HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC_Minutes_2008_0128City of
jam, . ~'~
~~ Minnesota, OSA
Regular City Council Meeting
Minutes
City Hall' Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive
Monday, January 28, 2008
1. Call Roll
Mayor Klausing called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at appiroxi-
mately 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone.
(Voting and Seating Order for January: Pust; Roe; Il~lan and Klausing)
Mayor Klausing advised that Councilmember Kough would be unavailable for tonight's
meeting.
City Attorney Scott Anderson was also present.
2. Approve Agenda
Councilor..ember Ihlan requested removal from the Conseni Agenda of Items 7.b and 7.e,
respectively entitled, "Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items exceeding
$5,000;" and "Appoint Advisory Commissioners and Authorize Staff to Advertise for
Commission Vacancies."
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
A bench handout was provided, House File No. 2572, related to funding appropriations
for the Guidant John Rose Minnesota Oval.
5. Recognitions, Donations, Communications
a. Accept and Recognize a Donation from North Suburban St. Paul Kiwanis
Club and Central Park Foundation for a Pergola at the Muriel Sahlin Arbo-
retum
Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Jill Anfang advised that the North Subur-
ban St. Paul Kiwanis Club, in cooperation with the Roseville Central Park Foun-
dation, was proposing a shade pergola (wood arbor) in the Muriel Sahlin Arbore-
tum at an anticipated cost of $29,000, including installation, consistent with the
2002 Arboretum Master Plan. Ms. Anfang advised that the pergola is proposed to
be located directly south of the existing FORPARKS water fountain in the theme
garden area, and was supported by staff, the Roseville Central Park Foundation,
and the Roseville Parks and Recreation Commission.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page 2
Mayor Klausing, on behalf of the City Council, community, and staff, profusely
thanked the Kiwanis Club and Central Park Foundation for their generosity.
Roe moved, Pust seconded, authorizing the acceptance of the generous donation
of a shade pergola (wood arbor) from the North Suburban St. Paul Kiwanis Club
in cooperation with the Roseville Central Park Foundation valued at $29,000 as
described in the staff report dated January 28, 2008.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
6. Approve Minutes
a. Approve Minutes of 1/14/08 Regular Meeting
Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of the minutes of the January 14, 2008
Regular Meeting as presented.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
7. Approve Consent Agenda
There were no additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted.
At the request of Mayor Klausing, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those
items being considered under the Consent Agenda.
a. Approve Check Register
Roe moved, Pust seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as
presented.
ACH Pa menu $125,907.56
49918-50093 495,488.63
Total $621,396.19
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
b. Approve Business Licenses
Roe moved, Pust seconded, approval of f business license applications for the pe-
riod of one (1) year, for the following applicants:
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page 3
A licant/Location Type of License
Christy Hillger @ JC Penny Salon Spa Massage Therapist
1700 Count Road B-2
Wright Touch Therapies, 2233 N Hamline Massage Therapy
Establishment
Diadra Decker @ Wright Touch Therapies Massage Therapist
2233 N Hamline
Massage by Andrew, 1711 County Road B-2 Massage Therapy
Establishment
Dennis Andrew Rahaman @ Massage by Andrew Massage Therapist
1711 Count Road B-2
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
c. Set a Public Hearing for February 25, 2008 to Consider the Expenditure of
Tax Exempt Funds by the Snelling Apartments Limited Partnership
Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10590 entitled, ""Resolu-
tion Calling for a Publc Hearing on a Proposal for the Issuance of Multi-Family
Housing Revenue Obligations to Finance aMulti-Family Housing Facility on Be-
half of Snelling Apartments Limited Partnership," scheduling a Public Hearing
for February 25, 2008.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
8. Consider Items Removed from Consent
a. Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Over $5,000 (Former
Consent Item B)
Councilmember Ihlan requested a separate vote to consider the proposed Best-
Value Procurement Proposal Training with Arizona State University; based on her
additional questions on whether or not an outside consultant was required in order
to use this process.
Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke provided additional detail from the
staff report dated January 17, 2008, on the use of the new "best value" contracting
approach for a full geothermal system for the Ice Arena refrigeration system. Mr.
Brokke noted the complexities of this procurement method; lack of experience of
staff regarding this type of contracting approach; and the uniqueness of the geo-
thermal process to this project; and staffs desire to obtain training and follow
protocol in the best interests of the City.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page 4
Councilmember Ihlan questioned public benefits in use of this process rather than
an open bid process; and questioned whether this project was the best one for use
of this best value contracting method.
Discussion included the number of people attending the training, who would be
responsible for paying for the training of the City Consultant/Architect firm, Kar-
ges-Faulconbridge, Inc. (KFI) and the City Attorney, with staff clarifying that the
both consultants would be providing for their own costs; and basics of the per-
formance criteria rather than lowest bid criteria.
Mr. Brokke advised that this type of proposal was new to the State of Minnesota,
as well as the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC), and therefore, little local
knowledge or expertise was available. Mr. Brokke noted that KFI had agreed to
reduce their construction management fee by $5,200 because of the related work
that they had included in their proposal that the University of Arizona would now
perform under this proposal. Mr. Brokke noted that assembling the best team. for
the project was critical and those trained would play a major role, not only in this
project, but in potential future projects as well. Mr. Brokke anticipated that three
City staff would attend (i.e., potentially one person from Parks and Recreation;
one person from Public Works; and one consultant (either the City Attorney
and/or a representative of KFI).
Further discussion included the actual out-of-pocket of $4,800, in consideration of
the reduced construction management fee of KFI; educational benefits and value
added for the training; safeguards to lend credibility for the City by the proposed
assistance from Arizona State University; possibility of up to three visits to Rose-
ville by Performance Based Studies Research Group (PBSRG); potential $1.3
Million cost of the project; and opportunities available to take advantage of this
new law for future projects, and for potential use with other cities and/or agencies
on a consulting basis by the City of Roseville.
Klausing moved, Roe seconded, approval of payment to Arizona State University
in an amount not to exceed $10,000, for "best value contracting" training and
seminar tuition, as well as services outlined in the Procurement Proposal.
Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the motion; anticipating that the actual cost
would be less than anticipated.
Further discussion ensued regarding staff's rationale for the training allotment
from the Building Replacement Fund, rather than specific deparhnent-training
funds, with Mr. Miller advising that training was allocated by department and
specifically earmarked early in the budget process, and that this had not been in-
cluded in the 2008 budget, as it was still pending when final budget numbers were
approved, and was part of the ongoing investigation and research for use of the
geothermal process.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, 3anuary 28, 2008
Page 5
Councilmember Pust opined that actually, the only additional cost was for $4,800,
since the KFI Contract had already been approved; and further opined that the
training made sense, and hoped the City of Roseville could provide other commu-
nities and agencies with their expertise in the future.
Councilmember Ihlan opined that the $4,800 training allocation needed to be split
across other departments for funding, and offered her support of the motion based
on that caveat; expressing concern that the Building Replacement Fund was used
as a catchall source.
Mr. Brokke clarified that staff would return to the City Council with a revised
contract with KFI, reflecting the reduced costs for construction management Fees
due to this training.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Roe; Illlan; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
Klausing moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of general purchases and/or contracts
as follows:
De artment Vendor Item/Descri tion Amount
Streets Hartland Blanket P.O. for vehicle re airs $15,000.00
Streets Factor Motor Parts Blanket P.O. for vehicle re airs 7,000.00
Streets Catco Blanket P.O. for vehicle re airs 7,000.00
Streets Midwa Ford Blanket P.O. for vehicle re airs 12,000.00
Streets NAPA Tire chan er & wheel lift 12,558.48
Streets Elk River Ford Re lace 1-ton dum truck - F-450 27,817.99
Streets Tennant Model 660 Swee er 25,451.09
Streets St. Jose h E ui ment Wheel Loader less $41,000 trade-in 115,389.55
Water General Re air Service Pum in station check valve 13,272.03
Finance Lone Oak Com anies Mailin services for utilit bills 8,100.00
Police Elk River Ford Re lace 1 unmarked vehicles 16,398.00
Police Elk River Ford Re lace 6 atrol vehicles 132,793.96
Police Federal Si nal Cor Re lace 1 outdoor warnin siren 11,059.23
Police Midwa Ford Re lace 1 CSO Vehicle-Ford F-150 27,148.00
Parks /Rec. North Image Apparel 2008 Employee uniforms / 49er can-
tract 11,000.00
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
Klausing moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of the sale/trade-in of the following
equipment:
De artment Item/Descri tion Amount
Streets 1996 Wheel loader trade-in $41,000.00
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page 6
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
b. Appoint Advisory Commissioners and Authorize Staff to Advertise for
Commission Vacancies (Former Consent Item E)
Ihlan moved to consider reappointment of advisory commissioners at the same
time as vacancies were filled.
The Chair ruled the motion failed for lack of a second.
Roe moved, Pust seconded, reappointment of the following Commissioners to
their respective Commissions, with terms starting April 1, 2008 and ending March
31, 2011:
Commissioner Commission
Melissa Weldon Ethics Commission
Marie Oftelie Human Ri hts Commission
Robert Venters Human Ri hts Commission
James Stark Parks & Recreation Commission
Robert Willmus Parks & Recreation Commission
Thomas Gottfried Plannin Commission
James DeBenedet Public Works, Environment & Transporta-
tion Commission
Jan Vanderwall Public Works, Environment & Transporta-
tion Commission
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
Roe moved, Pust seconded, authorizing staff to advertise for a vacancy on the
Ethics Commission; a vacancy on the Planning Commission; and a vacancy on
the Police Civil Service Commission; with a 4:30 p.m. February 29, 2008 dead-
line for applications; with interviews of candidates prior to the March 17, 2008
City Council meeting.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
Mayor Klausing inserted a City Council communication note at this point, reminding the public
of the upcoming Home and Garden Fair scheduled for Saturday, February 23, 2008 at the Fair-
view Community Center, from 10:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m., with free admission. Mayor Klausing
advised that additional information was available at City Hall or through the City's website.
9. General Ordinances
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page 7
a. Adopt an Ordinance amending Titles 1, 10, and 11 of the Roseville City Code
pertaining to Public Hearing Notification (PF07-061)
City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed staff recommendations to amend all sec-
tions of Title 1, 10 and 11 of the Roseville City Code, to increase public hearing
notification distance from a minimum of 350' to a minimum of 500'.
Councilmember Ihlan supported the requested action; however, questioned if Mi-
nor Subdivision approval at the City Council level, not heard before the Planning
Commission, should be included in the proposed notice revisions.
Mr. Paschke advised that he would do additional research, and would make
changes accordingly, if referenced in within that section of code. Mr. Paschke
opined that current code should cover the proposed intent for Minor Subdivisions
with a hearing before the City Council.
Mayor Klausing advised he would support the requested action, if Minor Subdivi-
sions were addressed in those sections proposed for revision; however, if not, he
would recommend additional discussion specific to Minor Subdivisions.
City Attorney Anderson clarified that Minor Subdivisions were covered under
City Code, Section 1008.b, Subd. C, addressing the City Council holding public
hearings.
Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1357 entitled, "An Or-
dinance Amending Title 1, 10 and 11 of the City Code, Changing the Public Hear-
ing Notification Distance from a Minimum of 350 Feet to a Minimum 500 Feet."
Including checking on minor subdivision included in appropriate reference
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of the Ordinance Summary describing the
amendments to the City's Administration Code (Title 1), Zonhrg Code (Title 10),
and the Subdivision Code (Title 11) to be used for official publication.
City Attorney Anderson clarified for Mayor Klausing that 4/5 of the members had
to be in agreement on publishing a summary; otherwise the entire ordinance
needed to be published; if not a unanimous vote at tonight's meeting, due to the
absence of Councilmember Kough.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page 8
b. Adopt an Ordinance amending Titles 10 and 11 of the Roseville City Code
pertaining to Cul-de-sacs (PROJ-0011)
Public Works Director Duane Schwartz reviewed the proposed Cit Code Text
Amendment to eliminate contradictions within the Code and to achieve parity be-
tween the text and City staff s interpretation of it. Mr. Schwartz noted that previ-
ous discussions and public comment regarding definitions and parking concerns
had been incorporated into the revisions, as presented to the City Council tonight.
Mr. Schwartz noted that the City Attorney had contacted the State Fire Marshal
regarding concerns expressed by the public on cul-de-sac diameters referenced in
State Code Appendix language; with the Fire Marsh advising that it was not pre-
scriptive language; and further advised that the City's Fire Marshal and Fire De-
partment management had reviewed the proposed language, and found it to be
sufficient with needs.
Mr. Schwartz further noted that alternative language had been included to clarify
that any requests for reduced-size cul-de-sacs would be brought before the City
Council for approval.
Councilmember Ihlan expressed frustration that the actual State Fire Code Ap-
pendix Dhad not been included in the City Council packet materials for City
Council review and consideration; and that a written legal analysis had not been
provided by the City Attorney.
Fire Marshal John Loftus spoke to the State Fire Code, noting that the Code was
in two sections: the body and the appendices, and advised that each municipality
had to adopt the appendices that they wanted to enforce. Mr. Loftus advised that
the City of Roseville had not adopted Appendix D related to roadway require-
ments, as it had other requirements related to building sprinklers; and that the City
Code basically addressed the same things, and had done so for many years, and
unless adopted, the City couldn't enforce the appendices.
Councilmember Ihlan opined that it was up to the City Council to decide whether
or not to adopt the appendices; and therefore, she advised that she would like that
information to review as City Council responsibility for policy information to
make the determination as to whether the City should follow the appendices or
not.
Mr. Loftus clarified that, based on the size of the City's emergency vehicles, as
opposed to the size of those in California, where the Building Code standards
were written, following those standards was not necessary. However, Mr. Loftus
offered to provide a copy of the Fire Code and appendices to the City Council at
their direction.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page 9
Councilmember Ihlan noted that the key question for her personally was whether
the proposed ordinance would meet public safety codes; but opined that the City
Council needed that information before they could make a good decision.
Mr. Loftus offered his apologies that the information had not been provided to the
City Council.
City Attorney Anderson advised that in his firm's research and interpretation of
the appendices, they had determined that the appendices were not part of the code.
Mr. Anderson noted that his office talked to the State Fire Marshal's office; how-
ever, apologized that the firm had not understood that the City Council had re-
quested a formal legal opinion on the matter. Mr. Anderson clarified that, it was
his understanding from public comments at the December 17, 2007 City Council
meeting, that his office was being asked to determine if adoption of the proposed
ordinance amendments violated state law, and advised that this was the research
completed by the firm, with those allegations determined to be in error, based on
that research with the State Fire Marshal's office.
Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her opinion that local jurisdictions could adopt
Appendix D, and further opined that it should be a City Council decision, follow-
ing review of the information to make that judgment, and that it was directly re-
lated to the current decision before the City Council, and would detern~ine how
she voted on the proposed ordinance amendments.
Councilmember Pust questioned City Fire Marshal Loftus on his expertise and
tenure as a Fire Marshal.
Mr. Loftus advised that he had over 17 years as the City's Fire Marshal; and prior
to that, had been with the State Fire Marshal's office.
Councilmember Pust clarified with Fire Marshal Loftus that he was familiar with
the Roseville City Code, and the proposed ordinance amendment; and verified
that, as the City's Fire Marshal, he was confirming that the City's fire equipment
would be able to adequately respond to emergencies on cul-de-sacs within the
community, and would be able to provide public safety in those emergency situa-
tions for the citizens of Roseville, based on the proposed ordinance amendrnent
language.
Mr. Loftus responded affirmatively.
Roe moved, Pust seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1358 entitled, "An Ordi-
nance Amending Selected Text of: Title 10, Chapter 1018, Parking Requirements
and Title 11, Chapter 1102, Plat Procedures and Title 11, Chapter 1103, Design
Standards."
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page 10
Councilmember lhlan noted that there were members of the public in attendance
and wishing to speak.
Mayor Klausing noted that, while this item was afollow-up from previous meet-
ings where public comment had been heard, and was continued pending receipt of
additional information as requested by the City Council as to whether the pro-
posed ordinance was in compliance with State Fire Code, he would entertain addi-
tional public comment.
Public Comment
Tam McGehee, 77 Mid Oaks Lane
Ms. McGehee expressed disappointment that the requested information had not
been included in the Council packet; however, noted that she had looked up the
information herself. Ms. McGehee displayed Appendix D, and. highlighted mini-
mum specifications in Section D.103.4 related to cul-de-sac dimensions. Ms.
McGehee questioned staff's interpretation of Section D, noting she had not read
anything about building sprinklers in that section. Ms. McGehee opined that the
City was changing, or downgrading, current code that was conforming to the State
Fire Code to something that did not conform. Ms. McGehee further opined that,
when the City was discussing possible redevelopment with taller buildings, and
higher density, larger equipment may be needed in the future. Ms. McGehee pro-
vided several examples from the Cities of Golden Valley and Maplewood on their
existing code and cul-de-sac dimensions. Ms. McGehee opined that, as a first-
ring suburb, there appeared to be no reason with the exception of one lawsuit, for
the City of Roseville to downgrade their current policy on cul-de-sacs.
Gary Boryczka, 2250 Acorn Road
Mr. Boryczka provided his personal research with a Supervisor at the Office of
the Minnesota Fire Marshal; and his interpretation of Appendix D, in addition to
other chapters of the State Fire Code specifically related to access roads and their
definitions; along with minimum specifications addressed under Appendix D. Mr.
Boryczka concurred with the comments and assertions of Ms. McGehee, that the
City's fire protection was being downgraded. Mr. Boryczka questioned why
"special circumstances," were not identified by definition under the proposed or-
dinance, Chapter 1, Section 102.9; alleging that the provisions were in conflict.
Vivian Ramalingam, 2182 Acorn Road
Ms. Ramalingam advised that she had directed a letter to the City Council, via
staff, on Friday, January 25, 2008, when she'd become aware of this particular
discussion. Ms. Ramalingam noted that her letter had addressed previous discus-
sions by the City Council on restricting parking on certain streets to ensure ade-
quate emergency access; and she urged the City Council to reconsider such a pol-
icy if cul-de-sacs were reduced. Ms. Ramalingam opined that multiple emer-
gency vehicle access needed to be considered, not just single emergency vehicle
access.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page lI
Councilmember Roe asked the City Attorney to clarify the intent of the proposed
ordinance; and whether it related to a specific project (Mueller Property on Acorn
Road) that seemed to be of concern to some citizens. Mr. Roe asked City Attor-
ney Anderson for clarification on the court ruling; and Mr. Mueller's course of ac-
tion should he choose to proceed with a cul-de-sac smaller than that originally ap-
proved.
City Attorney Anderson clarified that the court had said that the cul-de-sac was
inappropriate; and opined that Mr. Mueller would need to come back for approval
of another alternative. City Attorney Anderson noted that, contrary to the reading
of some citizens, he did not read the proposed ordinance as a "fix" for one in-
stance, but to bring the code into compliance with practice on a number of alter-
nate cul-de-sac approvals issued for a number of decades.
Councilmember Roe provided his rationale for supporting the proposed ordinance
amendment; opining that the City was not reducing their standard, based on one
particular location, noting that 120' right-of--way remained the standard; and that
all that was being proposed was to rearrange where those specifications were
listed in City Code, adding temporary language for Public Works, Fire Depart-
ment, and Community Development Department staff interpretation, based on the
court ruling, in recommending to the City Council if smaller cul-de-sacs are ap-
propriate, for their ultimate decision. Councilmember Roe further opined that it
was staff's intention to return to the Council in the near future with more compre-
hensive language for additional criteria. Councilmember Roe noted that current
language didn't match staff interpretation, as ruled by the court, but that the pro-
posed ordinance amendment was meant in no way to make sure a particular pro-
ject could go forward and flout City standards.
Councilmember Ihlan questioned Councilmember Roe's interpretation of this
proposed ordinance as a "temporary change;" opining that this was an amendment
to code, and noted that the staff memo said it was in response to a particular court
ruling, and would clearly benefit Mr. Mueller. Councilmember Ihlan reiterated
previously-stated concerns that this action was not a good basis for public policy,
based on one court case; and questioned what policy reasons were evident for
making this amendment. Councilmember Ihlan further opined that the City
Council didn't have sufficient information as to whether City Code was consistent
with State Fire Code; and needed further deliberation in the context of the prac-
tices of other inner-ring suburbs related to cul-de-sac minimum standards. Coun-
cilmember Ihlan spoke in support of staffs indication that a more thorough
amendment of the Subdivision Ordinance text to eliminate internal conflicts with
respect to cul-de-sacs and bring the text in line with the City's long-standing in-
terpretation. Councilmember Ihlan noted, however, that she would not support
this motion; as it wasn't a permanent "fix" and didn't protect the public's safety
or benefit the public.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page 12
Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the motion; opining that considerations re-
lated to environmental and aesthetic issues, in addition to safety and emergency
equipment access needed to be considered, to allow more flexibility in a full-
developed, inner-ring suburb such as Roseville.
Councilmember Ih1an noted that some inner-ring suburbs were moving away from
cul-de-sacs completely; and suggested that the City of Roseville consider such. a
policy.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan.
Motion carried.
Roe moved, Pust seconded, approval of the Ordinance Summary describing the
amendments to Title 10 (Zoning) and Title 11 (Subdivisions) of the Roseville City
Code, to be used for official publication.
Councilmembers respectfully recognized Councilmember Ihlan's position and
subsequent vote; however requested that Councilmember Ihlan consider taxpayer
costs for publishing the full ordinance, rather than just a summary.
Councilmember Ihlan opined that it was taxpayer monies well spent, to ensure
that the public was aware of the full extent of ordinance amendments.
Ayes: Pust; Roe and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan.
Motion failed.
Roll Call
City Attorney Anderson clarified that the motion to publish the summary required
super majority vote of all members, and since it did not pass, would require publi-
cation of the entire ordinance, not just a summary.
c. Adopt an Ordinance amending Titles 10 and 11 of the Roseville City Code
pertaining to Zoning and Subdivision Codes based on recommendations
from the Single-Family Residential Lot Split Study (PROJ-0001)
Economic Development Associate Jamie Radel reviewed the background for this
requested adoption of an ordinance amending Zoning Code (Title 10) and Subdi-
vision Code (Title 11), specific to the creation of aSingle-Family Residential
Zoning Overlay District (SFROD) as it related to lot standards for side lot lines,
public streets and driveway placement. Ms. Radel noted that more comprehen-
sive work was pending on environmentally-friendly development practices that
encompassed many portions of the City's Code, and that would be brought for-
ward at a later date.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page 13
Ms. Radel noted that, since the last City Council review at their December 17,
2007 meeting, staff had revised two areas as discussed to clarify issues of lot re-
combination and subdivision. Specifically, staff had clarified the section pertain-
ing to contiguous vacant lots (Section 1009.f) and had added Section 1009.8 to
require lots that undergo a replatting to adhere to the standards of the underlying
R-1 District, as detailed in Attachment A of the staff report.
Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her previously-expressed concerns on the dimen-
sional requirement chart, 1004.016, opining that the chart would allow for smaller
minimum lot square footages, smaller interior lot widths, smaller square footage
for corner lots, smaller setbacks and smaller accessory building setbacks. Coun-
cilmember Ihlan addressed two specific areas of concern in the proposed lan-
guage: Section 1009.03 (lines 126 - 128, line 142, and Section G, line 154) re-
lated to standards governing the overlay district, dwelling dimensions, and refer-
ences to the chart; opining that the chart and language were in conflict as to intent
and inconsistent. Councilmember Ihlan opined that, to ensure that no new mini-
mum lot sizes were indicated in the overlay zoning district for future develop-
ments, that dimensions of the SRROD District be consistent with R-1 Districts; or
that the specific column be deleted from the proposed chart to avoid ambiguity.
Councilmember Roe provided his reading of Section 1009 related to any lots plat-
ted prior to May 21, 1959, and the need to meet the 70% requirements; and that
any lot combinations would remove the property from the SFROD, and be platted
as an R-1, and be required to meet the R-1 requirements.
Councilmember Ihlan concur-ed that the purpose statement at the beginning of the
ordinance stated that; however, opined that the chart was in conflict with that
statement, and that the chart set the minimum dimensional requirements, and was
applied by staff, property owners and/or developers, and the City Council repeat-
edly.
Mayor Klausing asked that, since a motion was not currently before the body, that
debate be held until that time, and that Councilmembers restrict their questions to
staff at this time.
Ms. Radel clarified that the proposed changes were legal rights and provisions
currently in City Code; and the proposed language would not grant further rights
to anyone. Ms. Radel articulated provisions of Chapter 1012, General Require-
ments.
Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her opinion that the City Code and Chart were in-
consistent.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page 14
Public Comment
Tam McGehee, 77 Mid Oaks Lane
Ms. McGehee concurred with Councilmember Ihlan's interpretation; opining that
City Code was ofCen ambiguous, and that the City Council needed to carefully
consider such ambiguities. Ms. McGehee questioned the Overlay District identi-
fication of 55% of the homes in Roseville, opining that in actuality non-
conforming lots consisted of approximately 21.8% of those lots.
On a related note, Ms. McGehee opined that maps included in packets were "to-
tally useless" when not colored, and didn't allow for a clear understanding.
Mayor Klausing apologized for the poor quality, noting staff's attempt to keep
copying costs down; and assured Ms. McGehee that attempts in the future would
be made to make maps more readable.
Ms. McGehee spoke in support of a comprehensive review of the City's Subdivi-
sion Policies, in conjunction with the bnagine Roseville 2025 community vision-
ing process, and the Comprehensive Plan Update, opining that the review was
long overdue and would eliminate many ambiguities. Ms. McGehee read a por-
tion of the Edina City Code related to impacts of proposed plats and/or subdivi-
sions, and their compatibility and suitability related to the density, character, and
intended use of a neighborhood. Ms. McGehee expressed hope that, with the
comprehensive review of City Code, the City Council would keep in mind that the
City of Roseville was a community of neighborhoods and would support the
community's evidenced diversity. Ms. McGehee provided a memorandum with
several relevant documents attached.
Councilmember Ihlan suggested that, rather than proceeding with moving to
adopt the proposed ordinance, additional discussion ensue highlighting ways the
proposed district language could be clarified to avoid ambiguous or contradictory
interpretations or provisions; opining that the proposed ordinance didn't meet the
intent and actually served to create smaller lot sizes.
Councilmember Roe opined that he didn't see those purported ambiguities or con-
tradictions.
Councilmember Pust thanked staff for clarifying the language of Section 1009.g;
however, opined that she remained unconvinced that the chart was ambiguous,
and appeared to directly track the ordinance language.
Klausing moved, Roe seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1359 entitled, "An
Ordinance Amending Title 10 and Title 11, Zoning and Subdivision Codes."
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page IS
Councilmember Ihlan expressed disappointment that the Council was not delay-
ing this action until the full Council was present, and to hear comments from
Councilmember Kough, prior to enactment. Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her
opinion that this ordinance would create smaller lot minimums, without adequate
policy for doing so, and opined that a court in the future would concur.
Councilmember Pust reiterated that the proposed ordinance was not intended to
approve smaller minimum lots.
Councilmember Pust noted three typographical errors on the chart, where "princi-
ple" needed to be changed to "principal" structure.
Councilmember Roe spoke in support of the motion; and opined that, based on his
understanding of the proposed ordinance, it didn't give anyone any additional op-
tions for their property above what they currently held; and that the purpose of the
ordinance was to move the requirements from Section 1012 into a table, for pub-
lic, staff and City Council convenience and clarity.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Roe and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan.
Motion carried.
Mayor Klausing respectfully recognized Councilmember Ihlan's position and
subsequent vote; however requested that Councilmember Ihlan consider taxpayer
costs for publishing the full ordinance, rather than just a summary.
Councilmember Ihlan opined that it was taxpayer monies well spent, to ensure
that the public was aware of the full extent of ordinance amendments.
Pust moved, Roe seconded, approval of the Ordinance Summary describing the
amendments to Title 10 (Zoning) and Title 11 (Subdivisions) of the Roseville City
Code, to be used for official publication.
Ayes: Pust; Roe; and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan.
Motion failed.
Roll Call
10. Public Hearings
a. Public Hearing regarding Don Pablo's Alcohol Compliance Failure Pre-
sumptive Penalty
City of Roseville Police Sergeant Matt Marshall provided background informa-
tion on the compliance failure circumstances of Don Pablo's regular alcohol
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page 16
check. Sergeant Marshall noted the written announcement notices provided to the
license holder prior to compliance checks; and reviewed the actual event.
Councilmember Ihlan noted that, in similar cases in the past, the City Council was
provided with the correspondence from staff to the license holder, and asked that
those copies be included as background material in future cases.
Sergeant Marshall apologized for the oversight, noting that they had originally
been included as part of the Request for Council Action.
Bradley O'Leary, General Manager of Don Pablo's, 2700 Lencoln Drive
Mr. O'Leary reviewed the training provided to staff to-date; the type of certified
training through the State of Minnesota; and concurred that he had received the
notices referenced by Sergeant Marshall.
Mayor Klausing asked if this training model had been submitted to the Chief of
Police for her review of the training criteria and it's consistency with the City of
Roseville's required training.
Mr. O'Leary responded negatively.
Mayor Klausing asked Mr. O'Leary if he was seeking leniency from the presump-
tivepenalty.
Mr. O'Leary responded negatively; admitted that he understood the presumptive
penalty and their compliance failure; and sincerely apologized to the City Council
and community for the failure.
Mayor Klausing thanked Mr. O'Leary for his candor
Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, authorizing the Roseville Police Department to issue
and administer the presumptive penalty to Don Pablo's for alcohol compliance
failure as set forth in Section 302.15 of the Roseville City Code; noting that the
date for the one-day suspension would be at the discretion of the Chief of Police.
Councilmember Pust also thanked Mr. O'Leary for coming forward, and serving
as an example of City Council expectations for license holder responsibilities.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Roe; lhlan; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
b. Public Hearing regarding Request by Community Development Department
to perform City Abatement at 939 County Road B-2 to Correct Public Nui-
sance Violations
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page 17
Roseville Codes Coordinator Don Munson and Roseville Code Enforcement Offi-
cer Rick Talbot reviewed the requested Council action to resolve public nuisance
violations on property located at 939 County Road B-2; and provided photo-
graphic evidence of those nuisance issues.
Discussion included siding materials, and whether painting would suffice, with
staff opining that it appeared to be cedar siding and with power washing, should
hold the paint; attempts to provide assistant to the homeowner through the Hous-
ing Resource Center and other agencies, and estimated costs between $4,500 -
$6,500 in actual and administrative costs, with work to be done in April or May of
2008, unless completed by the property owner prior to that time.
Further discussion included assessment to the property for work completed if that
option was chosen by the property owner; financial status of and potential ramifi-
cations to the property owner; possible involvement in the future of the HRA in
the abatement process; and staffs candid, yet unsuccessful discussions to-date
with the property owner, as well as with neighboring property owners, seeking
their support and patience.
Mayor Klausing opened the Public Hearing at 8:13 p.m
Public Comment
John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N Victoria
Mr. Kysylyczyn expressed pleasure for the departments' willingness to go this
route to take care of this issue, rather than past practice of going through the Ram-
sey County court system. Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that this would provide a de-
finitive date for completion; and that taxpayers would be reimbursed actual and
administrative charges through a seemingly fair assessment program.
Mayor Klausing closed the Public Hearing at 8:15 p.m.
Roe moved, Pust seconded, authorizing staff to abate the public nuisance viola-
tions at 939 County Road B-2, by hiring contractors to: remove all junk/debris
from the yard, remove the vehicle and repaint the exterior of the structure; with
the property owner to be billed for actual and administrative costs, and if charges
are not paid, staff is to recover costs as specified in Section 407.07B, with costs to
be reported to the City Council following said abatement, as detailed in the staff
report dated January 28, 2008.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page 18
c. Public Hearing regarding Request by Community Development Department
to perform a City Abatement at 196 County Road C to Correct Public Nui-
sance Violations
Mayor Klausing opened the Public Hearing at 8:17 p.m.
Roseville Codes Coordinator Don Munson and Roseville Code Enforcement Offi-
cer Rick Talbot reviewed the requested Council action to resolve public nuisance
violations on property located at 196 County Road C; and provided photographic
evidence of those nuisance issues.
Discussion included the change of ownership, with the property now vacant;
Wells Fargo involvement as the property holder, with them being informed of to-
night's meeting; with work anticipated for completion in April or May of 2008,
unless completed by the bank before that time.
Public Comment
Mr. Wiatros, 180 County Road C
Mr. Wiatros noted that, in addition to the abandoned auto shown in staff s picture,
there was also a boat on the property; and asked that staff take that into considera-
tion.
Mr. Munson advised Mr. Wiatros that the boat was not a violation; and could re-
main there. However, Mr. Munson opined that the bank would most likely re-
move the boat from the property.
Mr. Wiatros further noted the condition of the attached garage, opining that its
condition was also questionable; and that the overall property was less than desir-
able.
Mayor Klausing noted the attractiveness and size of the lot itself; and whether
consideration had been given to the HRA partnering with the bank on this prop-
erty.
Mr. Munson advised that conversations between staff and the bank to-date had.
been limited, but that staff could pursue options if there was a willingness by the
bank and/or the H1tA.
John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N Victoria Street
Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that this was a candidate for greater work than suggested;
and that the property should be identified as blighted and structures removed, in
addition to other recommended work. Mr. Kysylyczyn further opined that this
was another example of a mortgage company property, one of many, and with
obvious lack of interest shown in the property's condition.
Regular City Couucil Meetiug
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page 19
Mr. Kysylyczyu opined that, while not a proponent of more government pro-
grams, this may serve as the impetus for a greater, more in-depth discussion,
where a little work may prevent a huge problem in the future.
Councilmember Pust, as liaison to the City's HRA, advised that the HRA is cur-
rently looking at that issue; and invited public comment at the HRA level.
Councilmember Ihlan questioned what the Community Development Department
was doing to monitor homes under foreclosure or identifying lender contacts; and
sought a future report for additional follow-up.
Mr. Talbot noted that the City of Roseville was blessed in that few homes were
experiencing foreclosure issues at this time. Mr. Talbot noted that staff was hav-
ing difficulty in identifying mortgage owners when properties were in transition;
and was very supportive of the HRA's involvement.
Councilmember Pust opined that there was a role for the market to play in the
process as well.; and while the City needed to be cognizant of foreclosures and
impacts on neighboring properties, if a property were in foreclosure, the process
needed to play out first.
Mayor Klausing closed the Public Hearing at 8:28 p.m.
Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, authorizing staff to abate the unsafe structures and
the public nuisance violation at 196 County Road C (following notifications pro-
cedures per state statute) by hiring a contractor to: the garage (and its contents),
the deck, the vestibule and the junk vehicles; with the property owner to be billed
for actual and administrative costs, and if charges are not paid, staff is to recover
costs as specified in Section 407.07B, with costs to be reported to the City Coun-
cil following said abatement, as detailed in the staff report dated January 28,
2008.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
11. Other Business Items (Action Items)
a. Roseville Visitors Association (RVA) Annual Report to Council
RVA Executive Director Julie Larson; and RVA Director of Sales and Marketing
Came Donovan presented their annual report to the City Council.
Ms. Larson and Ms. Donovan briefly highlighted the RVA's staffing, mission
statement, and funding through a 3% lodging tax at the nine hotels in Roseville;
reviewed 2007 events and activities; and projected 2008 events and activities.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page 20
Ms. Larson reviewed the successes; networking expansion through tradeshows
and cooperative ventures; revamped Roseville Visitor Guide; areas for improve-
ment for 2008 and 2009; improved bookings showing a 48% increase; and in-
creasedpartnerships.
Mayor Klausing, on behalf of the City Council, community and staff, expressed
appreciation to the RVA staff for their work in publicizing the community, and
benefits to the community.
Councilmember Pust concurred, and thanked Executive Director Larson for her
enthusiasm and energy.
b. Consider Fire Station Location Study
Fire Chief Rich Gasaway presented a review of Fire Station facilities, and current
service delivery operations, at the City's three Fire Stations (Fire Station #1 on
Lexington Avenue, circa 1930; Fire Station #2 on Fairview, circa 1967; and Fire
Station #3 on Dale Street, circa 1976).
Chief Gasaway reviewed potential courses of action in making needed repairs to
Station #l, and through committed resources and current and ongoing pro-
grammed maintenance and repairs for all three stations; or placing repairs and
programmed maintenance to fire stations on hold while the City conducts an
evaluation of emergency services, including the number and location of fire sta-
tions to best serve Roseville into the future. Chief Gasaway noted the City Coun-
cil's directive to staff in April of 2007, to seek a proposal for evaluation of emer-
gency services into the future, with maintenance and repairs put on hold.
Discussion included the original study conducted in 2001 by Tri Data Corpora-
tion, currently a division of System Planning Corporation, at a cost of approxi-
mately $30,000; and significant changes in operations since that study, as detailed
in the staff report dated January 28, 2008.
Since Tri Data posses an extensive understanding and institutional knowledge of
the Roseville Fire Department, due to the 2001 study, staff was recommending
that the firm re-evaluate their study, given today's operational model, at a cost of
$9,778.
Further discussion included operational issues at each respective station related to
equipment and staffing; ongoing mold and roof leak issues at Station #1; 24-hour
status of Station #3; average response time to calls; and number of responses from
Station #3.
Additional discussion included current and potential location of stations to im-
prove response times; equipment storage concerns; staff versus consultant rec-
ommendations and rationale for contracting with an external consultant; computer
12egular Cety Council Meeteng
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page 21
software program modeling for future service provisions and response times
through the external consultant, related to the number of stations and their respec-
tive locations for future service; and previous consideration of a station near the
library or in the Twin Lakes redevelopment area.
Councilmember Pust noted that previous discussions had centered on funds from
the City's Replacement Fund; and Council's request for staff's prioritization of
those funds.
City Manager Malinen noted that staff was working on that component as part of
development of the 5 - 10 year Capital Improvement Fwd, identifying facility
and/or major equipment needs during that time. Mr. Malinen anticipated that the
report was proposed to come before the City Council in April of 2008, and would
provide a much better picture, with the proposed updated study of fire service
needs, incorporated into that more comprehensive picture.
Councilmember Pust opined that, given that pending prioritization, this discussion
seemed premature; and further opined that she needed that list before deciding
how to spend those funds. Councilmember Pust questioned why this specific item
wasn't brought forward as part of the 2008 budget proposal, and expressed con-
cern in using the Building Replacement Fund for expenditures when they don't
appear to fit within another area. Councilmember Pust noted that she was not
criticizing Chief Gasaway, but opined that such expenditures represented a bigger
issue than just the Fire Department.
City Manager Malinen advised that specific numbers were not available before
the 2008 budget was finalized.
Councilmember Pust further opined that another concern about going back to a
consultant used in the past, while recognizing Chief Gasaway's argument regard-
ing economies in their knowledge of the Roseville system, was that the previous
report didn't build future service projections into the service model; and ques-
tioned whether it was more prudent to seek Requests for Proposals (RFP's) given
the use of public funds.
Chief Gasaway noted that conditions at Fire Station #1 were reaching emergency
status, and funds needed to be found from some source, as conditions were begin-
ning to affect department operations.
Councilmember Pust reiterated that the study be put out for bid, for public con-
sumption.
Mayor Klausing questioned the best use of public funds; and opined that the
Building Replacement Fund seemed to be appropriate when looking systemati-
cally for location and need, and studies related to buildings. Mayor Klausing cau-
itegular City Council Meeting
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page 22
tinned putting procedure over substance; and suggested future discussion should
be held by the City Council on funding for such studies.
Councilmember Pust opined that she was under the impression that the Building
Replacement Fund monies would be sued for structure replacement and/or repair;
however, with a major expenditure for the OVAL, and noted that previous Coun-
cil action for the geothermal training had used some of those monies, in addition
to an additional $10,000 for this study. Councilmember Pust reiterated her con-
cerns, previously expressed during the April of 2007 discussions, noting the
Council had yet to receive staff answers to those questions.
Councilmember Ihlan, while sharing similar concerns regarding use of the Build-
ing Replacement Fund, spoke in support of an update, rather than a full RFP, if it
was deemed necessary for an external consultant, in addition to staff's recom-
mendations.
Further discussion included the proposed scope of the study related to current or
reduced number of stations, their locations and best configurations; contingency
plan for equipment, if Station #1 were deemed unusable; repair versus replace-
ment; traffic considerations impacting response times; expanded service models
today beyond those considered in the 2001 study; and potential land acquisition at
Station #3, with no property available at Station #2 due to the location of the wa-
ter tower and power lines.
Councilmember Roe questioned the need for an outside consultant to consider
Station #1 issues, opining it would be more expensive to repair it than to demolish
it; noting the need to consider contingencies for equipment storage.
Additional discussion included call-back considerations and firefighter access and
response time; equipment and gear storage, in addition to locker access for fire-
fighters, and related storage; and what additional information was needed to make
an informed decision.
Councilmember Roe opined that he didn't need an outside study to convince the
City Council, above staff recommendations, on necessary adjustments.
Mayor Klausing concurred that he didn't need additional information to convince
him; however, advised that he wanted good information with which to make that
decision; and spoke in support of computer-modeling to look at the City's traffic
grid and potential areas of congestion as it related to station location. Mayor
Klausing noted that the Public Works Department model may already provide
such information, and could be used as a tool.
City Manager Malinen opined that, while the initial study provided a good
amount of information, it didn't look at them with an eye toward the different ser-
Regular City Conned Meetiug
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page 23
vice levels now provided by the department. City Manager Malinen concurred
with Chief Gasaway's recommendation, that an independent update would pro-
vide the necessary information, or the next chapter, now that service delivery has
changed.
Public Comment
John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N Victoria Street
Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that this recommendation was "putting the cart before the
horse," when since the previous study, at least four of the five elected officials,
and the City Manager were not present for those initial discussions, and had ap-
parently not reviewed the $30,000 report; meeting minutes, and/or staff commen-
tary held in 2000/2001. Mr. Kysylyczyn suggested that the City Councilmembers
check with City Hall Project Manager Duane Schwartz on the reason to move
others into the City Hall building, as a precursor to demolishing Fire Station #1.
Mr. Kysylyczyn recommended a review of past history as a critical component to
determine current and future needs and projections.
Klausing moved, Ihlan seconded, authorizing the City to enter into an agreement
with System Planning Corporation/TriData Division to conduct a fire station loca-
tion study as outlined in the staff report dated January 28, 2008 and attached
scope of study in an amount not to exceed $9,778.00, with funds to be taken from
the City Building Replacement Fund.
Councilmember Ihlan, while willing to vote on the issue, suggested further dis-
cussion when the full Council was available, with Councilmember Kough provid-
ing his perspective, and to provide a more balanced decision.
Councilmember Pust opined that she was ready to take the vote; and spoke
against the motion, opining that there was no need for a study, that staff could
make a recommendation; and that if required, the proposed update should have
been in the 2008 budget.
Councilmember Roe advised that, after considering this and hearing discussion,
he would support the study update.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Ihlan; and Klausing.
Nays: Pust.
Motion carried.
City Manager Malinen confirmed, at the encouragement of Councilmembers, that
the Capital Improvement Program study for equipment and structures was sched-
uled to come before the City Council at their April or May of 2008 meeting.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page 24
c. Consider Request by Emmes Realty Services LLC for an Amended Planned
Unit Development at Har Mar Mall, 2100 Snelling Avenue (Firestone Build-
ing) (PF07-053)
City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly reviewed the three items before the City
Council related to this request. Mr. Paschke also noted that the City's Consulting
Transportation Engineer was present to address any Council questions.
Mr. Paschke addressed the additions in Section 6.11 of the staff report dated
January 28, 2008, of the Council's requested revisions related to traffic mitigation
conditions. Mr. Paschke noted that the City Engineer Debra Bloom and City At-
torney Jay Squires had worked on the traffic mitigation condition; however, that
staff was still recommending approval as per the draft resolution related to the
right-in/right-out exception.
Councilmember Ihlan noted that in the bench handout from the applicant they
were requesting different language from that recommended by staff.
City Attorney Anderson advised that his office had reviewed the applicant's letter,
and the language was very similar to that recommended by staff, and therefore,
opined that there was no need to change the staff-recommended language.
Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of the applicant-recommended language.
Mayor Klausing requested comment from the applicant.
Tom Hart, Winthrop/Weinstein, legal counsel for the applicant (225 South
6`h Street; Mpls., MN)
Mr. Hart concurred with Councilmember Ihlan's perceptions of staff recom-
mended language versus applicant preferred language regarding Section 6.1 l.a for
traffic considerations, and ingress and/or egress from the westerly driveway, and
the applicant's perception of the City demanding unilateral access closure in the
future, and lease issues and agreements with anchor tenants. Mr. Hart assured
Councilmembers that the mall owners were pro-active regarding safety considera-
tions; however, wanted to retain a seat at the discussion table when safety con-
cerns or future improvements considered. Mr. Hart opined that the difference in
language between the two versions clarified granting of expanded City rights, or
acknowledging that the City had those rights.
Discussion ensued regarding traffic/intersection improvements, with staff reiterat-
ing their concerns; and the applicant reiterating their concerns as well. Further
discussion included proposed language in the PUD Agreement (page 7 of 14);
specifics of the 2008 MnDOT signal/intersection project at Snelling and County R
Road B, and cost allocations to the City, and agreements in place with Ramsey
County for cost allocations, estimated at $63,000; proposed cost-sharing to bene-
12egular Clty Council Meeting
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page 25
fiting property owners, in this case only impacting Har Mar Mall on the east leg;
and increased benefits to the property owner.
Councilmember Ihlan spoke against language that would be expansive enough to
commit the Har Mar Mall owners to future improvements without further discus-
sion.
Additional discussion included potential future improvements and the neighbor-
hood/property owner information, notification and public hearing processes; clari-
fying that the Firestone portion (PF07-053) and the Backyard Grill (PF07-062)
cases were two separate agreements.
Mr. Hart assured Councilmembers that the applicant was agreeable to paying their
fair share; however, were concerned with the appearance that encumbrances for
future improvements be placed on the property at this time; as they should be ap-
plicable under Chapter 429 provisions.
Mayor Klausing suggested inserting "as governed by applicable law" to staff's
proposed language.
Mr. Paschke clarified that the proposed language of the resolution. was also incor-
porated in the proposed PUD Agreement, and that both would need to be revised
in any action taken tonight.
Roe moved, Ihlan seconded, revised draft resolution language, page 2, line 14,
Item 6: to read as follows: "... ingress/egress in the future should the City deter-
mine, in its reasonable discretion, [under applicable law,] that traffic safety con-
siderations warrant it.
Councilmember Ihlan suggested a friendly amendment with revised draft resolu-
tion language, page 2, line 10 - 15, mirroring that requested by the applicant, to
read as follows: "While not requiring closure of this ingress/egress as a part of the
approval of the PUD Amendment, the parties acknowledge that the City does not
waive, and hereby retains, any right which it may have under applicable law to
require closure of the ingress and/or egress from such westerly driveway in the fu-
ture should the City determine, in its reasonable discretion, that traffic safety con-
siderations warrant it."
Councilmember Roe, as the maker of the motion, accepted Councilmember Ih-
lan's friendly amendment.
Mayor Klausing opined that the staff recommended language was sufficient.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page 26
Roe moved, Ihlan seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10591 entitled, "A Reso-
lution Approving a Planned Unit Development Amendment in accordance with
Roseville City Code, Sections 1006 and 1008, for Har Mar Mall, 2100 Snelling
Avenue (PF07-053);" with revised draft resolution language, page 2, line 10 - 15,
revised, and mirroring that requested by the applicant, to read as follows: "While
not requiring closure of this ingress/egress as a part of the approval of the PUD
Amendment, the parties acknowledge that the City does not waive, and hereby re-
tains, any right which it may have under applicable law to require closure of the
ingress and/or egress from such westerly driveway in the future should the City
determine, in its reasonable discretion, that traffic safety considerations warrant
it."
Councilmember Pust sought staff comment on proposed revised language; and
impacts to their concerns for the right-in/right-out access, specific to supplemental
information detailed in the staff report, Section 9.2.
City Engineer Deb Bloom advised Councilmembers that staff's concerns re-
mained on record, and had not changed, noting that their further review had led to
their recommendation that, at a minimum, elimination of the eastbound exiting
movement remain as a condition. Ms. Bloom confirmed that staff remained con-
sistent in their safety concerns.
Ayes: Roe; Ihlan; and Klausing.
Nays: Pust.
Motion carried.
Roll Call
d. Consider Request by Emmes Realty Services LLC for an Amended Planned
Unit Development at Har Mar Mall, 2100 Snelling Avenue (Backyard Grill)
(PF07-062)
City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly reviewed the requested action for the appli-
cant's redevelopment of the former Backyard Grill into another sit-down restau-
rant.
Councilmember Ihlan thanked staff for their revisions as requested by the City
Council at their previous meeting; however, opined that she still had qualms on
this piece, given the lack of an actual site plan. Councilmember Ihlan expressed
concern that public comment would not be available as final site plans were de-
veloped and approved at the staff level.
Discussion ensued regarding public participation; the public hearing process to
receive public comment; current code requirements encapsulating and protecting
public concerns through the design of building elevations and placement of the
proposed building.
Regular City Council Meeting
Mondays January 28, 2008
Page 27
Mayor Klausing interrupted the meeting for discussion regarding possible suspension of rules
due to time constraints; however, no action was taken following a review of those standing rules.
Additional discussion included the City's current PUD process as per City Code
policy and procedure, allowing for flexibilities for developers in final building de-
sign, provided it met City Code, similar to other permitted uses; inconsistencies in
the proposed height of the building (resolution, page 2, line 11, Item 4) at 35'; as-
pects of the Outdoor Seating provision, and staff-recommended allowance for
such; and. proportional cost issues addressed in Item 9, line 32 - 35.
Councihnember Roe suggested removing any specific percentage language and
state that the ownership is willing to pay a proportional cost for participation in
the project.
Mr. Hart clarified that the applicant didn't want to pay for projects that had no
benefit for the applicant; however, that they were not opposed to paying their
share, providing applicable statutory schemes were followed.
Public Works Director Duane Schwartz advised Councilmembers that staff rec-
ognized concerns about future unidentified improvements; however, noted that a
2008 MnDOT project was in the bid process; with specific impacts to the area in-
tersection, improving the overall levels of service. Mr. Schwartz noted that he
City had agreed to cost-participation in the project, and that the intersection is
only related to the Har Mar Mall. Mr. Schwartz advised that there was state and
federal Funds allocated as part of the County project as well; and if the City Coun-
cil wished to limit language to only that one 2008 project, language be included
specifically related to future projects and potential cost allocations, whether
through assessments or other means.
Further discussion included the review period expiring on February 1, 2008 for
this application; the applicant's support of the 2008 MnDOT project, but their
lack of details or impacts to the mall property, but willingness to pay their fair
share without linking it to the proposal.
Staff recommended asking the applicant to pay 25% of the City's share of the
2008 MnDOT project, excluding EVP (emergency vehicle pre-emption) costs,
specific to Skillman Avenue.
Mr. Hart asked that the City Council place a "not to exceed" price for the 2008
MnDOT project, defined to the scope as it is known.
Recess
Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at 10:20 p.m. and reconvened at 10:27 p.m.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page 28
City Attorney Anderson provided proposed amendments to the draft resolution, as
follows, which revisions were approved by staff and the applicant as recom-
mended.
^ Page 2. Line 11 -13 -revise to read:
4. The maximum building height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35 ).
^ Page 2, Item 9. Line 32 - 35 -strike out line 34 strike out two words "
their proportional.... "and strike out all of line 35 and with additional lan-
guage inserted. revise to read:
"Har Mar is the only property served by the easterly leg of the Snel-
ling/Sktlhnan Avenue intersection and receives a direct benefit by its safe tan
efficient operation. As a result the MALL ownership shall pay, as an assess-
ment, fifty percent (50%) of the City's cosC participation in the Skill-
man/Spelling Avenue 2008 Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT), project # ,signal replacement project, not to exceed
$30, 000.00. "
City Attorney Anderson advised that corresponding changes should be made to
draft PUD Agreement language, substituting "DEVELOPER" for "MALL owner-
ship" in that document (page 7, Item 9.11 of the agreement).
Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her concerns that the public be given an opportu-
nity for review and comment on the final plans.
Councilmember Pust opined that the purpose of public comment would be to al-
low the developers to hear from their neighbors, and negotiate any problem areas;
or alert the developer to issues impacting the residential neighborhood (i.e., light-
ing, signage).
Further discussion ensued on how to implement that public comment process; and
to encourage further communication between staff, the developer and the public.
Mr. Hart advised that the applicant was willing to receive public comment and to
be good neighbors; however, noted that those comments heard at the Planning
Commission level Public Hearing had been incorporated into the conditions; and
that they were Tom Hart quite far along in site particulars with the proposed land
tenant.
City Attomey Anderson recommended revised language to Section 9.12 of the
PUD Aereement as follows:
^ Prior to Design Review Committee (DRC) of the redevelopment, a final pro-
posed Site Plan will be published or public input shall be taken on the final
Backyard Grill redevelopment plan.
Following further discussion and staff comment, revised language for Condition 9
of the PUD Aereement was further revised to read:
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page 29
"Prior to review by the DRC and prior to the issuance of any building permits,
those specific plans for redevelopment of the Backyard Grill. area, adjacent prop-
erty owners -specifically those residential areas to the south previously noticed
for Public Hearing purposes related to PF07-062 -will be provided an opportunity
for review and comment of those redevelopment plans. This does not constitute
another Public Hearing, but serves as a public informational meeting for the bene-
fit of those residential property owners; with residents encouraged to comment by
e-mail, phone or in persmr with staff; with those comments forward to the DRC
for their consideration in reviewing the final plans .
By Council consensus, this condition was added as Item 10 to the draft resolution.
Roe moved, Klausing seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10592 entitled, "A
Resolution Approving a Planned Unit Development Amendment, in Accordance
with Roseville City Code, Sections 1006 and 1008, for Har Mar Mall, 2100 Snel-
ling Avenue (PF07-062);' amended as follows:
• Page 2, Lane 11 - 13 -revise to read:
4. The maximum building height shall. not exceed thirty-five feet (35').
• >~e 2 Item 9 Line 32 - 35 -strike out line 34 strike out two words "
their proportional...," and strike out all of line 35, and with additional lan-
guage inserted, revise to read:
"Har Mar is the only property served by the easterly leg of the Snel-
ling/Skillman Avenue intersection and receives a direct benefit by its safe tur
efficient operation. As a result the MALL ownership shall pay, as an assess-
ment, fifty percent (50%) of the City's cost participation in the Skill-
man/Snelling Avenue 2008 Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT), project # ,signal replacement project, not to exceed
$30,000.00."
^ Addition of Condition #10:
"Prior to review by the DRC and prior to the issuance of any building permits,
those specific plans for redevelopment of the Backyard Grill area, adjacent
property owners -specifically those residential areas to the south previously
noticed for Public Hearing purposes related to PF07-062 -will be provided an
opportunity for review and comment of those redeveloprent plans. This does
not constitute another Public Hearing, but serves as a public informational
meeting for the benefit of those residential property owners; with residents
encouraged to comment by e-mail, phone or in person with staff; with those
comments forward to the DRC for their consideration in reviewing the final
plans .
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
Regular City Conned Meeting
Monday, January 28, 2008
Page 30
e. Consider a Planned Unit Development Agreement for Emmes Realty Ser-
vices LLC pertaining to 11ar Mar Mall, 2100 Snelling Avenue (PF07-053 and
PF07-062)
Pust moved, Roe seconded, approval of the Har Mar Mall Planned Unit Devel-
opment (PUD) Agreement between the City of Roseville and Gateway Washing-
ton, Inc., by its agent Emmes Realty Services, LLC, 2100 N Snelling Avenue,
Roseville, MN; as referenced in City of Roseville Project Files #PF07-053 and
07-062; amended as follows:
^ All references (9.4, 9.10, et al) to the building height shall state: "The maxi-
mum building height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35')."
^ Item 9.5 -revised to read: "The Parties hereto recognize that the City, as a
part of the PUD approval process, has studied the continuing safety of County
Road B westerly driveway in light of the improvements proposed as a part of
the amended PUD request. :'.'I:il:, n°° ~ °'°°••~° °°~'~~° ~ °°~°••-~°°°
«n«t nF 47.° n .nl ,.F tl,n DT TTI n .,«,7..,....«t tl.n «...-t: ,,...,,.i...,... i°,i,.° 41...t
~.... .....y ~.,~u..,,., ..... r.b..~ ..~ ...~,.~.,.
e
41..+ (y:4.. .t.a4...~.«:«.. :4n «.,t.t.. .t:...,«..ti..« 47..,4 4«., FC.n nnF°4•r n n: rt°«n
~. [While not requiring closure of this ingress/egress as a part of
the approval of the PUD Amendment, the parties acknowledge that the City
does not waive, and hereby retains, an~ght which it may have under appli-
cable law to require closure of the ingress and/or egress from such westerly
driveway in the future should the City determine, in its reasonable discretion,
that traffic safety considerations warrant it.]"
^ Item 9.11 - "Har Mar is the only property served by the easterly leg of the
Snelling/Skillman Avenue intersection and receives a direct benefit by its safe
tan efficient operation. As a result the DEVELOPER shall pay, as an assess-
ment, fifty percent (50%) of the City's cost participation in the Skill-
man/Snelling Avenue 2008 Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT), project # ,signal replacement project, not to exceed
$30,000.00."
^ Item 9.12 revised to include the following language:
"Prior to review by the DRC and prior to the issuance of any building permits,
those specific plans for redevelopment of the Backyard Grill area, adjacent
property owners -specifically those residential areas to the south previously
noticed for Public Hearing purposes related to PF07-062 -will be provided an
opportunity for review and comment of those redevelopment plans. This does
not constitute another Public Hearing, but serves as a public informational
meeting for the benefit of those residential property owners; with residents
encouraged to comment by e-mail, phone or in person with staff; with those
comments forward to the DRC for their consideration in reviewing the final
plans .
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, January 28, 200$
Page 31
Due to tune constraints, the remaining agenda items were not discusse~t:
Discuss Council Rules, Procedures and other Council Practices
g. Discuss 2008 Legislative Agenda
12. Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
13. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 10:47 p.m.
Cr ig D. Klausing, Mayo,
ATTEST: ,d'
r~~~~~~.
Willia ` J. Malinen, City Manager
FLF'. No. 2572, as introduced - 85th Legislative Session (2007-2008} Eage I of 1
~~'. i_egistature Hame i LinEcs to the world i Help i .4c
,. T~3~~s~t Flc~us ~~ r~rltavs
g
~.
House i Senate I Joint Departments and Commissions i E3itE Search and Status i Statutes, Lases, and Rules
KEY: '___~'~^^ = removed, o].d Language. underscored = added, new language.
Authors_and Status List versions i
~ b$4.
H.F. M1t®, 2572, as introduoed - SStta Legislative Sessi®n (2®07-20DS) Posted on Jan 22, 2008
1.1 A bill for an act
~ ~ ~ relating to capital investment; authorizing spending to acquh~e and better public
1.3 laud and buildings and other improvements of a capita( nariu'e; authorizing the
~ • 4 issuance of state bonds; appropriating money for improvements to the Guidant
1.5 John Rose Minnesota Oval.
1 ~ 6 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1 ~ ~ Section 1. CITY OF ROSEVII.LE• G;<UIDANT ,TORN ROSE 1VIIleTTNESOTA
1 . 8 ®VAL.
1 ~ 9 Subdivision 1. Aoorooriation. $1 826 000 is a~ntronriated from the bond proceeds
1. to fund to the commissioner of employment and economic development for a grant to the
1.11 city of Roseville to predesi~w,,design, construct or instal] furnish, a~~d equip multiple
1.12 improvements to the Guidant John Rose Mimresgta Oval, including a geothermal heating
1.13 and cooling system for the facility.
1.14 Subd. 2. Bond sale. To provide the money appropriated by subdivision 1 from the
1.15 borid uroceeds fund. the commissioner of finance shall sell and issue bonds of the state in
1.16 att amount up to ~1 826 0000 in the manner, on the terms, and with the effect prescribed by
1.17 Minnesota Statutes, sections 16A.631 to 16A.675, and by the Minnesota Constitution,
i . 18 article_XI sections 4 to 7.
1.19 EFFECTIVE DATE:I'his section is effective the day followine final enactment.
Please direct all comments concerning issues or legislation
to your House Member or State Senator.
For Legislative Staff or for directions to the Capitol, visit the Contact Us page.
General questions or comments.
last updated: 05/05/2007
http://ros.leg.nln/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H2572.O.hhn1&session°Is85 1 /28/2008
:~ ~~~
~`°~
,:_ ~~ ,
Data Source: ~ ~~~
Ramsey County Sheriffs Office Foreclosure Sales
Total Records -1,610
Records suuczssfully Gzoiucsied - 1,24] (6416) ~ .,~. v ~TO[8~ FCBCOfOS - I,SI G} Map Produced January to, 2006
Recortls Unsuccessfully Geolocated - 263 (1 ]%) Ramsey County Assessor's Office
„-~-~,~E
___~
._._,~
~s~ra~~~~~vg ___._._ ~ ~ ~ ~
` ~ ~
~- ~ ® ,t e G ~ ~;.- ~ ®~ ~„
® I ® i M ~
~~ ~ i qq~~,,~~~~ ~ g~q
® ®° ®~ ® ® _ ~~ ® C
O
®® ® ~ ~
~ ®~
Data Source:
Ramsey County SherifPS Ottice
Tolal Records - 2,346
R.erords Successfully Gcaloctcd 2,021 (BO%) •ti_./
Rergrds UnsuccessNlly Geolocaled - 325 (14 % )
Legend
cities
Foreclosure Sales
o (Toiai Ret.ords - 2.340) '',,
e
Map Producetl January 10, 2008
Ramsey County Assessor's Office
Memorandum
To Roseville City Council
January 28, 2008
Cul de Sac:
Attached please find copies of several relevant documents which support the following positions.
1. Copy of Appendix D of the 2000 international Fire Codes that clearly states that an
access road in excess of 150 feet must conform to the Dead-End Requirements listed
on Page 361.
2. These requirements plainly show the 96' and 120' discussed earlier and are not
reflected in the proposed change. Rather, Roseville is taking a requirement of 100'
and/or 120' and reducing it to a value out of compliance with state law.
3. Further, reduction to the regulations regarding cul de sac size are solely the discretion
of the staff and Director of Public Works even though even the Council last
discussing this issue appeazed to believe that there should perhaps be more review.
4. Copies of Cul de Sac codes from Golden Valley and Maplewood both show
requirements matching or approximating State Fire Code. Due to the time constraints
presented by having only Monday to collect any information on surrounding
municipalities, hazd copies of only these two were readily available.
Lot Split Ordinance:
On the topic of the "overlay District" being proposed, if the objective is simply to imply that lots
smaller than 11,000 sf , if combined, must be reconstructed into lots conforming to current City
Code of 85' x 110' and 11,000 sf, why not just deal with those lots which are currently less than
11,OOOsf? What is the point of creating an overlay district that includes more than 55% of the
city and includes many lots larger than 11,OOOsf?
Why not just do the "overlay District" of the 21 % of the lots which currently are less than
11,000 sf in total azea? This would solve the problem being addressed, direct the solution at the
lots fully out of compliance with respect to area, and avoid any unintended rights being granted
should the ordinance change later.
The obvious protection of large lots and diversity of neighborhoods and lot sizes is
specifically not addressed in this ordinance proposal. What is addressed is an effort to make
uniform as much of the city as possible. This does not seem to conform to or even address the
wishes of citizens addressing the Council or• the Planning Commission in the past. It also seems
at odds with the Imagine 2025 document.
Summary:
It would appear that to some extent both the Cul de Sac issue and the Lot Split Overlay District
are being presented now to try to deal with one specific development request and one specific
law suit. Tlus is not a proper method for addressing policy. As stated in the Recommendations
by Deb Bloom and Brian Lloyd, a comprehensive update of the Subdivision section of the City
Code should be undertaken. I agree with this statement and it is particularly timely to tie this
update and the changes to the current revisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the information
published in the Imagine 2025 document. It is particularly short-sighted to create ordinances that
re-zone over half the city and set safety requirements that are outside the minimum requirements
of the state fire code.
I hope that the Council will table both issues and institute a moratorium, if necessary, to wait
until policies addressing both the Imagine 2025 and the new Comprehensive Plan can be
developed.
Tam McGehee
Apgserectix
~I E ASP T
SECTION D'!@1 D703.2 Grade. Fire apparatus access roads shall notexceed 10
GENE percent in grade.
Di01.i Scapa. Fire mppamtus araess roads shall be in actor- pxceptioa: Grades steeper deem !0 percent as approved by
dance with this appendix and all otherapplicable requirements the fire chief.
of tlee Intemataotral ire Code D] 03.3'IStraaag sedans. The minimum Weaning radii skald be
determined by the code oificia7.
DI03.4 Dead ends. Dead-end flee appamWas access roads in
SECTION D702 excess of 150 feet (45 720 mm) shall be provided with width
REQUIRED ACCESS and Wemaround provisions in accordance with Table DID3.4.
D102.1 Aeeess sad loading. Facilities,baildings orportions of
buiddings hereafter constmeted shall be accessible to tire de-
partment appamms byway of anapproved fire apparatus access
road with an asphalt, concrete or other approved driving sur-
face capable of supporting the imposed land of fire appamhs
Weighing at least 75,006 poemds (34 050 kg).
SECTION D'F03
MINIMUM SPECIFlCATIONS
D103.1 Access road width with a hydrant where a fire hy-
drant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum
mad width shall be 26 feet (7925 mm). See Figure D 103.1.
TABLE 0103.4
REQUIREMENTS FOR DEAD-END FIRE
APPARATUS ACCESS RQ4DS
LENGTH wmTH
feet feet TURNARDUNna REQUU09
0-150 20 None aired
720 feet"Hwemerhead; 60 feet"Y"or
150-500 20 96 feet diameeer cal-de-sac in
accordance with FiQeae D103.1
720 feet Hammerhead, 60 feet "Y" or
501-750 26 90 feet Diameter ced-de-sac an
accoNaace with Fi D103.1
Over 750 S 'al meat eeired
For SL• tfoot=301.8 mm.
0
95 70' 1 /
E"--28' R
~ R 28• R ~.
TYP.' TYP.'
28' 20. ~~~
95' DIAMETER 70' DUMETER ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATNE
CUL-DESAC CUL-DE-SAC T0120' HAMMERHEAD
20
28'
2D'~
20'
MINIMUM CLEARANCE
AROUND A FIRE
HYDRANT
30'~~~~6' 60~ ~ ~~0 28'R
TYP.'
~20' 20'~
TYP.' 28' R ~ 70'
TYP.'
ZO'~
20' 28'
--t 20'
80'HAMMERHEAD 120't1AMMERHEAD
ACCFJ"TABLE ALTERNATIVE
T0120'HAMMERHEAD
For SI: 1 Tao[=304.8 rmn.
flGURE 0103.1
DEAD£iJD PNE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD TURNAROUND
FlRE CODE® 361
APPENDIX D
D103S NYre appara4cs access road gates. Gates securingthe
fire apparatus access marls shalt comply with all of the fo(tow-
ing criteria:
1. The minimum gate width shall be 20 feet (6096 mm).
2. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type.
3. Constmction of gates shall be of materials that allow
manual opemkioa by one person.
4. Gate components shall he maintained in an operative
condition at all times and replaced orrepaimd when de-
fective.
S. Electricgates shall be equipped withameans ofopening
dte gate by 5re deparmrent personnel for emergency ac-
cess. Emergency opening devices shall be approved by
the code official.
6. Manual opening gates shall notbe locked withapadlock
or chain and padlock unless they are capable of being
opened by means of forcible entry tools and
7. Locking device specifications shall be submitted for ap-
proval by the code official. '
D103.6Signs. Whemmquimd bythe code official, fire appara-
tus access roads shall be marked with permanent NO
PARKING~IRE LANE signs eomgl; ing with Figuee
D 103.6. Signs shag have a minimum dimension of 12 inches
(305 mm)wideby ISinches(457mm)high and have red letters
on a white reflective background Signs shall be posted on one
or both sides of the fim apparatus road as required by Section
0103.6.1 or 0103.62.
SIGN TYPE'A" SIGN TYPE "C" SIGN TYPE "D"
NO ND NO
PARKING PARKING PARKNG
18"
FIRE LANE FlRE LANE FIRE LANE
~~ f~
-12"-~-~ ~.--12"---.~ ~.-12"--~
FIGURE D1o3.6
FIRE LANE SIGNS
0103.6.1 Roads 20 to 26 feet in width. Fire apparatus no-
case roads 20 to 26 feet wide (6096 m 7925 mm) stall be
posted on both sides as a fire lane.
0103.6.2 Roads more than 26 feet in width. Fire appara-
tus access roads mom than 26 feet wide (7925 mm) to 32
feetwide (9754 mm} stall beposted an one side ofthe road
as s fire lane.
SECTION 0104
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS
0104.1 BnOdings exceeding three storiesl30 feet m height.
Buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) or three
FeRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS
stories in heightsha0haveak leastthaeemeans office apparatus
access for each structure,
0104.2 Buildings exceeding 62,000 square feet in aria.
Buildings or facilities havingagross buildingareaofmore than
62,000 square face (5760 m') shalt be provided with two sepa-
rate and approved fire apparatus access roads.
Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to
124,000 square feet (11 S20 m2) bavsng a stogie appmved
fire apparatus access road when all buildings are equipped
throughouf wntir approved automatic sprinkler systems.
01043 Remoteness. Where two access roads am required,
they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one
half of the length ofOte maximum ovemlI diagonal dimension
ofdte property or area to be served, measured in a straight line
between accesses.
SECTION 0905
AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS
DI05"I Where required.Buildings orportions of buildings or
;acilities exceeding3C feet (9144 rem) iv rreighiabove the low-
est level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided
with approved fire appamms access roads capable of accom-
modating fire departrnent aerial appamms. Overhead utility
and powerlines shall notbe located within the aerial fire appa-
mtusaccess roadway.
0105.2 Width. Fire appazalus access roads shall Lave amini-
mum unobstmcted widtfi of26 feet (7925 mm) in ffie immedi-
amvicinity of any building orportion of building more than 30
feet (9I44 mm) iv height
01053 Promtmity to bu0ding.At least one ofthe regaimd ac-
cess routes meeting this condition shall be located within a
minimum of IS feet (4372 mm) and a ruaximum of 30 feet
(9144 mm) from the bmldmg, and shall be positioned parallel
to one entire side of the building.
SECTION 0706
MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS
0106.1 Projects having more than 100 dwelliagnnits. Mut-
8ple-familyresidential projectshaving morethan 100 dwelling
units shall be equipped throughom with two separate and ap-
pmved fire appazams access marls.
Exception: Projects having up to 200 dwelling units may
have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all
buildings, includmg nonresidential occupancies, aze
equipped throughout with appmved automatic sprinkler
systems installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or
903.3.1.2 of thelntematianal Fire Cade_
0106.2 Projects Laving more than 200 dwelling nnifs. Mul-
tiple-fatni]yresidentialpmjectshnving more than200 dwelling
units shall be provided withtwo separate and approved fire ap-
parakus access roads regardless of whether they are equipped
with an approved amomatic sprinkler system
362 20001NTERNATIONAL FlRE CODE®
§ 12.2a
E. Vertical Curves. Different connecting street gradients shall be connected with
vertical parabolic curves. Minimum sight distance of 200 feet must be
provided.
Local Streets. Minor streets shall be so aligned that their use by through
traffic will be discouraged.
G. Street logs. Street jogs shall not have center line offsets of less than 125
feet.
H. Safe Intersections. All street intersections and confluences shall be designed
to encourage safe and efficient traffic flow.
Source: Ordinance No.706
Effective Date: 12-11-57
I. Cul-de-sac. A cul-de-sac street shall be measured along its center line from a
point in the extended line from the back of the curb line of the intersecting
street of origin to the back of the curb line of the cul-de-sac at its closed end.
If there is no curb, the measurement shall be made from the corresponding
edge of the improved surface of the roadway.
Maximum length of a cul-de-sac street shall be 500 feet. Except as provided
hereinafter, each cul-de-sac shall have a closed end turnaround with an
outside diameter of the improved roadway surface of at least 100 feet and a
street right-of-way diameter of at 120 feet.
Alternatively, if the proposed cul-de-sac street is 190 feet or less in length,
the subdivider may apply for a reduced turnaround having an outside
roadway diameter of at least 90 feet and a street right-of-way diameter of at
least 100 feet. Since such reduction in size may increase the difficulty of
street maintenance or fire prevention activities, the Director of Public Works
or the Fire Marshall may require limitations regarding the type, placement or
replacement of any structures or plantings to be located in or within 10 feet
of the cul-de-sac right-of-way. Structures for purposes of this paragraph
shall include fences, fire hydrants, light poles, mail boxes, utility boxes or
poles, etc. The Director of Public Works may also impose additional
limitations concerning the location and width of driveways accessing all lots
with frontage on the reduced turnaround cul-de-sac street and, in no event
may the width of a driveway exceed 50% of the width of the lot it accesses
as measured at the roadway by extending the side lot Tines to the back of the
curb line.
Source: Ordinance No. 93, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 6-25-92
7. Marginal Access Streets. Where a subdivision abuts on or contains an existing
or planned thoroughfare, the Council may require marginal access streets or
such other treatment as may be necessary for adequate protection of
residential properties and to afford separation of through and local traffic.
Go/den Val/ey City Code Page 2 of 4
NOTE: LOCATE HYDRANT
ON LaT LINE ON
~---~,_ SIDE 0
___
~ ~
/ \~
I so' R/w
~' ~~, l
I.
~ ~~ ~~~~
I~
,~ ~'~
~ I ~ , ~~
I ~
i
F BULB _ ~----~ _
/ ~
-._._ _.
~'
i tea,
i
~ ~
f ~ 1
?o
`,, ~ ~
~, , ~ ,
~~
~,
~ R
t
I ~ ~ 0 = 4T 05' 23°
~~ ~ I I ~
i i
ro ~ ~ = 68' 47~ 43"
i ! i i '
i
32` FF ~ ~ ~ 32' FF
~ ~ ~ ~
i ~ I
13') 34~~ BB 73' 1 3'' 34'i BB 13'
I ~ ~ ~ ~ '
!I i ~ ~ i ~
6{1' MIN. R/W 60' MIN. R/W ~ I ~
III II
DIMENSIONED FOR
D-412 C&G
DESIGN: CMC DATE: 3-ss CITY OF MAPLEWOOD-ENGINEERING DEPT. PLArE
DRAWN: RKL FlLEWJAEP:WONKS\ NO.
CAP\PUTES\PI 20 TYPICAL C U L S- D E- S A C
REVISIONS 3-02
120
Existing Edina City Code
It
Section 810 -Plats and Subdivisions
810.01 Purpose and ®bjectives. The purpose and objectives of this Section are to provide for
the orderly, economic and safe development of land and. urban services and facilities; to facilitate
adequate provision for transportation, water, sewage, storm drainage, schools, pazks,
playgrounds and other public services and facilities; to promote the public health, safety and
general welfare by establishing physical standazds, design requirements and procedures for plats
and subdivisions of land; to allow flexibility in design of plats and subdivisions; to develop a
consistency with and to help implement the zoning, building and other applicable sections and
provisions of this Code; to support and further the City`s Comprehensive Plan by establishing
uniform procedures and regulations for plats and subdivisions to preserve and enhance the value
and viable economic use of property; to protect the character and symmetry of neighborhoods in
the City; and to protect and further, and not frustrate, legitimate investment backed expectations
of property owners.
810.11 Guidelines and Criteria for Evaluating Plats and Subdivisions.
Subd. 1 Considerations. The Commission in reviewing proposed plats and subdivisions and in
determining its recommendation to the Council, and the Council in determining whether to
approve or disapprove of any plat or subdivision, may consider, among other matters, the
following:
A. The impact of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed
development, on the character and symmetry of the neighborhood
as evidenced and indicated by, but not limited to, the following
mat$er5:
L The suitability to the size and shape of the lots in the proposed
plat or subdivision relative to the size and shape of lots in the
neighborhood; and
2. The compatibility of the size, shape, location and arrangement
of the lots in the proposed plat or subdivision with the proposed
density and intended use of the site and the density and use of lots
in the neighborhood.
B. The impact of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed
development, on the environment, including but not limited to,
topography, steep slopes, vegetation, naturally occurring lakes,
ponds and streams, susceptibility of the site to erosion and
sedimentation, susceptibility of the site to flooding and water
storage needs on and from the site.
C. The consistency of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed
development, and compliance by the proposed plat or subdivision,
and the proposed development, with the policies, objectives, and
goals ofthe Comprehensive Flan.
D. The compliance of the proposed plat or subdivision, and the
proposed development with the policies, objectives, goals and
requirements of Section 850 of this Code including, without
limitation, the lot size provisions and the Floodplain Overlay
District provisions of Section 850 of this Code.
E. The impact of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed
development on the health, safety and general welfare of the
public.
F. The relationship of the design of the site, or the improvements
proposed and the conflict of such design or improvements, with
any easements of record or on the ground.
G. The relationship of lots in the proposed plat or subdivision to
existing streets and the adequacy and safety of ingress to and
egress from such lots from and to existing streets.
H. The adequacy of streets in the proposed plat or subdivision, and the
conformity with existing and planned streets and highways in
surrounding azeas. Streets in the proposed plat or subdivision shall
be deemed inadequate if designed or located so as to prevent or
deny public street access to adjoining properties, it being the policy
of the City to avoid landlocked tracts, pazcels or lots.
I. The suitability of street grades in relation to the grades of lots and
existing or future extension of the City's water, storm and sanitary
sewer systems.
J. The adequacy and availability of access by police, fire, ambulance
and other life safety vehicles to all proposed improvements to be
developed on the proposed plat or subdivision.
K. Whether the physical characteristics of the property, including,
without limitation, topography, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion
or siltation, susceptibility to flooding, use as a natural recovery and
ponding area far storm water, and potential disturbance of slopes
with a grade of 18 percent or more, are such that the property is not
suitable for the type of development or use proposed.
L. Whether development within the proposed plat or subdivisionx will.
cause the disturbance of more than 25 percent of the total area in
such plat or subdivision containing slopes exceeding 18 percent.
M. Whether the proposed plat or• subdivision, or the improvements
proposed to be placed thereon are lakely to cause substantial
environmental damage.
,ianuary 28, 200£1
Mr. Thomas Paschke
City }'lamter
City of Roseville
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, Minnesota X5113
RE< Redevelopment of Firestone Building SitelComments to Request for City Council Action
Dear Mr. paschke:
We are in receipt of your revised Request for City Council Action regarding the proposal by
Fumnes Realty 5etvices, Ll.,C and Gateway Washington, Ina ("Gateway') for redevelopment of
the cturent Firestone I3ui'lding site within I-Tar Mar Mall. You indicated in your recent email to
the undersigned that the changes in this documeit from the previous draft wore set forth in
Section 6.11(x). As currently drafted, 6.11(a) is not acceptable to Gateway, the owner of blar
Mar Mall. As we made clear at the last City Council meeting, Gateway caunat approve or accept
any language or agreement which grants to the City the tmilateral rights to close or alter any
ingress or egress point from the Mall, including the westerly driveway on County Road 13.
Gateway does agree, however, that, if safety issues rotating to vehicles coming to or leaving Her
Mar arise in tlae future, to discuss with the City in good faith alternatives for resolving those
safety carcerns. With that in mhtd, Gateway eoutd accept the following re-draft of the second
sentence of SecKion 611(x), and we hereby submit such language to you for your consideration:
"While not requiring closm•o of this ingress/egress xs a part of the approval of the
PUD Amendment, the parties acknowledge that the City does not waive, and
hereby retains, any right which it may have tutder applicable la4v Ca require
closure of the ingress and/or egress fi-om such westerly driveway in the tiihtre
should the City determine, in its reasonable discretion, that Craftic safety
considerations warrant it,"
R.; ~ ~ Anna
,. V /_VVV
Mr. Tames Paschlce
Page 2
,lamtttcy 28, 2008
As always, we wouttJ be happy to meet with you to discuss this (anbuage furthor should you so
desire. W~ ]ool.'forward to seeing you at the City Council meeting tonight.
~/ery truly ,yocus,
EMM~S p~(~AL`I'Y SERVICES, 1,I,C'
_~~ ~,
~' ~ ~ /
~._ .,.. ,
(~
13y: i
,fames [1. 5wauson
Regional Operations Director
,,_