The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC_Minutes_2007_0813City of ~~~ -~~ Minnesota, USA Regular City Council Meeting Minutes City Hall Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Monday, August 13, 2007 1. Call Roll Mayor Klausing reconvened in Open Session and called to order the Rose- ville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone. Mayor Klausing thanked the audience and those watching at home for their patience in tonight's meeting start, noting that the Council had been meeting in closed Executive Session. (Voting and Seating Order for August: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klaus- ing) City Manager Bill Malinen was unable to attend due to a family death, and Finance Director Chris Miller served in his place. City Attorney Scott Anderson was also present. 2. Approve Agenda Mayor Klausing, at the suggestion of staff, and with City Council consensus, moved recognition of the Roseville Fire Department Explorer Post 547 up on the agenda. Councilmember Ihlan questioned if anyone was present in the audience to comment on any land use items listed on tonight's Consent Agenda. No one appeared to speak. Finance Director Miller advised that staff was requesting removal of Con- sent Agenda item 7.i entitled, "Adopt Resolution Extending Working Hours for AMC Rosedale Center 14 Theatre Entry Plaza Vestibule Addition," to allow for the required Public Hearing, as had been noticed accordingly by staff through published and mailed notice. With City Council consensus, Mayor Klausing moved this item to 8.a. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 2 Ma or Klausing added as Item 8.b, and with City Council unc les closed Ex- y urchase, as a result of the Crty Co on a proposed property p ecutive Session held earlier this evening. The agenda moved forward as amended. 5, Recognitions, Donations, Communications a, Recognition -Recognition of Roseville Fire D lorer Competition r Post 547 for Victories at the National Fire E p Chiefs Greg Peterson, one of Roseville Fire Department's Deputy provided a brief summary of the Fire Department's Fire Explorer Post Chief Peterson advised program started in March of 2000. Deputy that members and advisors met weekly to train youth (ages 14 - 20) in a wide variety of fire, rescue and medical skills. this past June, seven members of Deputy Chief Peterson advised that, the Post and two advisors competed at the National Fire Explorer competition in Champaign, IL, with 700 Explorers presenting posts throughout the United States competing in 14 teams and individual events. Deputy Chief Peterson noted that Explorers atte C m ron Gasaway, cluded: Ryan Buelow, TOand TimePi ha. Deputy Chief Peterson ad- Jeff Hoff, Noah Ciernla vised the Roseville team of Cameron Gasaway, Jeu f HofOf7No° pet ng nia and Tim Picha earned a third place victory o teams in a "room search" event. Deputy Chief Peterson further ad- vised that Explorer Tim Picha took first place honors out of 700 indi- viduals who competed in the "one-person CPR" event. Deputy Chief Peterson noted that the post wasHod b AdJI NeisGAn- Peterson, Bill Chandler, Rich Gasaway, Greg g, drew Chandler, Kristi Karel, Alex Crofford and Bill Buelow. Trophies were displayed, and Mayor Klausing, on behalf of the City Council, staff and citizens, publicly recognized this notable accom- plishment of the Roseville Fire Department Explorer Post and the dedication of the advisors who volunteer their time. Mayor Klausing personally thanked the Explorers, and their advisors, for representing Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 3 the City of Roseville so well, comments that were followed by a round of applause from all. Councilmembers personally congratu- lated the Explorers, and recognized them, followed by a group photo of all with the City Council. Councilmember Pust and Mayor Klausing encouraged Fire Chief Rich Gasaway to expand on how youth could become involved in the pro- gram. Chief Gasaway advised that the Roseville Fire Explorers program was open to all youth, ages 14 - 20 years old; that they didn't have to be Roseville residents to apply; that the group met most Sunday evenings at Roseville Fire Station #2 (located by the City water tower) from 6:00 - 9:00 p.m. summer evenings, and 6:00 - 8:00 p.m. during the school year; and encouraged interested youth and/or advisors to con- tact the City Fire Administration phone number at 792-7309, or check out the Fire and/or Police Department's websites. Chief Gasaway ad- vised that further information on the Explorer program was available on the website: www.learningforlife.org. 3. Public Comment Mayor Klausing called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. a. Al Sands, 2612 Aldine Mr. Sands opined that he was not satisfied with the Class B form of government in Roseville; further opining that staff was too dominant over the City Council. Mr. Sands provided six bench handouts enti- tled, "What's Wrong with Roseville's Government?;" an "Organiza- tional Chart of Roseville," with personal comments "In Theory;" "Roseville's Real Organizational Chart;" and comments that there was no room for citizens to be involved in their government under this scenario; "Forms of City Government in Minnesota;" "Changing from One Plan to Another;" and "Class B" by Population" cities in Minne- sota. Mr. Sands displayed, expanded upon and provided personal comment on each handout. Councilmember Kough and Mr. Sands held a brief discussion; and Mayor Klausing requested that, if Councilmember Kough were inter- Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 4 ested in pursuing this item, he bring it up for future Council discus- sion as an agenda item. b. John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N Victoria Street Mr. Kysylyczyn provided his personal comments on the discussion held by Mr. Sands. Mr. Kysylyczyn provided three bench handouts entitled: "[Untitled]: " An apparent quote from `Council member Craig Klausing, August 6, 2007';" "[Untitled] "Time Code People Speaking/Time Speaking" de- tailing public comments from the August 6, 2007 Special Council meeting; and "So how does public comment go 45 minutes?" Mr. Kysylyczyn displayed, expanded upon and provided personal comment on each handout. 4. Council Communications, Reports and Announcements a. Mayor Klausing recognized the recently-held "Gus Macker" national basketball event at the OVAL, and thanked staff and volunteers for their involvement, citing the positive comments he'd heard about the event. Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke provided photos from the event, new to the community and the OVAL, and thanked the Roseville Visitor's Association (RVA) for being instrumental in bringing the event to the community, as well as thanking staff and volunteers for their superb management of the event. Mr. Brokke also thanked the City's Police and Fire Departments for their assistance, and adjacent neighbors who, during such a massive event as this, dis- played their cooperation and patience with neighborhood disruptions due to increased traffic and parking issues. b. Councilmember Pust thanked the City's Police and Fire Departments for their extensive "rounds" during the recent National Night Out and their efforts in building community relationships. 6. Approve Minutes a. Minutes -Approve Minutes of 8/6/07 Special Meeting Pust moved, Roe seconded, approval of the minutes of the August 6, 2007 Special Meeting as amended. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 5 Corrections: Item 4.a entitled, "I-35W Bridge Collapse;" ^ Page 11, Line 35 - 37 (Roe) Delete entire sentence, "r'^„r°~'~°-~'~°-- n^° ~••^^ ~+°a +~°+ ~~; ^ Page 12, Line 8 (Roe) Correct first sentence to read: "Councilmember Pust [E~ Sb~.J {.1 Vll l ~~S-ite;] [suggested that pictures of the I-35W bridge collapse be made available by Chief Gasaway on the Roseville City website for public review;] and in an effort to award..." Item 6.a entitled, "Consider Adopting an Ordinance Rezoning 2750 Snelling Avenue Frontage Road for TOLD Development" ^ Page 15, Line 21 (Roe) Ms. Sundry advised, when asked by Councilmember Roe that pro- posed grocery store being requested was substantially-~arge~ smaller at 14,000 square feet than the vacant Rainbow site at 45,000 439A square feet. Mayor Klausing sought advice from City Attorney Anderson regard- ing individual Councilmembers mailing corrections to staff so techni- cal corrections could be made to the minutes before Council meetings. Mayor Klausing questioned if this would cause any concerns with Open Meeting Law provisions. Mayor Klausing sought advice from City Attorney Anderson regard- ing individual Councilmembers mailing corrections to staff so techni- cal corrections City Attorney Anderson advised that, as long as those communica- tions were included in the Council packet, and discussed during an open meeting, this would be a permissible practice. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 6 7. Consider Consent Agenda At the request of Mayor Klausing, Finance Director Chris Miller briefly re- viewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda. a. Check Register -Approve Check Register Councilmember Ihlan identified several items that staff had allocated for payment through Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District No. 17 for professional and/or legal services, and for the AUAR Update. Councilmember Ihlan noted the recent City Council-majority ap- proved settlement agreement with former developers, Twin Lakes LLC that would preclude recovery by the City of Eminent Domain or related future expenses. Councilmember Ihlan questioned if it was the intent that TIF District No. 17 was going to be the source for these payments. Finance Director Miller advised that these were all TIF-eligible ex- penses, thus staff was allocating them accordingly. Mr. Miller noted, however, that alternative funding sources would be needed, given the risk that the district may not generate anticipated funds. Roe moved, Pust seconded, approval of the following claims and pay- ments as presented. ACH Pa ents $1,446,592.99 47868-48280 627,582.40 Total $2,074,175.39 Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. b. Business Licenses -Approve Business Licenses Roe moved, Pust seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one year, for the following applicants: A licantlLocation T e of License JoAnne Lorenz @ Stephens Hair Salon Massage Therapist 1125 W Count Road B Dandy Amusements InYI Inc. @ Amusement Device Rosedale 14 AMC Theater Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 7 Brandon Palmer @ Mind Body & Soul Massage Therapist 1740 Lexin ton Avenue M.T. Restaurants d/b/a Joe Senser's Sports Grill Pool/Billiards and Bar, 2350 Cleveland Avenue Amusement Device Colleen and Company Massage Therapy 3092 Lexin ton Avenue Establishment Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. c. 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 General Re air Service Re lace check valve Booster Station $ 7,277.40 Telemet Controls SCADA s stem conversion 49,855.00 General Re air Service Hardware for SCADA s stem conversion 49,245.00 Cushman Motor Co. Re lace ark and trail maintenance vehicle 88,169.22 Municipal Emer enc Services Replace 25 sets of fire turnout gear 39.825.00 Cinder's Landsca in Install B-Dale Bocce Ball courts 10,595.93 Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and .Klausing. Nays: None. d. Set Public Hearing - Set a Public Hearing for 8/27/07 for an On- Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License for ERJ Dining IV, LLC, d/b/a Chili's Grill and Bar at 1840 W County Road B-2 Roe moved, Pust seconded, scheduling a public hearing for Monday, August 27, 2007, for the On-Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor Li- cense for ERJ Dining IV, LLC d/b/a Chili's Grill & Bar. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. e. Gambling Premises Permit Renewal -Approve Renewal of a Gambling Premises Permit for the VFW at 1145 Woodhill Drive Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 8 Roe moved, Pust seconded approving the renewal application for VFW Post 7555 to conduct lawful gambling activities at 1145 Woodhill Drive in Roseville, for the license term of two years, ending September 30, 2009, contingent upon the successful completion of the required background checks. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. f. Accept Grant -Approve Acceptance of 2007/08 Safe and Sober Grant Funding Roe moved, Pust seconded, accepting grant funds from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety to receive funds for the 2007/08 Safe & Sober grant program, estimating that the City of Roseville's portion of the grant funds will be approximately $20,000. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. g. Resolution - Adopt a Resolution to Award Bid to Veit & Com- pany for 2007 Sanitary Sewer Main Lining project Councilmember Kough questioned how the City Council could ap- prove acompany without knowing whether they were reputable or not. Finance Director Miller assured Councilmember Kough that staff would not recommend a company without staff investigating the com- pany's references and previous work experience and reputation before making such recommendation. Mr. Miller advised that, at the Coun- cil's direction, staff could make note in the future to include this addi- tional information in Requests for Council Action. Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10531 enti- tled, "Resolution Awarding Bids for 2007 Sanitary Sewer Main Lin- ing;" to the lowest responsible bidder for the work, Veit & Company, Inc. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 9 Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. h. Resolution - Adopt a Resolution Declaring Costs for Projects to be Assessed in 2007 and ordering Preparation of Assessment Rolls for Projects P-02-16; P-05-06; P-06-02; and P-06-12 Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10532 enti- tled, "Resolution Relating to Improvements, P-02-16 County Road C Reconstruction Project -Phase I, Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment Roll." Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10533 enti- tled, "Resolution Relating to Improvements, P-OS-06 S Owasso Boulevard Reconstruction Project, Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment Roll." Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10534 enti- tled, "Resolution Relating to Improvements, P-06-02 Roselawn Ave- nue Reconstruction Project, Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Order- ing Preparation of Proposed Assessment Roll." Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10535 enti- tled, "Resolution Relating to Improvements, P-06-12 County Road C Reconstruction Project -Phase II, Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment Roll." Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 10 Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. j. Encroachment Agreement -Approve Encroachment Agreement for Ann and Hoa Duc Tran at 296 S McCarrons Boulevard Roe moved, Pust seconded, approval of an Encroachment Agreement between the City of Roseville and fee property owners, Ann &Hoa Duc Tran at 296 S McCarrons Boulevard. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. k. Purchase of Truck -Approve the Purchase of a Single Axle Cab and Chassis Truck Councilmember Pust questioned why this item was not included under Consent Item C, purchases over $5,000. Finance Director Miller noted that this was a unique situation, and not a planned 2007 expense. Mr. Miller advised that the current vehicle was becoming problematic with excessive maintenance, and staff had determined that is was prudent to replace the vehicle in 2007, rather than as anticipated in 2008. Roe moved, Pust seconded, approval of the purchase of a single axle cab and chassis truck from Boyer Ford at a cost not to exceed $61,174.00. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. 1. Resolution - Adopt a Resolution to Approve a Limited Use Permit with Minnesota Department of Transportation for the County Road C Streetscape Improvements at I-35W Councilmember Kough questioned the purpose of the proposed lim- ited use permit; and responsibilities of the City of Roseville and/or Ramsey County in mowing and maintenance of rights-of--way and/or sidewalks. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 11 City Engineer Debra Bloom reviewed the purpose of a Limited Use Agreement, as dictated by Minnesota State Statute, for a portion of the area located immediately underneath the I-35W bridge; with antici- pated installation of sidewalks and trees in the right-of--way. Ms. Bloom advised that the state required this agreement to be in place prior to constructing the improvements. Councilmember Kough expressed concern with upkeep and aesthetics of area medians, and costs to the City for personnel and resources when the City was required to perform this work within the City of Roseville. Ms. Bloom clarified that the City of Roseville is agreeing to maintain this area, otherwise it wouldn't be built. Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10536 enti- tled, ""Resolution Approving a Limited Use Permit with the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation for the County Road C Streetscape Improvements in the Right-of--Way of Interstate 35W at County Road C." Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. m. Resolution - Adopt a Resolution to Approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Roselawn Cemetery at 803 Larpenteur Avenue Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10537 enti- tled, "A Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit in Accor- dance with Roseville City Code, Sections 1005.015 and 1013.01, for Roselawn Cemetery, 803 Larpenteur Avenue (PF07-047)." Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. n. Resolution - Adopt a Resolution to Approve an Interim Use Per- mit (IUP) for Mark Theobald for an instructional facility at 2581 Fairview Avenue Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 P-age 12 Councilmember Ihlan sought clarification, and City Planner Thomas Paschke confirmed, that this requested IUP was for only a portion of the tenant areas in the warehouse facility. Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10538 enti- tled, "A Resolution Approving an Interim Use Permit in Accordance with Roseville City Code, Section 1012.09 for Mark Theobald and ERP Minnesota Portfolio, LLC, 2581 Fairview Avenue (PF07-042)." Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. 8. Consider Items Removed from Consent a. Resolution - Adopt a Resolution Extending the Working Hours for AMC Rosedale Center 14 Theatre Entry Plaza Vestibule Ad- dition (Former Consent Item 7.i) Mayor Klausing opened Public Hearing to consider this request at 6:50 p.m. City Engineer Debra Bloom briefly reviewed the request; noting that the applicant would like to initiate work on Tuesday, August 14, 2007, to accommodate additional hours when the mall was not operational, and in an attempt to finish before the upcoming holiday shopping sea- sons. Ms. Bloom also noted the applicant's desire to create less inter- ference with bus and vehicular traffic within the immediate site, ad- dress safety issues, and avoid disruptions during popular movie atten- dance times. Ms. Bloom advised that staff had provided published and mailed no- tice to property owners within five hundred feet (500'), and had re- ceived no comment. Ms. Bloom advised that there may be someone at tonight's meeting wishing to comment. Staff recommended ap- proval of the requested hour variance. Discussion included weekday versus weekend extended hour requests; original design flaws; and a recourse for any residents in adjacent apartments if noise issues become problematic. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 13 City Attorney Anderson clarified that this variance request was not a land use variance request. City Engineer Bloom expressed confidence that, should any problems arise, the City's existing nuisance code provisions would provide suf- ficient recourse. Mayor Klausing closed the Public Hearing at 6:58 p.m., with no one appearing for or against. Kough moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10539 enti- tled, "Resolution Extending Working Hours for AMC Rosedale Cen- ter 14 Theatre Entry Plaza Vestibule Addition;" extending working hours from August 14 - 31, 2007 during nighttime hours of 1:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.; and from September 1 -November 30, 2007 during early morning hours from 6:00 am. To 7:00 a.m. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. b. Property Acquisition of 1779 Rose Place City Attorney Anderson advised that the Open Meeting law required the City, prior to closing a meeting, to state the grounds allowing clo- sure and to describe the subject to be discussed. Mr. Anderson ad- vised that, according to Minnesota Statute, Section 13.D OS subd. 3 (c) (3) of the Open Meeting Law, closure was permitted for property acquisition discussions and negotiations; which had taken place re- garding property at 1779 Rose Place. Mr. Anderson noted that Mayor Klausing had opened the meeting in Open Session at approximately 5:45 p.m. in the Aspen Room with Council concurring on a vote of 4-0 (Pust absent). Then the meeting relocated to the City Council Chambers due to audio difficulties in the Aspen Room at which time Councilmember Pust arrived at 5:47 p.m. Mr. Anderson further noted that the meeting was closed and the Coun- cil convened in Executive Session; with Mayor Klausing adjourning the meeting at approximately 6:05 p.m. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 14 Mr. Anderson noted that this discussion was held and at this time, proposed that the City Council consider action based on that discus- sion. Klausing moved, Pust seconded, authorizing City staff and the City Attorney to move to acquire property, addressed at 1779 Rose Place, consistent with discussions held in closed session. For background information for the public, Mayor Klausing advised that this was private property, in an area experiencing ongoing water runoff problems and flooding during storms, and while it posed no le- gal liability for the City, it posed a problem for homeowners. Mayor Klausing further advised that, for the benefit of the community, it was Council consensus that the City acquire the property for additional water storage. Mayor Klausing noted that the property owner had originally approached the City seeking their interest in purchasing the property; and through negotiations, both parties had reached an agreement to relocate the home and use the vacant property for storm water retention purposes. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. 9. Other Business Items a. Presentation -Presentation by Deputy Fire Chief of Training Greg Peterson regarding the National Fire Academy Deputy Fire Chief Greg Peterson provided a brief presentation of his four year participation in the Executive Fire Officer training program at the National Emergency Training Center in Emmitsburg, MD, which he had recently completed. Mr. Peterson noted that this train- ing program was an extension of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), with courses offered in in- tensive risk and crisis management. Deputy Chief Peterson summarized various courses, attendance at classes for two weeks each of the last four years; and additional re- search projects and report preparation in addition to the intensive course training. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 15 Fire Chief Rich Gasaway displayed the graduation certificate of Dep- uty Chief Peterson's achievement and recognition in completing the program. Mayor Klausing, on behalf of the City Council, staff and citizens, congratulated Deputy Chief Peterson on this accomplishment and fur- ther training benefiting the community and department. b. Alcohol Compliance Checks -Consider Civil Penalties for Failed Alcohol Compliance Checks City of Roseville Police Chief Carol Sletner and Patrol Supervisor Sergeant Matt Marshall were available to provide comment on each failed compliance check. City Attorney Anderson advised that the City Council should act sepa- rately on each violation, in accordance with provisions in City Code, Section 13.15C. City Attorney Anderson also briefly reviewed the hearing procedure before an administrative appeal judge at a later date, depending on responses of each business. Councilmember Kough expressed his personal concern that licensees take responsibility for themselves and their employees; and spoke in support of the annual compliance checks, noting that the City Council took compliance checks and failures very seriously. Councilmember Kough reminded licensees of the training program made available by the City's Police Department. Police Chief Sletner reviewed the process, as detailed in her staff re- port dated August 13, 2007, subsequent compliance checks of fifty- seven (57) businesses, with forty-eight (48) passing and nine (9) fail- ing. Chief Sletner advised the proposed penalties as set forth in City Code, Section 302.15. Off-Sale Licensees Network Liquors Chief Sletner reviewed the compliance failure incident; noted that the business had participated in optional training; and that this was their first violation in thirty-six (36) months. Chief Sletner recommended that the City Council authorize the Police Department and City Attor- ney to issue and administer the presumptive penalty, pursuant to City Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 16 Code, Section 302.15, for off-sale license holders who do participate in optional manager and server training for a first violation in thirty- six (36) months, with the mandatory minimum penalty being a warn- ing letter issued to the license holder. Discussion included date of submission of proof of training; adminis- trative and criminal citation provisions and differences; owner versus employee ramifications; and Police Chief approval of other training programs other than that provided by the City. At the request of Councilmembers, staff provided a copy of City Or- dinance 302.15 as a bench handout. No one from Network Liquors appeared to speak. Pust moved, Roe seconded, authorizing the Roseville Police Depart- ment to issue and administer the presumptive penalty as set forth in Section 302.15 for off-sale license holders who participated in op- tional manager and server training for a first violation in thirty-six (36) months, with the mandatory minimum penalty being a warning letter issued to the license holder. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; .Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. Fairview Wines and Spirits Chief Sletner outlined the specifics of this compliance failure and staffl s recommendation. No one from Fairview Wines and Spirits appeared. Ihlan moved, Kough seconded, authorizing the Roseville Police De- partment to issue and administer the presumptive penalty as set forth in Section 302.15 for off-sale license holders who participated in op- tional manager and server training for a first violation in thirty-six (36) months, with the mandatory minimum penalty being a warning letter issued to the license holder. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 17 Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. On-Sale Licensees Buffalo Wild Wings Chief Sletner outlined the specifics of this compliance failure and staff s recommendation. Discussion, and Police Department presentation, included the identifi- cation process to be used by managers/servers, with specific Driver License detail stating "Under 21." Chief Sletner reviewed the annual process used providing mailed no- tice for businesses with liquor licenses in the City, announcement of compliance checks; materials on manager/server training programs, and a list of Roseville-approved training programs. Chief Sletner re- viewed the responsibilities outlined for businesses and expectations of the City's Police Department. Sue Benson, Regional Manager with Buffalo Wild Wings Ms. Benson brought forth documentation of their company's required training for their employees through the National Restaurant Associa- tion. Ms. Benson noted that the employee serving the underage buyer had been terminated following the failed compliance check. Ms. Ben- son advised Councilmembers that Buffalo Wild Wings' company standards also took very seriously alcohol compliance matters. Ms. Benson noted that the company provided for additional compliance checks on their own to keep employees alert. Discussion included Councilmembers asking why documentation of training had not been previously provided to the Police Department; Ms. Benson's concern about communication and notice issues be- tween corporate and individual locations; and the need for the Police Chief to approve training programs and receive a list of and sign off sheet for employees having completed training. City Attorney Anderson recommended specific language to be con- sidered in any motions for suspension that the date of suspension be at the discretion of the Police Chief. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 18 City Attorney Anderson advised that following tonight's Council ac- tion, the City Attorney office would provide each applicant with writ- ten, detailed Council action, and notice of their rights of appeal and process. Pust moved, Roe seconded, authorizing the Roseville Police Depart- ment to issue and administer the presumptive penalty as set forth in Section 302.15 for on-sale license holders who do not participate in optional manager and server training for a first violation, with the mandatory minimum penalty being a $500.00 fine and cone-day sus- pension; with the date for license suspension at the discretion of the Police Chief. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. Davanni's Chief Sletner outlined the specifics of this compliance failure and staff s recommendation. No one from Davanni's was present to speak. An e-mail was referenced and read by Councilmember Roe, that had been received earlier that afternoon from Davanni's manager, Rox- anne Zeherr, and their actions immediately following compliance fail- ure; as well as their request that their establishments no longer sell al- cohol. Roe moved, Ihlan seconded, authorizing the Roseville Police Depart- ment to issue and administer the presumptive penalty as set forth in Section 302.15 for on-sale license holders who do participate in op- tional manager and server training for a second violation in thirty-six (36) months, with the mandatory minimum penalty being a $500.00 fine and aone-day suspension; with the date for license suspension at the discretion of the Police Chief. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 19 • Nays: None. Fuddruckers Chief Sletner outlined the specifics of this compliance failure and staff's recommendation. Discussion involved the underage cashier, identified as a 16-year old juvenile, and separate criminal action under civil law, not City ordi- nance (MN Statute 348.12) No one appeared from Fuddruckers to speak. Pust moved, Klausing seconded, authorizing the Roseville Police De- partment to issue and administer the presumptive penalty as set forth in Section 302.15 for on-sale license holders who do not participate in optional manager and server training for a second violation in thirty- six (36) months, with the mandatory minimum penalty being a $500.00 fine and a three day suspension; with the dates for license suspension at the discretion of the Police Chief. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. Green Mill Chief Sletner outlined the specifics of this compliance failure and staff's recommendation. John Gill, General Manager at Green Mill Mr. Gill provided extensive comment on the process; training pro- vided by Green Mill to their managers and servers; receipt of the in- formation packets by appropriate personnel; and circumstances of the failed compliance check. Mr. Gill noted that the situation was unfor- tunate, and assured Councilmembers of the company's desire for compliance and removing alcohol from minors. Mr. Gill referenced recent phone conversations between him and Of- ficer Marshall on training points they emphasized; and offered his Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 20 services to improve the process to make compliance checks more seamless before and after for businesses and the Police Department. Mayor Klausing thanked Mr. Gill for his candor, and willingness to pursue additional improvements in the process. Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, authorizing the Roseville Police Depart- ment to issue and administer the presumptive penalty as set forth in Section 302.15 for on-sale license holders who do participate in op- tional manager and server training for a second violation in thirty-six (36) months, with the mandatory minimum penalty being a $500.00 fine and a one day suspension; with the date for license suspension at the discretion of the Police Chief. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. India Palace Chief Sletner outlined the specifics of this compliance failure and staff's recommendation. Hardelv Singh, India Palace Assistant Manager Mr. Singh advised that he was speaking for the General Manager, who was out of the country. Mr. Singh advised that the compliance issue was created by confusion on the part of the General Manager and his interpretation of "optional" training. Mr. Singh noted that they had another location in Woodbury, the City's training was compulsory every six months, and that location had experienced no failures over the last six years. Mr. Singh noted that this misinterpretation was the fault of India Palace, and they would participate in the optional train- ing from now on. Discussion included the City Council's rationale for seeking better participation from businesses by making the training optional, rather than mandatory; and in an effort to make the training more meaning- ful to participants. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 21 Councilmember Pust requested staff to have internal discussions among Police officers and business owners to determine if the title is confusing, and if there were ways to make the training and process more clear. Chief Sletner advised that such language revisions would require a change in code. City Attorney Anderson referenced, as Chief Sletner displayed, the actual notice language sent to businesses, noting that training was op- tional, but non-compliance penalties were less if they participated in the optional training. Councilmember Ihlan requested comparisons for compliance among cities requiring mandatory training versus optional training. Mayor Klausing suggested discussion on process revisions be held for another discussion. City Attorney Anderson clarified that a business could remain open during their license suspension; however they could not sell alcohol during the time of suspension. Roe moved, Kough seconded, authorizing the Roseville Police De- partment to issue and administer the presumptive penalty as set forth in Section 302.15 for on-sale license holders who do not participate in optional manager and server training for a first violation in thirty-six (36) months, with the mandatory minimum penalty being a $500.00 fine and a one day suspension; with the date for license suspension at the discretion of the Police Chief. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. LaCasita Chief Sletner outlined the specifics of this compliance failure and staff's recommendation. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 22 Mike Price, General Manager, LaCasita in Roseville and Columbia Heights Mr. Price advised that their business had read the training as optional as well; and questioned how to proceed on an annual basis with the substantial turnover of employees in their type of business. Mr. Price noted that they provided their own training, but still failed the compli- ance check, opining that whether the training were approved by the Chief or not, they remained just as guilty, and questioned why those participating in optional manager and server training approved by the Police Chief should receive less of a penalty. Mayor Klausing noted the need for the Police Chief to review approve training programs to determine their validity. Kough moved, Pust seconded, authorizing the Roseville Police De- partment to issue and administer the presumptive penalty as set forth in Section 302.15 for on-sale license holders who do not participate in optional manager and server training for a first violation in thirty-six (36) months, with the mandatory minimum penalty being a $500.00 fine and a one day suspension; with the date for license suspension at the discretion of the Police Chief. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. Outback Steakhouse Chief Sletner outlined the specifics of this compliance failure and staffl s recommendation. No representative of Outback Steakhouse was present to speak. Pust moved, Roe seconded, authorizing the Roseville Police Depart- ment to issue and administer the presumptive penalty as set forth in Section 302.15 for on-sale license holders who do not participate in optional manager and server training for a first violation in thirty-six (36) months, with the mandatory minimum penalty being a $500.00 fine and a one day suspension; with the date for license suspension at the discretion of the Police Chief. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 23 Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. Councilmember Roe questioned the amount of detail in each of the Police Chief's reports (i.e., type of beverage purchased). Sergeant Marshall responded that the beverage sold was collected and retained as evidence by the officer, for future judge or jury trial, should the seller choose not to abide by the administrative citation. Further discussion included the Department's completion of the STEP UP Program, with officers meeting with all licensees (on and off- sale), on overtime pay, reviewing the benefits of having training pro- grams on file with the Police Department. Chief Sletner advised that when the program was used, only two businesses failed compliance checks. However, Chief Sletner noted that this year, since the pro- gram had been used less than a year ago, and with ongoing budget constraints, the department had chosen not to use the program during this compliance year. Chief Sletner advised that it was not the intent of the department to have businesses fail, and officers didn't wish to spend their time that way, noting that the program would be reinsti- tuted for the next compliance year. Councilmember Ihlan opined her preference that the penalty process focus on training and management, and that penalties fall on the man- agement or trainer level, rather than individual servers. Recess Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at 8:16 p.m. and reconvened at 8:25 p.m. c. Discussion -Continue Discussions on the 2008 Budget Finance Director Miller had provided afollow-up memo, dated Au- gust 13, 2007, providing additional information from Councilmem- bers related to the 2008 budget process. There was no Council comment, or required action. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 24 Public Comment Al Sands, 2612 Aldine Mr. Sands opined his concern that the 2008 budget was not further along, allowing for public comment already, pursuant to comments in the most recent City newsletter. Mr. Sands challenged comments in Mr. Miller's August 13, 2007 memo regarding asset replacement funding, asserting that it should be done through debt obligation, not reserves. Mr. Sands provided, as a bench handout, personal com- ments on Mr. Miller's most recent budget memorandum. The hand- outs were entitled, "City of Roseville Full-Time Equivalent City Gov- ernment Employees by Function Last Ten Fiscal Years;" and "Minne- sota State Auditor's Office City Financial Data Search." Mr. Sands opined that new Councilmembers were only "fed" information by staff without their independent review; questioned why new employ- ees were continually being added to the payroll; questioned the need to continue an annual $2 million funding requirement to the City's Pavement Management Plan (PMP); and provided his interpretation of per capita comparisons between the City of Roseville and the City of Shoreview. Mr. Sands questioned why the proposed "budgeting for outcomes" process was not being initiated this year, as previously dis- cussed. d. Update -Update on Twin Lakes AUAR Authorization of Docu- ment Distribution for 30-day Public Comment Period City of Roseville Economic Development Associate Ms. Jamie Radel, and Bill Carlson, Bonestroo Consultants, were present to address Council questions or to provide additional information as requested. Ms. Radel briefly reviewed the requested Council action, for adoption of a resolution, determining that the Twin Lakes Business Park Alter- native Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Update was complete and accurate, and authorizing distribution to the commenting agencies for a 30-day public comment and agency review period. Mr. Radel noted that the City Council had scheduled their August 20, 2007 City Coun- cil Study Session to receive public comment on the AUAR Update. Councilmember Ihlan opined her preference to hear public comment tonight. Public Comment Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 25 Al Sands, 2612 Aldine Mr. Sands opined that there was a conflict between the requested ac- tion from staff and the City Attorney's written legal opinion (Attach- ment B) related to process and timing of public comment and declar- ing the document complete and accurate. Mr. Sands provided a bench handout, and a history of recent a-mails between him and Councilmember Roe, and requested that they be made part of the record. Mr. Sands disputed City Council action and minutes from the June 26, 2001 meeting, Master Plan scenario 1; and alleged that the additional options were not necessary to amend the Comprehensive Plan and further alleged that the AUAR Update was a fraudulent document. Mr. Sands provided personal comments on "Mayor Klausing's Grand Plan" for moving the Twin Lakes LLC de- velopment forward and past flawed legal opinion for the number of votes required for approval. Discussion included clarification and interpretation on the meaning of the City Attorney's legal opinion for the AUAR process and public comment. Councilmember Ihlan opined that the City Attorney's letter indicated that public comment be held before declaring the document accurate and complete and before distribution, and incorporated those com- ments into the draft for the commenting agencies, and served as a more efficient process. Councilmember Roe questioned the process, declaring the document accurate and complete, and holding distribution until after public comment. City Attorney Anderson advised that his and City Attorney Jay Squires' analyses concluded that the City Council could approve the document tonight, and withhold distribution until after the August 20th meeting. However, Mr. Anderson noted other alternatives set forth in their written opinion, in the context of tonight's requested action, and public comment on August 20, 2007. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 26 Further discussion ensued and included the process and public percep- tion of the importance of public comment in the final document; pres- sures on potential development in the Twin Lakes area, need for an all-encompassing AUAR as opposed to parcel-specific Environmental Assessment Worksheets (EAW) by individual development projects; and consideration for placing a moratorium on development in the area. Councilmember Kough opined his desire to hear public comment prior to submitting the document for agency review. Additional discussion included the amount of time staff required to make changes to the document, following public comment, and prior to distribution for agency review; extensive review in-house and ex- ternally and staff s confidence in their analysis to-date and integration of potential changes, unless substantive; and the EQB process. Councilmember Ihlan provided comment and a bench handout on the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area Project from the Roseville Compre- hensive Plan, and an excerpt of proposed land uses related to mixed use retail uses and previous City Council action to not include those retail uses. Mr. Carlson from Bonestroo, commented on assumptions and various scenarios, with the existing Comprehensive Plan allowing for mixed use and selected scenarios that expanded certain types of use, with "worst case" scenarios chosen to represent directions of potential de- velopment, and impacts. Mayor Klausing stated, contrary to allegations of conspiracies and grand deceptions, that it was his goal -and he believed a goal of the Friends of Twin Lakes -that the area be held up to comprehensive environmental review for any development project. Mayor Klausing advised that he wasn't aware of any specific development plans for the area other than those noted by staff, the proposed GSA/FBI and hotel/restaurant developments. Mayor Klausing further advised that he was willing, in a spirit of compromise, to hold off declaring the AUAR Update document accurate and complete at tonight's meeting, and consider Councilmember Roe's suggestion to shorten the public Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 27 comment and agency review period, allowing for public comment at the August 20, 2007 meeting. Councilmember Pust, in her effort to move the group to compromise, and recognizing that the City Council was taking public comment be- cause they sincerely wanted to know what the public thought and take those comments into account, suggested a proposed motion. Coun- cilmember Pust opined that, while staff, consultants, and the City Council thought they had foreseen all issues, the City Council was al- lowing additional public comment time to give everyone in the City an opportunity to make comment at the August 20, 2007 meeting. Councilmember Pust's proposed motion was: "By resolution, determine that the Twin Lakes Business Park AUAR Update is complete and accurate, and authorize its distribution - IN THE FORM DI- RECTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER RECEIVING PUBLIC INPUT ON AUGUST 20, 2007, to the organizations on the EQB's EAW distribution list for a review and objection period, BEGINNING NO EARLIER THAN AUGUST 27, 2007." Mr. Carlson opined that, while the document contained a myriad of information, citizen comments should be considered as well. Mr. Carlson further opined that staff was confident that the document was as complete and accurate as possible, was based on the EQB docu- ment, and staff s analysis of the various scenarios. Mr. Carlson sug- gested that there may be a policy question: "Are those scenarios con- sistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as directed by the City Council?" Mr. Carlson read a portion of the Business Park designa- tion under the current Comprehensive Plan in their context, with the entire AUAR area designed BP with mixed uses. Mr. Carlson opined that, if the City Council as apolicy-making body, didn't feel the document reflected their decisions to-date, then they could take issue with that. Additional discussion ensued regarding the proposed motion and pur- pose of specific language and actions; and need to hear public com- ment and allow time for reflection, staff comment or potential re- search. Roe moved, Pust seconded, tabling action on authorizing the distribu- tion of the Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Up- Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 28 date document for the Twin Lakes Business Park until the August 27, 2007 regular business meeting. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. e. Citizen Petition -City Response to Citizen Petition for an Envi- ronmental Assessment Worksheet on Oak Acres Interim Community Development Director for the City of Roseville, Mike Darrow, presented staffls recommendation for the citizen peti- tion received by the EQB on the proposed Art Mueller subdivision, calling for an EAW for "Oak Acres" proposed for 2201 Acorn Road. Mr. Darrow provided the petition and EQB cover letter dated July 23, 2007, as a bench handout, noting that the EQB determined that the City of Roseville was the appropriate governmental unit (RGU) to de- termine the need for an EAW. It was staff's analysis that the proposed four-lot publicly sewered residential subdivision by Art Mueller was exempt from environ- mental review; and that the subject property didn't lie within ashore- land area, a delineated floodplain, state or federally designed wild and scenic river district, the Minnesota River Project, or the Mississippi headwaters area. Staff therefore recommended, in consultation with the City Attorney, adoption of a resolution denying the citizen petition for an EAW, based on analysis as outlined. Extensive discussion ensued regarding staff's basis for determination that no portion was in a shoreland area; definition of a shoreland dis- trict or overlay district in the City of Roseville; applicable Minnesota State Statue related to residential subdivisions and environmental re- view; and the City Attorney's reliance on staff to review maps and designations for that area related to flood plains and shorelands, and consultations with the EQB, and their subsequent determinations. Public Comment Gary Boryczka, 2250 Acorn Road Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 29 Mr. Boryczka expressed his concerns over staff's facts and findings; and provided his interpretation of the City's own water management and overlay district. Mr. Boryczka opined the need to define public waters and wetlands in order to define shoreland exemptions. Discussion included reading of Minnesota Statute and City Ordinance and interpretations of each; classes of City and EQB interpretations for all Class cities in a broader sense; staff's identification of the map presented by Mr. Boryczka and the context of City Code, Section 1016.03 as determined by text, not simply illustrations or maps; and shoreland classifications for wetland protection areas. Mr. Darrow advised that staff would ensure that, in the future, the map was colorized to make it easier to interpret. Vivian Ramalingam, 2182 Acorn Road Ms. Ramalingam opined that there may be smaller public water bod- ies not included in a comprehensive list, given the number of lakes in Minnesota. City Attorney Anderson observed that the list of classified public bod- ies of water was inclusive, and opined that just because there was wa- ter didn't mean it was public water. Councilmember Ihlan opined that, at a minimum, there was the issue of whether this was shoreland or not, and that the petition should thus be put in the realm of supporting a possible environmental review. Councilmember Ihlan further opined her preference for additional time to consider the issue, interpretations and language definitions and to consider the merits of the petition. Klausing moved, Pust seconded, adoption of a Resolution entitled, "A Resolution DENYING the Citizen Petition for an Environmental As- sessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Art Mueller Subdivision Plat of Oak Acres, 2201 Acorn Road (PF07-039)." Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the resolution, opining that the potential impact of a four-unit development was not the sort of thing Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 30 the legislature was anticipating that would require and EAW, and in fact prohibited that sort of assessment in those contexts. Councilmember Roe offered, and Mayor Klausing accepted, a friendly amendment to the resolution. Revised Motion Language Klausing moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10540 entitled, "A Resolution DENYING the Citizen Petition for an Envi- ronmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Art Mueller Subdi- vision Plat of Oak Acres, 2201 Acorn Road (PF07-039);" amended as follows: Page 1, 3`d "WHEREAS: "WHEREAS, Minnesota Rules 4410.[1100] set forth the procedures to be fol- lowed in making a decision on the Citizen Petition; and" Page 2, "NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED..." a) Minnesota Rules ^"'~~ [4410.4600] (Exemptions), subpart 12 (Resi- dential Developments) A. (3) EXEMPTS residential developments less than 40 units in a second class city; [no part of which is within ashore- land area, delineated flood plain, state or federally designated wild and scenic river district, the Minnesota River Project area, or the Mis- sissippi headwaters area is exempt]. City Attorney Anderson clarified that the only issue before the City Council tonight was whether this petition for an EAW should be granted, or denied as recommended by staff. Mayor Klausing, when asked by Councilmember Kough, noted that the developer had yet to submit a Site Plan; but noted that there could be no net increase to runoff and that any additional water needed to be controlled on site based on the developer's engineering study, and re- view and approval/denial by the City's engineer. Councilmember Ihlan expressed her disappointment in not receiving a copy of the citizen petition until this afternoon, after she'd asked for a copy. Councilmember Ihlan opined that she didn't believe it was clear if this was an exempt project and needed additional time to re- view it before City Council action. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 31 Roe moved, Pust seconded, suspending Council Rules to extend the meeting cur- few to complete discussion of this item, and Item 9.f entitled, "Discussion of Pro- cedure for Filling Housing and Redevelopment Authority Vacancies." Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. Councilmember Roe spoke in support of the motion; opining that it was obvious the proposed development area was exempt. Councilmember Pust addressed those in the audience and those listen- ing at home, opining that whenever land is changed and development happens, there were going to be environmental impacts. Council- member Pust noted that the City and- state had many rules to minimize those adverse impacts; however noted that the City Council only had authority to require environmental review under certain criteria, and opined that at the advice of the City Attorney and the EQB, the City didn't have discretion to order an EAW in this instance. Council- member Pust observed that simply saying we wished we had such au- thority and trying to act accordingly, and the City Council making an attempt to read ordinances based on whatever case appeared before them, was not what they were elected to do. Councilmember Pust spoke in support of the motion, based on current City Council author- ity, even if she was in agreement with petitioners on the merits. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: Ihlan and Kough. Motion carried. f. Discussion - Discuss a Procedure for Filling Housing & Redevel- opment Authority Vacancies Councilmember Roe presented a draft resolution, incorporating City Attorney and Mayor Klausing review and comment, regarding the HRA appointment process, in accordance with Minnesota Statute pro- visions for mayoral appointment with approval of the governing body. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 32 Councilmember Roe briefly reviewed the proposed procedure for fill- ing HRA vacancies and rationale for changes to current procedure. Discussion points included term limits; applications received after deadline; mayoral discretion; appointments or reappointments; inter- view process; and term expirations or vacancies. Additional discussion included the proposed 60-day timeframe and ra- tionale for that length of time to allow for advertising and the inter- view process. Mayor Klausing thanked Councilmember Roe for his work on this resolution; and spoke in support of the proposed motion. Mayor Klausing opined that it institutionalized and involved the City Council in the appointment process. Mayor Klausing suggested one modifica- tion to page 2, I.E. to the procedure statement to provide an option for the Mayor electing to eliminate any applicants from consideration, with reasonable notice to such applicants AND THE CITY COUN- CIL, prior to the established date of applicant interviews. Councilmember Roe concurred with Mayor Klausing, and noted this was included in his original suggested language. Councilmember Kough shared some of his philosophy for his creation of the HRA originally; even while voicing objections to some of their recent spending. Public Comment John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N Victoria Street Mr. Kysylyczyn thanked Councilmember Roe for his draft resolution; speaking generally in support, with one exception. Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that the City Council should be made aware of whether an ap- plication was received after the deadline. Mr. Kysylyczyn further opined that there was nothing preventing multiple votes on the same nominee; double term nominations as attempted earlier this year; and the apparent arbitrary nature in allowing the mayor to pick who and who would not be interviewed. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 33 Additional discussion included interviewing candidates recently inter- viewed for other advisory commission vacancies; and participation of chairpersons. Mayor Klausing spoke to the recent situation and appointment of Mr. Maschka for two terms, upon advice of the City Attorney in an at- tempt to save time and need for additional action; and his personal misunderstanding of the term of appointment. Mayor Klausing opined that it was an odd situation, and he didn't foresee coming up again in the future, further opining that in hindsight, he would have handled the appointment differently. Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10541 enti- tled, "A Resolution to Define the Appointment and Reappointment Process, Eligibility, and Term Limits for the Members of the Board of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority In and For the City of Rose- ville;" as amended: Page 1, Title [To Define the Appointment and Reappointment process, ~~ for the Members of the Board of the Housing and Redevel- opment Authority In and For the City of Roseville] Page 2, Procedure Statement: I.E, Applicants will be interviewed at the established meeting(s) by the Mayor and City Council. The Chair of the HRA Board will be invited to attend and participate in the interviews. The interviews will be open to the pub- lic. The Ma oY r may elect to eliminate any applicants from consideration with reasonable notice to such applicants and the City Council prior to the established date of applicant interviews• and specifically noting that the 60-day appointment requirement prior to term expiration in Section II.A. will not apply to the upcoming HRA term expirations, due to the timing of action on this resolution. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan; Pust; Kough; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: None. Mayor Klausing briefly reviewed remaining agenda items indicating action on a future agenda. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 34 g. Discussion -Discuss Payment in Lieu of Taxes from Northwest- ern College Mayor Klausing reminded City Attorney Anderson of his request for additional information related to legal ramifications in tying PILOTS to land use approvals and legal liability for non-profit issues. Councilmember Ihlan clarified her intent that this be used as an op- portunity to negotiate, and not made a condition of land use approval, but be considered as a policy objective. Staff was requested to .in- clude this item on the next agenda. h. Discussion -Discuss Process for Performance Evaluation of the City Manager Mayor Klausing expressed his preference to have Human Resources Director Eldona Bacon present; with the potential to set up a City Council subgroup to work on this item, rather than having staff being asked to govern their supervisor. Councilmember Pust encouraged a review by Councilmembers of the City Manager's contract, noting pertinent provisions included in the document regarding evaluations. Staff was requested to include this item on the next agenda. Councilmember Kough expressed frustration that he had never seen the City Manager contract; and questioned why the City Manager was not in attendance again at tonight's meeting, without the City Council being given prior knowledge of his inability to attend. Mayor Klausing noted recent family deaths precluding City Manager Malinen from attending; and personally apologizing to Councilmem- ber Kough for not providing notice to him in advance of tonight's meeting. 10. Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings a. Councilmember Ihlan requested that a signed copy of the settlement agreement between the City and Twin Lakes LLC be put into the Council packet and made public. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 35 b. Councilmember Ihlan requested an agenda item be included, in con- junction with the AUAR discussion, to discuss a moratorium pending completion of the AUAR to allow time to complete the process with- out piece meal development or receipt of unexpected development proposals. c. Councilmember Kough sought department-specific discussions and suggestions by individual Councilmembers for the 2008 budget; and questioned if he should put those items he did or did not endorse in writing for staff. Finance Director Miller encouraged Councilmember Kough to do so at his earliest convenience. 11. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 13, 2007 Page 36 ~ G~ Cr g D. Klausing, May ATTEST: Christopher K. Miller, Acting City Manager "~ ~i 3 jai WHAT'S WRONG WITH ROSEVILLE' ~ ~~`Y`~' ,_~ S GOVERNMENT. 1 ~ ,~~ ~ ~rl~ < ~ ~ 1. POWERFUL CITY MANAGER & STAFF, WITH WEAK, RUBBER STAMP COUNCIL. (DO WHAT THE STAFF WANTS). (CLASS B FORM OF GOVERNMENT.) - A BOUGHT AND PAID FOR PRO DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL MAJORITY. 2. NON RESIDENT PROFESSIONAL STAFF itUNNING CITY AS A BUSINESS WITHOUT REGARD TO CITIZENS INTERESTS AND PRIORITIES. 3. LEGISLATIVE AGENDA-PUSH FOR A LOCAL SALES TAX A SHAMEFUL ATTEMPT TO FORCE NON RESIDENTS WHO SHOP AT ROSEDALE TO PAY FOR OUR AMENITIES. AMORALLY CORRUPT IDEA. 4. PRO DEVELOPMENT ORIENTATION AT EXPENSE OF IT'S CITIZENS. - PAST DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORS NON RESIDENTS (JUST DOING THEIR PROFESSIONAL JOB) - FAILED GRAND SCHEMES LIKE TWIN LAKES -172 ACRES AND ONE MASTER DEVELOPER .NOT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE, AT $500,000 PER ACRE. -NO CITY INVESTMENT, EXCEPT TIF FOR 25 YRS -DESTROYS RIGHTS OF EXISTING LAND OWNERS IN ATTEMPT TO CHANGE LAND USE. -CITY CONTROLS EVERY DETAIL THRU PUD -FAILURE OF PRIOR ATTEMPT CLOUDS FUTURE. -A REAL MESS BECAUSE OF MISSTEPS. City of /~ 1t t Minnesota, USA t ~,~ ~. Organizational Chart ~~~~'~~ Roseville Citizens Mayor and City Council Parks ~ Recreation Commission Planning. Commission Human Rights Commission Police Civil Service Commission Public Works and Transportation Commission City Manager Chief of Police Community Development Director Finance Director Fire Chief Parks and Recreation Director Public Works Director s City Attorney ._ ' S REAL ORGANIZATION CHART: CITY STAFF: • CHIEF OF POLICE • FIRE CHIEF • PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR • FINANCE DIRECTOR • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR • PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR CHEERLEADERS AND PUSHERS: • CITY MANAGER • CITY ATTORNEY • MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL • COUNCIL APPOINTED COMMISSIONS MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THE RUBBER STAMPERS (??? CITIZENS???) NO ROOM ON THIS CHART FOR CITIZENS. SORRY. /! ~, t7 "~ f FORMS OF CITY GOVERNMENT IN MINNESOTA STATUTORY CITIES: • STANDARD PLAN (Must go to Plan A, unless voters reject it) 103 • PLAN A 628 (Clerk not elected-hired and appointed) • OPTIONAL PLAN B 16 (Strong Manager, Professional Business Management, Weak Council) Sub total 747 HOME RULE CHARTER CITIES los TOTAL CITIES 855 SOURCE: Handbook for Minnesota Cities CHANGING FROM ONE PLAN TO ANOTHER ANYTIME AFTER THREE YEARS FOLOWING ADOPTION OF THE PLAN, VOTERS OR THE COUNCIL MAY REQUEST A CHANGE TO ANOTHER PLAN. THE THREE STEPS REQUIRED ARE THE SAME AS THE ORIGINAL ADOPTION: INITIATE BY COUNCIL ACTION VOTER PETITION -15% SUBMIT TO VOTERS HOLD ELECTION CERTIFICATION ~ ° ~~U ~- mil o 'lBumsville Dakota Eden Prairie Hennepin 61262 SC-B 1964 E Edina Hennepin 60955 SGB 1962 E Maplewood Ramsey 47448 SC-B 1888 E Roseville Ramsey 36279 SC-B 1957 O -- Shoreview Ramsey 33882 SC-B 1948 O Chanhassen Carver Hennepin 25964 SC-B 22518 SC-B 1957 E New Brighton Ramsey 22113 SC-B 1896 E Prior Lake ~- New Hope Scott e 21395 SC-B 1890 O 1891 O Golden Valley Henn pin Hennepin 20747 SC-B 1953 E North St Paul Ramse y 20510 SC-B 1886 O Mound Hennepin 11885 SC-B 1888 E St. Anthony ~Ilage Hennepin Ramsey 9838 SC-B 8376 SC-B 1912 E MILACA Perham Mille Lacs 2729 SC-B 1945 O 1897 E Otter Tail 2726 SGB 1881 E /~ ,~ -~ 0 3 _._. ~ ~ ~~~- G1.r.+ ~~~ to ~~~~ i •- ~ ~ ~ O G~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ t i ~ `O ca Y ~ ~ ~ ~ .d+ V1 O ~ = RS f.+ ~ ~ .~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ V ~- O G~ }' 'a O G1 ~ V ~ ~ .i ~ .O ~ '}"' .}+ .N ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ 4~ -_ ~ O>o°'~°'~~' ~ Q .~ ~+ •,,,, ~ Q ,o ,~ .O ca O ~ ,~ ~ i ~ .~ O .-. ~ ~ _ = G1 O ~ y ~ ~ >+ ~ O ~3=~o~p=~aa~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V V 0 N a~ a .~ .~ i U a~ a~ U r _ ;~ _` <_ \.;~ N ~ ~ 'a to to to C ~ to to ~ N ~ ~ O C ~ O C~~ C~ ~'~ C ~ O O V O C C O C 'a C O C v V O U O O U O C O v O d d = N~ N N~ N U N O N N N CON ~ ~ M cn N cn N cn N t0 ~ cn to cn to cn N t.f) M ti N O U c~ to to ch O M U ~ ~ O d ~ N'a~ N~~ N U~~ ~~0~~ ~~ ~~M~ ~ ~ C G. C~ C C 'D C C C1 ~ O C O O C O O '''' +~ ~ .~ ~ +~ ~~ O O C '~'~ O +~ O ~' +~ "''' O N U p 0 0 0 U U O~~~~~~ 0 U U O~ U 0 U~~~ U d N U N N U N N ,~ C C C C C C C N N U ,_~ N C N ,~_ C __ N ~ ~oNO~oNN~nM~E~~E~EEM~v°~i~~~~E~'~~ H CNf~~~lnr-N~N~-~N~-~~-~r-ONd'~MOO'~I'd'~' a o c cn o C ~ o c o `~ a~ ~ ~ a~ _~ a~ a' U C - ~.+ +_~ N ~ ~ U ~ ~ U ~ O C O O N Y L ~ Y O O •C +~~. O N L Y O O ~ O ~~ ~0 U cn N Q o c c~ L ~ ON N O rnY ~'in ~ O= N O ~ O ~ C1 O L~ C' ~, ~ N~~ L N L L O L N ~ ~j ~~ N~ ~ ~Y N ~ .aG°~ NY NYC Y ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~o~Y~~YY Ica ~ ~ cv ~ ca ~ ~ ~.~ c c c 0 c~~~-~~o~S c m C O O p O.C N N fa = (6 ~ (a = (B r cu U O (~ . _ ~ ~ .. N ~ ~ ca to O N U N ~ ~ oY~Y~1~Y!-Y~Y~UY~U~YNY~i~ch~etY O O ~ CO~~~Ma0MC0~CO~~OOo0~tf~MN~MOo0OOO1` -p N~O~~~~MO~~~-MNM~C'7~OO~N000~M O OOr-~~~-NNOON~COo0OO~~-N~~tCOf`OO~iri (~ 000000000~~-r-~~~NNNNNNNN~"~~t'd'd' y OC4~~r-MaOMtG~Cp'~~O~O~OOd"I`MNt.f)MO~000OM ON~O~~l1~r-MO~~~MNMlnM~O0LnNOOOIn 0 0 0 ~- ~ ~-- N N o0 O N ~t CO o0 07 O ~ r- N~ d' C~ 1` CO O d' H OOOOOOOOOO~~~r-r-r-NNNNNNNNMd"~t ~+'.~ s. ~_u~ ~ '. r ,u~w,^ T O 0 ~ ~ ~ ~_ 0 N V~ •O V V~ ~V ~ ~ ~ ''A~ Av/ W ~ y O .~ ~ N Q ~~ W }+ v \~ v O O ~ C ~ O as ~ _E V .~ O V c ~ as ~ •~ 0 ~ ~ ~s ~ W ~ ~ a ~ d ~ Y ~ ~ N O •v t = 3 ~ ~~ Y ~ ~ ~C~ ~ ~,, N .Q ~ ~ ,° a~ ~_ ~ .~ r W .~+ .~ r '~~ ^~ W /O v ~~ A~ W Y Q N .C 3 m .c ~.+ of .~ as a~ L s a~ Q Y C Q L .~ c 0 m i= 0 t"' W ~~ .~ r t... N •~ N V N a~ a .~ Rf Q L ai Y e .N Y CL C t C O Q O ,,WA V/ as Y Q N NN~ L.I. 0 +~ .~ 0 Q .~ _~ Y i ~~ A~ ^rW I~ V N C C d v Y N d Y N d V a~ {.+ i y:. O s c m a 7 r ~.~_~~ . 1 $~~~ 1~~ City of Roseville Full-Time Equivalent City Government Employees by Function Last Ten Fiscal Years Function General government Public safety Police Fire Public Works Recreation Economic Development Water Sewer Golf Recycling Storm Drainage Total Full-time Equivalent Employees as of December 31 1997 ~ . 2004 2005 2006 ~ 23.15 27.5 29.25 31.25 ~ ~ / '.~ 51 57 56 5 57 5 -~~' b ~ ~ {~ 2.5 4,5 . 4.5 . 4.5 ~ , ~ ~ d 18 18.25 17.25 17.25 ~ ---~ J 23.75 24.25 22.25 22.25 ~-~-- _ ~.---;~ 11 10.9 10.9 10.4 " ' -- ' `' ~' ~._ t~ 6.16 6.17 6.17 6.17 5.16 5.16 5.16 5.16 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 // 0 0 0 0 ~ 3.17. 3.42 3.42 3.42 . ~ _ _.-------- - 146.39 159.65 157.90 160.40 ( / ~ 7 b ~ 121 Notes and Glossary of Categories for Search 7001 (pdf, 17k) ~ ~ ~ ~~ Minnesota State Auditor's Office ~' City Financial Data Search iCalendar r Description /About State Auditor Otto iAudits iReports iPress Releases iColumns rDatabase Search rSgn up for E- Updates ~E-Update Archives iSummary_Finances Search County .Financial Data_ Search rCity Financial. Data Search ~SCh001 District Search rTownship Financial Search Special District Search Best Practices Cooperative. Effort Search /Mandate Reform Proposals For Local Officials /Cooperative Waiver Process /Forms /Fire Relief Association Working Group /Best Practices Reviews /CTAS /FRPAS /GASB 34 and Other Governmental Accounting /Legal Compliance Guide /Statements of Position /Accounting SPECIAL NOTE ABOUT "RANK": The "rank" is of the per capita amount. Rankings are broken up between cities above 2500 in population (large cities) and cities below 2500 in population (small cities). Further, rankings are only done among cities that have revenues or expenditures for a given category. For example, if there are 117 large cites that have "sanitation" expenditures, then the rank would be "x" of 117. N/A - In the ranking column this means there was no rank due to the fact there was no expenditure in this category. N/A in other categories means the data is unavailable, or does not apply. Select a city and year: ROSEVILLE (RAMSEY) ~ SHOREVIEW (RAMSEY) 2005 ~ Search 2005 ~ Search City: ROSEVILLE City: SHOREVIEW County: RAMSEY County: RAMSEY Year: 2005 Year: 2005 Population: 33882 Population: 25964 1 llb'tr 1 Vl L.r Description Amount Per Capita Rank Amount Per Capita Rank Taxable Tax Capacity $39,897,158 $1,177.53 25 of 218 $27,134,819 $1,045.09 34 of 218 Net Tax Levy $9,122,655 $269.25 100 of 218 $6,351,361 $244.62 127 of 218 Property Taxes $9,866,249 $291.19 81 of 218 $6,443,342 $248.16 119 of 218 Special Assessments $628,237 $18.54 174 of 213 $223,774 $8.62 194 of 213 Licenses and Permits $2,363,280 $69.75 30 of 218 $479,418 $18.46 159 of 218 Federal Grants $513,811 $15.16 80 of 155 $0 $0.00 N/A State Grants $1,689,438 $49.86 173 of 218 $720,361 $27.74 193 of 218 Local Grants $42,666 $1.26 149 of 165 $243,753 $9.39 73 of 165 Tota I I me rg ove rn me nta I Revenues Interest Earnings All Other Revenues Total Revenues Total Borrowing 'General Government '.Police and Ambulance Fire Other Public Safety Streets and Highways Sanitation Health Libraries Parks and Recreation .._..-..__. __-.r____.__.- ;2,245,915 ;66.29 173 of 218 ;964,114 $641,583 $18.94 151 of 218 $264,449 $1,336,239 $39.44 113 of 217 $439,619 522,826,191 ;673.70 168 of 218 $15,243,148 ;0 ;0.00 N/A ;0 $3,474,651 $102.55 103 of 218 $1,668,283 $4,700,179 $138.72 103 of 218 $1,342,978 $1,745,672 $51.52 60 of 218 $665,617 $497,465 $14.68 124 of 200 $273,486 $1,780,147 $52.54 90 of 218 $2,024,740 $0 $0.00 N/A $0 $0 $0.00 N/A $0 $0 $0.00 N~/ _ $0 $3,015,485 ~ $89.0 .0' 54 of 218 $4,975,817 ;37.13 198 of 218 $10.19 194 of 218 $16.93 170 of 217 ;587.09 192 of 218 ;0.00 N/A $64.25 190 of 218 $51.72 198 of 218 $25.64 170 of 218 $10.53 145 of 200 $77.98 128 of 218 $0.00 N/A $0.00 N/A $0.00 $191.64 4 of 218 http://www.osa.state.mn.us/Seazch/CitySearch.aspx ~ 8/8/2007 Site Search Documents iEducational Materials i Newsletters iPublished Articles iRelated Links nc~rtt7 sta Contact Us Directions Employment Privacy. Notice Housing ana tconomic Development Airport Transit All Other Expenditures Total Current Expenditures Total Capital Outlay Total Debt Service Total Expenditures dtp://www.osa.state.mn.us/Search/CitySeazch.aspx ..b......... $1,308,324 $38.61 83 of 189 $741,310 $28.55 103 of 189 $0 $0.00 N/A $0 $0.00 N/A $0 $0.00 N/A $0 $0.00 N/A $0 $0.00 N/A $37,355 $1.44 121 of 144 516,521,923 ;487.63 129 of 218 512,118,263 5466.73 142 of 218 52,981,084 687.98 196 of 216 52,667,448 :102.74 190 of 216 $1,537,566 545.38 191 of 212 52,531,587 ;89.80 164 of 212 519,503,007 5575.62 188 of 218 514,785,711 5569.47 189 of 218 8/8/2007 1 f °.~' HISTORY OF E MAILS ~ BETWEEN DAN ROE AND AL SANDS REGARDING THE NATURE OF THE TWIN LAKES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUMMARY: Al Sands' position is that the City Council made scenario 1 the exclusive land use plan for Twin Lakes by Council Action on 6/26101. No other plans are effective. The only two plans under consideration at that time was scenario 1, and scenario la (big boz on parcels 6 & ~ 6/26/2001 Council Minutes: Mastel moved, Maschka seconded, by resolution, to approve the final amendment of the Comprehensive Plan for the Twin Lakes Business Park area 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 the Scenario #1. The amendment shall also included the findings of the AUAR and mitigation plan. Roll Call, Ayes: Goedeke, Mastel, %lausing, Maschka, and Kysylyczyn. Nays: none. (Italics added). If one follows the progress of the original comprehensive plan development, Map 3 was used to narrow the options down on January, 2001, with the final decision on scenario 1 coming on 6/26/01. Map 3 is not a part of the Council Packet on June 26,200E Because the Master Plan, scenario 1, was made a part of the Comprehensive Plan for Twin Lakes, it would take four votes to amend the plan (scenario 1). DaII RO@'S position follows now departed Development Director John Stark' position that Map 3 is still available as additional options. Mr. Roe does not think it necessary to amend the Comprehensive Plan to put in any number of different plans, but declines a position on the failed Rottlund plan. Note: The Court of Appeals Opinion is dated in August, 2006. Rottlund attempted another project that was pretty much in agreement with scenario one, ezcept they could not obtain necessary rights to put in the Twin Lakes Parkway from land owned and controlled by Roseville Properties, who was not a party to the revised plan. Rottlund abandoned the revised project in December 2006. r c ~ a ~~ 4 d ry 311N3/1 d 'JN1773NS ~ ~' oc o ~ I ~~ ,~ ~~ ~~ s ~ ~ c E `~ tea` ~ 3 0 ~ y ~ , -, __ ~ ~ .:, a ~ ~ ~, a ~ ~ f O O M O. .p ~ 'Ct ~,~~~o~~~ s o f ~ ~ ~ O~ .- N N n N Q ~ - I .~ ~ _ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- -~ .. ~ _ ~ I E ~ ~ '~,~0 8 ~~ ~ o z - 1 s`s ,r ~ 3 , V iU ~Q _ ~ V Z of V ~G ~ ~ ~ I - ,~ ... _. - C ~°-< i ~( r 2 ~p ~ ~ - ~ ' Y3 O W N K N ..~ ~ .~ f Vf __. _.. `_ -._.- .__ . ~ ~ ~ o - . , 3nN3n _ o , ~ , , tr M3~na~v~ . U ~ ~ ;l7 ~ I Z ..a p ~+ \ `_ rf•11~ ~ ~ ~ a ~' -. ~ ._., ~ G , fw ~ , ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ _ V ~ ~ ~ _ ~ p u,, •~ a ~ ~ __.__ ~ ~ ~. -. - 3713f0/7NISf10N o -~ = ~ ~ ~ ~, , ; . i ~ i/f .:. y, _._ -..-~ W ~ q°qrr to * ~' 17( _ ,. ~ s ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ; _ ~ O ~ ;A ~_ _ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ i ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i 3t1N3/I t/ ONt173/137~ i ~ _ ;_ ~-- ~~-,~ a ,~ t ~`- ~ _ m 31.E{~:~~ ~~~~~~~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"", g Q= s L~ +. N U ~' ` ~ m ~ ~ ._ 4 N Cfl , ~'. ~ s g R a ~ N V y~ N v ~ Q r-. N C a •~ O - - ~ N i -. ~ C N d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a 'til sg~g ~`F~ ~ xE~~. ~~~ ~ 7~ ~ NN n ~ i N ~~F~~s~ ~ ~ A ~dccN~~~~ ~` ~ ~ g g~ _ { _.... ,~.~. ~ + ~ ~ j ~ ~ _~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ U ~- ~ i x ~ ~-, - ~ ~~ ~ a ~' _~ ~ S ~ s ~ ~ ~~_ J ~ ~ ' ~ J • '.. ~,~ t i _. _,r mow.. .. o ~~~~~~c~csi~.~ ~ O c ~ A~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ F ~ I~ ~ ' h ~ t ~, .~ K ~ ua ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~~~5 ~a ~~o~ d ; O ~~N~i$~ ~ '~ o ~ ~ . ~ ~.~ ------ -- s ~ ~ ~ :° j ",. ti ~ ~ ~ N ~ 1 1 .- ~. 1 1 .•. ~ ' ~ ;M ;: I 1 ~ t `, ` gQ a...~..o t - `~ I t o ~ ~ A i "•~' ~~ a e~- e~ 9 ~ .r.~.o.e ~o.wm ~3a~~ ~. 1' WU. I1V Wl V VV V~.111 R Vlt~' -'v ~. a uua a avaavva a .v..., .~»............ ~_--J ~ _ ~__ .. From: esands2612(~Daol.com To: aty.council(c~ci.roseville.mn.us; bill.malinen@a.rosevilie.mn.us; sta@ratwiklaw.com; jts(aDratwiklaw.com; preuvers~iversonlaw.com Bcc: ESANDS2612Qaol.com Subject: Fwd: Howt o Govem a City -St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, June 27 Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 2:06 pm Final Dan Roe Commentary on Naure of Twin Lakes Comprehensive Plan: -----0riginal Message--- From: dan.roe@comcast.net To: esands2612@aol.com Sent: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 11:04 am Subject: Re: Fwd: Howt o Govern a City -St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, June 27 Al, To clarify: I do not think that I have contended that the Rottlund plan was or was not consistent with the 2001 Master Plan. I merely pointed out that it does not seem to me that the court ruling made any judgment about whether it was or was not. Also, I don't know whether the project approval would have been legally valid, or whether the project could have proceeded, without taking the vote to the Rottlund plan into the Master Plan. Since the developer chose to quit the project, that pretty much made these questions academic exercises. Certainly, further feedback or advice related to these questions could help inform future deliberations on any proposals that come forward. In my mind, it is a great leap at this point to go from discussing these questions to concluding that anyone made "terrible blunder(s)" or that legal advice was "seriously flawed." At this point, I am not anywhere near prepared to take that leap. Dan Roe Roseville City Councilmember -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: esands~'E ~:' ;~ . co^:. > This message has been processed by Symantec's Antivirus Technology. > Unknown00000000.data was not scanned for viruses because too many nested levels > of files were found. > For more information on antivirus tips and technology, visit tF~ /:~,__ s:~s . ~. AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. http://webmail.aol.com/29047/aol/en-us/MaiUPrintMessage.aspx 8/7/2007 i vYU. 11VVVLV VVV{rlll a t.ll~' --UL. 1 aUl 11V11GG1 rice Liu1w11Q1 rlluay, JU11C G/ rage i of ~~ From: esands2612@aol.com To: aty.council@ci.roseville.mn.us; bill.malinen@a.roseville.mn.us; sta@ratwiklaw.com; jts@ratwiklaw.com; preuvers@iversonlaw.com Bcc: ESANDS2612@aol.com Subject: Fwd: Howt o Govem a City -St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, June 27 Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 2:04 pm Commentary on the nature of the Twin Lakes Comprehensive Plan: -----Original Message---- From: esands2612@aol.com To: dan.roe@comcast.net Bcc: ESANDS2612@aol.com Sent: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 9:53 am Subject: Fwd: Howt o Govem a City -St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, June 27 As I said last night, here are my final comments on this subject for your review. I shall be providing copies of our ongoing discussion regarding the true nature of the Twin Lakes Comprehensive Plan to the City Council, and to the attorneys involved. Thank you for this frank and informative discussion. AI Sands Hello Dan Roe: Your last set of comments to me via a mail regazding the Appelate Court decision are of such magnitude that I feel it necessary for me to share it with your fellow councilpersons and the public, along with my assessment of what such a construction of the Twin Lakes Appellate Court Ruling means. If I understand you correctly, it is your position that the appeals court ruling merely ruled on the attempt by the city to insert the Rottlund master plan into the City's Twin Lakes Master plan. That was ruled "ineffective". BUT that did not decide whether or not the Rottlund plan was inconsistent with the Twin Lakes Master Plan. The City's attempt to insert The Rottlund Plan into the Comprehensive Plan was an unnecessary procedure---a mistake, of no importance or consequence as to the ability of the Rottlund plan to proceed anyway, since the true nature of the Twin Lakes Master Plan allows for a variety of possible implementation plans without the obligation to insert any such plan into the Twin Lakes Master and Comprehensive Plan. The Twin Lakes Master Plan is today same Plan since 6/26/01, so what it is deemed to be today, also applies to any preceding plan. Under that legal position, the city and the developer should have proceeded to implement the Rottlund Master Plan, without inserting it into the Comprehensive Plan, on the basis that the Master Plan allows a vaziety of plans, and declazing the Rottlund plan consistent with what constitutes the Twin Lakes Master Plan. Inserting the Rottlund Plan into the Twin Lakes Master Plan and the Comp Plan is unnecessary, and therefore the Appellate Court ruling is meaningless. So, if as you say, your position is the legally correct one: --The City has made a terrible blunder by unnecessarily stopping the Rottlund Twin Lakes project. --The developers also blundered by stopping the project. --The attorney(s) representing the City in this matter gave seriously flawed advice to Council. I'll be very curious to see if your fellow council persons, and the city attorney, and Mr. Reuvers, the attorney representing the City in this matter, concur with your view of the meaning of the Appellate Court Decision, and that the Rottlund plan is still a legally viable plan consistent with the Twin Lakes Master Plan, as amended 6/26/01. Al Sands http://webmail.aol.com/29047/aol/en-us/Mail/PrintMessage.aspx 8/7/2007 1 YYLL. 11VYYl V VVY\.111 t4 t.l~~' --U L. 1 4U1 11V11V~:1 11V.)J LililLV11Q11~11~1Q~'1 JU11G G/ -----Original Message-- From: esands2612~a aol.com To: dan.roe@comcast.net Sent: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 11:25 am Subject: Fwd: Howt o Govern a City -St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, June 27 --Original Message-- From: esands2612@aol.com To: dan.roe@comcast.net Sent: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 11:00 am Subject: Re: Howt o Govern a City -St. Paut Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, June 27 IQ~G G Vl GG I was not aware the city attorney had presented legal advice to staff on the matter. What proof do you have? Is it in writing? Have all council persons received a copy? AI Sands ---Original Message----- From: dan.roe@comcast.net To: esands2612@aol.com Sent: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 8:19 am Subject: Re: Fwd: Howt o Govern aCity -St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, June 27 Al, The court ruling, as I have read it, did NOT pass judgment on whether the Rottlund plan was or was not consistent with the 2001 Master Plan. It merely said that a vote that was taken to change the 2001 Master Plan required a 4/5 majority, and having not achieved that, was not a successful vote to change the plan. The court did not say whether or not .that vote needed to be taken for the project to have been pursued, as far as I could tell. I do not know whether we would be in the same spot today if the Rottlund plan had been approved on the basis of being already consistent with the 2001 Master Plan, since that is not how it happened. If the approval had occurred in that manner, then I suppose your buddies at the FOTL would have challenged THAT in court, and we might have a court ruling as to whether the Rottlund plan was consistent with the 2001 Master Plan. As we sit here now, we don't have that kind of ruling, in my opinion. The court ruling as to the AUAR was that the area-by-area uses/impacts in some cases were different than the AUAR, so the AUAR needed to be updated, even though the project-wide impacts were lower than the original AUAR. As the ruling noted, the fact that 5 years had passed meant that the AUAR needed to be updated anyway. The updated AUAR has been developed on the basis of being consistent with the 2001 Master Plan, including legal advice to staff to that effect. I know that you disagree with that finding, but I have not found your arguments persuasive. However, you are still entitled to your opinion. Dan Roe -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: ~r_c ~~i2~a~i,, .corr. > One more question for you regarding the Twin Lakes Master Plan:? If, as you say, http://webmail.aol.com/29047/aoUen-us/Mail/PrintMessage.aspx 8/7/2007 1 W LL. 11V W L V V V Y Vlll Q Vll~' --Ul. 1 a.Ul 1 1VllVt+l 1 1 ~.JJ 1..U1LV11R1 L 11LLG1~' ~ J 1i11~ !r / ~ r > the Twin Lakes Master Plan. as amended by Council minutes 6/26/01,?and in the > comp plan, ?allows for a variety of mixed uses, based on including map 3 with > the 3 additional options,? why did the Rottlund project get rejected by > the?Appeals Court as not consistent with the?Twin Lakes Master Plan? > And, then why?do the scenarios in the updated AUAR pass when the Rottlund Twin > Lakes plan failed? > Al Sands > -----Original Message----- > From: _.a ..- _~_~~ > To c~~r. ~~~- -. > Sent: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:08 pm > Subject: Re: Howt o Govern a City --St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, > June 27 > ? > TWIN LAKES LANDOWNERS STATUS > ???????? The following describes my understanding of the rights and obligations > of the present owners of property within the Twin Lakes Comprehensive plan > area.? > The Twin Lakes Comprehensive Plan designation is a P.U.D. with an underlying B-6 > Business Park District.?? A B-6 District may be established after completion and > city approval of a mixed use master plan? for that district and completion of > environmental review.? This has been done. (Code Section 1005..07) > Properties within the Twin Lakes area have various pre existing zoning that > continue as? non conforming uses? under? Code Section 1011: > Existing structures or uses may be? continued but may not be extended, expanded, > intensified, or changed, except to a conforming (B-6) use.? If property is > damaged by casualty, the structures must be reconstructed within 6 months. If > the non conforming use has been discontinued for twelve months, it shall not > return to the? original or any other use which is non conforming. > Normal maintenance is permitted. > The appropriate action to initiate a land use change would be an application for > a planned unit development (Code Section 1005.07 (B) and 1005.08). > To allow land owners within a development area to ignore the Comprehensive Plan > designation and operate only under the pre existing zoning would destroy the > opportunity to control land use within the development area as a developer is > sought and applies for? a planned unit development..? I suggest you talk to > Thomas Paschke about this. > ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? NATURE OF THE TWIN > LAKES MASTER PLAN 1 GL~V J Vl 44 http://webmail.aol.com/29047/aol/en-us/Mail/PrintMessage.aspx 8/7/2007 1 WLL. IIV WLV VVVL.111~41..1Ly --U1.14U111V11GG1 IlGJJ 1:U1l.Vlla11'l1LL[1~'~JU11G G/ ~ Y > > If, as you believe, the Twin Lakes?Comprehensive plan permits scenarios other > than Scenario 1 in map 6 of the Master Plan, why didn't the Council and > Staff?include them in the 2001 AUAR study?? Why was the 2001 study limited to > scenario 1 and la, and then la was dropped?? It seems to me the original AUAR > should have included options 2,3,and 4 in their study if they were in the?master > plan, as amended by Council on 6/26/01.? Don't you? > I think the best way for you to resolve your thinking is to ask the city > attorney, Scott Anderson for?his written opinion on?what scenarios are actually > included in the Twin Lakes Master Plan, as amended by Council on?6/26/01.??I > think that would help all of us define the matter, and end the debate.? That is > what he is there for.? That is his job. > Sounds like the Monday night Council meetings get you so wound up, you can't > relax enough to sleep.? Those meetings should stop and 10 o clock.? The Agenda > has to be set up to allow more time for items.? Dick Houck suggests the agenda > maker ask each person making a presentation to estimate his time, and then add > some for council debate.? Also, if I were you I would object to getting the > packet on Friday and be expected to spend my weekends studying them instead of > having some recreational time. > Regards, Al Sands > ? > -----Original Message----- > From: .-~ i.roer ~.>a~t ,-,_ > TO F,urr 6~i~" ~so1 . cr:~. > Sent: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 2:52 pm > Subject: Re: Howt o Govern a City --St. > June 27 Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, > If it is in the Master Plan document, it is part of the Master Plan.? Nothing > erroneous about that.? > ? > (Ref court ruling in FOTL case:? [to paraphrase] If it is in the Comp Plan, it > is part of the Comp Plan) > ? > On 6/26/01, the council took scenario la out of the Twin Lakes Master Plan.? > Whatever the minutes say, what is valid is the resolutions that were passed, and > the Master Plan as published in the Comp Plan as submitted to the Met Council. > ? http://webmail.aol. com/29047/aoUen-us/Mail/PrintMessage.aspx ra~c ~r ul ~~ 8/7/2007 1 rr t1. 11V rr ~ V t!V r Vlal µ vt~~ --V a, 1 µµ1 1 1V11GG1 1 1GJJ LU1LV11µ1 1.11t1GL~' ~ JU11V. G / > > Clearly, from the AUAR itself, and from the packet and minutes of the 6/26/01 > meeting, the AUAR included both scenario 1 and scenario la?in its scope of > study.? Neither the packet nor the minutes say that scenario la was taken out of > the AUAR, but it is reasonable to conclude that the findings of the AUAR related > to that scenario became moot when that scenario was excluded from the master > plan.? Certainly, inclusion of the study of scenario la in the last AUAR does > not mean it ought to be included in the. revision of the AUAR,?since the revision > is to be based on the Master Plan as approved.? Regardless, from my point of > view, I am not expecting the revision of the AUAR to study scenario la.? If Map > 3 is in the Master Plan, then I do not see why?those scenarios?can not be used > as guidance as to the new AUAR (so long as they conform to the rest of the > Master Plan). > ? > Non-conforming refers strictly to zoning, not comp plan designations.? As of our > January 2007 Official Zoning Map, the properties in question in the Twin Lakes > area are still zoned as various types of Industrial (because the B6 zoning was > not ever made effective, as the project for which it was approved was > abandoned).? Non-conforming, by its definition in section 1002.02, refers to > uses existing before the adoption of the zoning code in 1959.? If industrial > uses were conforming as of the last official zoning of that property (say when > the trucking terminals, etc., were built), they are not suddenly > "non-conforming" now. > ? > For some reason,?Z am often up in the wee hours of Tuesday mornings lately... > ? > Dan Roe? > ? > ? > ? > -------------- Original message -------------- > From _ _; :::1 . _-~ > It's unfortunate that maps 3, 4, and 5 were included in the appendix to the > master plan.? They were intended to present? historical developments, but are > now?eroneously claimed by John Stark and you ?as an integral part of the Master > Plan.? In fact, you will not find the four option plan in the council packet at > all on 6/26/01.? If you read the 6/26/01 packet and minutes carefully, you will > find they took out scenario la, and that left only scenariol as having any > validity, as.the minutes clearly state., and as staff recommended--only one > plan.? That is also the only one plan studied in the AUAR at the time, which is > also an integral part of the Twin Lakes Comprehensive Plan by amendment of the > Council. 1 Q~G JVI GG http://webmail.aol.com/29047/aoUen-us/Mail/PrintMessage.aspx 8/7/2007 1 W4. 1jVW~ V VVVVjjj R l.l~~' --,,~~, ril.lA! r1v11GC1 r1GJJ GUlLUlliil I'IlUay, JLLIIC L/ rage b oI LL ~ j > You?need to read Code 1011 regarding use of non conforming land uses, and their > limitations.? Since the master plan shows Twin Lakes as a B-6 zone, any other > use is non conforming. > I note your last e mail was sent at 3 AM this morning. Neither you or John > Kysylyczyn must sleep. > ~ > Al Sands > -----Original Message----- > From: _ . _ -. . ~:==t > Sent: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:07 am > Subject: Re: Howt o Govern a City --St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, > June 27 > A1, > I read the whole packet for the June 26, 2001, meeting, and the meeting > minutes.? All it says is that they took out scenario la from the Master Plan, > and accepted the AUAR. > ? > The 4-concept map is right in the Twin Lakes Master Plan that you get when you > pull it up via the City web site? It is referenced in the Table of Contents (as > "Map 3"), so it IS part of the Master Plan. > ? > John Stark did not make that map up.? It is in the copy of the Master Plan that > I have from my days on the Twin Lakes Stakeholder Panel, before John Stark even > worked for the city. > ? > > Dan > ? > -------------- Original message -------------- > From ~s ~`; rS _ :~:~m > Please read the council packet pages 199 and 200 dated June? 26, 2001 as you > still insist map four is relavent.? It is not.? Scenario 1 is the only amendment > to the master plan in effect.? Zf you still have doubts, please confer with Mr. > Scott? Anderson.? He should have learned by now from a careful reading of the > 6/26/01 council packet, and the actual minutes of that meeting.? You need to > follow the history of this designation, and what the intent of the Council was > on 6/26/01 to know that map four wasn't even a part of the 6/26/01 council > packet, and was superceded by the master plan back in January 2001.? John Stark > tried to re-invent it.? I repeat it is not a part of the existing http://webmail.aol.com/29047/aol/en=us/MaillPrintMessage.aspx 8/7/2007 i wu. a1vw~ v vvv~.itt a l.i1l'' --mot. 1 au1 1 lVUl.~.t 11VDJ LiullVltcil 1'11uG1~', JUL1G G/ 1 i comprehensive > plan.? While I was planning to present my documentation at the next mee ting, I > will try to drop it off at your house in the next several days so you can see > the whole history of this sad tale.? You need to go beyond reading the master > plan, and look at the underlying documentation of the 6/26/01 packet, and the > amendment the Council made on that date, evidence by the minutes of the meeting. > Wishful thinking is clouding your analysis. > Al Sands > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Roe <~? r ,~_ ., ~ > > To _ _ __~..~ > Sent: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 3:12 am > Subject: RE: Howt o Govern a City --St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, > June 27 > I have reviewed the 2001 master plan approval based on your earlier emails, and > I simply do not see it as proscriptive as you see it.? Even with the "scenario > la" map excluded, which is clear from reading the minutes of the meeting, and > from the master plan itself, there is another map with 4 options that is still > part of the master plan, plus the text in the master plan, when read in full, > does provide for flexibility.? > ? > How is picking zoning designations on a parcel by parcel basis less of a central > plan than an area-wide zoning designation that allows for some flexibility as to > exactly where each particular type of use goes (within the constraints of the > master plan)?? I can see the argument that. the parcel by parcel specific zoning > approach is MORE restrictive than B6.? Plus, each zoning designation comes with > a bunch of uses, some of which may meet the intent for the area, and some of ~ > which may be outside of what is intended.? (If you pick B2 because it allows one > desired use, you could also end up allowing a totally different use that you > don't want to allow.)? By using B6, you get a different specific set of possible > uses.? Depends on what you want to do.? Or more correctly, what the community > wants to do. > ? > Zoning only changes when a new proposal comes along that meets the comp plan for > the area.? Until that happens, each parcel can be used to its current > designation as fully and as long as anyone wants to.? I am fairly sure that the > B6 zoning for Twin Lakes that was done for the last project was contingent on > the plan going through, so the area should revert back to?its most recent > previous zoning designation now that the project did not happen. > ? > Prospective buyers (and sellers) DO know what use the land can be put to right r arc i ut ~~, http://webmail.aol.com/29047/aoVen-us/MaiUPrintMessage.aspx 8/7/2007 1 vv u. 11V VVL V VVVL.IU q vll~' --U L. / RL11 1 1V11VV1 11~.JJ litU W11GL1 1'llu[ly~ JlLL1G G/ > now in Twin Lakes -- anything that meets current zoning, or anything that > ultimately meets B6 (PUD).? They can make their decisions on that basis.? If > they build an expensive new light industrial building, certainly they take a > certain (known) risk based on the comp plan designation being other than > industrial.? At the same time, anyone who wants to buy that property down the > road and do a B6 development on it will have to fairly compensate the owner for > the value of the new building, based on the marketplace. > ? > By the way, it does not automatically require 4 votes to do everything in Twin > Lakes.? As long as the comp plan does not need to be changed, a 3-2 vote will > suffice.? It is not out of the realm of possibilities for a plan to come forward > that only Tom, Amy, and I support, for instance.? If it meets the comp plan and > you like the plan, too, would you say that it?is it bad to approve it by only a > 3-2 vote?? Of course, the preference would be to have 5-0 votes on everything.? > It comes down to how much each Councilmember is willing to compromise.? > Ultimately,?I only control my 1 vote. > ? > Dan Roe > Email dar,.roe@comcast.ne*_ > ? > ? > ? > ? > -----Original Message----- __., N., ..~~ ~ ~1 cam ._ __ .ar .,_ . . > From. ~ , ~ ~ - [ , ~~ , ~ . - . - - 7 > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 10:02 PM > Subject: Re: Howt o Govern a City --St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, > June 27 > ? If I had my druthers, I would not have voted for the Twin Lakes Master Plan in > June, 2001, as Klausing (and Kysylyczyn, and Maschka) did.? It is the type of > central planning, on a very big scale that requires a developer with very deep > pockets to implement > that I would argue against.? And so does Mr. Greenhut.? But the Council did vote > it in and did incorporate it into the city's comprehensive plan, so it is the > law of the land.? That the Council (and Klausing) in 2005 tried to ignore it was > a very costly mistake.? If this Council ignores it in approving the AUAR update, > you will be making an equally serious mistake.? Recognize and obey > the?constrictions your predecessors have placed on you.? You don't really > believe you?are above the law, do you? rGlb'G O Vl LG http://webmail.aol.com/29047/aoUen-us/Mail/PrintMessage.aspx 8/7/2007 1 av ~~ ~ v V V t vl as K t.i~~ --~~~ 1 util 1 1V11\.trl 1 1 VJJ li~,{ilV11GL1 1'llUCl~' ~ JUll(. L / > ?? When you talk about?options for developers and the city to come up with plans > that don't fit more narrow zoning designations, and ignore the rights of the > land owners themselves, that basically is alllowing the city to dictate to both > the developers and the land owners what they must do.? That is, as?I see > it,?Central Planning by the city, and freedom for the Council, but nobody else. > If you can't see?that, I'm afraid we do live on different planets. > ? Of course we need a comprehensive plan to keep targets and costcos separate > from residential areas.? That is the very purpose of a comprehensive plan, and > the zoning codes that support and are consistent with the Comp Plan.?? Right > now, most of Twin Lakes would be zoned "light industrial" were it not for the B6 > PUD designation.? Note that the B6 designation does not take effect until there > is an approved PUD.? Before Commers bo ught the Indianhead site, someone else > managed to get it re- zoned to commercial from industrial.?It doesn't fit > in--doesn't belong there. ?I would be interested in learning?how that ever got > rezoned to commercial in an otherwise industrial zoning area.? However, he > doesn't have enough land there for a Costco. Even a Costco wouldn't want to be > situated in the middle of an industrial manufacturing?area. > ? To make my position clear to you, I would rescind the B6 zoning designation, > abandon the PUD micromanaging approach, but amend the Comprehensive Plan to zone > the Twin Lakes area in a sensible land use approach.? Industrial is no longer a > practical option, because any new manufacturing facility is?very remote.? I > thought the 2001 Master Plan was a pretty sensible land use plan, except for the > hospital fiasco, and the created confusion between (limited) "service mix" and > (anything goes) "retail".? If the Council deemed it wise to zone certain areas > of Twin Lakes into Office, High Tech Flex, Housing, etc. I think that would be a > good comp plan, which has to be amended by the end of 2008, with four votes of > the council.? Land owners would then know what? exactly their land use plan is > and seek out buyers accordingly.? Each land owner would act in his own best > interests independently, but eventually the overall plan would be the same as > the B6 PUD outcome, but without the central planning, and without the big TIF > give aways. And without the centrally planned Twin Lakes Parkway adjacent to > Langton Lake.? If Council demands a Twin Lakes Parkway, take the land under > eminent domain, build it, and pay for it up front.? Then asses the land owners > for the improvement to their property.? As it is, current land owners are > helpless.? They can't go back to their original uses, because they abandoned > them, and they can't tell any prospective buyer what use the land can be put > to.? The must wait for another big pocket developer to come along and get > four votes of the Council to amend the Comp Plan.? Trying to circumvent the > current Comp Plan through a flawed AUAR process is not the way to give certainty > to developers.? While I understand your desire to get out of this "box", and get > something going in Twin Lakes, do it the right way.? The outcomes you are > seeking don't justify the means you are using. > Thanks for this dialogue.? Perhaps we both see each others positions more > clearly now. Also, thanks forthe web site to the OCRegister.com.? I've been able http://webmail.aol.com/29047/aol/en-us/Mail/PrintMessage.aspx 1 Glb'C 7 VL LG 8/7/2007 + Y~\a. a1V ~~~ V VVlvaaa µ va~~ Va. 1 44a 11V11VV1 11VJJ Lµ1~V1141 l lll/LL,'~ J411Lr 4/ > to save it on my hard drive. > Best regards. > Al Sands > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Roe < . - <±> > To. > Sent: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 6:57 pm > Subject: RE: Howt o Govern a City --St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, > June 2 7 > Business Park is part of the 2001 comp plan change that you hold up as > sacrosanct.? Probably no loss of use claim if the comp plan designation is > already in effect for years before a development.? B6 and PUD gives developers > (and the city) options to come up with plans that don't fit more narrow zoning > designations - why is that "central planning" and not freedom?? The?whole thing > has to be approved in the open via the elected officials of the city.??I think > it is possible for a "grand scheme" to allow freedom -- apparently the Friends > of Twin Lakes don't.? Seems like you are arguing against the 2001 Master Plan > that you are also saying we are not even following in relation to the AUAR.? > Which planet is?it that allows you to?own both sides of?the argument, > and?everybody else to own neither?? > ? > Freedom:? How about letting Dan Commers build a big box on his land?? (Not that > I am advocating that - but I think Greenhut is.)? The whole opposition to Twin > Lakes was to restrict a market-driven business activity (big box retail).? How > is that not working in opposition to the freedom that Greenhut describes? > ? > We agree on your last point.? EXCEPT that I do not PRESUME corruption in EVERY > case, as you seem to do. > ? > Dan Roe > Email da '- ~r c;~ . t.F~r. > ? > ? > ? > ? > -----Original Message----- . ~ ( .. ,, ,..._. . > From. .._ ...~~_~ ,=.c~~r._ ._ -i_~ :._. w n__ -_] > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 5:07 PM > 5ubject: Re: Howt o Govern a City --St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, 1 LL~G 1 V Vl LL http://webmail.aol.com/29047/aoUen-us/MaiUPrintMessage.aspx 8/7/2007 a v•u. aaV rr a. v vvra.l al µ ~l~y --~~. a µµl a ivli\.~.1 1 a~.JJ Lti/LV11Gi1 1.114f1~'~ Jldtlb L/ I Q~'G 1 1 Vl GL > June 27 > I view Twin Lakes as the epitome of grand scheme city planning to micro manage > over 172 acres of developable land.? The B6 zone with a PUD planned unit > development placed our city staff in charge of micro managing all the details.? > How can you not see this as not exactly what Mr. Greenhut was complaining > about??Central Planning stifles.? ?Also, the B6 zone?took away land owners > rights to do what they want with their land.? They were only given the right to > continue to use their 1 and? so long as they didn't change uses.?I think the > city should have been sued for loss of value of their land.? Now that the land > has been vacant and unused for over a year,? those land owners are precluded > from reverting back to .that use.? They must conform to the B6 zone requirements. > Dan, sometimes I wonder if we live on the same planet.? Could you get more > specific in your comments?? Just how and why do you think Twin Lakes fits into > Mr. Greenhut's stated scheme of freedom for land owners to do what they want?? > Dan, everyone is naturally greedy and self centered.? It is the human > condition.? Wouldn't you want to increase your salary/compensation if you > could?? Corrupt is a different matter.? The Council needs to balance the demands > of employees against what's fair compared to the private sector.? How many of us > can match their health and retirement benefits?? What about outsourcing?? ; Are > you ready for that?? By the way, I'm not ready to fire good employees and > replace them with outsiders. > Al Sands > -----Original Message----- > From: ,. > Sent: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 3:08 pm > Subject: Re: Howt o Govern a City --St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, > June 27 > A1, > ? > Here is a link to the original commentary from the Orange County Register.? > ? .y ,-~ - - „_ ... ._ _ , , ,-, ~ ~ ~ F ~' _ .. _. > _. ~ ..,~~ ~ ~ __ .r~:x~ > ? > I have to say that I read the piece in the PP on Friday, too, and came to a > completely different conclusion about how Roseville compares to the objectives > Mr. Greenhut sets forward.? Only if you buy into the notion that Roseville city > employees and officials?are self-centered, greedy, and corrupt could you > conclude that most of Mr. Greenhut's complaints apply to Roseville city > government.? http://webmail.aol.com/29047/aol/en-uslMail/PrintMessage.aspx 8/7/2007 1 YY 4. 11V YYl V VVYVlll0. t.1L~' --U L. 1 0.U111V11GG1 11GJJ 1.iLL1LV110.11'11U0.~'~ JU11G G/ > ? > Interestingly, many of the notions that Mr. Greenhut espouses about freedom from > excessive control and creativity of land use are exactly what was being fought > by opponents of Twin Lakes or by opponents of lot splits in Roseville.? I wonder > how those folks would respond to Mr. Greenhut's lassaiz-faire approach to zoning > controls? > Regards, > ? > Dan Roe > ? > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: esa*_c:'->;_ ~~~i:';a;;? . ccm > The attached article appeared in the ST. Paul Pioneer Press last Friday.? I > heartily agree with it's philosophy, opposite from the suffocating goals of big > time development this city embraces. > You may wish to also read my comments on the Roseville Issues web site. > Al Sands > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL > at AOL.com. > ? Of course we need a comprehensive plan to keep targets and costcos separate > from residential areas.? That is the very purpose of a comprehensive plan, and > the zoning codes that support and are consistent with the Comp Plan.?? Right > now, most of Twin Lakes would be zoned "light industrial" were it not for the B6 > PUD designation.? Note that the B6 designation does not take effect until there > is an approved PUD,? Before Commers bo ught the Zndianhead site, someone else > managed to get it re- zoned to commercial from industrial.?It doesn't fit > in--doesn't belong there. ?I would be interested in learning?how that ever got > rezoned to commercial in an otherwise industrial zoning area.? However, he > doesn't have enough land there for a Costco. Even a Costco wouldn't want to be > situated in the middle of an industrial manufacturing?area. > ? To make my position clear to you, I would rescind the B6 zoning designation, > abandon the PUD micromanaging approach, but amend the Comprehensive Plan to zone > the Twin Lakes area in a sensible land use approach.? Industrial is no longer a http://webmail.aol.com/29047/aoUen-us/Mail/PrintMessage.aspx 8/7/2007 i rr u. a.aV Vr~ v VVVVa1a G liaL~' --U ~. a [LIAa a 1Va1~.Va 1 at.JJ Li\aalVaaCal a'laULl~'r JUL1G L/ i-t4~G 1J VL GL > practical option, because any new manufacturing facility is?very remote.? I > thought the 2001 Master Plan was a pretty sensible land use plan, except for the > hospital fiasco, and the created confusion between (limited) "service mix" and > (anything goes) "retail".? If the Council deemed it wise to zone certain areas > of Twin Lakes into Office, High Tech Flex, Housing, etc. I think that would be a > good comp plan, which has to be amended by the end of 2008, with four votes of > the council.? Land owners would then know what? exactly their land use plan is > and seek out buyers accordingly.? Each land owner would act in his own best > interests independently, but eventually the overall plan would be the same as > the B6 PUD outcome, but without the central planning, and without the big TIF > give aways. And without the centrally planned Twin Lakes Parkway adjacent to > Langton Lake.? Zf Council demands a Twin Lakes Parkway, take the land under > eminent domain, build it, and pay for it up front.? Then asses the land owners > for the improvement to their property.? As it is, current land owners are > helpless.? They can't go back to their original uses, because they abandoned > them, and they can't tell any prospective buyer what use the land can be put > to.? The must wait for another big pocket developer to come along and get > four votes of the Council to amend the Comp Plan.? Trying to circumvent the > current Comp Plan through a flawed AUAR process is not the way to give certainty > to developers.? While I understand your desire to get out of this "box", and get > something going in Twin Lakes, do it the right way.? The outcomes you are > seeking don't justify the means you are using. > Thanks for this dialogue.? Perhaps we both see each others positions more > clearly now. Also, thanks forthe web site to the OCRegister.com.? I've been able > to save it on my hard drive. > Best regards. > Al Sands > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Roe << -,_~. -- , ire-> > Sent: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 6:57 pm > Subject: RE: Howt o Govern a City --St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, > June 2 7 > Business Park is part of the 2001 comp plan change that you hold up as > sacrosanct.? Probably no loss of use claim if the comp plan designation is > already in effect for years before a development.? B6 and PUD gives developers > (and the city) options to come up with plans that don't fit more narrow zoning > designations - why is that "central planning" and not freedom?? The?whole thing > has to be approved in the open via the elected officials of the city.??I think > it is possible for a "grand scheme" to allow freedom -- apparently the Friends > of Twin Lakes don't.? Seems like you are arguing against the 2001 Master Plan > that you are also saying we are not even following in relation to .the AUAR.? > Which planet is?it that allows you to?own both sides of?the argument, > and?everybody else to own neither?? http://webmail.aol.com/29047/aoUen-us/Mail/PrintMessage.aspx 8/7/2007 i wu. iivw~ V vvv~iii a ~,uy --.~~. i ai,u i lvu~~i i i~~a i:ui~vita- i tiuay, duuv c~i a > ? > Freedom:? How. about letting Dan Commers build a big box on his land?? (Not that > I am advocating that - but I think Greenhut is.)? The whole opposition to Twin > Lakes was to restrict a market-driven business activity (big box retail).? How > is that not working in opposition to the freedom that Greenhut describes? > o > We agree on your last point.? EXCEPT that I do not PRESUME corruption in EVERY > case, as you seem to do. > ? > Dan Roe > Email c~,~ .x~- ;ar,c ,- .r~~-r > ? > ? > ? > ? > -----Original Message----- > From: Fs ids: r ~@~: i .com [tn.,~,~_,tr>:F~:,:*in~?bl'f~~~ol.cc~m) > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 5:07 PM > To: r,ar_. roe~c ;,n.c:~is~ ~t. > Subject: Re: Howt o Govern a City --St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, > June 27 > I view Twin Lakes as the epitome of grand scheme city planning to micro manage > over 172 acres of developable land.? The B6 zone , with a PUD planned unit > development placed our city staff in charge of micro managing all the details.? > How can you not see this as not exactly what Mr. Greenhut was complaining > about??Central Planning stifles.? ?Also, the B6 zone?took away land owners > rights to do what they want with their land.? They were only given the right to > continue to use their 1 and? so long as they didn't change uses.?I think the > city should have been sued for loss of value of their land.? Now that the land > has been vacant and unused for over a year,? those land owners are precluded > from reverting back to that use.? They must conform to the B6 zone requirements. > Dan, sometimes I wonder if we live on the same planet.? Could you get more > specific in your comments?? Just how and why do you think Twin Lakes fits into > Mr. Greenhut's stated scheme of freedom for land owners to do what they want?? > Dan, everyone is naturally greedy and self centered.? It is the human > condition.? Wouldn't you want to increase your salary/compensation if you > could?? Corrupt is a different matter.? The Council needs to balance the demands > of employees against what's fair compared to the private sector.? How many of us > can match their health and retirement benefits?? What about outsourcing?? ; http://webmail.aol.com/29047/aoUen-us/Mail/PrintMessage.aspx 1 Q~G lY Vl LG 8/7/2007 1 YY <L. 11V •• L V V V Y Vlll µ Vll' --V L. 1 6Lµ1 1 1V11V\rl 1 1 VJJ LY16VllLil 1 114(1'' ~ /IUlV Lr / r Are > you ready for that?? By the way, I'm not ready to fire good employees and > replace them with outsiders. > Al Sands > -----Original Message----- > From: _ :.... .. > Sent: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 3:08 pm > Subject: Re: Howt o Govern a City --St. > June 27 > A1, > ? Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, > Here is a link to the original commentary from the Orange County Register.? > ? > ? > I have to say that I read the piece in the PP on Friday, too, and came to a > completely different conclusion about how Roseville compares to the objectives > Mr. Greenhut sets forward.? Only if you buy into the notion that Roseville city > employees and officials?are self-centered, greedy, and corrupt could you > conclude that most of Mr. Greenhut's complaints apply to Roseville city > government.? > 7 > > Interestingly, many of the notions that Mr. Greenhut espouses about freedom from > excessive control and creativity of land use are exactly what was being fought > by opponents of Twin Lakes or by opponents of lot splits in Roseville.? I wonder > how those folks would respond to Mr. Greenhut's lassaiz-faire approach to zoning > controls? > ? > Regards, > ? > Dan Roe > > ? > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: _,> u=_ _ _ _._, > The attached article appeared in the ST. Paul Pioneer Press last Friday.? I > heartily agree with it's philosophy, opposite from the suffocating goals of big > time development this city embraces. > You may wish to also read my comments on the Roseville Issues web site. 1 0.~~. 1 J V1 LL http://webmail.aol.com/29047/aol/en-us/Mail/PrintMessage.aspx 8/7/2007 a •~ N. a iv ~~ t v vv ~ vl 11 µ vlt, - --V t. 1 µµ1 1 1VllVr1 1 1 VJJ 1.i41{.Vl lµl 1 11\101'' ~ J llllV L / 1 Q~C 1 V Ul (rlr > > > Al Sands > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL > at AOL.com. > > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL > at AOL.com. Attached Message... _ _ _ _ From: esands2612@aoLcom To: dan.roe@comcast.net Subject: Fwd: Howt o Govem a City -St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, June 27 Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 03:52:48 +0000 __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. One more question for you regarding the Twin Lakes Master Plan: If, as you say, the Twin Lakes Master Plan. as amended by Council minutes 6/26/01, and in the comp plan, allows for a variety of mixed uses, based on including map 3 with the 3 additional options, why did the Rottlund project get rejected by the Appeals Court as not consistent with the Twin Lakes Master Plan? And, then why do the scenarios in the updated AUAR pass when the Rottlund Twin Lakes plan failed? AI Sands ---Original Message---- From: esands2612@aol.com To: dan.roe@comcast.net Sent: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:08 pm Subject: Re: Howt o Govem a City -St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, June 27 TWIN LAKES LANDOWNERS STATUS The fc;liawing descrik~es my understanding of the rights and obligations of the present owners of property withii~ tF~e "twin Lakes Compretrensive plan area.. The Twin Lakes Gompreher~sive Flan designation is a P.l1.D" with an underiyir7g E~-~i Business Park District. A S-6 District may be established after completiar~ and city approvai of a mixed use master plan for that district and vompletian of ei~viranrrsenta! review. This has been done. (code Section 1005..07] Properties within the Twin Lakes area have various pre existing zoning that continue as non conforming uses under Cade Section 1011 Existing structures or uses may be continued but may not be extended, expanded, intensified, ar changed, except http://webmail.aol.com/29047/aoUen-us/Mail/PrintMessage.aspx 8/7/2007 " ~ - ril~C 1 / Ul LL t`~ ..,.~~~torr~, r~ ~ r~_F ~ I ~ rf;uf F t'y t~ Cid°'trc' t- ~ r~ C' c rr n~i~rt~ (f f'"fE r?{~'? C+~I~fir`ri rnrr at.~ plc ~tF,~.` ~ e ~~ ty.`, er r Sir G! t F~; rii JSi ~JE' YE:::.tii;trtJGi~~7 V'v'It~'~ ~ C~~_ ~r~~ U= ~ ,.c ~.: .L, ~ T~.'-~ t4Arc e~ r~l Y4 as a '~ l.r;`tt:. i-1 ~~G 4~1-IlUtl Iu ilti( ".,,~ y ~ J . "s tF.. r r}~ ':"F f:,r-t; { t},~ !) !vj!.1 t i'~~rrr~~I ~;~i„s~ ~I~,rlce ;` r•,Nrrt2ttr-;._ . he a~~rC17J' lc:~ a~tlnrl tC? Irlf`' atF?: ~ laf"~ i.iSE:~ ^l~ldrl(~~; L".~~t11~s ~":E-' c1'~' a~~p~iC._;tC,~;~ ftrtl r~ ~'-IE. -~'utlai"~ 1~.J,:;.v,'(~3j a,'"'tC 1 ~UL, ~snr ~ i~ .~; Uri? (7.:~?f~l~,ar.l:,.;' ~C;G{'~i:~ To aliaU~ land owners vrithin a development area to ignorE the Comprehensive Plan designatian and o . r= t ate only under the pre existing zaning would destroy the apporYUnity to contra! land usF within thr~ development area a~ a developer is caught at~d applies for a punned unit development.. (suggest you talk to Thorrias Paschke alrjout this. NATURE OF THE TWIN LAKES MASTER PLAN If, as you believe, the Twin Lakes Comprehensive plan permits scenarios other than Scenario 1 in map 6 of the Master Plan, why didn't the Council and Staff include them in the 2001 AUAR study? Why was the 2001 study limited to scenario 1 and 1a, and then 1a was dropped? It seems to me the original AUAR should have included options 2,3,and 4 in their study if they were in the master plan, as amended by Council on 6/26/01. Don't you? I think the best way for you to resolve your thinking is to ask the city attorney, Scott Anderson for his written opinion on what scenarios are actually included in the Twin Lakes Master Plan, as amended by Council on 6/26/01. I think that would help all of us define the matter, and end the debate. That is what he is there for. That is his job. Sounds like the Monday night Council meetings get you so wound up, you can't relax enough to sleep. Those meetings should stop and 10 o clock. The Agenda has to be set up to allow more time for items. Dick Houck suggests the agenda maker ask each person making a presentation to estimate his time, and then add some for council debate. Also, if I were you I would object to getting the packet on Friday and be expected to spend my weekends studying them instead of having some recreational time. Regards, AI Sands -----0riginal Message--- From: dan.roe@comcast.net To: esands2612@aol.com Sent: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 2:52 pm Subject: Re: Howt o Govem a City -St. Paul Pioneer Press. Editorial Friday, June 27 If it is in the Master Plan document, it is part of the Master Plan. Nothing erroneous about that. (Ref court ruling in FOTL case: [to paraphrase) If it is in the Comp Plan, it is part of the Comp Plan) On 6/26/01, the council took scenario 1a out of the Twin Lakes Master Plan. Whatever the minutes say, what is valid is the resolutions that were passed, and the Master Ptan as published in the Comp Plan as submitted to the Met Council. Clearly, from the AUAR itself, and from the packet and minutes of the 6/26/01 meeting, the AUAR included both scenario 1 and scenario 1a in its scope of study. Neither the packet nor the minutes say that scenario 1a was taken out of the AUAR, but it is reasonable to conclude that the findings of the AUAR related to that scenario became moot when that scenario was excluded from the master plan. Certainly, inclusion of the study of scenario 1 a in the last AUAR does not mean it ought to be included in the revision of the AUAR, since the revision is to be based on the Master Plan as approved. Regardless, from my point of view, I am not expecting the revision of the AUAR to study scenario 1 a. If Map 3 is in the Master Plan, then I do not ttp://webmail.aol.com/29047/aoUen-us/Mail/PrintMessage.aspx 8!7/2007 1' WU. I1VWL V. UVVGIll YL 1..1L~' --JL. i~2t111 r1Ul1GG1 i~1GJJ L'L11LV11Q! 1'11LL~1~'~ JUNG G/ r[L~,'G 10 Vl GG see why those scenarios can not be used as guidance as to the new AUAR (so long as they conform to the rest of the Master Plan). Non-conforming refers strictly to zoning, not comp plan designations. As of our January 2007 Official Zoning Map, the properties in question in the Twin Lakes area are still zoned as various types of Industrial (because the B6 zoning was not ever made effective, as the project for which it was approved was abandoned). Non-conforming, by its definition in section 1002.02, refers to uses existing before the adoption of the zoning code in 1959. If industrial uses were conforming as of the last official zoning of that property (say when the trucking terminals, etc., were built), they are not suddenly "non-conforming" now. For some reason, I am often up in the wee hours of Tuesday mornings lately... Dan Roe ------- Original message ------- From: esands2612@aol.com It's unfortunate that maps 3, 4, and 5 were included in the appendix to the master plan. They were intended to present- historical developments, but are now eroneously claimed by John Stark and you as an integral part of the Master Plan. In fact, you will not find the four option plan in the council packet at all on 6/26/01. If you read the 6/26/01 packet and minutes carefully, you will find they took out scenario 1a, and that left only scenariol as having any validity, as the minutes clearly state., and as staff recommended-only one plan. That is also the only one plan studied in the AUAR at the time, which is also an integral part of the Twin Lakes Comprehensive Plan by amendment of the Council. You need to read Code 1011 regarding use of non conforming land uses, and their limitations. Since the master plan shows Twin Lakes as a B-6 zone, any other use is non conforming. I note your last a mail was sent at 3 AM this morning. Neither you or John Kysylyczyn must sleep. AI Sands ----Original Message-- From: dan.roe@comcast.net To: esands2612@aol.com Sent: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:07 am Subject: Re: Howt o Govern a City -St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, June 27 AI, I read the whole packet for the June 26, 2001, meeting, and the meeting minutes. All it says is that they took out scenario 1 a from the Master Plan, and accepted the AUAR. The 4-concept map is right in the Twin Lakes Master Plan that you get when you pull it up via the City web site It is referenced in the Table of Contents (as "Map 3"), so it IS part of the Master Plan. John Stark did not make that map up. It is in the copy of the Master Plan that I have from my days on the Twin Lakes Stakeholder Panel, before John Stark even worked for the city. Dan - -Original message ---------- From: esands2612@aol.com Please read the council packet pages 199 and 200 dated June 26, 2001 as you still insist map four is relavent. It is not. Scenario 1 is the only amendment to the master plan in effect. If you still have doubts, please confer with Mr. Scott Anderson. He should have teamed by now from a careful reading of the 6/26/01 council packet, and the actual minutes of that meeting. You need to follow the history of this designation, and what the intent of the Council was on 6/26/01 to know that map four wasn't even a part of the 6/26/01 council packet, and was superceded by the master plan back in January 2001. John Stark tried http://webmail.aol.com/29047/aol/en-us/Mail/PrintMessage.aspx 8/7/2007 4 YY U. 11V Y• l V, V V Y rlll u l~l 1, '-A.l 1. 1 Kul 1 1V111. V1 1 1VJJ 1i41LV11{Ll l 11118,' ~ /Ulll. L / 1 Qb'1.~ 17 Vl GG to re-invent it. I repeat it is not a part of the existing comprehensive plan. While I was planning to present my documentation at the next mee ting, I will try to drop it off at your house in the next several days so you can see the whole history of this sad tale. You need to go beyond reading the master plan, and look at the underlying documentation of the 6/26/01 packet, and the amendment the Council made on that date, evidence by the minutes of the meeting. thinking is clouding your analysis. Sands ----Original Message-- From: Dan Roe <dan.roe@comcast net> To: esands2612@aol.com Sent: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 3:12 am Subject: RE: Howt o Govern a City -St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, June 27 ! have reviewed the 2001 master plan approval based on your earlier emails, and I simply do not see it as proscriptive as you see it. Even with the "scenario 1a" map excluded, which is clear from reading the minutes of the meeting, and from the master plan itself, there is another map with 4 options that is still part of the master plan, plus the text in the master plan, when read in full, does provide for flexibility. How is picking zoning designations on a parcel by parcel basis less of a central plan than an area-wide zoning designation that allows for some flexibility as to exactly where each particular type of use goes (within the constraints of the master plan)? I can see the argument that the parcel by parcel specific zoning approach is MORE restrictive than B6. Plus, each zoning designation comes with a bunch of uses, some of which may meet the intent for the area, and some of which may be outside of what is intended. (If you pick B2 because it allows one desired use, you could also end up allowing a totally different use that you don't want to allow.) By using B6, you get a different specific set of possible uses. Depends on what you want to do. Or more correctly, what the community wants to do. Zoning only changes when a new proposal comes along that meets the comp plan for the area. Until that happens, each parce! can be used to its current designation as fully and as long as anyone wants to. I am fairly sure that the 66 zoning for Twin Lakes that was done for the last project was contingent on the plan going through, so the area should revert back to its most recent previous zoning designation now that the project did not happen. Prospective buyers (and sellers) DO know what use the land can be put to right now in Twin Lakes -- anything that meets current zoning, or anything that ultimately meets B6 (PUD). They can make their decisions on that basis. If they build an expensive new light industrial building, certainly they take a certain (known) risk based on the comp plan designation being other than industrial. At the same time, anyone who wants to buy that hCanertq down the road and do a B6 development on it will have to fairly compensate the owner far the value ~. NJ ~~~ qG ~iuiidirrr;, ha4~n'n, n the mark~thl?^~. By the way, it does not automatically require 4 votes to do everything in twin Lakes. As long as the comp plan does not need to be changed, a 3-2 vote will suffice. It is not out of the realm of possibilities for a plan to come forward that only Tom, Amy, and I support, for instance. If it meets the comp plan and you like the plan, too, would you say that it is it bad to approve it by only a 3-2 vote? Of course, the preference would be to have 5-0 votes on everything. It comes down to how much each Councilmember is willing to compromise. Ultimately, I only control my 1 vote. Dan Roe Email dan.roe@comcast.net -----Original Message----- From: esancls2612~i'~aoLcom [mailto:esands2(~I2 a?aoLcoml Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 10:02 PM http://webmail.aol.com/29047/aol/en-us/MaiUPrintMessage.aspx 8/7/2007 1 wu. nvw~ v vvvciii a ~,uy --.~~. r aui r iviiwi i ic~~ uuiwiiai i•iiuay, ruuv ~ i ra~v t,v u1 ~G . To: dan.roe u',con~icast.net Subject: Re: Howt o Govern a City --St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, June 27 If I had my druthers, I would not have voted for the Twin Lakes Maste Plan i~~ June, 2C~Ci1, as Klausing (and Kysylyczyn, and P~iaschka} did. It is the type of central planning; an a very big scale that requires a developer with very deep pockets to implement that I vrould argue against. And so does Mr. Greenhut. But the Council did vote it in and did incorporate it into the city"s comprehensive plan, so it is the law of the land. That the Council (and Klausing} in 20Q5 tried to ignore it was a very costly mistake. If this Council ignores it in approving the AUP,R update.., you will be making an equally serious mistake. Recognize and obey the constrictions your predecessors have placed on you. You don't really believe you are above the law: do you? When you talk about options far developers and the city to come up with plans that don't fit more narrow zoning designations, and ignore the rights of the land owners themselves, that basically is alllowing the city to dictate to both the developers and the land owners what they must do. That is, as I see it, Central Planning by the city, and freedom for the Council, but nobody else. If you can't see that, I'm afraid we do live on different planets. Of course we need a comprehensive plan to keep targets and costcos separate from residential areas. That is the very purpose of a comprehensive plan, and the zoning codes that support and are consistent with the Comp Plan, Right now, most of Twin Lakes would be zoned "light industrial" were it not for the B6 PUD designation. Note that the B6 designation does not take effect until there is an approved PUD. Before Commers bo ught the Indianhead site, someone else managed to get it re- zoned to commercial from industrial. It doesn't fit in--doesn't belong there, 1 would be interested in learning how that ever got rezoned to commercial in an otherwise industrial zoning area. However, he doesn't have enough land there for a Costco. Even a Costco wouldn't want to be situated in the middle of an industrial manufacturing area. To make my position clear to you, 1 would rescind the B6 zoning designation, abandon the PUD micromanaging approach, but amend the Comprehensive Plan to zone the Twin Lakes area in a sensible land use approach. Industrial is no longer a practical option, because any new manufacturing facility is very remote. I thought the 2001 Master Plan was a pretty sensible land use plan, except for the hospital fiasco, and the created confusion between (limited) "service mix" and (anything goes) "retail". If the Gouncii deemed it wise to zone certain areas of Twin Lakes into Office, High Tech Flex, Housing, etc. I think that would be a good comp plan, which has to be amended by the end of 2008, with four votes of the council. Land owners would then know what exactly their land use plan is and seek out buyers accordingly. Each land owner would act in his own best interests independently, but eventually the overall plan would be the same as the B6 PUD outcome, but without the central planning, and without the big TIF give aways. And without the centrally planned Twin Lakes Parkway adjacent to Langton Lake. If Council demands a Twin Lakes Parkway, take the land under eminent domain, build it, and pay for it up front. Then asses the land owners for the improvement to their property. As it is, current land owners are helpless. They can't go back to their original uses, because they abandaned them, and they can't tell any prospective buyer what use the land can be put to. ; ;The must wait for another big pocket developer to come along and get four votes of the Gouncii to amend the Comp Plan. Trying to circumvent the current Comp Plan through a flawed AUAR process is not the way to give certainty to developers. While 1 understand your desire to get out of this "box",and get something going in Twin Lakes, do it the right way. The outcomes you are seeking don't justify the means you are using. Thanks for this dialogue. Perhaps we both see each others positions more clearly now. Also, thanks forthe web site to the OCRegister.com. 1've been able to save it on my hard drive. Best regards. A! Sands ----Original Message----- From: Dan Roe <dan.roeca comcast.net> To: esands2612@aol.com Sent: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 6:57 pm Subject: RE: Howt o Govern a City -St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, June 2 7 http://webmail.aol.com/29047/aol/en-us/Mail/PrintMessage.aspx 8/7/2007 - •• -• ---- • • - -- ---~ • ~-~~ » ~..> ..-. ~ «.......... ..vvu uM~~VliNl a LlYM', J411V ~, i 1 0.b'G G1 Vl GG usiness Park is part of the 2001 comp plan change that you hold up as sacrosanct.. Probably no ss of use claim if the comp plan designation is already in effect for years before a development. ~ and PUD gives developers (and the city) options to come up with plans that don't fit more narrow ~ning designations -why is that "central planning" and not freedom? The whole thing has to be proved in the open via the elected officials of the city. 1 think it is possible fora "grand scheme" allow freedom --apparently the Friends of Twin Lakes don't. Seems like you are arguing against e 2001 Master Plan that you are also saying we are not even following in relation to the AUAR. hich planet is it that allows you to own both sides of the argument, and everybody else to own either? reedom: How about letting Dan Commers build a big box on his land? (Not that I am advocating gat - but I think Greenhut is.) The whole opposition to Twin Lakes was to restrict amarket-driven usiness activity (big box retail). How is that not working in opposition to the freedom that ~reenhut describes? agree on your last point. EXCEPT that I do not PRESUME corruption in EVERY case, as you m to do. Roe it dan.roe@comcast.net --Original Message--- om: esands2612(a`aol.eom [mailto:esands2612C?aol.con~~] nt: Monday, July 30, 2007 5:07 PM ~: dan.roe~~comcast.net bject: Re: Howt o Govern a City -St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, June 27 view Twin Lakes as the epitome of grand scheme city planning to micro manage over 172 acres ~f developable land. The 66 zone , with a PUD planned unit development placed our city staff in harge of micro managing all the details. How can you not see this as not exactly what Mr. ireenhut was complaining about? Central Planning stifles. Also, the 66 zone took away land wners rights to do what they want with their land. They were only given the right to continue to se their I and so long as they didn't change uses. I think the city should have been sued for loss f value of their land. Now that the land has been vacant and unused for over a year, those land wners are precluded from reverting back to that use. They must conform to the B6 zone aquirements. sometimes l wonder if we live on the same planet. Could you get more specific in your ~ments? Just how and why do you think Twin Lakes fits into Mr. Greenhut's stated scheme of dom for land owners to do what they want? n, everyone is naturally greedy and self centered. It is the human condition. Wouldn't you want increase your salary/compensation if you could? Corrupt is a different matter. The Council eds to balance the demands of employees against what's fair compared to the private sector. ~w many of us can match their health and retirement benefits? What about outsourcing? ;Are u ready for that? By the way, I'm not ready to fire good employees and replace them with Sands -Original Message---- >m: dan.roe@comcast.net esands2612@aol.com nt: Mon, 30 Ju12007 3:08 pm bject: Re: Howt o Govern a City -St. Paul Pioneer Press Editorial Friday, June 27 htip://webmail.aol.com/29047/aol/en-us/MaiUPrintMessage.aspx 8!7/2007 ~ ~ a use. ~.~. va vv i is a link to the original commentary from the Orange County Register. //www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/columns/a rticle_1781120.php have to say that I read the piece in the PP on Friday, too, and came to a completely different onciusion about how Roseville compares to the objectives Mr. Greenhut sets forward. Only if ou buy into the notion that Roseville city employees and officials are self-centered, greedy, and orrupt could you conclude that most of Mr. Greenhut's complaints apply to Roseville city erestingiy, many of the notions that Mr. Greenhut espouses about freedom from excessive ntrol and creativity of land use are exactly what was being fought by opponents of Twtn Lakes by opponents of lot splits in Roseville. 1 wonder how those folks would respond to Mr. eenhut's lassaiz-faire approach to zoning controls? Roe - Original message ---- n: esands2612@aol,com attached article appeared in the ST. Paul Pioneer Press last Friday. I heartily agree it's philosophy, opposite from the suffocating goals of big time development this city may wish to also read my comments on the Roseville Issues web site. Sands L now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at L.com. ttp://webmail.aol.com/29047/aoUen-us/Mail/PrintMessage.aspx 8/7/2007 MAYOR KLAUSING'S GRAND DECEPTIONS August 13, 2007 By AI Sands Anxious to get the Twin Lakes LLC moving, Mayor Klausing's first grand plan, as I see it, had to do with trying to get azound the requirement of four votes required to approve the Twin Lakes LLC proposal. Armed with a flawed legal opinion from our city attorney declaring it unnecessary to get four votes to approve the Twin Lakes plan, Mayor Klausing gave the go ahead to the project. The Appeals Court Opinion brought this to a halt azound a yeaz and a half later, after millions in damages had been done to the land owners, the developers, and also to the city. The Court noted that the city cannot choose to ignore the fact that on 6/26/01, the city council MADE the Master Plan an integral part of the comprehensive plan by their motion and action. Mayor Klausing,. you were there throughout the development of the Twin Lakes Master Plan, from Jan. of 2001 until it's completion on 6/26/01. YOU were on that council and voted to approve that action. YOU know what it is. I see Mayor Klausing's second grand scam attempt going on now, when he adopted our now departed development director's attempt to reinvent the inherent nature of the Twin Lakes Master Plan by declaring that scenario 1-as voted in by the Council on 6/26/01-- was only one of many land use options available. Therefore many plans could be approved by the City Council without amending the current Twin Lakes Comprehensive Plan. Once again, Mayor Klausing ignores the directive of the Council in it's action on 6/26/01 making scenario # 1 the exclusive land use plan for Twin Lakes. That has become the basis for dreaming up three new AUAR (Alternative Urban Area-wide Review) scenarios, none of which conform to the real Twin Lakes Master Plan. Accordingly, this proposed AUAR is an inaccurate and fraudulent document. It incorrectly declazes the three scenarios it studies are consistent with the Twin Lakes Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan. NOT TRUE. Inaccurate documents approved as accurate and complete by a split council will not give future developers the assurance they need that they can move ahead with their development plans without fear of future legal complications. ~ -f=~~~- g~13/o`~ a. Acts or simulated acts of sexual intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation or any sexual acts which are prohibited by law. b. Any person being touched, caressed or fondled on the breast, buttocks, anus or genitals. c. Scenes wherein a person displays the vulva, or the anus or the genitals. d. Scenes wherein artificial devices or inanimate objects are employed to depict, or drawings are employed to portray, any of the activities described in subsections B1 through B7 of this section. C. Revocation of License: Any license issued pursuant to this chapter, licensed pursuant to Minnesota statutes, chapter 340A, shall be revoked if any of the acts of conduct described in this section occur on the licensed premises. (Ord. 808, 11-21-1977; amd. 1995 Code) 302.15: CIVIL PENALTY: A. Penalty For Noncompliance: In addition to any criminal penalties which may be imposed by a court of law, the City Council may suspend a license for up to sixty (60) days, may revolte a license and/or may impose a civil fine on a licensee not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for each violation on a finding that the license holder or its employee has failed to comply with a statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages, nonintoxicating malt liquor or wine. B. Minimum Penalty: The purpose of this section is to establish a standard by which the City Council determines the length of license suspensions and the propriety of revocations, and shall apply to all premises licensed under this chapter. These penalties are presumed to be appropriate for every case; however, the council may deviate in an individual case where the council finds that there exist substantial reasons making it more appropriate to deviate, such as, but not limited to, a licensee's efforts in combination with the state or city to prevent the sale of alcohol to minors or, in the converse, when a licensee has a history of repeated violations of state or local liquor laws. When deviating from these standards, the council will provide written findings that support the penalty selected. The following violations are presumed to require revocation of the license on the first violation: Commission of a felony related to the licensed activity. Sale of alcoholic beverages while license is under suspension. Sale of intoxicating liquor where only license is for 3.2 percent malt liquor. Other violations, including the following shall have a presumed penalty as indicated below: Sale of alcoholic beverages to underage persons. Sale of alcoholic beverages to obviously intoxicated person. After hours sale/display/consumption of alcoholic beverage. Illegal gambling on premises. Failure to take reasonable steps to stop person from leaving premises with alcoholic beverages (on-sale allowing off-sale). 1. For on-sale license holders who participate in optional manager and server training and prove the person who sold or served alcohol had received city approved alcohol beverage server training within the previous year: a. For a first violation, the license holder will be given a warning letter. b. For a second violation in thirty-six (36) months, the mandatory minimum penalty shall be a five hundred dollar ($500.00) fine and a one day suspension. c. For a third violation inthirty-six (36) months, the mandatory minimum penalty shall be a five hundred dollar ($500.00) fine and a three (3) day suspension. d. For a fourth violation in thirty-six (36) months, the mandatory minimum penalty shall be a one thousand dollar ($1,000.00) fine and a five (5) day suspension. e. For a fifth violation in thirty-six (36) months, the license shall be revoked, or in alternative, the license shall not be renewed. 2. For on-sale license holders who do not participate in optional manager and server training: a. For a first violation, the mandatory minimum penalty shall be a five hundred dollar ($500.00) fine and a one day suspension. b. For a second violation in thirty-six (36) months, the mandatory minimum penalty shall be a five hundred dollar ($500.00) fine and a three (3) day suspension. c. For a third violation in thirty-six (36) months, the mandatory minimum penalty shall be a one thousand dollar ($1,000.00) fine and a five (5) day suspension. d. For a fourth violation in thirty-six (36) months, the license shall be revoked, or in alternative, the license shall not be renewed. 3. For off-sale license holders who participate in optional manager and server training and prove the person who sold or served alcohol had received city approved alcohol beverage server training within the previous year: a. For a first violation, the license holder will be given a warning letter. b. For a second violation in thirty-six (36) months, the mandatory minimum penalty shall be a five hundred dollar ($500.00) fine. c. For a third violation in thirty-six (36) months, the mandatory minimum penalty shall be a five hundred dollar ($500.00) fine and a three (3) day suspension. d. For a fourth violation in thirty-six (36) months, the mandatory minimum penalty shall be a one thousand dollar ($1,000.00) fine and a five (5) day suspension. e. For a fifth violation in thirty-six (36) months, the license shall be revoked, or in alternative, the license shall not be renewed. 4. For off-sale license holders who do not participate in optional manager and server training: a. For a first violation, the mandatory minimum penalty shall be a five hundred dollar ($500.00) fine. b. For a second violation in thirty-six (36) months, the mandatory minimum penalty shall be a five hundred dollar ($500.00) fine and a three (3) day suspension. c. For a third violation in thirty-six (36) months, the mandatory minimum penalty shall be a one thousand dollar ($1,000.00) fine and a five (5) day suspension. d. For a fourth violation in thirty-six (36) months, the license shall be revoked, or in alternative, the license shall not be renewed. (Ord. 1280, 03-31-03) C. Hearing and Notice: Revocation or suspension of a license by the City Council shall be preceded by a public hearing conducted in accordance with Minnesota statutes section 340A.415. The City Council shall conduct the hearing. The hearing notice shall be given at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, include notice of the time and place of the hearing and shall state the nature of the charges against the licensee. (Ord. 1243, 11-27-2000; Ord. 1280, 03-31-03) _il `~ Parks & Recreation Commission -~-~0-.~/.~ 8~13~0~7 Mar aret Driscoll From: Support@civicplus.com Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 1:15 PM To: *RVCouncil; Margaret Driscoll Subject: Davannis/Alcohol Compliance Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council The following form was submitted via your website: Contact City Council Subject: Alcohol Ordinance Name:: Davanni's Address:: 1905 W. Perimeter Drive City:: Roseville State: MN Zip:: 55113 Home Phone Number:: Daytime Phone Number:: 651-636-3411 Email Address:: roshop@davannis.com How would you prefer to be contacted?: Email Please Share Your Comment, Question or Concern: August 13, 2007 To Whom It May Concern, I am the General Manager of the Roseville Davanni's and my store recently failed an alcohol compliance check on July 18th, 2007. Last summer a manager also failed a compliance check, he has since been let go for this, along with other circumstances. In light of this event my assistant Jenny incorporated an additional step in our training which involved us sending the Roseville Police Department copies of a statement of understanding signed by each employee of age to sell beer. These were signed by the employee and the manager doing the training, and are kept on file. Because we only sell 3-2 beer, the chances of any individual selling more than one or two beers a month is slim. I am currently tracking beer sales in an effort to convince Davanni's to quit selling beer altogether. That being said, I want you to know that we do take the situation seriously and have been taking steps to rectify the problem. Jenny Weinhandl (Assistant Manager) has been handling any correspo ndence with the Police Department, but at this time has been unable to reach her contact. We have changed our policy so that beer sales are a "manager access only" function, and personally I would prefer to not sell it at all. Over ~,4 of our work force is between the ages of 18-21, and are unable to purchase alcohol; it puts them in a difficult position when selling it. Thank you, Roxanne Zehrer Additional Information: Form submitted on: 8/13/2007 1:15:13 PM 1 ~~~l~`~ E~Faetta~~~tsEQustFlY~oart( 658 CEvAR S?REET SF. ?AUL. Uh! 55 155 ?H~YE: 65 4 -29?- 1257 r-er.: 65 I -?96-3698 'TV: 800-62?-3529 Y.^NW. EqB. STATE. MN. US ruly 23, 200 Mr. Thomas Paschke City Planner City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, Minnesota 55113 RE: Citizens' Petition for an EAW for the Art Mueller Subdivision at 2201 Acorn Road, Roseville Dear Mr. Paschke: The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has received a petition requesting that an EAW be prepared on the project described in the petition, and has determined that the City of Roseville is the appropriate governmental unit to decide the need for an EAW. The requirements for environmental review, including the preparation of an EAW, can be found in the Minnesota Rules, chapter 4410. These rules and various guidance documents are available at our website, www.egb.state.mn.us. The procedures to be followed in making the EAW decision are set forth in part 4410.1100. Key points in the procedures include: 1. No final government approvals may be given to the project described in the petition, nor may construction on the project be started until the need for an EAW has been determined. Project construction includes any activities which directly affect the environment, including preparation of Iand. If the decision is to prepare an EAW; approval must be withheld until either a Negative Declaration is issued or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is completed (see part 4410.3100, subpart I .) 2. A first step in making the decision regarding the need for an EAW would be to compare the project to the mandatory EAW, EIS and Exemption categories listed in parts 4410.4300, 4410.4400, and 4410.4600, respectively. If the project should fall under any of these categories, environmental review is automatically required or prohibited. If this should be the case, proceed accordingly. 3. If preparation of an EAW is neither mandatory nor exempted, the City has the option to prepare an EAW. The standard to be used to decide if an EAW should be done is given in part 4410.1100, subp. 6. Note that this requires that a record of decision including specific findings of fact be maintained. ~n %1/R~30~ STA.?E At+C GOfA {pnkliY _EP.YtCES 4. You. are allowed up to 30 working days (Saturdays, Sundays and holidays do not count) for your decision if it will be made by a caunciL board; ar other body which meets only periodically, or 15 working days if it will be made by a single individual. You tray request an extra 15 days from EQB if the decision will be made by an individual. ~. You must notifi~. in writing, the proposer, the petitioners' representative and the EQB of your decision within five working days. I would appreciate your sending a copy of your record of decision on th.e petition along with notification of your decision for our records. This is not required, however. 6. If far any reason you are unable to act on the petition at this time (e.g., no application has yet been fled. or the application has been withdrawn), the petition will remain in effect far a period of one year; and must be acted upon prior to any final decision concerning the project identified in the petition. Notiee of the petition and its assignment to your unit of government will be published in the EQB Ivlonitor on July 30, 2007. If you have any questions or need any assistance; please do not hesitate to call me at 651/ 201-?476. Sincerely, ~~ Gregg Downing Environmental Review program staff cc: Paul T. Romanowski, petitioners' representative 2195 Acorn Road RoseviIle, MN 55113 July 23, 2007 Mr. Gregg Downing Mr. John Larsen Environmental Quality Board 300 Centennial Q~ee Building 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155 Dear Messr. Downing and Larsen: Please accept this Citizens' Petition far Environmental Review of a subdivision project proposed for 2201 Acorn Road in Roseville, MN. Although this project fails to trigger any of your agencies' thresholds,l believe that a discretionary EAW should be granted due to the unique nature of the residential area surrounding the proposed project site, the use of the area in a University of Minnesota. study on environmental impacts, the unique location of the residential area (adjacent to 10 Lanes of freeway traffic), and the value of the area in supporting habitat far migratory sanghirds that all citizens enjoy. Sincerely, Paul T. Romanowski (651)633-4403 Citizens' Petition for Environmental Review Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for "flak Acres" proposed for 2201 Acorn Road Submitted by. Paul Romanowski 2195 Acorn Road Roseville, MN 55113 (651} 633-4403 Table of Contents Petition and Signatures Discussion Background Need for Review Request Appendices: Appendiz A: Project Information, Excerpts of Planning File 3791 _ - Appendiz B: DNR and US Fish and Wildlife Concerns Appendis< C: Pioneer Press Article on Birds Ilahitat Appendix D: Environment, Imagine Roseville 2025 Appendix E: Photos of Acorn Road Taken from South to North, Ending at the Freeway 4. You are allowed tfp to 30 working days (Saturdays; Sundays and holidays do not count) far your decision if it will be made by a council, board; or other body which meets only periodically, or 15 working days if it will be made by a single individual. You may request an extra 15 days from EQB if the decision will be made by an individual ~. You must notify, in writing, the proposer, the petitioners' representative and tale EQB of your decision within five working days. I would appreciate your sending a copy of your record of decision on the petition along with notification of your decision for our records. This is not required, however. 6. If for any reason you are unable to act on the petition at this time {e.g., no application has yet been filed or the application has been withdrawn), the petition will remain in effect far a period of one year, and must be acted upon prior to any final decision concerning the project identified in the petition. Notice of the petition and its assignment to your unit of government will be published in the EQB Monitor on July 30, 2007. If you have any questions or need any assistance; please do not hesitate to call me at 651/ 201-2476. Sincerely, ~G ~ ~,.c~, .~ Gregg Downing /f Environmental Review program staff cc: Paul T. Romanourski; petitioners' representative I"etitian to Request an Environmental Assessment Worksheet fQ~ C)ak Acres (Planning File 3791} We the undersigned request that the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet be completed for Oak Acres, the project proposed by Art Meuller and located at 2201 Acorn Road. Although this subdivision request does not meet the mandatory thresholds for an EAW, we believe that the unique natural features of the area require an EAW to protect both the existing, and rapidly vanishing wildlife habitat in the area, and the health, safety, and welfare of the residents in the neighborhood. Acorn Road is a heavily treed area with wetlands, ponds, and unique wildlife and habitat. This area is also on the migratory route far many songbirds-an important issue that has been documented by the DNR comments on the proposed Northwestern Expansion EAW and in the Twin Lakes litigation. The DNR and the US Fish and Wildlife Service have indicated the importance of maintaining, encouraging, and protecting such areas. This area also hosts resident turkeys, deer, fox, skunks, raccoons, and quail. In addition to the protection of the habitat for the wildlife, the vegetation and mature trees mitigate and buffer the noise and air pollution generated by the 10 lanes of freeway traffic directly adjacent to Acorn Road which is located at the junction of highways 280, 35W, and 36. The University of Minnesota is planning a study of the air filtering capabilities of vegetation, using Acorn Road as one of its study sites. Other issues are also in need of study and solution. The grading and runoff plans are not complete, and there is no mitigation strategy to handle the runoff ftom development in this area. Acorn Road is a narrow, "country road" unique to Roseville. The style and design of this road contributes to the ambiance while allowing for much of the important vegetation. The additional traffic from this development would increase traffic just at the curve, impairing the safety of the road; widening ar straightening the road would further diminish the environmentally important vegetation. Without the information provided by an EAW and the generation of more complete and accurate site plans and solutions to existing and anticipated problems, approval of this request as it stands would violate city code, environmental review goals, good stewardship practices, and common sense, Name (Signature) Address (including Zip Code} .S'~~~ru ~- f ~s~cc s7'~~t Name (Please Print} dame (Signature) r~r~~a ~1~t1/~'f'r~~-r~ Narne (Please Print) 3. C ~r~-~ u.~..~~~~. LbNlr2 ~!, Nap{ (Si tore) Name (1'lease-rrint) a. " ~-' /~ 7 Name (Signature} ~rZ-c. (~ G-2 ~ Nance (Please Print) i x.~-~-w Name (Signature) '~ ~a4.t r ~zrM of Vtt"1t~~~~~ Name (Please~rint) _ ~ f ,~J 6 ame (Si afore} ~~-~-Q t~-~ EfS~roWl 7. ~G~4 S~n'J~ r5'e~` r~'4'~~ Address (including Zip Code} ~6~a ~~-ex.s~f ~ ~- Address (including Zip Code) Y YYIV~ 5S ~ 2~ ~ `i yr Lnny ~4ke ~c~ . Address (including Zip Code) 020 ~ ~-~.~ ~P Address (including Zip Cade} ~.1~.~C7G~~t.~ i~1 i v~ t~ e j -~- ~ ~Z _/ Address (including Zip Code) ~ ~~~~~~ ~21~ S`~ ~~. Address (including Zip Code) Name (Please Prim) ~fam (Signature}`~ Address (including Zip Code) Name {Please Print) e (Signature) ,~ Address (including Zip Code) Name (Please Print) Name (Signature) /' Name (Please Print} Ad s (including Zip Code} ? ~_~ Nam ( iatu~~~} f I~t-~~~` ,~ ` i•,~~ x=/25 ~ ~% Name (P . ase Print} Namee (Signature) t ~~:/v` i~ R~ ~ _ ~ s~~ tr o r.l Name (Please Print) 13. e (Signa e} f C `,~~- Name (Ply a Print} ~ ~. l4. Na e (Si } Name (Please Print) Address (including Zip Code} ~/~ Ad s (including Zip Code) M f ~~ ~ cam. ,~' ~~ ~Z ~4 ~-e'c:~rac~ Address (includung Zip Code) ~;~~ l ~ Gtr ru ~' S / ~ ~ ~~~~7~ Address mcluding Zip Code) 22. ~t ~~., /ry~J' Z3 Name (Please Print) l ~ id~_ E N (Si afore r c, f N e (Please Print) ~~ ~ Name (Signature) c; ~ r~ Name {Please 'nt} 25. _ ame {Signature) ~~GQ~~ dET~ Ft (7~~ Name {Please Print) ,_--~-- Si Name (Pl Print) ~~~~. Address (inelu ' g Zip Cade) rE ~~ ~ .~~~ ~ ~ ~~~-~ ~~. Address {including Zip Code) ~(~ ( ~-! ~ - !~ ~ Ira %cl .. Address (including Zip Code) ~~ ~.1 ~'~"ti Address (inclu g Zip Code 1 d~ /` f 1 ~~ ;~ -~_ Name (Signat~e) ~ Address (i ..' uding Zip Code} ~..,x. Name (Please Print} 28. ~~ ~ E Name (Signature) ~~ ~~~ ~ r Name (Please Print) c ~~, `' `~.-- Ad (including Zip ode) 5 ~ if / ~ ^`~. 29. Name (Signature} ame (Please Print) Address (including Zip Code)/~ G~~ fl f/ E1 .~'S"~`~ 30. Name ( gn e) Addres including Zip Code) ~~ ~.~,~ Name (Please Print) ~ ~ ,,~' Name (Signature} ~- Address (including Zip Cade) Name (Please Print} ~ ~~ p ~~f. 32. ~ f i'.~.72'/J ¢~~ `~~ ~-~C/ r--s'~c f ~,~"~4~ r l~ -~ / G=~~/~Ge~~`~ .~i Name (Signature) A d s (ineludin Zi Code _ __. ._- - Name (Please Print) Name (Signature} Address c ding Zip lode} ~~~~ ~.~~: ~ Name (Please Print) 34. Name (Signature) Address (including Zip Cade} Name (Please Print) 35. Name (Si afore) Name (Please Print) Address (including Zip Code} ~ ` ~, ~ 5 ~ ~1r ~~ ~ ~~~N 6 36. 37 38 39. 40. 41. 42, Nama (Signature) ~Qr F ~l~e~~ Name (Please Print) Nam ~gnature) `~~ J~~( ~G~ Name (Please Print) "~, Nam " i~gnature) Name (Please Print) Name (Signature) Name (Please Print) Name (Signature) Name (P[ease Print) Name (Signature} Name (Please Print) Name (Signature) ' Name (Please Print) Address (inciuding Zip Code) ~,vs~,vi ~ ~..t , fY~tt/ ~"~~~ Z ~ `~ 2, F~-~w~n ~~ Address (including Zip Code) ~~11 e. wl N ~'J'! t 3 ~-- Z-~--j /~ G.a 2-~J ~.4A Address (including Zip Cade} 0 Address (incluciin~ Zip Code) Address (iaciudrg Zip Code) Address (inciuding Zip Code) Address (inciuding 7_ip Code) 7 DEi~eu~~~~n of the Is~ue~ Background: Acorn Road is a unique residential neighborhood in Roseville. Its generous lots, varied topography, and abundant mature trees and low vegetative cover provide amenities for owners, neighbors, and wildlife. Situated at the apex of highways 280, 35W, and 3b, the neighborhood is protected from the noise, pollution, and lights of the traffic by this deep and Iush vegetative growth. Because of the small number of homes, the road itself is quite narrow and winding with a substantial number of pedestrians and bicyclists enjoying the "park like" serenity of the area. The attached photos will attest to the ambiance of the area and the vegetative cover is clearly visible. In early 2006, Mr. Mueller consulted neighbors about splitting his lot in half and constructing another house to be made available to individuals hired to care far his ailing wife. The neighbors agreed, and even offered to provide an easement to a private pond to accommodate additional storm water runoff. However, after consultation with the City of Roseville staff, a project that seemed reasonable and was agreeable to the neighborhood was converted to a subdivision eomplete with a private road, cuI du sac, and four new lots. `. Shocked neighbors withdrew their support and terminated any offers of easements for storm water runoff. The withdrawal of the storm water easement is documented in the City Council Minutes of the January 8, 2007 meeting. Ms Gulden, a neighborhood resident but not a resident of Acorn Road spoke. Her remarks in the same minutes reflect her position that we are all "stewards of the land and animal habitat provided by God and the need to balance man and environmental issues." She spoke passionately about the "need to provide the natural area around Atom Road." Mr. Boryczka drainage and storm water pond management issues. He also informed the Council of a current study of this area by the University of Minnesota on air quality and impacts to the land by redevelopment and the loss of trees. A letter attesting to this ongoing study was provided to the Council by Mr. Boryczka. Issues far Review: We believe that this project needs environmental review because of its unique location and unique lot sizes. Although this is a small area, it has a large impact in providing habitat and protection for a number of species of wildlife. Residents report regular sightings of deer, turkeys, quail, fox, raccoon, wood ducks, herons, and egrets. It is also on the migratory fly way just north of downtown Minneapolis. In the spring and fall weary songbirds stop in this neighborhood to rest, feed, and strengthen themselves for their journeys. As clearly stated in the newspaper article and the attached letters from the DNR, there is a great need far just this sort of area in the northern suburbs. As a first ring suburb, we present the first stop on a daunting trip across a major metropolitan area. This project would destroy at least fifty mature trees and increase the noise, light, and air pollution in the neighborhood, one of the things that the University of Minnesota is studying. The buffering effect of trees with regard to air noise, and light pollution are widely accepted. The University of Minnesota study hopes to provide measurable values to this effect to guide future development and redevelopment. Acorn Road one of its study sites, should provide very useful information, but only if we do not allow the removal of over 54 mature trees and greatly increase our impervious surface right in the center of the study area. Neighbors and the neighborhood will be affected by the project. 3ust as the wildlife requires protection from noise, light, and air pollution, so do the residents. In a road-locked neighborhood, Acorn Road provides the green space and park like setting that is required and necessary. A stroll down this road, with its gentle curves, hidden houses, and wonderful habitat provides peace and serenity to alI travelers-whether they come on foot, on wing, or on bicycle. The addition of a large (lazger than the main road) private road and 84 foot paved cuI du sac not only brings much more impervious surface, it puts more traffic on a very quiet and curved street and open across from a pond that is home to geese and wood ducks. Headlights, air and water pollution, and noise will disrupt the habitat for the waterfowl, and the lights will shine across the water into the homes nestled beyond the pond. A photo of the pond shows it proximity to the existing road, and the mouth of the gaping cul du sac would be directly across the road. The road is currently smaller than the "standard" road in Roseville. The ~. additional traffic may cause serious problems for the daily walkers and bikers using the road as their "pathway." Widening or straightening the road would create more environmental impact by further reducing the vegetation and providing more invitation to speed. It is also clear that although impervious surface cannot exceed 30% of a residential lot, the addition of the large road and cul du sac leading into "Oak Acres" adds much impervious surface. In addition, with the addition of the four homes an the newly created lots, impervious surface will actually reach the fui134% mark whereas even if Mr. Mueller's lot were divided in half, the amount of impervious surface would be greatly reduced over the over the current proposal. As it stands, this plan will allow for the increase of the total amount of land covered by impervious surface by the addition of a large road and cuI du sac and reduce the amount of the currently vegetative land by more than the 34% allowed. The runoff is inadequately accounted for, easements for the runoff have not been obtained, and there is no doubt that a portion of it will flow into the pond directly across from the entrance to the proposed subdivision. If Mr. Mueller would have chosen to divide his Iot into two parcels that could. share adriveway-as do other homes in the area-it would have made reasonable environmental sense. However, working with city staff a much more environmentally damaging scenario was devised. With the City's poor record of environmental review and environmental stewardship, its failure to enact a tree preservation ordinance, and its unwillingness to protect lazge Iot neighborhoods that provide safe haven for indigenous _ and migratory wildlife, citizens are turning to other state agencies for assistance and support in protecting the enuironment in this important first ring suburb. We need such areas across the mefropalitan area. Request: We believe that this project warrants more environmental. review to ensure that the health, safety, and welfare of the residents and wildlife, both resident and migratory, are protected. We are living in a potentially polluted and noisy location that has been made lovely, protective, quiet, and peaceful by the large single residential Lots and heavy mature vegetation. ate believe that environmental review will indicate that other choices should be made to protect this neighborhood resource. Strategy A of Roseville's Imagine 2425 lists "protect and preserve existing ...natural environments and habitats" and to "protect and enhance urban forests" as key objectives. We are hopeful that proper enviranmental review will help Roseville begin to put its vision into action and policy. _--- -:_. ~,~ x o ~.3 ,; a_ ~g ~~ ~.4 t~ s ~~ zo ,~ ~_ ~S ?~ ~:~ ~.~k ,~ ~s w~ ~~o ~r t~ 4.t- ~~ :s 5 ~~ az PRQI'QSAL RE~JIE~; Art Mueller seeks approval of the FINAL PLAT to subdivide 1.$9 acres encompassing 22Q1 Acorn Road into a 41otsingle-family residential devetapment -meeting alt requirements of Chapter I Q04 (Residence Districts} and 11 Ot} (Subdivision Regulations) of the Roseville City Code. The property has a Comprehensive Land Use designation of"LR", Law Density Residential and has a zoning designation of"R-1 ", Single Family Residence District. Each of the proposed lots meets or exceeds the requirements of the qty Cade regarding length, width, size and required set back. The proposed road includes a 51 feet wide right of way with a 28 foot wide road {back of curb to back of curb}. WIDTH LENGTH ==~~~ - ___ Pity {'a~d4 85 feet 100 feet corner 110 feet ~ 100 feet .corner _ 11,000 sq. ft. 12 00 corner Lot 1 I38 feet ~ 108 feet 13,910 s . ft Lvt 2 73 feet ~ i 1521132 feet 19 308 s . ft Lot 3 73 feet 1521132 feet 19,314 s . ft. "Lot 4 1$7 feet 110 feet 14,663 . ft. trregutarty shaped col-de-sac lots -legal and conforming to Code. Each principal structure will be required to meet the minimum standards set forth in Section I004.0I6. Specifically each principal structure will be required to have a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet; minimum side yard setback of I0 feet; and a minimum rear yard setback of 30 feet. Detached accessary structures must be a minimum of 5 feet from a side and/or rear yard property line. Maximum building height is 30 feet to the mid point of the roof truss. There is no limitation on the style of home constructed Impervious coverage for each tot is limited to 30°l0 of the tot area. The City does not have a tree preservation ordinance. However, when developments are submitted for review and approval, Staffreviews and advocates the preservation of all high quality trees (oak, maple, ash and evergreen}that are over 8 inches in diameter and that are not in conflict with the development proposal. In the case of OAIC ACRES, Mr. Mueller has proposed preserving 76 of the 121 trees indicated on the tree inventoryfpreservatianpIan, which trees will be preserved tQ the extent possible via installing a protective fence at the drip edge protect against any possible damage to roots. Mr. Mueller also has indicated a desire to plant a number of trees on each lot, mainly between each home. However, a landscape plan was not submitted for review (nor is one required by the Roseville City Cade). FF47-o39_R.CA_FinatPlat_©72347 Page 2 of 6 ~.~ Ivlost homes will be a two-story design with a foil basement and athree-stall garage. AlI home designs will be required to be reviewed and approved by the Community l3e~Telopment Department as part of the building permit process. =t.~ Campre6ensivePlan Laud Use - toaEs & PaGcies: Section 3 of the Roseville ~~ Comprehensive Plan identifies specific goats and policies adopted,by the City. 'The City Planner has concluded that the subject subdivisionproposal meets the fallowing goals and policies of the Roseville Comprehensive Plan: :~ .~. GENERAL LAND USE GOALS: t 1. Maintain and improve the community character and identity; encourage projects € z which strengthen our children, families, and neighborhoods. ~~ 2 Maintain the existing residential areas of the City as designated on the land use k 3; map. Identify and maintain approximately the same balance (or percentage) of ! ~ various land uses throughout the community, allowing same flexibility. i~ i ~ 3. Eliminate blight andprevent deterioration of buildings and infracture. Strive for i ~ better aesthetic appeal. t S. Encourage apparturdties far a diverse population with respect to age, ethnicity, 'z and economic composition. ~~ ~~ ~ GENERAL LAND USE PflLICIES: :~ 1. Continue to be developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan for land ~~ use, housing, transportation, and community facilities. Wherepossible, all future ~~ development will reject the major proposals of the Comprehensive Plan ,~ y4r 3. Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, environmental protection and ~~i aesthetic appeal in community development throughout the adoption and use ~f :, + site design standards, guidelines, and other criteria. >? ~~ 11. Promote a balanced tax base by: a) encouraging quality residential development '. to established neighborhoods; and bj encouraging intensive quality development a~ ofnon-residential projects in appropriate areas as guided by the Comprehensive ~~ Plan. l4 ~s ~ RES~DENTUL GOALS: 1. Achieve a flexible balance of di, f,~ererrt types of housing alternatives (choice) that ~t~ will meet the life cycle needs of residents, Through careful use of the little ,t a remaining land in Roseville, ident~ and maintain the existing balance (or at a~ least same percentage) of residentialland use acreage throughout the community. ~~ 2 Identify stable single family areas and protect them. Preserve the integrity of P>:m-039 xca_?atnaTetac a~~m Page 3 of 6 ~. t ~. s r, ~t r~ ~.~ t t t ~_ ~s t ~o -~ ~~ ,- ~~ 4# -'f5 ~o sl s_ ;~ 4§ ~~# M iti ~~ s a,~ ~~ existing single family neighborhoods by prohibiting the inirtasion of incompatible uses. S. Encourage maintenance of existing housing andproperty. Upgrade current homes and property to meet "move up" housing needs. Consistently upgrade residential amenities, infrastructure, and other necessities to maintain and improve property values. r~. x~srv~lvTrA~ roLrerES: I. Adopt flexible standards for new single and multiple family housing developments to allow for innovative developmentand more e~'icierrt densities. It is not the goal of the City to significantly increase overall residential densities. c) Encourage innovative high quaItfyplanning and design in residential developments that cater to the life siylellife cycle ofpresent andfuture residents. High quality developments may include such improvements as masonry exteriors, higher window and wall insulation packages, undergroundparking, more useable open space, than normally required, porches, landscaping, and amenity packages within each unit. 6. To protect the integrity of all housing areas, require strict adherence to all performance standards'. a) Urutertake appropriateactions to ensure the safety and security Qf residents in their neighborhoods. b) Maintain the quality o f existing residential areas through comprehensive enforcement of all codes. c) Adopt appropriate ordinances to ensure property is maintained in order to prevent deterioration of residential neighborhoods. d) Where higher intensity uses are located adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods, create effective land use buffers and physical screening. ~_~ Puh&c Improvement Contract: In order to ensure that the public improvements for this plat are built to Gity standards, Staff has drafted a Public Improvement Contract that defines the responsibilities involved with the proposed public improvements. The improvements must meet all applicable City Standards for streets and utilities. Upon completion of the project, the developer's engineer must provide the City with ~s- built plans. They must also provide to the City Engineer a letter certifying that the improvements were constructed according to approved plans and specifications, and request that the City accept the improvements. Qnce the City Gouncfi accepts the improvements, the on~yearwarranty period will begin. The Public Improvements far this plat include: FF07-039_RCA FinalPlat 072347 Page 4 of 6 - ---- - {!f! !r{~ v 8agv •li.n t F P : - -. '. •9e t = xi ~T 3_ YY t~F ~ w .. t f r a~~ S~d ~! ~~ ~ ry~`y ~~ d ,Y ~~r ~~~. ~ ~ ~ Fl~ ~ 1 f h ~• ~ r;¢ ~ rye] E, g`~~ & ~ a ~ ~ _ p tt ~~ jy~ ~F ~~ t'2 yes }y ~~ ~ ~ ~~ CK ~ -'``„ FY .:A ~ ( ~ s I f ~ ~~ $' FS iii Fz~ sf;,j ~i C 'd~+',! aS `, f g '~~' ~ I ~i ~~j y[1 ~`~F 3~ ~ i i; ( - i f~ ~ y f E (~i." g t i' [ j Fµ « t~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~~~;~~~ ~ ~ _. ,~}~ i E t~ ~" ! ~ ~ ~~ Yr f ~'~ ° ~ ~ ~~ a fi: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a~.~a ~~ ~A i { e ~~i ~ ! ~~ ~ t ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~~~ f ~ ~~~Z . ~ t ~ j ~ e 3 _: > ~ ~,_ ~e s[ f - ~ ~~ `s t -e !- ~ t r. ~ i I 1~ ~. 3 ~. ~ ~ - ';' ~ S I ~ -._ .,_._. ..,_~-.__.._.~.,------ (. a _. _. _. i ,.. ~. ~ .. __ .; ~ ~.~.~ _ ~ ".' ~,r ~~ ' , 1 T .. 4 _. .. _.. _ ~~, ,~:_: w,,y _. _ .... _. ~ ~_. s ~ _ -__ _ ---- _ _ _~.. r,. ~ +~ - - - ~. _ . _ _.._ _...___. _. { ~ ~~ I .. t ~ i ~ t i gyp,. _.. _.___f.. _.- S,. ~-..~+-.F• -,:t ,~ rt~ i ___ _._. _. _._~ ____..... __`___ ____- .~ _ I ., ! ~ fit' t c~ 5 t ., s: v v V -_..~J,. w 6aa~s ~.r„L~ _ / ~~; ~ i _-- ~ - - -.~ ~ -~• ~ -- --t -- ------ ~.. _.~ ~_. ._ .._.w .~ .. _ ~--- - - ---- --_ .._ _ ,.. __ _ __ _ __ _.._._ .r7=- a ~f __~ ~a ~ ~. .1 ~ -~-~-~.r- i((s { •f' 1 i ' F }~ i ,ti:. 4 t } 1. .~,~.. _ ~ ~ x~~ .+^ t .. , ~~i ~ - - z ~ r ~ rrk ~: ~ 1 ' 4 c ~~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ x'.. _. m ~~~ I ~ ~ '"'v .. c E ~ ~ ~~~ .. [ I ~ Y ~~~ ~~ ~ - ~~ S~ ~[,~_. ~ ~ ~y, t ~ {{{{ f ~ ' ~~Gf E '..: S ~.f... ~ ~ ~ ~~ _ ~. -- ~_. ~-_~~' ~ .a . ~ ~~ ii F - i ~A xx .Z^ ~~~ ~~~ I~inneS€~ta I~epartmerl~ cif Na~>.~ral ResaurceS 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-40_ Roseville City Council November I0, 2004 Roseville Planning Commission Roseville Parks and Recreation Commission C/Q Mr. Neal Beets Roseville City Manager 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN SSI I3 Deaz Mr. Klausing and Mr. Mulder, We have been informed of the Citizens' Petition before you regarding the development s'i around Langton Lake. Since Langton Lake is a DNR protected water and DNR permits will likely be required to grant approval for some aspects of this development, we would like to inform you of same updated comments from the DNR's Nongame Wildlife Program. These comments aze based, in part, on additional information we have reeentiy received regarding wildlife use of Langton Lake Park. In first first-ring suburbs such as Roseville, wildlife habitats are at a premium. Langton Lake Park is unique in its location near busy commercial areas and major freeways. In spite of its unlikely location, it is utilized by a wide variety of wildlife including some 150 bird species identified by Professor Thomas Soulen of the College of Biological Sciences at the University of Minnesota. Professor Soulen is swell-known birder who has surveyed bird populations in northern Ramsey County. Habitat areas such as Langton Lake Park are becoming more critical in the metropolitan area, especially as' feeding and resting areas for migratory songbirds and resident wildlife. For this reason we believe that protection of this particular oasis could be enhanced by adding. several acres of pazk dedication land to the edges of the park as a buffer against the proposed development. We suggest that the redevelopment planning currently before you is an ideal opportunity to expand the park boundaries, at least to the 300' shoreline management district, if not further. DNR Information: 651-296-6157 1-888-646-6367 TTY: 651-296-5484 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer ~~ Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Minimum oC 104v Past-Consumer Waste We recommend that the proposed Twin Lakes Parkway, which has moved much closer to the park than in the original AUAR, be returned to the location depicted in the Twin Lakes AUAR Future Land Use Scenario of June 26, 2001. We recommend this as a necessary measure to insure the integrity of the parkland and lake habitat. The noise, light, potential for traffic caused v4~ildlife deaths, additional air pollution, and possible contamination of the Iake by runoff of roadway chemicals is a clear threat to the habitat values of Langton Lake Park. We hope these suggestions and recommendations will help you to design a plan that protects this valuable resource, Langton Lake and surrounding park lands, and provides benefit to your residents. Sincerely, Carrol Henderson, Supervisor Nongame Wildlife Program Supervisor __ J'.~c C~-Ct/v~ e~-- Joan Galli Nongame Wildlife Specialist Copy to: Ms. Joy Anderson Angela i2. Torres From: Nick_Rowse@fws.gov Sent: Friday, March 30, 2407 1:39 PM To; Angela R. Torres Subject: Re: Request for information - Northwestem College EAW Angela, l have reviewed my information while looking at aerial photography for the site. Below is my response highlighted. Niek Below is Question No. 11 of the EAW t am preparing for Northwestern College. Please provide me with any information that you have in your data base. In addition, attached is a map showing the project location. 11. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts. Forested habitat surrounding both Johanna Lake and Little Johanna Lake provide important nesting habitat for migratory birds such as warblers and other other songbirds. To avoid impacts to these habitats, we recommend that they be preserved. If necessary to remove individual trees, we recommend native trees tie planted following any development. As much buffer as possible, should be maintained to enhance fish and wildlife habitat b. Are any state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial waterbird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities on or near the site? Yes X No 1 I~Ii~~~esota ~e~a~-~~~~ent of i~Ia~ural ~esau~ees 12D0 Warner Road St. Paul, Minnesota 551 D6 651.772.79DD y ~~ ~ ~ [(107 By June 19, 2007 Mr. Thomas Paschke, City Planner City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Rosevilte, Minnesota 551113 RE: Northwestern College Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Mr. Paschke: The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EAW prepared for the proposed Northwestern College Master Plan Project in the cifies of Rosevilte and Arden Hills. From a natural resources management perspective, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects and does not require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). We offer the following comments for consideration. Permits and approvals required (Item No. 8) Figure 1 in the Stormwater Management Plan identifies several existing stormwater outfall structures at or near the ordinary high water level far Lake Johanna (62-78P} and Little Johanna Lake (62-58P). It is unclear whether any of the existing outfalls will require maintenance or reconstruction or whether the college is proposing to install new outfalls. The placement of stormwater outfall structures may require a permit from the DNR Division of Waters. The proposed 125-stall parking tot west of the Fine Arts Center (Figure 4} is in an area where the topographic features appear to meet the definition of a steep slope or bluff area. According to the soil survey, the soil classification for that area is 158 D Zimmerman Loamy Fine Sand on a 12 to 25 percent slope. This makes the site unsuitable for development in its natural state. Additionally, the site drains toward Little Lake Johanna and the proposed construction will require substantial tree removal. We strongly recommend that the college consider an alternative site or (about. Fish, wildlife and ecologicalfy sensitive resources (Item No. 11) In the St. Paul suburbs, the Department is concerned about the loss of woodland habitat. The Northwestern College site lies within a significant migratory corridor for birds. This natural function depends on the maintenance of sufficient forest areas. However, only small, forested areas remain and the opportunities to conserve woodland habitat are rapidly diminishing. We concur with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommendation that Northwestern College protect the forested habitat surrounding Lake Johanna and Little Lake Johanna. An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity DNR Information: 651-296-6157 t-888-646-6367 TTY: 651-296-5484 1-800-657-3929 i`lorihv~~estern Go[lege EAV`J June 13, ZL)07 Page 2 As a management strategy, the DNR Fisheries Section captures and removes small bluegill from Lake Johanna at or near the project site during the spring months. The East Metro area fisheries manager believes that the best management practices (BMPs} identified by the EAW wi-1 help to protect the bluegil( population by controlling the amount of sedimentation and thermal pollution in the immediate area. The Department also encourages the implementation of the supplemental BMPS listed in the Stormwater Management Plan. In addition, the Fish Management-Research Unit is completing a walleye fry and fryling stocking study at Lake Johanna. The activities described in the EAW will not add complicating variables to the study. The proposed alteration of stormwater outfalfs offers opportunities for shoreland restoration. Planting native vegetation along shorelines provides food and cover for birds, amphibians, insects and mammals; stabilizes soil in the fake banks and upland; and absorbs nutrients, which in excessive concentrations are lake pollutants. We encourage the City and Northwestern College to work together to improve the quality of these va{uable aquatic resources. Water use (Item No. 13) This item indicates a projected 33 percent increase in water usage. We recommend that the college consider implementing water conservation practices particularly in the case of landscape planting and irrigation. Water-related land use management district (Item No. 14) We note that Ramsey County is in the process- of countywide Flood insurance Restudy. The possibility exists that the elevations for Lake Johanna and Little Johanna may be changed during this process. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project and the EAW. We look forward to receiving your record of decision at the conclusion of environmentaE review. (f you have any questions about these comments, please contact Wayne Barstad, regional environmental assessment ecologist, at 651 772- 7940. Sincere{y, t5 M. Kurcinka nal Director CC: Wayne Barstad, Steve Colvin, Bernice Cramblit, Travis Germundson, Bryan Lueth, Jerry Johnson, Bonita Eliason, Heather Tetrault, Lisa Joyal, Elizabeth Harper (DNR) Jon Larsen (EQB} Nick Rowse (USFWS) ERDB 20070670-0002 RS07NorthwesternCollege.doc An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity DNR information: 651-296-6157 t-888-646-6367 TTY: 651-296-5484 1-800-657-3929 cas w ~ ~ ~ ~ c.~ ~ ~ Z ~ Q 'Q V d. Q ¢ ~ Q ...J ~ Z p w O W ~ ~ ~ W ~ F-.pG _, O 4 `~ ~ O l ~ 1 J J ~ F~ ~ m F- t~/'t M ~~ w ~ J '~'~ = d O O I- tn I.d1 ~ ~ ~i- V ~~ W 0 C ~ :µ:- k W Z F ~ ~ Y1 Z 0 z W Z VL Q ~~ ~N •~ ~o as VL •~ _~ ~~ ~~ W W ~Q~ .~a~ ~Q.~c a~i v ~-+ W H ~~ Z W ~ ~, u W d o '~ ~ z ~' ~ F ~.y Z ty W rr-~i u W a .~ ~ G a ~~ ~~ a_ m .~ c a v o U. R a L rEa ~ w L E ~ ad ca 0 ~~ a~ ~~ ~o av E ac `w a ;~ aw O ._ N C K m m ~ ~ m ~a •a r C 33 N ~ ~ a c _~ w •~~~ 6q~o,d~~~p W ~~m ~~~~e~~~ ~y-~~r~~ ~3ya.oo,oF Z a~i F~ $ o~~ p~~ pp O_ w:• Rp ~Uy atly E,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ mA D P. ~ w ~ 7 ~oo~mo€wo ~$~ p ~ ~ c. a c' 7 c. 'O rn ~ P. • v.~a~~ ro ~ ~ e o a~a mmo ~ yyyj• g A~ d~D Gi s"Z.~ ~w pL7 °'~~aj~w~ W~°a'~3~ af°i o ~ ~' o x ~ .~ m ~~~~~~~ ~a~~~x °0 ,~,d ~ C ~~'C3 RO~" Fi ~'C ~~~~~'~~~~~~a~ ~~~~~~'~~~~i6~~ ~~ ~ L.-~-.N tip ~^~ Nj ..~ N V p dop~a~da°' :°Za~ ~~t6a~Oi~° ~~e~i~ b ro ~oa•~ .^~• m m~ 3~~,o~ro ~~ ,~ zd ~^q m~~N'0 ~~,~~ awl 4 ~ ~ O ~ 'cJ qO ~ O D q ~y~a.mai°.~%am ~rooveQ'~~oa~ ~sn.c63$C aC~ ~ a,p a,~mt ar,oD 'd m o ~ m~a ~~agHO~ R~~~~a .~ ~ ,S N F7 O C3. N '~ n1 w0 '~ uv' O~ p~C cO x.w~ yp~yA t~,~~- paU S°~'cdc~~~~ ~, ~ °7 ~' ~,O m ~ Q N 5 c0 c~ ~~" a ~v° ~tVx~~ aa°•g'~' :ti ca `~- o o eo y ~ y ,~ ~, `~ ~ ~~~T~~~~~ ~ 130~~~ °~a~~~~Emz~`a_3 ~~.~o ~ uqr ma~•o ~r~•~•ow mo=- o „ti ~~ ~ ctd' }.°n., o yay cad •~ w `d'i N'O N N ~ .~ 'a ~" ~ w o '~ .~ .° a m i d o Y ~ `-~ 3~ ~ `' x~y c°a a Q.8 ~ O yy ttl F+' U g~ O v, good o„~wr}y t,a brta'' ~ Ta4o cyv ~ ~ u b ~' d is ~~'~~ST °aioao.eo ~~ao p bo "°ara, odd. ~~~~~~~p~~.~U~~~~~ Q y ~ ~ ~ N O L1] '~ ~ tip - ~ rTf ~ ~ ~ ~ °° ~ o '~ Q ~ ,-, ~ ~ ~ •~ Cpl' y ~ f1G ~ !Z A r!j 'C t~ c ~ ~ $ ~ ~ m C C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p a 0 ~ O .~, ~ ~,O p ~~~ ;~'~ta O ~ rq i ~+ jj '~cnSo~v~ ^ t1 ~ o ~ o .9 ~' ~ .~ 1_L ~ :c ~ ~ ~ ss, cu v s, °~ ~ ~ ~ •v -~y~~°~~ W o H ~ 4r ~ sa'a~F~ d G . O , `~~~ O ~ ~' ~ is 3~ ~ eb +~ ~ T Z ~ ~ m m ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Q"m ~ ~ ~ ~ •~- o ~ a ~ q,~ ~ 0 3 E + e`a~y~ `°~~m ~ cv .~ a a 'y ~ d qb ~ C ~ mw° ~~o ~v eo C ~•° ~~~ ~ ~ c~ O ~ ~ ~ y U qp O ~°' ~ ~-~ ~ °o Qarly ~= .cam ~a i,p~p b~C._.,+ bin, vN, ui ~N~o ppc~p, ~'4"br~~cdi ~ ~ ~ p~ a * ~ o Z ~ c ~ C, ~~pa~~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~oxy~~~, ~~ o ~ ~ r^ h~+i r~+ ~ w.. y o o id .Y~ N N ~ _ ~ m ~ ~ G ~ CJ ~- A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , g O Q ~~ ~ ? ao'~~~0 w ~a ~~ ~ -. Some, such as the evening grosbeak, used to be so plentiful Ghat people would complain about how they crowded bird feeders and finished off 50- pound sacks of sunflower seeds in just a couple days. But the colorful and gregarious gros- beak's numbers have plummet- ed 78 percent. "lt was an amazing phenom- ena all through the "70s that's just disappeared. it's just a real- ly dramatic thing because it was In peoples back yards and (now) it's not in people's back yards," said study author Greg Butcher, Audubon's bird conser- vation director. Audubon Board chairman Carol Browner, former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator, called the declines "a warning signal" "We are concernerl is it an emergency? No, but concerns can quickly become an emer- gency," Browner said. Compared with 1987, there are 432 million fewer birds of these species, including the northern pintail, greater scaup, boreal chickadee, wmmon tern, loggerhead shrike, field spar- row, grasshopper sparrow, snow bunting, black-throated spar- row, lark sparrow, common grackle, American bittern, horned lark, littie~ blue heron and ruffed grouse. The northern bobwhite had the biggest drop among com- mon birds. ]n 1967, there were 31 million of the plump ground- ioving bird. Now they number closer to b.5 million. But while these common birds are in decline, others are taking their place or even elbowing them aside. The wild turkey population, once in deep trouble, is growing at a rate of 14 percent a year. The double- created cormorant, pushed nearly to extinction by DDT, is growing at a rate of 8 percent a year and populations of Canada geese increase by 7 percent yem'ly 1 Many birds that are disap- pearing aze speciahsts, while the thriving ones are general- ists that do well in urban sprawl and all kinds of environments, Butcher said. `The robins, the Carolina wrens, the blue jays, the crows, those kinds of birds, are doing just 5ne, thank you," Butcher said. "'Phey really get along in suburban habitats, most of them even like city parks, so they are noG as susceptible to the human changes in the environment.,, Dennis Lien can be reached ai dtien(n?pianeernress.cam or 651-22855&8. The Associated Press contributed to this repgrt. Failing flocks Twenty common American bird species -numbering more than half a million birds -have seen their populations drop by at least half in the past 40 years. Evening grosbeak ,,. Population change 7967.2007 Northern bobwhite 4:. -e2w Evening grosbeak °' tg~ -789. Northern pintail -77% Greaterscaup :~ -75°/ Boreaichickadee Eastern meadowlark Common tern ..._ .. ., -70% Loggerhead shrike .~ ~,.~~r _70°~ Field sparrow .< . -68% Grasshopper sparrow •6s9~ Source: National Audubon Society A550L1ATED PftE55 !T'S YAl1R L,IF6. IT'S YOUR DAY OFF. IT'S YOUR PAPER, 1(3NEER PRA TwfnCtit°smm ~~, ~~^~ ;~~~~~ environment Goal: Roseville is an environmentally healthy community Strategy A: Preserve and enlarance soil, water, and urban forest resources 1) Protect and preserve existing Ickes, wetlands, ponds, aquifers, and other natural environments and habitats 2) Reeagnize water resources and the importance of aquifer recharge; reduce stormwater runoff through regulation and education 3) Use best practices to maintain cad develop natural resources, focusing on wetlands and groundwater quality; encourage water conservation 4) Protect and enhance urban forests 5) Collaborate with other governmental units and groups to identify and help meet environmental targets Strategy B: Reduce negative Kaman impacts by conserving energy and reducing potiation 1) Make decisions that account for human impact on the carrying capacity of the environment 2) Model energy conservation cad encourage alternative energy; increase use of energy efficient and low impact lighting throughout the city 3) Reduce Iacal energy usage by educating community members about energy conservation cad its impact on the city 4) Improve air, water, soil, and sound quality by reducing pollution of all kinds, including from traffic, noise, runoff, and excess light and noise; enhance community awareness of environmental impacts Imagine Roseville 2025 Finaf Report, January 2007 Page 10 ,,y , j ~' ~:. f ~ < ;- ~: . ,~. ~ ~' «:Q, ~~ e'fi ~: x..~ ,, ~'~v, x ~~` Y r ~. ~~~~~ ~r~~ ~~ ~"~R t ~, ~..3,~ '~ :~~ x ` ~. ~ x . ~. ~ ~-~ r' ap2~ 'l' > ~ 1. ~, J~ ~,~ ~ mss.,, T._- ; ~;. ~._ _ . ~- . W ~'~~ E ~, -~ , ""~,` ~~: r ~~ ~~ ~~~ i-`: ~~ ij vab ]Aj~ ,k Y' F ~ '~ i +~ ~ ~$ t ~,. ~Wlll t~.c vii u~c agvtlua. C1~J1J1vv111yY~ ulc t~utiA YluI:GJ~ rage 1 OI~F From: esands2612~aol.com To: city.council~a.roseville.mn.us h Cc: bill.malinen~a.roseville.mn.us Subject: Item 12e on the agenda: Approving the AUAR process Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 2:36 pm 1. The AUAR shoudn't be sent to agencies until after public comment has been received and incorporated into it. 2. It will be impossible for Council to declare this AUAR update as "complete and accurate" at any time becaus of the disconnect between the real Twin Lakes Comprehensive Plan, as amended by Council on 6/26/01, and the Fantasy Twin Lakes Comprehensive Plan as declared in this AUAR. Enclosed are: A. Excerpts from the Friends of Turin Lakes vs. Ciy of Roseville Appeals Courts Decision ruling that the master plan approved 6/26/01 is an amendment to the Twin Lakes Comprehensive Plan and made by Council and integral part of the Twin Lakes Comprehensive Plan, as was also the 2001 AUAR. B. My commentary explaining the difference between the real Twin Lakes Master Plan, and the strange claims made that the three scenarios in the AUAR update are consistent with the Twin Lakes Master Plan. They are not consistent with the comp plan. EXCERPT FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS OPINION FRIENDS OF TWIN LAKES VS. CITY OF ROSEVILLE ET AL FILED AUGUST 10, 2006 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ...THE CITY RELIED ON AN ATTORNEY'S OPINION THAT A MASTER PLAN IS "NOTHING MORE THAN A CONTRACT, OR COULD BE LOOKED AT AS A SITE SPECIFIC `OFFICIAL CONTROL' WHICH GOVERNS DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA.... [AND] IT IS NOT A PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN". BUT THIS IGNORES THE FACT THAT THE CITY MADE THE MASTER PLAN A PART OF ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY AMENDMENT. A "COMPREHENSIVE PLAN" IS DEFINED BY STATUTE AS "THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF EACH LOCAL. GOVERNMENTAL UNIT DESCRIBED IN SECTIONS 473.858 TO 473.862, AND ANYAMENDMENTS TO THE PLAN." MINN. STATE S 473.852, SUB. 5 (2004) (EMPHASIS ADDED). NO ONE DISPUTES THAT HERE THE MASTER PLAN IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THEREFORE, THE MASTER PLAN IS WITHIN THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF A "COMPREHENSIVE PLAN" '~ttp:/Iwebmail.aol.com/28518/aoUen-us/Niail/PrintMessage.aspx 7/23/2007 item t le on ttie agenda: Approving the auAtc process Yage "L ot•~ -z Proposed Twin Lakes AUAR July 11, 2007 Al Sands Commentary July 23, 2007 The Real Twin Lakes Master Plan: June 26, 2001 Minutes: (6~ Martel moved, Maschka seconded, by resolution, to approve the final amendment of the Comprehensive Plan for the Twin Lakes Business Park area from "Business" and "Industrial" to "Business Pazk" as described in the Twin Lakes Master Plan dated June 26, 2001 and as amended by Council with the Scenario #1. The amendment shall also included the findings of the AUAR and mitigation plan. Roll Call, Ayes: Goedeke, Martel, Klausing, Maschka, and Kysylyczyn. Nays: none. The Twin Lakes Master Plan is further identified in pages 9-11 of the document titled "Twin Lakes Master Plan", and as per the map identified as Map 6, Future Land Use Scenario. The Twin Lakes Master Plan~as per the Twin Lakes Final AUAR update July 11, 2007: -Page 10: "The AUAR update reviews three development scenarios that are consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan (Figure 6.2). This statement is not true. Figure 6.2 is a map showing Twin Lakes is designated as a Business Pazk in the Comprehensive Plan. It ignores the Twin Lakes Master Plan included in the Twin Lakes Comprehensive Plan as an amendment dated 6/26/01. Actually, none of the three proposed scenarios are consistent with the Twin Lakes Master Plan as amended 6/26/01. That is a false statement based on a false premise of what constitutes the Twin Lakes Comprehensive Plan. http://webmail.aol.com/28518/aol/en-us/Mail/PrintMessage.aspx 7/23/2007 iwiit 1GG Vtl 1116 a~Glltlit: ti~7~I'UVlilg LI1C HUH1C prOCCSS The Twin Lakes Maste__r Plani_as per the Twin Lakes Fnal_A_ UAR _u_ pdate Ju_l~l 1, 2007(continued: -Page 11. Page 3 ofd ,z "The 2001 Master Plan also includes four future land use maps "(Options 2, 3, and 4" and the Twin Lakes AUAR Future Land Use Scenario")and several pages of text ........" Not True. Options 2, 3, and 4 described in Map 3 were superceded by action of the Council on January 8, 2001 and June 26, 2001. -The Twin Lakes AUAR Future Land Use Scenario is the exclusive land use plan by action of the Council on June 26, 2001. The 6/26/01 Council packet shows Dennis Welsch, then the development director, urged the Council to vote in only one of two possible plans. The other possible plan would have permitted big box retail on pazcels 6 & 7 in sub azea II. CONCLUSION It looks to me like the confidence and trust that the people of Roseville place in their government has been violated by the twisting and manipulation of facts in this proposed AUAR, and that the Council will become a willing accomplice to this injustice if Council actually approves this AUAR as "complete and accurate" as staff is requesting, even though they know, or should know, that the July 11,2007 AUAR document includes assertions that aze "false" and/or "inaccurate". Council needs to stop this flawed process now, and go back and do it right, or abandon the AUAR process completely and rely in the future on individual EAW's instead of a canned AUAR approach, as recommended by the City's attorneys (see letter from legal counsel Squires and Anderson in their letter to the Council dated October 4, 2006). ****************************************** I wish to point out that Mayor Klausing was one of the five council persons unanimously voting on June 26, 2001 to amend the plan to limit it to Scenario #1. He has full knowledge of the history of the Twin Lakes Master Plan, and has a very strong obligation to lead the way on this issue. Mayor Klausing, you know better than to go along with this AUAR fiasco. You've been there through this entire process, and are or should be fully aware of the truth. Please do the right thing and act accordingly. http://webmail.aol.com/28518/aol/en-us/Mail/PrintMessage.aspx 7/23/2007 ~~3~~~ City of Minnesota TW=N LAKES REaEVELOpMENT AREA pROjECT ROSEV=LLE COMpRE~tENS=VE PLAN Reproved by tie Citq of Roseville Ci~- Coastail rxste 26, 2001 V. Proposed Land Use The proposed land use in the Twin Lakes Business Park is broken down approximately in acres & percentage of total area in the following table. The land use was approved by the Roseville City Council on June 26, 2001. Parcels Around Lake. and Adjacent to Residential • Multiple Housing or High Quality Offices • Housing with First Floor Office/Rental Apt. - Flezible 1. Minimal noise impact, higher level of cleanup required, less traffic closer to neighborhood, less light pollution and more visibly appealing to neighboring residents. 2. Will need to be higher density to create value needed for redevelopment, either owner-occupied, high-end townhomes or rental townhomes/apartrnents. 3. An office component will help to increase and sustain greater value. Housing Example 9