HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC_Minutes_2008_0728City of
l~~
Minnesota, USA
Special City Council Meeting -Commission Interviews
Minutes
City Hall Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive
Monday, July 28, 2008
Special Meeting
4:00 p.m.
Present: Roe; Ihlan; and Klausing.
Pust and Willmus arrived late. Mayor Klausing noted that Councilmembers Pust and Willmus
had previously advised that they would be arriving late for commission interviews. A DVD of
the interviews will be provided for to each of them for their review.
Commission Chairs present: Janet Delmore, Luanne Pederson and Jim DeBenedet
The following applicants were interviewed:
David Singleton Human Rights
Pat Torrey Human Rights and Ethics
Margo Fjelstad Ethics
Jason Etten Ethics
Sheryl Fairbanks Public Works, Environment and Transportation
Joan Felice Public Works, Environment and Transportation
Brad Koland Public Works, Environment and Transportation
Applicants Timothy White and Glenn Cook were not available for interviews on 7/28/08 but remain inter-
ested in serving.
The Special Meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m.
Regular City Council Meeting
Minutes
6:00 p.m.
1. Call Roll
Mayor Klausing called to order the regular meeting of the Roseville City Council at ap-
proximately 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone.
Voting and Seating Order: Roe; Pust; Willmus; Ihlan; and Klausing.
Mayor Klausing noted that City Manager Malinen had previously advised that he would
not be able to attend tonight's meeting. Finance Director Chris Miller was present in his
place. City Attorney Scott Anderson was also present.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 28, 2008
Page 2
2. Approve Agenda
Councilmember Ihlan requested removal of Consent Agenda Item 7.e entitled, "Adopt a
Resolution to Establish a Date of Sale for Equipment Certificates to Finance the Ice
Arena Refrigeration System."
Finance Director Miller requested removal of Consent Agenda Item 7.e entitled, "Ap-
prove Fire Department Position Description."
By consensus, the agenda was approved 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 & Announcements & HRA Report
None.
5. Recognitions, Donations, Communications
6. Approve Minutes
a. Approve Minutes of July 21, 2008 Regular Meeting
Pust moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the minutes of the July 28, 2008
Regular Meeting of the City Council as presented.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Pust; Willmus; 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, Finance Director Chris Miller briefly reviewed those
items being considered under the Consent Agenda.
a. Approve Check Register
Roe moved, Klausing seconded, approval of the following claims and payments
as presented.
ACH Pa ents $101,298.14
51829-51884 137,176.12
Total $238,474.26
Roll Call
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 28, 2008
Page 3
Ayes: Roe; Pust; Willmus; Ihlan and Klausing.
Nays: None.
b. Approve Election Judges to work at the Primary Election
Roe moved, Klausing seconded, approval of appointment of election judges, as
detailed in the Election Judge List identified as "Attachment A," and made part of
the Request for Council Action dated July 28, 2008, to work at the September 9,
2008 Primary Election; and directing the City Manager to appoint additional
judges if the need arises.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Pust; Willmus; Ihlan and Klausing.
Nays: None.
c. Declare a 9/24/08 Vacancy on the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Board and Authorize Staff to Advertise for Applications
Roe moved, Klausing seconded, to declare a vacancy on the Housing and Rede-
velopment Authority (HRA); and direct staff to advertise for a vacancy with a
deadline of 4:30 p.m. on August 28, 2008; with interviews scheduled for Septem-
ber 8, 2008.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Pust; Willmus; Ihlan and Klausing.
Nays: None.
8. Consider Items Removed from Consent
a. Adopt a Resolution to Establish a Date of Sale for Equipment Certificates to
Finance the Ice Arena Refrigeration System (Former Consent Item 7.d)
At the request of Mayor Klausing, Finance Director Chris Miller briefly reviewed
this item. Mr. Miller clarified that the certificates were intended to be paid off
over a nine year period, rather than over 10 years, as originally stipulated. Mr.
Miller advised that due to this accelerated pay-off, the economic impact to tax-
payers would be slightly greater. Mr. Miller noted that tonight's action was to es-
tablish adate for sale, and that staff would continue to work with financial and
bond consultants to finalize this financing tool for the geothermal refrigeration
system at the Ice Arena.
Councilmember Ihlan advised that she would be voting "no" on this motion; opin-
ing that this was not the best way to raise money for this improvement project;
and expressed her concern with the tax increase of 3.2% to taxpayers. Council-
member Ihlan further opined that, if it was necessary to borrow money, the City
should do so through the regular bonding process seeking voter approval of such a
bond sale, or through use of increased user. fees to fund the project.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 28, 2008
Page 4
Klausing moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10644 entitled,
"Resolution Providing for the Competitive Negotiated Sale of $2,550,000 General
Obligation Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness, Series 2008A;" scheduled for
August 25, 2008, for the purpose of refinancing replacement of the Ice Arena Re-
frigeration System.
Councilmember Pust questioned staff s rationale for choosing the August 25,
2008 as the sale date.
Finance Director Miller advised that staff and counsel needed approximately one
month before setting the date, based on proposed bidding time; and that the date
chosen also provided available City Council agenda time to bring information
back to the City Council. Mr. Miller further noted that construction had already
been initiated using temporary monies, but that it was important to recoup those
monies through the Certificate sale yet this year for placement on property tax
rolls in 2009.
Councilmember Pust sought clarification on the additional $50,000 estimated for
issuance costs.
Finance Director Miller advised that this was to cover legal and issuance costs; as
well as underwriter's discounts and premiums, and potential compensation to the
winning bidder for their upfront costs.
Councilmember Ihlan reiterated, for the record, that the request was for sale of
$2.5 million in Equipment Certificates, in addition to $50,000 in issuance costs.
Finance Director Miller concurred with Councilmember Ihlan's conclusions.
Councilmember Ihlan, also for the record, noted an e-mail that she'd received
from a citizen in opposition to this request, Tam McGehee, 77 Mid Oaks Lane,
and advised that a copy would be made available to the public and City Council
before the end of tonight's meeting.
Councilmember Roe spoke in support of the motion, and noted that this option
was previously discussed by Councilmembers as a tool to pay for the Ice Arena
project; and opined that it appeared that this was the optimum time for the Certifi-
cate Sale, questioning if waiting was in the best interest of the City or its taxpay-
ers.
Councilmember Pust opined that when Councilmembers originally discussed this
financing tool, and the impact on taxpayers, it was her intent that this 3.2% in-
crease be taken into consideration when discussing the remaining 2009 budget
items. Councilmember Pust assured the public and fellow Councilmembers that
she would be taking it into consideration.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 28, 2008
Page 5
Councilmember Willmus sought clarification on how much of a contingency was
built into the projected costs for the geothermal refrigeration system.
Finance Director Miller advised that he was anticipating $2.1 - $2.2 million,
based on the latest information provided from Parks and Recreation Director
Lonnie Brokke. However, Mr. Miller cautioned that there may be additional re-
design or re-engineering that has not been foreseen. Mr. Miller opined that there
was nothing to suggest at this time that the full $2.55 million was needed; and if
determined by the August 25, 2008 sale date that this figure represented too much
of a contingency, an option would be available to reduce the Sale amount, or take
additional monies and apply them to the debt service, minimizing the impact to
taxpayers for 2009.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Pust; Willmus; and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan.
Motion carried.
b. Approve Fire Department Position Description (former Consent Agenda
Item 7.e)
At the request of Mayor Klausing, Finance Director Chris Miller briefly reviewed
this item. Mr. Miller clarified that the requested Council action was to approve
the position description, as well as to authorize that the position be eligible for in-
clusion in the Police and Fire Public Employee Retirement Association (PERA),
as noted on the Bench Handout indicating that revised requested Council Action.
Further detail was included in the Council packet in the June 2, 2008 memoran-
dum from Fire Chief Gasaway to City Manager Malinen, regarding guidance and
recommendations from PERA on dual-role positions.
Councilmember Pust sought clarification of the level of the proposed position and
whether it would remain cost-neutral as originally presented with this addition of
PERA benefits. Councilmember Pust questioned if the position, as it was filled
before, had been at the highest classification.
Chief Gasaway anticipated an additional $2,000 cost estimate for PERA benefits;
but noted that the actual amount would depend on the rate of pay wage within the
established and specified pay range, with $2,400 being the maximum compensa-
tion level for the PERA benefit. However, Chief Gasaway didn't anticipate that
the new employee would be brought in at maximum compensation of that range.
Chief Gasaway advised that former Administrative Assistant Sue Wolter was at
maximum pay in the range.
Councilmember Roe clarified that the original position was not previously part of
the Police and Fire PERA Fund.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 28, 2008
Page 6
Chief Gasaway clarified that the previous part-time administrative position was in
the PERA Coordinated Fund.
Mayor Klausing asked that Chief Gasaway review, for the public's benefit, the
original administrative position, the Department's goal, and the current request
before the City Council.
Chief Gasaway reviewed the original administrative position held by Ms. Wolter
for 17 years on a part-time basis until her untimely death. Chief Gasaway noted
that at the time of her death, and her intended retirement within a year, discus-
sions were underway as to the future duties and responsibilities of the position,
based on Fire Department needs, including a potential dualrole to maximize
weekday on-call firefighter manpower and administrative needs of the depart-
ment. Chief Gasaway noted that, during those discussions, PERA had approved a
dual-role, stipulating that the job description, and subsequent City Council action,
specifically acknowledge that firefighter duties would be the first priority of the
position. Chief Gasaway further noted that similar dual-role positions are used in
Fire Departments in Spring Lake Park, Blaine, and Moundsview.
Councilmember Pust clarified that, since this position would be eligible for PERA
pension, it would not be eligible for other pensions.
Chief Gasaway verified that such an option had been eliminated several years
ago.
Ihlan moved, Klausing seconded, approval of the Firefighter/Department Assis-
tant Position Description for the Fire Department; and to authorize that position to
be eligible for inclusion in Police and Fire Public Employee Retirement Associa-
tion (PERA).
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Pust; Wilhnus; Ihlan and Klausing.
Nays: None.
9. General Ordinances for Adoption
10. Presentations
a. Joint Meeting with the Police Civil Service Commission
Mayor Klausing welcomed the Commissioners from the City's Police Civil Ser-
vice Commission. Those Commissioners present included Ms. Teresa Bailey,
new to the Commission this year; Ms. Linda Lange, newly-elected Chair of the
Commission, and Mary Jean Turinia Anderson.
Opening Statement by Commission Chair
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 28, 2008
Page 7
Chair Lange provided a brief opening statement and talked of the uniqueness of
the Commission in looking at officers potentially trained and hired by the Rose-
ville Police Department, and their oversight of statutory process, as citizens.
Responsibilities and Duties of the Commission
Ms. Turinia-Anderson briefly reviewed the responsibilities and duties of Commis-
sioners; frequency of meetings; monitoring of the fairness and impartiality of Po-
lice Department hiring, in addition to promotions, resignations, suspensions, dis-
charges, or layoffs, as an objective outside party.
Councilmember Roe clarified, for the public's benefit, the Commission's role, not
as a civilian review board for Police Department activities, but as a body to re-
viewpolicies related to the department.
Councilmember Pust inquired if the Commission had any interaction with the
City's Human Rights Commission.
Commissioner Lange said that they had not interacted in the past.
Mayor Klausing thanked the Commissioners for their service, and their atten-
dance at tonight's meeting.
Commissioner Lange expressed her personal pride in the City's Police Depart-
ment, both from the perspective of a citizen and as a Commissioner.
12. Business Items (Action Items)
a. Consider Community Development Department Request to Perform a City
Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 2036 Western Avenue
Permit Coordinator Don Munson reviewed the request for City abatement of cur-
rent and remaining violations from those detailed on the report dated July 28,
2008. Mr. Munson reviewed the number of contacts with the property owner over
a number of months; and current remediation being done by the property owner's
son. Mr. Munson advised that significant progress was being made, but that some
violations remained incomplete; and asked that the City Council consider the re-
quested action as an option to ensure continued progress and compliance.
Discussion included the items completed and those remaining out of compliance;
ongoing issues with the property over a period of years; neighborhood complaints
providing awareness of outstanding and non-compliance issues; and a timeframe
for the work to be completed, suggested by staff at two weeks.
The property owner was not present at tonight's meeting.
Pust moved, Roe seconded, directing staff to abate public nuisance violations that
still remain as specified during tonight's presentation, unless improved within a
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 28, 2008
Page 8
two week period, at 2036 Western Avenue by hiring a general contractor to cor-
rect existing code violations, as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated
July 28, 2008; and further directing that the property owner be billed for all actual
and administrative costs, estimated at approximately $4,250.00; and if those
charges remain unpaid, staff is to recover costs as specified in Minnesota Statute,
Section 407.07B; with costs to be reported to the City Council following the
abatement.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Pust; Wilhnus; Ihlan and Klausing.
Nays: None.
c. Consider Amendment to Chapter 1010 Sign Regulations Ordinance pertain-
ing to Temporary Signs, Commercial/Industrial Real Estate Signs and the
Master Sign Plan Process (PROJ0013)
City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed staff's recommended revisions to the
City's new sign code, since its adoption, and challenges in staff's interpretation,
consideration, and approval for temporary signs. Mr. Paschke advised that the
specificity on type of sign permissible and timelines, usually tied to an event that
may be too short in duration for certain requests. Mr. Paschke noted that the ex-
isting Master Sign Plan hearing process was proving cumbersome property re-
view/approval authority, with not all staff assigned to the Development Review
Committee, educated in the area of signs and sign requirements.
City Planner Paschke referred discussion to staff comments detailed in Section 3.0
of the staff report dated July 28, 2008, addressing temporary signs; business and
industrial "For Sale/Lease" signs; Master Sign Plans; and Enforcement considera-
tions.
Discussion included all-weather product materials for signs; duration of signs;
sizes of signs; real estate signs; business/industrial signs; definition of temporary
signs; habitual offenders; and lack of available staff for signage monitoring and
enforcement of habitual offenders, in addition to educating and providing public
information on sign regulations in the community.
Councilmember Ihlan questioned whether real estate signs (Section 5.3 of the
staff report, page 5) had a time limitation or if they could be permanent. Coun-
cilmember Ihlan opined that in proposing to triple their size (from 10 square feet
to 32 square feet), such signage would not be aesthetically pleasing; and further
opined that they should be treated as temporary signs, but that their size remain at
10 square feet.
City Planner Paschke advised that their duration depended on the situation;
whether multi-tenant and incorporated into building signage or large free-standing
signs.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 28, 2008
Page 9
Councilmember Willmus opined that ten square feet was a very small space to
provide language indicating "For Sale/Lease" and a legible phone number.
Councilmember Thlan opined that on business or commercial space, people usu-
ally worked through a leasing agency, and were not driving around looking for
space; and that this provision would allow a prominent sign on a permanent basis.
Councilmember Ihlan opined that either a maximum ten square foot allowance, or
a time limit be incorporated in the language.
Councilmember Pust questioned why the appeal process was to the City Council,
rather than the Variance Board.
City Planner Paschke advised that, in being appealed to the Variance Board, they
would need to base their findings on a hardship, similar to the variance and/or
setback proposal, while staff wasn't basing their judgments on hardships.
Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon advised that, in staff's role
as zoning administrators when making decisions administratively, they always
had accountability to elected officials, and applicants retained the right to be
heard at the City Council level.
Further discussion included striking language indicating banners as temporary
signs; prohibitions and offenses for boulevard signs (i.e., sandwich boards used
for advertising); whether another enforcement tool such as a fine was indicated;
and whether existing staff could handle pro-active enforcement effectively.
Councilmember Roe recognized that sign enforcement was time-consuming, and
noted the concerns of neighbors to those businesses habitually abusing regula-
tions, and the emotions involved.
Ihlan moved amendment to proposed language of the staff report (page 5, line
191, Section 5.3.a.1) that the reference to 32 square foot be removed, and the 10
square foot be reinstated.
Mayor Klausing declared the motion failed for lack of a second.
Councilmember Ihlan opined that, without the motion being broken into sections,
she would be voting against the proposed ordinance in its entirety due to her con-
cerns with Section 5.3 as referenced above. Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her
concerns in increasing the size of permanent real estate signs; and opined that it
was not in keeping with the intent of the ordinance.
Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, to exclude references in Section 5.3 of the staff re-
port dated July 28, 2008 (page 5, lines 185 - 200); and subsequent notations in the
draft ordinance language (Chapter 1010.03, Section 2.11.b (real estate signs...),
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 28, 2008
Page 10
and Section 2.11. c (business and industrial property)) regarding size of real es-
tate signs.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Pust; Willmus; Ihlan and Klausing.
Nays: None.
Pust moved, Klausing seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1371 entitled, "An
Ordinance Amending Title 10 of the Roseville City Code, Specifically Sections
1010.03 Pertaining to Temporary Signs -Permits Required; Temporary Signs -
Permits Not Required; and Master Sign Plans;" including specific detailed
amendments to Section 1010.03. b and c. (referenced in lines 185 - 200 of the
staff report dated July 28, 2008, and subsequent notations in the draft ordinance
language.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Pust; Willmus; and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan.
Motion carried.
Roe moved, Pust seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1371 entitled,
"An Ordinance for Amendments to Title 10 (Zoning Regulations) of the Roseville
City Code;" as amended.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Pust; Willmus; Ihlan and Klausing.
Nays: None.
d. Consider Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment of Sections 1014 (Variances)
and 1015 (Administration) of the City Code to Clarify and Expand the Proc-
ess of Administratively approving Minor Deviations from Code Require-
ments (PROJ-0015)
Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed staff's request, as detailed in the staff
report dated July 28, 2008, for zoning ordinance text amendments. Mr. Lloyd
noted that this would resolve outstanding issues with existing Setback Permit or-
dinance language and broaden the process to include other land use issues.
Associate Planner Lloyd reviewed current provisions, since 1999, of the Zoning
Ordinance, allowing the Community Development Director review and approve,
(based on certain conditions and criteria) limited encroachments into required set-
backs without requiring the homeowner to prove undue hardships if provisions of
the City Code were strictly enforced. Staff noted inconsistencies in the current
language regarding similar provisions for older properties and principal structure
encroachments, accessory structure setbacks, and driveway/parking area en-
croachments. Staff also sought administrative approval for excess impervious
coverage within certain confines and percentage ratios based on mitigation of
stormwater on the subject property, and impacts to adjacent properties and collec-
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 28, 2008
Page 11
tion systems. It was noted that the public notice and appeal process would still be
in place.
Councilmember Ihlan questioned the public notice process for this requested ac-
tion; with staff responding that it had been noticed in the newspaper to provide
city-wide notice for a zoning amendment, in addition to the normal posting and
notice to those signed up for receipt of Planning Commission agendas.
Councilmember Ihlan sought clarification on the revisions being sought; ages of
structures (20 years or older); not being proposed for new construction or struc-
tures demolished for new construction; and her preference to avoid "McMansion"
concerns when not using the footprint of existing structures.
Associate Planner Lloyd noted that the intent was to accommodate older proper-
ties encroachments in keeping with market trends and family needs; and clarified
that if a structure was demolished the new structure would be considered new
construction and would fall into a different category.
Discussion included applications to driveway setbacks and impervious coverage,
and impacts of proposed language on various types of properties; existing provi-
sions for administrative review for principle structure setbacks and/or encroach-
ments; current need for varying from impervious surface coverage by showing a
hardship; and considerations for granting variances to impervious coverage ratios.
Councilmember Roe clarified, and staff confirmed, staff's intent that language be
for "structures older than twenty (20) years," and based on "rolling time," rather
than a specific year of age to maintain relevance.
Councilmember Roe addressed additional language revisions and noted several
technical issues in the proposed ordinance. Those items included whether neces-
sary criteria for approval (page 3 and 4, lines 129 - 133) applied to all administra-
tive deviations being considered; page 2, line 73 addressing the procedure for a
setback permit needing to provide for an administrative deviation; and on page
1, line 35 of the ordinance, correct from "a," to "an. "
Councilmember Roe expressed his appreciation to staff, with the sign ordinance
and this text amendment, in their coming to the City Council with their recom-
mendations based on their experience in the practical enforcement of City Code.
Councilmember Ihlan questioned staff's rationale for only 75% or a total of 6 of
the 8 criteria needing to be met, and expressed her concern in staff, and subse-
quently the City Council upon appeal, not having the discretion for denial of
something not consistent with surrounding problems; and opined her support for
language stating that "all of the following conditions as applicable" needed to be
met. Councilmember Ihlan opined her support for limiting language to properties
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 28, 2008
Page 12
twenty (20) years or older, but expressed concern that the criteria were going to
provide for broader provisions than intended.
Further discussion ensued regarding criteria rationale, judgment, and subjective
relevancies; staff experience in their review of projects and whether those projects
met criteria, and the need for flexibility in criteria.
City Attorney Scott Anderson proposed a more flexible language revision on
pages 3 and 4, lines 129 -133, Section D, "Necessary Criteria for Approval," as
follows:
"Structure Setback Deviation: In addition to other requirements of this section, the de-
velopment review committee, in recommending approval of a structure setback deviation,
shall {consider whether the following factors] o
are present:
Councilmember Pust recognized the validity of Councilmember Ihlan's concerns
based on showing 75% of criteria being met; however, opined that the authority
was still available for denial, based on their discretion, as addressed on page 3,
line 114.
Councilmember Ihlan opined that the language still appeared to be ambiguous
Councilmember Willmus recognized some of those issues under discussion; and
expressed concern for adverse impacts to neighboring properties, specific to
drainage from additional impervious coverage.
Community Development Director Trudgeon advised that staff could work within
the suggested language proposed by City Attorney Anderson. Mr. Trudgeon
noted that previous setback requirements were for eight (8) out of twelve (12) cri-
teria being met; but couldn't address the rationale behind that percentage.
Mayor Klausing offered support of the ordinance, at the majority's consent, and
with revised language as recommended by City Attorney Anderson.
Councilmember Ihlan requested similar considerations to specific sectional ap-
proval of this ordinance, similar to that of the sign ordinance, speaking to the im-
pervious surface deviation, opining that this was a significant change to bring un-
der administrative approval, and that she didn't support making that process eas-
ier.
Mayor Klausing clarified that Councilmember Ihlan was requesting a division of
the question.
Councilmember Ihlan concurred, expressing her desire to pull out the impervious
coverage deviation (page 4, line 172), addressed in the proposed ordinance identi-
fied as "Attachment B."
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 28, 2008
Page 13
Councilmember Roe noted that such division of the question would impact a
number of areas and items in the proposed ordinance where the impervious cover-
age deviation was referenced.
Roe moved, Pust seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1372 entitled, "An Ordi-
nance Amending Selected Text of: Title 10, Chapter 1013, Conditional Use Per-
mits; Variances and Title 10, Chapter 11014, Administration;" amended as fol-
lows: Page 2, line 73 addressing the procedure for a setback permit needing to
provide for an administrative deviation; and on page 1, line 35 of the ordinance,
correct from "a," to "an; "and City Attorney Anderson's proposed language re-
vision on pages 3 and 4, lines 129 -133, Section D, "Necessary Criteria for Ap-
proval," as follows: "Structure Setback Deviation: In addition to other requirements
of this section, the development review committee, in recommending approval of a struc-
ture setback deviation, shall {consider whether the following factors] f""~ +"~• ~ ^~' '
° are present:
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Pust; Willmus; and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan.
Motion carried.
Councilmember Ihlan noted that she would then have to vote in opposition to the
motion, as stated, in her desire to preserve green space and to not encourage addi-
tionalpavement, and to recognize improving technologies to deal with stormwater
runoff, rather than allowing for routine deviation.
Mayor Klausing duly noted Councilmember Ihlan's position.
Councihnember Roe recognized and concurred with Councilmember Ihlan's con-
cerns regarding impervious surface deviations. However, Councilmember Roe
opined that the proposed ordinance language was intended to deal with small
properties, and that the city also includes large properties that didn't
come close to thirty percent (30%) impervious surface coverage, and provided a
reasonable allowance with stormwater mitigation.
Roe moved, Pust seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1372 entitled,
"An Ordinance Summary for Amendments to Title 10 (Zoning) of the Roseville
City Code."
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Pust; Willmus; Ihlan and Klausing.
Nays: None.
11. Public Hearings
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 28, 2008
Page 14
a. Public Hearing and Adoption of a Resolution to Acknowledge the Expendi-
ture of Tax-Exempt Funds for Northwestern College
Finance Director Chris Miller briefly reviewed the request for the City to pledge
their bond issuance authority to non-profit groups, as requested by Northwestern
College, and for the required public hearing provisions.
Mayor Klausing opened the Public Hearing at 7:35 p.m
Councilmember Ihlan questioned whether it was Northwestern College's intent
that the former Edina Realty building would become tax exempt upon acquisition
by Northwestern College and through their proposed use of these funds.
Doug Schroeder, Chief Financial Officer at Northwestern College
Mr. Schroeder advised that the College had applied for tax exemption upon cur-
rent tenants being relocated, anticipated on or around May 1, 2009.
Councilmember Ihlan provided information on estimated taxes and subsequent
impacts to the Roseville tax base based on her research of Ramsey County tax re-
cords.
Councilmember Pust clarified that Northwestern College had already purchased
the building, currently used for commercial purposes, and that whether the City
Council acted on tonight's request, once it was no longer used for commercial
purposes, it could become tax exempt. Councilmember Pust further clarified that
the City of Roseville had no jurisdiction on state and federal legislation identify-
ing those properties that could apply for tax exempt status.
Councilmember Ihlan suggested that a condition of future or ongoing land use ap-
provals be that tax exempt status not be a given.
City Attorney Anderson advised that, without further research, he could not
comment on whether a land use application could include such a condition.
Mayor Klausing clarified that this was not the issue currently before the City
Council.
Public Comment
Tam McGehee, 77 Mid Oaks Lane
Ms. McGehee had provided a bench handout, referenced earlier in tonight's meet-
ing and addressing several issues on tonight's agenda (Northwestern College re-
quest; Skating Center, Rainbow Foods, and Zoning Code changes).
Ms. McGehee opined that the City had bent over backwards to accommodate
campus expansion for the College, and in the past had "handed over" three
apartment buildings on Snelling that are no longer in the City's tax base, in addi-
tion to the loss of a restaurant and car dealership for construction of the KTIS Ra-
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 28, 2008
Page 15
dio Station affiliated with Northwestern College, along with other apartment
buildings. Ms. McGehee further opined that the College continued to encroach
off-campus with continuing removal of properties from the City's tax base. Ms.
McGee opined that the City needed to find a way to address these issues, whether
through Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) or other ways for the College to com-
pensate the City for services provided.
Mayor Klausing asked that City Attorney Anderson look into what options were
available to the City for compensation of services rendered for tax exempt entities
and properties, and to report back to the City Council at a future date.
Mayor Klausing noted that the state and federal governments set policy on tax ex-
empt status for certain uses.
Ms. McGehee questioned whether Northwestern College was an educational or
business use.
Councilmember Pust noted that the City was still in discussions with Northwest-
ern College regarding payments in lieu of taxes for infrastructure services, and
that this was an additional discussion point.
Mayor Klausing closed the Public Hearing at 7:42 p.m.
Councilmember Roe sought confirmation from Finance Director Miller on the
City's commercial tax base, which Mr. Miller estimated at $4.5 billion, with sig-
nificant annual growth.
Klausing moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10645 entitled,
"Resolution of the City Council of the City of Roseville, MN, Approving the Is-
suance for Colorado Educational and Cultural Facilities Authority Revenue Bonds
in a Maximum Aggregate Principal Amount of $9,000,000 for the Purposes of Fi-
nancing and Refinancing the Costs of Acquisition, Construction, Improvement,
Renovation and Equipping of Certain Facilities and Certain Other Matters relating
Thereto."
Councilmember Ihlan noted that the resolution before the City Council was to ap-
prove Colorado Revenue Bonds, expressing her frustration that a government en-
tity in Colorado was issuing revenue bonds to benefit Northwestern College,
when it was located in Minnesota, further diminishing the City's tax base without
consultation or prior consent of the City of Roseville. Councilmember Ihlan
spoke in opposition to the motion; and strongly advocated that the City Council
be more proactive in reducing its loss of tax revenues when public entities buy up
private property, while continuing to incur additional infrastructure, program and
service costs to the City.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 28, 2008
Page 16
Councilmember Pust noted that the state legislature was currently looking at a one
year trial to remove all property tax exemptions from non profit entities across the
state, whether it was determined to be a good thing or not.
Councilmember Roe expressed concern with the notion of penalizing institutions
that others had decided were tax exempt for their activities in the community,
while at the same time the City was attempting to dictate what developers could
do in enhancing the City's tax base by limiting their expansions. Councilmember
Roe noted that, if the federal and/or state legislature removed exempt status, it
would impact the City's tax base as well; and opined that there must have been a
greater good determined by other government agencies in determining exempt
status for certain uses. Councilmember Roe further opined that a property's tax
status could change whether this bond issue was approved or not.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Pust; Willmus; and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan.
Motion carried.
12.
Business Items (Action Items, continued)
b. Consider Presbyterian Homes Request for a General Concept Planned Unit
Development to expand their office building at 2845 Hamline Avenue (PF08-
024)
Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed the request of Presbyterian Homes and
Services for approval of a General Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) to
construct an addition of approximately 27,000 square feet to their existing office
building at the corner of Hamline Avenue and Centennial Drive, as detailed in the
staff report dated July 28, 2008.
Mr. Lloyd noted revised conditions based on Planning Commission recommenda-
tions, outlined in Section 10.2, condition f regarding future 10 foot building set-
back from the southern property line, as negotiated by the City Attorney and the
applicant.
Discussion included location of the trash enclosure and access for garbage collec-
tion vehicles without encroaching on Hamline Avenue and based on Ramsey
County-approved curb cuts for an approach area in the proposed building expan-
sion area; size of garbage trucks at 37' long and their ability to access the site with
the interior turnaround; inability to find research on a cross parking agreement be-
tween the office and shopping center prior to ownership by Presbyterian Homes;
and intent for cross parking agreements to be recorded against the office and
shopping center properties, as well as with Roseville Covenant Church across
Centennial Drive that would supersede any previous agreements and follow the
property.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 28, 2008
Page 17
Further discussion included Planning Commission rationale for including a condi-
tion not allowing for patient care on site and need for applicable licensing for any
expanded or future uses; and significant and different traffic demands if patient
care were a use in that area.
Applicant, Valerie Alt, owner representative of Presbyterian Homes
Ms. Alt advised that the Planning Commission had been assured that this building
was intended for use as a corporate office for administrative purposes only; and
noted that any patient care would need to be addressed through state and federal
licensing regulations.
By consensus, Councilmembers supported removing that condition.
Councilmember Roe sought additional background information and questioned
rationale for condition g. in Section 10.0 of the staff report, indicating that the
property shall remain on the property tax rolls.
Associate Planner Lloyd advised that, upon counsel from City Attorney Jay
Squires, at best it was improper to condition land use approval on something that
was fiscal in nature; and since the Planning Commission recommendation, staff
was suggesting that such a condition not be applied, as noted in Section 9.3 of the
staff report.
City Attorney Anderson opined that such a condition seemed to place an unfair
restriction on future property use.
Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of Presbyterian Home's intent to not seek
tax exempt status of the property. However, Councilmember Ihlan opined that, if
this was not an enforceable condition, that another alternative, such as negotiating
PILOT, would indicate a commitment from Presbyterian Homes to the City for
reassurance.
City Planner Thomas Paschke noted that, by law, at this time, based on the in-
tended function and use of the property, Presbyterian Homes was not able to make
this property tax exempt.
Mayor Klausing expressed his unease with continued discussions on limiting enti-
ties that enjoy tax exempt status from doing so, when federal and state statutes
provided for that status. Mayor Klausing opined that the City needed to accept
that status, and not attempt to circumvent the law. Mayor Klausing clarified that
what was currently before the Council was a land use application, and that there
was no basis to deny the land use designation and application, for Concept PUD
approval with revised conditions.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 28, 2008
Page 18
Councilmember Pust noted that this was the second discussion tonight on tax ex-
empt property status, and the basis for denying requested actions based on that
status. Councilmember Pust opined that the exempt status of these entities was a
recognition that they did good things in the community, and was a way to encour-
age those entities (i.e., schools, churches, and other non profits) to do things that
government would otherwise have to do. Councilmember Pust further opined
that, while their status was currently under consideration in the state, given legal
counsel advice by the City Attorney, it was evident that conditioning approval
was not appropriate at this time.
Councilmember Roe opined that, in tonight's action for a PUD, the zoning sur-
vived property ownership, and expressed concern in putting such a fiscal condi-
tion on a land use application.
Klausing moved, Pust seconded, approval of the General Concept Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for Presbyterian Homes and Services, allowing the proposed
office expansion at 2845 Hamline Avenue; based on the comments and findings
of Sections 5 - 9; and the revised conditions of Section 10 of the project report
dated July 28, 2008; amended to exclude Subparagraph a in Section 10.1 of the
staff report.
Further discussion ensued regarding access for garbage service vehicles on Ham-
line Avenue and whether to include as a condition.
Ron Swenson, Architect for Presbyterian Homes
Mr. Swenson addressed discussions during the planning process with their trash
provider, confirming that the front-loading trucks were 37' in length. Mr.
Swenson noted that the service company had indicated their proposed strategy to
provide roll-out pick up, with the trash canister physically rolled out from the
building to the internal T-intersection on the property, and using the wider curb
cut to allow for a turning radius for the vehicle, without any backing necessary.
Councilmember Willmus asked the applicant if they were receptive to make ap-
proval conditioned upon no backing onto Hamline Avenue.
Ms. Alt responded affirmatively.
Mayor Klausing opined that this appeared to be more of a traffic issue, rather than
a design standard for a PUD.
Councilmember Willmus cited a similar example, and traffic issues created by
backing out onto a main roadway.
Associate Planner Lloyd suggested that a condition of approval could be that trash
access not be required to back up on Hamline Avenue.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 28, 2008
Page 19
City Attorney Anderson concurred with making such a condition, based on safety
concerns and falling within the realm of public health, safety and welfare.
Suggested language for the new condition under Section 10.1 was as follows:
"The access for trash disposal shall be designed in such a manner so that it does
not require vehicles to back into Hamline Avenue."
Pust moved, Klausing seconded, accepting the suggested language amendment as
anew condition to Section 10.1 as proposed by the City Attorney, reading as fol-
lows:
"The access for trash disposal shall be designed in such a manner so that it does
not require vehicles to back into Hamline Avenue."
Roll Call [Amendment]
Ayes: Roe; Pust; Willmus; Ihlan and Klausing.
Nays: None.
Councilmember Ihlan clarified her position that she was open to negotiation under
any PUD Agreement for tax exempt applicants, that language be included for
payment for basic city services; and that such negotiations had nothing to do with
the mission of anon-profit; opining that many taxable organizations also provided
great benefits and accountability in the community.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Pust; Willmus; Ihlan and Klausing.
Nays: None.
e. Consider Approving Tax Base Revitalization Account Contract and Memo-
randum of Understanding Between the City and Cent Ventures
Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon reviewed the request as de-
tailed in the staff report dated July 28, 2008; and announced the award of
$189,000 to the City from the Metropolitan Council through its Tax Base Revi-
talization Account (TBRA) grant on behalf of Cent Ventures' proposed redevel-
opment project on the Xtra Lease and Old Dominion sties in the Twin Lakes pro-
ject area. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the Xtra Lease property was for abatement,
and the Old Dominion was for demolition, with both based on asbestos deter-
mined to be in the buildings. Mr. Trudgeon further noted that this was an advan-
tage to the City, as it removed some pressure for additional Tax Increment Fi-
nancing (TIF) needs for that property.
Discussion included whether the grant would be sufficient for all environmental
clean up on those properties, with staff responding that it would not be sufficient
for all soil corrections and total clean up, but would allow for those items more
immediately visible.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 28, 2008
Page 20
Further discussion included staff's role and financial impacts to the City for their
oversight roles, and whether that administration would be eligible for grant funds,
with staff again responding negatively that there was no such mechanism in these
grant funds, but that administrative costs could be captured in relation to any TIF
fees.
Community Development Director Trudgeon advised that he was proposing, in
his department's 2009 budget requests, that escrow accounts for developers be put
in place to allow for staff's billable time.
Councilmember Pust spoke in support of such a provision.
Further discussion included soil vapors and stipulation for a barrier.
Tam McGehee
Ms. McGehee shared personal historic information and environmental work re-
garding the TCE and its vapor issues and its toxicity and the need for the vapor
barrier in place.
Councilmember Ihlan questioned if the City had access to Cent Ventures' envi-
ronmental studies, and whether the City had a copy that they could keep.
Mr. Trudgeon noted that in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), page 2,
line 6, Section 6 provided for the City to receive copies of all environmental
documents and reports.
Klausing moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of grant contracts between the City of
Roseville and the Metropolitan Council for $189,000 in Tax Base Revitalization
Account (TBRA) Grant Funds.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Pust; Willmus; Ihlan and Klausing.
Nays: None.
Klausing moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of a Memorandum of Understanding
between the City of Roseville and Cent Ventures, identifying the responsibilities
and expectations of the City and Cent Ventures pertinent to the implementation of
the Tax Base Revitalization Account (TBRA) Grant Funds.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe; Pust; Willmus; Ihlan and Klausing.
Nays: None.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 28, 2008
Page 21
f. Consider amending City Code, Chapter 302.13, Off-Sale Liquor License Re-
quirements, for Roundy's ((Rainbow Foods)
Finance Director Chris Miller provided two bench handouts of last minute a-mail
correspondence from Mr. Rod Olson and from Jane and Bill Cross regarding this
matter.
Finance Director Chris Miller briefly reviewed the request of Roundy's Super-
markets, Inc., for anoff--sale liquor license for their new grocery store at 1201 W
Larpenteur Avenue, as detailed in the staff report dated July 28, 2008. Mr. Miller
advised that staff had prepared public policy discussion points, but that staff was
making no recommendation.
Councilmember Ihlan noted that when this issue had come before the City Coun-
cil in February of 2008, a comparison chart of other cities and their off- and on-
sale license rationales and restrictions was included, with some communities bas-
ing their restrictions on per capita and geographic locations. Councilmember Ih-
lan asked that a copy of that information again be made available to the City
Council for this policy discussion, not specific to the Roundy's request.
Dan Farrel, Vice President of Real Estate for Roundy's
Mr. Farrel provided a brief history of the Roundy's project since 2005, delays in
their original timeframe, interaction with the City throughout the rezoning and
PUD process, and their corporate views and business model in requesting this ad-
ditional liquor license be made available.
Mr. Farrel respectfully requested that the City Council consider Roundy's status
as a good corporate citizen, and issue an 11th off-sale liquor license.
Max Stickman, Real Estate Manager for Roundy's
Mr. Stickman reviewed Roundy's policies and procedures for consideration of
public goodwill in operating liquor stores; their history in operations and what the
liquor store would look like, based on similar stores in Woodbury and Brooklyn
Park, and based on a one-stop option for their clientele, not as a destination for
liquor and spirits. Mr. Stickman advised that it was Roundy's policy that every-
one, regardless of age, was carded; and assured Councilmembers that they took
their responsibility to the community very seriously; and noted that the store was
planned from its inception for separated sale of liquor, with appropriate signage.
Mr. Stickman referenced some of the a-mails provided as public comment in the
agenda packet, and their concern for existing liquor stores not needing additional
competition, in addition to concerns about public policy. Mr. Stickman opined
that singling out liquor stores as one business entity as a protected class from
competition, and attempts to restrain trade were not indicative of the City's origi-
nal liquor ordinance intents.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 28, 2008
Page 22
Councilmember Roe clarified that tonight's requested action was not in consider-
ing anadditional application; but whether to consider having a hearing on the
City's existing ordinance, and limitations for 10 off-sale liquor licenses, all of
which have been issued.
Public Comments
Steve Burwell, 2482 Albert Street; owner for 23 years of family-owned Fair-
view Wine & Spirits
Mr. Burwell reviewed his historical perspective from the October 1983 City
Council meeting when the then-seated Council decided to issue up to 10 off-sale
liquor licenses. Mr. Burwell expressed his surprise at that action, but based on
that action and the competition based on clean operations, his firm and other in-
dependent retailers had made commitments to banks, employees, landlords and
suppliers. Mr. Burwell noted that, with nine independents and one corporate
store, now 23 years later, consideration was being given to changing the rules and
issuing more licenses.
Mr. Burwell opined that market forces should work as they're intended to do; and
that if Roundy's would like a liquor license for that location, they buy out an ex-
isting operation and transfer that license. Mr. Burwell noted that there was a dis-
tinct difference in off-sale liquor license restrictions, who were not allowed to sell
anything but those alcoholic beverages, and that of food businesses and the many
options available to them. Mr. Burwell spoke to industry regulations, with restric-
tions on size, hours, locations, compliance, checks, and clientele restrictions; and
expressed his concern that if the ordinance was amended to allow Roundy's to
have a liquor license, it could encourage other retailers to do so (i.e., Target,
SuperValu, and SuperAmerica), some of whom have expressed an interest in the
past in obtaining anoff--sale license. Mr. Burwell questioned where that left the
independent retailer in the City of Roseville.
Mr. Burwell indicated that he was not worried about competition, as long as the
limit was 10 licensees; and opined that he was not opposed to Roundy's having a
liquor license, as long as they purchased that license from a current licensee. Mr.
Burwell opined that a ramification of issuing another license would be that there
would be closures of existing independent operators.
In response to Councilmember Roe and from Mr. Burwell's historical perspective,
Mr. Burwell indicated that it had taken 23 years to fill the 10 licenses, with the fi-
nal one being issued just this year for a firm on Snelling Avenue.
Tam McGehee
Ms. McGehee referred to her previously-mentioned a-mail correspondence, and
spoke in opposition to having liquor sold in grocery stores for personal and social
reasons. Ms. McGee noted that there were two independent liquor stores within
walking distance of Roundy's (MGM and Cellars), even though not in the City of
Roseville, but located across Larpenteur Avenue in St. Paul, and opined that the
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 28, 2008
Page 23
City should support small and independent businesses as well, and that 10 li-
censes were more than sufficient based on the City's population.
Discussion included exposing children to alcohol during grocery shopping; im-
pacts of additional licenses to smaller, independent businesses; and how the num-
ber of 10 licenses was originally determined, with no firm information available.
Councilmember Ihlan noted that this was the third time this issue had come before
the City Council for discussion during her tenure, and opined that she would need
to be convinced that there was a good public policy reason to increase the number
of licenses. Councilmember Ihlan opined that she found no compelling reason in
amending the law, or in having a hearing; and expressed her discomfort in having
Rainbow make application when there was no license currently available; and
questioned whether this was a policy discussion, or a way to specifically accom-
modate Roundy's request.
Mayor Klausing opined that he would like to have a hearing on the matter; noting
that previous discussions had come up in the context of Twin Lakes development,
which had muddied the discussion. Mayor Klausing further opined that he could
not understand the public policy reasons in limiting the marketplace and why the
number of licenses should not be lifted, noting the number of ways the industry
was regulated outside of the number of licenses issued, but through compliance
and license enforcement. Mayor Klausing noted that it had taken 23 years to
reach the 10 available license limit, and didn't anticipate a rush of applications if
the number was raised; and opined that competition was good and benefited con-
sumers; and that while independents couldn't compete with chains and their vol-
ume pricing, they could compete in quality of and personalized service.
Councilmember Willmus opined that, at some point, there needed to be a policy
discussion; at a minimum to determine if 10 licenses were the appropriate number
for the City.
Councilmember Roe opined that, if the purpose of a public hearing was for the
narrow focus of whether to add one more license he was not interested in holding
a hearing. However, Councilmember Roe expressed interest in a broader discus-
sion of anon-defined area of the ordinance he would consider a mechanism to
hold such a discussion. Councilmember Roe opined that the City Council had a
role in the regulation of liquor establishments under concerns for the health,
safety and welfare of the community; but opined that he was less convinced by
competition and protecting current businesses, or using City ordinance to restrict
businesses; and opined that that there was a need to come up with criteria as to
why the number and location of licenses was limited.
Mayor Klausing concurred that, while there was only one particular applicant re-
questing alicense, and the only way to grant the request would be to amend code,
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 28, 2008
Page 24
thus creating the need to hold a hearing for that specific request. However, Mayor
Klausing suggested that the discussion be held on a broader realm in considera-
tion of the health, safety and welfare underpinnings, and rationale for whether the
ordinance should be amended for another 1-2 licenses.
Councilmember Pust opined that tonight's discussion was public; and expressed
her willingness to have that discussion at this time. Councilmember Pust opined
that, while not having the materials previously referenced by Councilmember Ih-
lan on other community comparisons and their regulation criteria, she recalled
that 10 was a high average based on population, and opined that since it took 23
years to reach 10 licenses, she didn't find any particular reason to increase to 11
or 12 licenses. Councilmember Pust opined that her perception is that the market
was making the rules, and that an applicant interested in obtaining a license
should buy one from an existing licensee. Councilmember Pust opined that in this
highly-regulated industry, it provided some social good, but also created a lot of
public harm, and its regulation was justified throughout the country.
Mayor Klausing expressed his personal interest in further discussions of this is-
sue.
No action taken.
13. Business Items -Presentations, Discussions
a. Ordinance Amending Section 103.06, Filling A Council Vacancy
City Councilmember Dan Roe reviewed proposed draft ordinance language to
change the City's special election provision to broaden its use to cover any type of
vacancy, rather than the current limitation to cases when a Councilmember as-
sumed anincompatible office.
Councilmembers referenced agenda packet materials and correspondence, as well
as public comment received to-date.
Discussion included what was being attempted for correction in the proposed or-
dinance language for election of Councilmembers by the electorate rather than
appointed by elected officials; timing for special elections and representing the
will of citizens; voter turnout based on timing of special elections; reasonable
campaign lengths; and consideration of alternate language as proposed in written
comment from Councilmember Ihlan included in the packet materials.
Councilmembers Pust and Willmus spoke in support of Councilmember Roe's
proposed language in general.
Roe moved, Pust seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1373 entitled, "An Ordi-
nance Amending Title 1, Section 103.06, Filling A Council Vacancy."
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 28, 2008
Page 25
Mayor Klausing questioned proposed language based on timing of a Special Elec-
tion, and where taxpayers were getting $20,000 worth of service with this lan-
guage.
Ihlan moved to amend proposed ordinance language in both paragraphs A and B
to include the office of Mayor as well as City Councilmember vacancies, for the
purpose of clarity.
Makers of the motion, Roe and Pust, accepted the proposed language revision as a
friendly amendment.
Ihlan moved, Klausing seconded, to amend proposed ordinance language to strike
the last sentence of Paragraph B addressing "No special primary election shall oc-
cur in cases of special elections held pursuant to this section;" and to substitute,
Special election shall include special primary if required under Roseville City
Code, Section 103.06b.
Ayes: lhlan and Klausing.
Nays: Roe; Pust; and Willmus.
Motion failed
Roll Call
Roll Call [Original motion, including friendly amendment]
Ayes: Roe; Pust; Willmus; and Ihlan.
Nays: Klausing.
Motion carried.
12. City Manager Future Agenda Review
Finance Director Miller briefly reviewed upcoming Council agendas.
Mayor Klausing questioned Councilmembers on their preferred ranking or selection of
applicants for various advisory commission vacancies. Discussion ensued regarding the
selection and ranking process, with no clear consensus reached.
15. Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
None.
16. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 9:43 p.m.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 28, 2008
Page 26
ATTEST:
C ig D. Klausing, Mayor
Christopher .Miller, Finance Director
~-eh~ +~-u~de~
~~a8~oa
Margaret Driscoll
From: Support@civicplus.com
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 3:47 PM
To: *RVCouncil; Margaret Driscoll; Bill Malinen
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council
The following form was submitted via your website: Contact City Council
Subject: Liquor licenses
Name:: Rod Olson
Address:: 1649 Co Rd C West
City:: Roseville
State: MN
Zip:: 55113
How would you prefer to be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact
information.: No Reply Necessary
Home Phone Number::
Daytime Phone Number:: 651-636-4404
Email Address:: cellars rosevill@thecellars.com
Please Share Your Comment, Question or Concern: Hello,
I understand that it is going to again be discussed this evening about increasing the
number of liquor licenses in Roseville and I would like to express my concern that this is
not a needed or economically healthy development. I understand that Rainbow is behind
this movement as they failed to secure a license when there was one available for a year
plus and somebody else grabbed it up. By going to unlimited licenses, I can bet that
Cub and Super Target will follow suit on opening up liquor stores in the near future. At
that rate, we would have 3 liquor stores on Lexington and Larpenteur and 3 stores on the
corners of Co Rd B and Snelling. The number of liquor stores in the metro has gone from
220 ten years ago to 480+ currently and the population of the Twin Cities metro has not
come close to doubling. At this time we have in Roseville the second most amount of
stores per capita after Bloomington. At some point I think there needs to be a limit and
now is a good
time to draw the line. The fact that Rainbow missed their opportunity to lock down a
license should not make it so the rest of us have to pay for their mistake. Please
consider leaving the number of licenses where it is currently. I appreciate your time on
this issue.
Sincerely,
Rod Olson (manager)
The Cellars Wines and Spirits
1649 Co Rd C West
Roseville, MN
Additional Information:
Form submitted on: 7/28/2008 3:47:03 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 75.161.182.192
Form Address: http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/forms.asp?FID=115
1
OlU ~-~
~~ ~~ 08
Margaret Driscoll
From: Support@civicplus.com
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 3:22 PM
To: *RVCouncil; Margaret Driscoll; Bill Malinen
Subject: Liquor Licenses/Cross Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council
The following form was submitted via your website: Contact City Council
Subject: Council Action Item 12.f Amending City Code Off-sale Liquor License
Name:: Jane & Bill Cross
Address:: 2727 Lexington Ave. N
City:: Roseville
State: MN
Zip:: 55113
How would you prefer to be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact
information.: Email
Home Phone Number:: 763-717-6877
Daytime Phone Number:: 763-458-6744
Email Address:: clerkjanec~msn.com
Please Share Your Comment, Question or Concern: Dear Council Members:
Included in this COMMENT is correspondence related to Councils' hearing on considering
additional off-sale licenses in February 2008. We also went through this process back in
November 2005 when the Twin Lakes development was considering Costco's request for an off-
sale liquor license. My attached comments are in response to Mr. Chris Miller's item from
the February 2008 agenda item.
Tonight's (7/28/08) discussion regarding Roundy's dba Rainbow Foods is no different than
Costco when it comes to adding another off-sale license to the mix when the city is
already at its limit of ten licenses.
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING FROM FEBRUARY 2008 TO UNDERSTAND THAT OFF-SALE LICENSES ARE MUCH
DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER LIQUOR LICENSE OR OTHER TYPES OF CITY OR COUNTY OR STATE ISSUED
LICENSES. I have also attached Mr. .Miller's response. Keep in mind Mr. Miller did not
"give" or "approve" us for an "additional" license in 2003 - it was a "recommendation" for
which we met all qualifications - we purchased a pre-existing license in 2003 that was
already within the limit of ten licenses.
I have also included after my original letter to Mr. Miller a copy of Mr. Miller's
response for your information. I apologize for the length of this information but it is
all included to give the newest members of this Council a better background on this item.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
----------------------------------------------------
MY LETTER TO CHRIS MILLER, FINANCE DIRECTOR DATED 2/23/08
February 23, 2008
Chris Miller
Finance Director
City of Roseville
2660 Civic Center Dr.
Roseville MN 55113
1
RE: Agenda Item No. 12.b
Consider Amending City Code Chapter 302.13; Off-sale Liquor License Requirements
Dear Mr. Miller:
I received an email from the city yesterday stating that you are bringing an item before
the Roseville City Council to consider amending the city code relative to off-sale liquor
licenses.
It is with great regret that my husband and I will not be available to attend Monday
night's meeting so I will share with you our feelings on this agenda item. As I read
through your "Request for Council Action" I found many areas of your staff report to
contain ambiguous statements and vague statistics. Let me enlighten you to some of those
ambiguities.
First beginning with line 26 of your item, it states that there are "some potential
conflicts with regard to allowing an open and free marketplace, fostering investment in
the community, attracting retailers that serve unmet demands, and the health, safety, and
welfare of the citizens." There are currently 10 off-sale licenses in Roseville, with
only one of the licenses being available to issue. How can a community of only 33,000 to
34,000 residents need more than 10 off-sale liquor stores? How can you say that the
demands for liquor are unmet? Do you think that the current off-sale license holders in
Roseville have not invested in their community? Our particular store has been in business
in Roseville at the same location since 1991 and the original owner was in business
elsewhere in Roseville before moving into the current location.
In line'29 you state that "because we have multiple suitors vying for the last remaining
license, it appears inevitable that the Council will have to deny one or more future
applicants - conceivably one that might be highly desired." Does this mean that a big box
store is more "highly desired" over a small business? I think it appears on the outside
to be a bit discriminating in just that statement alone.
In line 33 you state "the Council is advised to consider this potential dilemma prior to
issuing the final license." Why is this a dilemma - because you would rather have the big
box store get the last license before the small business person? It should be a first-
come, first-serve basis and there would be no "dilemma" for anyone. Whichever applicant
has all their "ducks in a row" first, meaning they have a viable, properly zoned location,
the application completed, contingent leases ready to go, if applicable, pending
insurance, and gets it submitted to the city for consideration - they should be the one
considered for the available license, not the applicant who appears to be the most
"desirable" to Council. Liquor is liquor and saying one or the other can or cannot meet
the unmet demands is absurd.
In line 44 you gave "possible" reasons for Roseville setting the maximum of 10 off-sale
licenses. Although it is true that state statue allows cities to regulate or set the
number of off-sale liquor licenses, most cities use good socio and economic prudence in
setting the number of licenses to be issued. Even back in 1984 when the sitting Council
established a maximum of 10 licenses, it was perhaps a bit overzealous but it only states
a maximum of 10 licenses. No where does it state the Council must issue all 10 licenses.
There is no way that Roseville had 10 liquor stores back in 1984 - in fact if there were
any off-sale stores at all, they were probably municipally owned. One of the current off-
sale license holders today is the same person who received the first "privately" issued
off-sale license in Roseville in 1984 after Ordinance No. 956 was enacted. He made a
major investment in his business based upon the fact that there would not be more than 10
licenses ever i
ssued. My husband and I made that same major, life-changing investment almost 5 years
ago under that same pretense of a maximum of 10 licenses.
In line 56 you refer back to the public hearing in November 2005 where "prospective
retailers who were considering establishing a retail presence in Roseville that would
include alcoholic beverages in addition to other product lines." Let me tell you
something related to state law that governs off-sale liquor licenses. You cannot sell
other "product lines" in an off-sale liquor store other than items related specifically to
the sale of liquor such as corkscrews, shot glasses, can coolers, olives, mixes such as
bloody Mary mix and soda. The only non-alcohol related item we can offer for sale in an
off-sale liquor store is cigarettes/tobacco products. Off-sale liquor licensees cannot,
and I repeat, CANNOT, sell "other product" lines that are not directly related to liquor.
2
For example, we cannot sell candy, gum, mints, chips, beef sticks, milk, bread, eggs,
.meat, vegetables, or any other grocery product - it is strictly alcohol related products.
The retailer who was looki
ng to make its presence in Roseville at that time was Costco at the Twin Lakes
Development project. They were a big box store with lots of backing and they would have
had to have a separate off-sale liquor store from their main store. If the Twin Lakes
Development had not already had such a stormy relationship with the citizens of Roseville,
it probably would have succeeded in amending the code at that time but instead it backed
off and Council took no further action relative to adding off-sale liquor licenses.
In line 64 you state "The city of Roseville has over 60 establishments that sell alcoholic
beverages under five different license categories." Do you realize that those
establishments are related to either on-sale liquor or on-sale 3.2~ malt beverage licenses
in conjunction with a restaurant or off-sale 3.2~ malt beverages (such as issued to gas
stations and convenience stores)? Those types of establishments can also sell other items
that are not related to just the sale of alcoholic beverages. They are not held to the
same standard, limit or regulation by the state as off-sale license holders are held.
In line 68 you state "With the exception of lawful gambling licenses, off-sale liquor
licenses appear to be the only other locally-regulated business type that carries
restrictions on the number of allowable licenses." Why do you limit the number of
gambling licenses? Is it because it is highly regulated by the state the same as off-sale
liquor licenses? Remember, the state issues a license form for all off-sale licenses
(yellow), on-sale wine licenses (green) and fraternal clubs such as VFW's (blue) that has
to be signed off by the city and then the state. The city does not have the exclusive
right to approving an off-sale liquor license, on-sale wine license or club license
without the state director's approval and signature. You do not have to have that same
approval from the state for on-sale liquor licenses, on-sale 3.2~ malt beverages, off-sale
3.2~ malt beverages, etc. There is still a difference in how off-sale liquor and on-sale
liquor licensing is regulated b
y the state. It was only back in 2005 that the legislature lifted the number of on-sale
liquor licenses a city could issue so long as they are issued to a restaurant, bowling
alley, hotel, etc. but the state still regulates the number issued for "bars only" based
upon the cities classification. I believe Roseville is limited, as a city of the second
class, to 18 on-sale licenses for bars only.
In line 70 you state "There are no locally-imposed restrictions on the number of on-sale
and other types of liquor licenses, tobacco sales, lottery ticket sales, massage parlors,
gasoline stations, etc." Again you fail to mention that these types of businesses do not
have limits on what types of products they can sell or services they can or may offer.
For example, pretty much any business who wants a tobacco license can apply for and get
one. The same goes for lottery ticket sales which are not a competitive market item.
Gasoline is a product that the majority of the adult population needs to purchase for
every day use to get to work, school or travel in general - liquor is not a necessity, it
has a limited market because of age restrictions and not everyone purchases it for
personal reasons. Unless you have an intimate knowledge of the liquor business you cannot
fully understand the marketing differences between the various on-sale liquor businesses
and the off-sale li
quor businesses. To convey information to the general public and to your public
officials without that specific knowledge would be very misleading as well as unfortunate.
Perhaps Roseville should look at limiting their on-sale liquor licenses as well so that
the current restaurants that hold licenses do not have to worry about struggling in the
future, if they are not already.
In line 73 you mention a recent survey of 10 metro cities. You did not give any specific
cities or their actual population. I have included with this letter statistics that I
gathered in early 2004 regarding the number of off-sale licenses issued in many metro
cities in addition to some other major non-metro cities along with any restrictions they
may have on the number issued. I will take another survey in the next couple of weeks to
get any updates that may apply. I would venture to guess that Roseville has the highest
number of off-sale liquor licenses per capita of any city in the metro, if not in the
entire state. Roseville's having bragging rights to the highest percentage of retail per
capita in the state is one thing, but the bragging rights to the highest number of alcohol
outlets is another thing. Just ask MADD or law enforcement about that statistic.
Furthermore, there is no public outcry for more off-sale liquor stores in Roseville. If
you have received letters of request or concerns from residents of Roseville asking for
3
more off-sale liquor outlets, please forward copies of the letters to me as well as the
other 8 current off-sale license holders in the city. We would be interested in knowing
which area of Roseville the residents fall short of access to alcohol. If there is such
an area, then that is where the 10th license should be issued, not to Rainbow, which is
directly across the street from MGM Liquor and a stone's throw away from Cellar's on
Larpenteur Avenue.
If you are receiving requests for additional off-sale licenses from perspective developers
for their property, then you must consider how much of the money from that business will
remain in your city and community. Many big box stores are large corporations that filter
the majority of their profits out of state. Only their employees earn money that "might"
stay in the community but more so in the community where they live. Not that many people
that work in Roseville live in Roseville, in fact, Roseville's demographics show that its
population has decreased over the years rather than increased.
In order for the Roseville City Council to make a wise and informed decision, you need to
collect and share with them the factual data related to off-sale liquor businesses vs.
other businesses. It is like comparing apples to oranges - there is no comparison. I
could own 5 coffee shops or gas station/convenience stores, or tobacco shops, or any other
business in any one city, but by state statute I can only own one off-sale liquor store in
a municipality. That is just the beginning of the differences! After reading your staff
report you do not have accurate information to share with your public officials and your
report does not fairly represent the basic information.
In conclusion, if the City of Roseville public officials want to know more firsthand
specifics related to the off-sale liquor business, perhaps they should consider conducting
a public meeting for the current license holders in Roseville so the officials can hear
from the licensees directly. The current economy has a serious consequence on all
businesses right now, and it would not make any sense to add more off-sale liquor licenses
to Roseville's already flooded market, now or in the future.
Sincerely
Jane M. Cross, Owner
Bill Cross, Owner
Network Liquors Inc.
2727 Lexington Ave. N.
Roseville MN 55113
cc: Roseville City Council Members
Roseville City Manager
Attachment: **Off-sale Licenses Issued in Metro Cities 1/04
(**Please note I have not included this data but is is available if you are interested. It
can be updated as it is from January 2004 and I would be happy to gather more up to date
data.)
***********************************************
CHRIS MILLER'S RESPONSE TO ME DATED 2/25/08
Dear Ms. Cross, Thank you for your insight and thoughtful comments. I'm confident that
the Council will reflect on those comments as they approach their decision on this matter
tonight and in the coming weeks. Let me begin by assuring you that the Council CANNOT
change the allowable number of off-sale liquor licenses at tonight's Council meeting. The
purpose of tonight's discussion is simply to determine whether the Council is interested
in talking about it further - at a future public hearing. Let me also comment that the
Staff Report to the Council is not (and never would be) the complete book of information
that a council member would need to make an informed decision on an important matter such
as this one. In this case, the Report merely serves to briefly identify an issue that
will require Council attention - an issue that is being driven by applicants that are
already in queue. It is NOT predicated, as you suggest, as the result of some public
outcry for more liqu
or stores. Presumably, the applicants have already determined that the consumer demand
is there; hence their decision to go forward. In any event, if the Council decides to
discuss this further, I am confident that they will identify what their information needs
are in order to make their decision. Because you cannot attend tonight's meeting, you will
not have the opportunity to hear Staff address some of your concerns about the Report. As
4
such, I will respond to you directly and copy the Council so that everyone is equally
informed. First, the language attracting retailers that serve unmet demands .
" is NOT a reference to unmet liquor demands. It is a reference to retailers that meet
general customer demands. I would agree with your inference that citizens and patrons of
Roseville have ample access to liquor stores. But it is conceivable that they may not
have access to other retail products or retailers that are in demand -i.e. retailers that
offer a va
riety of unique or specialty-type product lines. There are a number of nationally-
recognized businesses that serve this niche; however, in some cases their business plan
requires an off-sale liquor license because of a particular product line or two. Absent
the ability to get a liquor license, these types of business might simply skip over
Roseville and go somewhere else. Depending on an individual's perspective, that might be
good or bad. Either way, the Council should be aware of it. You may not know that the
City does indeed have a first-come, first-serve basis when it comes to issuing liquor
licenses. The size of the retailer does not matter. The problem is that we only have one
license available but we have two applicants that will be effectively applying for that
license at the same time. Who gets the license and why? By my definition, that's a
'dilemma' and one that requires Council attention. Your letter also accurately states that
the City is not required t
o issue 10 licenses, and that we should use "good socio and economic prudence in setting
the number of licenses to be issued". The problem with that approach is that we haven't
identified what those factors should be. For what it's worth, I was the Staff person that
recommended your license approval back in 2003. I can say with certainty that I never
performed any socio-economic analysis. Nor do I recall anyone advocating for one. Please
be assured that I am fully aware of the unique State-imposed restrictions placed on off-
sale liquor establishments, and how that affects your profit margins and the ability to
leverage sales from other product lines. I am also aware of the value that your
establishment has created for Roseville. I am reasonably confident that the majority of
the Council are aware• of this as well inasmuch as Mayor Klausing, Councilmember Kough, and
Councilmember Ihlan were all on the Council at the time the previous public hearing took
place. Again I wa
nt to thank your for your letter. It does an excellent job of relating the personal side
of this issue; something that will undoubtedly resonate with the Council as it has for
City Staff. Thank you. Chris Miller Finance Director
#####################################################
FINAL COMMENT:
One of the factors this council must consider is the economic situation today is much more
difficult for businesses than it was in 2005. Even the "big box" stores are now feeling
the economic downturn. To amend the city code to add more off-sale liquor licenses just to
give another "big box" the ability to compete is not wise planning for the city in general
or for the existing businesses in the city. Where was Roundy's dba Rainbow, when the 10th
license was up for grabs this past year? If they knew they were going to remodel or
wanted to add an off-sale to their store on Larpenteur, why didn't they apply for the
license that was left before the applicant that is located over on Snelling and Hwy. 36
applied for the existing license? It would appear Roundy's doesn't plan very well or they
just assumed the Council would give them what they wanted because they are a big business
in the community. Keep in mind if you decide to amend the code for another off-sale
license, where
do you draw the line? How many is enough and who decides that? Look at what Cub Foods
Discount Liquor in Arden Hills did to the small off-sale just to the south of it in the
Frattallone Hardware shopping center. That was a case of "big box store prices along with
proximity" being the major cause of the downfall of a small business that had survived in
a location for many years.
Again Roseville is a city with a steady, if not declining, population, so to increase the
number of off-sale liquor licenses makes no sense at all. Many of the major chain
restaurants throughout the metro area, even those that hold on-sale liquor licenses, are
feeling the economic downturn and are facing difficult decisions in their businesses so to
say competition is good is probably a sore spot for all. The people that still have
unlimited expendable income when it comes to shopping and enjoying dining out are spread
out a lot thinner and all of the businesses that still exist feel the impact.
Please consider the current businesses in Roseville before you think of adding more of the
same in Roseville. The ability for existing businesses to continue to stay in business may
rest on your shoulders. Thank you for your time and consideration.
5
Regards,
Bill & Jane Cross
Network Liquors
2727 Lexington Ave. N.
Roseville MN 55113
Additional Information:
Form submitted on: 7/28/2008 3:22:11 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 66.41.49.150
Form Address: http://www.cityofroseville.com/forms asp?FID=115
6
~enCh ~bu~ ~~a8~o8
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Motion to approve the department assistant-firefighter position description for the fire
department and to authorize that position to be eligible for inclusion in Police and Fire PERA.
~~~% ~-~I
~/a~~og
Chris Miller
From: Amy Ihlan (amyihlan@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 6:02 PM
To: Chris Miller
Subject: Fwd: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council
Begin forwarded message:
From: <Support@civicplus.com>
Date: July 28, 2008 4:56:25 PM CDT
To: <city.council@ci.roseville.mn.us>, <margaret.driscoll@ci.roseville.mn.us>,
<bill.malinen@ci.roseville.mn.us>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council
The following form was submitted via your website: Contact City Council
Subject: July 28 Council Adgenda
Name:: Tam McGehee
Address:: 77 Mid Oaks Lane
City:: Roseville
State:. MN
Zip:: 55113
How would you prefer to be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information.:
Email
Home Phone Number:: 651-645-2993
Daytime Phone Number::
Email Address:: tam@mcgehee.info
Please Share Your Comment, Question or Concern: Roseville City Council,
I would like to voice my opinion on several matters before the Council this evening.
1. If anything is done for Northwestern College, they should not be able to remove the Edina building
from the tax rolls. We pay much to compensate for their traffic. Their students take jobs from Roseville
residents and Roseville students.
2. If the Skating Center needs geothermal heat, I support that. However, the patrons of the center should
bear the cost in increased fees. Those feel could be higher for non-residents, but the majority of residents do not
use the center and should not be asked to pay for this proposal.
3. Rainbow Foods has a store for groceries. There are already two liquor stores within a block of the
store. Both of those are small businesses that specialize. Rainbow should not be allowed to compete against
them in this manner.
4. There should not be an administrative process to change the zoning code. Roseville should have a
unified and specified building code. Exceptions may be granted, as they are now, if a hardship is identified and
there is not significant neighborhood objection. Setback should not be violated in the way proposed. Three feet
is insufficient and inappropriate access for many activities.
Tam McGehee
Additional Information:
Form submitted on: 7/28/2008 4:56:24 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 71.37.242.194
Form Address: http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/forms.asp?FID=115