Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC_Minutes_2007_0827City of ~~i Minnesota, USA Regular City Council Meeting Minutes City Hall Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Monday, August 27, 2007 1. Call Roll Mayor Klausing reconvened the meeting and called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:25 p.m. and welcomed eve- ryone, apologizing for the late start of the regular meeting. (Votingf Seating Order for August: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing) City Attorney Scott Anderson was also present. 2. Approve Agenda Staff advised that the applicant, Northwestern College had requested re- moval of Business Agenda Item 10.b entitled, "Consider Approving the Amended Planned. Unit Development Agreement for Northwestern College, 3003 Snelling Avenue," from tonight's agenda to allow for additional items to be completed. Councilmember Ihlan requested removal of Consent Agenda Items 7.e and g for discussion purposes, respectively entitled, "Authorize City Manager to Execute a Contract for Safety Consultant Services with Integrated Loss Con- trol;" and "Approve the Final Plat and Public Improvement Contract for Oak Acres by Art Mueller, 2201 Acorn Road." 3. Public Comment Mayor Klausing called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. a. Eugene Bahnemann, 2656 N Lexington Avenue Mr. Bahnemann reiterated his disapproval of the prairie weeds adja- cent to City Hall; and his ongoing disappointment in the quality of ca- ble news live broadcasting of Council meetings for home viewing. Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 2 Councilmember Kough opined .that he was in agreement with Mr. Bahnemann regarding the prairie grass adjacent to City Hall; and re- quested that staff include this item on a future Council agenda. 4. Council Communications, Reports and Announcements None. 5. Recognitions, Donations, Communications a. Proclamation -Proclaim September 28, 2007 Golden K Kiwanis Peanut Day Mayor introduced several representatives of the Golden K Kiwanis group who were present to promote their upcoming peanut sale fund- raiser, scheduled annually on the fourth Friday in September. Mayor thanked the Kiwanis representatives and this civic group for their continuing efforts in the community and Roseville area; and read the proclamation. Pust moved, Kough seconded, proclaiming September 28, 2007 as Roseville Golden K Kiwanis Peanut Day. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. 6. Approve Minutes. Mayor Klausing thanked Councilmember Roe for providing his corrections to the minutes before the meeting in order to save time; and by consensus, Councilmem- bers concurred with Councilmember Roe's changes. a. Minutes -Approve Minutes of 8/13/07 Executive Session Kough moved, Pust seconded, approval of the .minutes of the August 13, 2007 Executive Session as presented. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 3 b. Minutes -Approve Minutes of 8/13/07 Regular Meeting Kough moved, Pust seconded, approval of the minutes of the August 13, 2007 Regular Meeting as presented. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. c. Minutes -Approve Minutes of 8/20/07 Study Session Kough moved, Pust seconded, approval of the minutes of the August 20, 2007 Study Session as amended. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. 7. Consider Consent Agenda At the request of Mayor Klausing, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly re- viewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda. a. Check Register -Approve Check Register Roe moved, Pust seconded, approval of the following claims and pay- ments as presented. ACH Pa ments $94,557.16 48622-48748 338,654.07 Total $433,211.23 Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. b. Over $5,000 Report -Approve Contracts/Purchases and Sales of Surplus Goods in Excess of $5,000 Roe moved, Pust seconded, approval of general purchases and/or con- tracts as follows: Vendor Item/Descri tion Amount Greenview, Inc. Custodian Services; Jul -December 2007 $15,500.00 Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 4 Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. c. Business Licenses -Approve Business Licenses Roe moved, Pust seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, for the following applicants: A IicantlLocation T e of License Michelle Hockensmith @ J C Penney Massage Therapist 1700 W Count Road B-2 Mind Body & Soul, 1740 Lexington Avenue Massage Therapy Establishment Max Sterling Enterprises, d/b/a Sixty 1 Stop Gasoline Station 2815 Rice Street Cigarette/Tobacco Products Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. d. Liquor License and Gambling Permit -Approve the Request of St. Rose of Lima Church, 2048 Hamline Avenue, for aOne-Day Gambling Permit and a Temporary Liquor License for Septem- ber 29, 2007 Roe moved, Pust seconded, approval of the request of St. Rose of Lima Church, located at 2048 Hamline Avenue N, to conduct a raffle and temporary liquor license on September 29, 2007, at St. Rose Catholic Church. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. f. Resolutions -Adopt Resolutions Receiving Assessment Rolls and Setting Assessment hearing Date of September 24, 2007 for Pro- jects to be Assessed in 2007 Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10542 enti- tled, "Resolution Receiving Proposed Special Assessment Roll for P- 02-16, County Road C Reconstruction Project - Phase I and providing Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 5 for Hearings," scheduled for September 24, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10543 enti- tled, "Resolution Declaring Cost to Be Assessed, Receiving Proposed Special Assessment Roll, and Providing for Hearings for P-OS-02 Chatsworth/Lovell Reconstruction Project;" with said Hearings scheduled for September 24, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10544 enti- tled, "Resolution Receiving Proposed Special Assessment Roll for P- OS-06 SOwasso Boulevard Reconstruction Project and Providing for Hearings," scheduled for September 24, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10545 enti- tled, "Resolution Receiving Proposed Special Assessment Roll for P- 06-02, Roselawn Avenue Reconstruction Project and Providing for Hearings," scheduled for September 24, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10546 enti- tled, "Resolution Receiving Proposed Special Assessment Roll for P- 06-12, County Road C Reconstruction Project -Phase II, and provid- Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 6 ing for Hearings," scheduled for September 24, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. h. Ordinance -Adopt an Ordinance Amending 602.10, Rules on Publicly-owned Parking Lots to the Roseville City Code Roe moved, Pust seconded, enactment of ordinance No. 1351 entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Section 602.10, Rules on Private and Pub- lic Parking Lots," of Roseville City Code. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. i. Ordinance -Adopt an Ordinance Amending 404.02, Open Burn- ing to the Roseville City Code Roe moved, Pust seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1352 enti- tled, "An Ordinance Amending Section 404.02, Open Burning," of Roseville City Code. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. 8. Consider Items Removed from Consent e. Contract -Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Contract for Safety Consultant Services with Integrated Loss Control City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed the request for contracting with a firm to provide services in safety and loss control for the City, as recommended by the City's Safety Committee. Discussion included the first-time experience basis of the City of Roseville with this vendor, following references from other munici- palities; specifics of this agreement versus current record keeping re- quirements already in place for the City; and no current services pro- vided by the City Attorney for preventive loss control efforts other than general training. Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 7 Mr. Miller advised that this firm will provide specific safety training, whether in the field or in the office, to prevent workplace hazards and accidents and to make sure all equipment used and work places are OSHA compliant. Councilmember Pust noted several concerns about the legal agree- ment and provided her comments to City Attorney Anderson, who had yet to review the document as advised by Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller fur- ther advised that the private safety consulting firm would provide an- nual mandatory training for City employees. Kough moved, Ihlan seconded, authorizing the City Manager to exe- cute and Agreement for safety consultant services with Integrated Loss Control, Inc. from September 1, 2007 to August 31, 2008, at a cost not to exceed $7,392.00. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. g. Final Plat and Public Improvement Contract -Approve the Final Plat and Public Improvement Contract for Oak Acres by Art Mueller, 2201 Acorn Road City Manager Malinen briefly introduced requested Council action for approval of the Art Mueller Final Plat and Public Improvement Con- tract for Oak Acres, a residential subdivision that redevelops 2201 Acorn Road into a four (4) lot, single-family residential development, including construction of a public cul-de-sac street and public sanitary sewer and water utilities. Mr. Malinen noted that staff was recom- mending approval. Councilmember Ihlan noted that there appeared to be a number of au- dience members in attendance at tonight's meeting and asked that the City Council hear their comments. Councilmember Ihlan expressed frustration that a public hearing had not been noticed tonight. City Attorney Scott Anderson noted that, pursuant to State Statute and City Code, no public hearing was specified. Mr. Anderson noted that, Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 8 pursuant to Minnesota Statute 362, the action requested of the City Council was to determine whether those conditions set forth in Pre- liminary Plat approval had been met and that, within sixty (60) days of the application, the Council must approve or deny the application. Mayor Klausing called for public comment. Public Comment Gary Boryczka, 2250 Acorn Road Mr. Boryczka brought forth several items related to Lot 4 of the pro- posed plat that he opined did not comply with City Code (Section 1004.01 e) related to front yard setback requirements and those set- backs of other existing homes. Mayor Klausing asked if Mr. Boryczka had brought these concerns to the attention of City staff prior to tonight's meeting; noting the diffi- culty of interpreting staff from the bench immediately prior to re- quested Council action, and in an effort to make good public policy decisions. Mr. Boryczka advised that he had not. Councilmember Ihlan questioned what notice had been provided to the public that this item was going to be on tonight's agenda. City Planning Thomas Paschke, with concurrence by City Attorney Anderson, advised that staff had interpreted City Code and determined that all four (4) lots were new, and new lots would be required to meet City Code related to new lots; with Lot #4 considered a corner lot, re- quiring athirty foot (30') setback on the new street as well as Acorn Road. Mr. Paschke advised that Mr. Boryczka was apparently at- tempting to apply code for pre-existing situations, such as for a home addition. Councilmember Roe sought clarification on whether home locations were actually a part of Final Plat approval other than for setback re- quirements in accordance with code. Councilmember Roe sought fur- ther clarification that home locations on any of the lots would be sub- Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 9 ject to the Building .Permit process, and at that time setback require- ments would be finalized. City Attorney Anderson clarified that the City Council was being asked to approve Final Platting of the lots themselves and the physical layout of the road, a fairly ministerial act. City Attorney Anderson concurred with Councilmember Roe's interpretation of the Building Permit process and final setback requirement provisions. Councilmember Kough expressed his ongoing frustration that a change in ordinance needed to be considered to provide notification to adjacent landowners on potential lot split requests, similar to that of the Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, for 300' notification. Additional discussion included interpretation of City Code and the application process. Mr. Boryczka provided further concerns related to the applicant's grading plan and stormwater management on the lot. Mr. Boryczka opined that previously the applicant had provided two (2) grading plans, neither of which was acceptable to neighbors and now another or third grading plan was being provided with an on-site drainage plan. However, Mr. Boryczka further opined that this plan did not take into account impervious roof, patio or driveway area, and only addressed an approximately one level living area of 900'. Mr. Boryczka opined that the applicant's engineer in his report addressed deficiencies in the proposed discharge rate from the proposed biofil- tration trenches, opining that the engineering report was inconsistent with the staff report. Mr. Boryczka further opined that the storm wa- ter runoff and flow should have been more accurately calculated, rather than based on minimum projections. Mayor Klausing referenced Section 4.9c of the staff report addressing storm sewer runoff and requirements of the biofiltration basins to be located within drainage and utility easements dedicated on the plat. Mr. Boryczka further opined that the proposed cul-de-sac didn't meet the City's own construction standards, based on actual definition in Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 10 City Code of a cul-de-sac, Sections 1101.02 and 1103.02a, specifi- cally related to rights-of--way. Mr. Boryczka concluded his comments by asking that he hoped, as elected officials, the City Council would make the right decision and deny this Final plat as presented. Steven W. Thatcher, P.E., Thatcher Engineering, Inc. Mr. Thatcher provided a bench handout consisting of a letter dated August 24, 2007 to Mr. Gary Boryczka. Mr. Thatcher advised that Mr. Boryczka had requested his firm to re- view the proposed biofiltration trench plan provided by the applicant in order to determine its compliance with Roseville City Code re- quirements and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Best Management Practices. Mr. Thatcher detailed several observations related to biofiltration standards not currently addressed by City Code; and soil boring con- siderations at the site of the biofiltration basins. Mr. Thatcher refer- enced several sections of City Code: Section 1102.07b, Subdivision Regulations, and Section 1016.23, Shoreland, Wetland and Storm Wa- ter Management. Mr. Thatcher addressed soil borings and site information; the need to comply with MPCA standards; and within .his letter, provided eight (8) areas where he opined that "the Plan may fall short of the MPCA standards." Councilmember Ihlan opined that the application did not meet State Statute and City Code requirements in Section 462.358, Subd. 3.b, which she proceeded to read through. Councilmember Ihlan further opined that Mr. Boryczka raised sufficient points where there may be inconsistencies with the plan and City Code that would support not approving the Final Plat as presented at this time, triggering the need for resubmission by the applicant due to land use deadlines. Coun- cilmember Ihlan expressed personal concern that to-date there had been no submission of a landscaping survey or tree preservation plan Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 11 by the applicant, which had been clearly conditioned on the Prelimi- nary Plat approval. Public Works Director Duane Schwartz 1) Mr. Schwartz advised that the rights-of--way shown at fifty feet (50') were allowed under City Code where there was somewhat of a hardship, in this case an attempt to preserve trees and/or mitigate wetland areas. 2) Mr. Schwartz advised that staff interpreted City Code to mean that the eighty foot (80') cul-de-sac did meet City Code; noting that any road less than two hundred feet (200') in length didn't require a cul-de-sac at all, but opined that this was a good alternative, rather than a simple turnaround. 3) Mr. Schwartz advised that soil borings had been provided to staff for the biofiltration basins; and the City Engineer continued to work with the applicant's engineer on the proposed systems, which had yet to be finalized and approved by staff. Mr. Schwartz further advised that staff was cognizant of MPCA regulations and best management practices, and indicated that the soil types in the biofiltration area were types B and C, and represented "engineered soils" and would need to meet filtration requirements. City Attorney Anderson fully agreed with Mr. Schwartz's comments on the road layout and design, as previously addressed as an issue of adjacent neighbors during Preliminary Plat approval. Councilmember Roe clarified requested Council action on Final Plat approval including approval of the public improvement contract and whether the contract spoke to design of the biofiltration trenches or if that was a City staff and City engineer determination as part of the process addressed in the contract. Mr. Schwartz advised that the public improvement contract spoke to the biofiltration trenches but that their final design and location of easements remained pending until engineering designs were negoti- ated and completed in accordance .with City Code and approved by the City Engineer. Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 12 Councilmember Kough questioned if this was the first biofiltration system installation in Roseville and if the City would be responsible for the cost of maintenance. Mr. Schwartz responded affirmatively to both of Councilmember Kough's questions; advising that since there was a public improve- ment contract constructing a public road, it was typical City policy to provide long-term maintenance to ensure public infrastructure re- mained viable over the long-term. Councilmember Pust questioned Mr. Schwartz on the soil types ad- dressed in Mr. Thatcher's letter, and discrepancies between informa- tion provided by Mr. Thatcher and that provided by staff on the soil types. Councilmember Pust confirmed with Mr. Schwartz that certain soil testing was required in light of the proposed biofiltration system, that soil testing had been done, and staff was analyzing them. Mr. Schwartz opined that, while he did not have the soil borings with him tonight, he would be surprised if they were type B in that area. Mr. Schwartz advised that two (2) minimum soil borings were re- quired for the site, and were being analyzed. Mr. Schwartz further noted that sizing of the infiltration basins was a design issue. Mayor Klausing questioned staff on Mr. Boryczka's allegation that by approving the grading plan, the City was approving everything on it. Councilmember Roe noted that the City Council was not being asked to approve the grading plan tonight, but had been provided an exam- ple included in the public improvement contract, with five (5) condi- tions as laid .out in the staff report, page 4, with easements and a num- ber of elements that were a staff function during the construction process. Mayor Klausing sought staff comment on Mr. Boryczka's expressed concern about his interpreted inconsistencies between the staff report findings, Section 4.9c (i.e., storm water management report) and summary of results (i.e., direction of flow, existing discharge, storm events) and no increase in storm water runoff. Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 13 Mr. Boryczka and Mr. Thatcher returned to speak to this issue, spe- cifically discharge rate increases and sizing of piping. Interim Community Development Director Mike Darrow Mr. Darrow addressed page 4, line 5 of the public improvement con- tract, and the part of agreement requiring the developer to obtain nec- essary permits from various agencies as outlined, after entering into the contract, but before commencing construction, with all issues re- solved prior to any work being initiated. Mayor Klausing sought staff comment on whether it would be consis- tent for the City Council to act on the Final Plat without a tree preser- vation plan before them. Mr. Darrow responded affirmatively. Councilmember Ihlan reiterated and reread State Statute language, opining that the City Council, was attempting to circumvent the proc- ess; and further opining that the City Council needed to seek an exten- sion, until conditions of the Final Plat had been met, made sense, and a tree preservation plan had been submitted. Mr. Darrow attempted to address Councilmember Ihlan's concerns regarding that question, and referenced and read City Code, Section 1102.1 for submission requirements to complete an application. Mr. Darrow opined that his interpretation was that, not the conditions of Council, but the twelve (12) conditions found in City Code, were what staff was basing completion on, and was interpreting that those condi- tions were complete, allowing for their recommendation for Final Plat approval and Public Improvement Contract approval. City Attorney Anderson concurred with Mr. barrow's interpretations, and recognized Councilmember Ihlan's interpretation; however, noted that subsequent approval conditions were not shown on the Final Plat filed with the County Recorder, and would be part of staff, engineer, and other agency approvals involved in the process as it was initiated. Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 14 Councilmember Ihlan once again provided her interpretation of State Statute language and requirements for Final Plat approval and compli- ance with conditions of the City's own Code. City Attorney Anderson opined that staff had addressed those con- cerns raised by the public and City Councilmembers and interpreted that the Final Plat met every condition of City Code, Mr. Anderson suggested that individual Councilmembers could reject that interpreta- tion and not support the Final Plat; however, questioned what evi- dence Councilmembers were relying on -that of their staff who had been continuously reviewing the materials, or Mr. Thatcher's interpre- tations, when he had admitted that he hadn't thoroughly reviewed all the information provided to City staff. Mayor Klausing sought clarification from staff that Mr. Boryczka's concerns on page 2, paragraph 5, subparagraph c that the developer would construct a silt fence and his questioning of whether it would be adequate protection during construction. Mayor Klausing ques- tioned if this would be monitored by staff during construction. Mr. Schwartz advised that, as with all such construction activities, staff would be monitoring the site, and if the silt fence didn't appear adequate, construction would be halted until adequate silt fencing had been positioned to protect the area. Councilmember Kough sought clarification that, if the developer didn't take care of the problem, City staff would do so, and the City would be reimbursed by the developer; that provisions had to be done right one way or another. Mr. Schwartz affirmed Councilmember Kough's observations. Mr. Thatcher provided a final comment on his interpretation of City Code, and the need for soil borings to be done at the specific location of the proposed bio basins to determine their functionality, opining that the locations of the soil borings were not done in the correct spot on the property. Mr. Thatcher opined that the site was too small to re- quire MPCA permitting for bioretention. Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 15 Councilmember Pust clarified Mr. Thatcher's allegations that the soil borings weren't done exactly where they needed to be done. Mr. Darrow reiterated that the developer would need to comply with all necessary permitting, including the MPCA. City Attorney Ander- son concurred, noting that while the MPCA wasn't going to review something they didn't require, he noted the City's own engineering report requiring MPCA certification. Public Comment Paul Romanowski, 2195 Acorn Road Mr. Romanowski opined that he observed when the soil borings were done and they were 200' from the current driveway and were nowhere near proposed drainage plans. Councilmember Roe sought staff assurance that the applicant would be required to provide soil borings in the appropriate area. Mr. Schultz advised that while no final plans have been provided for the drainage, staff would assure that during their review those plans met City Code and MPCA requirements. Councilmember Pust sought staff assurance that the soil borings would be done where they were supposed to be done. Mr. Schwartz responded affirmatively. Roe moved, Pust seconded, approval of the Final Plat of Oak Acres and the Public Improvement Contract, allowing the creation of four (4) single-family residential lots over 1.89 acres, including a public road and utilities (sanitary sewer and water) from the parcel addressed as 2001 Acorn Road, based on the comments of Section 4 and condi- tions of Section 5 of the project report dated August 27, 2007. Councilmember Roe spoke in support of the motion; and expressed his understanding of the frustration of some neighbors that it may look like some of the plans didn't meet City Code. Councilmember Roe opined that the Council was considering approval of the Final Plat, or drawing; and that the public improvement contract outlined obliga- Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 16 tions that the developer had to meet to receive approval by City staff throughout the process. Councilmember Roe further opined that the City Council needed to rely on the expertise of their staff in making sure that the agreement, as approved by the City Council, was suffi- cient to meet City Code. Councilmember Ihlan spoke against the motion, opining that State Statute was clear that applicable regulations of City Code needed to be met by the applicant, and further opined that the applicant had not met those requirements, and that the City Council needed to enforce their own conditions. Councilmember Ihlan noted that she didn't vote for the Preliminary Plat due to environmental impact concerns, loss of trees, and storm water runoff. Councilmember Ihlan concluded that there was no reason to grant the Final Plat with no mechanisms in place to enforce conditions. Public Comment Vivian Ramalingam Ms. Ramalingam questioned if trees had already been felled on the property if that made a tree preservation plan moot. Councilmember Kough reintroduced his notification requirement for property owners within 300' of any proposed lot splits, and sought an amendment to the motion. Councilmember Kough spoke in opposi- tion to the motion without such an amendment. Mayor Klausing declared the motion not relevant to the underlying motion. Mayor Klausing requested that Councilmember Kough could appeal the motion of the Chair and put his motion to a vote; or make his motion as a separate motion. Discussion ensued regarding public notice requirements for Prelimi- nary Plat approvals at the Planning Commission level; and clarifica- tion of Councilmember Kough's previous correspondence with staff on basing the size of new lots in lot split situations based on contigu- ous lot sizes. Councilmember Ihlan opined that she would support Councilmember Kough's motion as a separate policy item. Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 17 City Attorney Anderson noted that the motion Councilmember Kough was proposing would constitute an amendment to the City's zoning ordinance, and zoning amendment procedures could not be heard to- night without public notification. Councilmember Kough requested that staff include this item on a fu- ture agenda. Councilmember Roe suggested that it be included on a Study Session agenda to allow sufficient discussion. Mayor Klausing concurred with Councilmember Roe's suggestion for a Study Session agenda discussion; noting that it could be part of a broader discussion on lot splits with previously-identified discussion topics from the lot split study group recommendations. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: Ihlan; Kough. Motion carried. Councilmember Ihlan observed members of the audience who may be waiting for the Northwestern College discussion, who may have missed the announcement at the beginning of the meeting. Mayor Klausing thanked Councilmember Ihlan for alerting the City Council to this situation; and re-announced that the applicant had removed this item from tonight's agenda, and that it was tentatively rescheduled for the September 10, 2007 regular City Council meeting. Staff confirmed with the public and City Council that they were attempting to pro- vide e-mail notification of this item to those requesting such notice via the City's website. 9. Public Hearings a. Public Hearing for Liquor License Renewal -Conduct Public Hearing and Consider Renewal of an On-Sale and Sunday Intozi- Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 18 Gating Liquor License for ERJ Dining IV, LLC, d/b/a Chili's Grill and Bar at 1840 W County Road B-2 Mayor Klausing opened the Public Hearing at 8:06 p.m. Finance Director Chris Miller advised that this request represented a change in the corporation owning Chili's and was pending review by the City Attorney prior to issuance of the license to ensure all was in order. Mr. Miller advised that published notice was provided, and background checks on the new ownership had been completed, with staff recommending approval. Mayor Klausing closed the Public Hearing at 8:08 p.m., with no one appearing for or against. Councilmember Pust questioned if the previous ownership had been in full compliance with the City's alcohol ordinance with Mr. Miller responded affirmatively and Councilmember Pust thanking them for their compliance. Councilmember Roe questioned the designation on the license appli- cation that indicated that this was a new license, not a transfer. Mr. Miller clarified that this was due to the Roseville City Code not permitting transfers and them having to be considered new licensees held on their own merits. Councilmember Kough questioned staff's information process to new licensees to make them aware of City requirements regarding compli- ance checks and processes. Mr. Miller advised that all licensees were provided with applicable City Code and information; and opined that the new owners were re- sponsible, and that staff had no reason to believe that they hadn't ta- ken note or all state and local laws. Kough moved, Klausing seconded, approving the On-Sale and Sunday Intoxicating liquor license for ERJ Dining IV, LLC, d/b/a Chili's Grill & Bar, for the year ending December 31, 2007. Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 19 Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. 10. Other Business Items a. Selection of Consultant -Select Comprehensive Plan Consultant, Authorize Negotiation of a Contract, and Approve a Steering Committee Mr. Darrow briefly reviewed the request for the City Council to select a consulting team to undertake the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update, following the City Council's earlier interviews of the top three (3) firms. Those firms were: ^ Bonestroo, Professional Consulting Services ^ Hoisington Kiegler Group, Incorporated ^ SRF Consulting Group, Incorporated Discussion included whether the proposal costs included printing of the final document, confirmed by staff to not be included in cost pro- jections; and qualities of each firm. Councilmember Kough opined that he liked all three firms, noting that each had a different cost and questioned the finality of that cost. Mr. Darrow advised that once the City Council selected a finalist, staff would negotiate with the firm on the scope and total contract amount; with staff returning to the City Council for final approval of that scope and a not to exceed contract amount at the September 10, 2007 meeting. Mayor Klausing sought additional individual Councilmember com- ment and impression along with that of City Manager Malinen prior to a motion. Councilmember Roe opined that all three appeared strong, and con- curred with staff's recommendation of the top two (2) firms. Councilmember Ihlan concurred with staff recommendation as well and opined that the place to start may be proposed cost noting that the HKGI firm's price was the lowest. Councilmember Ihlan further Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 20 opined that the City Council consider in-house printing of the final publication. Councilmember Ihlan opined that she liked HKGI's pub- lic input strategies; noted that the City had not previously worked with the firm on any other major projects; and further opined that this may provide a fresh look and fresh thoughts that could be beneficial to the City. Councilmember Ihlan further opined that the firm appeared well-prepared to meet the City's needs; and noted HKGI was her top selection, with SRF her second selection. Councilmember Pust opined that all three firms were strong, but con- curred with Councilmember Ihlan's comments, and the public input strategies proposed by HKGI. Councilmember Kough spoke in support of HKGI. City Manager Malinen expressed appreciation to Mayor Klausing for including him in the discussion; however, limited his comments to opining that they were all good candidates with each indicating a strong process. Ihlan moved, Roe seconded, selection of Hoisington Kiegler Group, Incorporated (HKGI) as the consulting term to undertake the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update for the City of Roseville. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. Klausing moved, Kough seconded, authorizing staff to negotiate a fi- nal scope of work and contract between the City of Roseville and HKGI, with anot-to-exceed budget with the selected firm for formal City Council approval on September 10, 2007. Councilmember Ihlan clarified that staff would draft a scope of ser- vices and return to the City council -with their template for finalizing the contract. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 21 Mayor Klausing reviewed staff's recommendation for the composition of a Steering Committee: Cit Council 2 members Plannin Commission 2 members Parks and Recreation Commission 1 member Public Works, Environment, and Trans ortation Commission 1 member Housin and Redevelo ment Authorit 1 member Ima ine Roseville 2025 Steerin Committee 1 member Communit -at-lar e 2 members TOTAL 10 members Councilmember Roe spoke in support of expanding the community- at-large members up to four (4), depending on the number of applica- tions received. Mayor Klausing spoke in support of enlarging that group, noting it remained within a manageable size. Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern that the consulting firm, since just chosen, wasn't provided more input on selecting public rep- resentation and opined she would like. to see as much public represen- tation as possible, suggesting that the community be divided into re- gions and citizens recruited from those community groups rather than simply based on who applied for the at large positions. Mayor Klausing noted that he had no problem seeking additional dis- cussion with the consultant, however noted discussion from the last meeting on the need to get the Steering Committee in place as soon as possible. Mr. Darrow concurred that at least the core group needed to be up and operating without further delay. Mayor Klausing sought consensus on the main composition of the group, exclusive of the community-at-large members, allowing Advi- sory Commissions to select their one or two representatives. Councilmember Roe opined that a minimum of eight (8) members were indicated, and citizen-at-large positions didn't need to be de- Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 22 cided tonight; however, he further opined that applications should be solicited and that process defined tonight. Councilmember Kough expressed his interest in being the first to vol- unteer as a City Council member of the Steering Committee. Coun- cilmember Kough noted that being retired he had the time to commit to the numerous meetings anticipated and provided a written letter to the Mayor and City Council expressing his interest. Mayor Klausing accepted Councilmember Kough's interest in ap- pointment and noted that Councilmember Roe had previously ex- pressed interest. Councilmember Roe confirmed his interest in serving. By consensus, Councilmembers Kough and Roe were selected to serve as the City Council's representatives to the Steering Committee. Mayor Klausing noted that the entire City Council was welcome to at- tend any or all meetings and noted that staff would publish and post each meeting as a public meeting in case a quorum of Councilmem- bers were in attendance. Mayor Klausing opined that since the City Council has the final say, individual Councilmembers should use their discretion in not dominating discussions at the meetings but provide a City Council perspective as applicable. Councilmember Pust noted that one special interest group was not represented on the proposed committee, that of business representa- tives. Councilmember Pust suggested that a slot be set aside for them, not just as a member of the community-at-large, but intentionally seeking their specific interests, and suggested a minimum of one (1) member of the business community. Councilmember Ihlan concurred and spoke in support of including a business representative. Klausing moved, Pust seconded, approval of the creation of a Com- prehensive Plan Update Steering Committee, as referenced above, with the understanding that the final composition was pending deter- Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 23 urination of the number of community-at-large members, and follow- ing consultation with the consulting firm, and other potential interest groups in the community (i.e., business representatives). City Manager Malinen sought staff direction to begin placing notices and requesting applications from residents and the business commu- nity; in order to stay ahead of time constraints. Councilmembers so directed staff by consensus. Discussion ensued regarding a deadline for applications; with consen- sus being that the application window needed to be limited to two (2) weeks; Staff was directed to provide applications to the City Council at their September 10, 2007 meeting, at which time, depending on the number of applications received from the community-at-large and business community, the City Council would determine if interviews were necessary or appointments could proceed. Councilmember Pust opined that it was incumbent of individual Councilmembers to provide notice throughout the community of the process and requested applications; as well as by the normal media options staff could pursue. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. b. Amended Planned Unit Development Agreement -Consider Ap- proving the Amended Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agree- ment for Northwestern College, 3003 Snelling Avenue As previously noted, this item was removed at the request of the ap- plicant. Recess Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at 8:26 p.m. and reconvened at 8:34 p.m. c. Discussion -Discuss an Interim Development Ordinance (Twin Lakes Moratorium) Councilmember Ihlan proposed that the City Council direct staff to draft an interim ordinance for a development moratorium in the Twin Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 24 Lakes area in order to undertake community-based planning for future redevelopment, in addition to receiving public input on preferred de- velopment scenarios; completion of an AUAR or other appropriate environmental review based on the results of this community-based planning; and an open market call for qualified master developers to implement the community-based redevelopment plans. Councilmember Ihlan noted that she'd opposed the original morato- rium in the Twin Lakes area, opining that its purpose had been for property acquisition and her opposition in using a moratorium to ac- quire land. Councilmember Ihlan advised that staff had prepared a presentation on State Statute and a basis for a moratorium. Interim Community Development Director Mike Darrow presented detailed barriers and benefits to a moratorium and the process. Mr. Darrow noted that staff was currently receiving 3-4 calls weekly from developers expressing interest in the Twin Lakes area, both national and local developers. Mr. Darrow discussed differences in this mora- torium from the one in 2004; general themes for development; estab- lishment of specific guidelines for developers to follow; development of a broad working plan to develop consensus; and specific zoning guidelines and parameters for developers, as well as performance standards. Discussion included types of specific projects being proposed; piece- meal development versus large-scale development; market interests and conditions for development; and proposed timeframe for the moratorium. Councilmember Ihlan noted the normal time of one (1) year for a moratorium, with the ability for the City Council to shorten that time, using their internal guidelines; and suggested one year at the outside. Councilmember Roe spoke in opposition to a one year moratorium; opining that it would be more prudent to follow that of the lot split study motel, providing the Council with an incentive to complete the process sooner rather than later. Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 25 Councilmember Kough opined that in thinking about a moratorium, he couldn't see how it would help the area. Mr. Darrow clarified that two (2) formal applications had been sub- mitted to-date. Councilmember Kough asked that staff alert Councilmembers of in- terest in parcels in the Twin Lakes area, rather than having to hear it through the "grapevine." Councilmember Roe noted that this had been previously requested of staff. Mr. Darrow advised that staff could keep Councilmembers advised of such interest. Councilmember Pust spoke in support of the benefits of community planning, opining that running a process to get wide public input was always a good idea and could avoid issues that had proven contentious in the past. However, Councilmember Pust spoke in opposition to negatively affecting of limiting use and rights of private property owners. Councilmember Pust further opined that, if the City owned the property, it would be a decision internally, but with the property owned privately, and given threatened litigation already, it didn't seem like good policy to establish a moratorium. Councilmember Pust further opined that she was in full support of going full steam ahead with community planning, but questioned the need fora mora- torium to do that planning; and seemed to simply attempt to make it easier for the Council to bring things to a halt to make decisions when it was more convenient for them to do so, rather than being leaders and doing that planning more immediately and not affecting private property owner rights. Mayor Klausing, on a personal note, advised that the Twin Lakes re- development area had consumed a major part of his life over the last five years; and clarified that the purpose of the previous moratorium was not for property acquisition, but to provide for the majority City Council-appointed stakeholder group to meet, and allow for a public Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 26 planning process to continue. Mayor Klausing read the minutes and motion from the meeting when the previous moratorium was enacted. Mayor Klausing concurred with Councilmember Pust's observations and comments regarding the value of public planning; however, he questioned what additional public input would be obtained from an- other public planning process, unless there were assurances fora dif- ferent conclusion that what had already been provided. Mayor Klausing reviewed his personal history with the development area, noted his original opposition to the initial retail composition and the parcel designated for retail the only parcel controlled by the prop- erty owner. However, Mayor Klausing noted that when the proposed project became further developed, with valuable public input from the stakeholder panel, using many of their recommendations, he had re- vised his opinion of the proposed plan. Mayor Klausing reiterated that he was supportive of a public planning process; however, he was not supportive of further impositions on private property owners, following the previous condemnation proce- dures, implied in another moratorium process. For the record, Mayor Klausing acknowledged an a-mail received ear- lier from Mark Rancone with Roseville Properties, expressing opposi- tion to a moratorium. Councilmember Ihlan opined that Mayor Klausing's comments seemed ironic, given past actions; and noted that she and others were forced to react negatively due to the previous process not being more open and public-supported. Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of a quick process, but opined it was time to do something to make the public and developers aware of what the Council was planning. Councilmember Pust reiterated her opinion that she agreed it was time to do something, but she didn't think the action required a morato- rium. Councilmember Kough opined his support for development and con- taminated land clean up in the Twin Lakes area. Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 27 Discussion included the role of potential developers in a community planning process; community-based planning completed to provide guidelines for developers, with environmental studies in place, fol- lowed by an open call for developers; community-based planning based on ideals rather than economic realities and marketplace tests; and higher waged jobs from quality business offices in the area. Councilmember Roe reviewed the specifics identified in the court de- cision and the existing Comprehensive Plan and 2000 Master Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan, allowing for a guideline for develop- ers, based on the business park zoning designation and mixed use B-6 zone. Councilmember Roe opined that he'd look for public input to refine those general guidelines within that available framework; and noted that community-based planning had been part of the stakeholder process already completed. Councilmember Roe cautioned commu- nity-based planning, using the former Apache Plaza development site, and lengthy time required for any developer interest in the property due to unrealistic ideals and market realities, at which time the plan had to be modified to make it marketable. Councilmember Roe opined that the current zoning potential and Comprehensive Plan al- lowed for flexibility in the mixed uses; and further opined that while he may be willing to support a 2-3 month moratorium, he questioned whether the marketplace should be forced to wait. Councilmember Pust reiterated her support for community planning; and challenged individual Councilmembers to do that planning and to seek that public input. However, Councilmember Pust opined that, if the City Council had learned anything over the last five (5) years, the community was adamant about protecting Langton Lake, and did not support big box retail. Mayor Klausing expressed support for staff returning with a more fo- cused proposal for acommunity-planning process; and also expressed support fro Councilmember Ihlan more specifically addressing how the City could be involved in assembling a package since they were not a property owner. Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 28 Councilmember Ihlan opined that, if the City Council was serious about community planning, she'd be very interested in having staff provide additional input on their community planning recommenda- tions; still expressing her support for a moratorium to allow for envi- ronmental planning. While Councilmember Ihlan expressed interest in continuing discus- sion, there was no apparent or clear staff directive provided for further consideration. d. AUAR -Consider Approving 20-day Review Distribution Economic Development Associate Jamie Radel presented staff's final AUAR Update document for Council review and consideration. Ms. Radel noted the inclusion of City Attorney Jay Squires' letter dated August 24, 2007 to City Manager Malinen, addressing ongoing asser- tions related to interpretation of the City Council's intended action on June 26, 2001, related to the AUAR Update and Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Radel noted that one addition by staff to the previous draft, fol- lowing Council discussion and public input from previous meetings, provided a footnote to recognize and analyze negative retail level ex- ternalities (tables on pages 18 and 19, and the footnote on page 18). Public Comment Al Sands, 2612 Aldine Mr. Sands provided a bench handout entitled, "I. Proposed Twin Lakes AUAR "Update" is Inconsistent with the Existing Twin Lakes Master Plan;" and "II. Policy Issues related to the PUDB-6 Compre- hensive Plan Designation." Mr. Sands referenced the City Attorney letter dated August 24, 2007 to City Manager Malinen, and reiterated his interpretation of previous Council action on June 26, 2001 related to the AUAR Update and Comprehensive Plan. Discussion among Councilmembers and Mr. Sands included the ac- tual Twin Lakes Master Plan submitted to and accepted by the Metro- politan Council and resolution adopted by the City Council at that time, and the packet currently on the City's website; and perceived human error in referencing the maps. Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 29 City Attorney Anderson clarified that the Comprehensive Plan he had reviewed and that submitted to and accepted by the Metropolitan Council included all the maps as referenced in the appendix. Mr. Sands reviewed his written comments in detail; and proceeded to discuss policy issues related to the PUDB-6 Comprehensive Plan Designation. Mayor Klausing asked Mr. Sands to focus on the issue currently be- fore the City Council, whether the AUAR Update was compete and accurate and whether the City Council should authorize its distribu- tion to the commenting agencies fora 20-day public comment and agency review period. Considerable further discussion ensued. Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of Mr. Sands' assertions; and opined that the draft AUAR was not accurate and complete, providing rationale for her opinion: disputing retail designation and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan (Chart on page 9) and existing service uses; need to include public comment and environmental concerns (i.e., discussion of TCE contamination; Phase II documents included and/or referenced in the document); no discussion on comments from the DNR; no inclusion of Twin Lakes litigation comments on existing wildlife habitat and no identification of scenic views or water quality monitoring for Langton Lake; no inclusion of mitigation strategies for traffic; and or no provision for one scenario with no retail. Mayor Klausing opined that the whole purpose of the AUAR was to plan for the worst; to determine what can and cannot be mitigated; and to have the worst case scenario information available for future deci- sion-making, and noted that retail presented the largest impact to the service mix. Public Comment Dick Houck, 1133 Roselawn Avenue Mr. Houck clarified that he was not opposed to development of this property; however, noted that he wanted to see it developed as he per- Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 30 ceived that the majority of the City understood that potential devel- opment. Mr. Houck referenced the Comprehensive Plan and minutes of City Council action from June 26, 2001, as he printed it out from the City's website and opined that he didn't see anywhere that it refer- enced more than one scenario. Mr. Houck expressed frustration that he had not received a copy of Mr. Squires' legal opinion, even though he had requested one. Mr. Houck opined that he found no evidence that the AUAR was complete and accurate when it didn't comply with the City's own Comprehensive Plan. City Attorney responded to comments of Mr. Squires' legal opinion, and clarified that opinion; addressing the fact that the Master Plan document acted upon by the City Council by resolution at their June 26, 2001 meeting included reference to nine (9) maps, including the one showing the different scenarios. Mr. Anderson further reviewed actual language of court rulings and their specific ruling, along with the Court. citing that while the Comprehensive Plan didn't recommend big box retail, it didn't prohibit it. Additional discussion ensued. Ihlan moved, [Kough seconded,] addition of another scenario to the AUAR Update that didn't include any large scale shopping centers or big box retail uses. Councilmember Kough questioned the procedure of including this scenario. Councilmember Pust concurred with Councilmember Kough's obser- vations opining that a no-retail scenario should be part of a new Com- prehensive Plan and not applicable for this AUAR Update. Council- member Pust further opined that the purpose of the AUAR was to provide a ceiling or worst case scenario for the area to allow a deter- mination of all environmental degradations; and further opined that the City already knew that such a scenario was less than the worse thing, with less traffic, less environmental impacts, and requiring less mitigation. Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 31 Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her support for brainstorming a no- retail scenario. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan. Nays: Pust; [Kough]; Roe and Klausing. Motion failed. Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10547 enti- tled, "A Resolution Authorizing the Distribution of Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Update Document for the Twin Lakes Business Park;" determining that the document is complete and accurate, and authorizing its distribution to the organizations on the Environmental Quality Board's (EQB') Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) distribution list for a twenty (20) day review and objection period; amended to include an Appendix "G" that would in- clude public comment and staff responses received to-date, as well as the August 3 and August 24, 2007 written City Attorney opinions, and meeting minutes from tonight's meeting. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: Ihlan. Motion carried. e. Update -The City Council Subcommittee regarding the City Manager Performance Evaluation Process will Provide an Update Councilmember Pust advised that she and Councilmember Roe, as the Council Subcommittee, met with City Manager Malinen to discuss options for his performance evaluation. Councilmember Pust advised that all parties had agreed on a limited 360 degree evaluation process involving certain Department Heads and Advisory Commission chairs, with the composition of that group still under discussion. Councilmember Pust further noted that the City Manager was review- ing goals identified in the City Manager contract. Councilmember Pust advised that the subcommittee would be reviewing written tem- plates for suggested use in evaluating City Manager Malinen, and hoped to finalize them by next week, for review and consideration by the full City Council. Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 32 f. Reappointments -Housing and Redevelopment Authority Reap- pointments Roe moved, Pust seconded, approval of the Mayor's reappointment of William Majerus and reappointment of Dean Maschka to serve re- spective five (5) year terms on the Housing and Redevelopment Au- thority beginning September 24, 2007 to September 23, 2012. Councilmember Ihlan referenced Mr. Maschka's comments at the August 20, 2007 City Council Study Session that the Council consider disbanding the HRA if not planning to effectively use them. Coun- cilmember Ihlan spoke in support of such disbanding, opining that she was concerned that they were an unelected body with levy authority; and further opined that it was not good public policy to not seek inter- est in serving from other members of the community prior to reap- pointment of commissioners. Councilmember Kough opined that he had only one objection related to how the HRA spent some funds not specifically related to housing needs, by hiring consultants. Councilmember Kough noted that he supported an open appointment process; he noted that the Mayor was exercising his privilege for appointing existing members and ques- tioned if Mayor Klausing has sought interest from other interested citizens. Mayor Klausing advised that he was attempting to follow the process adopted unanimously at a previous meeting by the City Council with both Mr. Majerus and Mr. Maschka expressing a willingness to con- tinue serving on the HRA. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: Ihlan. Motion carried. Due to time constraints, the following item was not discussed. g. Discussion -Council Discussion on the City Manager's Recom- mended Budget At 10:03 p.m., HIausing moved, Roe seconded, extending the curfew time to complete discussion of this item only. Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 33 Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. 11. Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings a. Councilmember Ihlan expressed grave concern that there had yet again been no discussion on the proposed budget and the next meeting on September 10, 2007, would require action on anot-to-exceed pre- liminary tax levy. Councilmember Ihlan opined that the City Council needed to clear the entire agenda on September 10th to deal with only the 2008 budget and expressed frustration that there had not been more substantive discussion on the budget to this point. Council- member Ihlan further opined that the City needed to control their meeting agenda and needed to postpone Northwestern College discus- sion for a future meeting. Discussion included limiting discussion and repetition on land use is- sues; and public notification of agenda items in advance, and ultimate removal. Ihlan moved that the only substantive item for the September 10, 2007 regular Council agenda be the 2008 Budget and Preliminary Levy. Councilmember Kough suggested that the Budget discussion be the first item of business. Councilmember Roe suggested that the September 10, 2007 meeting allocate 1-1/2 hours to discuss the Northwestern College PUD Amendment, and 1-1/2 hours for the 2008 Budget and Preliminary Levy as a tentative agenda. City Attorney Anderson clarified that the City Council was not legally required to deal with the Northwestern College PUD at their next meeting. Councilmember Ihlan opined that there were many substantive rea- sons to continue or extend the Northwestern College PUD, which she would have addressed tonight if the item had not been removed from the agenda. Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 34 Additional discussion ensued regarding land use review provisions and the timetable for approval or denial, based on the clock stopping for environmental review, and now extended to September 21, 2007, with one additional extension available. Councilmember Roe opined that the PLTD application should remain on the agenda at this time. Roe moved, Klausing seconded, directing staff to prepare the Septem- ber 10, 2007 meeting agenda allocating 1-1 /2 hours to discuss the 2008 Budget and Preliminary Levy; and allocating 1-1 /2 hours for discussion of the Northwestern College PUD Amendment, in that or- der. Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her opinion that Northwestern Col- lege did not set• the City Council agenda; and further opined that it was a mistake for the City Council not to set aside the entire meeting agenda for discussion ofbudget-related issues. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: Ihlan. Motion carried. b. Councilmember Kough asked that the prairie grass issue adjacent to City Hall be included on a future agenda. Council consensus was to put the item on a future Study Session agenda. City Manager Malinen advised that staff had information that may prove helpful to that discussion. 12. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 10:08 p.m. Minutes of 8/27/07 Regular City Council Meeting Page 35 ATTEST: Willia J. Malinen, City Manager C ig D. Klausing, M or y .., ~~" B Page 1 of 2 Margaret Driscoll ~ (a ~ ~ ~ From: Mark Rancone [mrancone@roseprop.com] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 3:44 PM To: *RVCouncil Subject: FW: Proposed Twin Lakes Moratorium From: Mark Rancone Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 3:37 PM To: 'Craig Klausing'; 'criag.klausing@ci.roseville.mn.us'; 'tammy.pust@ci.roseville.mn.us'; 'amy.ihlan@ci.roseville.mn.us'; 'dan.roe@ci.roseville.mn.us'; 'tom.kough@ci.roseville.mn.us' Cc: 'bill.malinen@ci.roseville.mn.us; 'mike.darrow@ci.roseville.mn.us' Subject: Proposed Twin Lakes Moratorium Mayor/Councilmembers: Among other issues relating to the Twin Lakes redevelopment area, we note that you have on tonight's Council Meeting agenda a discussion of an Interim Development Ordinance (Twin Lakes Moratorium) as put forth by Councilmember Ihlan. As a significant property owner of land parcels within the area, Roseville Properties, we are opposed to any further delay in our ability to redevelop our land. As your packet of information reminds you, there was a moratorium in place that specifically addressed points "a, b & c" of the "Potential Findings" points as recently as two years ago. While the specific project has been abandoned, there was significant public input -from the nine month Stakeholder's Panel to years of public comment from a variety of citizens -during the six years of development of our Twin Lakes project. What continues to be irritating is the continued call by Councilmember Ihlan as outlined in point"d", suggesting that the City request development proposals for land that they do not own. What would give a City that right? Ryan Companies had the ability to put together a master plan for the remaining redevelopment area for many years and did not. When two Roseville based companies, Roseville Properties and Rottlund Companies took the initiative, millions of their own dollars, and six years of development time -the timeframe it takes to assemble the number of parcels for a large plan such as Twin Lakes -the delays resulting from the flawed approval process of the City of Roseville -not the substance of the plan (see the Court of Appeals decision) rendered a viable mixed- use redevelopment unfeasible. At this point, there are two pending applications, along with the potential FBI building on the Dorso parcel (consistent with the use planned for in our Twin Lakes proposal, by the way). We have also been diligently pursuing options on our land, consistent with land uses allowed by the 2001 Comprehensive Plan that governs the area. Anew moratorium could jeopardize the feasibility of these projects and increase the burden of all existing landowners for another indefinite period. Unless the City proposes anear-term purchase of all the parcels at market prices, which would give the City the legal ability to "create an open market call for qualified master developers", or if the City is prepared to use its condemnation powers to acquire private property, the reality is that you may not have any choices other than to allow current landowners to pursue their individual opportunities. Roseville Properties would be a willing seller to the City or any other party at an acceptable market value if that buyer can provide a bonafide purchase offer in the next 60 days. Councilmember Ihlan's suggested moratorium is yet another example of her attempt to delay the redevelopment of the Twin Lakes area in any way that may benefit the City long term if it is not consistent with her personal vision for the area. At times, good governance for all requires compromise from personal agendas. It is time to move that area of Roseville, the City's gateway from the west, into tax producing land consistent with the realities of the 8/29/2007 Page 2 of 2 marketplace that while not ideal to some is acceptable to most. A new moratorium would further penalize us and hinder our ability to try and recover some of the loss associated with our Twin Lakes dream. Respectfully, Mark Rancone Mazk E. Rancone COM Vice President Roseville Properties Management Co, 2575 N. Fairview, Suite 250 Roseville, MN 55]13 651-638-0864 (Direct) mcr~~roscpr~~p.cgm 8/29/2007 Bench Handout 08/27/07 ROSEVILLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AL SANDS COMMENTS- AUGUST 27, 2007: I. PROPOSED TWIN LAKES AUAR" UPDATE" IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING TWIN LAKES MASTER PLAN. II. POLICY ISSUES RELATED TO THE P.U.D./B6 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION I. CITIZEN SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED TWIN LAKES AUAR: The Twin Lakes area is between Cleveland on the west, Co. Rd. D on the North, Co. Rd C. on the South, and the Byerly's shopping complex on the East. Roseville began re- studying the Twin Lakes Area in 2000. By January of 2001, a master plan emerged from a group of options included in what is called "Map 3". That plan, together with a "big box option", was the basis for an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) study which produced a draft AUAR in April, 2001. The purpose of an AUAR is to predetermine the environmental impacts of the project. On June 26, 2001, the City Council adopted the proposed Twin Lakes comprehensive map to P.U.D./B6, the"Master Plan", and the related AUAR, and amended the Twin Lakes Comprehensive Plan so as to include them in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommended that the Council choose either scenario 1, or scenario la (big box option) for the Master Plan, but not both. Council chose scenario 1, excluding retail. There was apparent consensus that scenario # 1 was the Twin Lakes Master and Comprehensive Plan throughout the next five years. During that time, Roseville Properties started discussions with the city in 2002. Later, in 2004, a group of developers formed, including Roseville Properties and Rottlund, a home builder, into"Twin Lakes LLC". They presented a master land use plan with significant retail and housing, but little office. Council approved their plan in January 2005. The Friends of Twin Lakes filed suit, claiming it wasn't consistent with the Twin Lakes Master Plan, and so need four council votes to move ahead, among other charges. In August, 2006 the Appeals Court ruled against the City, confirming the need to have four votes to insert the Rottlund plan into the Comprehensive and Master Plans, and the project stopped. A new development director, John Stazk came on boazd about that time (the previous development director retired). Mr. Stazk proceeded to re define and re invent 2001 Twin Lakes Master Plan by proclaiming that there are other operational scenarios(options 2, 3, and 4) as shown in a "Map 3" that is included in the appendix to the Twin Lakes Master Plan document. The City is now claiming that the Twin Lakes Master Plan is really a "mixed use" plan with many plan options available, and it is not limited to the scenario 1 that the Council adopted on June 26, 2001, as we thought all along. The purpose of the remaining discussion in this memorandum is to refute Mr. Stazks azguments, as further described in a Memo to Mike Darrow, the Interim Community Development Director, from Jamie Radel, dated August 3, 2007. Mr. Stark's November 1.2006 Re rt to the Planning Commission: .."The 2001 Master Plan also includes four future land-use mans (options 23. and 4 and the Twin Lakes AUAR Future Land Use Scenario"..... Mr. Stazk's conclusions rely on his opinion that including Map 3 in the appendix gives those options 2,3,and 4 equal footing with scenario 1, as described in pages 9-11 of the Master plan. This is simply not true for the following reasons: 1. Inclusion of Map 3 in the appendix to the printed Twin Lakes Master Plan is a clerical mistake by staff. The adopted Twin Lakes Master Plan attached to the June 26, 2001 Council Packet specifically excludes Map 3 from the approved Twin Lakes Master Plan. It is not there. See the Council Packet for 6/26/01. 2.Other maps of historical interest are also included in the appendix, e.g., the 1988 Land Use Plan. No special significance can be attributed to their inclusion in the appendix to the Twin Lakes Master Plan. 3. Mr. Stazk's opinion would permit large amounts of retail as being consistent with the Twin Lakes Master Plan, while on pages 9-11 of the Twin Lakes Master Plan, no retail is permitted in the Master Plan. Big Box is specifically recommended against. 2 4. The Twin Lakes approved AUAR, included in the Twin Lakes Comprehensive plan, only studied two scenarios-scenario 1, which the council adopted as an amendment to the Twin Lakes Master Plan, and scenario 1 a, which the Council specifically rejected on June 26,2001. There is no analysis of any other scenario(s) or "option(s)". 5. Mr. Stazk refers to a letter he requested from former development director Dennis Welsch that conflicts with the actions actually taken by Mr. Welsch. On June 26, 2001, Mr. Welsch recommended the Council adopt only one plan, scenario 1. Actions speak louder than words. The June 26, 2001 Minutes Ms. Radel's description of the June 26, 2001 appeazs accurate, and I see no conflict with my position that the Council adopted and amended the Twin Lakes Master plan .with the scenario #1. RESOLUTION 9904 This resolution describes the Comprehensive Plan Man Designation from "B" and "I" to "BP" for "Business Pazk". It goes on to state that an "Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) and Mitigation Plan have been prepazed and reviewed, linking the Twin Lakes Master Plan to the Twin Lakes AUAR approved June 26, 2001. The AUAR and Mitigation Plan approved on June 26, 2001 only studied scenario 1, and scenario 1 a. No other options were included in the AUAR study. I also point out that Resolution 9904 refers to and thereby incorporates into the resolution the following documents: • "The Twin Lakes Business Park PF 3232 ". Planning File 3232 has some 1700 pages of planning and conclusions as to what constitutes the Twin Lakes Master Plan. • "the Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council, of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, based on findings in the 3 sta, f, j`'report dated January 12, 2000. " Note: The date reference is inaccurate. The real date should read January of 2001. All of the planning commissions recommendations in their report are an integral part of Resolution 9904. • The AUAR and Mitigation Plan referred to in resolution 9904 only studied scenario 1, and scenario la. No other options were considered or studied. • "The City council, based on the findings of the Twin Lakes Master Plan and consistency with the adopted City of Roseville Plan (as revised January, 2001) hereby approves etc. " The revised City of Roseville Plan as revised January 2001 refers to scenario 1 only. It is a combination of options 2 and 3 in now infamous Map 3. Map 3 was thereafter irrelevant. Staff Report to City Council 6/26/01 Ms. Radel claims that the City Council did not act on the former development director's recommendation that the Council approve Scenario 1 (as opposed to scenario la with retail component. I assert that the Council's minutes aze evidence they did: "Mastel moved, Maschka seconded, by resolution, to approve the final amendment of the Comprehensive Plan for the Twin Lakes Business Pazk~ azea from "Business" and "Industrial" to "Business Park" as described in the Twin Lakes Master Plan dated June 26, 2001 and as amended by Council with Scenario #1. The amendment shall also include the findings of the AUAR and mitigation plan. " Roll call, Ayes: Goedeke, Mastel, Klausing, Maschka, and Kysylycryn. Nays: none ABSENCE OF WRITTEN LEGAL OPINIONS Several weeks ago I met with the city manager, Bill Malinen, and requested he obtain some legal opinions, at least from our regular city attorney(s) (Scott Anderson and Jay Squires) ,and perhaps the development attorneys (Krass Monroe) and/or our defense attorney, Mr. Reuvers . Mr. Malinen said he would ask and get back to me. He hasn't gotten back to me on this issue. I must assume no written legal opinion on the "new" 4 master plan concept created by John Stark exists. If any written legal opinion exists, it should be a part of this analysis. CONCLUSION The Twin Lakes Master Plan, as adopted June 26, 2001, and as evidenced by the Master Plan attached to the June 26, 2001 minutes, and the Twin Lakes AUAR adopted by Council by on the same date, and also included in the amendment to the Twin Lakes Master Plan, all point to there being only one approved and AUAR studied scenario, scenario #1. Map 3 and other options are "ineffective" because of the actions of the planning commission and Council. They are not mentioned in Resolution 9904. Accepting Mr. Stark's interpretation of the Twin Lakes Master Plan would also require us to conclude that: • the Appeals Court Decision on the Twin Lakes LLC proposal is meaningless. • the City and the Developers were wrong in stopping the project. Under Mr. Stark's interpretation, the proposal probably would be acceptable, without any amendment to the Twin Lakes Comprehensive Plan being necessary. Contemplate for a moment what ramifications that might bring up. For all of the above reasons, the proposed AUAR is inconsistent with the actual Twin Lakes Master Plan, and the 2001 AUAR imbedded in the existing Twin Lakes Comprehensive Plan. (Go to next page for discussion of policy issues related to the P.U.D.B6 Comprehensive Plan designation). 5 II. POLICY ISSUES RELATED TO THE P.U.D.B6 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION. 1. When is a plan not a plan? If you have four possible scenarios, and also are willing to combine elements of one plan with the other, do you have so many possible plans that you wind up with no plan at all? Does the staff and city council majority want a comprehensive land use plan that is so vague that anything they say is consistent therewith gets approved by them? In Mr. Stark's updated AUAR, there is no master pla~he merely shows a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Map as being the "master plan". 2. Shouldn't the Comprehensive Plan be "updated" simultaneously with the AUAR update? Staff claims consistency with the existing comprehensive plan, but to get there they re-defined the existing Master Plan to their liking. 3. Is the P.U.D. B6 process a fair one? Consider the land owners in Twin Lakes. What property rights to they have? The city apparently wants to attract another big bucks master developer, instead of incremental projects (as per a newspaper quote of Mayor Klausing). Are current land owners (in phase 1) in any bargaining position with prospective buyers or developers? Meanwhile, what can they do with their land? It's been unused for the most part for over a year, and cannot go back to its original use. They must await some future developer making an offer to buy. That could be many years. 6 Consider a future developer. What can he do if the city council majority doesn't like his project? How much money does he have to put on the table? How big must he be? He has no plan to give him direction. He will have to curry favor with staff and Council to get his project approved, and to get the TIF he is seeking. Mixed use Means whatever the Council says it means. The city gets the driver's seat. While they have no investment, and own no land in the target area, they dictate what they want. For example, the City wanted a Twin Lakes Parkway built that would cost millions---yet they wanted the developers to do it and pay for it. The city gets all the rights to determine the project but doesn't own any property, or invest any money. Is this fair to the land owners and developers?? 4. Does the failure of the Twin Lakes Planning to produce any results in sia years call into question the feasibility of these large scale, 170 acre schemes, and the entire related P.U.D. process? Would we be better off to return to a zoning ordinance process and zones that really means something definite to each area? And forget about micro managing development? I think we know what's the best use for most of the 172 acres in the Twin Lakes Master Plan. We know we want housing around the lake and park for quietude, and office and hotels along Cleveland.. We know sub area 11 adjacent to "C" will probably be mostly retail, as it is today. I understand sub area 111 is 7 existing office, and with some new senior housing project. Why not go with the natural flow, zone the pazcels accordingly, and forget all about these grand schemes with the complicated and city-in-chazge P.U.D. process. They haven't worked in the past, and they won't work in the future. There too large scale, and require too many big bucks to do. 5. Shouldn't we be setting up programs to maintain our existing commercial taa base? I see too many boazded up buildings and "for lease" signs azound. Let's help our existing commercial property owners survive. They pay a lot of taxes and keep our house property taxes low. We can afford to work with them and give them something back. 8 Jay T. Squires Direct Fax: (612) 225-6834 jts@ratwiklaw.com Mr. William Malinen City .Manager City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113-1899 August 24, 2007 RE: AUAR Update and Comprehensive Plan Our File No. 4002(1)-0234 Dear Mr. Malinen: Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A. Over the last number of months, we have consulted with the Community Development Department on issues arising out of the Twin Lakes AUAR update process. One of these issues relates to a resident's claim that the City's Comprehensive Plan for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area allows only the parcel-by-parcel use designations reflected in "Scenario 1" contained in the 2001 AUAR document. This letter addresses that claim and summarizes the advice we have provided to staff. In June 2001, the City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment changing the land use plan designation of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area from "Business" and "Industrial" to "Business Park". The minutes of the June 26, 2001 City Council meeting indicate that the new Comprehensive Plan designation was: ...as described in the Twin Lakes Master Plan dated June 26, 2001 and as amended by the Council with the Scenario # 1.. . A resident has suggested that the above City Council meeting minutes support his conclusion that the City's Comprehensive Plan allows only the specific development plan and parcel-by-parcel use designation delineated in the 2001 AUAR Scenario 1 map. We disagree for a number of reasons. 730 Second Avenue South, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 55402 p (612) 339-0060 f (612) 339-0038 www.ratwiklaw.com Paul C. Ratwik John M. Roszak Patricia A. Maloney* Terrence J. Foy* Stephen G. Andersen** Scott T. Anderson Kevin J. Rupp Jay T. Squires*t Ann R. Goering Nancy E. Blumstein'k Joseph J. Lange] Michael J. Waldspurger* Margaret A. Skelton Amy E. Mace Isaac Kaufman Eric J. Quiring Kimberley K. Sobieck Sonya J. Guggemos Nicole L. Tuescher Jennifer J. Kruckeberg Julia H. Halbach Erin E.Ische * Also admitted in WI ** Civil Trial Specialist Certified by the MN State Bar Association t Real Property Specialist Certified by the MN State Bar Association BUG 2 7 Z~a7. Mr. Bill Malinen August 24, 2007 Page 2 Based on a review of the entire 2001 AUAR, it is clear that one key consideration grappled with by the Council at the time was the potential inclusion of a big box complex within the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. Scenario 1 and 1 a in the 2001 AUAR are identical except for the differing description of land at the northeast corner of Fairview and County Road C: Scenario 1 in the 2001 AUAR designates this area as "Hi-Tech/Flex", while Scenario 1 a designates this area as "Retail". In fact, a May 3, 2001 memo from SRF to Dennis Welsch, included in the 2001 AUAR at Appendix 3, calls out and notes this difference: ...the primary difference between scenarios [1 and la] is the substitution of the "big box" retail space on Block 6 in Scenario 1 a.. . Analyzing the resident's claim requires us to read'Jetv~~een the lines and attempt to attribute intent to the Council's action on June 26, 2001. The resident asserts the minutes suggest the Council intended to adopt the parcel-by-parcel description in Scenario 1 as the only allowable land use for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. But a more plausible conclusion, and one suggested by a review and analysis of other pertinent documents, would indicate that the Council's determination to include Scenario 1 in the 2001 Twin Lakes Master Plan simply expressed a policy judgment concerning desired development of Block 6 in the redevelopment area. Notwithstanding the above, it is unnecessary, in our judgment, to engage in speculation and interpretation of Council minutes. The resolution adopted by the Council on June 26, 2001 reflects the Comprehensive Plan designation of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. The resolution itself contains no proscriptive parcel-by-parcel land use designation. Rather, it re- classifies all parcels within the redevelopment area to BP- Business Park. In this regard, we agree with the conclusions set forth in the August 3, 2007 memo from Jamie Radel to Mike Darrow. The resident's position also ignores the fact the Twin Lakes Master Plan, adopted in its entirety by the Council on June 26, 2001, contains three other maps with alternate development scenarios reflecting potential outcomes of the BP- Business Park designation. Each of these alternate scenarios is in some respects contrary to Scenario 1. If the Council intended only one possible development scenario, as the Comprehensive Plan designation, these scenarios, which are also part of the Comprehensive Plan (as indicated by the court of appeals), are meaningless. Finally, we believe the resident's argument is inherently illogical. Historical documents consistently reference the importance of the new BP-Business Park dedication as it relates to the flexibility provided to a prospective developer to choose the blend of permissible uses within the redevelopment area, subject to Council approval. Any conclusion that the Council intended a proscriptive and limiting parcel-by-parcel land use within the redevelopment area is in our judgment entirely contradictory to the very purpose of the BP designation: flexibility. Mr. Bill Malinen August 24, 2007 Page 3 In summary, historical documents do not in our opinion support the resident's claim that the 2001 Comprehensive Plan amendment allows only "Scenario 1"uses of Twin Lakes Redevelopment properties. The 2001 AUAR, the 2001 Twin Lakes Master Plan and the June 26, 2001 Resolution changing the Comprehensive Plan designation of Twin Lakes properties to BP- Business Park all suggest a contrary conclusion: that the Comprehensive Plan BP- Business Park designation allows for a blend or mix of specific uses as proposed by a developer, and as is ultimately agreeable to the City Council. Moreover, logic does not support the resident's argument. It seems clear to us that the Council's adoption of a BP designation was intended to allow flexibility in land uses. It does not appear the Council ever intended in 2001 to adopt a Comprehensive Plan amendment for Twin Lakes properties that provided for a proscriptive parcel-by-parcel designation. I hope this provides a clear summary of our opinion on the matter discussed herein. Please call if you have questions. Please distribute this memo to Council members. It is, in essence, a summary of the advice and counsel we have provided to staff in the process of analyzing the specific resident's claim. Regards, /s~yyc~> Jay T. Squires JTS/lmj ~: io9sas Thatcher August 24, 2007 Gary Boryczka 2250 Acorn Road Roseville, MN 55113 Re: Biofiltration Trench Oak Acres Subdivision Roseville, Minnesota Dear Mr. Boryczka: C,,~.e, .,t,-= ~~~DU~ ~~~~$~ Thatcher Engineering, Inc. 3055 Old Highway 8, Suite 103 Minneapolis, MN 55418 p 612 781 2188 f G 12 781 2241 www. thatcher-eng. com Emailed to: ~rv(a~borvczka.com In accordance with your request, Thatcher Engineering Inc. ("TEI") reviewed the proposed Biofiltration Trench Plan ("Plan") to determine compliance with Roseville City Code requirements and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Best Management Practices. TEI understands that Art Mueller seeks approval of the Final Plat and Public Improvement Contract for Oak Acres, a residential subdivision that redevelops 2201 Acorn Road into a 41ot single-family residential development which includes the construction of two Biofiltration Trenches. We also understand that the Biofiltration facility will be owned, operated, maintained and cleaned by the City. We also understand that the facility will be located on private property within a City easement. We reviewed the City Code and have the following observations: 1. The Code requires that all improvements shall be in accordance with applicable City standards (Subdivision Regulations Section 1102.07.B.). However, the Code does not have specific standards for Biofiltration. 2. The Code requires that each lot created through subdivision shall be suitable for the proposed use as defined by a suitability analysis. Suitability analysis shall consider soil limitations, and sufficient information shall be submitted by the applicant for the community to make a determination of land suitability. The information shall include at least adequate soil information to determine suitability for public utilities from field investigations such as borings or other methods (Shoreland, Wetland and Storm Water Management Section 1016.23). The Biofiltration Trenches included in the Plan are public utilities since they are a vital part of stormwater management and will be owned, operated, and maintained by the City. Thus the soil information required by this section must be supplied by the applicant. Since the City has no specific standards for evaluating the design of Biofiltration trenches, we look to other recognized standards. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has published Best Management Practices (BMP) for Bioretention as a part of its Stormwater Manual dated September 2006, which it recommends that local governments follow. Most T:\Projects\Gary BoryczkaVtr to Gary 8-27-07.doc Engineering and Environmental Solutions Mr. Boryczka Page 2 engineers in Minnesota follow these standards. In situations where a permit from the MPCA is required, some of these standards are required to be followed, and the remaining standards are highly recommended or recommended. Therefore, TEI believes the City of Roseville should evaluate the proposed Oak Acres Biofiltration plan in light of the MPCA standards. Listed below are several areas where the Plan may fall short of the MPCA standards: 1. MPCA recommends that soil borings or pits be dug (in the same location and elevation as the proposed bioretention facility) to verify soil types and infiltration capacities and to determine the depth to ground water after initial soil evaluation. The minimum depth of the soil borings or pits should be five feet below the bottom elevation of the proposed bioretention practice. MPCA highly recommends that "the soil profile descriptions be recorded and include the following information for each soil horizon or layer (Source: Site Evaluation for Stormwater Infiltration, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Conservation Practice Standards, 2004): a. Thickness, in inches or decimal feet b. Mansell soil color notation c. Soil mottle or redoximorphic feature color, abundance, size and contrast d. USDA soil textural class with rock fragment modifiers e. Soil structure, grade size and shape f. Soil consistence, root abundance and size g. Soil boundary h. Occurrence of saturated soil, impermeable layers/lenses, ground water, bedrock or disturbed soil" A review of Ramsey County's website indicates the generalized soil type to be Urban Land - Kingsley Complex with 15-25% slopes over 62.5 acres. The Hydrologic Soil Group for this soil is B. However, infiltration testing is needed at each Bioretention site to verify specific soil types and infiltration capacities and determine depth to ground water. If the Bioretention facilities are constructed prior to obtaining this information, the Bioretention facilities may fail, not function properly or create higher Operation & Maintenance costs for the City. This testing is especially needed for these facilities because there is a pond about 60 feet east of the proposed facilities and the water elevation is about 3 feet above the proposed facility under-drain elevation which may mean there is seasonally saturated soils underlying the facility and the proposed location is unacceptable. Has the applicant provided the city with detailed soil boring information, as listed above, for city staff review? If not, the plan does not meet MPCA recommendations for determining soil types and infiltration capacities. Nor does it provide sufficient soil data to meet the requirements of City Code. T:\Projects\Gary BoryczkaUtr to Gary 8-27-07.doc Engineering and Environmental Solutions Mr. Boryczka Page 3 2. MPCA highly recommends that the field verification be conducted by a qualified geotechnical professional. Has the applicant provided the city with field verification results from a qualified geotechnical professional? If not, the plan does not meet MPCA recommendations because field verification has not been performed. 3. MPCA table 12.BI0.7 states that if the underlying soil infiltration performance allows the facility to drain without anunder-drain in less than 48 hours, no under-drain is necessary and the Bioretention type is an "Infiltration/Recharge Facility". The table also states that if because of the underlying soil infiltration performance, the facility will take more than 48 hours to drain, anunder-drain is needed and the Bioretention type is a "Filtration/ Partial Recharge Facility". The period of inundation is defined as the time from the high water level in the facility to 1-2 inches .above the bottom of the facility. This criterion was established to provide the following: wet-dry cycling between rainfall events; unsuitable mosquito breeding habitat; suitable habitat for vegetation; aerobic conditions; and storage for back-to-back precipitation events. The plan shows an outlet pipe that is 2 feet in elevation above the planned under-drain elevation. This elevation may be too high if the underlying soil has poor infiltration capacity. Also, when infiltration occurs in cold weather, ice can form over the top of the facility, within the soil interstices and in the overflow structure. To avoid this problem to the extent possible, the MPCA highly recommends that the facility be actively managed to keep it dry before it freezes in the late fall. This can be done with under-drainage, but not if the infiltration capacity of the underlying soil is poor. In this plan, water will not drain out of the facility by gravity because the planned under-drain flows into an outlet pipe that is 2 feet above the elevation of the plannedunder-drain. Thus, the City may have to pump out the under-drain when needed so that ice does not damage the facility. 4. MPCA states that a minimum of 3 feet of separation between the bottom of the bioretention facility and seasonally saturated soils is REQUIRED (5 feet is recommended) to maintain the hydraulic capacity of the facility and provide adequate water quality treatment. Aground water mounding analysis is recommended to verify this separation for infiltration designed bioretention facilities. Has the applicant provided the city with information regarding separation from seasonally saturated soils? If not, the plan may not meet the MPCA's requirements for separation distance. 5. MPCA states that pre-treatment is REQUIRED prior to the discharge of stormwater into a bioretention facility, to remove any sediment and fines that may result in clogging of the soils in the basin area. T:\Projects\Gary BoryczkaUtr to Gary 8-27-07.doc Engineering and Environmental Solutions Mr. Boryczka Page 4 The plan does not meet MPCA REQUIREMENTS because the plan does not include pretreatment. 6. MPCA has a Major Design Elements section for guidance on preparing vegetation and landscape management plans and an Operations and Maintenance (O & M) section for guidance preparing an O & M plan. MPCA highly recommends that deep rooted plants such as prairie grass be used, because they increase the infiltration capacity of the underlying soils. However, infiltration facilities can be covered with permeable topsoil and planted with grass to match the surrounding landscape. If regular grass is installed, the underlying soils will not receive the increased infiltration capacity provided by deep rooted plants and the City's O & M costs may be higher. A vegetation plan, landscape management plan or O & M plan was not available during our review. TEI understands that a landscape plan is required as a condition for final plat approval. TEI believes the City of Roseville should carefully consider the type of vegetation to be installed and who will maintain the vegetation in the Bioretention facility, which is to be on private property in a city easement. The Plan shows that sand, salt and debris from the street will be deposited on top of the facility by stormwater that will flow down the proposed concrete spillway. If grass is installed, the street debris will create maintenance problems for the home owners because it will be going onto their yard. The city should consider this impact during their review. 7. The MPCA has other recommendations for infiltration practices that the plan may not meet including: a. Impervious area construction should be completed and pervious areas established with dense and healthy vegetation prior to introduction of stormwater into an infiltration facility. b. Infiltration facilities should be designed to handle the smaller, more frequent rainfall events. Stormwater associated with the larger rainfall events should bypass these facilities (off-line configuration where water quality volume is diverted (flow splitting) to the infiltration facilities). The plan has no bypass; all stormwater enters the facility. 8. MPCA states that minimum setback requirements are REQUIRED by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) for the design and location of infiltration practices. The plan does not meet MDH REQUIREMENTS because it has the infiltration practice within 10 feet of a property line and it may be too close to other facilities. T:\Projects\Gary Boryczka\]tr to Gary 8-27-07.doc Engineering and Environmental Solutions Mr. Boryczka Page 5 In summary, because the Roseville City Code does not have specific standards for Biofiltration, we look to the Best Management Practices for Bioretention published by MPCA as a part of its Stormwater Manual dated September 2006, which it recommends that local governments follow. The Plan submitted for Oak Acres may not meet the recommendations and requirements of the MPCA, particularly in the areas of soil infiltration capacity, pretreatment of discharge, vegetation plan and setback requirements. It also may not meet the requirements of City Code Section 1016.23 which requires an applicant to submit sufficient information regarding soil limitations so that the City can determine whether each lot in a subdivision is suitable for the proposed purpose. If the applicant has failed to provide sufficient soil data necessary to complete a full review of the Bioretention facility, TEI believes that the City should deny the plan as submitted until the applicant can prove that the Bioretention facility meets City Code and MPCA standards. Very truly ours, Steven W. Thatcher, P.E. Email: sthatcher(a~thatcher-eng.com T:\Projects\Gary Boryczka\ltr to Gary 8-27-07.doc Engineering and Environmental Solutions Bench Handout Agust 27, 2007 J ay Squires August 24, 2007 Legal Opinion Regarding the AUAR Update and Comprehensive Plan Commentary by Al Sands I am the resident Jay Squires is referring to that claims the City's Comprehensive Plan allows only the specific development plan delineated in the 2001 (Master Plan) and the AUAR Scenario 1 map. I wish to make the following observations regarding his opinion letter: NATURE OF THE MASTER PLAN Mr. Squires states that "The resolution itself contains no proscriptive land use designation" ,and then refers to Jamie Radel's memo which relys on the Master Plan which "contains three other maps with alternate development scenarios reflecting potential outcomes of the BP-Business Park designation". Mr. Squires, and perhaps Jamie Radel also, have incorrect information on the true Twin Lakes Master Plan adopted by Council on June 26, 2001, as attached to the council packet that date: Map 3 was not a part of the Twin Lakes Master Plan-it is simply not there. Please review the s Twin Lakes Master Plan attached to the Council 's packet for June 26, 2001. There are a number of maps included in the appendix to the Twin Lakes Master Plan, including a 1988 land use map. No particular significance can be attributed to Map 3 being in the appendix for historical purposes. RESIDENT'S ARGUMENT INHERENTLY ILLOGICAL Mr. Squires argues my position would limit the flexibility of the Twin Lakes Master Plan. Not true. The Council is free, on a super majority vote of four councilpersons, to amend the existing master plan at any time. The issue all along is the Council did not have the required votes to do so. The requirement for four votes in changing a comprehensive plan is to make sure it has the necessary support. I ask Mr. Squires needs to review his opinion in the light of the above information.