how Wal-Mart determined where to place a new store; and how much retail 265 space per capita was already in Roseville, opining that it was very high. 266 Chair Boerigter suggested that public comment refocus on the land use issues before the Commission, 267 not proprietary questions of Wal-Mart that they may choose not to respond to. 268 Jonathan Osborne, 1072 Shryer Avenue 269 Ms. Osborne questioned the process or next steps for this proposal, if the Planning Commission chose to 270 approve the Preliminary Plat; and if there would be other forums for citizens to express themselves on 271 the specific Plan for this site and for this specific retailer. 272 Mr. Paschke invited public comment, at any time, by passing them through staff or directly to City 273 Councilmembers; however, he noted that there would be no further formal Public Hearings for approval 274 of the Site Plan for this proposed use. 275 Mr. Osborne opined that this proposal had moved through various channels rather quickly; and 276 wondered if more people had been aware of it, if more people would have been at tonight’s meeting to 277 speak on the proposal. Mr. Osborne reiterated that it seemed to have happened too quickly. 278 Vivian Ramalingam, 2182 Acorn Road 279 Ms. Ramalingam expressed similar concerns to those brought forward by the previous speaker. 280 Generally speaking, Ms. Ramalingam opined that once the Planning Commission approved a Plan, it 281 was rubber stamped at the City Council level and became action. 282 Ms. Ramalingam expressed a number of concerns with this particular proposal, opining that new 283 business in Roseville should be locally-based to reach a regional consumer base. Ms. Ramalingam 284 further noted that there had been no discussion on additional costs generated by this retailer (e.g. 285 additional police, fire personnel, employee services borne by the City; education for employee children; 286 or food subsidies to feed those children required as a result of parents working in this particular low- 287 wage situation). Ms. Ramalingam noted that those considerations were not included in the Government 288 Decision triangle included in the staff report; and questioned whether there was any venue to address 289 these concerns. 290 Mr. Paschke reiterated that the decision before the Commission tonight was not whether to support the 291 Site Plan or the size of the proposed retail use on that site per se; but for their consideration of and 292 potential recommendation to the City Council supporting this land division to create or reassemble lots 293 in place into three (3) lots. From a process standpoint, Mr. Paschke advised that staff based the Planning 294 Division recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval based on the lot lines, easements, 295 and additional right-of-way meeting requirements of subdivision and zoning ordinances of the City. 296 Related to disposal of the 4,300 square feet of property currently owned by the City, Mr. Paschke 297 advised that this action required a slightly different analysis for determination; but reiterated that those 298 two items were not tied directly to a specific project or a given lot in Roseville; and therefore, no forum 299 was available for vetting them, or any Public Hearing process to review and approve them based on 300 those concerns raised, other than those provided to staff and forwarded to the City Council or received 301 directly by the City Council. 302 Ms. Ramalingam thanked Mr. Paschke for the thoroughness of his response; however, she opined that it 303 clearly showed a gap in the process itself. 304 Mr. Paschke recognized Ms. Ramalingam’s opinion; however, he noted that staff’s charge and 305 instructions were based on the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Codes in place that were used by the 306 Planning Division to enforce, as well as the Regulating Plan designed and governing the Twin Lakes 307 Redevelopment area, that didn’t instruct staff differently than the process currently used and as recently 308 adopted. Mr. Paschke advised that the Planning Division was unable to fundamentally change the 309 Page7of14 AttachmentF process; and was required to use the same process throughout the City of Roseville for any project or 310 application coming forward, in order to avoid preferential treatment. Mr. Paschke reiterated that it was 311 staff’s charge to enforce and implement the requirements within the Zoning Ordinance. 312 Ms. Ramalingam suggested that staff provide the City Council with the public comments and concerns 313 received related to this proposal; with Mr. Paschke assured her that the City Council would receive 314 minutes of tonight’s meeting so they would be aware of public sentiment. 315 In response to repeated cell phone interruptions during tonight’s meeting, Ms. Ramalingam asked that 316 the Planning Commission or the City Council itself make a policy statement or accommodation to 317 address such interruptions during public speaking, noting the difficulty in following procedures and in 318 hearing discussions due to those distractions. 319 For the benefit of the public and listening audience, Member Gisselquist provided examples of issues 320 that were heard by the Planning Commission (e.g. pawn shop request near Snelling Avenue as a 321 Conditional Use based on zoning considerations) and other uses that are on the list of allowed uses (e.g. 322 Source Comic Books at the same location) that do not come before the Commission since they are 323 allowed uses. Member Gisselquist noted that, as long as the use met zoning requirements at a specific 324 development site, there was less public involvement that occurred. 325 Member Strohmeier opined that City Code language related to Preliminary Plat approval (Chapter 326 1102.03) seemed to be broad. However, the health, welfare and general safety of citizens would appear 327 to be applicable in one or more of those categories with some of the concerns being raised by citizens. 328 Member Strohmeier suggested that, considering that broad language, perhaps the Commission’s hands 329 were not as tied as indicated. 330 Mr. Paschke responded that the language would only affect how the Subdivision Ordinance regulated or 331 applied to this particular property, stating that the City’s ordinances foster those things, and that the 332 Subdivision Ordinance was created to look out for those things and how land divisions were required in 333 Roseville through easements, lot sizes, etc. and meeting certain requirements within the Zoning 334 Ordinance such as for residential lots with specific sizes in certain zoning classifications. Mr. Paschke 335 advised that those topics would be germane to analyze Subdivision Zoning specific to land divisions, not 336 uses on the land, since other regulations govern the requirements of those specific uses. 337 Mr. Paschke noted that City Attorney Mark Gaughan was present and could expand on that 338 interpretation if he found it incorrect. 339 Rick Poeschl, 2220 Midland Grove Road 340 As a Roseville resident since 1968, Mr. Poeschl agreed with the comments heard during public comment 341 as well as those expressed by Member Strohmeier that if more residents had known about the Wal-Mart 342 plans, there would have been a much larger crowd in attendance tonight. Mr. Poeschl advised that he 343 had only heard about the Public Hearing from a neighbor and fellow resident at Midland 344 Condominiums; who had also mentioned that Roseville currently had more retail per capita that 345 Bloomington, MN with their much larger population. 346 Mr. Poeschl noted that Mr. Grefenberg had highlighted and displayed on the overhead, several sections 347 of the Comprehensive Plan’s goals and policies that seemed inconsistent; and reiterated that if more 348 people had known about tonight’s meeting, they would have provided more feedback. While not clearly 349 understanding staff’s responsibility to follow the language of the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Poeschl 350 opined that more neighbors should get involved. 351 Mr. Poeschl stated that he was opposed to the proposed Wal-Mart, and didn’t want a big box store in 352 Roseville, including a Wal-Mart. 353 Page8of14 AttachmentF Megan Dushin, 2249 St. Stephen Street 354 As noted in her written comments and for full disclosure, Ms. Dushin serves on the City’s Parks and 355 Recreation Implementation Committee for Natural Resources. 356 Ms. Dushin verbalized her prepared, written comments, and for the record, provided a bench handout of 357 those comments, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Ms. Dushin opined that she found it odd that 358 this was the only public hearing to discuss this proposal, however opined that it was not surprising as 359 this had happened before. Ms. Dushin further opined that staff seemed to be facilitating this request as 360 quickly as possible, without taking the Comprehensive Plan into consideration. Ms. Dushin encouraged 361 Commissioners to take her comments and questions into consideration when voting tonight. Ms. Dushin 362 also questioned how the proposed bike trails off Fairview Avenue currently being proposed by the Parks 363 and Recreation Commission would be impacted by this development. 364 Shirley Friberg, 2130 Fairways Lane 365 As a resident of Roseville since 1960, Ms. Friberg questioned if the Comprehensive Plan would be 366 addressed if the Planning Commission recommended approval. 367 Mr. Paschke referenced tonight’s proposed actions, as two (2) steps, as detailed in the staff report; 368 emphasizing that neither action was related to the proposed use of the site. Mr. Paschke suggested that 369 citizen input focus on whether the plat met the requirements of City Code as it related the Preliminary 370 Plat and boundaries, and consistency of the requested city-owned land disposition with the 371 Comprehensive Plan. 372 Ms. Friberg stated that she had just heard about this proposal, and questioned if the proposed Wal-Mart 373 site was the same one considered by Costco several years ago; noting that she frequented both Costco 374 and Sam’s Club; and questioned whether there would be additional thefts to be concerned with if one of 375 those stores were located there, opining that they had many internal controls to monitor shoppers. 376 However, Ms. Friberg noted the number of police reports at Rosedale Mall that she observed in the 377 media, recognizing the size of that center and the number of stores; as well as youth in the area and bus 378 stops. Ms. Friberg opined that one of the problems with a Wal-Mart store would be people coming from 379 outside Roseville beyond two (2) miles, since Rosedale had people coming from Wisconsin, and even 380 bypassing Maplewood Mall for Rosedale as a more preferred shopping destination. Ms. Friberg opined 381 that there would be the need for increased police based on shoplifting, car vandalism, and other issues; 382 and questioned the negative impacts to the senior residence in that area; and if they would be safe 383 walking to Wal-Mart from their residence, given that potential negative impact. 384 Mr. Paschke advised that there was currently no sidewalk or trail on the east side that would facilitate 385 pedestrians from the senior residence to the proposed Wal-Mart location. 386 Ms. Friberg referenced other communities, such as St. Louis Park and Excelsior Boulevard 387 th improvements and Edina at 50 and France; and questioned what we wanted Roseville to look like; or 388 whether we preferred that it end up like the Richfield, Golden Valley, Brooklyn Center or Robbinsdale. 389 Chair Boerigter asked that Ms. Friberg refocus her comments on the issue before the Commission; and 390 suggested that the public refrain from possible misperceptions that people coming to Wal-Mart were 391 going to be of the criminal element and elevate crime levels in Roseville. Chair Boerigter noted that 392 there was a Target store not too far from this area that didn’t support that perception. 393 Ms. Friberg defended her position by noting that more youth would be coming into that area and when 394 that happened, there were more crimes. Ms. Friberg opined that Target handled their store security quite 395 well; however, she did have a concern with a Wal-Mart located in Roseville, given the types of 396 problems their stores frequently had, and questioned if that was what type of community we wanted. 397 Page9of14 AttachmentF Member Wozniak questioned if it was reasonable for staff to address potential costs the City may incur 398 for emergency services with such a development. 399 Mr. Paschke advised that he was unable to foresee the future to make a determination or estimate a 400 potential cost for additional police, fire and/or rescue needs as the City developed. However, Mr. 401 Paschke opined that this proposed business was no different than any other business coming into 402 Roseville that the City’s Codes would encompass for regulation and enforcement, whether parks, 403 residential homes or complexes, or commercial/industrial businesses. 404 At the request of Member Wozniak as to how the City would recover those costs, Mr. Paschke 405 responded that the City’s main mechanism to support those services was through property taxes. 406 Member Gisselquist referenced Section 5.2 of the staff report, noting that part of the review process 407 involved the Roseville Development Review Committee (DRC) composed of staff from various City 408 Departments, and their representatives participating in reviews of such land use proposals, at which time 409 the public safety issues most certainly would have been considered and discussed prior to staff’s 410 recommendation. 411 Mr. Paschke advised that the focus of those meetings, specific to this proposal, would have been the land 412 divisions, and not necessarily the proposed use itself. However, Mr. Paschke noted that had been 413 anticipated that a large retail use could come in, and staff had been prepared for that possibility and 414 related comments coming forward. Mr. Paschke referenced that the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, 415 through the AUAR and all Zoning, Comprehensive, Master and Regulating Plans had contemplated 416 retail in this area, and noted that this use was consistent with those plans and potential uses; evidenced 417 by the relevance of the proposed use and its fit with the City’s Zoning Ordinance. 418 Member Strohmeier, based on his interest and background in public safety, and during his review of this 419 proposal, referenced and quoted recent written comments provided by City of Roseville Police Chief 420 Rick Mathwig in preparing for strategic planning discussions with the City Council for a long-term goal 421 to“…Add tow (2) commercial patrol officers to enhance the Police Department’s ongoing efforts with 422 the retail community. Retail and commercial development, especially a big box store, in the Twin Lakes 423 area will increase theft-related incidents. One big box store is anticipated to bring 700 – 900 extra calls 424 for police services each year. The Police Department’s resources will be taxed by the development, and 425 the resources currently in place at Rosedale will be stretched.” From a common sense standpoint, 426 Member Strohmeier opined that a big box retailer would have considerable fiscal impacts to the City’s 427 Police Department. 428 Member Wozniak, from a historical standpoint, asked staff how long this property had been vacant or 429 under-utilized; with Mr. Paschke advising that he had been with the City for thirteen (13) years with the 430 property remaining vacant; and he was aware that the City had been attempting to develop the Twin 431 Lakes Area since the 1980’s. 432 Member Wozniak questioned how many, if any, developments had previously come forward for this 433 specific parcel; with Mr. Paschke advising that, to his knowledge, there had been one other proposal, 434 which was ultimately unsuccessful. 435 Member Wozniak asked Mr. Paschke what impacts he would see for this development on other parcels 436 and further development in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. 437 Mr. Paschke responded by opining that any development in the Twin Lakes area will spur other 438 development, a historically proven occurrence. Mr. Paschke noted the enticement for that development 439 based on the funds invested by the City to-date for infrastructure development in the area. However, 440 how long that development would take Mr. Paschke refused to predict due to market conditions; 441 however, he noted that many parcels in the Twin Lakes area were considered currently “development 442 Page10of14 AttachmentF ready.” Mr. Paschke noted further development would be based on clean up costs and the willingness of 443 potential developers’ willingness to build consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Twin Lakes 444 Regulating Plan, and couldn’t predict if it would take this one proposed development or more to spur 445 associated uses. 446 Member Boguszewski, from his career in health services and strategy in determining additional potential 447 growth areas in which to place facilities, advised that they often looked for such developments as an 448 indicator of a strong population and strong economic growth; opining that this supported Mr. Paschke 449 comments. 450 Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing at 8:08 p.m., with no one appearing for or against. 451 Member Wozniak asked Mr. Paschke to comment on the proposed park dedication fee associated with 452 this parcel and its use; and asked how that fee would be allocated. 453 While recognizing that it was not related to land use considerations under discussion at this venue, Mr. 454 Paschke advised that park dedication fees paid to the City of Roseville were based on 5% of the 455 property’s fair market value as determined by the Ramsey County Assessor; and based on that 456 calculation, he estimated that if the development proceeded they would pay the City in excess of 457 $400,000 for this land division. Mr. Paschke advised that the fees were specifically designated for park 458 enhancements and improvements in and around the City; but was unsure of the exact language as per 459 State Statute. 460 Member Wozniak duly noted that, if this parcel was to be developed, the developer would be 461 contributing a significant amount in fees toward the City’s park system. 462 Planning Commission Discussion/Position Statements 463 Member Boguszewski noted the many layers in tonight’s discussion; even though the Commission’s 464 decision-making was focused on the Preliminary Plat itself and parcel transfer. While other areas of 465 discussion as to use or development of the parcel and how the site was ultimately designed were not 466 necessarily germane to the question at hand, at the same time, Member Boguszewski recognized the 467 concerns of the audience that they may have no other opportunity to discuss the merits of the proposed 468 use. Member Boguszewski noted that there would always be merits and demerits for any project or use, 469 and at the risk of making his life less easy, he offered his thoughts and rationale for his position. 470 Member Boguszewski offered his personal assessment and analysis of the merits and demerits for this 471 parcel; recognizing that it was a passionate issue for citizens, and that the passion often made it difficult 472 for people to understand other points of view. Member Boguszewski noted that the comments heard 473 tonight were not in favor of this particular use; however, he advised that he had personally received and 474 seen support for a Wal-Mart in Roseville, and while not unanimous, it obviously remained a divided 475 issue. 476 Member Boguszewski asked that residents keep several things in mind: 477 1)The City of Roseville does not own this land and has no ability to force any particular development 478 or option such as an IKEA, Trader Joe’s or other option. If the proposal meets City Code requirements, 479 it is not the City’s job to fetter that development. Member Boguszewski stated that he believed in the 480 free market, and in comparing a Wal-Mart to the vacant parcel currently there, allowing all the negatives 481 to rise to the forefront, when considered in isolation, there was nothing to compare it with. 482 2)Addressing another category of comments heard that Wal-Mart would be a blight or detriment to a 483 beautiful spot, Member Boguszewski opined that this perception was in the eye of the beholder. When 484 reviewing the location, Member Boguszewski noted that its location on the west side of the City, 485 bounded on the south by a County road and railroad tracks, on the east by light industrial uses, and on 486 the west by the Interstate; while further beyond that the area included a mass of car dealerships and 487 Page11of14 AttachmentF similar uses, if Wal-Mart chose to locate in Roseville, he could think of no better spot. Member 488 Boguszewski suggested that Roseville citizens could choose whether or not to shop at Wal-Mart, but if 489 they were concerned that Wal-Mart was going to bring detritus to Roseville, this proposed location was 490 at the most extreme edge of the community as possible. 491 3)Based on his personal bias, Member Boguszewski stated that he did not consider and remained 492 unconvinced that Wal-Mart was similar to a nuclear waste plant. 493 Member Boguszewski advised that he took his role as a Planning Commissioner very seriously, and 494 therefore had sought the advice of a market professor friend and was made aware of a number of articles 495 on both sides of the issue, with as many saying that Wal-Mart was a positive for a community as those 496 saying it was a negative. Member Boguszewski advised that his research of those articles and various 497 opinions indicated that the impact to a community was based on a number of issues including, but not 498 limited to, the area itself, existing retail, highway access, and existing “Mom and Pop” stores. Member 499 Boguszewski advised that it would depend on Wal-Mart’s business plan and their market research as to 500 whether this store was a success or a failure; and was ultimately not the business of Roseville citizens 501 anyway, since they had a right to develop in Roseville in compliance with City Codes. 502 While not believing that it was necessary to address the merits and/or demerits of a Wal-Mart in 503 Roseville, since the Planning Commission’s task was based on technical issues, Member Boguszewski 504 advised that he had done so for the benefit of Roseville citizens, recognizing the importance to them. 505 Member Boguszewski advised that he would be voting in support of the requested actions. 506 Member Wozniak thanked the audience for their public comment, noting that he had observed them 507 through various forums before tonight’s meeting as well. Member Wozniak expressed his 508 disappointment in some of the comments he’d seen and heard, however he did support the public’s right 509 and appreciated their efforts to come out tonight to share them with the Planning Commission. 510 Member Wozniak concurred with the observations of Member Boguszewski in the narrow focus for 511 Commission deliberations in approving property boundaries and transfer of City-owned property to a 512 developer to facilitate a development. Member Wozniak stated that it was his belief that what was being 513 proposed for this parcel was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and retail use; and advised that he 514 would support the property transfer and Preliminary Plat as proposed. 515 Member Wozniak noted the comments he’d heard about the City “railroading” this development; and 516 stated that he strongly disagreed with that comments. If the proposal seemed to be moving fast, Member 517 Wozniak reminded the public of the Statutory requirements for land use considerations and the time 518 available for a City to act on a given proposal. 519 Member Wozniak clarified that the use itself as proposed was outside the scope of tonight’s discussion, 520 and was a permitted use not requiring discussion. However, Member Wozniak suggested that, while 521 outside the scope of tonight’s discussion, it was apparent that talking about the proposal may be a need 522 for the community and encouraged Wal-Mart and their development staff to open dialogue with 523 residents about their presence in the Roseville community, since it the proposal was successful, Wal- 524 Mart would need to positively interact with the residents it sought to serve. Member Wozniak 525 encouraged Wal-Mart representatives to look for opportunities to interact with the community on the 526 positives they bring to the community, and not just allow the negatives or perceived negatives to remain 527 in the forefront. 528 Member Lester advised that Members Boguszewski and Wozniak had effectively covered most of his 529 comments. Member Lester advised that his analysis attempted to look at the end result, and after almost 530 thirty (30) years of the City attempting to develop the Twin Lakes area, bringing in a potential use was a 531 good thing, no matter who it was as long as it was meeting City Code requirements. Member Lester 532 clarified again that tonight’s request was focused on the Preliminary Plat, not the use; and discussions 533 Page12of14 AttachmentF were based on a vacant piece of land on which a viable company was being proposed. Member Lester 534 opined that Wal-Mart was a stable company; and further opined that the Comprehensive Plan supported 535 such a retail use; and the need was evident for bringing in an initial development to further future 536 development of the area. Member Lester advised that he supported the proposal and would support it. 537 Member Gisselquist thanked the public for their comments. Member Gisselquist advised that the 538 Preliminary Plat portion of the request was an easy decision; basically assembling parcels of land for a 539 proposed use, and it made sense to approve that request. 540 However, Member Gisselquist advised that he struggled with disposal of the land when applying it to 541 the Comprehensive Plan until he reviewed the Twin Lakes Master Plan on line and reviewed that 542 language. In referring back to previous discussions about a proposed Costco, Member Gisselquist 543 opined that it appeared they had been chased out as the big box “bogey man.” 544 Member Gisselquist advised that he would support the Preliminary Plat and land disposal. 545 In recognizing that the big box use served as the elephant in the room and remained present, Member 546 Gisselquist opined that it had nothing to do with the request before the Commission; but assured that the 547 Commission had heard the concerns expressed by those speaking tonight; and noted that Member 548 Boguszewski had shared considerations on the other side of the issue as well. 549 Member Gisselquist stated that one part of being a Planning Commissioner was that he didn’t like 550 hearing criticisms of those seeking to come into the community. As a former “Richfield guy,” Member 551 Gisselquist advised that he took comments personally when they dished his former neighborhood. After 552 thirty (30) years, Member Gisselquist opined that it was time to do something in the Twin Lakes area, 553 referencing his personal observations when last biking in the area of four foot (4’) grass growing 554 through broken asphalt, vacant spaces, and graffiti abounding. Member Gisselquist assured residents 555 that there was already a good police presence in the area based on his experience he shared as an 556 example. Member Gisselquist opined that the area was currently a wasteland and he supported someone 557 developing it; and while it will continue to be controversial, it was the right thing to do. 558 Member Strohmeier thanked the public for their comments; and respectfully disagreed with other 559 commissioners that the Commission’s hands were tied regarding the Plat, opining that this was a major 560 planning decision and a big deal. Member Strohmeier referenced various guiding documents showing 561 that big box retail is not something that will benefit a community, including the Twin Lakes Master 562 Plan, as well as sections of the Comprehensive Plan as displayed by Mr. Grefenberg and his comments, 563 some of which he may disagree with. However, Member Strohmeier did recognize the numerous 564 inconsistencies pointed out by Mr. Grefenberg. Member Strohmeier opined that he would agree with the 565 Statement of Purpose for Commercial Mixed Use Districts, and the lack of a pedestrian, rather than 566 vehicle-centered use. Member Strohmeier opined that this was simply one more way to add to the 567 community’s frustration in their apparent lack of a role in a role in local government, and expressed his 568 disappointment in the current public process. Member Strohmeier advised that he would be voting in 569 opposition to both requested actions. 570 Chair Boerigter thanked the public for their comments, and noted his rationale in allowing for some 571 flexibility with the broad-based comments even when outside the specific scope being considered 572 tonight; recognizing that this was a Public Hearing needing to allow a forum for those public comments. 573 However, Chair Boerigter emphasized that the Commission’s decision-making needed to focus on the 574 limited scope of the Preliminary Plat and city-owned property disposal. 575 Chair Boerigter opined that he didn’t personally think this was outside the Comprehensive Plan, but that 576 it actually fit with the Comprehensive Plan and work done by the City over the last 5-6 years as a 577 Planning Commission and City Council to guide Twin Lakes development. 578 Page13of14 AttachmentF Chair Boerigter further opined that to have a perception that Roseville residents didn’t have a voice in 579 this was quite ludicrous since the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area had been a topic of discussion for 580 years; and as late as last fall, the Planning Commission and City Council held numerous and substantive 581 discussions on the Zoning Code, the Twin Lakes Regulating Map, and other issues, and the allowed uses 582 in Twin Lakes, all of which were consistent with this proposal. Chair Boerigter suggested that, to think 583 that a big box retailer may not develop in the Twin Lakes area was hard to imagine, when all that was 584 required was to listen to discussions to understand that retail was a permitted use and it may include a 585 large scale retailer. 586 Chair Boerigter stated that a review of the current Zoning Code would serve to dictate what was 587 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and as pointed out by staff, the Zoning Code was amended to 588 make it consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, along with development of the Regulating Map 589 as the governing document to control development in the Twin Lakes area consistent with that 590 Comprehensive Plan. Chair Boerigter opined that it was important to take the overall picture into 591 consideration and what goes into the development area as a whole, and what the overarching guidance 592 of the Comprehensive Plan indicated, rather than picking out bits and pieces. Chair Boerigter expressed 593 his confidence that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code were both very specific on the governance 594 of what could or could not occur in developing and/or redeveloping the Twin Lakes Redevelopment 595 Area. 596 Based on his review of these documents, Chair Boerigter opined that the Preliminary Plat and request 597 for land disposition both met City Code requirements, and advised that he would support both. 598 MOTION 599 Member Boerigter moved, seconded by Member Lester, to RECOMMEND TO THE CITY 600 COUNCIL approval of the proposed PRELIMINARY PLAT of the land area bounded by County 601 Road C, Cleveland Avenue, Twin Lakes Parkway, and Prior Avenue; based on the comments and 602 findings of Sections 4-7, and the conditions recommended in Section 8 of the staff report dated 603 February 1, 2012. 604 Ayes: 5 605 Nays: 1 (Strohmeier) 606 Motion carried. 607 MOTION 608 Member Boerigter moved, seconded by Member Gisselquist, indicating the Commission’s 609 determination that the proposed transfer of ownership of land area specified in the Preliminary 610 Plat is in compliance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; based on the comments and findings of 611 Section 4-7 of the staff report dated February 1, 2012. 612 Ayes: 5 613 Nays: 1 (Strohmeier) 614 Motion carried. 615 Chair Boerigter noted the anticipated City Council action on this item is scheduled for February 27, 616 2012. 617 Page14of14 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: support@civicplus.com Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 3:25 PM To: *RVCouncil; Kari Collins; Bill Malinen Subject:Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactCityCouncil Subject:WalMartTrafficImpact&CostResponsibility Name::StuartShwiff Address::1233Josephine City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 Howwouldyouprefertobecontacted?Remembertofillinthecorrespondingcontactinformation.:NoReplyNecessary EmailAddress:: PhoneNumber:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:MayorDanRoe: MembersoftheRosevilleCityCouncil: AspartoftheproposedWalMartdiscussion,Iwouldliketobringtoyourattentionthepastassumptionsusedin forecastingtrafficloadsattheSouth,East,andWestendsofTwinLakes. Tomyknowledge,previousassumptionsdidnotconsiderthescaleoftrafficassociatedwithaWalMart.Iamneitherfor noragainstaWalMartatthatlocation.MyconcernisfocusedonthetrafficimpacttheproposedWalMartwillhaveon CountyRoadC,thefrontageroadat35W,andFairview. IfaWalMartisapprovedforthislocation,thenitwouldseemonlyfairthatWalMartberesponsibletopay100%forthe roadimprovementsnecessaryonall4sidesoftheTwinLakesarea. nthe WhyshouldRosevilleresidentshavetopayforfutureCtyRoadCimprovementsatSnellingandVictoriawhe congestionwillbecausebyWalMart. IurgetheCounciltointegratetheimpacttheWalMartproposalwillhaveonthe30yeartrafficplansbetweenthe Snellingcorridorand35W,andtochargeWalMartforthechangestheirproposalwillrequire. TwinLakesisaprimeretaillocationforthegreatermetro.WalMartwillearnafortuneatthislocation.IfaWalMartis approvedforthislocation,thereshouldbenoneedforRosevillecitizenstoberesponsibletopayforthecurrentand futureroadandtrafficneedsthisproposalwillrequire. y, Verysincerel Page1of95 1 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: support@civicplus.com Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 1:21 PM To: *RVCouncil; Kari Collins; Bill Malinen Subject:Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactCityCouncil Subject:WalMartProjectYes,please Name::M.E.G.Calabrese Address::1995WheelerSt.N. City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 Howwouldyouprefertobecontacted?Remembertofillinthecorrespondingcontactinformation.:NoReplyNecessary EmailAddress:: PhoneNumber:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:TotheMayorandCityCouncilMembers:Iamwritingtoletyou knowthatmyhusbandandIsupporttheproposedWalMartinRoseville.TheoppositionhasbeenvocalandIwantthe andbybuildingtheWalMarthere,Roseville "otherside"tobeheardalso.Thislandhassatvacantforanumberofyears willseemanybenefits:taxescollectedfromthem,moreemploymentanduseforthisotherwiseuselesspatchofland. ThisislargelyanonresidentalareasoIdon'tunderstandwhypeopleinmyownneighborhood(over2milesawayfrom thesite)areconcernedabouttraffic.PleasecontinuetosupporttheWalMartbuildingforthegoodofallofthe residentsofRoseville. AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:7/3/20121:20:41PM SubmittedfromIPAddress:128.101.150.89 ReferrerPage:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Directory.aspx?did=17 FormAddress:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Forms.aspx?FID=115 1 Page2of95 AttachmentG Thomas Paschke From: Vicci Una Johnson Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 11:17 AM To: Thomas Paschke Subject:Regarding Wal-Mart Mr.Paschke, ThepoliticsoftheWalMartCorporationleadsustounderstand,theydonotpayMinnesotastateincometaxes. NorFederal. KnowinghowRosevilleandtheStateofMinnesotaneedstaxes,pleasedenyWalMart'srequesttobuildin Roseville. WalMartgivesRosevilletheappearanceofa"lesseducated","cheap"or"lowquality"community.This appearancewilldowngradeRoseville'sabilitytoattractandmaintainaqualitycitizenry. ThecityofSt.PaulhasreceivedFederalGrantsforenvironmentalprojects,andemploypeoplefulltime.They Pleaseconsidersuchaprojectforour haveacompanythatburnsgarbageanditheatsalotofSt.Paulbuildings. belovedcityofRoseville. Thankyouforreadingthisemail, VicciJohnson2164FerrisLane/retiredSt.PaulTeacher 1 Page3of95 AttachmentG Thomas Paschke From: Bill Malinen Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:19 AM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:Fwd: Wal Mart Store Bill Begin forwarded message: From: Stephen Weber Date: June 20, 2012 5:29:36 PM CDT To: *RVCouncil <city.council@ci.roseville.mn.us> Subject:Wal Mart Store June 20, 2012 Dear Council Member, I have lived in Roseville since 1967, when I moved here and began my job. When I was looking for a bigger house in 1987, I instructed the realtor to find one between Rice Street and Snelling Avenue, between highways 36 and 694, preferably Roseville. My wife was very pleased that I chose to stay in Roseville Please hold off, or stop completely, the plans for a Wal-Mart store in Roseville. Travel through Roseville and stop to look around the existing shopping areas. See all of the empty spaces that exist, and have existed for a significant time. We have sufficient shopping areas and choices in Roseville now. We could use more, high quality, small businesses to fill those empty spaces. Some high-tech product companies would be a great addition on any vacant land. The addition of Wal-Mart would likely lead to the closing of more small businesses in Roseville, and empty spaces, like it has in so many other cities. Wal-Mart also has a bad reputation for lawsuits brought by their workers. We need to guard very carefully that we don’t become one of those typical ‘first-tier suburbs’, filling up with tattoo parlors, pawn shops, rowdy night spots, and other less desirable businesses. Thank you for your consideration. Stephen Weber, 585 Transit Ave Stephen Weber Confidentiality Statement: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information that is legally privileged. This information is intended only for the use of the individuals or entities listed above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of these documents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately and arrange for the return or destruction of these documents. 1 Page4of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Bill Malinen Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:20 AM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:Fwd: Proposed Wal Mart Development in Roseville Bill Beginforwardedmessage: From:DianeMHilden Date:June20,20124:40:29PMCDT To:*RVCouncil<city.council@ci.roseville.mn.us> Subject:ProposedWalMartDevelopmentinRoseville IcompletelyconcurwiththeanalysisandrecommendationsofJanetOlsonasnotedinthefollowingandurge theRosevilleCityCouncilnottoapproveWalMartinRoseville. DianeHilden,466BayviewDrive,Roseville,MN55113June20,2012 RosevilleisaZONINGISSUEnotsimplyaPrelimaryPlatMap TheWalMartproposalfortheTwinLakesareain Request. TheTwinLakesAreaiszonedCommunityMixedUseonwš­;ÝzŒŒ;x­OfficialZoningMap.Thedefinitionofa CommunityMixedUseZoneundertheComprehensivePlanincludesCommunityBusiness,butnotRegionalBusiness. TheWalMartproposalhasbeencategorizedbytheRosevilleCommunityDevelopmentDepartmentasa CommunityBusinessproposal.Thiscategorizationshouldbeinquestion.TheWalMartproposalshouldbecategorized asaRegionalBusinessproposalandthereforenotanalloweduseintheTwinLakesArea.Theareawouldneedtobere tyMixedUsetoRegionalBusinesstoallowaWalMart. zonedfromCommuni Theareasidentifiedinwš­;ÝzŒŒ;x­ZoningMapasCommunityBusinessareasincludesmallerbusinesseswith eareaatLexington specializedproducts,somegroupedinlargerbuildingssuchasHarMarmallorstripmallssuchasth andLarpenteurAves.WalMartdoesnotfitthatcategory. 1 Page5of95 AttachmentG TheComprehensivePlanandtheZoningMapandOrdinanceshouldallbetakenintoconsideration,asprovided forintheMinnesotaMetropolitanLandPlanningAct. InusingtheComprehensivePlan,theZoningMapandanexampleofcurrentzoningpracticesastrongargument osalasaRegionalBusinessproposal. canbemadetoclassifytheWalMartprop TheexistingTargetSuperStoreinRosevilleisconsideredaRegionalBusinessintheZoningcode.Criteriafrom wš­;ÝzŒŒ;x­ComprehensivePlanandZoningcodedeterminedthatzoning.Thesamecriteriashouldbeusedforthe WalMartproposal: WalMartProposalTargetSuperStore Buildingsize:180,000sqft185,000sqft includingrestaurantsincludingrestaurants Serviceradius: (neareststore)approximately3milesapproximately4miles LocationnearRegional HighwaySystem:Interstate35WStateHighway36 Goods&Servicessimilarsimilar erstoparkintheirlotsovernight,bybeinga WalMartitselfpromotesregionalbusinessbyinvitingRVs&camp 24hourbusiness,etc. PleaseconsideralltheinformationbeforevotingontheWalMartproposal. JanetOlson,418GlenwoodAve,Roseville,MN551136/04/2012 ________________________________ ConfidentialityStatement:Thedocumentsaccompanyingthistransmissioncontainconfidentialinformationthatis legallyprivileged.Thisinformationisintendedonlyfortheuseoftheindividualsorentitieslistedabove.Ifyouarenot 2 Page6of95 AttachmentG Thomas Paschke From: Reb1200 Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 6:43 PM To: Thomas Paschke Subject:Walmart vote As a citizen of Roseville, I am against having a Walmart Store in Roseville. Elizabeth Bole 1 Page7of95 AttachmentG Thomas Paschke From: Martha Mutch Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:35 PM To: Thomas Paschke Subject:Support Walmart I would like to express my SUPPORT for having a Walmart in Roseville. Martha Mutch 2040 Loren Rd Roseville 55113 1 Page8of95 AttachmentG Thomas Paschke From: support@civicplus.com Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 12:48 PM To: Thomas Paschke Subject:Online Form Submittal: Contact Thomas Paschke Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactThomasPaschke Name::KarinMascia Address::1270WestBelmontLane City::Roseville State::Mn Zip::55113 HomePhoneNumber:: DaytimePhoneNumber:: EmailAddress:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:IthoughtbythefutureplanthatexcludedCostcofromRoseville,we wouldnotbehavingaWalmarteither.Intermsofemployer,qualitycompany,Costcowouldhavebeenmuchbetterfor RosevillethanWalmartinmyopinion. AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:6/19/201212:48:26PM SubmittedfromIPAddress:24.118.123.8 ReferrerPage:http://roseville.patch.com/articles/isproposedrosevillewalmartstoreapermitteduseunderzoning code?ncid=newsltuspatc00000001 FormAddress:http://www.cityofroseville.com/Forms.aspx?FID=99 1 Page9of95 AttachmentG Thomas Paschke From: support@civicplus.com Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 2:35 PM To: Thomas Paschke Subject:Online Form Submittal: Contact Thomas Paschke Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactThomasPaschke Name::vincepallin Address::1699chatsworthstn City::roseville State::mn Zip::55113 HomePhoneNumber:: DaytimePhoneNumber:: EmailAddress:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:DearTomturningoverlandtowalmartistheeasiestthinganycity councilcoulddo.Ithinkrosevilleisbetterthanthat.Letsthinklongtermandleavethistosomethingbiggerandbetter astheworldeconomymaturesthislandwithrailaccesswillbeattractive.thereisnoplacebetterthanRoseville.best regaurdsVincePallin AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:6/14/20122:34:57PM SubmittedfromIPAddress:166.250.224.238 ReferrerPage:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=336 FormAddress:http://www.cityofroseville.com/Forms.aspx?FID=99 1 Page10of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Carolyn Curti Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:11 AM To: Pat Trudgeon; Bill Malinen Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: General Inquiry Form OriginalMessage From:support@civicplus.com[mailto:support@civicplus.com] Sent:Sunday,May27,201212:49PM To:CarolynCurti Subject:OnlineFormSubmittal:GeneralInquiryForm Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:GeneralInquiryForm Subject:BuldingWalmartinRoseville Name::KathyJanke Address::938TransitAve.W. City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 acted?Pleasefilloutthecorrespondingcontactinformationbelow.:NoNeedto Howwouldyouprefertobecont ContactMe EmailAddress:: PhoneNumber:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:BuldingaWalmartStoreinRosevilleisahugemistake.Wehave2 superTargetstoreswithina3mi.range.TargetstartedinRoseville&hashelpedthecommunityinmnayareas, especiallytheschools.WalmartwilltakebusinessesfromexistingstoresinRoseville,Cubs,Rainbow,Byerlys,BestBuy, Hardware,etc.DowewanttohaveWalmartcomeinandtakeover.Notonlyhurtingbusinessesbutbringingin Ace crime.IhaveafriendinFloridathattoldmecrimewentup15%whenithittheirarea&losingmanysmallbusinesses also.TheCitydidnotlistentotheiroppositions.IsthatwhatRosevillereallywants? AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:5/27/201212:49:16PM SubmittedfromIPAddress:66.41.26.102 1 Page11of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Kari Collins Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 4:12 PM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: Comments on Wal-Mart Proposal For Tonight's Meeting Attachments: Wal-Mart's Economic Footprint.pdf; City Council Comments on WalMart.docx From:AmyIhlan Sent:Monday,May21,20124:09PM To:BillMalinen;*RVCouncil Subject:CommentsonWalMartProposalForTonight'sMeeting CommentstotheCityCouncilonProposedTwinLakesWalMart AmyIhlan,1776StanbridgeAve. May21,2012 PleaseconsiderandaddtotherecordmycommentsontheproposedTwinLakesWalMart,togetherwithsupporting attachments. Ourhouseisalittlelessthan.9milesfromtheproposedWalMartsite.Manyotherhomesinourneighborhood,andin ighborhoodseverreceived theJamesAdditionneighborhood,arelessthanamileaway.Yetnoneofthesurroundingne anynoticeofthisproposeddevelopmentfromthecity.Whydidourcitygovernmentnotnotifyandreachoutto involvethepublicinthisprocess?Thelackofopennessandtransparencycontinuestonight,asthecouncilappears poisedtodenyfurtherenvironmentalreviewandgivebothpreliminaryandfinalapprovaltotheprojectallinone meeting‘withouteventakingthetroubletosendusneighborsapostcard. EnvironmentalImpacts AWalMartstoreatClevelandandCountyRoadChaspotentialtocauseawiderangeofsignificantenvironmental turalenvironment,toourneighborhoodenvironment,andtooureconomic impactstoRoseville:impactstothena environment.Thecouncilneedstounderstandthefullextentoftheseimpactsinordertoprotectthe{w;Œ·wrsafety, generalwelfare,convenienceandgoodorderofthe-š’’Ò“z·ä|·w·x­directlanguagefromourowncitycode[1], and·w·x­whatthecouncilhasresponsibilitytoconsiderindecidingwhethertograntWala©·x­developmentrequest. 1 Page12of95 AttachmentG Thecouncil-“x·reasonablyrelyonthe2007AUARUpdate‘itis5yearsold,andbasedonverydifferentzoning assumptions[2],andverydifferentkindsofdevelopmentintheTwinLakesareaandtheparticularsitewhereWalMart theAUAR,Lx’goingtofocusmy isproposed.[3]Althoughtherearemanypotentialenvironmentalimpactsidentifiedin commentsontraffic.Fromthelimitedinformationintherecord,thetrafficgeneratedbyaWalMartisgoingtoexceed eventhe{ޚ©­·case­-;“©zš|analyzedintheAUAR. L·x­impossibletotellfromWala©·x­trafficstudyexactlyhowmany{7zŒätrip­|willbemadetoandfromthe proposednewbigbox.(Dailytripsareoneofthekeytrafficrelatedparametersofdevelopmentintensityanalyzedin theAUAR.)ButwedohaveinthecouncilpacketaseriesoflettersfromrepresentativesofMNDOTindicatingthatWal a©·x­trafficstudyunderestimatesthesignificantflowofregionaltrafficfromI35WtoWalMart,andontosurrounding cityandcountyroads. Herearesomekeypassagesfromthoseletters: ItappearsthattheAUARwasbasedonalowervolumetrafficgeneratorthanaWalMart. dFebruary24,2012toThomasPaschke,CityPlannerfromMichaelJ.Corbett,MNDOTTrafficEngineering Letterdate Section,SeniorPlanner(emphasisadded) I35Wcarriesgreaterthan100,000tripsat[CountyRoadC]eachdayandtheaccesstotheWalmartsitewillbe especiallyattractivetosomepartofnorthboundtrips,upto6,000vehiclesperhourapproachingthisinterchangeatthe afternoonpeakperiod.Largeretailatthislocationisexpectedtodrawfromtheseregionaltrips.Itistherefore probablethattheafternoonvolumeexitingandenteringI35Wnorthboundwillexceedexpectationsandfurther venueandTwinLakesParkwaybeyondtheanalysis¦©šÝz7;7v5Ò; degradeoperationsattheintersectionofClevelandA tothecloseproximityoftheintersectionofClevelandAveandCountyRoadC,deficienciesontheroadwayofCleveland AvenuecouldquicklyaffectoperationsonCountyRoadC.ClevelandAvenueandCountyRoadCareimportantfor providinglocalaccessintheimmediateareabutalsomobilityinalargerarea. LetterdatedApril9,2012toDebraBloom,CityEngineerfromTonyFischer,MNDOTFreewayAnalysisSupervisorand GayleGedstad,MNDOTNorthAreaTrafficSupportAreaManager(emphasisadded) 35Wwillexceedprojectedtraffic Wereiterateourexpectationthat[traffic]volumesexitingandenteringnorthboundI impactsrelatedtotheproposedWalmart­·š©;vLEtrafficvolumesexceedcapacitybyanysignificantmargin,this congestioncouldquicklybecomeintolerabletolocalcitizens,employeesandbusinesses.Giventhatfuturecongestionis directlytiedtotheAUARsitedevelopment,ourexpectationisthattheCityofRosevillehasfirstresponsibilityfor adequatelyaddressingthetransportationneeds. 2 Page13of95 AttachmentG DevelopingtheAUARsiteinanysignificantwaywillrisksignificanttrafficoperationsfailureonthecityandcountyroad networkasMnDOTmustprioritizetheoperationsofI35Wgivenitsimportancetothebroaderregion.Thesamehighly etrafficdemandstogrowhere. convenientaccessthatcausesthissitetobedesirablefordevelopmentwillcaus LetterdatedMay9,2012toDebraBloom,CityEngineerfromTonyFischer,MNDOTFreewayAnalysisSupervisorand GayleGedstad,MNDOTNorthAreaTrafficSupportAreaManager(emphasisadded) blicinterest.Thecity ItissafetoassumethatMN5hx­plannersareexpertsontrafficmatters,lookingoutforthepu staffhasapparentlyacceptedab5hx­conclusionsthatWala©·x­trafficstudyunderestimatestrafficvolumes,since WalMartisbeingaskedtopaypartofthesubstantialcostsofmakingimmediateimprovementstothe35W entrance/exitrampatClevelandandTwinLakesParkway.(Whyonlypart?Whowillpaytherest?) Butinaddition,andevenmoretroublingfromourneighborhoodperspective,Wala©·x­trafficstudyisincomplete.It doesnotanalyzeorevenconsidertrafficimpactsonFairviewAvenueorCountyRoadD.L·x­asthoughtheresidential neighborhoods7š“x·evenexist‘weliterallyarenotcounted,and7š“x·countinWala©·x­trafficstudy.TheAUAR didstudyimpactsonintersectionsofFairviewandCountyRoadC,TerraceDrive,LydiaAvenue,andCountyRoadD,as ofthese wellastheintersectionofCountyRoadDandCleveland.Mitigationrequirementsarespecifiedforeach intersections.SeeTwinLakesFinalAUARUpdate,datedOctober15,2007,pp.6364.TheAUARalsospecifically requires(aspartofitsMitigationPlan)that: 15)TheCitywillrequireatrafficimpactanalysisforalldevelopmentprojectswithintheAUARarea.Thetrafficimpact analysiswillassisttheCityandotherroadauthorizesindeterminingtheappropriatemitigationmeasuresthatare requiredtoreasonablymitigateimpactsofaspecificdevelopmentproposal.IftheCitydeterminesthataspecific proposedprojectcausesimpactsthatexceedthethresholdsthatthemitigationstrategieswheremeanttoaddress(see gationStrategy16),thenthedevelopmentintensity/densityofsuchaprojectmayneedtobereduced. Miti TwinLakesFinalAUARUpdate,datedOctober15,2007,p.62. IfthecityisnotgoingtoupdatetheAUAR,thenitmustfollowthe!…!wx­specificmitigationrequirementsfortrafficon herway,furtherenvironmentalstudyandreviewisneeded‘thecityneedsan FairviewandCountyRoadD.Eit independentanalysisofallofthetrafficimpactsoftheproposedWalMart,includingimpactsontheTwinLakes residentialneighborhoods,todeterminewhetherthedevelopmentintensityexceedsAUARthresholds. EconomicImpacts 3 Page14of95 AttachmentG FurtherreviewandstudyisalsoneededontheeconomicimpactsoftheproposedWalMart,includingthefiscalimpacts tothecitybudgetandtaxpayers,aswellastheimpactsonwš­;ÝzŒŒ;x­localeconomy. Fiscal/TaxpayerImpacts ThecouncilshouldnotconsiderapprovingtheproposedWalMartwithoutadetailedanalysisofhowmuchthe developmentwillcostthecityanditstaxpayers,andwhowillpayforit.Thisfiscalanalysisshouldincludecalculationof howmuchpublicmoneyhasalreadybeenspentoninfrastructureforthebenefitofthatsite,howmuchmoretax eI35Wentranceramp,howmuchpublicmoneywillbeneededfor moneywillbeneededtobuildimprovementstoth environmentalcleanup,howmuchwillbeneededtopayforadditionalpoliceofficers‘balancedagainstprojectedtax revenuetobereceivedbythecityfromtheWalMart.Inshort,thecouncilshouldrequireanindependent,objective bottomlineanalysisofhowmuchRosevilletaxpayerswillberequiredtosubsidizeWalMartbeforeconsideringwhether toapprovetheproposedproject. ImpactsontheLocalEconomy Similarly,thecouncilshouldconductanindependentanalysisofWala©·x­potentialimpactsonthelocaleconomy, ctsonexistingbusinesses,especiallylocallyownedandsmallbusinesses,andpotential includingpotentialnegativeimpa negativeimpactsonpropertyvalues,especiallyinsurroundingresidentialneighborhoods.Forarecentoverviewof literatureanalyzingtheeconomicimpactsofWalMart,pleaseseetheattachedreportbytheHunterCollegeCenterand CommunityDevelopmentandNewYorkCityPublicAdvocateBillDeBlasio,{‘Œa©·x­EconomicCšš·¦©z“·|(attached separatelyasaPDF). LandUseIssues Ifthecouncildeterminestogoforwardtoconsiderlanduseissuesat·š“zmw·x­meeting,Wala©·x­requestsfora preliminaryandfinalplatshouldbedenied.Themitigationrequirementsofthe2007AUARUpdatehavenotbeenmet, asdiscussedabove.Theproposedbigboxdevelopmentviolatesthe2001TwinLakesMasterPlan,anddoesnotmeet eitherzoningorcomprehensiveplanrequirementsforthesite. The2001TwinLakesMasterPlan The2001TwinLakesMasterPlanspecificallystatesthatbigboxretaildevelopment{z­not©;-š’’;“7;7|atthecorner ofClevelandAve.andCountyRoadC,theverysiteoftheproposedWalMart.The2001TwinLakesMasterPlanisthe 4 Page15of95 AttachmentG basisforthe2007AUARUpdate.ItisalsoreferencedintheComprehensivePlan,alongwiththe2007AUAR,asan {šEEz-zŒ-š“·©šŒ|thatguideslanduseanddevelopmentintheTwinLakesarea. CommunityMixedUse TheComprehensivePlanandzoningcodedesignatetheTwinLakesareafor{/š’’Ò“z·äMixed…­;|development.The proposedWalMartisnotamixedusedevelopment.Itisnotpedestrianfriendlyortransitoriented.Itisalowdensity singleusedevelopment,withaverylargeasphaltparkinglot.Moreimportantly,WalMartdoesnotmeetthedefinition ofa{/š’’Ò“z·ä.Ò­z“;­­|undereitherthezoningcodeortheComprehensivePlan.TheComprehensivePlandefines CommunityMixUsetoincludeCommunityBusinessuses,butnotRegionalBusinessuses.CommunityBusinessesare definedasbusinessesthat{¦©š’š·;communityorientationand­-Œ;|and{¦©šÝz7;goodsandservicestoalocal rehensivePlanasstores{Œš-·;7inareaswith market©;|rincontrasttoRegionalBusinesses,definedundertheComp visibilityandaccessfromtheregionalhighwaysystem(Interstate35WandStateHighway œ|rproviding{mšš7­and servicestoaregionalmarket©;|uThevisibilityandlocationoftheproposedsitenextto35WandlettersfromMN DOTrepresentativesquotedabove,togetherwithavailableinformationaboutWala©·x­businessmodelsand strategies,establishesthatWalMartisnota{/š’’Ò“z·ä.Ò­z“;­­|andnotanallowedlanduseinaCommunityMixed Usearea. ________________________________ [1]SeeRosevilleCityCode1101.01and1102.03 [2]The2007AUARupdateisbasedonthe{.6MixedUseBusinesst©‰|zone,whichissignificantlydifferentfromthe currentzoningcodeinkeyrespects.Forexample,theB6zoneexplicitlyrequiredanenvironmentalimpactstatement orcomparableenvironmentalreview,requiredaPUDprocessforalldevelopmentswithinthezone,andrequired25% thecurrentproposal). greenspaceperdevelopment(asopposedtoonly15%in [3]The2007AUARUpdateisbasedonthe2001TwinLakesMasterPlan,whichspecificallystatesthatbigboxretail development{z­not©;-š’’;“7;7|atthecornerofClevelandAve.andCountyRoadC,whereWalMartisproposed. ________________________________ ConfidentialityStatement:Thedocumentsaccompanyingthistransmissioncontainconfidentialinformationthatis legallyprivileged.Thisinformationisintendedonlyfortheuseoftheindividualsorentitieslistedabove.Ifyouarenot theintendedrecipient,youareherebynotifiedthatanydisclosure,copying,distribution,oractiontakeninrelianceon entsofthesedocumentsisstrictlyprohibited.Ifyouhavereceivedthisinformationinerror,pleasenotifythe thecont senderimmediatelyandarrangeforthereturnordestructionofthesedocuments. 5 Page16of95 AttachmentG JANUARY 10, 2010 Wal-Mart’s Economic Footprint: A literature review prepared by Hunter College Center for Community Planning & Development and New York City Public Advocate Bill de Blasio Page17of95 AttachmentG Prepared By: , Ph.D. Tom Angotti Professor of Urban Affairs & Planning and Center Director at Hun Brian Paul Center Fellow and Masters of Urban Planning Candidate at Hunter Tom Gray Director of Land Use at the Office of the New York City Public A Dom Williams Senior Advisor at the Office of the New York City Public Advocat Page18of95 AttachmentG Executive Summary Wal-Mart is the world’s largest retailer with more than 4,300 st 1 8,000 worldwide, with global sales topping $400 billion in 2009. It is the largest retailer in the 2 U.S., where more than half its revenue comes from grocery sales. Wal-Mart’s formula for financial success includes: low-wage labor, limited health benefi government subsidies Hundreds of studies, reports, and articles have been written abo Mart. This document represents a thorough review of key literatu points to many of the retail giant’s negative impacts. It examin over the past seven years on Wal-Mart’s impact on both local and represents research encompassing all fifty states, including the Wal-Mart in a major U.S. City: Chicago. Since opening its first store in Bentonville, Arkansas in 1962, its base in the South and Midwest to dominate the suburban and r U.S. Having effectively saturated these markets, Wal-Mart’s mos growth are now outside the U.S.. However, the company has also b into those more densely populated central cities that have so fa space in which to shoe-horn the mall-size Wal-Mart outlets or du company because of its negative impact on small businesses and t Wal-Mart is addressing the first obstacle – store size – by chan a more flexible one involving stores of widely varying sizes, pe thousand square feet, the size of many local grocery stores. Acc President of Research at Colliers International, “Smaller design 3 foot range, and mostly groceries – that’s where the money is.” For example, four stores are planned for the Washington, DC area, including multi-story buildi 4 suburban settings. Twenty-four new stores are planned for the San Francisco Bay Ar 5 years ago the company opened its first store in Chicago and is pl Page19of95 AttachmentG Although Wal-Mart has overcome the challenge of fitting its stor these smaller stores continue to bring negative overall economic where they are located. The retail giant is undertaking a major however, the corporation has made only minor concessions and the and tax revenues are not realized. The overwhelming weight of the independent research on the impac and national economies – including jobs, taxes, wages, benefits, retail businesses – shows that Wal-Mart depresses area wages and the current decline of good middle class jobs, pushes out more r results in more retail vacancies. There is no indication that sm scattered throughout a dense city in any way diminish these nega developments may actually result in more widespread economic dis 1.Wal-Mart’s Economic Impacts: Net Loss of Jobs, Fewer Small Busin Wal-Mart store openings kill three local jobs for every two they · reducing retail employment by an average of 2.7 percent in every 6 enter. Wal-Mart’s entry into a new market does not increase overall reta · 7 employment opportunities. Research from Chicago shows retail employment did not increase in Wal-Mart’s zip code, and fell significantly in th Wal-Mart’s entry into a new market has a strongly negative effec · 8 retailers. Supermarkets and discount variety stores are the most adversely 9 affected sectors, suffering sales declines of 10 to 40% after Wa Page20of95 AttachmentG Stores near a new Wal-Mart are at increased risk of going out of · single Wal-Mart opened in Chicago in September 2006, 82 of the 3 businessesin the surrounding neighborhood had gone out of business by Marc 10 2008. The value of Wal-Mart to the economy will likely be less than the · jobs and businesses it replaces. A study estimating the future i on the grocery industry in California found that, “the full econ those lost wages and benefits throughout southern California cou 11 billion per year.” Chain stores, like Wal-Mart send most of their revenues out of t · while local businesses keep more consumer dollars in the local ec every $100 spent in locally owned businesses, $68 stayed in the while chain stores only left $43 to re-circulate locally. 2.Wal-Mart’s Costs to Taxpayers Wal-Mart has thousands of associates who qualify for Medicaid an · 13 publicly subsidized care, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill. For instance in Ohio Wal-Mart has more associates and associate dependents on Medicaid 14 other employer, costing taxpayers $44.8 million in 2009. According to estimates, Wal-Mart likely avoided paying $245 milli · 2008 by paying rent to itself and then deducting that rent from 15 income. Page21of95 AttachmentG Wal-Mart has admitted a failure to pay $2.95 billion in taxes for · 16 2009. 3.Wal-Mart’s low paying jobs contribute to the decline of the midd Median household income declined by 1.8% nationally and 4.1% in · 17 City in 2009. This decline will be exacerbated by low paying Wal-Mart jobs. Wal-Mart’s average annual pay of $20,774 is below the Federal Pov · 18 a family of four. A Wal-Mart spokesperson publicly acknowledged in 2004 that, "More · thirds of our people... are not trying to support a family. That 19 designed for.” Wal-Mart’s 2010 health care offerings have a high annual deductib · which means a family would have to spend $5,102 of their own mon care before Wal-Mart’s insurance pays anything. Based on the av 20 Wal-Mart employee this payment represents almost 25% of their an 21 For these reasons, we conclude that the entry of even a single Wa could have a snowball effect and result in a negative long-term economy and continued decline of the middle class. A single smal superstore, could mean the demise of existing food retailers, en families. Considering Wal-Mart’s aggressive plans for expansion the country, there is no reason to believe the company would be the nation’s largest city. http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100809/FREE/100809838 Page22of95 AttachmentG The Negative Socio-Economic Impacts of Wal-Mart Net Loss of Jobs, Fewer Small Businesses While City representatives may have engaged in discussions with has been no public review of Wal-Mart’s plans or assessment of po case of the new Wal-Mart store in Chicago strongly suggests nega City could expect to experience with the introduction of Wal-Mar Center for Research & Urban Learning at Loyola University survey 22 and after the opening of Chicago’s first Wal-Mart in September 2 The survey found that Wal-Mart’s entry led to local business failures, no measurable in sales in the immediate area of the new store, and a noticeable d surrounding areas. To be more precise, 25% of retail businesses closed within a year. The Loyola study confirmed a basic principle of retailing in urb most part based on a finite pool of disposable consumer income, create new sales without taking them away from others. “For Wal- there is no evidence of an overall upturn in sales,” concluded t also declined overall: “Retail employment levels in Wal-Mart’s o significant change, presumably because of the addition of Wal-Ma employment trends in neighboring zip codes show a negative effec 23 This effect is significant in the period 2003-2008.” The researchers found that the hardest-hit businesses were selling electronics, toys, office supplies, gener furnishings and drugs. A University of Illinois analysis of a pr 2004 had accurately predicted that the megastore’s arrival would 24 minimal increase in net tax revenues. Other research shows that Wal-Mart’s arrival in a new market has 25 on ethnic retailers including supermarkets, bodegas, electronics A recent study in Florida found that drugstores and stores specializing in furnishings, cards and gifts, and other essential consumer house Page23of95 AttachmentG 26 most. Take a stroll down neighborhood retail strips in Washington He New York and it’s clear that these are the products most commonly shops in New York City. Another study that examined the impact of new Wal-Mart stores in country found that Wal-Mart’s entry had substantial negative imp consumer staples by local vendors: “In the year following entry, sales decline of 40% and supermarkets suffer a median sales decl experience a much smaller median decline of 6%. This magnitude o 27 consistent with prior research” Small locally-owned businesses are not the only Wal-Mart victims. discount retailers also suffer from Wal-Mart’s manipulation of p dataset of Wal-Mart’s effect on previously existing discount ret 28 small discount stores closed after Wal-Mart’s arrival. The unfortunate result is a reduction of competition and many empty storefronts. Independently owned local businesses are an essential part of Ne residential neighborhoods. Chain stores are concentrated in a fe heavily-trafficked parts of Midtown and Lower Manhattan, while i predominate in most of the rest of the city. Independent retaile dense commercial districts serving immigrant communities, in Flu Sunset Park (Brooklyn), Melrose (The Bronx) and Washington Heigh As Jane Jacobs observed in her classic work The Death and Life of Great American Cities: “Commercial diversity is, in itself, immensely important for cit economically…wherever we find a city district with an exuberant commerce, we are apt to find that it contains a good many other including variety of cultural opportunities, variety of scenes, population and other users. This is more than a coincidence.” (p The benefits of the small business economy are clear to see in d where small business has served as the engine of neighborhood gr emergence of a uniquely diverse urban center that attracts resid the city and region. Linkages among small businesses strengthen hard times. Linkages between small businesses and civic and soci Page24of95 AttachmentG communities’ help neighborhoods thrive and develop. Innumerable merchants and residents are enormous assets to a thriving urban e Locally owned businesses are crucial to the vitality of our econ percentage of their resources in the local economy by procuring the local area. Locally-owned businesses recirculate dollars in stores send revenues to corporate headquarters. A 2004 study fou locally owned businesses, $68 stayed in the local economy while circulate locally. The local owners tend to live in the communit 29 as likely to use local supply networks, and contribute more to l Small businesses are the engines of local economic development, l 30 change, and are more productive than large chains. In New York City, small retail businesses are a particularly important means of economic and social advance Even if Wal-Mart imitates the appearance of our small business r small outlets, it will still operate as a global monopoly with t same low wages and substandard labor policies. Our observations about the critical importance of locally-owned among those who have studied urban economies in depth. According University, States with a higher percentage of very small busine less, have a more productive workforce and higher levels of GDP levels of very small businesses. Furthermore, states that are ri lower rates of unemployment. Wal-Mart is trying to take advantage of the current economic dow immediate infusion of jobs and investment dollars in city neighbo by the recession. Considering the body of independent research t Mart’s negative long-term impacts on local economies, it would b destructive retail monopolist to enter the New York City market creation.” Lastly,Wal-Mart typically sells promotable products below their cost as 32 customers. Wal-Mart has the ability to lower these prices, even if it mean 33 to ten years, something small businesses cannot afford. After driving out competition, the Page25of95 AttachmentG company increases prices on those products. Artificially loweri local businesses, but has major ramifications on manufacturing an Predatory pricing forces competing retailers to sell at a loss, products because they cannot compete with the artificially low p businesses and has major implications for manufacturers. Consume fewer units because Wal-Mart will be the only store left selling 34 losses for manufacturers by devaluating goods and impacting quan According to Bloomberg News, this was done on a massive scale thi managers in the U.S. received instructions to mark up an average 35 this holiday season, according to a company e-mail send the mont Wal-Mart’s power to sell products below their typical market valu 36 employees and the closure of U.S. plants in favor of outsourcing Eighty-five percent of Wal-Mart’s items are made overseas. The meg numerous accusations of unacceptable conditions in the factories abuses include: “forced overtime, locked bathrooms, starvation w 37 access to health care, and workers fired and blacklisted if they Costs to Taxpayers Because many of Wal-Mart’s employees do not earn enough to make to public assistance. Each Wal-Mart store, averaging 200 employe 38 approximately $420,750 annually in public social services used b Wal-Mart has thousands of associates who qualify for Medicaid and other pu 39 taxpayers to foot the bill. For instance, Wal-Mart has the greatest number of associates an 40 associate dependents on Medicaid in Ohio, costing taxpayers $44.8 According to the group Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch, a non-profit watch already received subsidies worth about $52 million in New York S locations in New York have challenged their property tax assessm 41 $766,000. Wal-Mart has already cost New Yorkers millions of dollars, even state’s largest marketplace. Page26of95 AttachmentG Wal-Mart also uses controversial methods to reduce the taxes it p Estate Investment Trust (REIT) where the corporation pays rent t 42 rent from its taxable income. It is estimated that Wal-Mart likely avoided paying $245 millio 43 in 2008 using this strategy nationwide. By its own admission, Wal-Mart likely owes billions in taxes. Wal-Mart’s entry into the New York City market may also negative displacing the better compensated employees of the existing reta relevant for the unionized workers of the grocery sector. A stud into the San Francisco market estimated that if Wal-Mart were to the grocery markets and replace thousands of union supermarket e 44 workers, the region would lose $300 to $576 million dollars in e Wal-Mart’s low paying jobs contribute to the decline of the Middl According to the 2009 Census Bureau's survey of income and pover Median household income is falling in the vast majority of U.S. single major U.S. city, representing a shocking decline of the m 45 also skyrocketed in recent years and it has become much harder t According to the Census Bureau, median household income declined 2009 and almost all U.S Cities. In New York City, median household declined 4.1% to $55,980. · In Detroit, median household income declined 10% to $48,535. · In Orlando, median household income dropped almost 10% to $46,85 · In Cleveland, median household income fell 8.5% to $45,395. · In Miami, median household income declined 8.2% to $45,946. · In Indianapolis, median household income dropped 7.1% to $50,140 · With an average annual pay of $20,774, significantly below the F 46,47 family of four, Wal-Mart’s workforce can largely be classified aWal-Mart’s 1.3 million employees being forced to accept poverty level wages Page27of95 AttachmentG 48 will only exacerbate the continuing decline of the middle class, A Wal-Mart spokesperson was quoted in 2004 saying, "More than two t 49 trying to support a family, that’s who our jobs are designed for A study done by the compared Wal-Mart’s wages to UC Berkeley Institute of Industrial Relations other large retailers, as well as other industry segments. Wal-Ma of all general merchandise workers, and 71% of large general mer The study found a significant gap in pay for Wal-Mart employees. Looking a adjusting wages for local labor markets, Wal-Mart employees earn other retailers. On average, general merchandise workers made 1 50 merchandise workers made 25.6% more than the Wal-Mart average fo. Not only are employees being paid less than fair wages, only half receiving healthcare. And those who do receive benefits are enro inadequate coverage. Wal-Mart’s 2010 health care offerings include low premiums of $2 51 coverage, or $702 per year; however this plan has a high annual With a $4,400 annual deductible, a family would have to pay $5,102 of th Mart’s insurance pays for anything. For a family whose only inco associate, making Wal-Mart average wages of $11.75 an hour, this 52 annual income. New Yorkers cannot afford to devote one forth of their incomes before their insurance kicks in. 50 Page28of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Kari Collins Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 2:38 PM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: FYI From:suegilbertson 122:30PM Sent:Monday,May21,20 To:*RVCouncil Subject: CouncilMembers, IamSusanGilbertson,2000ClevelandAv.No.MyhusbandTomandIhavelivedinRosevillesince1973. RecentlyIspoketoOfficerLorenRosandoftheRosevillePoliceDeptabouttheimpacttothePoliceDept.ofhavinga WalmartstorehereinRoseville. HestatedthatChiefMathwigestimatescallsforservicefromWalmartwouldnumber900to1000peryear. Thegeneralcostcanbebrokendownasfollows:$60perhourforofficer $30perhourforsquadcar nicians,reviewingandadditionalfollowup,andpossiblyan AdditionalcostspercasewouldbeincurredbyRecordsTech Investigator. ThesearecostswhichwouldultimatelybebornebyRosevilleresidents. WebelieveWalmartisabadfitforourcommunity.Pleasevoteno. Sincerely, SueGilbertson ________________________________ ConfidentialityStatement:Thedocumentsaccompanyingthistransmissioncontainconfidentialinformationthatis legallyprivileged.Thisinformationisintendedonlyfortheuseoftheindividualsorentitieslistedabove.Ifyouarenot theintendedrecipient,youareherebynotifiedthatanydisclosure,copying,distribution,oractiontakeninrelianceon thecontentsofthesedocumentsisstrictlyprohibited.Ifyouhavereceivedthisinformationinerror,pleasenotifythe senderimmediatelyandarrangeforthereturnordestructionofthesedocuments. 1 Page29of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Kari Collins Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 2:27 PM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council FYI OriginalMessage From:support@civicplus.com[mailto:support@civicplus.com] Sent:Monday,May21,20122:26PM To:*RVCouncil;KariCollins;BillMalinen Subject:OnlineFormSubmittal:ContactCityCouncil Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactCityCouncil Subject:Walmartmeeting Name::JoyceThielen Address::2210MidlandGroveRd,Unit203 City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 Howwouldyouprefertobecontacted?Remembertofillinthecorrespondingcontactinformation.:Letter EmailAddress:: PhoneNumber:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:Lx’writingtodaybecauseIcannotattendtheCityCouncilmeeting thiseveningwhentheWalmartdiscussionwilltakeplace. ,mycityrepresentatives,toknowthatIamstronglyopposedtothebuildingofanewWalmartin Iwouldlikeyou Roseville.IamstronglyopposedtoaWalmartinRosevilleformanyreasons,including: 1.ThepoorwagestandardsWalmarttypicallyoffersto;’¦Œšä;;x­uWalmartusesasmanyparttimeworkersasthey canandtheypaythemlowwages.Evenifsomehigherhourparttimeworkersareeligibleforhealthbenefits,those benefitsaretoocostlytoafford. 2.ThehourlywagestypicalofWalmartemployeesarenothighenoughtosustainfamily,evenacouplewithout children. 3.IbelieveWalmartwouldhaveanegativeimpactonwš­;ÝzŒŒ;x­businesses,bothsmallretailbusinessandlarger retailbusinesses. 4.IbelievehavingaWalmartinRosevillewouldhaveanegativeimpactontheenvironment.Iacknowledgethat totheproposedlocation, greenandsustainablebuildingpracticesandstore/parkinglotdesigncouldbeincorporatedin butthosethingsdonotoffsetmyotherconcerns. 5.Iamopposedtothepublicservicesmoneythatwouldhavetobespentforadditionalpolice,fire,andothercity supportforaWalmartbuildinglocation.Lx’alsoopposedtotheinfrastructurecostsassociatedwithanotherlarge,big 1 Page30of95 AttachmentG box,commercial/retailstructureinRoseville.Iunderstandtheywouldpaypropertytaxes,butI7š“x·believethatwould covertheexpensesofextracitysupportandinfrastructure. Pleasetakemyopinionsandconcernsintoconsiderationwhendebatingthetopicsontheagendaat·š“zmw·x­meeting. Thankyou, Joyce AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:5/21/20122:26:24PM SubmittedfromIPAddress:156.98.210.242 ReferrerPage:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/index.aspx?NID=56 FormAddress:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Forms.aspx?FID=115 ConfidentialityStatement:Thedocumentsaccompanyingthistransmissioncontainconfidentialinformationthatis legallyprivileged.Thisinformationisintendedonlyfortheuseoftheindividualsorentitieslistedabove.Ifyouarenot theintendedrecipient,youareherebynotifiedthatanydisclosure,copying,distribution,oractiontakeninrelianceon mentsisstrictlyprohibited.Ifyouhavereceivedthisinformationinerror,pleasenotifythe thecontentsofthesedocu senderimmediatelyandarrangeforthereturnordestructionofthesedocuments. 2 Page31of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Kari Collins Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 1:27 PM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: Walmart FYI From:TheresaGardella 121:27PM Sent:Monday,May21,20 To:*RVCouncil Subject:Walmart DearCouncilMembers: IamopposedtoaWalmartopeninginRoseville.‘Œ’©·x­discriminatorypractices,lowwages,andtheirabilityto underminethehealthofsmallbusinessesiswellknown.WhatkindofcommunitydoesRosevillewanttobe?Dowe wanttobethekindofcommunitythataspirestohaveathrivingandvariedbusinesssector?Acommunitythatstrives toencouragelivingwagesforitsresidents?Acommunitythatvaluesandwelcomesdiversity?ThisisthecommunityI wantRosevilletobe;thisisthecommunitymyhusbandandImovedto2½yearsagoandthecommunitywherewe wanttoraiseourchildren. Yes,Walmartofferslowcosts,oftentimesunbeatablebyanyotherstoreincludingboxstores,butatwhatcosttoour community? PleasevoteNOonWalmart. Sincerely, TheresaGardella RosevilleResident 1 Page32of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Kari Collins Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 10:35 AM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: opposed to Walmart store FYI OriginalMessage From: 1210:31AM Sent:Monday,May21,20 To:*RVCouncil Subject:opposedtoWalmartstore Ican'tseewheretheWalmartstore(orCostcoorasimilarbigboxdiscounter)wouldbegoodforRoseville,and encourageyoutovoteagainstit. ____________________________________________________________ 57YearOldWomanis24 cretToLookYoungerForJust$5 DoctorsFiguresOutSe http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4fba602a7704318c133ast05duc ConfidentialityStatement:Thedocumentsaccompanyingthistransmissioncontainconfidentialinformationthatis legallyprivileged.Thisinformationisintendedonlyfortheuseoftheindividualsorentitieslistedabove.Ifyouarenot theintendedrecipient,youareherebynotifiedthatanydisclosure,copying,distribution,oractiontakeninrelianceon thecontentsofthesedocumentsisstrictlyprohibited.Ifyouhavereceivedthisinformationinerror,pleasenotifythe senderimmediatelyandarrangeforthereturnordestructionofthesedocuments. 1 Page33of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Bill Malinen Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 8:03 AM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council OriginalMessage From:support@civicplus.com[mailto:support@civicplus.com] Sent:Sunday,May20,20128:05AM To:*RVCouncil;KariCollins;BillMalinen Subject:OnlineFormSubmittal:ContactCityCouncil Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactCityCouncil Subject:WALMART Name::TimothyCallaghan Address::3062ShorewoodLane City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 ntacted?Remembertofillinthecorrespondingcontactinformation.:Phone Howwouldyouprefertobeco EmailAddress:: PhoneNumber:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:Ihaveyettoseeanyinformationonthetrafficreportontheeffects oftheWalmartdevelopment.Thiswasnotavailableattheplanningcommisionandhasnotbeenpresentonanyofthe linksforWalmart.Isthisbeingkeptsecretforareason? AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:5/20/20128:05:06AM SubmittedfromIPAddress:24.118.30.90 ReferrerPage:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/index.aspx?NID=56 FormAddress:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Forms.aspx?FID=115 1 Page34of95 AttachmentG Page35of95 AttachmentG Page36of95 AttachmentG Page37of95 AttachmentG Page38of95 AttachmentG Page39of95 AttachmentG Page40of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Carolyn Curti Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 11:16 AM To: Pat Trudgeon; Bill Malinen Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: General Inquiry Form OriginalMessage From:support@civicplus.com[mailto:support@civicplus.com] Sent:Friday,May04,201211:14AM To:CarolynCurti Subject:OnlineFormSubmittal:GeneralInquiryForm Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:GeneralInquiryForm Subject:ProposedWalmart Name::MidgeMcLean Address::2844NHuronSt City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 acted?Pleasefilloutthecorrespondingcontactinformationbelow.:Email Howwouldyouprefertobecont EmailAddress:: PhoneNumber:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:IcannotbelievetheCityofRosevilleisconsideringapprovingthe buildingofaWalmartinRoseville.Thecity,afewyearsago,deniedCoscoapproval,whichwouldbringawhole differentclienteletoourarea.What'swrongwithaskingCoscotoreconsiderbuildingagain.Wedonotneedanother Walmart!! AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:5/4/201211:14:08AM SubmittedfromIPAddress:66.41.248.190 ReferrerPage:http://www.cityofroseville.com/index.aspx?NID=352 FormAddress:http://www.cityofroseville.com/Forms.aspx?FID=217 1 Page41of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Bill Malinen Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 2:48 PM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council OriginalMessage From:support@civicplus.com[mailto:support@civicplus.com] Sent:Monday,April23,20129:22AM To:*RVCouncil;KariCollins;BillMalinen Subject:OnlineFormSubmittal:ContactCityCouncil Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactCityCouncil Subject:WalMart Name::CarlBrookins Address::3090MildredDrive City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 ed?Remembertofillinthecorrespondingcontactinformation.:Email Howwouldyouprefertobecontact EmailAddress:: PhoneNumber:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:AccordingtotheNewYorkTimes,theJusticeDepartmentis investigatingadecadeslongbriberyoperationbyWalMartmanagementandasubsequentcoverupinMexico.Iftrue, therearemultipleviolationsofbothU.S.andMexicanlaws.AretheybribingpeopleintheU.S.?And,isthisthekindof companywewantinRoseville? AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:4/23/20129:22:18AM SubmittedfromIPAddress:66.41.6.112 ReferrerPage:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/index.aspx?NID=56 FormAddress:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Forms.aspx?FID=115 1 Page42of95 AttachmentG Thomas Paschke From: support@civicplus.com Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 8:17 AM To: Thomas Paschke Subject:Online Form Submittal: Contact Thomas Paschke Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactThomasPaschke Name::LindaPribyl Address::1637RidgewoodLaneNorth City::Roseville State::Mn Zip::55113 HomePhoneNumber:: DaytimePhoneNumber::same EmailAddress:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:Withallthedataoutthereonhowawallmartdestroyssmaller business,andwiththeRosedalecomplexjustdowntheroad,Iwonderhowmisguidedandperhapswrongheadedisthe ideaofawalmartinroseville?Iunderstandthetemptationtogoalongwithwalmartsagenda,butwehaveanice community,withagreatmall,whyruinit? AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:4/23/20128:17:19AM SubmittedfromIPAddress:24.118.124.240 ReferrerPage:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=321 FormAddress:http://www.cityofroseville.com/Forms.aspx?FID=99 1 Page43of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Bill Malinen Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 2:48 PM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: in support of the Wal Mart OriginalMessage From: 24:48PM Sent:Sunday,April22,201 To:*RVCouncil Subject:insupportoftheWalMart IamaRosevilleresidentlivingjustsouthof36offClevelandandIam verymuchinfavoroftheWalMartdevelopmentprojectonClevelandandCty RdC.IhaveaconflictonMondaybutdowanttovoicemysupport.Leah Doherty,2110RosewoodLn.S.,Roseville. ConfidentialityStatement:Thedocumentsaccompanyingthistransmissioncontainconfidentialinformationthatis legallyprivileged.Thisinformationisintendedonlyfortheuseoftheindividualsorentitieslistedabove.Ifyouarenot theintendedrecipient,youareherebynotifiedthatanydisclosure,copying,distribution,oractiontakeninrelianceon thecontentsofthesedocumentsisstrictlyprohibited.Ifyouhavereceivedthisinformationinerror,pleasenotifythe senderimmediatelyandarrangeforthereturnordestructionofthesedocuments. 1 Page44of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Carolyn Curti Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 12:36 PM To: Pat Trudgeon; Bill Malinen Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: General Inquiry Form OriginalMessage From:support@civicplus.com[mailto:support@civicplus.com] Sent:Wednesday,April18,201212:20PM To:CarolynCurti Subject:OnlineFormSubmittal:GeneralInquiryForm Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:GeneralInquiryForm Subject:WalMartpossiblybuildingastoreinRoseville,MN Name::ThomasM.Hoffman Address::1284RugglesStreet City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 Howwouldyouprefertobecontacted?Pleasefilloutthecorrespondingcontactinformationbelow.:Email EmailAddress:: PhoneNumber:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:IamwritingtoexpressmystrongoppositionofbuildingaWalMart storeinRoseville.SometimeagoCostcoattemptedtobuildastoreinRosevilleandwasnotallowedtocomeinto Roseville.WhygiveWalMartpreferentialtreatmentoverCostco? WalMarthasateriblelaborrelationsrecordandhashadsomanylawsuitsfiledagainstthembyemployees.Histroy tellsusthatWalMartisnotagoodemployer.Also,historyestablishesthatwhenWalMartcomesintoacommunitythe yoftheircompetitors.ForthosereasonsIurgetheCity crimerateincreasesdramaticallyinthearea.Moresothanan CounciltorejectWalMartsbidtobuildinRoseville.IfyouaregoingtobringnewbusinessesintoRoseville,whynot recruitanemployerwithasolidLaborRelationsreputationwiththeiremployes's? IurgeyoutosharemycommentswiththeMayorandtheelectedCityConcilmembers. Thankyouforyourconsideration. ThomasM.Hoffman 1284RugglesStreet Roseville,MN55113 1 Page45of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Bill Malinen Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 10:50 AM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council OriginalMessage From:support@civicplus.com[mailto:support@civicplus.com] Sent:Monday,April16,201210:49AM To:*RVCouncil;KariCollins;BillMalinen Subject:OnlineFormSubmittal:ContactCityCouncil Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactCityCouncil Subject:WalMart Name::MartaWall Address::1823AlamedaSt. City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 acted?Remembertofillinthecorrespondingcontactinformation.:Email Howwouldyouprefertobecont EmailAddress:: PhoneNumber:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:IwouldliketoexpressmyconcernovertheproposedWalMart developmentinRoseville.Ihavedeepconcernswiththeirbusinessplan,theiremploymentpolicies,andtheir manufacturingpolicies.Butmoreimportantly,Iworryabouttheimpactthistypeofbigboxstorewillhaveonthethe smallbusinessesinRoseville.Iurgeyou,pleasedonotmoveforwardwiththisplan.Thankyou. AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:4/16/201210:49:13AM SubmittedfromIPAddress:174.53.165.31 ReferrerPage:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Directory.aspx?did=17 FormAddress:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Forms.aspx?FID=115 1 Page46of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Bill Malinen Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 5:06 PM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:Fwd: Wal-Mart store on County Road C and Cleveland Bill Beginforwardedmessage: From:MichaelHollerich Date:April15,20125:04:16PMCDT To:*RVCouncil<city.council@ci.roseville.mn.us> Subject:WalMartstoreonCountyRoadCandCleveland TothemembersoftheRosevilleCityCouncil: I'mexpressingmysupportonbehalfofallthosecitizensinRosevillewhoareopposedtotheconstructionofa newWalMartstoreatCountyRoadCandClevelandAvenue.Ihavelivedherefornineteenyearsandhavebeena Rosevillepropertyownerforeighteenofthoseyears.Rosevillehasalltheretailshoppingitneeds.Thisstoreis unnecessaryandunwanted. Fulldisclosure:IliveatCountyRoadBandCleveland.ButIwouldstillbeopposedtothisstoreifitwerebeing tablishmentsasmuchaspossible.Idon'twanttosee builtsomewhereonDaleorVictoriaorSnelling.Ipatronizelocales morelocalbusinessessuffocatedbyanotherbigboxstore. MichaelJ.Hollerich 2132ClevelandAve. ________________________________ ialinformationthatis ConfidentialityStatement:Thedocumentsaccompanyingthistransmissioncontainconfident legallyprivileged.Thisinformationisintendedonlyfortheuseoftheindividualsorentitieslistedabove.Ifyouarenot theintendedrecipient,youareherebynotifiedthatanydisclosure,copying,distribution,oractiontakeninrelianceon thecontentsofthesedocumentsisstrictlyprohibited.Ifyouhavereceivedthisinformationinerror,pleasenotifythe senderimmediatelyandarrangeforthereturnordestructionofthesedocuments. 1 Page47of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Bill Malinen Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 1:47 PM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council OriginalMessage From:support@civicplus.com[mailto:support@civicplus.com] Sent:Wednesday,April11,20124:54PM To:*RVCouncil;KariCollins;BillMalinen Subject:OnlineFormSubmittal:ContactCityCouncil Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactCityCouncil Subject:Walmart Name::MaryManns Address::2233St.CroixStreet City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 Howwouldyouprefertobecontacted?Remembertofillinthecorrespondingcontactinformation.:Email EmailAddress:: PhoneNumber:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:Hategroupformationassociatedwithbigboxstores Wednesday,April11,2012 Thepresenceofbigboxretailers,suchasWalMart,KMartandTarget,mayalteracommunity'ssocialandeconomic fabricenoughtopromotethecreationofhategroups,accordingtoeconomists. ThenumberofWalMartstoresinacountyissignificantlycorrelatedwiththenumberofhategroupsinthearea,said z,professorofagriculturaleconomicsandregionaleconomics,PennState,anddirectoroftheNortheast StephanGoet RegionalCenterforRuralDevelopment. "WalMarthasclearlydonegoodthingsinthesecommunities,especiallyintermsofloweringprices,"saidGoetz."But theremaybeindirectcoststhatarenotasobviousasothereffects." ThenumberofWalMartstoreswassecondonlytothedesignationofacountyasaMetropolitanStatisticalAreain statisticalsignificanceforpredictingthenumberofhategroupsinacounty,accordingtothestudy. terly,saidthatthenumberof Theresearchers,whoreportedtheirfindingsintheonlineversionofSocialScienceQuar WalMartstoresinacountywasmoresignificantstatisticallythanfactorscommonlyregardedasimportanttohate groupparticipation,suchastheunemploymentrate,highcrimeratesandloweducation. Theresearcherssuggestedseveraltheoriesforthecorrelationbetweenthenumberoflargeretailstoresandhate groupsinanarea. 1 Page48of95 AttachmentG Goetz,whoworkedwithAnilRupasingha,adjunctprofessorofagriculturaleconomicsandagriculturalbusiness,New MexicoStateUniversity,andScottLoveridge,professoranddirectoroftheNorthcentralRegionalCenterforRural Development,MichiganStateUniversity,saidthatlocalmerchantsmayfinditdifficulttocompeteagainstlargeretailers andbeforcedoutofbusiness. businessownersaretypicallymembersofcommunityandcivicgroups,suchastheKiwanisandRotaryclubs. Local Losingmembersofthesegroups,whichhelpestablishprogramsthatpromotecivicengagementandfostercommunity values,maycauseadropincommunitycohesion,accordingtoGoetz. "WhileweliketothinkofAmericansocietyasbeinglargelyclassless,merchantsandbankersarepartofwhatwecould callaleadershipclassinacommunity,"Goetzsaid. Thelarge,anonymousnatureofbigboxretailersmayalsoplayaroleinfrayingsocialbonds,whicharestrongestwhen individualsfeelthattheiractionsarebeingmorecloselywatched.Forexample,peoplemaybelesslikelytoshopliftata localhardwarestoreiftheyknowtheownerpersonally,Goetzsaid. Religiousprimingusingcertainwordsorphrasestopromotearangeofattitudesandbehaviorsmayalsoplayarole, ng,afterparticipantsreviewedalistofChristianwords,such accordingtotheresearchers.Inonestudyofreligiousprimi asBible,gospelandMessiah,theyalsotendedtosupportracistattitudesagainstblacks. TheresearcherssaidthatbecauseWalMartpromotestypicalProtestantvalues,suchassavingsandthrift,thecuesmay leadcustomerstoadoptotherbeliefs,includingintolerantattitudes,accordingtotheresearchers. TheresearchersuseddatacollectedbytheSouthernPovertyLawCenter,agroupthatmonitorstheactivitiesofhate groups,onhategroupsineachU.S.countyin2007.TheyusedthenumberandlocationofWalMartstoresfrom1998. Goetzsaidthelagtimebetweenthedatasetsprovidedtimeforthepossibleinfluenceofastoretoaffectacommunity. GoetzsaidthattheresearcherschoseWalMartforthestudybecauseoftheavailabilityofdataonthestores.Headded thatthepresenceofWalMartinanareagenerallyindicatestheestablishmentofothertypesofbigboxretailers,such asHomeDepotandTarget. "We'renottryingtopickonWalMart,"saidGoetz."Inthisstudy,WalMartisreallyservingasaproxyforanytypeof largeretailer." ayaroleinsupportinglocalgroupsthatcanfosterstrongersocial Thestorechaincouldusethisstudytofindwaystopl andeconomictiesinacommunity. "WedoubtstronglythatWalMartintendstocreatesucheffectsorthatitspecificallyseekstolocateinplaceswhere hategroupsform,"theresearcherssaid. PennState:http://live.psu.edu ThankstoPennStateforthisarticle. Thispressreleasewaspostedtoserveasatopicfordiscussion.Pleasecommentbelow.Wetryourbesttoonlypost pressreleasesthatareassociatedwithpeerreviewedscientificliterature.Criticaldiscussionsoftheresearchare ktotheoriginalarticle,pleasecontactusontwitterorviaemail. appreciated.Ifyouneedhelpfindingalin AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:4/11/20124:53:39PM SubmittedfromIPAddress:98.240.228.222 ReferrerPage:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Directory.aspx?did=17 FormAddress:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Forms.aspx?FID=115 2 Page49of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Bill Malinen Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 1:49 PM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: Ramsey Cty Sheriff Rpt on Target & Wal-Mart Attachments: Wal-Mart v. Target - Ramsey Country Sheriff's Office.pdf OriginalMessage From:CarolKoester Sent:Wednesday,April11,201212:09PM To:*RVCouncil Subject:RamseyCtySheriffRptonTarget&WalMart CityCouncilMembers: Hereisa17pagereportfromtheRamseyCountySheriff'sDept.Thefirstpagesumsitallupsuccinctly. Carol SWARNStrategyCommittee mpanyingthistransmissioncontainconfidentialinformationthatis ConfidentialityStatement:Thedocumentsacco legallyprivileged.Thisinformationisintendedonlyfortheuseoftheindividualsorentitieslistedabove.Ifyouarenot theintendedrecipient,youareherebynotifiedthatanydisclosure,copying,distribution,oractiontakeninrelianceon thecontentsofthesedocumentsisstrictlyprohibited.Ifyouhavereceivedthisinformationinerror,pleasenotifythe senderimmediatelyandarrangeforthereturnordestructionofthesedocuments. 1 Page50of95 AttachmentG Page51of95 AttachmentG Page52of95 AttachmentG Page53of95 AttachmentG Page54of95 AttachmentG Page55of95 AttachmentG Page56of95 AttachmentG Thomas Paschke From: support@civicplus.com Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 11:51 AM To: Thomas Paschke Subject:Online Form Submittal: Contact Thomas Paschke Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactThomasPaschke Name::JerryBuerge Address::1791MqpleLane City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 HomePhoneNumber:: DaytimePhoneNumber:: EmailAddress:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:Isincerelybelievethatallowingthisoutfittobuildastoreanywhere inRosevillewillsincerelydowngradethetoneofourcity.Obviouslytheopinionofasinglecitizenmeansnothingto thoseinterestedonlyindevelopmentfordevelopment'ssake.butIcanassureyouthatanycouncilpersonvotingforthis projectwillcertainlynotreceivedanyfurthersupportfromthisperson.That'snotathreat,itsapromise. AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:3/28/201211:50:41AM SubmittedfromIPAddress:75.72.226.221 ReferrerPage:http://sn108w.snt108.mail.live.com/default.aspx FormAddress:http://www.cityofroseville.com/Forms.aspx?FID=99 1 Page57of95 AttachmentG Thomas Paschke From: Bill Malinen Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 9:12 AM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: County Road C & Cleveland Avenue OriginalMessage From: Sent:Monday,March26,20128:10PM To:*RVCouncil Subject:CountyRoadC&ClevelandAvenue IfeelwedonotneedaWalmartthereasitwillbringlowerclassshoppers.; PluswehaveaWalmartabout4milesawayinStAnthony.IthinkaCostco hbetter.MostpeopleItalktowouldperferit. orSamsClubwouldbemuc WhathappenedtoCostcoandwhywasitshotdownbefore?Thinkofall thebusinessthatwouldbuybigfromit.Iamsureyoucouncilpeople wouldshopthereto.SovoteNOonWalmartandrethinkitover. Rosevilleresident ConfidentialityStatement:Thedocumentsaccompanyingthistransmissioncontainconfidentialinformationthatis legallyprivileged.Thisinformationisintendedonlyfortheuseoftheindividualsorentitieslistedabove.Ifyouarenot theintendedrecipient,youareherebynotifiedthatanydisclosure,copying,distribution,oractiontakeninrelianceon thecontentsofthesedocumentsisstrictlyprohibited.Ifyouhavereceivedthisinformationinerror,pleasenotifythe senderimmediatelyandarrangeforthereturnordestructionofthesedocuments. 1 Page58of95 AttachmentG Thomas Paschke From: support@civicplus.com Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 10:51 AM To: Thomas Paschke Subject:Online Form Submittal: Contact Thomas Paschke Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactThomasPaschke Name::JanetOlson Address::418GlenwoodAve City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 HomePhoneNumber:: DaytimePhoneNumber:: EmailAddress:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:IwouldliketoconveymyoppositiontotheWalMartproposal currentlyunderconsiderationbytheRosevilleCityCouncil.IlearnedofitthroughtheFeb.27,2012StarTribunearticle. Followingaremyreasons: oppositiontoBigBox.Thisshouldbestrongly 1.TheneighborsintheTwinLakeareahavealwaysexpressed consideredwhenmakingthisdecision. 2.Thisisabigenoughissuethatthewholecommunityshouldhavebeensentinformationaboutthisproposal‘ notjusttherequirednotices. 3.WalMartisnotthetypeofcompanywewantinourcommunity.Overtheyearstheyhavebeenunderfirefor theirabuseofthefederallyfundedmedicalassistancesystem,theirtreatmentofemployeesingeneralandmore specificallytheirtreatmentoffemaleemployees,theirlowwagesandbenefits,theexperienceleveloftheiremployees, theirstrongarmingofsuppliersbothbigandsmall,etc. 4.LegitimatemediasourceshavespeculatedthatWalMartistoobigandhastoolargeofaneffectonglobal commerce. 5.CommunitiesaretakingastandagainstWalMartfortheirnegativeeffectonthem. ·©äx­majornewspapers,anarticle TherearemanysourcestoreadaboutWalMart,includingmanyarticlesinthecoun fromtheAmericanProspect‘TheWalMartEconomy‘May2011,thewebsitemakingchangeatwalmart.org,etc. WehavewonderfulretailcentersinRoseville.Rosedalehasgonethroughasuccessfulupgradewithitstheater, restaurantsandstores.Itisaprimedestinationfornotonlyshopping,butentertainment.©m;·x­remodelinghas createdapleasantshoppingexperiencewithqualityitems.HarMarMallgivespeopletheoptiontoshopinasmaller setting. ThereislittleneedorbenefittoourcommunitytoallowtheWalMartproposaltogothrough. etM.Olson,418GlenwoodAve,Roseville,MN55113 Sincerely,Jan 1 Page59of95 AttachmentG Thomas Paschke From: Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 4:58 PM To: Thomas Paschke Subject:Walmart We have lived in the same house in Roseville since 1967. I love the thought of having Walmart in Roseville. The first Walmart I ever shopped in was a newly built one in Grand Rapids, MN. The greeter that met us at the door and shook our hands was THE Sam Walton. Jeanne Schumacher 1 Page60of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Bill Malinen Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 10:25 AM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council OriginalMessage From:support@civicplus.com[mailto:support@civicplus.com] Sent:Friday,March09,201210:10AM To:*RVCouncil;KariCollins;BillMalinen Subject:OnlineFormSubmittal:ContactCityCouncil Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactCityCouncil Subject:Walmart Name::MaryManns Address::2233St.CroixStreet City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 acted?Remembertofillinthecorrespondingcontactinformation.:Email Howwouldyouprefertobecont EmailAddress:: PhoneNumber:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:Please,pleasedoNOTagreetoputaWalmartinRoseville.Itwould severelydamagethealreadystrugglingretailinRoseville.JustwalkthroughHarMartoseealltheemptyspaces,and thenimaginehowitwouldlookifthereisaWalmartintown.Walmartprovidesonlylowpayingjobs,weneed businessesthatwillhelpourcommunitygrowandprosper.ThereisaWalmartjustafewmilesaway,itseemsthatthey aretryingtotakeovertheentireworld.Surelythereareotheroptionsforthatsitethatwouldenhanceourgreatcity retacky. ratherthanmakingitmo AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:3/9/201210:09:44AM SubmittedfromIPAddress:97.112.89.78 ReferrerPage:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Directory.aspx?did=17 1 Page61of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Bill Malinen Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 2:18 AM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:Fwd: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Bill Beginforwardedmessage: From:"support@civicplus.com"<support@civicplus.com> Date:March4,20123:35:18PMPST To:*RVCouncil<city.council@ci.roseville.mn.us>,KariCollins<kari.collins@ci.roseville.mn.us>,BillMalinen <bill.malinen@ci.roseville.mn.us> Subject:OnlineFormSubmittal:ContactCityCouncil Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactCityCouncil Subject:WalMart Name::MichaelMcCormick Address::2211MerrillSt City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 Howwouldyouprefertobecontacted?Remembertofillinthecorrespondingcontactinformation.:NoReply Necessary EmailA ddress:: PhoneNumber:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:WalMart'smotiveforenteringRosevillereflects,atleastin part,theirhopetohurttheirmainrivalTargetbytakingoutthenearbySuperTargetstoreatB&Snelling.Thatwas Target'sveryfirststore,partofourlocalhistory,andmoreimportantly,amajorcontributortoRosevilleareaschools andcommunitycauses.Let'srallytothedefenseofourneighborhoodTargetandkeepWalMartoutofRoseville.Iam notaffiliatedinanywaywithTargetCorp. 1 Page62of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Bill Malinen Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 4:23 PM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council OriginalMessage From:support@civicplus.com[mailto:support@civicplus.com] Sent:Tuesday,February28,20123:06PM To:*RVCouncil;KariCollins;BillMalinen Subject:OnlineFormSubmittal:ContactCityCouncil Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactCityCouncil Subject:proposedWalmart Name::KrisKiesling Address::645S.OwassoBlvd City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 Howwou ldyouprefertobecontacted?Remembertofillinthecorrespondingcontact information.:NoReplyNecessary EmailAddress:: PhoneNumber:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:PleaseconsiderthisaNOvoteonthe proposedWalmartatthecornerofClevelandandCountyRoadC.CurrentlyCisareasonable alternativetothecommutingnightmareHighway36hasbecome.Thatwon'tbethecasewitha Walmartonthatcorner.Idon'tobjecttothecitydevelopingthatspace,butdoestheworld reallyneedanotherWalmart?Preferablynotinmytown! AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:2/28/20123:06:20PM SubmittedfromIPAddress:160.94.32.111 ReferrerPage:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/index.aspx?NID=56 FormAddress:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Forms.aspx?FID=115 1 Page63of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Bill Malinen Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 4:21 PM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: wal-mart in roseville OriginalMessage From:CasJan Sent:Tuesday,February28,201212:04PM To:*RVCouncil Subject:walmartinroseville Iamaresidentofstanthonyvillageandliveaboutamilefromthewalmartinsilverlake village.Iwouldliketosuggestthattherosevillecounciltakeacloselookatthe increasedactivityofthestanthonypolicesincethewalmartwasbuilthere.Thisshouldbe aconcernsinceaweekdoesnotgobywhenthereisnotanincidentormorethatneedspolice attention.Also...thecriminalactivitysuchaspursesnatching,useofstolencredit cards,shopliftingcarbreakinsto nameafew,isnotconfinedtojustthebigboxstorebuttothesurroundingresidentialarea aswell.Thankyouforyourconsideration. LeonardJ.Casanova ConfidentialityStatement:Thedocumentsaccompanyingthistransmissioncontainconfidential informationthatislegallyprivileged.Thisinformationisintendedonlyfortheuseofthe individualsorentitieslistedabove.Ifyouarenottheintendedrecipient,youarehereby notifiedthatanydisclosure,copying,distribution,oractiontakeninrelianceonthe contentsofthesedocumentsisstrictlyprohibited.Ifyouhavereceivedthisinformationin error,pleasenotifythesenderimmediatelyandarrangeforthereturnordestructionof thesedocuments. 1 Page64of95 AttachmentG Thomas Paschke From: support@civicplus.com Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 2:53 PM To: Thomas Paschke Subject:Online Form Submittal: Contact Thomas Paschke Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactThomasPaschke Name::WalmartOpposed Address::1999SharondaleAve. City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 HomePhoneNumber:: DaytimePhoneNumber:: EmailAddress:: PleaseSha reYourComment,QuestionorConcern:HelloMr.Paschke, IwouldlikeitknownthatIamagainsthavingaWalmartcometotheTwinLakessite.Three reasons: 1)Walmartdoesnotprovidesustainablecompensationtoitsemployees,asopposedtoperhaps aCostco,TraderJoe's,orWholeFoods. 2)Walmartishavingdifficultywithprofitabilityatitspresentstores.Unlesstrends change,Walmartwillneedscalebacktheirsiteswithinthenextfewyearstobettermatch theirpotentialsales. 3)WehavemanyWalmartsintheareaalready.Inlightofthesecondproblemabove,itwould standtoreasonthataWalmartatthenewTwinLakesareawouldhavealikelihoodofshutting itsdoorswithinafewyears.Thenwehaveabig,vacantretailbox.Notagreatsituation. InlieuofaWalmart,IwouldverymuchliketoseeperhapsaWholeFooes. odsoraTraderJ Eitherofthesehasmuchlesssaturation,andwouldbetterserveralarger(andperhapsmore desirable)segmentofRoseville'sdemographic. PleaseletmeknowwhatfurtherstepsIcantaketohelprefocusaprojectforTwinLakes awayfromaWalmart,andtowardamoresustainable,betterservingretailorgroceryproject. WholeFoodsorTraderJoe'sbeingneartheLunds/Byerly'swouldhavetheeffectofdrawinga higherenddemographictoshopinthatarea,inmuchthesamewayasfastfoodchainstendto locateneareachothertocreateagivenlocationthatpeopleassociatewithagiventypeof product.RatherthanbestrictcompetitionforByerly's,suchapresencewouldtendtodraw morecustomersintothatareatoshopforhigherendgroceries. Thankyoumuchforyourconsiderationandresponse. BestRegards, CarlBerger 1 Page65of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Bill Malinen Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 1:02 PM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council OriginalMessage From:support@civicplus.com[mailto:support@civicplus.com] Sent:Monday,February27,201212:24PM To:*RVCouncil;KariCollins;BillMalinen Subject:OnlineFormSubmittal:ContactCityCouncil Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactCityCouncil Subject:WalMartPlans Name::RuthSorensonProkosch Address::1019ShryerAve.W. City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 Howwouldyouprefertobecontacted?Remembertofillinthecorrespondingcontact information.:Email EmailAddress:: PhoneNumber:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:IamconcernedabouttheproposedWalMart planinRoseville.Itwouldincreasetrafficintheareaandbeanunfaircompetitorto small,localbusinesses.WhileIunderstandthedesiretoredevelopthatareaofRosevilleI wouldhopethatthereareotherlocalbusinessesthatcouldbeconsideredotherthanabig boxstore.Thanksforyourconsideration! RuthSorensonProkosch AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:2/27/201212:24:04PM SubmittedfromIPAddress:67.6.59.230 ReferrerPage:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/index.aspx?NID=56 FormAddress:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Forms.aspx?FID=115 1 Page66of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Bill Malinen Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 1:02 PM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council OriginalMessage From:support@civicplus.com[mailto:support@civicplus.com] Sent:Sunday,February26,201210:17AM To:*RVCouncil;KariCollins;BillMalinen Subject:OnlineFormSubmittal:ContactCityCouncil Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactCityCouncil Subject:WalMart Name::TimohyCallaghan Address::3062ShorewoodLane City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 Howwouldyoupre fertobecontacted?Remembertofillinthecorrespondingcontact information.:Email EmailAddress:: PhoneNumber:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:Iseethatafterallthenoticesthatwere sentoutandalltheplanningforthemeetingthatthedecisiononWalMarthasbeendelayeda monthsothatyouhopethatyouwillnotgetalargeturnoutoppossingthisbaddecision. Theplanningcommisionwaspoorlyattendedsinceitwaspoorlyadvertisedsothatresidents couldnotparticipate.Isthisbecomingonlyacitythatsupportslargebusiness? AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:2/26/201210:16:49AM SubmittedfromIPAddress:24.118.30.90 ReferrerPage:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/index.aspx?NID=56 FormAddress:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Forms.aspx?FID=115 1 Page67of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Bill Malinen Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 11:17 AM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council OriginalMessage From:support@civicplus.com[mailto:support@civicplus.com] Sent:Thursday,February23,201211:08AM To:*RVCouncil;KariCollins;BillMalinen Subject:OnlineFormSubmittal:ContactCityCouncil Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactCityCouncil Subject:TwinLakesPlot&DisposalApproval Name::AnnettePhillips Address::3084ShorewoodLn City::Roseville State::MN Zip::5 5113 Howwouldyouprefertobecontacted?Remembertofillinthecorrespondingcontact information.:Email EmailAddress:: PhoneNumber:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:Pleaselookcloselyattheapprovalthe PlanningCommissionhasgiventothepreliminaryplotanddisposaloflandfortheTwinLakes property. OnreviewingthecablebroadcastoftheCommissionmeeting,itwasbroughtoutthatany approvalneededtobeconsistantwiththecities'ComprehensivePlan. TheyignoredthefactthattheComprehensivePlanstatesthatnewdevelopmentshouldnotbe "bigbox"retail.Itwasstatedthatthisdevelopmentwouldonlyentail14acresof179 acres.Wherearethe179acreslocated?MostofthelandsurroundingClevelandandCounty Rd.Ccontainsactivebusinesses. Itwasstatedatthemeetingthata"bigbox"retailbusinesswouldadd700900policecalls. WeneedtokeepRoseville'sdevelopmentcompliantwiththeComprehensivePlan.APlanthat wasjustdevelopedandreflectsthecurrentstatusoftheCity. AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:2/23/201211:08:29AM 1 Page68of95 AttachmentG Thomas Paschke From: support@civicplus.com Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 4:57 PM To: Thomas Paschke Subject:Online Form Submittal: Contact Thomas Paschke Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactThomasPaschke Name::RogerToogood Address::601TerraceCourte City::Roseville State::Mn. Zip::55113 HomePhoneNumber:: DaytimePhoneNumber:: EmailAddress:: PleaseSha reYourComment,QuestionorConcern:IampleasedtoseetheplansforanewWal MartcomingtoRoseville.Theparticularlocationisgreatconsideringthezoningandthe factthatthelandisnotbeingused.IhaveaconflictforthenewdateinMarchsocannot bepresenttotestifyinsupportoftheCouncilapprovingtheplanRogerToogood AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:2/22/20124:56:46PM SubmittedfromIPAddress:184.97.131.148 ReferrerPage:http://www.cityofroseville.com/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=315 FormAddress:http://www.cityofroseville.com/Forms.aspx?FID=99 1 Page69of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Bill Malinen Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 11:17 AM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council OriginalMessage From:support@civicplus.com[mailto:support@civicplus.com] Sent:Friday,February17,20121:36PM To:*RVCouncil;MargaretDriscoll;BillMalinen Subject:OnlineFormSubmittal:ContactCityCouncil Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactCityCouncil Subject:WalmartinRoseville Name::RodOlson Address::2701LincolnDr. City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 Howwou ldyouprefertobecontacted?Remembertofillinthecorrespondingcontact information.:NoReplyNecessary EmailAddress:: PhoneNumber:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:Greetingsall, IthascometomyattentionthatWalMartishopingtonesthereinRoseville.I understandthattheyarelookingattheexactsameareathatCostColookedatafewyears ago.Asthelocalsmadeitprettyclearthatwedidn'twanta"bigboxstore"herevery recently,Iamsurprisedthatthisisevenbeingconsideredatall.Thelastthingweneed ismoreretailandvastlyincreasedtrafficinthistown,nottomentionthefinancialpain thatWalMartwouldiilers.Pleaseknockthisrequestdownfirmly& nflictonlocalreta completelyandtheneverybodycangetontomoreimportantmatters. Thanksforyourtime, RodOlson(mgr) TheCellarsWinesandSpirits 2701LincolnDrive AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:2/17/20121:36:08PM 1 Page70of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Bill Malinen Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:44 PM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: Vote yes for WalMart OriginalMessage From:JanetHenquinet Sent:Thursday,February16,201210:09AM To:*RVCouncil Subject:VoteyesforWalMart PleaseaddmynametothosewhoareinfavoroftheWalMartdevelopmentatCountyRoadCand Cleveland. Thislandhassatvacantfortoomanyyearsinhopesoffindingan"ideal"development situation.Itistimetobepragmatic. Thankstoallofyouforthetimeandworkyoudevotetomakingthetoughdecisionsin Roseville. JanetHenquinet,PhD ConfidentialityStatement:Thedocumentsaccompanyingthistransmissioncontainconfidential informationthatislegallyprivileged.Thisinformationisintendedonlyfortheuseofthe individualsorentitieslistedabove.Ifyouarenottheintendedrecipient,youarehereby notifiedthatanydisclosure,copying,distribution,oractiontakeninrelianceonthe content softhesedocumentsisstrictlyprohibited.Ifyouhavereceivedthisinformationin error,pleasenotifythesenderimmediatelyandarrangeforthereturnordestructionof thesedocuments. 1 Page71of95 AttachmentG Thomas Paschke From: support@civicplus.com Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 7:13 AM To: Thomas Paschke Subject:Online Form Submittal: Contact Thomas Paschke Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactThomasPaschke Name::LindaPribyl Address::!637RidgewoodLaneNorth City::Roseville State::Mn Zip::55113 HomePhoneNumber:: DaytimePhoneNumber:: EmailAddress:: PleaseSha reYourComment,QuestionorConcern:AwallmartwilldestroyRosedale.Ifyou wanttomakerosedaleaharmarwastelandthengoaheadandaddthecheaptoourcommunity. Thatwouldbeahugemistake. AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:2/16/20127:13:14AM SubmittedfromIPAddress:24.118.124.240 ReferrerPage:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=315 FormAddress:http://www.cityofroseville.com/Forms.aspx?FID=99 1 Page72of95 AttachmentG Thomas Paschke From: Lois Monfils Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 4:59 PM To: Thomas Paschke Subject:WalMart We7š“x·needanotherWalmartin Roseville. LoisMonfils 1045LarpenteurAveW#326 Roseville,MN 1 Page73of95 AttachmentG Thomas Paschke From: Bill Malinen Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 10:58 AM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council OriginalMessage From:support@civicplus.com[mailto:support@civicplus.com] Sent:Wednesday,February15,20121:56PM To:*RVCouncil;MargaretDriscoll;BillMalinen Subject:OnlineFormSubmittal:ContactCityCouncil Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactCityCouncil Subject:WalmartatTwinLakes Name::LindaFearing Address::2578No.PascalSt. City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 Howwouldyouprefertobecontacted?Remembertofillinthecorrespondingcontact information.:Email EmailAddress:: PhoneNumber:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:Iwouldliketoexpressmyopinionaboutthe proposedWalmartstoreintheTwinLakesarea.PerhapsIamnotrememberingcorrectly,butI thoughtthistypeofdevelopmentforTwinLakeshadbeendiscussedandrejectedafewyears back.TherewasaletterintheReviewthisweekfromWillardShapira.IdonotknowMr. Shapira,butagreewithhispoints.Rosevillehasalwaysbeenabletoattracthighend development.IdonotthinkWalmartwilladdanythingpositivetoourCity.Irealizeitis temptingtogetsgoverthere,especiallyinthissloweconomy,butasalife omethinggoin longcitizenand25yearRosevillehomeowner,Iwouldlikeyoutorejectthisprojectand holdoutforsomethingbetter.Atsomepointthiseconomywillpickupagainsopleasedon't hastillyacceptthisWalmartproject.Thankyouforyourconsideration,LindaFearing AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:2/15/20121:56:13PM SubmittedfromIPAddress:75.72.224.81 1 Page74of95 AttachmentG Thomas Paschke From: Bill Malinen Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 10:58 AM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council OriginalMessage From:support@civicplus.com[mailto:support@civicplus.com] Sent:Wednesday,February15,201212:15PM To:*RVCouncil;MargaretDriscoll;BillMalinen Subject:OnlineFormSubmittal:ContactCityCouncil Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactCityCouncil Subject:WalmartinRoseville Name::RobertLuken Address::3030AsburySt City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 Howwou ldyouprefertobecontacted?Remembertofillinthecorrespondingcontact information.:Email EmailAddress:: PhoneNumber:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:Wedon'tneedaWalmartinRoseville.Theone inStAnthonyisabout3milesaway.TheoneonCoRdEisaboutthesame.We'vetwoTarget storeswithinacoupleofmilesofeachotherandwe'vegotRosedaleMallcloseby.I'mnot surewhyyouwanttosaturatetheareawithlowcostbusinesseslikeWalmart.Isuspectmaybe yourhavingahardtimefindingadeveloperfortheareabutIthinktocreateacityoflow costoutletsdragsthecitydowneconomicallyandimagewise. AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:2/15/201212:14:43PM SubmittedfromIPAddress:208.110.231.52 ReferrerPage:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/index.aspx?NID=56 FormAddress:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Forms.aspx?FID=115 1 Page75of95 AttachmentG Thomas Paschke From: support@civicplus.com Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:14 PM To: *RVPlanningCommission Subject:Online Form Submittal: Contact Planning Commission Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactPlanningCommission Subject::WalMartbacklash Name::RyanS. Address::3059FairviewAve City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 Howwouldyouprefertobecontacted?Remembertofillinthecorrespondingcontact information.:Email PhoneNumber:: EmailAddress:: PleaseSha reYourComment,QuestionorConcern:DearRosevillePlanningCommission, Whatyouaretryingtoaccomplishbybringingwalmarttorosevilleisbothverysad, angering,anddownrightlow.Whereonearthdoesitsayinthemasterplanguidelinesthat bigboxretailisok?Really...showmewhereitsaysthat.Yeah,Ididn'tthinkso.Imay beacitizenofroseville(don'tdeserveacapitalr),butI'mnotthatstupid...I'veread fronttobackthatmasterplan,andnowhereintheredoesitsaybigboxisok.Infact,the reportactuallygoesoutofitswaytosaybigboxwillNOTbeallowed.walmartisthe definitionofabigbox,anddon'ttrytouseloopholesinthereportguidelinestoconvince thepublicotherwise.Yououghttobeashamedofyourselvesforevenlettingthiscomeup foravote.IhopeFriendsofTwinLakesbringsyoutocourtoverthis,andIwillbehappy tobethevoiceoftheopposition.Youlostlasttime,you'lllosethistimetoo.Maybeyou shouldopenupthebooksonthehistoricalfightsoverwhattodowiththatland,youmight actuallylearnsomethingonwhatthecitizensofrosevillehavebeenshoutingforyears...NO BIGBOXONTHATLAND!Ifyoucontactme,don'tdoitbeforereadinguponyourown guidelinesfortheImagineRoseville2025MasterPlan. Inclosing, RyanS. DisgruntledCitizenofroseville AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:2/7/201210:14:07PM 1 Page76of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Bill Malinen Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 12:44 PM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council OriginalMessage From:support@civicplus.com[mailto:support@civicplus.com] Sent:Monday,February06,20123:04PM To:*RVCouncil;MargaretDriscoll;BillMalinen Subject:OnlineFormSubmittal:ContactCityCouncil Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactCityCouncil Subject:WalMart Name::AnneHamre Address::1491CentennialDr City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 Howwouldyoupre fertobecontacted?Remembertofillinthecorrespondingcontact information.:Email EmailAddress:: PhoneNumber:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:Iwouldliketoregistermyoppositiontothe WalMartplans.Thiscompanyisnotagoodcorporatecitizen;theyundercutlocalmain streetcompaniesbyofferingsubstandardwagesandbenefitstotheirworkers.Let'snotget ourcitycaughtupina"racetothebottom"thoselowpricescomeatahighprice.Thank youforyourconsideration. AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:2/6/20123:04:17PM SubmittedfromIPAddress:156.98.43.58 ReferrerPage:NoReferrerDirectLink FormAddress:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Forms.aspx?FID=115 1 Page77of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Bill Malinen Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 11:47 AM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Pat: I'mgoingtobeforwardingalltheWalMartrelatedmessageswe'vereceived,FYI.Thisisthe first OriginalMessage From:support@civicplus.com[mailto:support@civicplus.com] Sent:Monday,February06,201211:02AM To:*RVCouncil;MargaretDriscoll;BillMalinen Subject:OnlineFormSubmittal:ContactCityCouncil Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactCityCouncil Subject:Walmart Name::HeidiLawson Address::332SAustinBlvd City::OakPark State::IL Zip::60304 Howwou ldyouprefertobecontacted?Remembertofillinthecorrespondingcontact information.:Email EmailAddress:: PhoneNumber:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:ThoughIamnowofficiallyaresidentof Illinois,IgrewupinRoseville,stillspendseveralmonthseachyearthere,andhavestrong tiestothecity.MymotherlivesinRoseville,mybrotherandhisfamilyliveinLaude rdale, Ihavemanyfriendsinthearea,andIstillfeelstronglyaboutmyhometown.Ihavejust readintheStarTribunethatRosevilleisconsideringallowingWalmarttobuildastore withinthecitylimits.IcannotexpressstronglyenoughhowagainstthisIam. Walmarthasreprehensiblebusinessandlaborpractices,payingtheiremployeesaslittleas possible,firinganyonewhoexpressesanyinterestinunionization,andhasrecentlybeen subjecttoagenderdiscriminationclassactionlawsuitthatwentallthewaytotheU.S. SupremeCourt.Virtuallyeveryproducttheysellismadeoverseasbycompanieswithevenmore horrificbusinesspractices.Thisisnotthekindofcompanythatwewantwithinourcity limits.IhavealwaysproudlyboastedthatmyhometowncommunitydoesnothaveaWalmart anywherenearby. 1 Page78of95 AttachmentG Rosevilleisluckytohaveanextraordinarycommercialtaxbasethatsupportsourexcellent schools(andIhaverecentlyreadthatRAHSwasrankedamongthetop500publichighschools inthenation)andcommunity.WithTarget,Cub,andRainbowalreadythere,inadditiontoall themallsandstripmalls,IcannotpossiblyimaginewhatWalmartwouldofferthecommunity thatitdoesnotalreadyhave.Iappreciatethatthecorporationhasexpressedinterestina spacethathasbeenvacantforyears.However,Idonotbelievethatitisworthallowing thiscorporationthatistheposterchildforisponsibleandunsustainablebusiness rre practicesintoourcommunitymerelytoachievethegoaloffillingthespace.Surelywecan bemorecreativeaboutwhattodowiththespace.Perhapsitwouldbesuitedtoacommunity gardenspace?Perhapsthereissomethingthatcanbedonetoattractsmalllocal entrepreneursfromourowncommunityintothespace.PleaseconsiderwhatallowingaWalmart intoRosevillewoulddoforourcityIcannotthinkofanythingpositivethatithasto offerus. AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:2/6/201211:02:27AM SubmittedfromIPAddress:108.90.23.17 ReferrerPage:NoReferrerDirectLink FormAddress:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Forms.aspx?FID=115 ConfidentialityStatement:Thedocumentsaccompanyingthistransmissioncontainconfidential informationthatislegallyprivileged.Thisinformationisintendedonlyfortheuseofthe individualsorentitieslistedabove.Ifyouarenottheintendedrecipient,youarehereby notifiedthatanydisclosure,copying,distribution,oractiontakeninrelianceonthe contentsofthesedocumentsisstrictlyprohibited.Ifyouhavereceivedthisinformationin error,pleasenotifythesenderimmediatelyandarrangeforthereturnordestructionof thesedocuments. 2 Page79of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Bill Malinen Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:44 PM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: Twin Lakes/Walmart OriginalMessage From: Sent:Sunday,February05,201210:50AM To:*RVCouncil Subject:TwinLakes/Walmart TheTwinLakesareahasbeendiscussedoverandoverfortoomanyyears.Iwouldprefera companylikeCoscogoinginatCountyRoadCandCleveland,andnotacompanylikeWalmart. Afteralltheyearsoftalking,let'sdoitright.CitieslikeSt.LouisParkhavefigured outhowtodevelopwithbeautifulresults.Wecandothesame. Sincerely, KayThorpe ConfidentialityStatement:Thedocumentsaccompanyingthistransmissioncontainconfidential informationthatislegallyprivileged.Thisinformationisintendedonlyfortheuseofthe individualsorentitieslistedabove.Ifyouarenottheintendedrecipient,youarehereby notifiedthatanydisclosure,copying,distribution,oractiontakeninrelianceonthe contentsofthesedocumentsisstrictlyprohibited.Ifyouhavereceivedthisinformationin error,pleasenotifythesenderimmediatelyandarrangeforthereturnordestructionof thesedocuments. 1 Page80of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Bill Malinen Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 11:47 AM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council OriginalMessage From:support@civicplus.com[mailto:support@civicplus.com] Sent:Sunday,February05,20125:15PM To:*RVCouncil;MargaretDriscoll;BillMalinen Subject:OnlineFormSubmittal:ContactCityCouncil Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactCityCouncil Subject:Walmart Name::SuzanneSancilio Address::1221W.CountyRoadC2 City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 Howwou ldyouprefertobecontacted?Remembertofillinthecorrespondingcontact information.:NoReplyNecessary EmailAddress:: PhoneNumber:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:DearMayorRoeandCityCouncilMembers:I joinmanymembersoftheRosevillecommunityinfeelingfrustratedanddismayedthat Walmart'splantodevelopastoreintheTwinsLakesareawasnotdisclosedpubliclyuntil justpriortotheCity'sPlanningCommission'smeetingonthesubjectlastweek.WhileIam awarethatthisareahasbeendesignatedforretaildevelopmentandIdefinitelyagreethe blightedlotsneedattention,IfeelstronglythatWalmartisnotthecorporateneighborwe seektoinviteintoourcity.Theorismallbusinessesandretailsitesis ginalintentfor muchmoresoundandcannotbeequatedtotheWalmartmegastoreconceptdespitethe Commission'sassertion.Moreimportantly,Ihopeyouwouldalltakeundercareful considerationthefactthatWalmarthasbeenoneoftheworseviolatorsofemploymentlaws, standardsandpractices.PleasevotenototheWalmartplanandencouragefurtherexploration ofalternativeretailoptions.Thankyouforyourconsideration,SuzanneSancilio AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:2/5/20125:15:08PM 1 Page81of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Bill Malinen Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 11:47 AM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council OriginalMessage From:support@civicplus.com[mailto:support@civicplus.com] Sent:Sunday,February05,20121:39PM To:*RVCouncil;MargaretDriscoll;BillMalinen Subject:OnlineFormSubmittal:ContactCityCouncil Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactCityCouncil Subject:TwinLakesDeveopment Name::JohnEasterling Address::1850CountyRdC2W City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 Howwouldyouprefertobecontacted?Remembertofillinthecorrespondingcontact information.:Email EmailAddress:: PhoneNumber:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:IwasreadingtodayintheStarTribune (Sunday,Feb5)abouttheproposedWalmart.MywifeandIdonotbelievethatthiswouldbe therightlocationforthisstore.OnRiceStreetservingbothRosevilleandLittleCanada wouldbeamuchbetterlocationintermsofservingmorecustomerswhoarefurtherfrom Walmart.TheoneinSaintAnthonyisveryclose,onlyafewmilesaway. Originalplanscalledforalocalhospital.CurrentlyweneedtogoouttoStJohn'sin Maplewood,downtoStPaulorMinneapolisortoFridley.Itwouldgreattohavealocal hospital,especiallygiventhenumberofseniorsinRosevilleandtheseniorhousing,nursing homes,andsoon.WedonothaveaJunior/Communitycollegeintheimmediatearea(StPaul, Minneapolis,orCenturyCollege).Itwouldbegreattohaveacommunitycollegeintheare, oratleastlocalbranchofCenturyCollegeinRoseville.Ifwemusthaveabigbox,whynot Lowe'saswasproposedafewyearsago.WehaveTarget,Kohl's,soonGordmans,andother storesverysimilartoWalmartinmanyways.Wedonothavealargehardware/gardencenter likeLowe's. Also,housingsuchasadditionalforseniors,owneroccupiedtownhomes/condos,etc.wouldbe awonderfuladdition. 1 Page82of95 AttachmentG Thankyouforyourdesiretohaveinputfromtheresidentswhowillbekeenlyaffectedbythe decisionsyoumake. Sincerely, JohnandKathleenEasterling 1850CountyRdC2W RosevilleMN55113 ResidentsofRosevillesince1988. AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:2/5/20121:38:41PM SubmittedfromIPAddress:97.127.40.153 Referre rPage:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/index.aspx?NID=56 FormAddress:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Forms.aspx?FID=115 ConfidentialityStatement:Thedocumentsaccompanyingthistransmissioncontainconfidential informationthatislegallyprivileged.Thisinformationisintendedonlyfortheuseofthe individualsorentitieslistedabove.Ifyouarenottheintendedrecipient,youarehereby notifiedthatanydisclosure,copying,distribution,oractiontakeninrelianceonthe contentsofthesedocumentsisstrictlyprohibited.Ifyouhavereceivedthisinformationin error,pleasenotifythesenderimmediatelyandarrangeforthereturnordestructionof thesedocuments. 2 Page83of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Bill Malinen Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 11:47 AM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council OriginalMessage From:support@civicplus.com[mailto:support@civicplus.com] Sent:Friday,February03,20127:53AM To:*RVCouncil;MargaretDriscoll;BillMalinen Subject:OnlineFormSubmittal:ContactCityCouncil Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactCityCouncil Subject:walmartlandpurchaseprice Name::rogerb.hess,jr Address::1913shadybeachavenue City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 Howwouldyouprefertobecontacted?Remembertofillinthecorrespondingcontact information.:NoReplyNecessary EmailAddress:: PhoneNumber:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:councilmember, ifthecitydoesdecidetosellcityownedlandtowalmartorrosevilleproperties,ihope youbasethepriceonthefactthatyouhaveaveryeagerbuyerthathasdeeppockets,anddo notbasethepriceonthewastelandthatitcurrentlyis. so,chargethematleast$1,000,000forthelandthattheyseekeitheronecaneasily affordtheprice! haveagreatweekend, roger rogerb.hess,jr. AdditionalInformation: 1 Page84of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Bill Malinen Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 11:48 AM To: Pat Trudgeon Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council OriginalMessage From:support@civicplus.com[mailto:support@civicplus.com] Sent:Thursday,February02,20128:14PM To:*RVCouncil;MargaretDriscoll;BillMalinen Subject:OnlineFormSubmittal:ContactCityCouncil Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactCityCouncil Subject:walmart Name::SueGilbertson Address::2000ClevelandAv.No. City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 Howwouldyoupre fertobecontacted?Remembertofillinthecorrespondingcontact information.:Email EmailAddress:: PhoneNumber:: PleaseShareYourComment,QuestionorConcern:ToallCouncilMembers, IwassurprisedtolearnthattheRosevilleCityCouncilwasonceagainentertainingthe possibilityofinvitinga"bigbox"retailertobuildintheTwinLakesarea. Alltheoppositionargumentsagainstsuchamovehavebeenvoicedbythecitizensof RosevilleseveralyearsagowhentheretailerwastobeCostco. Trafficcongestion,needforexpensiveinfrastructure,andtoomuchexistingretailwereall mentionedatthattime.Nowwehavearetailer(Walmart)thatconsistentlypayslowwages, hasbeennamedinseveralclassactionlawsuitsbroughtbyformeremployeesforworkplace violationsandisindirectcompetitionwithourexistingretailcommunitywantingtobuild hereandallthepreviousobjectionsarestillvalid.Whydoyouthinkthisisagoodmove forRosevillenow? Sincerely, SueGilbertson AdditionalInformation: 1 Page85of95 AttachmentG Page86of95 AttachmentG February 1, 2012 Members of the Roseville Planning Commission, I am writing to ask that you to turn down Wal-Mart’s request to build a store at the corner of Cleveland Avenue and County Road C.I understand the desire to develop the land in the Twin Lakes area but the last thing that is needed in this area is more retail – especially duplicate retail. All you have to do is drive around to see multiple empty buildings and businesses that are just holding on. The huge World Market and Stone & Tile buildings are good examples of what happens in this current climate. If you allow Wal-Mart to come in – you will drive some of the smaller businesses out, along with cutting into the business that Byerly’s and Target has.How much additional lost business can they absorb? If the residents of Roseville can support the retail we already have – why are there multiple empty sites/buildings and so much more turnover of businesses? I also do not understand the push to add retail to this area when this type of retail is already available close by. There is a Wal-Mart six miles away on Silver Lake Road in New Brighton and a Target less than 10 minutes away on Snelling Avenue. There is no Traffic need to add either a Target or a Wal-Mart in between those two stores. congestion, additional police and fire needs, noise, lights, pollution run-off into Langton Lakes from the thousands of cars using the parking lot – just not a good trade-off for the residents in this area or for the city. If you allow a huge store such as Wal-Mart to build at this corner – the amount of traffic added to an already overloaded street/freeway system will be a disaster. In addition, the traffic won’t stop at 5P – it will continue until the store closes at 10-11P. Have you driven on Snelling, Fairview and Cleveland during rush hour or on the weekends? If so, imagine at least a doubling, if not a tripling of the traffic. Please consider the quality of life of longtime residents in this area. Many moved in before this area was developed and most accept that development is inevitable, but please move slow on this. Take time to really look at who wants to move in and try to bring in businesses that are new or unique. If you are adamant that retail is going in this area regardless of the effect on the traffic levels, please consider businesses that are not Don’t duplicate that which we already have close by! currently in the area. Maybe a small ACE hardware, a Trader’s Joe (love the store, but traffic will be an issue), a dry cleaner, a small bakery, a New Horizon daycare (because of nearby park). Maybe more small medical firms or clinics. Businesses that aren’t open until 11P at night and generate thousands of car trips a day. If you will only consider a big box – what about an IKEA. While this store would have the same issues as a Wal-Mart – it is unique and nothing like it exists in Roseville. IKEA tends to attract a unique audience that probably would not shop at the HOM or other furniture shops in the area – so hopefully it would not take much of their business. Please work with the residents to develop this property at a pace that allows smart decisions – a good fit of businesses to what is already there, does not duplicate retail and takes into consideration the quality of life of the residents that live close by. Thank you for your consideration, Wendy Thompson Page87of95 AttachmentG Thomas Paschke From: support@civicplus.com Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 10:28 AM To: *RVPlanningCommission Subject:Online Form Submittal: Contact Planning Commission Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactPlanningCommission Subject::WalmartatCountyRoadCandClevelandAve Name::CaryandShannonCunningham Address::2920FairviewAveN City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 Howwouldyouprefertobecontacted?Remembertofillinthecorrespondingcontact information.:Email PhoneNumber:: EmailAddress:: PleaseShareYourComment,Que stionorConcern:DearMembersofRosevillePlanning Commission, Itiswithgreathorrorandtrepidationthatwereadtherecentarticleinthe RosevillePatchhttp://roseville.patch.com/articles/walmartproposingstoreforroseville stwinlakesarea”thatstatedthePlanningCommissionisconsideringallowingWalmartto purchaselandandbuildahugefacilityatthecornerofClevelandAveandCountyRoadC. MywifeandIpurchasedourhomeonFairviewAve(northofCountyRoadC)inNovember 2008withtheintentofmakingthisourlongtermhome.Wehaveandcontinuetopourlove, money,andtimeintoourhometomakeitagreatplacetoliveandaraiseafamily.Over our3+yearsoflivinginRosevillewehavecometolovethecloseproximitytoparks, shoppingandalltheothergreatamenitiesclosetous.Duringthistimewehavealso learnedtodealwiththeincreasedtrafficthatmanyofthelocalareastoresbringintothe area,afterallwechosetolivehere.However,duringthistimewehavealsonoticedthat withtheincreaseoftrafficoverallsafetyontheroadshasbeenc.Trafficon ompromised FairviewAvealonehasalreadyclaimedthelifeofoneofourdogswhogottoonearthe street,andwehavealmostbeenhitseveraltimesbycarsdrivingontheshouldertospeed theirwayalong. WhatdoesthishavetodowithWalmartwauildastore½amileaway? ntingtob EVERYTHING!Whenyouallowthisbehemothofaretailertocrama160,000squarefootstore intoa½acreareathiswillnotonlyinflictdamageonthesurroundinglandscapebutalso increasetrafficintheareasofCountyRoadCandClevelandAvenuesaswellasFairviewAve asresidentsandshoppersalikelooktospeeduptheircommutearoundthecongestedarea. Thiswillposetrafficandsafetyissuesforallcitizenstravelingorlivingalongthese routes.Areyoureallywillingtosacrificethesafetyandsecurityofresidentsand citizenstoallowanotherbigboxretailerplopdowninthemiddleofabeautifularea?And inparticular,aWalmart,whichalreadyhas5otherstoreswithin10milesofthe55113area code!?! 1 Page88of95 AttachmentG Furthermore,thefactthatWalmartpayslowwagestoitsworkersisanotherbig concernofours.ConsiderthatpeoplewhowouldworkattheRosevilleWalmartwouldeither beresidentsofRosevilleorwouldquicklymovetoRosevilleandseekoutlowincomehousing astheycannotaffordtocommutetoworkbasedontheirlowWalmartwages.Thelowwages paidbyWalmartwouldperpetuateviciouscyclesofpovertyformanypeople.Dowereally wanttolowerthestandardoflivingandpushmoreresidentsofRosevilleintoornear povertywiththemeekwagestheywouldreceivefrort?WesayNO! mWalma PleaseconsiderthefutureofRosevilleifyouallowthistohappen.Moreimportantlythink oftheramificationsthatthiswillhaveonyouandyourfamiliesasyoutraveltheseroads anddealwiththeincreasedtrafficissuescausedbythisonestore. WeurgeyoteNOtothisapplicationandlookforotherretailersthatcanoffera utovo betteruseofthespaceormoreviablealternativesthatwillhelpsustainRosevilleasa greatplacetolive.Whiletrafficmaystillbeincreasedbyothersmallerretail establishmentsatthelocation,theyshouldnotcausethecontinualcrushoftrafficthat Walmartwouldcause.Inaddition,mixedretailspacewouldoffermorejobsinunique industriesthatattractdifferentskillssetsandofferhigherwagesthanWalmartdoes. Asyouconsider7 «¬ ±³…²extravagantplansforexpansion,pleasealsoconsiderthe needsofthecitizensandcommunityofRoseville.Wehavesurvivedandthrivedinthisgreat communityforalongtimewithoutaWalmart,helpuscontinuethistrend!!! Thankyouforyourtime, Cary&ShannonCunningham 2920FairviewAveN Roseville,MN55113 AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:2/1/201210 :28:05AM SubmittedfromIPAddress:204.73.55.10 ReferrerPage:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/index.aspx?NID=77 FormAddress:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Forms.aspx?FID=136 2 Page89of95 AttachmentG Thomas Paschke From: support@civicplus.com Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 9:25 AM To: *RVPlanningCommission Subject:Online Form Submittal: Contact Planning Commission Thefollowingformwassubmittedviayourwebsite:ContactPlanningCommission Subject::WalmartProposal Name::DougNonemaker Address::2179DellwoodAve City::Roseville State::MN Zip::55113 Howwouldyouprefertobecontacted?Remembertofillinthecorrespondingcontact information.:Noneedtocontactme PhoneNumber:: EmailA ddress:: PleaseSha reYourComment,QuestionorConcern:HiIamwrtingtodaytoexpressmy oppositiontotheproposedplacementofaWalmartinthevicinityofClevelandAveandCty. RoadC.Inmyopinion,RosevilledoesnotneedaWalmarttofurthershutdownretail competitionwithsmallbusinesses.Ratherthananotherbigboxretailerofquestionable integrity,whynotsupportsmallbusinessdevelopmentinthatareaandstarttogrowanother neighborhood.Iamalsoconcernedthattrafficinthatareawillincreasewiththe associate4dcostsandnegativeimpactsontheoverallqualityoflifehereinRoseville. Irarelytakeastandonthesetypesofactions,butfeelstronglythatthisparticular actionisnotinthebestinterestofthecitizensofRoseville.Thankyouforlistening! AdditionalInformation: Formsubmittedon:2/1/20129:24:32AM SubmittedfromIPAddress:204.73.55.10 ReferrerPage:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/index.aspx?NID=77 FormAddress:http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Forms.aspx?FID=136 1 Page90of95 AttachmentG DanBoeritger: IfIcangetpermissiontoattendyourPlanningCommissionmeetingI'dliketoexpressmy concernthattheWalmartProjecthasnotbeenadequatelyvettedbystaff.Ineedpermission becauseI'vebeengoneeveryothernightthispastweekandalldaySundayonthePeople's Business.SoforthepurposesofachievingdomestictranquilityImaynotbeabletoattend whatlookslikeaveryinterestingPlanningCommissionhearing. I'vealreadytransmittedmanyofthesecommentstomylocalneighbor,columnist,and communityactivistJohnGisselquist,butsinceyouarethetitularchairImightaswell sharemywordsofwisdomwithyou.(LOL.) AsIreadthestaffrecommendationthePlanningCommissionmustreviewtheproposeddisposal oflandanddeterminewhetheritwouldbeconsistentwiththeComprehensivePlan(Section 1.2). Section6.2ofthesamestaffreportstatesinpart:PlanningDivisionstaffbelievesthat theproposeddevelopmentisconsistentwithmanyoftheComprehensive0« ­…²othercitywide, nontransportationspecificgoalsandpolicies,andthattheproposeddevelopmentdoesnot appeartobeinconflictwithanyofthem. AsaresidentmemberoftheComprehensivePlanSteeringCommitteewhichdraftedthenew ComprehensivePlanItakeexceptiontothatsweepingandexcathedrastatement.Itpresents norationaleorexplanationofwhythisistrue;itdoesn'tevenbothertostatethegoals andpolicieswithwhichtheproposedprojectisconsistent.Iwouldn'tdescribethestaff reportasfaultyorsuperficialanalysis,becausesimplystatedthereisnoanalysis. IhaveattachedanexcerptfromtheComprehensivePlan'sEconomicandRedevelopmentChapter whichillustratesomeofthosegoalsandpolicieswhichwearetotakeonfaithasbeing consistentwiththeWalmartProject. Iwouldsuggestthatyoudelaytakingactiontomorrowandsendthereportbacktostafffor furtheranalysisandexplanationofhowtheattachedCompPlangoalsandpoliciesare consistentwiththisproject.OtherwisetheCompPlanisjustwordsandwindowdressing whichcanbemanipulatedtoproveanypointstaffwantstomake.TheCompPlan,developed withsomeconsiderablecitizeninvolvement,needstobetakenmoreseriouslythanthis. InadvanceIappreciateyourtimeandattentiondevotedtothismatter. 2 Page91of95 AttachmentG GaryGrefenberg 91MidOaksLane Roseville,MN55113 3 Page92of95 AttachmentG Bryan Lloyd From: Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:08 PM To: Bryan Lloyd Subject:Re: Planning File 12-001 question Bryan, Thankyouforsuchapromptreply.InreviewingmyactionsonthePlanningFile12001soI couldtellyouaboutthemissingpages,IdiscoveredtheyAREthere.ImissedthembecauseI didn'tscrollsideways,onlydownthepage.Iappreciateyourattentiontomydilemma,andI apologizeformyoversight. Enjoyyourdayoff. Francy Inamessagedated1/26/128:49:04PM,bryan.lloyd@ci.roseville.mn.uswrites: Thanksforlettingmeknowabouttheproblemwithdownloadingthereport,Ms.Reitz.I triedthedownloadmyselfjustnow,anditworkedjustfineforme,soIdon'tknowwhatto tellyouaboutwhyyou'reonlygettinghalfofthepages.I'llbeoutoftheoff iceon Friday;ifyoucanwaituntilMonday,I'llemailyouacopytoensurethatyouhavethewhole report.Ifyou'dlikethereportbeforetheweekend,perhapsyoucouldemailCityPlanner, ThomasPaschke(thomas.paschke@ci.roseville.mn.us)andhecansendittoyou. Thanksagainfortheinformationaboutdifficultieswiththewebsite. BryanLloyd ________________________________________ From: Sent:Thursday,January26,20128:20PM To:BryanLloyd Subject:PlanningFile12001question Hello,Bryan, InreadingthestaffreportontheWalMartapplication,Inoticethatpages2of4and 4of4aremissing.ArethoseavailableforinclusiontoreadbeforetheFebruary1st PlanningCommissionmeeting? IsupportapprovaloftheWalMartproposal. Thankyou, FrancyReitz 2009Aldine 1 Page94of95 AttachmentG Thomas Paschke From: RayLe Schreurs Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 9:23 PM To: *RVPlanningCommission Subject:Proposed Walmart Roseville Planning Commission Members: I understand you soon will be holding a hearing on a proposed big box retail located at Cleveland and County Rd. C. I have lived in Roseville for 55 years and observed it growing from a sleepy little village to the vibrant city it is today. We already have 3 big box stores with the attendant traffic and police problems. That is more than enough. Huge national chains destroy Mom & Pop retail establishments and squeeze regional businesses. State law requires us to share any tax revenue with outstate communities, but we can't share the fire and police and traffic costs which are nearly half of our city costs. Besides, big box retail does not generate much of a tax revenue. We need higher quality business development, not retail. For these and other disadvantages, please turn down this proposal. Ray Schreurs 1 Page95of95 AttachmentH Approve Preliminary / Final Plat and Development Agreement – Roseville Properties (Wal-Mart) 1 Mayor Roe reviewed the process once again for presentation, public comment and discussion of this 2 item prior to potential City Council action. 3 Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon and City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized the 4 requested action as detailed in the RCA dated May 21, 2012 for consideration of the Preliminary and 5 Final Plat for Wal-Mart and Roseville Properties. The Planning Commission recommended approval of 6 the Preliminary Plat on a 5/1 vote. Planning Division and Public Works Department staff, and the City 7 Attorney recommend approval of the Final Plat and associated Development Agreement. Details of 8 those recommended approvals were detailed in Section 8 of the staff report. 9 Mr. Paschke noted the existing parcel would be combined into two (2) lots along Cleveland Avenue as 10 the property frontage. Mr. Paschke reviewed the Preliminary Plat, in accordance with City Code, 11 Chapter 11, based on analysis of the development meeting those code requirements related to 12 appropriate infrastructure, any easements and rights-of-way issues related to the project, and 13 improvements negotiated between the developer and staff on behalf of the City. Mr. Paschke advised 14 that the Final Plat, as previously indicated by Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd, incorporated those 15 detailed elements of the Preliminary Plat, but not to the level of detail while yet including all land to be 16 dedicated to the City, and easements and boundaries related to the specific project. . 17 Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon reviewed the draft Development Agreement 18 (Attachment J) also known as a public improvement contract outlining the obligations of the City and 19 the applicant. Mr. Trudgeon provided an overview of those business points. While the draft 20 Development Agreement included in the meeting packet was substantially complete, Mr. Trudgeon 21 referenced additional exhibits and attachments, along with a cover memorandum from Mr. Trudgeon 22 dated earlier today, providing additional details, was included as a bench handout tonight, and attached 23 hereto and made a part hereof. Mr. Trudgeon noted that there were copies available for the public as 24 well. Mr. Trudgeon briefly reviewed the revisions, whether typographical, grammatical, or more 25 substantial that were recommended via that bench handout. Therefore, Mr. Trudgeon asked that the City 26 Council motion include verbiage that Development Agreement was amended. 27 Councilmember Pust questioned the exhibits and differences in the Final Plats, with Mr. Trudgeon 28 noting that the Preliminary Plat was marked “Preliminary subject to revision” which was routine as the 29 document was forwarded to Ramsey County for their review by the County Surveyor as part of the 30 recording process. 31 Councilmember McGehee, via a bench handout attached hereto and made a part hereof, had a list of 32 fourteen (14) questions related to the draft Development Agreement to which staff responded. 33 Hours of Operation: Twenty-four (24) hours per day 34 It was noted by Mayor Roe that Cub Foods at Har Mar Mall is another retail operation in Roseville with 35 a 24-hour operation. 36 Mr. Paschke advised that there was no restriction in City Code as to hours of operation; with Mr. 37 Trudgeon and Mayor Roe concurring, noting the restrictions for extended hours were specific to 38 commercial operations adjacent to residential areas. 39 Councilmember McGehee noted that there was a potential for future residential development adjacent to 40 the proposed Wal-Mart as part of CMU zoning, and noted that the Development Agreement stipulated 41 that no further restrictions could be imposed by the City for at least two (2) years. Councilmember 42 McGehee questioned whether this precluded any adjacent properties being developed as residential. 43 Page1of14 AttachmentH Mr. Trudgeon clarified that it was not the City of Roseville nor Wal-Mart, but State Statute that dictated 44 the two-year rule once the Development Agreement and Plat were approved. Mr. Trudgeon advised that 45 while the City may not appreciate the two-year clause, there was some protection or assurances based on 46 the newer office/warehouse building directly to the east of the proposed Wal-Mart site that he didn’t 47 anticipate for any immediate redevelopment at least within that two-year window. Mr. Trudgeon also 48 noted that the PIK property directly to the north could potentially have residential development; 49 however, since it was located closer to the park, that property had been identified for office/campus 50 activity. Mr. Trudgeon opined that any future residential developers would certainly take into account 51 the location of a retail store in the vicinity; however, at this time, Mr. Trudgeon advised that a CMU 52 zoning designation did not guarantee future redevelopment as residential. Without that knowledge, Mr. 53 Trudgeon advised that it was difficult for the City to regulate. 54 Regarding the two-year rule, Mayor Roe questioned if the Zoning Code or Comprehensive Plan 55 guidance could be changed for that area once approved. While not meaning that existing zoning and 56 Comprehensive Plan provisions wouldn’t remain in effect, Mayor Roe questioned if residential 57 development adjacent to commercial or retail properties wouldn’t still be subject to City regulations. 58 Mr. Trudgeon advised that, prior to responding, he would like to study that question further with the 59 City Attorney to determine how to apply those restrictions. Of course, Mr. Trudgeon advised that it 60 would be staff’s intent to work with any retail and/or residential development to ensure compatibility. 61 However, he was not sure of the enforcement capabilities available to the City without consultation with 62 legal counsel. 63 Mayor Roe encouraged staff to review that issue with legal counsel in more detail. 64 Infrastructure Cost Allocation 65 Councilmember McGehee questioned why Wal-Mart was only paying $400,000 for I-35W ramp 66 improvements that are estimated to cost approximately $1.6 million; and why it appears that the City is 67 subsidizing the Wal-Mart Corporation with $10 million of completed infrastructure. Councilmember 68 McGehee further questioned traffic projects; triggers for additional improvements and various 69 interpretations by MnDOT and other traffic engineers; and questioned the accuracy of models and 70 projected calculations. 71 Mr. Trudgeon advised that Wal-Mart’s cost allocation had been determined, through significant analysis 72 of various components and expert consultation, at twenty-five percent (25%) of the total interchange 73 costs. Mr. Trudgeon noted that this was not a small, but rather significant, investment on their part, 74 especially when drawing a nexus to this specific development and other occurrences that may make the 75 interchange inadequate. Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff had performed substantial due diligence and 76 negotiations with Wal-Mart to reach this agreed-upon $400,000 amount, and staff was unable to justify 77 any additional cost to this developer above that amount. Mr. Trudgeon noted that this figure represented 78 more to the City than a typical assessment from the Chapter 429 process. 79 Councilmember McGehee opined that there would be additional traffic impacts and mitigation that the 80 citizens of Roseville would be required to pay; and further opined that citizens have already done their 81 share. 82 Mr. Trudgeon advised that there were also other options available to the City for reimbursement of costs 83 from other future property owners and/or developers, as well as the Chapter 429 assessment process. 84 Park Dedication 85 Councilmember McGehee questioned the rationale for accepting $411,115 in park dedication fees as 86 opposed to land owned by Roseville Properties along County Road C and targeted for an addition to 87 Langton Lake Park, including the Oak Forest identified in the 2002 Natural Resources Plan. 88 Page2of14 AttachmentH Councilmember McGehee opined that this agreement not only precluded the City obtaining the land, but 89 also not getting added protection to a portion of Langton Lake. 90 Mr. Trudgeon advised that the Twin Lakes Regulating Plan identified that area for an addition to 91 Langton Lake Park, the decision as to whether to acquire the property or a fee in lieu of had been the 92 decision of the Parks and Recreation Commission after their deliberation of the issue. While not 93 attempting to speak for the Commission, Mr. Trudgeon surmised that the Commission apparently had 94 determined that taking the fee instead of the land, was based on their ability in the future to improve 95 parks with dollars versus land. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the City could acquire land with these funds, 96 but the Commission had apparently decided not to pursue that option at this time. Mr. Trudgeon noted 97 that, even though this parcel and that north on County Road C were owned by the same property owner, 98 a different project was being discussed and became more complex. 99 Councilmember McGehee opined that any park dedication funds should be used to purchase land around 100 Langton Lake Park, especially when the intent was to improve or protect water quality and address other 101 mitigating factors. 102 Indemnification for Operation of Wal-Mart 103 Councilmember McGehee questioned why the City was not indemnified for operation of the Wal-Mart. 104 Regarding day-to-day operations, Mr. Trudgeon deferred to legal counsel. 105 City Attorney Mark Gaughan sought additional clarification from Councilmember McGehee, with 106 Councilmember McGehee advised that she was seeking assurances for proper remediation for TCE or 107 health damages to people accessing or working at the Wal-Mart site for any harm caused by 108 contaminated soils. 109 City Attorney Gaughan noted that Councilmember McGehee’s question assumed City liability and 110 indemnification suggested that the City was assuming some liability, which he didn’t believe would be 111 the case. 112 At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Gaughan summarized the Indemnification Clause included in the draft 113 Development Agreement that would “hold harmless” the City under demands or complaints under the 114 project’s construction. Once completed, Mr. Gaughan advised that he could not fathom any scenario 115 where a private property owner would be required to indemnify the City for anything happening on that 116 private property. 117 Mayor Roe concurred with City Attorney Gaughan that this was certainly not common practice. 118 Councilmember McGehee disputed that assumption, opining that the property was a Brownfield and 119 such an event could happen, especially since this is the first development to occur in the area; and there 120 would be a significant number of employees and shoppers at the facility. 121 Long-Term Continuity of Wal-Mart Operations 122 Councilmember McGehee questioned if it was possible to have an escrow fund established in case Wal- 123 Mart chose to move on and leave behind a large, vacant building that couldn’t be marketed; and to 124 protect Roseville residents against that possibility. Councilmember McGehee advised that she was 125 aware of 159 other communities with vacant, big box stores on no fully remediated land. Mr. Trudgeon 126 advised that any provisions could be suggested for inclusion in a Development Agreement; however, he 127 questioned the effectiveness of some provisions or what the City would want Wal-Mart to do if they 128 chose to close the store in the future. Mr. Trudgeon advised that any remediation should be completed 129 prior to Wal-Mart opening for business; and in his analysis and review of other Development 130 Agreements nation-wide, he was unsure of any advantage to be gained and opined that such a provision 131 might be somewhat unrealistic. 132 Page3of14 AttachmentH Insurance 133 Councilmember McGehee questioned if the City could stipulate that Wal-Mart carry basic or standard 134 insurance to cover injuries to store patrons. 135 City Attorney Gaughan advised that it could be made a requirement of the Agreement; however, he 136 advised that his legal counsel would be to keep in mind that any provisions in the Agreement needed to 137 be reasonable and consistent with other existing or future Development Agreements to avoid any risk of 138 undermining the reasonableness of the City’s demands. Mr. Gaughan opined that he was unaware of 139 any other property owner that the City had required such a mandate. Mr. Gaughan further opined that it 140 was common knowledge that the Wal-Mart Corporation was sufficiently insured, and suggested it was a 141 moot point to require such a provision in the Development Agreement. 142 Level of Environmental Clean-up 143 At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Trudgeon advised that any environmental clean-up of 144 the property by the developer was under the regulations and requirements of the Minnesota Pollution 145 Control Agency (MPCA), not dictated by the City of Roseville. Mr. Trudgeon anticipated that this 146 would involve either removal or capping of the contamination soil so it no longer created any danger to 147 water bodies or the aquifer; and would require the developer to submit a RAP (Response Action Plan) 148 document detailing their action plan to the MPCA, which would not be under the direct approval 149 authority of the City of Roseville. Mr. Trudgeon noted that there was a difference in clean-up levels 150 between residential and/or commercial areas, but that this was also determined by the MPCA. 151 At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Trudgeon advised that preliminary analysis of the 152 subject property should be available to any interested parties as public information, since a Phase I and 153 Phase II analysis had been performed. 154 At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke advised that the developer would be required 155 to meet the regulations of the Rice Creek Watershed District as well as the City of Roseville for storm 156 water management on the site; with an underground chamber proposed, built to specifications of the 157 MPCA, City and Watershed District, and monitored as applicable under their various oversight 158 authorities. 159 Prior to opening the meeting for public comment related to the proposed Plat, Mayor Roe again 160 reviewed the process; and recognizing that this was an intense and emotional issue, sought the respect of 161 all parties moving forward. 162 Public Comments 163 In addition to the written and verbal comments previously expressed to the Planning Commission and 164 received by staff (included in meeting materials), additional written comments to-date were provided as 165 bench handouts, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 166 Amy Ihlan, 1776 Stanbridge Avenue 167 Sue Gilbertson, 2000 Cleveland Avenue N 168 Joyce Thielen, 2210 Midland Grove Road, Unit 203 169 Theresa Gardella, Roseville resident (no address listed) 170 Anonymous e-mail dated May 21, 2012 in opposition to Wal-Mart 171 Timothy Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane 172 Vernon R. Eidman, 90 Mid Oaks Lane 173 Tammy McGehee, Councilmember (2 Memorandums dated May 21, 2012) 174 Page4of14 AttachmentH May 19, 2012 position statement from the “Solidarity of West Area Roseville Neighbors (SWARN)” 175 expressing concerns and opposition to Wal-Mart 176 David Nelson, 2280 W Highway 36, representative of “Solidarity for West Area Roseville 177 Neighbors (SWARN)” 178 As previously noted, written comments were provided from SWARN; with questions specific to the Plat 179 related to reimbursement for the I-35W and Twin Lakes Parkway interchange; and clarification of 180 whether or not the Twin Lakes Master Plan was part of the current Zoning Code and Comprehensive 181 Plan. 182 Mike Gregory, 1945 Sharondale Avenue, representative of: “Solidarity for West Area Roseville 183 Neighbors (SWARN)” 184 Mr. Gregory expressed concerns related to economic and/or social concerns, and read his written 185 comment (no copy provided), opining that Wal-Mart was not a “community-based” business, but a 186 national chain that will negatively impact and/or close many local business. Mr. Gregory referenced 187 numerous studies; and questioned what legacy the City Council wanted to leave for western Roseville 188 and asked that the City Council consider the record of this corporate citizen elsewhere. Specific 189 questions of Mr. Gregory included: 1) the impact on taxes to Roseville compared to what they’re paying 190 versus City costs; 2) impact to local roads; 3) impact to local roadways (maintenance and clean-up); and 191 crime statistics of other Wal-Mart stores (e.g., Vadnais Heights store). 192 Sue Gilbertson, 2000 Cleveland Avenue N (SWARN) 193 Ms. Gilbertson shared crime statistics that she had researched from the Ramsey County Sheriff’s office, 194 and incidents at the Vadnais Heights Wal-Mart Store over a five (5) year period, and comparing those 195 statistics between Wal-Mart and the Target store in that same vicinity at 975 and 850 County Road E 196 respectively. Mr. Gilbertson reviewed the number and type of calls. Ms. Gilbertson also referenced her 197 discussions with Roseville Police Lt. Loren Rosand and Chief Mathwig for their anticipated annual call 198 rate of between 900-1000 calls with this Wal-Mart development in Roseville, exclusive of related 199 officer, squad car and support staff costs. 200 Megan Dushin, 2249 St. Stephen Street (SWARN) 201 Ms. Dushin opined that legal language could be interpreted as anyone’s discretion; however, she further 202 opined that the City Council had sufficient language in the Comprehensive Plan and other documents to 203 fully support its denial of this proposed development. 204 Ms. Dushin referenced CMU zoning provisions, regional trip calculations, and definition of this as a 205 regional business, questioning the logic in such a definition for this proposed use. Ms. Dushin 206 referenced Chapter 4 (page 8) of the Comprehensive Plan for definitions of Regional Business and 207 various sections (1005.05.f) included as Attachment C in the meeting packet (page 3) related to surface 208 parking on large development sites, and other areas this did not meet requirements. Ms. Dushin asked 209 why these discrepancies were not being addressed. 210 Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane (SWARN) 211 Mr. Grefenberg referenced the written comments of SWARN in making his points in opposition to this 212 development. Mr. Grefenberg alleged that staff had been proposing and advocating for this 213 development all along, whether at the Planning Commission or City Council level. Mr. Grefenberg 214 opined that SWARN disputed whether or not the Comprehensive Plan or the Twin Lakes Master Plan 215 ever recommended a development of this type. Mr. Grefenberg stated that, as part of the 216 Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee, on which he had participated, he had been led to believe that 217 the Twin Lakes Master Plan would be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan; however, something 218 happened between the Steering Committee final recommendation and City Council adoption of the 219 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Grefenberg alleged that staff selectively picked what they thought was or was 220 Page5of14 AttachmentH not important; without any findings of fact presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Grefenberg 221 opined that the Comprehensive Plan recommended against this type of big box retailer; and if the Twin 222 Lakes Master Plan had been made a part of the Comprehensive Plan, that specific prohibition against 223 large scale retail operations, which a lot of citizens had spent time debating, there would be no current 224 dispute or consideration of this type of development. 225 At a minimum, Mr. Grefenberg advised that SWARN was asking for the opportunity, before a Building 226 Permit for this development was issued, notice to formally appeal the administrative decision to issue 227 the permit. From his perspective, Mr. Grefenberg opined that there had never been a really adequate 228 discussion of Comprehensive Plan policies, a number included in packet materials that clearly 229 contradicted allowing such a development. Mr. Grefenberg disputed the assumption provided by staff to 230 the Planning Commission that the proposed development meets the Comprehensive Plan or Twin Lakes 231 Master Plan. Mr. Grefenberg opined that if the City Council allowed this signature piece to be a Wal- 232 Mart or Target store, it should not expect much quality residential or retail development to follow in the 233 Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. Mr. Grefenberg referenced the Implementation Section of the 234 Comprehensive Plan, addressing patience as the City moved toward its future goals, and willingly 235 promoted public and private development that fit that vision, dissuading those that did not. If the City 236 Council proceeds with Plat approval, Mr. Grefenberg asked that it direct staff to notify residents with 237 adequate time to appeal the administrative decision for issuance of the Building Permit once the 238 developer’s plans were submitted. Mr. Grefenberg opined that Roseville citizens, to-date, had not gotten 239 a fair hearing of this issue. 240 Megan Dushin (SWARN) 241 Ms. Dushin referenced numerous quotes from Chapter 4 (page 423) of the Comprehensive Plan; and 242 sought clarification if the Twin Lakes Master Plan was included or not included in the Comprehensive 243 Plan, since she had heard two (2) different versions, based on her research of a September 12, 2011 staff 244 report, and page 423 of the Comprehensive Plan, and page 9, Section 2, and page 11 of the Twin Lakes 245 Master Plan and comments about big box retail and incorporation of the 2011 Twin Lakes Master Plan 246 guiding future development. Ms. Dushin further referenced surface parking restrictions addressed in 247 Section 14 of the Land Use Section (page 20) of the Twin Lakes Master Plan. 248 In conclusion, Ms. Dushin questioned the policy for expanding retail in the area, and whether this 249 development would provide head of household job opportunities stipulated by the City’s Comprehensive 250 Plan. 251 Gary Grefenberg (SWARN) 252 Mr. Grefenberg specifically addressed traffic analyses, referencing the MnDOT letter dated May 9, 2012 253 to staff; opining that Wal-Mart’s expense to the City over the next decade would far exceed Wal-Mart’s 254 payment of $400,000 for infrastructure improvements. In the meantime, Mr. Grefenberg opined that 255 Roseville residents would suffer the penalties while private profits would go to Arkansas. 256 Mr. Grefenberg asked Councilmembers why they were rushing to approve the Preliminary and Final 257 Plats, when there were so many unanswered questions yet remaining. As requested in the written 258 comments of SWARN, Mr. Grefenberg asked the City Council to direct the Planning Division to hold an 259 Open House if and when Wal-Mart development plans evolve to provide answers to those citizen 260 questions. Mr. Grefenberg expressed his disillusionment that financial aspects of the Development 261 Agreement had not been provided to the public until late this afternoon, not allowing any review or 262 informed reaction by the public. Mr. Grefenberg asked that the City Council hold off on approving the 263 Development Agreement to allow due process for the public, given the significant impact this proposal 264 will have on the community. 265 Page6of14 AttachmentH Megan Dushin (SWARN) 266 Ms. Dushin suggested additional conditions for the City to apply to this development, such as limiting 267 operating hours and reducing the amount of public subsidy to this developer. 268 Gary Grefenberg (SWARN) 269 Mr. Grefenberg questioned, if tax increment financing (TIF) funds were allocated to pay off costs, who 270 paid for additional costs to the City, including police protection, and how this represented a public 271 purpose. 272 Janet Olson, 418 Glenwood Avenue 273 Given the history of concern in this area of Roseville, Ms. Olson questioned why the City didn’t make 274 more of an effort to provide notice to citizens about this development. Ms. Olson opined that the 275 neighborhood had poured their heart and soul into making this a positive area of the community; and 276 opined that the City had an obligation to its own citizens. Ms. Olson also questioned how the City could 277 designate this development as “community” rather than “regional” business, based on her interpretation 278 of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map. 279 Jan Bielke, 2070 N Cleveland (1 mile north of proposed Wal-Mart) 280 Ms. Bielke stated that she was appalled at how this whole thing has been handled. Ms. Bielke 281 referenced past development proposals directly across from her home that she and her neighbors had 282 fought very hard to oppose. However, Ms. Bielke opined that at least the neighborhood had been 283 adequately noticed at that time to allow their voices to be heard. Ms. Bielke opined that it was terrible 284 that citizens were not made more aware of this proposed development; and while not intending offense 285 to Wal-Mart since it was not a store that she frequented based on her perception of their treatment and 286 pay for their employees, she expressed her disappointment to the City Council and asked that they 287 reconsider this proposal. Ms. Bielke opined that there was a lot of angst among citizens once they 288 become aware of the proposal. 289 Tim Callaghan 290 Mr. Callaghan advised that he was still waiting for the answer to his question of what mitigation was 291 intended for traffic at Fairview Avenue and County Road D; whether it would continue to be graded as 292 an “f” now and with future development, and why this did not seem to be important. Mr. Callaghan 293 disputed staff’s previous comments related to current stresses on the system creating the problem, since 294 at least four (4) years ago, the intersection had been rated “f,” and questioned if inaction by the City 295 Council was acceptable. Mr. Callaghan also questioned the feasibility of building another Wal-Mart 296 store two (2) miles from another one, and questioned the odds of both remaining open in the foreseeable 297 future. Mr. Callaghan provided his perspective on the operating characteristics of Wal-Mart when stores 298 are opened in close proximity, based on his own research and personal observations. Mr. Callaghan 299 questioned the City’s intent when the property became vacant; and opined that it would be typical of 300 Wal-Mart to hold the property vacant to minimize their tax burden with no regard to the negative 301 impacts to a community. Mr. Callaghan opined that a Wal-Mart store in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment 302 Area was inconsistent with any of citizen plans, with no big box supported and having planned 303 businesses within a viable walking area and easily accessed by residents.With Wal-Mart drawing 304 shoppers from 2-4 miles away, Mr. Callaghan disputed that this was a local store versus a regional store 305 no matter if staff considered it “limited retail.” 306 Mr. Rafael Fernandez 1966 Sharondale Ave. 307 Mr. Fernandez concurred with previous remarks about the lack of information and notice provided to 308 citizens; and opined whether a legal requirement or not, it was prudent to keep citizens informed. Given 309 the short amount of time he had to research and prepare his remarks, Mr. Fernandez asked the following 310 questions: 1) What type of jobs and what wages will this store provide; 2) are employees anticipated to 311 Page7of14 AttachmentH come from the community or from other communities; and 3) what additional expenses will those 312 employees create for Roseville and at whose expense. 313 Mr. Fernandez questioned why the City Council would not protect its community rather than leaving it 314 vulnerable to proposals such as this, or will Wal-Mart sufficiently compensate the community for the 315 additional infrastructure, public safety, traffic congestion and delays, and increased crime victims; as 316 well as what will happen to the local, small businesses established in Roseville and providing its 317 character and quality of life. Mr. Fernandez opined that Roseville was fine as it is, and asked that it be 318 left alone. 319 Vivian Ramalingam, 2182 Acorn Road 320 Ms. Ramalingam sought clarification on the responsibility for construction and maintenance of 321 roadways around this proposed development. 322 Tim Kotecki, 3078 Mount Ridge Road 323 Mr. Kotecki questioned what the three (3) most attractive reasons Wal-Mart had for building in 324 Roseville; whether surrounding retail bothered Wal-Mart or the City Council; whether TIF was part of 325 this development and if so, would Wal-Mart develop in Roseville without TIF. In fairness to Wal-Mart, 326 Mr. Kotecki reviewed his mileage calculations of other Wal-Marts in the immediate metropolitan area 327 (Saint Anthony Village, University at Prior Avenues) and questioned if it was normal practice for them 328 to build that close to their other stores. Mr. Kotecki questioned the accuracy of traffic studies and their 329 projections, and safety of cars potentially stacking on the freeway for others going at or over speed as 330 they encountered that stacking. 331 Jane Auger, 1880 Roselawn Avenue W 332 As a twenty (20) year resident of Roseville, Ms. Auger opined that having Wal-Mart so close to their 333 neighborhood would decrease their quality of life and property values.Ms. Auger advised that this may 334 cause her to re-evaluate her choice to remain in Roseville. Ms. Auger questioned the designation of 335 Wal-Mart at “limited retail” and opined that there must be other prime vendors looking to locate in 336 Roseville; and expressed her opposition to the proposed Wal-Mart development. 337 Mary Alexander, 14 Mid Oaks Road 338 Ms. Alexander questioned what was in it for Roseville from the City Council’s perspective; and whether 339 money received by the City would serve to further improve community parks and roads. Ms. Alexander 340 noted the significant tax money being allocated to ensure the best park system possible for the 341 community; and questioned what was wrong with Roseville aspiring to be the best rather than dragging 342 it down with such a development as proposed. Ms. Alexander questioned if the City would feature a 343 Wal-Mart store on the front cover of the Roseville Visitor’s Association (RVA) promotional materials; 344 opining that this was not something communities chose to advertise as a positive in their community. 345 Ms. Alexander noted her confusion in the Comprehensive and Master Plans, but opined that her 346 perception was that both consistently supported local businesses supporting area families, not big box 347 stores in any of their recommendations. Ms. Alexander displayed and referenced her copy of the March 348 2012 Consumers’ Report magazine that had rated ten (10) big box stores, with Wal-Mart scoring the 349 lowest of those ten (10) for customer satisfaction. Ms. Alexander questioned why a retail store should 350 be put in the midst of Roseville when customers were not satisfied with this retailer; and opined that it 351 only provide a recipe for failure. 352 Mayor Roe closed public comment at this time, as no more speakers were apparent. 353 At the invitation of Mayor Roe to Ms. Sue Steinwall for comments or responses, Ms. Steinwall advised 354 that they would stand for questions as asked. 355 TIF 356 Mayor Roe responded that while the subject property will be contributing increments, the developer 357 Page8of14 AttachmentH would not receive any to fund their proposal other than for the City using it for City costs for 358 infrastructure improvements contemplated or anticipated. 359 Twin Lakes Master Plan as a part of the Comprehensive Plan 360 Mayor Roe sought clarification from staff that while the Master Plan was removed as part of the 2009 361 Comprehensive Plan, it continued to be referenced for consideration; with specific language in regard to 362 it remaining an official control document. 363 Mr. Trudgeon clarified that the Twin Lakes Master Plan was referenced as an “official control” (page 364 423, Section 4) in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. 365 Mayor Roe further clarified the intent of “official control” terminology related to regulating a certain 366 area. Based on his recollection of Comprehensive Plan discussions, the intent was that a document 367 designated as an “official control” was related to enforcement, and not carrying the same weight under 368 State Statutes as the Zoning Code, but remaining part of the review process to determine what was or 369 was not appropriate. 370 Councilmember Johnson opined that he did find this language a bit of a conundrum; and sought 371 clarification from staff of a process at the Planning Commission level several years ago in reviewing all 372 Master Plans throughout the City to determine which were and which were not included in the 373 Comprehensive Plan update. Councilmember Johnson questioned what the outcome for the Twin lakes 374 Master Plan had been as a result of those discussions and decisions. 375 Mr. Trudgeon advised that the determination was that the Twin Lakes Master Plan was not included as 376 part of the updated Comprehensive Plan, but that it remained relevant with a limited ability to 377 accomplish everything desired in the area. 378 Councilmember Johnson opined that, based on that, there would appear to be a discrepancy between the 379 Twin Lakes Master Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Zoning Code. 380 Mr. Trudgeon did not concur with that synopsis. 381 Councilmember Johnson suggested that this appeared to put the Master Plan on a different plane than 382 the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, and if there was a discrepancy, the City was obliged to abide 383 by the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. 384 With all due respect, Councilmember Pust opined that the term “official control” did have legal 385 meaning, not just what the City chose to have it mean, with case law defining “official control.” If the 386 Twin Lakes Master Plan was defined in the Comprehensive Plan as an “official control,” 387 Councilmember Pust opined that a legal argument could be made that the Master Plan then needed to be 388 followed. While not the Zoning Code, Councilmember Pust opined that it could not be ignored. 389 Councilmember Pust noted that Zoning Codes and Comprehensive Plans were official controls, but was 390 unsure if the Master Plan was in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 391 Public Safety Concern/Increased Police Call Volumes 392 Police Chief Rick Mathwig 393 At the request of Mayor Roe to respond to public concerns about an increase in police call volume with 394 a Wal-Mart development, Police Chief Mathwig responded, that his actual projections were for between 395 700-900 additional calls annually, or two (2) per 24-hour period. While not able to predict the future, 396 Chief Mathwig advised that, just based on the potential 24-hour operations for the proposed store, there 397 would be an obvious increase in calls for service. Chief Mathwig advised that his projections were 398 based on his research of crime rates from the Cities of Eagan, Saint Anthony and Coon Rapids when 399 Wal-Mart stores were constructed in those communities. Chief Mathwig noted that crime statistics were 400 Page9of14 AttachmentH variable, and would depend on the specific community, bus routes, and a store’s proximity to the inner 401 core. 402 Councilmember Johnson asked if the expansion of the Super Target in Roseville had caused police calls 403 to spike as well, Chief Mathwig responded that there had been no significant spike. 404 Councilmember Johnson questioned what Chief Mathwig’s opinion was on the impact of calls if Target 405 had chosen to go with a 24-hour operation. 406 Chief Mathwig responded that they would have probably had the potential to be higher, with any such 407 24 hour operation versus a 12 hour operation creating the probability of more calls. 408 Surface Parking/Parking Lot Design 409 At the request of Mayor Roe regarding the question on whether the proposed design met parking 410 regulations, Mr. Trudgeon advised that City Code was referenced for the design by the developer and 411 review of the design by staff for Community Business District zoning restrictions, and met those 412 requirements. Mr. Trudgeon clarified that Community Business District zoning had a different standard 413 that that erroneously cited. 414 While staff did not have the information available, Councilmember Willmus questioned the approximate 415 amount of existing office space square footage in Twin Lakes. Councilmember Willmus explained his 416 rationale in asking the question based on whether or not this 160,000 square foot retail center would 417 skew the overall use within Twin Lakes. 418 Due Process Concerns with Revisions to the Development Agreement 419 Mayor Roe asked that staff respond to concerns regarding due process with revisions provided by staff 420 this afternoon related to the Development Agreement. 421 Mr. Trudgeon advised that financial information had been included in the information released with the 422 draft Development Agreement included as part of the agenda packet materials, and had not been 423 changed with the revisions released today. As previously noted in staff’s presentation, the revisions 424 were minor in nature and basically consisted of typographical and grammatical corrections, and 425 additional exhibits as supporting documents referenced in the body of the Agreement. Mr. Trudgeon 426 advised that the summary of the Development Agreement and a significant portion of the exhibits were 427 included in the packet available and/or distributed last Thursday. 428 Councilmember Pust noted that the total dollars were included, just not the detailed breakdown. 429 At approximately 9:59 pm, Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, extending the meeting curfew to 10:30 430 pm. 431 Roll Call 432 Ayes: Pust; Willmus; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe. 433 Nays: None. 434 Mayor Roe deferred response to the office versus retail portion until the City Council discussion. 435 Traffic Mitigation at Fairview Avenue and County Road D 436 Mayor Roe asked City Engineer Bloom to respond to the comment that this development did not trigger 437 mitigation for the Fairview Avenue and County Road D intersection and that its service level would be 438 maintained at level “f.” 439 Ms. Bloom responded that, while not having that information available at this time, she could verify that 440 there was no change indicated at that intersection. Ms. Bloom noted that there were a number of 441 intersections within the community currently rated at “d” or “f” service levels today; and the Wal-Mart 442 development did not trigger any additional mitigation based on projected impacts to the intersection. 443 Page10of14 AttachmentH Ms. Bloom referenced a letter addressed to her from MnDOT dated April 12, 2012, addressing the 444 projected 6,000 vehicles per hour to Wal-Mart. Quoting directly from that correspondence, Ms. Bloom 445 noted that I-35W carried greater than 100,000 trips daily. Ms. Bloom summarized that the increased 446 traffic projected for the future was 6,000 vehicles per hour for northbound I-35W some portion of which 447 may utilize the interchange, but clarified that they would not all be accessing the Wal-Mart development 448 specifically. 449 Ms. Bloom displayed a map showing the Twin Lakes Parkway interchange, and proposed interchange 450 improvements to address cuing concerns of MnDOT and S.R.F. Consulting, both included as 451 attachments to the staff reports as background material, and potential stacking concerns impacting I- 452 35W, creating the required improvement shown in the Development Agreement. 453 Regarding the City requirement to make sure access was made available to the Wal-Mart site, Ms. 454 Bloom and Mr. Trudgeon were in agreement that they didn’t foresee a delay in providing permanent 455 access, without the need to provide a temporary means. However, Ms. Bloom advised that the City 456 would be obligated to provide access, whether temporary or permanent in accordance with the terms of 457 the Development Agreement. At the request of Mayor Roe regarding public comment on who would 458 pay for the rest of the cost of the I-35W improvements, Ms. Bloom advised that, while that remains to be 459 determined, grant funds and Chapter 429 assessments to benefitting property owners were both options. 460 Ms. Bloom noted that the City’s request for grant funds had been scored very favorably, but was still not 461 awarded, and expressed cautious optimism that funding would be made available, but not yet in place. 462 Current level of retail in Roseville and Potential Impacts for Wal-Mart 463 At the invitation of Mayor Roe, Ms. Steinwall responded that, while she was not privy to Wal-Mart’s 464 business plan, market research had found that Roseville citizens were shopping at Wal-Mart. Ms. 465 Steinwall noted that her client was obviously confident that there were unfilled retail needs in the 466 community, and they recognized Roseville as a terrific community and were excited to become part of 467 that community. Ms. Steinwall advised that trends supported the fact that the more retail available in an 468 area, the better the market was for everyone; and advised there was no concern by Wal-Mart with 469 existing retail in Roseville. 470 Spacing of Stores/Potential Closures 471 At the invitation of Mayor Roe, Ms. Steinwall responded that, while again not privy to her client’s 472 business and/or future plans, in observing other big box retailer space throughout the Twin Cities area 473 (e.g. Target), there were similarities for locating close to other stores. Whether one store may close due 474 to another store being built in Roseville, Ms. Steinwall noted that she was unable to predict the future; 475 however, she anticipated that a vast majority of customers will visit this Wal-Mart from within a two (2) 476 mile radius. 477 Roseville Design Standards/Development Process 478 Councilmember Johnson asked Ms. Steinwall if the Wal-Mart development team had found the City of 479 Roseville to be more stringent about design and/or architectural standards not normally found in a Wal- 480 Mart setting. 481 Ms. Steinwall responded with a resounding “yes,” based on the team’s experience, and noted that Wal- 482 Mart’s approach was to achieve 100% compliance with the City’s new Zoning Code which had proven 483 quite particular about design elements and building orientation, design and parking lot size, and assuring 484 that the development was more pedestrian friendly and accessible. However, Ms. Steinwall expressed 485 the team’s appreciation for City staff during the process, even while being very, very particular in 486 meeting City Code requirements, while at the same time providing the development team with a great 487 abundance of details and requirements. 488 Page11of14 AttachmentH Council Discussion 489 Regarding Community and Regional Business Zoning designation, Councilmember Pust referenced a 490 memorandum from the City Attorney’s office dated December 9, 2011 defining CMU designation as a 491 mix of land uses, and CB as community and regional business in the context of the scale of the customer 492 base and access to interchanges. Regional Business is defined as free-standing, large square foot stores, 493 with Community Business defined as business limited to the local market area including free-standing 494 businesses promoting community orientation, smaller than free-standing stores. 495 Mr. Trudgeon was somewhat in agreement with that summary. 496 Councilmember Pust opined that size was not generally an issue, but that the entire discussion of the 497 Task Force was the scale of size, with CMU area referred to as community businesses, not regional 498 business; while other areas in the Comprehensive Plan referring to regional business. Councilmember 499 Pust opined that there appeared to be inconsistencies between the Zoning Code and Comprehensive 500 Plan, and there was to be no conflict between the two. If that is the case, Councilmember Pust opined 501 that the definition of “official control” then becomes important. 502 Mr. Trudgeon admitted that it was a complex issue; but clarified that the Community Business definition 503 addressed the local market area within a two (2) mile area of Roseville, and supplying daily needs (e.g. 504 groceries, clothes, and other household goods), all of which a Wal-Mart would sell. 505 Councilmember Pust, however, when assessing that interpretation against the definition of a free- 506 standing, large format store, felt there was general agreement on how they fit together. Councilmember 507 Pust expressed concern that, if there was any potential for disagreement, there were a lot of citizens who 508 would also disagree. While recognizing City Attorney Gaughan’s legal opinion in suggesting that the 509 Comprehensive Plan may not apply, there were other cases of Metropolitan Council approved 510 Comprehensive Plans that flagged this as a potential legal issue. Councilmember Pust also recognized 511 that City Ordinance, Chapter 1102, defined the process and requirements for Preliminary Plat approval 512 with that ordinance serving as the City’s legal authority. 513 Mr. Trudgeon, in context of subdivisions and for this process, concurred. 514 Councilmember Pust opined that the City, through its ordinance, was given that authority from the State, 515 and when ordinances were enacted, the public was assured of their fair and equal treatment based on the 516 same criteria without arbitrary issues. However, in referencing Chapter 1102, Councilmember Pust 517 noted that it specifically stated that the City would have a Preliminary Plat approval process, then a Final 518 Plat approval process. Councilmember Pust advised that she could find nothing in City ordinance 519 combining those two processes, causing her to question if the City had the statutory authority to 520 combine that approval process in one action. Councilmember Pust opined that the City Council 521 therefore, should not take action tonight on this issue. 522 City Attorney Gaughan responded regarding the issue of potential conflicts with the Zoning Code, 523 Comprehensive Plan, and the Twin Lakes Master Plan. Mr. Gaughan noted the importance, for this 524 discussion and the Development Agreement addressing infrastructure, that the focus was not on 525 potential or future ultimate use of the property, but simply platting currently subdivided property, or 526 redrawing lines. Mr. Gaughan advised, when considering whether this application conformed to the 527 City’s Zoning Code and Subdivision regulations, it was not based on future use, but whether dividing 528 the property into three (3) parcels conformed to those controls. 529 Regarding whether this use fits into the CMU or Regional Business, as brought up correctly by Mr. 530 Grefenberg, Mr. Gaughan advised that it only came into play when the Community Development 531 Department issued the building permit. Once the Building Permit is issued, Mr. Gaughan noted that 532 there was a ten (10) day window for appeal of that decision if an argument is made that this project’s 533 actual use does not conform to whatever the official control was. Mr. Gaughan confirmed that this 534 Page12of14 AttachmentH would be an appropriate process for such a debate at that time. However, Mr. Gaughan again clarified 535 that the purpose of tonight’s request for action was for the purpose of redrawing lines regardless of their 536 use. Mr. Gaughan advised that the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) has confirmed that the City can’t 537 take the potential use into account in making that decision. 538 Regarding Preliminary and Final Plat approval or denial, Mr. Gaughan advised that, state-wide, cities 539 have the ability to consolidate those processes, even if the Roseville City Code does not specifically 540 consolidate them in its current language, it does not specify that it won’t consolidate them. Mr. 541 Gaughan noted that the Final Plat must be completed within sixty (60) days, and while there appeared to 542 be some ambiguity, he expressed more interest in City Code, Chapter 1102.04, Items b.9 and 10 and 543 requirements of what must occur before Final Plat approval. Mr. Gaughan expressed his concern that 544 staff do a final review to assure that all those requirements have been completed as per City Code before 545 Final Plat approval or denial to ensure all those “ducks are in a row” and the Final Plat is in compliance. 546 Precluding that assurance, Mr. Gaughan suggested that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat, 547 subject to conditions of the ordinance and hold off on Final Plat approval. 548 Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the steps followed in assuring that compliance, and those items found on the 549 Preliminary Plat, from staff’s perspective, needing additional work. 550 In response to City Attorney Gaughan, Councilmember Pust opined that, regarding Community versus 551 Regional Business designation, she thought there was a conflict between the Zoning Code including 552 reference to “official control” of the Comprehensive Plan and the Twin Lakes Master Plan. 553 Councilmember Pust concurred with Mr. Gaughan in general, if all that was being done was platting, 554 those issues may not rise to the level, since it was a concept or drawing lines, not determining a 555 particular use. However, Councilmember Pust opined that she did not believe it to be accurate that 556 citizens had more rights than a sitting City Council in having the authority to say “no” to something that 557 might allow enough ambiguity to prompt another lawsuit. Councilmember Pust expressed her 558 frustration with those past attempts to stifle a project, and opined that she was also tired of the continued 559 waste of public monies in defending the City’s past actions and/or positions. 560 Councilmember Pust, opined that an argument could come up that the City didn’t have the authority to 561 do what has been proposed, and since she was unable to personally ignore ordinance language, even if 562 State Statute says it was appropriate to combine approval of a Preliminary and Final Plat, the City can 563 revise their own ordinance to combine that approval process, removing any such ambiguity about the 564 process. No matter if the City of Roseville has just done it that way, without written ordinance language 565 providing that clear authority and a process outlined, Councilmember Pust opined that she was confident 566 there would be another lawsuit since the development was proposed in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment 567 Area, an obvious area of dispute in the community. Councilmember Pust opined that since there had 568 already been a delay to ensure that all the “ducks were in a row,” the City Council should delay further 569 to get its “ducks in a row” to confident action by the City Council majority. Therefore, Councilmember 570 Pust spoke in support of not taking any action at tonight’s meeting. 571 Councilmember Johnson stated that he heard the logic of Councilmember Pust, and agreed that she had 572 some valid points. Along with comments heard from other Councilmembers, Councilmember Johnson 573 spoke in support of moving forward with the Preliminary Plat only tonight, since it was consistent with 574 State Statute and City Ordinance. However, Councilmember Johnson expressed his hesitation and lack 575 of comfort going outside that realm at this point. However, in the interest of time and the 60-day review 576 period, Councilmember Johnson questioned how much more time was available in the review period. 577 Councilmember Johnson also recognized the lateness of the hour in having additional discussion on this, 578 or in any other making any other significant decisions tonight. 579 Page13of14 AttachmentH Regarding the Preliminary Plat, Mayor Roe expressed concern about whether a determination would be 580 available related to whether use should be considered at the time of Plat approval. While recognizing 581 that the Preliminary Plat was far along the road toward a Final Plat, without application of unrealistic 582 conditions, Mayor Roe opined that the City Council was not currently in a position to approve a Final 583 Plat tonight. 584 Councilmember McGehee advised that she had personally researched those issues raised by 585 Councilmember Pust tonight with three other independent attorneys, including one with the LMC, who 586 concurred with Councilmember Pust’s interpretation. Councilmember McGehee noted that this was her 587 rationale in addressing some of those issues in her memorandums as previously referenced as bench 588 handouts. Councilmember McGehee stated that she specifically tied the use to the Plat, based on her 589 conversations with the LMC and the City’s Zoning Code, addressing those topics raised by the public 590 tonight. Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of waiting to take action. Councilmember 591 McGehee also stated that her understanding of preliminary and final plat was quite a bit more than “just 592 drawling lines.” The preliminary plat, she said, is where all the points are made. 593 City Attorney Gaughan noted that the City Council could schedule a special meeting to address the land 594 use 60-day review period that only had fourteen (14) days remaining. 595 Mr. Trudgeon noted that the applicant could choose to extend the review period, however the City could 596 not as it had already done so, as well as the development clock stopping during the RGU review of the 597 citizens’ petition. 598 Councilmember Pust asked for a response from the applicant’s representative regarding their preference 599 to extend the review period or table action beyond the original sixty (60) days unless a special meeting 600 was scheduled. 601 Sue Steinwall, Legal Counsel for Wal-Mart 602 Ms. Steinwall advised that she could not respond without first consulting her client. 603 Mr. Trudgeon reminded Councilmembers that lack of action on the part of the City Council on the land 604 use issue by not meeting the review deadline would automatically serve as an approval by the City of the 605 Preliminary Plat without a Development Agreement in place. 606 Pust moved, McGehee seconded, TABLING this discussion to a date uncertain for staff and the City 607 Attorney to provide additional information and clarify those discussion items brought forward tonight 608 regarding Preliminary and Final Plat processes and the Development Agreement provisions and process. 609 Roll Call 610 Ayes: Pust; McGehee; and Roe. 611 Nays: Willmus; Johnson. 612 Motion carried. 613 Discussion among staff, City Attorney Gaughan, and Councilmembers included the option of calling a 614 special meeting prior to the review deadline; and whether, once consulted, the Wal-Mart Corporate 615 Office could choose to provide a letter authorizing another extension; and the need for the City Attorney 616 and staff to consult further on this particular issue before any decisions are made by the City Council. 617 Page14of14 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 7/09/2012 Item No.: 13.a Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Neighborhood Traffic Management Program B ACKGROUND 1 Staff presented the draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (TMP) to the City Council at the 2 April 16 Worksession. Since that meeting staff has been working on addressing the questions that the 3 City Council raised during the discussion. Attached is a draft plan with proposed changes. The changes 4 incorporate language that clarifies the intent of the program, required neighborhood support, and 5 funding. Staff will discuss the changes and address questions at the meeting. 6 Two neighborhood traffic management requests were discussed by the City Council in 2011. Staff 7 would like to move forward with these projects as pilot projects for the new TMP. What follows is the 8 background and proposed next steps for each neighborhood. 9 Wheeler Avenue: In 2011 the City Council received a petition from the residents on Wheeler Avenue 10 and Shorewood Lane with a request to close off Wheeler Avenue at County Road D. The intent of this 11 request was to address the neighborhood’s cut through traffic concerns. The petition of support was 12 from 97% of the Benefitted Area, exceeding the TMP’s threshold of 65% support. The temporary 13 closure was installed last summer. Staff proposes to take this request to Step 8- Strategy Evaluation. 14 The next step would be for the City Council to order the preparation of a feasibility report. Staff would 15 then identify the costs associated with making the measure permanent, provide this information to the 16 Benefitted Area and bring back to the City Council for a Public Hearing. 17 Dale Street: As part of the public information process for the Dale Street reconstruction project, 18 residents brought up concerns about traffic. The traffic volume, while high for typical residential 19 streets, is low for a collector road. Traffic speed is the primary source of their concern. The road is 20 signed 30 mph. As indicated by the traffic counts, the 85th percentile speed is 38 mph. As a part of the 21 approval process, staff recommended that this project include the installation of two speed tables in the 22 corridor one to the north of Iona Lane, the second to the south of Iona Lane. 23 The discussion of the installation of the speed tables was limited to the Benefitted Area; the people that 24 live on Dale Street. We did not solicit feedback from the Affected Area; the property owners on the 25 streets that could be negatively impacted by traffic changes. Staff recommends that before we install 26 temporary speed tables on Dale Street to evaluate the effectiveness of this strategy, that we solicit 27 additional feedback, as described in Step 5- Receive Neighborhood Feedback. 28 PO OLICYBJECTIVE 29 This document was developed to guide city staff and inform citizens about the processes and procedures 30 for implementing traffic management strategies on local streets to address documented existing traffic 31 concerns such as excessive vehicle speeds, high volumes of non-local through traffic, vehicle crashes in 32 neighborhoods, and alleviate conflicts between motorized and non-motorized users. The document 33 includes a summary of the City of Roseville's Policies for the Traffic Management Program, background 34 Page 1 of 2 on the history of traffic management, the City of Roseville's process for implementing strategies, and a 35 toolbox of common traffic management strategies. 36 FI INANCIALMPACTS 37 At this time, the program assumes a cost split of 25% City and 75% property owners for the 38 construction and installation costs of major traffic management strategies. The property owner 39 contribution would be in the form of an assessment. Staff suggests that the City Council set aside 40 $20,000 in the 2013 budget. With the proposed cost split, this would allow for $80,000 in Traffic 41 Management Strategy implementation annually. As we gain more experience with the level of interest 42 in these types of projects, we can gauge if this budget is adequate. As an alternative, this could be 43 funded using street infrastructure funds. 44 SR TAFF ECOMMENDATION 45 Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, 46 approve a resolution authorizing the preparation of a feasibility report for the Wheeler Avenue Closure, 47 and authorize staff to seek input from the Affected Area on the Dale Street speed tables. 48 RCA EQUESTEDOUNCILCTION 49 Approve the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 50 And 51 Approve a Resolution Authorizing the Preparation of a Feasibility Report for the Wheeler Avenue 52 Closure. 53 And 54 Authorize Staff to Solicit Additional Neighborhood Feedback Regarding the Dale Street Speed Tables. 55 Prepared by: Debra Bloom, City Engineer Attachments: A: Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program B: Resolution Page 2 of 2 AttachmentA 1 Neighborhood 2 Traffic 3 Management 4 Program 5 6 7 8 City Council Review Draft 9 June 29, 2012 10 11 Public Works 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville, MN 55113-1899 phone (651) 792-7003fax (651) 792-7040 1.0 Introduction 1 2 Concerns abouttraffic volumes and higher speeds have become important issues throughout 3 themetro area and are having an increasing impact on Local Streets in the City of Roseville. 4 TheCity of Rosevilleis continually striving to strengthen and protect its neighborhoods by 5 improvingthe quality of life. A goal of the RosevilleComprehensive Planis for the 6 transportation system to address community issues and concerns while maintaining and 7 enhancing neighborhoods, providing connectivity, and the sense of community cohesion. 8 An established traffic management process: 9 Allows the city to better respond to residentsand businesses, 10 Provides the opportunity for better understanding of the issues, and 11 Allows consistent application across the community. 12 Therefore, for citizens to obtain consideration for the installation of atraffic management 13 strategyon eitherastreet or within a larger neighborhood area they are required to follow a 14 process. The programwill ensurethat neighborhoods with documented existing,traffic issues 15 and community support for trafficmanagement have access to the neighborhood traffic process. 16 The projects included in the Neighborhood TrafficManagement Program depend upon citizen 17 involvement and may vary from year to yearbased upon citizen participation and available 18 funding.Various terms are used throughout this document, see Appendix A for Definitions. Purpose 19 20 In the City of Roseville, traffic management concerns have historically been handled by the 21 following processes. 22 Traffic Safety Committee- Anadministrative committee established to address routine 23 traffic concerns brought forward by residents and businesses. 24 Construction Design Process- Whena street is identified for reconstruction, staff 25 conducts a review of existing conditions. This review can include public information 26 meetings that solicit feedback regarding traffic concerns. As a part of this process, staff 27 will study existing concerns and suggest strategies to address these concerns. 28 The Neighborhood Traffic Management Program is not intended to replace these existing 29 processes. It is intended to add another tool for staff to address concerns that require additional 30 community feedback or financial support to implement. 31 This document was developed to guide city staff and inform citizensabout the processes and 32 procedures for implementing traffic management strategies on Local Streetstoaddress 33 documented existingtraffic concerns such as excessive vehicle speeds, high volumes of non- 34 localthrough traffic, vehicle crashes in neighborhoods, and alleviate conflicts between 35 motorized and non-motorized users. The document includes a summaryof the City of 36 Roseville's Policies for the Traffic Management Program, background on the historyof traffic 37 management, the City of Roseville's process for implementing strategies, and a toolbox of 38 common traffic management strategies. 39 The intent of this program is to address existingneighborhoodtraffic concerns. Expansion of 40 existing streets, construction of new street segments, and streets needed as the result of 2 City Council Review Draft- 6/29/12 1 redevelopment will not be evaluated in conjunction with the criteria included in the program. 2 These situations will be evaluated independently by the City Council. 2.0 Policies 3 4 The Neighborhood Traffic Management Program will be governed by the following policies: 5 Identified projects will be evaluated for compatibility with transportation goals in the 6 RosevilleComprehensive Plan, Chapter 5, Transportation. 7 Implementationislimited to Local Streets. A Local Streetis a street under the 8 jurisdiction of the City of Roseville.Ramsey County and MnDOT roads are excluded 9 from this program. 10 Strategies will be funded by a combination of city funds andneighborhood 11 participationassessments. 12 A system-wide approachfor neighborhoodtraffic problemswill be used.For each 13 project, city staff will determine a logical project boundary. This isnecessary for the 14 approval process and will help ensure that the issue ofdisplacement/diversion to other 15 Local Streetsis addressed. 16 Projectswill be limited to those Local Streets where the 85% speed exceeds5 mph 17 above the posted speed limitor where there are other existingfactors affecting the 18 livability of the neighborhood.Table 1 describes otherfactors that can betaken into 19 consideration. 20 The proposed strategy should not negatively impact the street’s existing traffic capacity, 21 safety, or change the intended functionof the road. 22 Implementation of traffic management strategies will be in accordance with the 23 proceduresset forth in this document, and in keeping with sound engineering practices, 24 as well as bewithin the city's available financial and staff resources. 25 A project on a Municipal State Aid (MSA) road will meet MSA design standards. 26 Trucks are allowed on all Local Streets unless otherwise posted (by State law trucks 27 must be allowed on all Municipal State Aid Roads.) 28 Implementation of any device will be consistent with the guidelines in the Minnesota 29 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 30 Implementation of strategies shall be consistent with recommended strategies included 31 in the Mn/DOT Safety Handbook. 32 Initial deployments are considered temporary for study purposesand subject to an 33 interim review by Citystaff prior to permanent installation. 3.0 Traffic Management Background 34 35 The United States has used street closures and traffic diverters dating back to the late 1940s 36 andearly 1950s, but it was not until the 1970s that Seattle, Washington completed area-wide 37 demonstrations of traffic management strategies. Since then, traffic management has been 38 continually studied and implemented throughout the United States. Strategies include street 39 closures, traffic diverters, speed humps/bumps, signing, increased enforcement and many 40 others, but they all are implemented to accomplish one of the following: 3 City Council Review Draft- 6/29/12 1 Modify driver behavior (reduce speed) 2 Modify traffic characteristics (reduce volume) 3 Improve safety for pedestrian and bicyclists 4 Traffic management can be simplified as a three step process: (1) identify the nature and extent 5 ofexisting traffic-related problems on a given street or area (2) select and implement the proper 6 strategy for reducing the identified problemand (3) evaluate effectiveness, accept, modify or 7 revert.The traffic management strategies discussed inthis document are solutions to a 8 narrowly defined set of problems and are not universallyapplicable or effective at solving all 9 problems. A traffic management strategy used inthe wrong application will not improve 10 conditions - it will only increase City costs and mayeven make conditions worse. 11 Since not all strategies are appropriate for every problem the City has developed a process to 12 identify the appropriate solutions. The process includes identifying the problem, evaluating 13 potential strategies, and implementing appropriate strategieswhile including publicparticipation 14 and governmental approval.This process is summarized in Section 4. 15 Many traffic management strategiescan be expensive and create inconvenience. A broad base 16 of support is necessary. Poor planning, lack of neighborhood input, and/or support can result in 17 controversy and divide neighborhoods. 18 The process and strategies included in this document are intended to be used on Local Streets 19 to reduce speeds and volumes. The goal is promote safety for all public right of way users. 4.0 Procedure Summary 20 21 A flow chart, Exhibit 1, provides a summary of the procedures for implementing a traffic 22 management strategy on a Local Street.What follows is a summary of the procedure. For a full 23 description of these steps see Section 5.0 Procedure Details. Step 1 -Study Request (Application) 24 25 First citizensmust identify candidate streets for traffic management improvement and submit a 26 writtenrequest to the City Engineering Division.Any requests for project proposals require a 27 written application with 51% of the Project Neighborhoodsigning the application. Appendix B 28 provides a sample petition. Step 2 -Preliminary Review and Evaluation 29 30 The City Engineering Divisionwill review requests and determine whether they can behandled 31 as part of theadministrative traffic engineering procedures, construction design process,or 32 police enforcement function of theCity or if they qualify for consideration under the 33 Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. Step 3 -Data Collection and Traffic Study 34 35 If it is determined that the request falls under the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 36 the Citywill undertake an engineering study of the street(s) or neighborhood includinggathering 37 relevant data of the affected streets. Step 4 -Develop/Evaluate Traffic Management Strategies 38 39 Based on the traffic study and input from other departments, the City Engineering Divisionwill 40 make a preliminary determination of the need for traffic management strategiesand make 41 recommendations as to which strategy would be appropriate. 4 City Council Review Draft- 6/29/12 Normal Traffic Review Traffic Management Program NO Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Data Does area meet Study Preliminary YES Collection and Public traffic Request Review & Traffic Study Input management (Application) Evaluation criteria? Remove/modify Develop / Step 4 temporary Evaluate measures Strategies Receive Public Step 5 Public Neighborhood Input Input Feedback NO Step 8 Implement Is the test Is there resident YES Temporary measure and Council Strategy and effective? support? Monitor Step 6 Step 7 YES NO Approve Public Install and No Further Permanent Input/ Step 10 & 11 Monitor Action Measures Appeals Step 9 Exhibit 1 Neighborhood Traffic Management Process Flow Chart Step 5 –Receive Neighborhood Feedback 1 2 A neighborhood meeting will be held, or a summary letter will be sent, to present the 3 conclusions of the traffic study and discuss appropriate next steps in the process. At this time a 4 surveywill be sent out to determine neighborhood support for the recommended traffic 5 management strategy and to receive input from affected citizens. Step 6 -Traffic Management Strategy Recommendation and Approval 6 7 The recommended strategy will not be implemented without the support of 65% of the Benefited 8 Areaand 51% of theAffected Neighborhood.In addition to neighborhood approval,the City 9 Council must also approve the implementation of the traffic management strategy. Step 7 -Implement Temporary Strategy and Monitor 10 11 If a strategy is approvedit may be possible to implement first a temporary strategy.If a 12 temporary measure is used, it will be monitored fora minimum of3 months to determine its 13 effectiveness. Step 8 -Strategy Evaluation 14 15 Results from the monitoring of the temporary measure will be used to determine if the strategy 16 willbe recommended for finalapproval from the City Council. If the temporary measure is not 17 effectivethe Engineering Divisionwill revisit the analysis and development of strategies (Steps 18 3 and4) or choose to not continue the process. Step 9 -City Council Action 19 20 Based on thestrategyevaluation, City staff members will provide a recommendation to the City 21 Council regarding the proposed traffic management strategy. Step 10 -Design, Final Assessment Roll and Construction 22 23 If the project is approved, City staff prepares and recommends the final projectas required 24 under authority granted by Minnesota Statute Chapter 429. Step 11 -Monitoring 25 26 Once a traffic management strategy has been implemented the City will continue to conduct 27 periodic monitoring of the site to collect data for future implementation of strategies and to 28 document the effectiveness of the installed strategy. This program and the associated Toolbox 29 maybe amended at any time by the City Council. 5.0 Procedure Details 30 Step 1 -Study Request (Application) 31 32 Citizensmay identify candidate streets or areas for traffic improvements. The key to any 33 successful traffic management strategyis choosing the most appropriate tool for the specific 34 situation. The requesting neighborhood must identify the specific street or intersection involved, 35 direction of traffic, day of week, time of day and other important data. Some request maybe 36 handled by phone or verbally from citizensto City Staff, which could result in increasedpolice 37 enforcement or placement of the City's speed display equipment. Any requests for permanent 38 traffic management strategies require a written application with 51% of the Project 39 Neighborhoodsigning the application. Appendix B provides a sample petition. 40 Application of these strategies on arterial streets is excludedfromthisprocess. 5 City Council Review Draft- 6/29/12 Step 2 -Preliminary Review and Evaluation 1 2 The City Engineer will review requests to determine whether or not they should behandled as 3 part of the administrativetraffic engineering procedures, construction design process,or police 4 enforcement of the City.Somerequests may be able to be handled within the current Capital 5 Improvement Programsuch asplanned infrastructure improvements or reconstructions. In 6 addition, common requests forincreased traffic enforcement, andplacement of thetemporary 7 variable speed display equipmentare commonly handled by the City Traffic Safety Committee. 8 Review of requests will consist of comparing the identified street characteristics with the 9 following initial criteria: 10 The street in question must be classified as a Local Streetin the City of Roseville(see 11 Appendix C for roadway jurisdiction map). 12 The requests must be related to speeding, Excessive Traffic Volumes, crashes, Cut- 13 through Traffic, truck traffic, non-motorizedtransportation safetyor other related impacts 14 on a Local Street. 15 If it is determined that the request falls under the function of the TMP, then Step 3 will be 16 initiated. If not, the request shall be followed up as appropriate by the City Engineer aspart of 17 the Department’s normal function, including coordination with the Police, Fire, orPublic Works 18 Departments as needed. Step 3 -Data Collection and Traffic Study 19 20 If it is determined that the request falls under the guidelines of the TMP, theCity Engineer will 21 conduct an engineering studyof the street(s) or neighborhood.Thestudy will include the 22 following actions: Define Benefited Area/ AffectedImpactedArea 23 24 The definition of the Benefited Areaand Aimpacted ffected Aareassets up the project 25 boundaries and will beused to determine neighborhood support during the petition 26 process and for the assessmentprocess if a strategy is implemented. Data Collection 27 28 Traffic data collection will include (as appropriate based on identified problem) one or 29 more ofthe following: 30 Traffic volume counts (24 hour counts in 15 minute increments, truck volume 31 counts) 32 Non motorized transportation counts 33 Speed surveys 34 Cut-through Trafficestimates 35 Crash information (three years minimum- 5 years recommended) 36 Roadway Geometry (sight distance, lane configuration, etc.) 37 Land Use Mix (density of residential and presence of sidewalks, pedestrian 38 generators suchas schools, parks, bus routes, unique features) Evaluation of Traffic Data 39 40 From the data collected the traffic problems associated with the neighborhood street can 41 bedocumented. The documentation will be valuable in the development of possible 42 trafficmanagement strategies. 43 From the data collected the City will also be able to rank the potential projects for further 44 study.Table 1 provides the ranking criteria. This ranking will be beneficial if the number 45 of requestsubmitted is beyond the fiscal and staffing ability of the city. By ranking 6 City Council Review Draft- 6/29/12 1 requests based on thecriteria set forth in Table 1, the city can prioritize projects to focus 2 funding accordingly. 3 7 City Council Review Draft- 6/29/12 1 TABLE 1: Traffic Management RequestRanking Criteria Pathway adjacent to Benefited AreaNone +100 (0 to 100 points)All of 1 side +50 All of 2 sides +0 Public school yard, parks, playground development None +0 adjacent to Benefited Area(0 to 200 points)All of 1 side +100 All of 2 sides +200 Residential development adjacent to Benefited None +0 Area(0 to100 points)All of 1 side +50 All of 2 sides +100 Number of reported correctable crashes based on 20 per crash; maximum of 200 points up to 5 years of available data (0 to 200 points) Average residential density adjacent to Benefited 0 dwelling units per 100 lin. ft. = 0 points Area(0 to 50 points)5+ dwellings units per adjacent 100 lin. ft. = 50 points th 85Percentile speeds 5 mph over posted speed Yes -+200 limit (0 to 200 points)No - +0 Average Daily Traffic Volumes -ADT ADT divided by 10; maximum 200 points (0 to 200 points):For intersection, street segments or multiple streets, use higher volume street Percent of potential assessment properties 3 points per percent; maximum 300 points supporting project by petition (180 to 300 points) Step 4 -Develop/Evaluate Traffic Management Strategies 2 3 Using the data collected during the development of the traffic study and applying recognized 4 traffic engineering standards, the City Engineering Divisionwill recommend the use of oneor 5 more neighborhood traffic management strategies. A "toolbox" of strategies is included in 6 Section 6.0 of this plan. While it is not inclusive of all strategies, it provides a summary of the 7 most applied and successful strategiesas documented in the research summarized in Appendix 8 C.The toolbox includes a brief description of the strategy, its effects on volume, speed, noise, 9 and safety, a discussion of its advantages and disadvantages and design considerations. The 10 following strategies are included in the toolbox: 11 Traffic Control DevicesVertical Elements One-Way StreetsSpeedTables Stop Sign ImplementationRaised Crosswalk All-Way Stop Sign ImplementationMedian Barrier Parking RestrictionsTraffic Circle Pavement Markings/ Crosswalk StripingStreet Closure Speed limitsFull/ Diagonal Diverter Partial Diverter Roadway Adjustments Enforcement Narrowing Lanes Intersection ChokersIncreased Enforcement Mid-Block NarrowingVariable Speed Display Board Chicane Sidewalks 8 City Council Review Draft- 6/29/12 Management Strategy Effectiveness As stated earlier, traffic management strategies are not universally applicable or effective at solving all problems. The Institute ofTransportation Engineers has collected data on the effectiveness of traffic management strategies implemented throughout the United States. Table 2 provides a summary of this data and can be useful in the selection of appropriate trafficmanagement strategy to implement. Along with the information provided in Table 2 oneffectiveness, the following are some other effectiveness considerations: Traffic control devices, by themselves, are almost never effective at reducing traffic volumes or vehicle speeds. Enforcement can be effective if applied regularly and over an extended period of time. In most cases, enforcement will result in local citizensbeing ticketed. Roadway adjustments (narrowing) have proven to be moderately effective but at high implementation costs. Vertical elements (primarily speed humps/bumps) have proven to be moderately effective but neighborhood acceptance has been mixed. The combination of enforcement plus other strategies has proven to be the most effectiveapproach. The following terms are used in Table 2: Poss-it is possible that this strategy will affect the problem. Yes- it is expected that this strategy will affect the problem. No- this strategy will have no effect on this problem. 9 City Council Review Draft- 6/29/12 TABLE 2 Management Strategy Effectiveness Traffic Control Devices One-Way StreetsPossNoPossNoPossNoPossLow Stop Sign ImplementationNoNoNoYesYesNoNoLow All-Way StopImplementationNoNoPossYesNoNoNoLow Parking RestrictionsNoNoPossNoNoNoNoLow Pavement Markings/ Crosswalk StripingNoNoNoNoNoNoNoLow Speed limitsNoNoNoNoNoNoNoLow Roadway Adjustments Narrowing lanesNoPossPossNoNoNoNoMid Intersection ChokersNoPossYesNoPossNoNoHigh Mid-Block NarrowingNoPossPossNoNoNoNoMid ChicanePossPossNoNoNoNoYesHigh SidewalksNoNoPossNoNoNoPossMid Vertical Elements SpeedHumps/TablesPossYesPossPossPossNoPossMid Raised CrosswalkPossYesPossPossPossNoPossMid Median BarrierYesPossPossNoYesYesPossHigh Traffic CircleNoPossPossNoPossNoYesHigh Street ClosureYesPossPossNoYesYesPossHigh Full/ Diagonal DiverterPossPossPossNoYesYesPossHigh Partial DiverterPossPossPossNoNoYesPossHigh Enforcement Increased EnforcementNoYesPossNoNoNoNoMid Variable Speed Display BoardNoYesPossNoNoNoNoLow 10 City Council Review Draft- 6/29/12 Cost Estimate and Funding For the purpose of discussions with affected citizens, a cost estimate will be developed for therecommended strategy. The following cost sharing willoccur with an approved traffic management strategy: City of Rosevillewill pay the cost of administrative work, traffic study and data collection. If the traffic study requires expertise that is not available in house, the City may need to hire a consultant to complete the traffic study. If this occurs, the cost for the study will be incorporated into the 25/75 cost share described below. City of Rosevillepays 25% of the construction and installation costs of major strategies whilethe neighborhood affected will pay 75% of the cost (minor items such as installation of alimited number of signs or painting of crosswalks and other pavement markings would beassumed completely by the City)Construction cost includes direct engineering, legal and project administration. Costs associated with implementing traffic management strategies vary significantly from justover $250 for installing a speed limit sign to $10,000 or more for a landscaped median construction. Table 3 provides a summary of typical implementation costs for traffic management strategies. TABLE 3 Typical Costs Type of ImplementationUnitUnit CostMaintenance cost Replace every 10 Warning SignsPer sign$250 yrs average Pavement MarkingsSame Cost every 3 - Roadway StripingPer linear foot$1years to refresh -Crosswalk Striping Per crosswalk$150paint Street LightingPer fixture$7,500$150/ year Raised CrosswalkPer crosswalk$4,000$500/ year Speed Humps/ TablePer table$5,000$500/ year Mid-Block ChokerPer choker$5,000$500/ year Intersection ChokerPer approach$5,000$500/ year Mid-Block Speed TablePer table$7,500$500/ year Intersection Speed TablePer intersection$25,000$500/ year TrafficCirclePer intersection$15,000$1,000/ year Center IslandPer approach$15,000$1,000/ year Half ClosuresPer intersection$40k to $60k$500/ year Full ClosuresPer intersection$120,000$1,000/ year Sidewalk (6 ft concrete)Per Foot$81$1.10 Trail (8 ft Bituminous)Per Foot$70$1.14 Source: City of Minneapolis & ITE, Traffic Calming - State of thePractice 11 City Council Review Draft- 6/29/12 While the city will cost share only the implementation costs, the consideration of future maintenance costs are also a factor for determining the most appropriate strategy. While theimplementation of a traffic sign may appear to be the least expensive option at only $250, theadditional per year cost of annual maintenance needs to be considered. A comparison of theannual costs for the most common strategies for speed reduction, increased enforcement andspeed humps, is included in Table 3. Step 5 -Receive Neighborhood Feedback After the completion of the traffic study and the development and evaluation of potential strategies, the city will eitherhold a Neighborhood Meeting or distribute a letter to inform the community on the process and results of the traffic study and provide information on the recommended strategies. Based on the engineering study and input from citizens, the city will make a preliminary determination and recommendation for the need of traffic management strategies. Step 6 -Traffic Management StrategyRecommendation andApproval Once the traffic study results, management strategies, and cost estimates have been provided toAffected Neighborhoodcitizens, a survey/petition will be circulated to ascertain whether ornot the neighborhood approves of the recommended strategy and are willing to cover thepotential costs of implementation. The recommended strategy will not be implemented withoutthe support of 65% of the benefited areaand 51% of any affected neighborhood. In order to proceed furtherwith the implementation of the proposed strategy: A minimum of 65% ofthe Benefited Area mustbe in support. A minimum of 51% of theAffected Neighborhoodmust be in support. Each household is entitled to one signature. If no response is received from a property, it shall be considered a negative response. If these thresholds arenotmet, the request shall be followed up as appropriate by the City Engineer as part of the Department’s normal function, including coordination with the Police, Fire, orPublic Works Departments as needed. Once approval is obtained from the neighborhood the strategy will be presented to the City Council for approval. Step 7 -Implement Temporary Strategy and Monitor In most cases, the strategy will be implemented with temporary materials and remain in place for approximately three to six months depending on the type of improvement.The strategy will be evaluated to determine if it addresses the identified problems and is consistent with the Neighborhood Traffic Management Programgoals. During the test period citizensmay provide comments to the City Engineering Divisionregarding the improvement. At any time duringthis test phase appeals of the decision for installing the strategy can be submitted andforwarded to the City Engineer. If it is determined that it is not practical to install a temporary strategy, this step can be eliminated. Step 8 -Strategy Evaluation 12 City Council Review Draft- 6/29/12 If it is determined that the temporary strategy does not achieve the intended goals of reducing speeds, cut through traffic or other identified problems, the City Engineering Divisionwillreview other potential strategiesand recommend the elimination of all strategies or test theinstallation of a different strategy. When it is determined that a temporary strategy is effective, the City Council will be asked to order the preparation of a Feasibility Report for the Effective temporary strategies will be brought to the city councilfor approval for the installation of apermanent form of the approved traffic management strategy. Step 9 –City Council Action Based on the strategy evaluation and survey, City staff members prepare a feasibility report and recommendations for the City Council. The report outlines the process followed, includes the project findings, states the reasons for the recommendations and includes a preliminary assessment roll. The feasibility report and preliminary assessment roll will be presented for a recommendation by the Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC) before final action by the City Council. If the feasibility report is adopted and the preliminary assessment roll is approved by the City Council, the project is ordered. If the feasibility report and preliminary assessment roll are not adopted by the Council, the plans and specifications will not be ordered and the project will be terminated. The project will thereafter be removed from the list and the Benefited Area is not allowed to reapply for a same or similar study for five years. Step 10 –Design, Final Assessment Roll and Construction Final design and construction supervision are administered by the City and are generally completed within 12 months after final approval and assessment by the City Council. City staff prepares and recommends the final assessment roll as required under authority granted by Minnesota Statute Chapter 429. Step 11 -Monitoring and Future Actions The City will conduct periodic monitoring of the fully installed traffic management strategy to determine if the project continues to provide effective improvement to the neighborhood. The monitoring will be conducted at the discretion of the City based on available funding, staffing levels, and resident comments. If monitoring shows that the implemented strategyfails to achieve the intended goals it may be removed. Legal Considerations From the local government perspective, the legal issues surrounding traffic management strategies fall into three categories: statutory authority, constitutionality, and tort liability. First,the local government must have legal authority to implement traffic management strategies ona given roadway (statutory authority). Second, the local government must respect theconstitutional rights of affected landowners and travelers onthe roadways (constitutionality).And finally, the local government must take steps to minimize the risk to travelers from theinstallation of traffic management strategies (tort liability). Through documentation of the entireprocess, including the collection and evaluation of traffic data, the decision process, andinteraction with the public, the RosevilleTraffic Management Program can minimize potentiallegal difficulties. Appeals 13 City Council Review Draft- 6/29/12 Decisions of staff can be appealed to the City Council. The appeals process will follow established City procedures. Removal The Traffic Management Program is intended to avoid the costly installation and later costly removal of traffic management strategies. On occasion, however, it may be determined to be desirable to remove a traffic management strategy installed under the Program. If the removal is City initiated due to safety/ crash/ complaint issues, the removal will be at City expense. If the removal request is at the request of the Benefited Area, the removal will be charged to the property owners in the defined Benefited Area. The request will be processed generally using the same procedures as outlined in this program requiring written request and appropriate neighborhood approval. 6.0 Traffic Management Strategy Toolbox The following Toolbox provides information on a variety of traffic management strategies. Each strategy includes information on its purpose, its effectiveness for solving different types oftraffic problems, and a summary of advantages and disadvantages for implementation. The toolbox has been organized into types of strategy asfollows: Traffic Control Devices - the use of common traffic control devices, such as signing and pavement markings, to solve neighborhood traffic problems. Included in this category are: One-Way streetsParking Restrictions Stop Sign ImplementationPavement Markings/ Crosswalk striping All-Way Stop Sign ImplementationSpeed Limits Roadway Adjustments - there are multiple strategies for traffic management that changethe appearance of the roadway including: Narrowing lanesChicane Intersection ChokersSidewalks Mid-Block Narrowing Vertical Elements - introducing vertical elements to the roadway, either as obstacles for vehicles to drive over or around, are common traffic management strategies. These include: SpeedHumps/ TablesStreet Closure Raised CrosswalksFull/ Diagonal Diverter Median BarrierPartial Diverter Traffic Circles Enforcement - there are two options for using enforcement as a traffic management strategy: increase police enforcement and the use of Variable Speed Display Boards. 14 City Council Review Draft- 6/29/12 One-Way Streets Traffic Control Devices Purpose Conversion of two-way streets to one-way operation for purposes of residential street traffic control take three forms: CASE #1 - Divergent and convergent one-way residential streets to reduce direct through routes impacting the neighborhood. CASE #2 - Alternating one-way streets throughout a portion of a grid system to gain safety advantages of one-way operations. CASE #3 - Creating a one-way couplet by paring a residential street with a nearby thru streetto create a corridor for thru traffic Source: FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Effects Volumes Case #1 – reduces traffic volumes where thru traffic is a problem Case #2 – no significant effect on traffic volumes Case #3 – increases volumes on one street and reduces volumes on adjacent streets Speed May increase speedsdue to improved motorist comfort levels. Traffic Noise and Air Minimal effect except in Case #1 which creates longer, circuitous routes for localtraffic. Traffic Safety One-way streets result in fewer potential conflicting movements, improving safety. Advantages • Possible increased parking • Inexpensive to implement • May reduce traffic volumes • May increase roadway capacity Disadvantages • May be considered inconvenient for residents • Possible increase in speeds • May increase volumes on other streets Problems Targeted • High traffic volumes • High crashes due to conflicting movements Design • One way streets can be used in combinations that force turns every few blocksto minimize speeding or cut-through problems Stop Sign Implementation Traffic Control Devices Purpose Regulatory sign that is used to assign right-of way at an intersection. Only recommended for installation if specific guidelines are metin accordance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD). Stop signs should not be used for speed control or volume reduction and should not be installed on the major street unless justified by an engineering report. Source: FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Effects Volumes Little or no effect. Speed Little or no reduction in speed, speed possibly increases due to drivers speeding up to make up for time lost at the stop sign. Traffic Noise and Air Noise is increased near the intersection due to the increase activity of acceleration. Air quality worsens due to deceleration, idling and acceleration. Traffic Safety Possible increase in crashes, possibly due to the stop signs being unexpected or deemed unnecessary, therefore encouraging rolling stops or by instilling a false sense of security in crossing motorists and pedestrians. Advantages • Inexpensive installation costs (do require continual maintenance costs). • Defines driver’s right-of-way. • Increase opportunity for pedestrians to cross the roadway. • May discourage cut-through traffic. Disadvantages • Can cause negative traffic safety impacts if sign is not warranted. • May result in mid-block speeding • Increasing levels of intersection control are associated with increased frequency of crashes. • Difficult to enforce full stop control compliance. • Could result in increase in speeds between the signs as drivers try to make up for lost time. Problems Targeted • At intersections where right-of-way is confusing. Design • Guidelines need to be met as established in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. • In most cases the street carrying the lowest volumes should be stopped to minimize the number of vehicles stopping. All-Way Stop Sign Implementation Traffic Control Devices Purpose The All-Way STOP condition is primarily intended to addresseither a higher than expected intersection crash frequency or tobe an interim measure at locations that have demonstrated aneed for a traffic signal installation, but where the signal cannotbe installed in a reasonable period of time. It is a common beliefthat installing STOP signs on all approaches of an intersection willresult in fewer crashes. Research indicates that average crashfrequency at All-Way STOP controlled intersection is 50% higherthan thru/STOP intersections. Also, there is no evidence to suggestthat STOP signs decrease travel speeds. Source: FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Effects Volumes Little or no effect. Speed Little or no reduction in speed, mid-block speed possibly increase. Traffic Noise and Air Little or no effect. Traffic Safety In most cases, the installation of an All-Way STOP will increase the frequency of crashes. Only in those rare cases where the number of crashes with the thru/STOP control is unusually high, is the forecast of safety improvement probable. Advantages • Inexpensive installation costs (do require continual maintenance costs). • Defines driver’s right-of-way. • Increase opportunity for pedestrians to cross the roadway. • May discourage cut-through traffic. Disadvantages • Can cause negative traffic safety impacts if sign is not warranted. • May result in mid-block speeding. • Increasing levels of intersection control are associated with increased frequency of crashes. • Difficult to enforce full stop control compliance. • Could result in increase in speeds between the signs as drivers try to make up for lost time. Problems Targeted • Unusual conditions at intersection including crash frequency, turning patterns, delay and pedestrian conflicts. Design • Traffic volumes and crash frequency thresholds need to be met as established in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. •The most effective deployment of the All-Way STOP condition is at intersections where the volume of traffic on the major and minor roads is approximately equal. Parking Restrictions Traffic Control Devices Purpose Parking restrictions can assist in improving residential street safety in two ways: 1)Clearance No Parking Zones to improve sight lines at intersections and crosswalks 2)Extended No Parking Zones to improve visibility of and for pedestrians along the length of the block. Source: FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Effects Volumes Little or no effect. Speed Minimal changes unless there are extended No Parking Zones that can create the potential for increased speeds. Traffic Noise and Air Little or no effect. Traffic Safety Increasing sight line distances reduce right angle conflict between vehicles at intersections, alleys and driveways. Advantages • Can reduce some types of accidents (late evening hit and run parked vehicle accidents and crashes related to parking maneuvers). Disadvantages • In areawhere on-street parking is at capacity and there is no alternative offstreet parking additional restriction to parking can be controversial to residents. Problems Targeted • Non-Residential parking intrusion. Design • Should review the impacts of parking on surrounding streets. Pavement Markings/ Crosswalk Striping Traffic Control Devices Purpose Provide a designated, marked location for pedestrians to cross residential street and make drivers more aware of potential pedestrian conflicts. Effects Volumes No effect Speed No effect Traffic Noise and Air No effect Traffic Safety Research has shown that marked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersection are unrelated to pedestrian safety. Advantages • Reasonably effective at identifying locations with potential pedestrian conflicts. • Helps to concentrate pedestrian activities at specific intersection and on specific legs of intersections. Disadvantages • At uncontrolled intersections, appears to create a false sense of security in pedestrians – the 8” white line willstop the oncoming 4,000 pound vehicle. • Costly to maintain. • Not required to establish legal cross-walk locations. Problems Targeted • Concentrating pedestrian crossing activities, particularly when combined with other strategies such as advanced warning signs, systems of sidewalks, enforcement, etc. Design • Marking cross walks is not necessary to establish legal crossing locations and is unrelated to pedestrian safety. •Marked crosswalks may be part of a program to designate walking routes and concentrate pedestrian crossings when combined with other strategies. Speed Limits Traffic Control Devices Purpose Speed limits are determined by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (consistent with State Statutes) basedon an analysis of the actual speed profile of the road. The basic premise of Minnesota’s law is that the majority of motorists will pick a safe and reasonable speed given the horizontal and vertical design of the street, locations of driveways, sidewalks, obstructions, and the use of the street by pedestrians. Lowering the speed limit to address speeding in a neighborhood has never proven to be even moderately effective without also including very high levels of enforcement. Effects Volumes Little or no effect. Speed Drivers generally ignore posted speed limits and travel at speeds which the drivers consider reasonable. Traffic Noise and Air Little or no effect. Traffic Safety Effects of speed limit changes on traffic safety on local residential streets have not been reported. Research suggests that crash frequencies on urban roadways are unrelated to vehicle speeds. Advantages • Research indicates that when speed limits are set at or near the 85 th percentile speed, roadway crash frequencies are ata minimum. Disadvantages • Speed limits on urban roadways are either set by Statute or by MnDOT. indicates • Research that crash frequencies on urban roadways are unrelated to vehicle speeds. Problems Targeted • High speeds through residential neighborhood Design Narrowing Lanes Roadway Adjustments Purpose The reduction of the typical pavement width along a roadway. The narrowing can be achieved physically by removing part of the pavement surface or by simply using pavement markings to indicate narrow travel lanes. Effects Volumes Little or no effect. Speed Possible reduction in speed. Traffic Noise and Air Little or no effect. Traffic Safety Potential for improved pedestrian safety due to shorter street crossing times, but at the same time bicycle safety may be compromised by physically removing part of the pavement surface. Advantages • Use of pavement markings to narrow street is relatively inexpensive ($0.20 per lineal foot). • Narrowing of streetmay provide opportunity for street beautification programs. Disadvantages • May require the prohibition of on-street parking causing hardship or inconvenience for residents. • May result in shifting volumes to adjacent streets if number of lanes is reduced Problems Targeted • Wide residential streets where speed reduction is desired. • Excess street volume on multilane streets. Design • Must not create significant impact due to loss of parking. Intersection Chokers Roadway Adjustments Purpose Narrowing of the street at an intersection to constrain the width of the traveled way. They provide shorter pedestrian crossing distances and provide protection to the beginning of a parking lane. The driver also senses the roadway narrowing when approaching one of these measures, which can result in speed reduction and a reminder that the driver is entering a residential area. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Traffic Calming: State of Practice Effects Volumes Little or no effect. Speed Minimal changes. Traffic Noise and Air Little or no effect. Traffic Safety Potential for improved pedestrian safety due to shorter street crossing times, but at the same time bicycle safety may be compromised by physically removing part of the pavement surface. Advantages • Good for pedestrians due to shorter crossing distance • Provides space for landscapingand neighborhood “gateway”. • Should not affect emergency responsetime. • Minimal inconvenience to drivers. Disadvantages • May require the prohibition of on-street parking causing hardship or inconvenience for residents. • May cause bicyclists to travel in same traffic lane as vehicles. • May require redesign of drainage system. Problems Targeted • Mid-block locations with speeding and/or cut-through traffic Design • There must be adequate turning radius for emergency vehicle access especially on narrow streets. •Drainage structures must be relocated to fit into new curb line. Mid-Block Narrowing Roadway Adjustments Purpose Segment(s) of roadway narrowing where curbs are extended toward the center of the roadway on one or both sides of the street to constrain the width of the traveled way. They provide shorter pedestrian crossing distances and provide protection to the beginning of a parking lane. The driver also senses theroadway narrowing when approaching one of these measures, which can result in speed reduction. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Traffic Calming: State of Practice Effects Volumes Little or no effect. Speed Minimal changes. Traffic Noise and Air Little or no effect. Traffic Safety Potential for improved pedestrian safety due to shorter street crossing times, but at the same time bicycle safety may be compromised by physically removing part of the pavement surface. Advantages • Good forpedestrians due to shorter crossing distance. • Provides space for landscaping. • Does not affect emergency response time. • Minimal inconvenience to drivers. Disadvantages • May require the prohibition of on-street parking causing hardship or inconvenience for residents. • May create drainage issues where curb and gutter exist. • May create diversion for bicyclists. Problems Targeted • Mid-block locations with speeding and/or cut-through traffic. Design • Must not significantly impede emergency vehicle access. •Drainage structures must be relocated to fit into new curb line. Chicane Roadway Adjustments Purpose Curvilinear reconstruction involving the introduction of curvatures on previously straight alignment. Curvilinear reconstruction can be accomplished in two different ways: 1.Reconstruct the street with a curved centerline alignment and a uniform roadway width. 2.Introduce chokers or other types of barriers on alternate sides of the street to create a serpentine travel path. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Traffic Calming: State of Practice Effects Volumes Possible reduction in volumes. Speed Possible reduction in speeds. Traffic Noise and Air Little to no effect. Traffic Safety Little or no effect. Advantages • Possible reduction in volumes and speed. • No restriction in access to residents. • Can be landscaped enhanced. • Less disruptive for emergency vehicles than speed humps. Disadvantages • Curbside parking must be prohibited in some locations. • Winter maintenance problems. • Possible impacts to drainage. • High cost of reconstruction. Problems Targeted • Excessive speeds. Design • Not appropriate for narrow streets (24 feet is appropriate width). •Drainage structures must be relocated to fit into new curb line. Sidewalks Roadway Adjustments Purpose Sidewalks are intended to provide pedestrians with a safe walking location when traffic volumes or vehicle speeds make walking on the street potentially dangerous. Effects Volumes No Effect. Speed No Effect. Traffic Noise and Air No Effect. Traffic Safety Possible decrease in pedestrian crashes. Advantages •Separates pedestrians and vehicles. • Very effective at reducingpedestrian/vehicle conflicts. Disadvantages • Moderately costly to implement. • Requires systematic deployment to achieve high levels of effectiveness. •Increased maintenance efforts. • Mixed neighborhood acceptance. Problems Targeted • High levels of pedestrian activity, especially at/near pedestrian generators (schools, parks, retail areas, etc). Design • Should be installed along all arterials and collectors (because of the traffic volumes and speed) and along residential streets based on providing connections to areas with high levels of pedestrian activity. Speed Humps/Tables Vertical Elements Purpose A physical feature (usually made of asphalt or rubber mounds) that are designed to rise above the roadway surface and extend across the roadway perpendicular to the traffic flow. Typically used to reduce vehicle speeds. Speed Table Speed Bump Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Traffic Calming: State of Practice Effects Volumes May reduce traffic volumes. Speed Effective in slowing vehicles traveling at typical residential speeds to approximately 5 to15 mph depending on type installed at the device – may reduce overall speeds by 5 to 7 mph. Traffic Noise and Air May have an increase of noise at the bumps/humps. Traffic Safety Traffic safety has not been found to be compromised with these devices. Traffic safety benefits can be gained if speeding is involved. Advantages • Reduces speeds. • Usually reduces traffic volumes. • Does not require parking removal or interfere with bicycle/pedestrian traffic. Disadvantages • Can potentially increase noise. • Can cause traffic to shift to parallel residential or collector streets. • May decrease emergency vehicles response times. Problems Targeted • Excessive speed. • High volumes. Design • Speed humps are only effective for 250 feet on either side of the hump. Thus, a neighborhood considering speed hump installation would require two to three installations. Raised Crosswalk Vertical Elements Purpose A raised crosswalk is a speed table designed as a pedestrian crossing, usually at mid-block to provide additional warning of a pedestrian crossing Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Traffic Calming: State of Practice Effects Volumes Possible reduction in traffic volumes. Speed Decrease in speed at crosswalk. Traffic Noise and Air Possible increase in traffic noise. Traffic Safety May increase awareness of pedestrians. Advantages • Speed control at pedestrian crossing. • Increases pedestrian visibility and awareness to driver. • May reduce traffic volumes. Disadvantages • Possibleincrease in noise. • Possible diversion of traffic to other streets. • May impact drainage. Problems Targeted • High mid-block pedestrian crossing and excessive vehicle speeds. Design • Should be placed in mid-block. • Not appropriate for grades greaterthan 5 percent. • Most common height is between 3 and 4 inches and typically have ramps 6 feet long. Median Barrier Vertical Elements Purpose A physical means for preventing left turning traffic on a major street from accessing a local street andthrough traffic from continuing on that local street. Alternate routes for diverted traffic should be analyzed with regard to traffic carrying capacity and desirability. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Traffic Calming: State of Practice Effects Volumes Vary depending on proportion of traffic that is prohibited by the median barrier. Speed Small reduction possible. Traffic Noise and Air Little or no effect. Traffic Safety May provide some safety benefits for pedestrians as a safety island for crossing the major street. Advantages • Assists in pedestrian crossing. • Prevents vehicles from passing vehicles that are turning right. • May improve safety through access limitations. • Visually enhances the street. Disadvantages • Diversion of traffic to other locations possible. • Disrupts continuity of local street system. •Landscaped islands require additional maintenance. • Reduction in access for residents. Problems Targeted • Cut through traffic. •Vehicleconflicts. Design • Must meet drainage requirements. • Must not significantlyimpede emergency vehicle access. Traffic Circle Vertical Elements Purpose A traffic circle is a raised geometric control island, frequently circular, in the center of an intersection of local streets. Typically, traffic circles would be about 20 feet in diameter. Traffic traveling through the intersection must avoid the island affecting the path and speed of the traffic. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Traffic Calming: State of Practice Effects Volumes Little or no effect. Speed May reduce speed at intersection. Traffic Noise and Air Little or no effect. Traffic Safety May decreases vehicle conflicts at intersection. Advantages • Reduces speed at intersection approach. • Reduces vehicle conflicts at intersection. • Provides equal access to intersection for all drivers. • Does not restrict access to residents. • Can be landscaped. Disadvantages • Some parking restrictions required. • Local experience has found these devices to be ineffective. • Can restrict access for trucks, buses and may increase emergency vehicle response time. • Winter Maintenance. Problems Targeted • Excessive speeds. • Crash history at intersection. Design • A minimum of 30 feet of curbside parkingmust be prohibited at each corner of the intersection. •Unsuitable on MSA roads. Street Closure Vertical Elements Purpose A street closure, for the purpose of this tool box, is defined as closing a street either at one end or the other, or at a mid block location to eliminate unwanted through traffic. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Traffic Calming: State of Practice Effects Volumes Reduces through traffic volumes. Speed May reduce speed. Traffic Noise and Air Little to noeffect. Traffic Safety May improve safety of street. Advantages • Eliminates through traffic. • Possibly reduces speed of remaining vehicles. • Can maintain pedestrian and bike access. Disadvantages • Increases emergency vehicle response times. • May cause inconvenience for some residents. • May divert traffic to other streets. • May require additional right-of-way acquisition. • Winter maintenance. Problems Targeted • Cut through traffic volumes. Design • There needs to be a minimum of 120 foot right-of-way to accommodate the minimum turning radius of 40 feet. Full / Diagonal Diverter Vertical Elements Purpose A full diverter, sometimes called a diagonal diverter, is a raised barrier place diagonally across an intersection that physically divides the intersection and forces al traffic to make a sharp turn. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Traffic Calming: State of Practice Effects Volumes May decrease traffic volumes. Speed May reduce speed. Traffic Noise and Air Littleor no effect. Traffic Safety Possible improvement. Advantages • Reduces traffic volumes. • Restricts vehicle access whilemaintaining bicycle and pedestrian access. Disadvantages • Prohibits or limits access and movement. • Restricts access for emergency vehicles. • May impact drainage. • May impact parking. Problems Targeted • Cut through traffic. • Speed – forces driver to slow to make the turn. Design • The curvature of the diverter is dependent on the intersection roadway widths. • Special care needs to be taken with drainage design. • The intent is to divert traffic to arterial and collector streets. • Needs to be good visibility approaching the diverter for drivers to react and navigate the turn safely. Partial Diverter Vertical Elements Purpose A partial-diverter is the narrowing of a two way street in order to eliminate one direction of travel. The concept can only be used at an intersection and attempts to reroute traffic attempting to use the protected street onto . other roadways Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Traffic Calming: State of Practice Effects Volumes Reduces traffic volumes in the eliminated direction. Speed Possible speed reduction. Traffic Noise and Air Little or no effect. Traffic Safety Improved pedestrian crossing. Advantages • Allows for movement of emergency vehicles. • Reduces traffic volumes. • Allows two-way traffic on the remainder of the street. • Shorter pedestrian crossing at intersection. Disadvantages • Parking may be impacted and reduced. • Interrupts street network connectivity. • Emergency vehicles do have to drive around partial closure with care. Problems Targeted • Excessive volumes on residential street. Design • Care has to be given in the design to not hinder unnecessarily emergency vehicles due to poor design. Increased Enforcement Enforcement Purpose The effective use of public safety/police personnel to encourage reduced speeds in residential areas. Enforcement usually involves the use of radar to identify speeders and ticket violators. Speed Watches rely on neighborhood participation to create awareness and, in turn, help control speeds in neighborhoods. Effects Volumes Little or no effect. Speed Speed reduction as long as enforcement is maintained (the “halo” effect of infrequent enforcement is as little as 1 mile or 4 hours). Traffic Noise and Air Little or no effect. Traffic Safety May reduce overall crashes if speeds are actually reduced. Advantages • Easy to implement. • Effective with repetitive enforcement on a non-routine basis. • Speed Watch programs have been perceived positively by neighborhood, even in areas where significant speed reductions were not measured. These types of programs may make neighborhoods find that they do not actually havea speeding problem. Disadvantages • Not self-enforcing; temporary measure, dependent on resources. •Expensiveand not always desirable to use police for traffic enforcement due to budget and manpower constraints. Problems Targeted • Speeding. • Moving vehicle violations. • Running stop signs. Design • The locations of implementation should be clearly identified to minimize the time spent enforcing and maximize the resultant speed reduction. • Actual speed surveys should be used to narrow problem to specific time (day of the week, time of day) and location. Variable Speed Display Board Enforcement Purpose A portable speed display board wired to a radar provides passing motorists their travel speed along with the speed limit. The display can help raise driver awareness, encourage compliance, and direct driver’s attention to the posted speed limit. The purpose is to remind drivers that they are speeding to help encourage compliance. Effects Volumes Little or no effect Speed Lower observed speeds when device is present Traffic Noise and Air Little or no effect Traffic Safety There is the potential for sudden braking by some motorists. Advantages • Portable Display board can be used in various locations enabling residents to borrow and placeon their street. • Low cost ($2,000 to $11,500 per unit). • Can be used to target timing and location of police enforcement (if data shows excessive speeds at a certain time). Disadvantages • Possible concerns with causing conflict between citizens involved (vigilantism). • May only provide short term effectiveness. • Possible vandalism or could encourage aggressive drivers to see how fast they can go. • Needs power to function. • Requires personnel to move and place unit. Problems Targeted • Any location where speeding is a problem or where drivers need to be educated about traffic issues in the area. Design • Variety of types of variable speed display boards available – some include traffic countingabilities. Appendix A: Definitions Affected Neighborhood - Area for a project that is defined as those residences and businesses along local streets that are positively or negatively impacted by excessive through traffic volumes and speeding, or that may be positively or negatively impacted by proposed traffic management strategy. Benefited Area- properties expected to receive the majority of the positive impacts The from the proposed traffic management strategy and which are subject to assessment for the cost of installation or removal of a NTMP improvement. (Assessed Area)The typical Benefited Area extends from intersection to intersection, but may be adjusted on a project- by- project basis. or CIPis a five year plan, which identifies capital projects and Capital Improvement Plan- provides a planning schedule. Chicane – Mainline deviations to deter the path of travel so that the street is not a straight line (by the installation of offset curb extensions). (Also called: Deviations, serpentines, reversing curves, twists, etc.) Choker – Physical street narrowing to expand sidewalks and landscaped areas; possibly adding medians, on street parking, etc. (Also called: Pinch points, lane narrowing, midblock narrowing, midblock yield points, constrictions.) Construction Design Process- When a street is identified for reconstruction, staff conducts a review of existing conditions. This review can include publicinformation meetings that solicit feedback regarding traffic concerns. As a part of this process, staff will study existing concerns and suggest strategies to address these concerns. Cut-through Traffic – Traffic that intrudes into a residential subdivision to avoid congestion or other problem from an arterial, local collector,or other high level street. Diagonal Road Closures – A barrier placed diagonally across a four-legged intersection, interrupting traffic flow across the intersection. This typeof barrier may be used to create a maze-like effect in a neighborhood. (Also called: Diagonal diverter) Excessive traffic volumes – Daily traffic on a road that is notattributable to expected volumes of traffic generated by property owners that live on that road. Does not apply to arterials, local collectors or other high level street classifications. Feasibility Report – A report analyzing the recommended type of construction, the estimated construction cost, estimated engineering cost and the estimated assessment. Infrastructure – Fixed facilities, such as roadways or railroad tracks; permanent structures. Local Street – A roadway under the jurisdiction of the City of Roseville. Median Barriers – Raised island or barrier in the center of the street that serves to segregate traffic. Municipal State Aid (MSA) Route – A designated City roadway that receives state funds as allocated from the State gas tax for maintenance and construction. 16 City Council Review Draft- 6/29/12 Approximately 20 percent of the City roadways are designated as MSA routes. State of Minnesota rules and standards, in addition to local jurisdiction guidelines, apply to these roadways.MSA streets carry higher volumes of traffic and serve as local collector roads. Non-Local Traffic – Traffic that does not originate from or is not destined to a location within a neighborhood or area. Non-motorized Transportation – Bicycling, walking, small wheeled transport (skates, skateboards, push scooters and hand carts) and wheelchair travel. Partial Street Closure – Physical blockage of one direction of traffic on a two-way street. The open lane of traffic is signed “One way”, and traffic from the blocked lane is not allowed to go around the barrier through the open lane. (Half closure.) Project Neighborhood – Property ownersliving on Local Streets that request traffic management improvements. Any request for project proposals require a written application with 51% of the Project Neighborhoodsigning the application. For purposes of application, this includes all property ownersabutting the street being requested for study between major intersections. (i.e.: An application for study of Woodhill Drive, between Lexington and Hamline; This segment of road has 18 different property owners. The application must be signed by 10 property owners.) Radar Speed Display Units – Driver feedback signs that use radar to provide motorists with an instant message, displayed on a reader board, telling them how fast they are driving. Raised Crosswalk – A speed table designed as a pedestrian crossing, generally used at mid-block locations. Regulatory Signs – A sign that gives notice to road users of traffic laws or regulations. Roadway striping – Highlighting various areas of the road to increase the driver’s awareness of certain conditions (e.g., edge of road striping to create a narrowing/ slowing effect while defining space for cyclists). Roundabout – Raised circular areas (similar to medians) placed at intersections. Drivers travel in a counterclockwise direction around the circle. Modern roundabouts are “yield upon entry”; meaning that cars in the circle have the right of way and cars entering the circle must wait to do so until the path is clear. When a roundabout is placed in an intersection, vehicles may not travel in a straight line. Speed – Speed is defined based on the following classifications: Advisory Speed a)– A recommended speed for all vehicles operating on a section of highway and based on the highway design, operating characteristics, and conditions. Design Speed b)– A selected speed used to determine the various geometric design features of a roadway. 85-Percentile Speed c) – The speed at or below which 85 percent of the th motorized vehicles travel. Posted Speed d)– The speed limit determined by law and shown on Speed Limit signs. 17 City Council Review Draft- 6/29/12 Statutory Speed e)– A speed limit established by legislative action that typically is applicable for highways with specified design, functional, jurisdictional and/or location characteristic and is not necessarily shown on Speed Limit signs. Speeding – 85th Percentile speed is at least 5 mph over the posted speed. Speed Hump –Wave-shaped paved humps in the street. The height of the speed hump determines how fast it may be navigated without causing discomfort to the driver or damage to the vehicle. Discomfort increases as speed over the hump increases. Typically speed humps are placed in a series rather than singularly. Speed Limit – The maximum (or minimum) speed applicable to a section of highway or roadway as established by law. Speed Table – Trapezoidal shaped speed humps in the street, similar to speed humps. Street Closure – Street closed to motor vehicles using planters, bollards, or barriers, etc. Targeted Police Enforcement – Specific monitoring of speeding and other violations bypolice due to observed, frequent law disobedience. Traffic Circle – Circular, raised island placed within the middle of intersections, requiring vehicles to divert around them, potentially forcing drivers to slow down as they traverse around the circle. (Similar to roundabouts- not allowed on MSA streets) Traffic Management – A combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negativeeffects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for nonmotorizedstreet users. Traffic managementinvolves changes in street alignment, installationof barriers, and other physical measures to reduce traffic speeds and cut- through volumesin the interest of street safety, livability and other public purposes. Traffic management strategiesare intended to be self-enforcing. Traffic management strategiesrely on the laws ofphysics rather than human psychology to slow down traffic. Traffic Safety Committee – (City Code Section 601.05) Administrative committee consisting of the City Manager, Director of Public Works, and Chief of Police. The Traffic Safety Committee has the following authority: a)To investigate and study all matters relating to vehicular traffic conditions including but not limited to parking, speed, traffic control, and traffic safety hazards. b)To implement and provide for the installation of whatever traffic control devices are necessary to improve and promote traffic safety and properly manage the use of City roads. c) To study and recommend to other road authorities maintaining roadways within the City corrective measures that may be deemed necessary to address traffic issues that may exist as to those authorities’ roads within the City. 18 City Council Review Draft- 6/29/12 Appendix B-Sample Petition 19 City Council Review Draft- 6/29/12 Traffic Management Strategy Application The undersigned resident of properties bordering on: Between the intersections of:and Brief Description of Traffic Related Problem: Hereby request assistance with traffic related problems. Signatories should understand that the Cityof Roseville has determined that benefitted residents shall bear 75% of the cost of installing traffic management strategies. Name Address (include apt #) Signature Appendix C- Roadway Jurisdiction Map 20 City Council Review Draft- 6/29/12 RICE ST RICE ST RICE ST RICE ST ST ALBEMARLE PL VIEW CT WAGENER ST WOODBRIDGE CT CIR ST WOODBRIDGE WOODBRIDGE ALBEMARLE ST WOODBRIDGE BRIDGE WOODBRIDGE ST ST WOOD- MARIONST ST MARION WEWERS MARION ST NORTHVIEW ST ST MARION MARION CIR ST ST WILLIAM GALTIER MARIONGALTIER ST ST CIRVIEW GALTIER GALTIER ST STWILLIAM ST CAPITOL STMATILDA MATILDA CIR ST MATILDA ST ST GIES- MATILDA MANN ST CIR FARRINGTON ST CIR TON AVE BROOKSST FARRINGTON ST AVE FARRING- AVE FARRINGTON AUERBACH FARRINGTON FARRINGTON CIR VIRGINIA AVE AVE HAND HAND VIRGINIAAVE AVE WESTERN AVE WESTERN WESTERN AVE WESTERN AVE AVEWESTERN IRENE ST IRENE DR CIR STIRENE AVE TOP HILL IRENEST DR ST DR COHANSEY ST SEY CIR (Private) BLVD VIEW CT COHAN- AVE STNATURE DR ST MACKUBIN AVE CHANDLER ST MACKUBIN ST KENT KENT ST KENT ST DALE DALE ST DALE ST STDALE ST ALBANS ST. ALBANS ST. NS ALBA ST CT ALAMEDA ST ALAMEDA ST ALADDIN ST TOGROTTOST GROT ST ST STAVON GROTTO ST AVON ST FISK ST VICTORIA VICTORIA VICTORIA VICTORIA ST PL PL NANCY NANCY ST VICTORIA ST MILTON MILTON ST CT WORTH LYDIAWORTH ST CHATSWORTH CHATSWORTH ST STCHATS- CHATS- WORTH ST CHATS- LAKEVIEW AVE CHATSWORTH ST ST AGLEN AGLEN ST AGLEN ST AVE OXFORD ST OXFORD ST ST OXFORD OXFORD OXFORD ST OXFORD ST ST STCHURCHILL CHURCHILL ST AVE LEXINGTON AVE LEXINGTON AVE LEXINGTON AVE LINDYAVE ST DUNLAP ST AVE LINDY DUNLAP GRIGGS ST AVE FERNWOOD FERN WOOD STFERNWOODST FERN WOOD ST MERRILLST MERRILLST MERRILL MERRILL ST ST DELLWOOD AVE DELLWOOD ST DELLWOODDELLWOODAVEDELLWOOD STAVE DELLWOOD HURON AVE HURON ST HAMLINE HAMLINEAVE HAMLINE AVE AVE HAMLINE AVE SHELDON ST SHELDON ALBERT ST STALBERT CURV ALBERT STHOLTON ALBERT PASCAL ST PASCAL ST PASCAL PASCAL ST ST PASCAL ST PASCAL SIMPSON DR CURV ARONAST ST ASBURY ASBURY ST AVE DR SNELLING DR W SNELLING AVE SNELLING DR W SNELLING (Private) ST STSAMUEL RD LINCOLN DR FRY RD STFRY MID OAKS HADDINGTON RD STCHARLOTTE MIDLOTHIAN MIDLOTHIANST ST ALDINE STALDINE ALDINE ST ST HERSCHEL LN HERSCHEL ST HERSCHEL AVE ST WHEELER WHEELER AVE WHEELER ST ST ST BEACON Park WHEELER BEACON ST Evergreen FAIRVIEW AVE FAIRVIEW AVEDR MILDRED DR DR MILDRED PL ARTHUR TATUM ARTHURST ST ST ARTHUR Langton PRIOR CIR AVE PRIOR AVE AVEPRIOR PRIOR (Private) FERRIS LN EVELYN ST CT WILDER ST MOUNT RIDGE RD MOUNT RIDGE RD EVERGREEN WILDER ST CLEVELAND AVE CLEVELAND CLEVELAND AVE POINTE DR CENTRE ST RD HYTHE ACORN CIR WOOD LAKE WEST- LONG RDLAKE LONG LAKE PARTRIDGE DRDALE ROSE- VIEW CT HILLSRD MIDLAND MIDLAND ST ST FULHAM FULHAM STFULHAM LONG LAKE ST ST. STEPHEN ST FAIRWAYS ST. CROIX ST RD STEUSTIS 280 STATE HIGHWAY WALNUTST ST CT PATTON RD LYDIA HIGHCREST RD AttachmentB EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of th 2Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was duly held on the 9 day of July, 2012, at 6:00 3 p.m. 4 5The following members were present: ; and and the following members were absent: . 6 7Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 8 RESOLUTION No. 9 10 RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT 11 FOR PROJECT NO. 13-08 WHEELER AVENUE CLOSURE 12 13 14WHEREAS, the Council has received a petition from the property owners living along Wheeler 15Avenue and Shorewood Lane, between County Road D and Lydia Avenue, requesting that the City 16permanently disconnect Wheeler Avenue from County Road D; 17 18WHEREAS, this improvement will include bituminous paving, concrete curb and gutter, driveway 19reconstruction, storm sewer, and necessary appurtenances, and; 20 21WHEREAS, the construction and installation costs of major traffic management strategies are 22assessed to the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to 23Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.011 to 429.111: 24 25NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota: 26 27That the proposed improvement, City Project 13-08, is referred to the City Engineer for study and 28she is instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed, advising the Council in a 29preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible; 30whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement; the 31estimated cost of the improvement as recommended; and a description of the methodology used to 32calculate individual assessments for affected parcels. 33 34The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member and 35upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted 36against the same: 37 38WHEAREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 2 Feasibility Report for County Road D Reconstruction Project STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and th foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 9 day of July, 2012, with the original thereof on file in my office. th WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 9 day of July, 2012. William J. Malinen, City Manager (SEAL) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 7/9/12 Item No.:13.b Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Discuss Draft Overhead Electric Undergrounding Policy B ACKGROUND 1 The City Council requested staff to work with the Public Works, Environment, and Transportation 2 Commission to develop a policy on Overhead Electric Undergrounding. Property owners have 3 occasionally asked for the overhead electric power lines to be undergrounded as a part of street 4 reconstruction projects. The City Council approved the undergrounding of the electric lines on the 5 Ramsey County Rice Street interchange project. This project utilized the Community Requested 6 Facilities Surcharge as a funding mechanism for this work. 7 The PWETC was presented a draft policy for their review and provided feedback for revisions. 8 The Commission has recommended the policy to the City Council. A copy of the draft policy is 9 attached. (Attachment A) 10 PO OLICYBJECTIVE 11 The City is committed to improve transportation corridors for all users and modes of 12 transportation. Frequently conflicts exist to construct facilities for all modes in crowded right of 13 ways. Undergrounding helps to reduce the conflicts and improve safety. 14 FI INANCIALMPACTS 15 Undergrounding is a community cost for existing overhead electric lines under Public Utilities 16 Commission rules. Community Requested Facilities Surcharge on electric utilities bills is 17 available to the Council as a funding mechanism or other statutory authorized funding 18 mechanisms such as property tax levies. 19 SR TAFF ECOMMENDATION 20 Staff is seeking Council feedback and direction on the draft policy as provided. 21 RCA EQUESTEDOUNCILCTION 22 Discuss the draft policy and provide direction to staff. 23 Prepared by: Duane Schwartz, Public Works Director Attachments: A: Draft Overhead Electric Undergrounding Policy Page 1 of 1 AttachmentA CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA POLICY SUBJECT: UNDERGROUND CONVERSION OF OVERHEAD ELECTRIC UTILITY LINES POLICY NO.: EFFECTIVE DATE: BACKGROUND: Underground conversion of overhead electric utility lines and associated facilities by companies is desirable when the City Council finds that the public health, safety or general welfare would require the removal of poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures with the underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication, cable television or similar or associated service within certain corridors, and the City Council has, by adoption of this policy, declared the designated corridor, an Underground Utility Corridor. PURPOSE: To establish a policy for conversion of overhead utility lines by utility companies when the City Council determines that undergrounding of overhead utilities is in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare; and asserts its right to require conversion of overhead utilities in the exercise of its statutory powers. POLICY: It shall be the policy of the City Council to: A. Exercise the City’s rights to require, and enforce as necessary, utility companies to convert overhead utilities to underground when it is in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the general public. Such power shall not be restricted except as limited by state law in any form by any qualifying criteria except that such lines or facilities must be within the public right of way, City owned property, or other property within the public jurisdiction within the City of Roseville. B. Identify and prioritize projects as follows: 1.All utilities within the City of Roseville with overhead facilities shall provide to the City Manager each year no later than January 31st,a complete list of all overhead utility locations in a format as prescribed by the City Manager. This list shall be accurate as reasonably possible and no utility will be held liable for accidental omissions or errors. 2.The City shall develop and bring before the City Council a master plan for undergrounding based on the most recent capital improvement plans of all roadway jurisdictions within the City of Roseville. The projects shall be prioritized based on the following criteria: st 1 Criteria: Any previously funded underground utility priority corridor project which was subsequently removed from funded list and placed on deferment. nd 2 Criteria: All identified corridor reconstruction projects where utility pole relocation is necessary for the public facilities construction. rd 3 Criteria: All identified undergrounding corridor projects contiguous to previous undergrounding. th 4 Criteria: Any corridor adjacent to public facilities, schools, retail areas, and parks, and recreation facilities. th 5 Criteria: Corridors with over 5000 ADT traffic volumes. These corridors provide access for emergency first responders and would benefit from minimum risk of obstruction from damaged overhead facilities. th 6Criteria: Corridors with existing or planned major pedestrian facilities. th 7 Criteria: Tree preservation th 8 Criteria: Entry corridors to the city where aesthetics create a positive image for visitors and residents. . a.Funding of projects: Undergrounding of overhead electric utility lines will be funded utilizing the PUC authorized Community Requested Facilities Surcharge which has an established maximum stacking amount on a customer’s electric bill. CRFS Projects will be limited by the amount available for additional surcharge. This policy does not prohibit neighborhood initiated request of undergrounding if alternative sources or methods of funding are identified.