Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC_Minutes_2008_0114(Voting and Seating Order for January: Pust; Roe; Kough; Ihlan and Klausing) City Finance Director Clu-is Miller filled in for City Manager Bill Malinen, who was out ill. City Attorney Scott Anderson ?~ was also present. 2. Approve Agenda Councihnember Roe suggested that the Plamied Unit Development (PUD) Agreement for Har Mar Mall be considered after discussion for Item 1 l.d, following both the discussion of the Firestone site and the Growrd Round site. The agenda was approved by consensus, as amended. 3. Public Comment Mayor Klausing called for public comment by members of the audience on any non- agenda items. No one appeared to speak. 4. Council Communications, Reports and Announcements Councilmember Pust, as well as Mayor Klausing, commented on the success of the First Jazz Blast, opining that it had been a great success, and could be the "First Annual;" with a wonderful turnout, great talent, and an apt kick off for the State of Minnesota's Sesqui- centennial. 5. Recognitions, Donations, Communications a. Proclamation of Martin Luther King Jr. Day Mayor Klausing read the proclamation recognizing Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Roe moved, Pust seconded, proclamation of Monday, January 21, 2008 as Martin Luther King Jr. Day and urging all citizens to join together to recognize, praise and honor the efforts of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Roe; Kough; Ihlan; and Klausing. Nays: None. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, .Ianuary 14, 2008 Page 2 Mayor Klausing thvrked the City's Advisory Human Rights Conunission for alerting the City Council of this recognition opportunity. 6. Approve t~Rinutes a. Approve Minutes of 1/7/08 Regular Meeting Kough moved, Klausing seconded, approval of the munltes of The 7anuary 07, 2008 Regular Ivieeting as amended. Corrections: Page 6, Item 11, Other )$usiness Items, Iliscuss City Council Rules of Proce- dures (Ihlan) ® Lines 41 and 42, Correct to read," councihnember Ihlan was not supportive of language that would limit introduction of new items [ ]. Page 7, Public Comment (Roe) Spelling correction on line 35 of Comrcilmember Pust's name. Identification on line 38 of Mayor Klausing as the speaker. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Roe; Kough; Ihlan; and Klausing. Nays: None. 7. Approve Consent Agenda There were no changes to the Consent Agenda. At the request of Mayor Klausing, City Finance Director Chris Miller briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda. a. Approve Check Register Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented. ACH Payments $577,852.20 49865-49917 47,001.97 Total $624,854.17 Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Roe; Kough; Ihlan; and Klausing. Nays: None. b. Approve General Purchases and/or Sale of Surplus Items Over $5,000 Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of general purchases and/or contracts as follows: Regular City Council Meeting Monday, 3anuary 14, 200 Page 3 Department Vendor dtem/Descri tion Amount Streets Kath Fuel Oil Blanket P. O. for motor fuel $120,000.00 Streets N. American Salt Blanket P. O. for ice control materials 10,000.00 Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Roe; Kough; Ihlan; and Klausing. Nays: None. c. Business Licenses -Approve Business Lacenses Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of f business license applications for the period of one (1) year, for the following applicants: A licant/Loeation Ty e of License Highland Sanitation & Recycling Solid Waste Hauler 1811 Centur Avenue; New ort, MN Tony Mudek Sanitary Hauling Solid Waste Hauler ~ P. O. Box 248; New ort, MN Twin City Refuse Recycling & Transfer Station Solid Waste Hauler 318 W Water Street; St. Paul, MN Recycling Hauler Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Roe; Kough; Ihlan; and Klausing. Nays: None. d. Approve One-Day Gambling License for Mounds View Girls Softball Team Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of the request by Moundsview Softball to conduct a raffle on February 9, 2008 at the American Legion located at 700 W County Road C. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Roe; Kough; Ihlan; and Klausing. Nays: None. e. Accept Donation of Data Mars Micro Chip Reader Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, acceptance of the donation of a Data Mars "RF Iden- tification Unit" from Dr. Lori Ballinger, DVM, valued at approximately $200.00, to aid the Police Department in returning stray animals to their owners in a timely fashion. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Roe; Kough; Ihlan; and Klausing. Nays: None. £ Approve aOne-Year Extension to an Agreement with Metropolitan Transit for a Park and Ride Facility at the Skating Center Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of an amendment to the existing agreement between the Metropolitan Council and the City of Roseville fora 50-space Park and Ride facility at the Skating Center, until December 31, 2008. Regular City Couna:il Meeting Monday, January 1.4, 200 Page 4 Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Roe; Kough; Ihlan; and Klausing. lOTays: None. S. Consider Items Removed from Consent 9, Goner•al ®rdinances a. Discussion of an ®rdinance Relating to Social Plosting Councilmember Pust provided background information on a proposed ordinance that would allow law enforcement to impose criminal responsibility by charging an individual hosting an underage drinking party; with the intent to serve as a de- terrent effect and reduce the number of such parties, hopefully reducing the num- bers of teens and young adults choosing to use alcohol. Councilmember Pust noted that this was simply to serve as an introduction of a draft ordinance for Council consideration; with specific ordinance language developed for future ac- tion. Michelle Edwards, a Counselor with School District 623 at the Roseville Area High School, and a former Chemical Health Coordinator, provided a presentation on drug and alcohol issues of students, and comparisons between a 2001 and 2004 Student Survey, of 6`h, 9th and 12th graders. Ms. Edwards noted that the 2007 Stu- dent Survey had just become available, and would provide additional statistics and comparisons from the previous two studies. Ms. Edwards' presentation provided male and female demographics; race/ethnicity; selected benchmarks (i.e., substance use, signs of distress, school climate, substance abuse among family members, binge drinking, and other risk behaviors) and their relationship in chemical abuse issues; and comparisons with regional school districts and state-wide figures. City of Roseville Police Chief Carol Sletner was also present, and provided her perspective, and advantages in such an ordinance; providing specifics of past in- cidents where the City's Police Department was limited under current law, and inability to enforce, if everyone present denies that adults furnished alcohol. Chief Sletner opined that other communities would be adopting similar ordi- nances throughout the state, noting several conununities that had adopted such an ordinance, and that this would serve as another tool for the Department's use in reducing underage alcohol consumption. Councilmember Pust noted that several model ordinances were included as infor- mation in the Council packet. I2egatlar City Council R~Ieeting 1Vlonday, January 14, 2008 Page 5 Discussion included advantages for municipal versus state adoption of such legis- lation and practical applications. Councilmember Pust thanked Ms. Edwards, and the Roseville School District for their involvement and cooperation. Council consensus was to hold further discussion once proposed ordinance lan- guage was drafted. b. Consider an ®rdanance to Fieaone and a IZesoiution Approving an Aanended Conditional 1Jse Pernnit (CUP) for Pet3enart, 2480 Fairview Avenue (PF07- 063) City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized the request of Faegre and Benson, on behalf of PetSmait, seeking approval of a TEXT AMENDMENT to Roseville City Code, Sections 1002 and 1005, pertaining to dog kemlels and boarding of animals; and an AMENDMENT to PetSmarts' CUP to allow the boarding of cats and dogs at their proposed site in Rosedale Commons, 2480 Fairview Avenue. Mr. Paschke noted that the Planning Commission had unanimously approved the request at their December 2007 meeting, with minor amendments; and that staff had since that meeting, worked with the City Attorney and made recommendation for code modifications to consider allowing pet boarding and dog day care; spe- cific to the definition of "Dog Kennel," adding pet boarding and dog day camp and/or daycare as accessory uses to Pet and Pet Supply Stores in order to be al- lowed through a CUP. Mr. Paschke presented a revised version, recommended by Councilmember Ihlan previously, of the proposed ordinance, that would amend language of Section 2, Section 1002.02 (Dog Kennel) exclusions to read: "...excluding pet boarding and/or dog day care as an accessory use to pet and pet supply store; "fexcept that such pet boarding or dog day care shall remain subiect to the licensing re- quirements of 501.19 of this Code.]" Councilmember Ihlan expressed further concern related to noise nuisances from barking dogs; and potential problems from pet feces. Discussion included code provisions that would apply to those concerns, as ad- dressed by City Attorney Anderson (501.03); application to private or residential versus commercial operations; zoning code amendment to approve specific uses and potential impacts to future uses in any business zone except B-6 allowing dog kennel classification, only through CUP's; license code application to smaller scale kennels, outside, not indoors; and the need for sufficient regulatory basis and standard criteria; and whether sufficient controls are in place. I2egutar Cifly Coarnci6l~eeting l~®naay, aa~uary 1a, aoas Page 6 Councilmember Ihlan opined that more work needs to be done as a policy matter, differentiating land use criteria from animal welfare considerations, and potential gaps in city law for future guidance. Mr. Paschke detailed staff s interpretation of the sufficiency of existing controls related to impacts created from this particular use. Councilmember Roe noted that the definition of dog kemiei didn't define it as in- door pet bov-der. City Attorney Anderson suggested that the word "indoor" be inserted into the definition to provide more clarity. Councilmember Roe noted inconsistencies in the ordinance, and resolution, re- lated to pet boarding and/or pet day care. Councilmember Pust concurred, noting that referenced in Sections 1002.02 and 1005.015 were inconsistent with °`dog" or "doggie" day care. Mayor Klausing expressed preference for defining "dog" rather than "doggie" day care. Mayor Klausing opened the meeting for public comment, with no one appearing to speak. The applicant was present, but had no corrunent. Initially, Councihnembers Pust and Roe moved an amendment to draft language. After further discussion, the motion was moved, as amended, without secondary action. Pust moved, Roe seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1356 entitled, "An Ordi- nance Amending Title 10, Chapter 1002 and 1005 Pertaining to Pet Boarding and Pet Day Care;" amended as follows: Line 19: include "Indoor"following the word "excluding" in the added definition language; ^ Line 20: add language at the end of the proposed definition language to include, "/except t/zat suc/a pet boarding or doh day care shall remain subiect to the licensing requireme~:ts oj501.19 of this Code.l" ^ Line 23: change all references from "doggy" to "dog" day care throughout the document. Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion; opining that there were too many open policy issues that needed revisiting before this policy went for- ward. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 7 Councilmember Roe opined his agreement with Councilmember Ihlan on her broader concerns related to chanpinQ the zoning code; however, further opined that he was comfortable with the CUP process and criteria, as well as the number of agencies who monitored those issues, in addition to the City's standing nui- sance codes; and spoke in support of the ordinance as amended. Roll Cali Ayes: Pust; Roe; Kough; and Klausing. Nays: Ihlan. Motion carried. Pust moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10589 entitled, "A Reso- lution Approving an Amended Conditional Use Permit in Accordance with Rose- ville City Code, Sections 1005.015 and 1013.01, for Rosedale Commons LP and PetSmart, 2480 Fairview Avenue (PF07-063);" amended as follows: ® Change all references from "doggy" to "dog" day care throughout the doeume~at for consistency Councilmember Ihlan sought clarification and recourse options for the public, whether residential or commercial neighbors, if nuisances became evident. City Attorney Anderson advised that any resident, whether an individual or busi- ness, believing that any facility created a nuisance, could alert the City's Planning and Zoning Department, or the City's Police Department, to their concerns. Mr. Anderson noted that the City would have two options for resolution: issuing a ci- tation for nuisance through the court system; or revoking of the Cup for failure to comply with conditions of the CUP. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Roe; Kough; Ihlan; and Klausing. Nays: None. c. Consider an Ordinance to Rezone and a Resolution Approving a Condi- tional Use Permit (CUP) For Michael Schueller and Riaz and Catherine Hus- sain to allow a Deli and Catering Facility at 1901 Lexington Avenue (PF07- 069) Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd provided a sununary review of the request of Mi- chael Schueller, in cooperation with property owners Riaz and Catherine Hussain, for REZONING and a CUP to allow a deli and catering facility at 1901 Lexington Avenue. Mr. Lloyd noted that the Planning Commission had approved the re- quest on a 5/2 vote at their December 2007 meeting. Mayor Klausing opined that the concept of a deli appeared to be a good use at this site, with no apparent objections of the neighborhood to such a use; it appeared that the concern was rezoning the site for this low impact use, that may allow fu- ture undesirable uses, having greater impact to the safety and traffic concerns for fl2egaalar City Council It/ieeting Monday, January i4, 2008 ]gage 8 the neighborhood along Autumn Street. Mayor Klausing noted that the land use zoning distinction would flow with the land, not the specific applicant's use, if another permitted use was considered. Councihnember Ihlan shared the concerns of the neighbors, and Mayor Klausing, regarding rezoning; expressing preference for accommodating this use through a Plaamed Uwt Development (PUD); ailowhtg for flexibility without amending the zoning code, while adch-essing concerns of the neighborhood. Discussion included possible zoning text amendment; normal application of PUD's to redevelopment properties, rather than reuse of existing buildings; desire for transparency in permitted uses; changes to underlying zoning for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan; and the need for future policy review of border zones atzd limited business zones. Applicant(s) Barlene Schueller and li'dichael Schueller, co-owners of deli catering service Mr. Schueller advised that, when addressed by the Platming Commission for B- 1 Brezoning, he had sought other options to Iimit other potential uses of the prop- erty, while approving the use as a deli. Mr. Schueller noted that he was flexible and had no objection to limiting the scope of the use, and advised that his original intent for apick-up window, had been removed from the proposal, with their in- tent for several limited time parking spots instead for pick up of take out orders. Discussion included the 60-day review deadline of March 1, 2008; Public Hearing held at the Plamting Commission specific to rezoning, and he need for the appli- cant to withdraw their current application and resubmit an application for a new and separate review process. City Attorney Anderson advised that there were three (3) options: 1) to approve this application as presented and as recommended by staff for rezoning and a CUP; 2) to vote down the current application; or 3) to have the applicant with- draw this application in writing, and submit another application to proceed through a new Public Hearing process. Further discussion ensued regarding how to allow this specific deli use, while not creating an avenue for other permitted, but less desirable uses that would create negative impacts to the neighborhood; of possible changes to uses in specific res- taurant class charts. Councilmember Pust recommended that the applicant withdraw this application. City Attorney Anderson advised that the applicant didn't have to make a decision at tonight's meeting; but that the City Council could table action to allow the ap- plicant further time to review their options with staff. Regular City Council I@Jeeting R~Ionday, January 14, 20OS Page 9 Mr. Lloyd sought clarification from the City Council as to their prefeiaed alterna- tive. Councilmember Ihlan opined her support of a PUD amendment. Mayor Klausing opined his support of a zoning text amendment. Councilmember Roe opined lus support of a PUB amendment, expressing con- cern in making a zoning text vnendment related to this project without discussing other considerations. Councilmember Pust expressed no preference; and deferred to staffs recommen- dation. Councilmember Ihlan noted that there were neighbors present, who may wish to provide additional continent. Mayor Klausing advised that the public would be given another opportunity to speak, following further consideration by the applicant and staff on their best op- tion. Public Comment Patrick Schmidt, 1140 Autumn Street Mr. Schmidt presented written comments, dated January 14, 2008, from FAST (Foes of Autumn Street Traffic); attached hereto and made a part thereof; and verbally summarized those comments. Mr. Schmidt cormnended staff to en- forcement of the parking situation along Autumn Street; and spoke in support of the proposed use, but not the rezoning that may promote future uses that are not in theinterest ofthe neighborhood. Mr. Schmidt advised that, following tonight's discussion of Councilmembers, he would consult with the neighbors to determine their preferences. Klausing moved, Kough seconded, to TABLE consideration of this application, to allow the applicant time to work with staff for options to allow this specific use without broader impacts to the coimnunity. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Roe; Kough; Ihlan; and Klausing. Nays: None. 10. Public Hearings a. Public Hearing and Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Expenditure of Tax-Exempt Funds for Concordia Academy Regn-ar City Counei- li~eeting 1~Ionday, January I4, 2008 Page IO Finance Director Cln-is Miller advised that the applicant had, earlier today, with- drawn their requested action. Mayor Klausing opened and closed the Public Hearing at 7:42 p.m., with no one appearing to speak. No action was taken. b. Public Ilearing and Approval/Denial of the Request for On-Sale and Sunday 6ntogicating Liquor Licenses for Grumpy's Bar and Grill, 2801 Sne-lang Avenue Finance Director Chris Miller briefly srunmarized the requested application for an On-Sale and Sunday intoxicating Liquor License at 2801 Snelling Avenue for Grumpy's Bar and Grill, formerly Majors Sports Bar. Mayor Klausing opened and closed the Public Hearing at 7:43 p.m., with no one appearing for or against. Ihlan moved, Roe seconded, approval of the On-Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License, for Grumpy's Bar and Grill, located at 2801 Snelling Avenue, for the period of January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008, subject to final review of the application prior to issuance of the license by the City Attorney. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Roe; Kough; Ihlan; and Klausing. Nays: None. 11. Other Business Items (Action Items) a. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Consideration of the Use of Eminent Domain for the Request by Opus Northwest, LLC/Dorso Build- ing Company LLP Finance Director Cluis Miller introduced representatives of Dorso Building Com- pany LLP, and the City's development legal counsel Krass Monroe; and refer- enced aDecember 12, 2007 letter from Jolm Martin on behalf of Dorso for Coun- cil consideration. Mr. Miller noted that the City was not being asked to take any eminent domain action; but was being asked to express support for such action if certain conditions warranted such action. A revised draft of the resolution was distributed, not specifying a developer. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, January 14, ZOOS Page 11 John Paul Martin, Martin Squires Attorneys At Law, 444 Cedar Street, Suite 2050, St. Paul, MN, representing Dorso Building Company, LLP/®PUS, 2814 Cleveland Avenue, Roseville, Ml0' Mr. Martin provided comment on the written request of December 12, 2007, in- cluded as part of the Council packet, for their client Dorso Building Company, LLP, owner often-plus acres of land in the northwest quadrant of the Twin Lakes development area. Mr. Martin requested Council consideration and adoption of a proposed ordinance restating the past position of the City. As part of the Council packet, Councimember lhlan had resubmitted her original written comments and position, dated November 22, 2005, regarding proposed policies on use of eminent domain. Discussion included noting that the property had been, at the consent of Dorso, included in a larger condemnation proceeding during the anticipated Rottlund De- velopment proposal; environmental status of the property, following four (4) stud- ies, showing that this parcel doesn't require any remediation; and the property owner's request for condemnation to achieve more favorable tax unplications. Councilmember Pust expressed appreciation to Mr. Martin for his honesty; opin- ing that what was being requested made perfect sense from a business point of view; however, further opined that as an elected official she was being asked not to comply with federal tax law. Councilmember Pust questioned the public pur- pose and benefit to the citizens of Roseville; and spoke in opposition to the re- quest as currently presented. Mr. Martin reviewed several sections of the IRS Tax Code regarding timing for reinvestment of proceeds; and implications to his client given the numerous un- knowns of the actual development and sale of the property. Mr. Martin opined that, given the history of the redevelopment area and impacts to small business owners, the client's request was not unusual or excessive. Mayor Klausing shared Councilmember Pust's concerns; however, expressed the practical consequences that this parcel may not get redeveloped; and overall, it was in the best interest of the community for office use on this property. John Jossart, development legal counsel for the City of Roseville, Krass Monroe Mr. Jossart addressed legalities of the request, noting that it was a routine request, and that the Purchase Agreement for the property stipulated tax deferments for the current owner, as his single largest asset, creating significant impact to him. Mr. Jossart advised that, without Council adoption of the requested action, the Pur- chase Agreement would most likely not come to fruition, and would further im- pact advancing redevelopment of the area. I2egudar City C®uncil Meeting 1Vlonday, January 14, 2005 Page 12 Councilmember Ihlan opined that the Council shouldn't exercise eminent domain, as there was no public purpose behind the request; and questioned the City Coun- cil's authority to condemn, under current state law. Mayor Klausing clarified the requested action. Mr. Jossart advised that the proposed resolution was couched in the City's abili- ties as confined to current law. Mr. Martin addressed past action of the City Council in declaring the area to be blighted and in need of redevelopment, and opined that this accounted fora spe- cific public purpose. Mr. Martin noted that, in relationship to the market interest in the property, as a condition of the Purchase Agreement, the transaction won't happen without the ability to protect the small property owner. Mr. Martin opined that there were a lot of steps to be completed before arry condemnation proceed- ings would be commenced. Councilmember Pust expressed concerns with the proposed language of rile dra'ii resolution, opining that the intent was not obvious to a citizen; and noted that the current eminent domain statute had changed the definition of blight, and ques- tioned if this property would still meet that definition. Mr. Jossart advised that, while he had not done a specific analysis, it was his firni's belief that this process would fall under the old statute, since the Tax In- crement Financing District had been created under those provisions. Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the proposed resolution, following further clarification of the language and appropriate application of state statute. Mayor Klausing opined that his consideration was due to the desperate need to redevelop the area, and further opining that it would be a shame to let this opportunity slip away if there was a solution. Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her opposition in using eminent domain for the purpose of facilitating economic development; and the need to determine the City's eminent domain policy. Councilmember Roe opined that, generally he was much less concerned about eminent domain use when the actual property owner was asking for it; however, expressed new concerns about new state law and whether the City was meeting those requirements. Councilmember Roe sought written recomnnendation from the City's legal counsel for further clarification, specifically related to point #3 of the resolution, and whether "will" was too strong of a word in that context. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, January 14, 200 Page 13 Councilmember Pust opined that the staff memo didn't match the language of the proposed resolution, and needed additional revision; in addition to a clear under- standing of cur~ent state law regarding eminent domain, and spoke in support of further consideration. Councilmember Kough spoke in support of the project going forward; however, expressed concern on how best to proceed. After further discussion, the applicant, the City's legal counsel, and staff•were di- rected to clarify language of the resolution and provide additional information re- garding the time period, definition of blight, and any other pertinent information. Klausing moved, Pust seconded TABLING action, pending further information to be provided by the applicant and the City's legal counsel, through staff; for con- sideration of a resolution authorizing the acquisition of certain property for public use by right of eminent domain. ESyes: Pust; Roe; and Klausing. Nays: Kough and Ihlan. Roll Call b. Emergency Management Presentation by Krysta Reuter, Ramsey County Emergency Management/FIomeland Security Krysta Reuter, Assistant Director of Ramsey County Emergency Management and Homeland Security (RCEMHS), provided an extensive presentation on the responsibilities and coordination of emergency preparedness and homeland secu- rity efforts for the county. Ms. Reuter provided information on training require- ments; and the assistance available and in process for all public safety agencies, including police, fire and EMS during responses, and volunteer organizations. Ms. Reuter provided an overview of extensive county-wide emergency operations plan; coordination efforts; incident management; resources; federal and state sup- port; and emergency service function. Ms. Reuter advised the City Council of municipal emergency management responsibilities and required training; and de- fined responsibilities, cooperation and autonomy. Also present to address the City's ongoing emergency operations training and fa- cilitation were City of Roseville Deputy Fire Chief Tim O'Neill and Police Ser- geant Matt Marshall. Ms. Reuter advised that county responsibilities were to perform the basics, advise and offer assistance to municipalities, and liaison with appropriate parties and co- ordinate federal and state resources. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, January 14, 200 Page 14 Discussion with the City Council was held regarding plamvng and policy level is- sues from aday-to-day operation status of a part-time, elected City Council. Deputy Chief O'Neill and Sgt. Marshall provided abehind-the-scenes review of training to-date of over 180 city employees during normal work hours over the Last two (2) years, with training dependent upon their roles and levels of responsi- bility; application of state stahrte, and future need for a full-time position for emergency management training. Deputy Chief O'Neill noted the anticipated en- actment of the City's emergency operations plan in 2008; and possible implica- tions to the City's 2009 budget for additional required h•aining and implementa- tion, including acity-wide drill. c. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Approving Recguest by Emmes Realty Services LLC for an Amended Planned Unit Development (PUD) at IlarMar Mall, 2100 Snelling Avenue (PF07-053) (Firestone) City Plamrer Thomas Paschke introduced the request of Emmes Realty Services LLC (Emmes) seeking to AMEND the PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT es- tablished in January 2000 to relocate the northeastern outlot (currently Firestone) to a location adjacent to County Road B. Mr. Paschke advised that the request had been heard at the Planning Commission in November of 2007, and unanimously recommended for approval as condi- tioned and detailed in the staff report. Mr. Paschke reviewed the proposal, involy- ing razing the Firestone building and constructing an additional parking lot in it's place; creating a new outlot-structure adjacent to County Road B; modifying the entry road at the signalized intersection with County Road B; and modifying the drive lane ring road that intersects with the signalized access to County Road B. Mr. Paschke noted that the proposed use, and tenant (D'Amico & Sons), along with two retail uses, had been arrnounced publicly last week. Mr. Paschke reviewed additional discussions and resolution between the applicant and staff since the Planning Commission, as detailed in dre staff report. Discussion included clarification of staff s proposed right-in/right-out access for the most westerly access point from the site to County Road B; and comments of the Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission regarding EPA- compliance monitoring wells on site. City Engineer Debra Bloom was present to address monitoring wells; with staff determining that it should not be a city condition for monitoring wells, with the MPCA serving as a higher authority. Councihnember Ihlan spoke in support of adding a condition that monitoring wells be installed. Regniar City Coeancil Meeting Monday, January 14, 200 Page 15 Councilmember Roe opined that, since staff was unable to confirm the actual need for installation of the monitoring wells, if didn't seem that a requirement for their installation was appropriate as a condition of approval of the application. Further discussion included the Conunission's suggestion for apedestrian/bicycle access plan. Ms. Bloom noted that it was included as a condition. Additional discussion included addressing concerns of staff related to traffic; dif- ferences of opinion between the City's traffic engineer and the applicant's engi- neer; negotiations and compromises to-date; safety and logistical impacts to the site and County Road B; a-turns on County Read B and enforcement options; and previous action and development during constivction of the Super Target store. Tom Hart, Winthrop & Weinstein, legal coe;nsel for applicant Mr. Hart spoke to the amount of compromise and discussion between the appli- cant and staff over several months; opining that this could be a "win-win" for all parties. P~Ir. Hart advised that the applicant didn't think that safe~y was aii issue; and that the proposed redevelopment would not create an excess between current and projected conditions, specifically related to u-turns; and actually anticipated smoother access rather than more congestion. Mr. Hart reiterated issues related to long-term lease agreement provisions with anciaor tenants and access points. James (Jamie) Swanson, Regional Director of Operations, Emmes Realty Services LLC, for Gateway Washington, Inc. Mr. Swanson noted the cost for installation of the underground stormwater reten- tion system; and advised of the mall ownership's unwillingness to close the right- out access point. Aravind Gottemukkula, Wenck, Applicant's Traffic Engineer Mr. Gottemukkula provided an extensive anc= detailed analysis of the problems created for the applicant with staff s proposal; making the project unfeasible; and reviewed the data and field observations collected to support their analysis. The applicant suggested signs on-site to promote use of the main access point; with Mr. Gottemukkula opining that the anticipated safety problem was theoreti- cal, not actual, and that the proposed Outlot i§1 PUD would not alter the existing level of service for any of the movements onto County Road B. "Given the 10:00 p.m. self-imposed meeting and issue curfew in the Council's adopted rules of procedure, the manor noted that the meeting could continue under the rules until 11:00 n.m. for considera- Regular City Council IVffeeting l~ionaiay, January 14, 2008 Page 16 tion of this item only, and that the rules would have to be suspended to continue past 11:00 p.m. or to take up any additional items." Additional discussion related to the application included potential for condition- ing approval on closure of the intersection within one (1) year; inability of the ap- plicatzt to renegotiate current leases, some extending for up to twenty (20) years; projected traffic levels when the facility is fatty-leased out, acrd impacts for safety and access; applicant's responses to citizen and neighborhood concerns regarding various nuisance issues; and improved lighting with site redevelopment. Councilmember Post clarified the applicant was not content with the City Council approving their application with the condition that the right-in/riglrt-out at the in- tersection 300' from Snelling Avenue be addressed within one (1) year. Mr. Hart confirmed Councilmember Past's clarification, opining that the appli- cant had yet to thoroughly review the proposed PUD Agreement. Further discussion included staff s position a~1d the applicant's positions on traffic and safety concerns, and ihipacts of the site's redevelopment. Mayor Klausing spoke in support and respect of staff's position and analysis. Additional discussion included Ramsey County plans and requirements and their support of closure of the access point; ongoing safety concerns; other mitigation options that may be available; and the couunon interest in safety and a smooth traffic flow. Councilmember Pust spoke in support of closure of the access. Councilmember Ihlan spoke in supporC of the development; and consideration of access closure as a separate issue, or at a minimum, with a condition for a closure timetable. Mayor Klausing concurred with Councilmember Ihlan; opining that, while recog- nizing staff's concern, there didn't appear to be a sufficient nexus to mandate clo- sure in order to grant this application, and that the right-in/right-out be allowed to remain open. City Attorney, and Councilmembers, addressed the proposed PUD Agreement, and the need to eliminate vague references and inconsistencies to ensure enforce- ment in the future. Councilmember Pust noted for the record, that it was important not to leave the impression with citizens that the Council was ignoring the 1999 and 2007 traffic studies, and the advice of staff, that the foreseeable changes created or further en- Regular City Council Meeting Monday, 3anuary 14, 2001$ Page 17 hanced safety issues on County Road B. Councilmember Pust suggested that other Councilmembers may be of a different opinion and express different con- cerns if this was happening nearer their home. Councilmember Ihlan defended her previous comments related to safety concerns, suggesting prohibition of a-turns with enforcement; and opined that she had not seen evidence that the redevelopment would significantly impact traffic volumes and/or access issues. Recess Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at 10:27 p.m. acrd reconvened at 10:36 p.m. Mayor Klaus- ingnotedthat Councilmember Kough had left the meeting durl7g the recess. d. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Approvdng Request by Emmes Realty Services LLC for an Amended Planned Unit Development (PUD) at AarMar Mall, 2100 Snelling Avenue (PF07-062) (Ground Round) Mr. Paschke reviewed the additional application for redevelopment of the former backyard Grille, on the southwest side of the site, for another restaurant use; raz- ing the former Backyard Grill restaurant building and constructing a new, 7,200 square foot, sit-down restaurant in its place; creating a new structure on a differ- ently-configured outlot adjacent to Snelling Avenue and the Mall access road; modifying the access road at the restaurant entry for better circulation; and modi- fying the general site area with new parking stalls, landscaping and screening Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern that this proposal was not as specific as the previous application; and opined that it was reminiscent of the Northwestern College PUD Amendment application, and prevented serious public comment and discussion. Mr. Paschke advised that, at the Planning Commission's Public Hearing, the pub- lic had expressed their concems and comments, and those applicable had been in- corporated into the proposed PUD Agreement, currently before the City Council. Given the lateness of the hour, and the number of concems addressed by individ- ual Councilmembers on the specificity of the proposed Agreements; Mayor Klausing suggested that language of the Agreements be fine-tuned and brought back before the Council at their next meeting. Discussion included the review period status for each case; need for findings for denial; staff's recommendation for approval of both cases; and preference to have the full Council vote on the matter, given Councilmember Kough's absence. Council majority indicated rnoving forward with an agreement, excluding a con- dition for right-in/right-out closure; and specific conditions included related to the pedestrian bicycle access, and eastern boarder fence. regular City Council Meeting Monday, January 14, 200 Page 1S Staff was directed to ensure that the resolution and PUD Agreement language was consistent. Staff reviewed the process for Council approval and development of the actual PUD Agreement, based on their approval comments and conditions. Klausing moved, Pust seconded, TABLING action until January 28, 2008, for consideration of a Plamsed Unit Development Amendment in accordance with Roseville City Code, Sections 1006 and 1008, for LIar Mar Mall, 2100 Snelling Avenue, Gateway Washington, Inc., by its agent Emmes Realty Services, LLC, 2100 N Snelling Avenue, Roseville, MN; as referenced in City of Roseville Pro- ject Files #PF07-053 and 07-062. roll Call Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; and Klausing. Nays: None. Absent: Kough e. Consider Advisory Commission Term Expirations and Appoint- ments/Reappointment Process Due to the lateness of the hour, Mayor Klausing requested individual Com~cil- members to e-mail their preferences to staff regarding any candidate interview they wished to hold prior to reappointment of advisory commissioners; with the information to be included for public consumption in the next City Council packet, as recommended by City Attorney Anderson. 12. Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings 13. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 11:03 p.m. Regular City Couneii Meeting Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 19 ~Cr,~i D. Klausing, Mayo} ATTEST: s° g ,~ <-'`~~l Christopher K. Miller, Finance Director ~~~~ Ell~f~DB `~ ~ ~ l ~ t ~f ~~>`~ ~_ ~. 14 January 2008 City of Roseville City Council 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 Re: Planning File 07-069 Dear City Council Members, I write to express the concern of many residents near to the property at 1901 Lexington Avenue, and we ask for your close consideration of the proposal by Michael Schueller (in cooperation with Riaz and Catherine Hussain) to rezone the property and grant a conditional use permit. The property is an uncommon one. For a variety of reasons, including its past conditional use as well as its location at the extremity of the Lexington-Roselawn business intersection, this property sits very exposed to the residential neighborhood abutting and directly across the street from it. If you do not know it, we are happy to tell you that Autumn Street is one of the most wonderful streets in the city. It features a mix of original residents, professional individuals and couples, and families. Indeed, there are no fewer than twenty-five children living on Autumn Street. From spring to autumn, the extremely low traffic allows the street to host nightly bike rallies, ball games, street hockey, and more. The unanimous view of the residents is that we are very fortunate to have what we have in Autumn Street and want no diminution of what we enjoy. In this letter, I will review the consideration given to this proposal by the City's Planning Commission and will present the concerns of many residents in the near vicinity of the property. Summary As an overview, I offer three observations. - I commend the work of City planning staff member Bryan Lloyd, whose investigation identified a past Conditional Use Permit for the irregular parking spaces on the south side of the property, and we whole-heartedly endorse the suggestion at the Planning Commission meeting that the enforcement of the now-expired permit should include, not only the removal of those patches of pavement, but a more thorough-going landscaping plan that adequately separates this property from the neighboring residential zone. I nevertheless oppose the rezoning of this property from B-1 to B-1 B. For a number of reasons, it does not represent a prudent step at this point in time and it threatens to shape the future development of the property in undesirable ways. The City Council would be wise to forestall this direction in use, leaving its long-standing zoning intact. Whether or not the City Council uses its legislative discretion to allow this permitted rezoning, it would do so without adequate consideration of important concerns, without a substantial basis in material fact, and in contradiction to the City's policies and stated planning goals. History of this Action to Date The request by Michael Schuller is dual-faceted. It seeks a Rezoning, From B-1 (Limited Business) to B-1B in order to allow adeli/cheese shop, and a Conditional Use Permit to allow a catering facility in that building. The original Staff Recommendation, contained in the city staff's review for the December 5, 2007 meeting of the City's Planning Commission, recommended approval on both counts, subject to the condition that the owners of the property install screening along the western property line (facing an abutting residential property), and with the proviso that this action by the City would not be construed to allow "outdoor menus and audio equipment necessary for adrive-through facility". At the December 5`h meeting, the City planning staff brought to light a June 9, 1997 Conditional Use Permit that allowed a veterinary clinic to locate in these premises. The resolution of the City Council allowed that use, noting that: "The parking area along Autumn Street must be removed if a determination is made by the City that said parking area creates a safety hazard or adversely affects the flow of traffic in this area." Further, that parking area was to be designated as employee parking only. The discussion at the December meeting appeared to coalesce around the conclusion that this parking area, facing Autumn Street, would indeed adversely affect the flow of traffic in the area if combined with the potential rezoning and reuse of this building as a deli and catering facility. Thus, although the minutes of that approved minutes of that meeting are not yet available (at this time of writing), this observer took as a conclusion of the meeting that the City's approval of this rezoning and conditional use permit would be contingent upon a landscaping proposal that removed the Autumn Street parking and adequately screened the residential neighborhood from this property. After some deliberation and apparent reluctance on the part of even some members voting for the proposal, the Planning Commission approved this motion by a vote of 5 to 2. It now awaits action by the City Council Concerns with this Proposal The proposal here generated significant discussion among the residents of Autumn Street. As indicated already, Autumn Street is a quiet residential block of R-1 zoned properties (single- familydwellings). The street enjoys significant use by residents of this and nearby streets as part of a circuit by walkers of all ages. Autumn Street does not have sidewalks, yet as resident to over twenty-five children, the vast majority under the age of 12, it gets significant use as a site for bicycling, ballgames, and other delights of childhood. The Autumn Street Parking Spaces First and foremost, the unanimous concern of the residents of Autumn Street, reflected in the signatories to the letter to the Planning Commission (see the Appendix) is this: we all oppose the use of the south side of the building at 1901 Lexington and an ay ttempt, intended or unintended, to intensify the use of the Autumn Street, an R-I residential street, as a route for automobile traffic to the business located there. The proposal and sketches submitted to the City threatened such an intensification of use. It included the proposal for atake-out window on the south side of the property, making use of the six-car parking area on the Autumn Street side. This proposal threatens to generate significant traffic on Autumn Street, making use of it as an easy thoroughfare that avoids the difficulty of turning across and onto the three-lane, busy traffic of Lexington Avenue. We direct to the further analysis of this in the letter submitted to the Planning Commission members and attached here (Appendix). Following on from the discussion at the Planning Commission, I can speak for the unified voices of the residents of Autumn Street in saying that any future action concerning this property, including the present one, must include the stand-alone requirement of the removal of the Autumn Street parking-as was anticipated by the 1997 Conditional Use Permit-and approval of a landscaping plan that seeks to divorce this business property from the residential properties abutting it on the western property line and facing it on the southern vista. The need for a removal of the property's Autumn Street parking leaves the property with a very substantial parking area, facing Lexington Avenue, and in no way limits the enjoyment of the property by its current or future owners. Further, the City Council would be wholly supported by both the nearby residents and its own planning staff, if it were to impose this condition, as anticipated by this Council's own foresight when it approved the 1997 Conditional Use Permit. Indeed, in light of all the factors, it would be wholly irrational for the City to approve this rezoning and CUP without requiring action to remove the Autumn Street parking, as provided for as a condition of the 1997 CUP. The Rezoning Request as a Whole We have no ill will toward with the proposed owners of the deli. Some residents of Autumn Street have relatively little concem with the proposal for a deli. I still speak with the endorsement of many residents, particularly those with children, concerning the proposed rezoning as a whole. Indeed, as stated in our letter to the Planning Commission, we enjoy the multi-use district at Lexington and Roselawn and the various "destination" businesses that the City has found fit to allow to locate there. These include a hardware store, a realtor, professional offices, and most recently a bookstore. The residents of Autumn Street are among the most frequent and loyal patrons of these businesses. We are not unappreciative of their role in our community and we are not viscerally opposed to the harmonious development of this intersection's vitality. However, the Rezoning being considered here does not concern just adeli-it is a quasi- ]egislative action that attaches to the property, not the owners. I believe that it is the wrong decision to make at this time and that the City has not, to date, adequately considered the ramifications of this change, especially in light of its more enduring desires for development and the maintenance of its quality of life. In short, B-1B is the wrong zoning to give to this property. Consider these factors: Professional services and light retail, not food service, best fit the C'on-prehensive Plan's stated objective for this property. As long-term residents, we appreciate how small businesses come and go. In its history, this property has seen life as a veterinary office, professional office, and hair salon, to name just a few. After the alteration of this property to include atake-out window, another even more intensive B-IB-qualified business could establish themselves in this property with no further permits required by the City. Imagine, as we have, that Domino's Pizza decided to locate here, with a carryout window and a fleet of drivers, to compete with the Papa John's located in the Lexington-Larpenteur stripmall. The City of Roseville long-ago foresaw the need to protect sensitive residential streets in the Lexington-Roselawn intersection. All of the businesses at this intersection are given an "LB" designation in the Comprehensive Plan. While LB admits of more than one zoning categories (including both B-I and B-1B), four months ago the City's staff, in Section 6.3 of the planning document for the review of the Bookhouse application (PF07-050), emphasized the Comprehensive Plan's commitment to "fair]y low traffic generating users" at this intersection. In particular, in that planning document the City's staff drew the distinction with a "convenience business that relies on drive-by traffic," and stated the staffs belief that "all of the proposed allowed uses" in that property "would be similar low-traffic, destination businesses...." There are narrow distinctions that might be drawn between that property (in a Planned Use Development) and this one. Yet it is clear in general that the limited nature of the Lexington-Roselawn intersection is best suited and intended for destination businesses and relatively low-intensity professional services. The B-1B zoning designation includes Class II restaurants under the title of "Fast Food Convenience" businesses. It would be a plain contradiction-for the City to allowacorwenience-driven business when its Comprehensive Plan and recent actions have emphasized the City's commitment to "destination" rather than "convenience" zoning at the Lexington-Roselawn intersection. The Uniqueness of a B-1B zone in this setting. This property is highly exposed to residential properties both abutting and across the street. While I have not undertaken a completely review of the city, to my knowledge I know of no B1-B property in the entire City of Roseville that is located in such an exposed way to a residential neighborhood. A B-1B would not require further permits in order to establish atake-out window, including one that would be within plain view of the residential properties across the street. A fast food restaurant, permitted without a conditional use permit in a B-1B, would be a jarring, to say the least. It would be unique to the city and thus raise serious doubts about whether the City possesses and is acting in accordance with a rational scheme of land use. The Property is blot Effectively "Self-iTegulating". A number of the members of the Planning Comrission employed alaissez-faire logic, dismissing this property as "self-regulating" in nature-i.e., that the size of the property would prevent any truly intensive uses of the property, such as would be desired by a franchise food establishment. Those members misperceived the conditions on the ground. Immediately to the north, at the intersection of Roselawn and Lexington, sits a former convenience store, now used as the off ce of a real estate agent. Without delving into the personal details of the current occupant, there is reason to believe that this property may come available in the next couple of years, if not sooner. These two buildings, together, would command a strong position on a good thoroughfare. As with the development of the professional building across the street, the City should see fit to develop this portion of the intersection in a sensible manner. Rezoning 1901 Lexington Avenue to B-1B fails to do that: it opens these properties up, with no further rezoning required, to a variety of food establishments, including those with take-out windows (e.g., Chili's To-Go) that could fit the profile of this property, with adequate parking. This would substantially change the nature of the intersection, working at odds with the Comprehensive Plan for the city's development. Inadequate Consideration to Relevant Factors I must express disappointment that the proposed action has moved forward with a level of reasoning and evidence that fails to meet even the minimal standards necessary for aquasi- legislative decision such as a Rezoning or aquasi-judicial action such as a Conditional Use Permit. The decisions of this state's courts emphasize that governmental bodies must supply a record containing a "clearly articulated rationale" (Earthburners, Inc. v. County of Carlton, 513 N.W. 2d 460, 463 [Minn. 1994]) and must "have the reasons for its decision recorded or reduced to writing in more than just a conclusory fashion. By failing to do so, it runs the risk of not having its decision sustained." (Noon v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W. 2d 409 [Minn. 1981]). Simply put, the record given on behalf of this proposed. action is inadequate. No study of traffic has been performed. - The only thought given to traffic on the record-all that has been given to me by the City planning staff in reply to my request for all documentation-consists of two graphs from the January 1991 issue of Trip Generation, a publication of the Institute of Transportation - Engineers. This regression was used to project the possible traffic flow to the area resulting from fast food restaurant and puts only one fact into the record: the likely generation of 750 car trips per weekday per 1000 sq.ft. of floor space in a typical fast food restaurant. This non-specific regression data from the early 1990s, which at the Planning Commission meeting the City's staff admitted was too outdated to consider the traffic impact of B-1B uses such as coffee shops, fails to take account of significant changes in the class of Restaurant businesses that may seek to locate at this property, such as the emergence of Starbucks-like intense uses. The only traffic analysis given to this fact at the Planning Commission meeting was that a fast food restaurant's expected traffic of 750 cars per weekday would be a "small addition" to the existing traffic along Lexington Avenue. D This analysis does not consider any specific consequences to not just the overall traffic flow but the dangerous conditions that these cars might produce. This property includes a city pedestrian/bike path that these 750 car trips would need to cross. Also, this property is very close to a traffic light and making turns into the busy intersection may prove very difficult. Area residents, familiar with the difficult of turning onto Lexington, know how quickly this property's entrance onto three lanes of traffic could become an "accident hot-spot". No analysis whatsoever has been given to any of these concerns. ~ This analysis also fails to consider in any way the impact to Autumn Street, including the impact of actual traffic behavior. In fact, drivers may be tempted to access the property from the west by driving down Autumn Street and parking on Autumn Street. The City staff has not given one moment of consideration on the record to the impact that such uses would have on a residential street. Further, no analysis has been given of the possible beneficial limits that could be found in: 1) parking restrictions on the first I50 feet along Autumn Street from Lexington, 2) traffic calming measures at the entrance to Autumn Street from Lexington, and 3) signage restricting traffic on Autumn Street to "no thoroughfare" or "local access only". Given the availability in a B-1 B zone of having a take-out window, consideration should be given to how Autumn Street would be affected if a future owner of the property opted to locate that window on the south or east faces of the building. Landscaping may help to defray such unintended use, but that has not been discussed in any way. - In line with the above discussion, it is necessary that the City also consider the change in time/day of traffic as a result of the Rezoning. As a B-1 property, with an emphasis on professional uses (non-retail), traffic is largely confined to the regular business day, with peaks at the start and end of normal business hours. Such considerations were at play a few years ago in the decision to allow development of the large professional building across the street, rather than the alternative use of a gas stationJconvenience store. Area residents are least likely to be in the street on weekdays at this time, but a change in business use may negatively impact the enjoyment of Autumn Street at new times, including weekends. Any minimally acceptable traffic analysis must consider how a B- 1Bproperty could affect the traffic situation at times when the residential street is most likely to be at use by children and walkers, such as weekends and evenings. - Further, in the Planning Document, the City suggested that the redevelopment of 1901 Lexington would be better conducted in conjunction with the property immediately to the north. The reasons for that admission are readily understood: the traffic flow pattern could be significantly enhanced by a development that allowed access onto Roselawn and Lexington simultaneously, since it is likely to be difficult to turn out of this property onto Lexington (with consequences for Autumn Street in a variety of ways). A reasonable examination of this proposal should have included an analysis (on the record and thus subject to criticism) of whether a substantially more suitable proposal for use should militate against this partial proposal. The foundation of a sound decision by the City Council must include some element of alternatives and long-range planning. ~ The written record itself (see the document submitted by the City planning staff prior to the Planning Commission meeting) was wholly conclusory in nature, offering no analysis for whether this rezoning, in this location, would be consistent with the larger goals advanced by the Comprehensive Plan. (The analysis regarding the impact of the CUP is equally thin, esp. in sections 7.2 to 7.7, which are statements of conclusions only, with no analysis on the record.) Even at the Planning Commission meeting, many of these statements were repeated with no further justification for the analysis that this proposal "will have no impact on the general public health, safety, and welfare". In summary to this section, it appears that, to date, the City has given this proposed action rather cursory treatment. Understandably, while it may be a very important proposal for the neighborhood, it is a small matter in terms of the city as a whole. Nevertheless, the scale of a project relative to other projects on the agenda does not absolve the City of its responsibility to make its decision-making transparently rational. The analysis given to this action is wholly inadequate to support a minimally rational conclusion and to avoid the conclusion that the action is arbitrary and capricious. Conclusion A nice little deli might be a wonderful addition to this neighborhood. Done right, in a scheme that included substantial landscaping of the south side of the property and the removal of the existing parking slots, it could enhance the residents' enjoyment of the neighborhood. However, rezoning a site such as this demands far more long-sighted concerns for the residents who have invested themselves in the neighborhood. These concems are substantial and they are real. The City Council should look closely at this property to imagine the possible outcomes of the decision they will make here. At a minimum, this plan can go forward only with a firm commitment to the integrity of the Autumn Street residential neighborhood. It appears from the Planning Commission meeting that steps are being considered in that direction, and the unanimous voice of the neighborhood speaks to the importance of those efforts-removing the parking on the Autumn Street side of this property and ensuring that the property is properly landscaped on all sides facing residential properties. But more deeply, the City Council should be concerned about the Rezoning itself and should wait until it can consider this property in conjunction with the property to the north. Sincerely, atrick Schmidt 1140 Autumn Street Appendix: Documents presented to the Planning Commission, including as appendices to that document, a list of Residents Joining in the Expression of Concern and Four Photos of Autumn Street and 1901 Lexington Avenue r -)-r(~n-. ~). Cas IZB~ Fad, E F;i't RED S®LU'I'IOIarS AgTTFIOI~Z£iN0 "T$$~ AC~~SI'L'IOhT ®~ C~~$~'AE~ ~$®~EI~~~' ~®I$ I~U~LIC ~s~ $$'~' Rt_Q~aE)« ~~ EI~II@EN~ ~®I~IATY WHEREAS, the City of Roseville is a municipal corporation organized and existing pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of 1v4innesota and its charter and is govented by the City Council (the "Council"); WHEREAS, the City has established Development District No. 1 (the "Project Area") raider the authority of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469 (the "Act") and in particular sections 469.053, 469.032 and 469.124 through 469.134 thereof and in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, and subject to all applicable requirements of the Act, has established a Tax Increment Financing District (the "Tax Increment District') within the Project Area and adopted a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Tax Increment Platt") for the Tax Tncrement District to facilitate the financing of public development and redevelopment costs in the Project Area; WHEREAS, the City deems it to be in the public interest to facilitate and encom~age redevelopment of the Project fvea by a combination of public and private activity within the Project Area and in accordance with the Tax Increment Plan; WHEREAS, Opus Northwest, LLC ("Developer") has proposed an office development (hereinafter defined as the "Project") within such Project Area which the City believes will promote and carry out the objectives for which redevelopment is undertaken, will be in the vital best interests of the City, will promote the health, safety, morals, and welfare of its residents and will be in accordance with the public purposes and provisions of the applicable state and local laws and requirements under which activities within Lhe Project Area have been undertaken and are being assisted; WHEREAS, the Ieveloper is willing to purchase property, within the Project Area such property being legatly described in the attached E~Eubfiff A (the "Redevelopment Property") and to develop the Redevelopment Property; WHEREAS, the fee owner of the Redevelopment Property has placed various conditions on the sale of the Redevelopment Property to the Developer which if not fidfilled will terminate the sale and delay redevelopment; WHEREAS, consistent with the Tax Increment Plan, the City has determined in the past and continues to be willing, to provide financial and other assista~tce in accordance with the Act and in the, best interests of the Ciry in order to achieve the development goals for the development of Twin Lal:es including the Redevelopment Property; WHEREAS, the Seller's land is necessary to the completion of the redevelopment of the Project Area and the acquisition of such land has been and continues to be for a public purpose; WHEREAS, in further pursuit of the public goal of redevelopment, the City has agreed to use its power of eminent doroaiu to acquire such land as may be necessary to complete the Redevelopment Project and convey the lands so acquired to a qualified the developer, including the Redevelopment Property; N®W,'I'IIEIbE~®RE, I3~ I'I' RE3®]LVIEID by the City of Roseville as follows: The City defet'mines that the acquisition of the Redevelopment Property will serve a public purpose. 3. The City does hereby find that it is reasonable, necessary, proper' and convenient, and in theinterest of the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare, to acquire fee title to such lands are necessary to develop the Redevelopment Property as part of the Twin Lakes Project. In the event ,Developer .~~ i ~ i ~; ue~..aol ~r ~, E~ vc i ~ .l c_ C -~ Es , unsuccessfid in completing the purchase of the Redevelopment PropeE2y, to the extent authorized by law. the City will use its power of eEUinent domain to acquire the Red evelopment Property. ,adopted this day of November, ?007. Mayor ATTEST: ,~ DeEefe6: nc~ -. City Administrator The land described as follows: 2814 Cleveland Avenue North and unassigned Cleveland Avenue North, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ] 5, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, Block A, Ttivin View, Ramsey County, Minnesota, Abstract property; Parcel 1D Nos. 04-29-23-32-001, 04-29-23-32-002 and C4-29-23-32-003.