View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2016
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order:
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and
City Attorney Erich Hartman were also present.
2. Pledge of
3. Approve Agenda
McGehee seconded, approval of the agenda as presented.
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Mayor Roe advised
that the City Council would recess as the City Council at this time and
reconvene as the Roseville Board of Adjustments and Appeals; and sought a
motion to that affect.
Etten seconded, recessing the City Council meeting at approximately 6:04 p.m.
and convening as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee, and Roe
Adjustments and Appeals for the City of Roseville
Chair Roe reviewed the procedure
and tonight's process for consideration of the appeal of Vogel Mechanical of
Administrative Decision based on City Council direction denying their request
to move the location of the fence as conditioned for approval of the Interim
Use. Chair Roe noted that staff had received the request to appeal dated
November 27, 2015 (Attachment D), of that administrative decision in accordance
with Section 1009.08 of City of Roseville Zoning Code.
Numerous bench handouts related
to this issue were provided, attached hereto and made a part hereof, as
Staff addressed to City Council
Staff Response by Community
Development Director Paul Bilotta
Community Development Director
Bilotta clarified the appeal currently before the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments, of staff's administrative decision as detailed in the staff report
dated January 25, 2016, provided an historical background of the Interim Use
and its deputed condition, and staff's interpretation of the City Council's
direction(s) related to this matter. Mr. Bilotta noted that it was the role of
this Board to determine whether or not staff met their intent and ordinance
requirements during these deliberations.
Mr. Bilotta further noted that
amendment of the Interim Use was another option for the City Council after the
Board determines whether or not the standard previously imposed was reasonable.
Mr. Bilotta opined that staff
remained confident, based on City Council direction, that they had made an
accurate interpretation and subsequent response to Vogel Mechanical on the
fence location condition.
Mr. Bilotta briefly reviewed the
Interim Use itself and standards created that were unique to this particular
application; and providing no past precedent or code language for staff to rely
on. Given the additional clarity provided by the City Council's August 24,
2015 action which limited the authority to move the fence location based only
on whether it was precluded from being installed at that location by utility
companies, staff then denied the south installation request resulting in the
November 7, 2015 appeal of that administrative decision. Due to no available
code language, Mr. Bilotta advised that staff had included some pieces of code
language related to other issues that they may find relevant, including some
other screening standards used in other situations.
Appellant Vogel Mechanical
Response by Dan Wall, Esq., Legal Counsel, Vogel Mechanical
Attorney Wall advised that, as
recent as late this afternoon, he had still been in contact with Ms. Megyesi of
CenturyLink regarding easement matters, which was also under review by their
legal counsel and insurance company. However, Mr. Wall advised that no final
word had yet been received as to whether the fence could be located on their
easement and if so, would they have they pay for removal and replacement of all
or a portion of it if their underground cable needed repair. Mr. Wall noted
that the cost of this fence and its installation for Vogel Mechanical was not
an insignificant amount of money, estimated at up to $40,000 for the fence and
Mr. Wall asked the Board to
consider if they would be willing to put that kind of investment in a backyard
with the potential for its removal and undetermined party responsible for
replacing it; and opined that it was not reasonable to expect Vogel Mechanical
to do so. Since he had not been made privy to Mr. Bilotta's CenturyLink
contacts locally or Mr. Wilson with Midwest Fence, Mr. Wall admitted that he
and the Vogels were playing catch-up. However, after Mr. Bilotta had made his
administrative determination, Mr. Wall advised that he had held subsequent
discussion with Paul Moliner from CenturyLink whom Mr. Bilotta had apparently
depended on for making his determination. Mr. Wall referenced CenturyLink
contacts and differing responses from their staff in Minnesota, Missouri, and
Ohio; with past conversations with Joe Hale in Missouri resulting in asking for
a copy of the deed with the related easement, which had then been forwarded by
Mr. Hale to Ms. Megyesi in Ohio over the holidays, further delaying responses.
Mr. Wall advised that Ms.
Megyesi's response was CenturyLink's standard encroachment agreement, as
provided to the Board. Mr. Wall reported that he had asked her the same
question as he had asked Mr. Moliner related to replacement of the fence if
removed and whether the Vogels would be reimbursed by CenturyLink, since
nothing in the Encroachment Agreement requires CenturyLink to do so, yet which
language requires the Vogels to indemnify CenturyLink. Mr. Wall stated his
understanding was that, while the Vogels didn't need the permission of
CenturyLink to install the fence on their easement, CenturyLink could disregard
any damage to the fence or expense incurred by Vogels. Mr. Wall referenced
copies of email correspondence as provide as bench handouts tonight as well.
Mr. Wall further referenced the
email correspondence to Ms. Megyesi from Ms. Lisa McCormick yesterday and today
and referencing other communication between him and the City specific to
language of the Easement Agreement beyond the standard language provided by
CenturyLink in his interest of protecting his client. Mr. Wall expressed his
surprise upon receiving this Roseville resident's correspondence with
CenturyLink, but opined it is consistent with attitudes expressed throughout
this process. Mr. Wall clarified that, based on Ms. Megyesi's latest email to
his attention earlier today, CenturyLink was still in the investigative stage
and therefore, he remained optimistic of a favorable resolution; and a best
case scenario if the fence was placed on the easement, it would not interfere
with their existing cable facilities. However, Mr. Wall noted that this placed
the Vogels still in limbo at the time of this appeal hearing, and with the City
Council's determination on August 24, 2015 and subsequent direction to staff,
it limited the Vogel options specific to this remaining easement question.
Since his client remained without an answer at this time, Mr. Wall opined that
this hearing was premature until they receive confirmation from CenturyLink.
Mr. Wall turned their response
over to Bonnie and Dave Vogel to provide a photographic history of what has led
up to this appeal hearing tonight, after which he asked that the Vogel fence
contractor Bert Sorlien from Premier Fence explain to the Board why it is not
feasible to install the fence along the line as directed by the City Council
and subsequently determined by staff's administrative determination.
After their presentations, Mr.
Wall advised that he would conclude with documentation of email traffic between
and among staff (City Manager Trudgeon and Mr. Bilotta), with Ms. McCormick and
neighbors adjacent to the north of the Vogel Mechanical property, and other
correspondence that he had obtained from the City of Roseville through his
request through the Data Practices Act information request process, which he
opined would serve to further enlighten the Board.
Mr. Wall asked whether or not a
simple or super majority vote was required of the Board for this determination,
with Chair Roe clarifying with City Attorney Hartman that it required a simple
majority vote of the Board.
Mr. Wall requested time for
rebuttal at the end of this discussion and public comment period, opining that
so much misinformation had been provided to the Board to-date, and he
anticipated more would come forward tonight; and he wanted to have the last
At the request of Chair Roe, and
from a legal perspective, City Attorney Hartman confirmed that that was not a
legal issue. Chair Roe ruled that, since Mr. Wall represents the appellant
party, he would provide staff and Mr. Wall one more opportunity to speak before
the Board deliberated and made its decision. However, Chair Roe clarified that
the purpose of this appeal hearing is not to define how the situation had
arrived at this point since all parties had been involved in that history, and
while he wanted to respect the appellant, he wanted to remain realistic about
the purpose of this hearing and the decision before the board versus hearing the
history of the issue.
In response, Mr. Wall noted that
he and his client had only been made aware of the full history and
correspondence trail after making the Data Practices Information Request, and
opined that he had only been aware of approximately half of that material
before that formal information request, and he thought it was pertinent to this
Mr. Wall asked if individual
Councilmembers had read all the information that has been disclosed to him;
with Chair Roe responding that he was not aware that all had been privy to that
information as provided in Mr. Wall's Data Information Request.
Bonnie Vogel, Co-Owner of
Ms. Vogel opined that their firm
had been asked to provide a fence outside any other conditions or guidelines
applied to Limited Production/Processing facility in the community. Ms. Vogel
noted that there had been no recommendation from staff when this original
request went before the Planning Commission, but only requested by neighbors at
that point, and not reflective of their Interim Use application. Ms. Vogel
stated that this issue had become bigger beyond what was being presented here,
and created a personal struggle for their family and firm, as well as for the
neighbors, and was resulting in a big expense for their firm.
Ms. Vogel agreed with Mr. Wall's
interpretation of the pending status related to language of the standard
encroachment agreement received from CenturyLink, and read Section 2.2 of that
agreement related to installations or construction within the easement tract.
While they could continue to go around in circles with different opinions, Ms.
Vogel opined that language was very clear from her perspective. Ms. Vogel
noted the impacts for fence contractors based on practical applications and their
confusion as well, with subsequent withdrawal from the project due to remaining
uncertainties and their lack of willingness to guarantee their fence and its
installation under those terms. Ms. Vogel noted that it was easier for other
parties without any skin in the game to say what could or should be done in a
Ms. Vogel provided a slide show
of the actual fence line and what they proposed; and a perspective of where
this started, as well as before and after photos of various exterior views from
initial meetings and their agreement to cooperate with the neighbor requests
before realizing what they were up against. As part of Ms. Vogel's slides, she
reviewed a typical day of operation for Vogel Mechanical viewed from their back
parking lot and; before photos of the building prior to their purchase and
after with a secure building, security system installed and operational fence.
Ms. Vogel opined that the property and building was in much better condition
than before their purchase, including replacement and/or painting of awnings
and garage doors, which should serve to help with visual and noise concerns
from the viewpoint of their residential neighbors to the north. Ms. Vogel also
provided various views of the fence line at the start of this process when they
first purchased the property. Ms. Vogel noted that at that time, residences
couldn't even be viewed with the existing vegetation, and noted her confusion
from the beginning as to why they were being asked to install a fence as part
of a short-term, five-year Interim Use.
Ms. Vogel proceeded to provide
pictures from various locations along the fence line before and after trimming,
stakes placed by their surveyor and the residential neighbor's surveyor, and
noted the likely regrowth of some of the vegetation even after trimming, as
provided by the Arborist they had hired for this process, Dean Turner. Ms.
Vogel noted the string line and survey locations with no fence, location of the
actual property line and areas it meandered, an example of an encroachment of a
residence denied to exist, footing locations with at least one problematic
given the meandering of the underground cable that would put it on top of the
cable, and other proximity differences along the encroachment. Ms. Vogel noted
some trees in the area with mature root lines, damage realized from current
growth along the fence line, and the inability to remove one existing fence
post as it was ingrown into an existing mature tree.
Ms. Vogel asked that they were
not disputing installation of the fence, only the problems installing it as
required based on property lines, variations between the ground and root
systems of existing mature trees, and more beneficial and level ground
available on the south side and neighboring properties that would still place
the installation in close proximity to the original location.
Noting a displayed photo, Mr.
Wall noted that early on, it had been pointed out to Ms. McCormick as
representative of the neighbors that a branch was leaning on the fence and the
top of the fence had in turn grown into a bench. At that point, Mr. Wall noted
that she had been asked if her clients would remove those major branches
preventing the fence installation, and that her response had been "no," and her
further response that if the Vogels wanted them removed, they should do so. Mr. Wall noted that subsequently, the neighbors had been asked, through Ms.
McCormick, if they would reimburse the Vogels for the $1,400 to do so or
provide a release for any damage done or claim of tree damage if the Vogels
removed them. Since the response from Ms. McCormick had been that the Vogels
should perform the work at their own risk, Mr. Wall advised that he had told
his client not to do the work in case there was any damage to the trees and a
subsequent monetary amount sought and awarded for that damage.
Ms. Vogel proceeded to present
additional slides showing lilac vines and growth through the fence, and
significant roots in some areas on top of the fence, causing her to question
how they could build a fence on top of the existing fence, with volunteer trees
growing up through the existing fence, some on both sides and some on the
property line itself. Ms. Vogel provided slides of landscaping and tree
planting they had added to-date to screen their property from that of the
residences to the north, including new trees, along with additional trees and a
berm along the boulevard. While not clear what that had to do with their
5-year Interim Use, Ms. Vogel opined that she felt they had gone above and
beyond what was intended or required of this condition.
Ms. Vogel concluded her
presentation with before and after pictures of the north side of their
property, and asked that the Board consider that the outlines of the landscaping
were much the same in addition to their addition of Conifers and Maples. In
light of further consideration of the hours, time, and resources already
provided by Mr. Sorlien as their fence contractor, as well as the City Council,
other contractors involved, and city staff, and the "nasty grams" received from
residents to the north, Ms. Vogel asked if the problems created throughout this
process were serving to accomplish the original goals. Ms. Vogel opined that
their firm was on the right track, and advised that they would continue to
provide sufficient cover to screen the properties.
Bert Sorlien, Sales Director,
Premier Fence, Inc.
Mr. Sorlien provided his
credentials and experience as a residential and commercial fence estimator and
contractor. Mr. Sorlien clarified that he had not received any monies from
Vogel Mechanical to-date, and wanted to make that known as a preamble to his
comments. Mr. Sorlien provided a background of Premier Fence, with their firm
building fences since 1978, originally under Midwest Fence prior to forming
their own full-service company, with on average of 500 fence installations
annually and various applications.
Mr. Sorlien reviewed his history
and experience with Vogel Mechanical in providing an estimate to replace the
existing fence along the northern property line, with his initial estimated for
an 8' tall Cedar fence as requested by the Vogels, which he noted was an uncommon
installation at that height, and his opinion that the existing 6' fence height
seemed to serve the same purposes. Therefore, Mr. Sorlien advised that he had
provided the Vogels with an estimate for a 6' fence at the cost of $16,000 and
an estimate for an 8' high fence at the cost of over $40,000 projected. Given
State of MN requirements for a fence to be constructed to withstand up to 90
mph winds, Mr. Sorlien advised that an engineer had been consulted to address
Mr. Sorlien noted that the Vogels
had to remove the existing fence to get an accurate utility location, and upon
that removal, serious concerns became apparent to him related to trees, brush,
branches, vines and other encroachments, including a shed, trees straddling the
fence, as well as the aforementioned CenturyLink cable meandering through the
Mr. Sorlien noted that his first
responsibility was to protect his company and his clients, and that it was
necessary for him to install a fence that his warranty could support, as well
as installing the fence in a manner that would not put his client at risk for
future costs. Under the circumstances, Mr. Sorlien advised that he could not
guarantee either by installing this fence up to the property line, opining that
the Cedar fence would more than likely be damaged, and while a cyclone fence is
more tolerant to that growth, solid fences were not. Therefore, Mr. Sorlien
advised that he could not in all good conscience provide the Vogels with a
warranty; and his professional recommendation would be to install the fence at
a minimum of 5' to 10' from the property line, which would also allow the
Vogels to maintain the fence on both sides.
Mr. Sorlien advised that this had
been discussed among all parties that while the fence could be installed up to
the property line, it didn't mean it would be practical to do so or in the best
interest of various parties, and noted the response from Midwest Fence
supporting that supposition. Mr. Sorlien further advised that, if his firm was
forced to install the fence up to the property line, a number of encroachments
of residential neighbors remained; and respectfully asked that if that was the
Board's continuing directive, that those encroachments be removed by those
Given the size, location and
importance of this CenturyLink cable, Mr. Sorlien expressed his preference to
not install the fence in the easement to avoid risks, especially with the way
the underground cable appeared to meander. In order to install the fence, Mr.
Sorlien noted that he needed to dig a hole, and to do so in close proximity to
the cable created a risk for his firm, his clients, and CenturyLink customers
should the cable inadvertently be hit.
Based on these potential
litigious and personal concerns presented, Mr. Sorlien advised that he had been
forced to eliminate his interest in this installation. Mr. Sorlien stated that
he personally felt the Vogels had gone above and beyond without any concessions
provided by the neighbors to the north, and he didn't see any common ground
forthcoming. Mr. Sorlien noted that after being consulted with by those
residential neighbors, Midwest Fence had also withdrawn their interest in the
installation, contrary to their initial expressions of interest. Mr. Sorlien
opined that the city had given Premier Fence some flexibility as they deemed
necessary during the installation, but had not provided any definition as to
how far from the property line the fence installation could deviate. If the
City denies this appeal and if in the course of installation, he needed to
shift the location to avoid a root or cable, Mr. Sorlien stated that he had no
legal footing to support his decisions in the field. Mr. Sorlien expressed his
concern that any decision made in the field to deviate from placing the fence
installation on the property line would result in a legal challenge from the
neighbors; and stated that he was unwilling to put his firm at risk of a legal
Mr. Sorlien reiterated his
concern with the actual required location of the fence, and noted that
installing it on the property line did not necessarily mean it would end up on
the property line, with the edge of his concrete footings varying from 2 inches
to 5 inches between the physical property line and fence, creating a gap
between the northern neighbors and Vogel property. Also, Mr. Sorlien noted
that current City Code required the Vogels to maintain the space between those
properties even though their demanded fence placement prohibited them from performing
that maintenance without trespassing. Based on the topography of the land, Mr.
Sorlien noted that the fence height would vary between 6' and 8', and
anticipated that may create another legal challenge from the neighbors if they
see that varying fence height and felt their view was unprotected.
As a fence contractor, Mr.
Sorlien asked that the Board consider installation between 5' and 10' from the
property line to avoid compromising the fence installation and its performance.
Mr. Wall displayed the
information he had received from his Data Practices Information Request,
providing a chronological history and stating that he could not rush through it
as much as the Board may like him to do so; stating his need to provide a
thorough of a representation for his clients as possible, and as he had done
during his thirty-seven years as an attorney. Mr. Wall opined that the fact
that the Board hasn't looked at or been aware of all of the materials leading
up to Mr. Bilotta's administrative decision further emphasized the need for
this thorough review. Mr. Wall opined that as most cases have theories in
them, this issue started out to be a solution looking for a problem, when in
fact there was no problem.
Mr. Wall proceeded to review the
written record of emails and correspondence beginning when staff initially came
before the Planning Commission in June of 2014 with the Vogel Interim Use
request, without condition at that point for a fence, since there was already a
6' fence in place that blocked the view from the ground, and staff's finding
that noise would not be an issue with this use based on the findings provided
by staff during their analysis, as well as no significant impact on land or
injuries to the neighborhood or their health, welfare and safety. Mr. Wall
noted that of the 60 properties invited by the Vogels to the developer open
house, only six residents from the neighborhood attended.
Ms. McCormick asked for a barrier
fence, but Mr. Wall noted that deliberations by the Planning Commission, did
not take into consideration that operations on this parcel had been ongoing for
the majority of years since 1970 and the first residence built to the north
constructed in 1979 and subsequent homes constructed with the view of this
commercial property already in place upon the purchase of their property. Mr.
Wall noted that a previous owner/use on the property (Aramark) had installed
the initial fence, and at that time there was no sight line issue brought
forward, and didn't exist other than from decks which were obviously higher
than the view from the residence itself. At that point, Mr. Wall noted that a
condition of approval for the Interim Use required installation of a fence or
landscaping with subsequent City Council approval requiring both; and in the
spring of 2015 the Vogels presented a plan for that fence installation as
conditioned without dispute on their part, with two surveys ordered and paid
for by Vogels. Mr. Wall noted that he wasn't involved with his clients at that
time, otherwise he would have raised these issues at that time.
Mr. Wall proceeded to review the
history of the case, meetings with contractors and staff on-site, discussion on
the best location for the fence to screen views; and summarized correspondence
from that point forward as noted involving staff, Ms. McCormick and other
neighbors, frustrations and lack of willingness to comprise on the part of the
neighbors, and the neighbors request that the City Council find the Vogels in
violation of the conditions of their Interim Use. Mr. Wall reviewed additional
correspondence addressing concerns of both parties, efforts of staff and the
Vogels to reach a compromise related to the fence location and installation and
related vegetation and easement; and staff's subsequent return to the City
Council for clarification of their original directive.
With a reminder from Chair Roe
that this history is not the purpose of tonight's appeal hearing, Mr. Wall
disagreed, opining that this background information was necessary to provide
the basis for the administrative decision made by Mr. Bilotta and the pressure
he was under from the residents to get this condition addressed and attempts by
those neighbors, chiefly represented by Ms. McCormick and Ms. Erickson to apply
their own parameters to the condition for screening and landscaping while Mr.
Bilotta continued to attempt appeasement of all parties for a reasonable
Mr. Wall referenced individual
Councilmember involvement (Willmus and Etten) as part of this correspondence
trail, and offered to provide a copy of the information for the benefit of the
Board if they were interested in personally reviewing the materials prior to
tonight's deliberating. Mr. Wall opined that Ms. McCormick continued to
dispute expert advice and experience offered to staff and/or the Vogels from
their arborist, surveyors, and fence installer as well as discussing any of
Mr. Wall noted his letter of
November 13, 2015 asking for a 5' to 10' setback, at which point this
voluminous historic correspondence remained unknown to him but once the
easement situation came forward and proved more problematic for his client.
When he was initially hired by the Vogels to represent them regarding the
rezoning issue, Mr. Wall advised that he was not aware of the fence issue at
that time. Mr. Wall noted that his client was also not privy to much of the
correspondence between staff, individual Councilmembers and Ms. McCormick until
his Data Practices Information Request on their behalf. Mr. Wall also noted,
that had he been aware of this correspondence, he would have included it as
part of his appeal correspondence to the Board.
Member McGehee asked Mr. Sorlien
the difference in a slatted chain link and wooden fence, with his response that
a chain link fence would be more affordable, and as estimated by him earlier in
his comments, at approximately $14,500 for this installation with a 6.5'
height. He further stated that a board fence of similar height would be perhaps
$2,000 more or about $16,000.00
Member Willmus asked if staff had
the emails dated January 25, 2016 form the Vogels and Mr. Wall; with Mr. Wall
advising that even though he was out of the office today until after 4:00 p.m.
and immediately prior to tonight's meeting of the Board, he had sent copies to
staff. Member Willmus advised that, at the appropriate time tonight, he would
have questions on the 11:29 a.m. email from earlier today.
Member Etten stated his position
that the Easement Agreement provided by CenturyLink was generic and not
considered exclusive and questioned how their legal counsel's determination may
impact the deed and easement whether the property was platted or not platted at
the time the original easement was issued.
Mr. Wall responded that it
probably made no difference other than to CenturyLink, but the bottom line
remained that they would not allow the fence installation on or near their
cable. Mr. Wall advised that he had revised the standard easement agreement
provided by CenturyLink and returned it to them, but noted they require
indemnification and any approval of the fence design; but advised that he did
not intend to recommend to this client that they sign such an agreement as
In conclusion, Mr. Wall thanked
the Board for their patience and time allowed for his presentation.
Chair Roe reviewed the protocol
for and invited public comment.
Timothy Callaghan, 3062
While not a neighbor, Mr.
Callaghan stated that he had dealt with similar concerns, and opined that this
didn't involve only two neighbors, but the whole neighborhood's concern. In his
listening to this situation, Mr. Callaghan opined that there was no legal
requirement that the neighbors removed limbs that entered into another person's
property, and stated he had never heard it referred to as an encroachment
before. Mr. Callaghan noted that they had talked about a 6.5' limitation if
the fence was installed in a residential area or in the front yard that had not
been mentioned. Mr. Vogel stated that he found it interesting that the Vogels
had signed this Interim Use Agreement as conditioned in June of 2014, but all
of a sudden had found many issues after the fact, and appeared to be unaware of
the easements affecting their property, even though the lot had a number of
telephone poles running through it, expressing his surprise they hadn't noticed
them. Mr. Callaghan opined that he was finding a lot of misinformation being
spread by the Vogels and their attorney, causing him concern.
Lisa McCormick, Wheeler Street
Ms. McCormick opined that she
found Mr. Wall's presentation very interesting; and noted that she had also
sought out a similar Data Practices Information Request, and recognized the
significant amount of communication involved in this process. Ms. McCormick
noted one comment stating it was unfortunate that more communication between
the residents and Vogels hadn't been accomplished; and advised that she was not
going to apologize in any way for her initiation in taking on a lot of that
communication. Ms. McCormick offered to provide those emails for the record as
summarized by Mr. Wall, and for the record, stating that he had not read the
entire email related to future liability and indemnity. Ms. McCormick stated
that the neighbors were not concerned about any indemnity based on assurances
from Mr. Molinar of Century Link, thus the statement referenced in the email
related to indemnity with the point being that the neighbors didn't share that
same concern if putting up their own fences.
As for all encroachments, Ms.
McCormick stated that she thought it was possible to work out a lot of this,
since only a few inches were being addressed. Ms. McCormick advised that she
had sought and received permission from the Erickson's to share this
information: that they'd also spent money on surveys, and there was one fence
post that was approximately 2' to 3' over the property line, and noted they
were willing to remove it, but when talking to Mr. Steve Wilson had been
advised that they couldn't do so as it was too late in the season to get in
line for that contractor. As far as Mr. Wilson withdrawing from the
installation process and not willing to provide an estimate, Ms. McCormick
stated that this information had come from Mr. Wall and she had not been told
Ms. McCormick addressed the
garden planter displayed in the photos by Ms. Vogel, and noted that she also
had drawings and continued to question and suspect the information being
provided to neighbors, especially since they are hearing more than one view.
Specific to allegations that the underground utility line meandered, Ms.
McCormick stated that Ms. Erickson had photographic evidence of locates and
cables showing them consistently 2' to 3' on the north side of the property
line, and questioned why one view showed them on the property line and another
as she just indicated with photos available to show those discrepancies.
Regarding the expectations of the
neighborhood, Ms. McCormick stated that this was occurring within the context
of rezoning and the extension of Twin Lakes Parkway, in conjunction with the
Vogels coming into ownership and use of this building. While expressing
appreciation in pictures showing only 5-6 vehicles in the parking lot during
the day, Ms. McCormick noted that the Vogels had yet to move their operation in
completely; otherwise, she questioned why they would need that large of a
building if they didn't intend to expand their operations.
Using Oasis Park as an example of
an 8' board fence, Ms. McCormick noted that Mr. Wall was the Mayor of Roseville
at the time of that installation for the Advanced Circuits, Inc. (ACI)
building. Ms. McCormick opined that the staff report was in error, and from
her research, the buildings used as that example were actually adjoined in 1993
or 1994, well before sound mitigation efforts took place, with the fence and extensive
double barrier of trees intended for that purpose.
Ms. McCormick provided a brief
summary of the background information and rationale or neighbors in requesting
this fence. Ms. McCormick noted there were other examples in the community of
8' board on board fence installations without creating the same issues as this
was causing. Ms. McCormick expressed her regret that this had turned out the
way it had, and the burdens created on all sides. Ms. McCormick expressed her
understanding that all neighbors had been continually in communication with the
Vogels, but some were unable to attend meetings due to disabilities or health
issues, but clarified that at no point had they been left out of this process.
Ms. McCormick stated that she had
asked Mr. Bilotta if there was some way the Vogels could sit down at the table
with the neighbors, but had been told that ship had already sailed and he
stated there was no need for neighborhood involvement, which she found
Whatever the ultimate resolution,
Ms. McCormick stated that she understood the complexities, but also stated she
was not willing to walk away from this. Ms. McCormick noted the temporary snow
fencing currently installed in the interim and stated that the neighbors want
to avoid litigation but would continue to pursue whatever they could do to
improve this situation from their perspective.
Farhiya Eintle, 1795
Ms. Eintle expressed her
disappointment in listening tonight, expressing her hope that something different
would have been brought up for the appeal than the history of what had
happened. Ms. Eintle opined that she could see no legitimate reason for the
Vogel appeal, and noted the reasons some neighbors were unable to attend
tonight's meeting, even though they remained united in this effort. While not
wanting to create bad feeling and attempt to show respect for all parties, Ms.
Eintle noted this had been pending for 1.5 years, and neighbors were still
waiting for the fence to be up. Ms. Eintle noted that the neighbors had worked
together to do their part with the trees, surveys and fence location, but
continued to wait and noted the expenses involved for the residents as well. If the resolution required cost-sharing, Ms. Eintle opined that that may be a possibility,
but stated how important installing the fence was for the neighborhood for the
safety of their homes and children. With the decision already set, Ms. Eintle
questioned the validity of the appeal. Ms. Eintle clarified that Ms. McCormick
had been chosen by the neighborhood to serve as their spokesperson, and also
noted that the neighbors were recipients of the emails and knew what was
transpiring. Since it would be disorganized and time-consuming for all the
neighbors to speak, Ms. Eintle stated that Ms. McCormick and Ms. Erickson had
been chosen to speak on the behalf of the neighbors, and that their comments
were not just decisions coming from them personally. Ms. Eintle expressed how
sad she found it that the good things they were doing for their fellow
neighbors were being abused tonight.
Kathleen Erickson, 1790
Ms. Erickson stated how hard this
was for her to be treated with such disdain by Mr. Wall's comments, when the
neighbors were simply exercising their community rights. Ms. Erickson noted
that the Vogels, Mr. Wall and the neighbors were all part of the same
community, and noted that it was painful for her at this point, and stated that
she already felt different about her city because of this ongoing 2-year issue,
as well as how she felt about her home.
Ms. Erickson referenced the
glowing pictures provided by Vogel Mechanical and proud display of their
accomplishments and what they had done for their business. However, Ms.
Erickson offered her personal photo display of the same thing from a different
perspective. Ms. Erickson proceeded to display photos of their backyard gazebo
and the corner where they encroached 3' to 5' onto the Vogel property. Having
lived there for thirty years, Ms. Erickson opined that no one cared what
happened on their side of the fence, and they had attempted to make it livable
for their family, and didn't tell them when they purchased their property.
However, Ms. Erickson opined that there may be such a thing as a policy of
adverse possession when no one has voiced any concerns for over thirty years,
and being unable to come back to you after only owning the adjacent property
for a year and alleging that you've stolen some of their property. However,
Ms. Erickson expressed her willingness to concede that 3 to 5 inches of their
property back with the mature Maple trees that they had nurtured and trimmed
over the years to keep them off the fence, and a Mulberry bush actually growing
on the Vogel property that they had maintained over the years in addition to
ongoing trimming of other encroachments form the Vogel property onto their
Ms. Erickson noted a picture
displayed by Ms. Vogel that appeared to be taken from the Erickson deck and
questioned how that photo had been obtained.
Ms. Erickson reviewed the history
of the Vogels request for a clearance cut by Xcel Energy and disputes with Mr.
Wall on ownership of trees, and the results of this clear cut as photographed
and trees stripped of foliage. After that, Ms. Erickson noted that neighbors
had determined they would work on the remaining encroachments and after ten
pick-up loads she showed the resulting photos. Ms. Erickson further reviewed
the CenturyLink locates along the residents' side of the fence, allegations of
markings being moved; removal of the existing fence by Vogel contractors at
7:00 a.m. one day, and showed a video of part of their fence coming down and
how vulnerable and open it left their property.
Once the existing chain link
fence was removed, Ms. Erickson reported frequent people perusing their area
and yard, and several weeks later hearing chain saws coming from the back of
their property, and identification of Mr. Dean Turner from Twin City Tree - as
shown in the photos - performing that work and serving as an independent
contractor of Vogels to cut neighboring trees. Ms. Erickson stated that she
was accused of harassing Vogel staff, but stated she had never approached
anyone other than Dave Vogel to assist him in locating the compost site for
disposal of some things they'd cut down. In her query of Mr. Turner as to who
hired him to do this work - without any notice to neighbors - Ms. Erickson
reported that Mr. Turner responded that they were working for the Vogels and
they did not need to give the neighbors any notice. While this may be true,
Ms. Erickson opined that good neighbors didn't do this to other neighbors, and
displayed a photo of everything cut along the string line stretched on the
Ms. Erickson referenced the
question by Ms. McCormick if a licensed arborist was doing this work, and upon
display of a picture of what was now left, she noted this was not the same
beautiful view as shown during Ms. Vogel's presentation and represented what
the neighbor had left to view. Ms. Erickson advised that, since that time,
they had pulled out their planter, removed their fence, but not the fence post,
but had asked Vogels for a seven-day notice when the fence was to be installed
to then deal with the remaining encroachments. However, Ms. Erickson advised
that they had not received any notice to-date, nor any protections offered
Chuck Erickson, 1790
Centennial Drive (husband)
Addressing concerns with possible
problems with the underground cable, in his personal history as a resident in
that home since 1985, Mr. Erickson advised that nothing had ever happened to or
been done with that underground cable during that time, even though he
recognized that was always a possibility.
Lisa Galvin. Vogel Mechanical
As a young professional concerned
with business growth, Ms. Galvin stated that she was speaking tonight to share
her concerns related to that growth and how this may impact future business
decisions. Ms. Galvin asked that the Board consider the expenses of the Vogels
so far and loss of business opportunities due to events having occurred and
these proceedings. Ms. Galvin asked that the Board consider those expenses
compared to her salary, and the desire to create more jobs in the community and
encourage businesses such as Vogel Mechanical. Ms. Galvin stated that she
could bear witness to some of the things that had occurred, and from her
outside perspective, she opined that the owners of their business had acted
with integrity and asked that the Board consider some of the slanderous
comments being thrown out this evening. Ms. Galvin stated employees had
experienced their photos being taken as they come into work, and expressed how
intimidating that was, in addition to this situation continuing to affect the
prosperity of the business itself.
Mr. Pat Phillips, 3084
Mr. Phillips thanked the Board
for their forbearance in hearing this information, including the extraneous
information presented tonight.
Mr. Phillips expressed his
objections about some of the adverse remarks made during Mr. Wall's
presentation about neighborhood representatives; and questioned the summation
of some of that email correspondence and whether it fairly represented the
whole picture. Mr. Phillips stated that he was here to voice his support for
those owning property adjacent to and living with what was being done by the
Vogels, even though he encouraged the Board to be supportive of Roseville
businesses as well and treat all fairly. Mr. Phillips opined that those
businesses were needed for jobs and to improve the tax base; and expressed his
support for business. However, Mr. Phillips noted how unfortunate it was that
things came about this way without anticipating problems in installing the
fence at the time initial decision were made.
Diane Hilden, Bayview Drive
Ms. Hilden spoke to the promotion
by the Roseville City Council of community engagement, and questioned if it
clearly understood what that meant in actual practice. However, Ms. Hilden
noted that like a democracy, it was often messy, and noted that she had held
this conversation with some individual Councilmembers before. As part of that
democratic process, Ms. Hilden noted one problem was that it often took so long
to accomplish something, which may not do much harm but also might not do much
good, resulting in this type of situation.
Ms. Hilden opined that this was
an outstanding example of community engagement and involvement to find the
right balance of a business that should have been informed at the time of their
purchase of this property rather than finding out about underground utilities
after the face. However, Ms. Hilden expressed her resentment that the
reputation of a member of the community, and the reputation of Mr. Bilotta,
were both besmirched tonight without the opportunity to defend themselves,
opining she found that depressing and should receive serious consideration when
asking people to be involved in their community.
Ms. Hilden opined that this should
not happen and hoped it didn't create a resident versus business consideration
which would be even more wrong. Ms. Hilden further opined that the City
Council had made their decision, and that the decision should be upheld by
trusting staff to make reasonable decisions based on the information available
at the time without second-guessing things. Ms. Hilden opined that this would
result in a better, bigger city all around.
Vicki Boyer, 1785 Centennial
While this situation doesn't
immediately affect me being one street further in, Ms. Boyer stated that the
way the Board chose to handle it would potentially affect her in the future.
Ms. Boyer recognized Ms. McCormick and Ms. Erickson as spokespeople for the
neighborhood, and while the whole neighborhood could address the Board, she
didn't think it was necessary or desired. Ms. Boyer recognized businesses as
part of the community going forward, but also asked that residential properties
be protected, their values and property rights. Ms. Boyer stated that she
didn't want Ms. McCormick or Ms. Erickson to take any fault for this concern,
or to put forth any idea that no one else was concerned, and clarified that the
neighbors were all concerned.
With no one else coming forward
to speak, Chair Roe closed public comment at approximately 8:15 p.m.
Attorney Wall Rebuttal
Regarding comments made about our
lack of communication, Mr. Wall steed that had he continued to correspond with
Ms. McCormick on line while she insisted on and ignored other factual items
involved, his stack of emails would have been as extensive as those of Mr.
Bilotta and taken hours away from his family and legal practice. Ms. Wall
stated that the Vogels continued to work with city staff, and he had told her
that there was no need for her to insert her opinions into the process.
In comments alluding to neighbors
prevented from accessing the Vogel property, Ms. Wall stated that was not true,
but clarified that the Vogels had simply asked that they be present, along with
a city staff representative and himself.
Mr. Wall stated that the Vogels
had done everything possible within their power, but the situation was now a
problem looking for a solution.
Bonnie Vogel Rebuttal
Ms. Vogel addressed two cable
locates performed earlier last fall, with Mr. Sorlien and Don Peltier able to
confirm, indicated the cable line was marked 6' on the south side of the
property line along their side of the fence and marked in the same place both
times. When the neighbors had similar locates, Ms. Vogel advised that the
locates done in their yards once the fence had been removed, showed a variance
along the lines, and advised that this had not been clearly or fairly
communicated to all parties.
Speaking to reputations, Ms.
Vogel opined that their business reputation had been negatively impacted, and
cited examples of people and other business contacts outside of the Roseville
communication area that had been aware of this situation and remarked on it;
questioning how that happened.
Ms. Vogel addressed comments
related to noticing the neighborhood seven days before work, advising that the
work schedule had been communicated to their firm and city staff and was
compliant with those requirements, opining that should work for both sides.
Ms. Vogel noted that they were asking that the fence be located on their
property so they didn't need to access neighborhood properties or obtain
waivers to do so.
Ms. Vogel opined that the City
was asking their business to comply with completely different standards than
any other requirements or for other businesses or properties. Ms. Vogel agreed
the fence should be installed, and would have been installed had they been
allowed to install it in the original location.
Staff Rebuttal, Community
Development Director Bilotta
Mr. Bilotta offered no additional
comments, but stated he would stand for questions of the Board at their
Member Willmus referenced the
CenturyLink email from Ms. Megyesi to Ms. McCormick and references about them
not allowing plantings, trees or shrubs in their easement area, assuming that
was a standard for them everywhere. Member Willmus asked Mr. Bilotta, when he
made his administrative determination or interpretation of the City Council's
clarification of August 24, 2015, had he been aware of CenturyLink's position
for planting within that easement area.
Mr. Bilotta advised that his
conversation with the CenturyLink representative was regarding the fence itself
and if it could be allowed, and any plantings to the south as they allowed.
At the request of Member Willmus,
Mr. Bilotta confirmed the easement area was 10' on the Vogel side, but
clarified that staff had yet to see documentation to that effect.
Chair Roe asked Mr. Wall to
clarify the width; with Mr. Wall advising that at this time, the only
documentation they have available is a 1968 title search done for an entity
purchasing the property and eventually renting it to Ararmak, showing a 10'
utility easement on the Vogel property and not extending over the property
Member Etten asked Mr. Bilotta to
speak to the locates performed to-date for CenturyLink's cable, and whether
there was any more clarity to define their actual location.
Mr. Bilotta responded that the
two initial locates had one showing the cable north of the fence, and 1 showing
it south of the fence. With subsequent locates by the neighbors shown on the
north side, Mr. Bilotta admitted that created a quandary and a key piece in
locating fence footings. Mr. Bilotta reported that he heard from CenturyLink
through the Vogels that removal of the chain link fence may have caused
interference with the equipment in attempting to locate the buried cables, and
a subsequent locate by the Vogel fence contractor for actual location of the
fence and determination of whether or not the cable meandered north or south of
the line and future construction. Mr. Bilotta referenced the hand drawing
provided in attachments, indicating where the buried cable meandered, and
closest indicated roughly on the property line causing staff to determine that
it fell within the flexible zone and not 3' from the line. When the
neighborhood came back with their perceptions that it may be further north, Mr.
Bilotta opined that from staff's perspective, it fell within the flexible zone.
Board Member Discussion/Action on this Appeal of the
Member McGehee stated she would
stick with her original comment that no good deed goes unpunished. As a strong
supporter of community engagement, Member McGehee opined that the neighbors had
done an excellent job of coming together on this, and further opined she didn't
think they were being unreasonable, especially since they hadn't heard for a
year that the fence was being installed. Member McGehee clarified that it had
never been her intention that the fence had to be 7' or 8' high, only that it
needed to be opaque. Toward the end, Member McGehee noted she had heard
communication about engineered fences and sizing of footings, all which would
be irrelevant if installed according to code at 6' or 6.5'. As spoken to by
Mr. Bilotta, Member McGehee noted that flexibility was what had been asked for
by the City Council in the first place, and she did not believe it was
unreasonable in the beginning or now to install the fence approximately along
the northern border as originally requested by the City Council.
Member McGehee stated that she
had to concur with some of the findings and information about laying cable and
easements, and that the Vogels should have understood that at the time of their
property purchase, with their realtor pointing that out. Member McGehee opined
that it was foolhardy to sign an agreement without that due diligence. With
the Vogels stating twice tonight that this fence requirement is unreasonable
for an Interim Use, Member McGehee noted that those specific conditions were
applied from the beginning and they didn't state any objections at that time.
Member McGehee reiterated that she didn't feel it was an unreasonable at that
time or at this point, and stated that she hadn't seen sufficient evidence to
change the decision. By asking Century Link as late as December of 2015 to
hold their firm harmless, Member McGehee opined that was an unreasonable
expectation of anyone.
Member McGehee stated that the
thing she found most discouraging was the view from residential backyards now
and the way their private property had been laid waste to, making it look like
a tornado had gone through their backyards, unfortunately unable to be
rectified now. Member McGehee opined that she found it unfortunate that
residents who tried to get something simple accomplished had now had
irreparable harm done to their properties, their view and their environment.
Member McGehee apologized for any role the City Council may have played in that
result, but reiterated her position that she saw no reason to deviate from her
Member Etten agreed with many of
the comments of Member McGehee, and expressed his disappointment with the
various cuttings having created such a big loss for those residential
properties. As previously stated in his referenced email, Member Etten noted
that this is an unfortunate situation, and whether the City felt it had
communicated sufficiently or not, this didn't work and created losses on both
Member Etten expressed interest
in hearing from his colleagues and City Attorney Hartman their comments on the
encroachment agreement and whether or not it may affect either of the fence
companies and building on the property line. Member Etten stated that he was
still unsure at this point how to proceed.
Member Laliberte agreed it was
unfortunate that this ended up in this situation. Member Laliberte noted that
when an Interim Use comes before the City Council, it was common to ask for
various conditions to that approval to ensure improvements are made or that it
is a palatable use for that particular period of time. Member Laliberte
referenced her recollection of when this was initially discussed and everyone
was friendly and all was great and not concerns expressed. Since that time and
for a number of reasons at the hand of all parties involved, Member Laliberte
noted the spiraling downward of the situation, and opined that everyone shared
that responsibility: staff, the City Council, neighbors and the appellant; and
further opined that things could have been done differently, but they weren't,
and it created this situation.
Member Laliberte noted that from
the beginning she was aware that there were more than two neighbors expressing
similar concerns, and advised that she never questioned that was the case.
Specific to questions raised as to why this appears to have a different
standard, Member Laliberte noted that there was a broader attempt to improve
this area and the properties in this region, with everyone seeming to be
amenable to that effort. Based on the information currently available, Member
Laliberte stated that she would still support the original direction of the
City Council and their information to staff.
Member Willmus stated that his
interpretation of this appeal was it asking whether Mr. Bilotta made the
correct determination with the information he had available; and to that
question, Member Willmus responded that yes, he had and did; and therefore
advised that he would not support the appeal.
As a secondary consideration and
separate issue or question perhaps facing the City Council at some point in the
future, Member Willmus suggested it may be asked if all the available
information was available, and at this point tonight, he would have to say
legitimately that all the information was not available. However, Member
Willmus opined that was not an issue on the table this evening.
As previously and correctly
characterized, Chair Roe opined that the purpose of this appeal was whether or
not staff's decision was proper or based on sufficient backing at the time it
was made. Chair Roe stated that he was concerned to hear a lot of the
information presented about comments back and forth, and opined he didn't think
that got to the point, but might serve to characterize the environment at the
time this situation developed. However, Chair Roe stated that it didn't cause
him to be concerned about whether the decision was based on sufficient
justification. Further, Chair Roe questioned if the draft encroachment
agreement said anything conclusively about the decision made by staff; and
while it can be negotiated by the two parties, ultimately it didn't state it
objected to a fence in the easement, but simply outlined the terms for both
Chair Roe supported the notion
that staff's interpretation was for installation as close to the north property
line as possible, and didn't say if less than 5' it still wouldn't meet the
spirit of the City Council's intent. While it may be necessary to jog around
obstacles already in place that may also add to the cost, Chair Roe opined that
it didn't preclude the construction of the fence, or the height of the top if
topography varies. Chair Roe opined that there ways to make this work, and
clarified the original direction was for 6' to 8' height for the fence, so in
areas where topography indicated there was no need for 8', if staff was
interpreting it that way, that was not the City Council's intent.
City Attorney Erich Hartman
addressed questions about the encroachment agreement, advising that he
frequently drafted them and if someone has an easement and another party wanted
to construct something in the easement area, the standard agreement included
provisions if those improvements ever need to be moved or suffer damages due to
those improvements, a standard and typical indemnification clause was included
as part of the agreement. As mentioned by Chair Roe, this was typically
negotiated and revised from the standard version, and as stated by Attorney
Wall, it was complex dealing with a corporation and timely responses, but
confirmed this was something you'd expect to see.
Chair Roe noted the draft
resolution provided had blanks for findings, whichever decision was made by the
Etten moved, McGehee seconded,
directing staff and the City Attorney to revise a draft resolution (Attachment
I) for future adoption at the next regular meeting of the body as Resolution
No. 11297 entitled, "Resolution of Decision of the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals Related to the Appeal of Vogel Mechanical Regarding an Administrative
Decision;" DENYING the appeal requested by the applicant based on and
memorializing the following findings:
Specific to the 6' to 8' fence height, the resolution of June 23,
2015 and subsequent review on August 24, 2015 produced no new information at
that time; and the fence can meander and not be 7' or 8' tall, but 6' or 6.5'
or less based on actual topography of the site
Sufficient flexibility was provided by staff for location of the
Staff had no additional information presented when asking the
City Council to uphold the decision based on materials presented and agreed to
on those dates; and subsequently used as the basis for staff's administrative
ruling on November 19, 2015, and found to be sufficient and consistent with
original City Council direction
Further information provided at tonight's hearing was found
inconclusive as to any deviation from that initial decision
Utility locates are consistent as based on the border are
incorporated into these findings
Information presented tonight is not inconsistent with the
information discussed on June 23, August 24 and November 19, 2015 when the
decision was made.
Member Laliberte cautioned that
this situation will remain difficult unless all parties were willing move past
Member McGehee suggested staff
could perhaps find a way to mediate a meeting between parties to resolve
remaining hard feelings.
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte,
Etten, McGehee, and Roe
Chair Roe advised that the
appellant had further redress available through the court system if they chose
to pursue that option.
Etten moved, Willmus seconded,
closing the meeting of the Roseville Board of Adjustments and Appeals and
reconvening as the City Council at approximately 8:47 p.m.
Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:48 p.m., and reconvened at
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one
appeared to speak.
& City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements
announced that Ramsey County was seeking election judges to serve in the
upcoming 2016 elections, and provided contact information for applying and
Mayor Roe also
announced vacancies on Roseville citizen advisory commissions and the process
for applications, interviews and appointments, and contact options for
provided a reminder of upcoming open houses for information on MnDot projects
occurring in 2016 in or near Roseville.
Donations and Communications
Proclaim Black History Month
Due to time
constraints, without objection, Mayor Roe waived the formal reading of the
proclamation, but invited all members of the Roseville community to renew their
commitment to ensuring racial equality, understanding and justice.
moved, Etten seconded, proclaiming February 2016 as Black History Month in
Present Green Building Award Winner
lateness of the hour, Mayor Roe noted that the recipients had left the meeting
with their small children, and the awardwould be presented at a future meeting.
and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior
to tonight's meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft
presented in the Council packet.
Approve January 4 Housing & Redevelopment Authority and the
January 4 Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes
Etten seconded, approval of the January 4, 2016 Housing & Redevelopment
Authority Meeting Minutes and the January 4, 2016 Economic Development
Authority as presented.
Approve January 4 City Council Meeting Minutes
Willmus seconded, approval of the January 4, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes
Page 1, Lines 34-36 (McGehee)
Correct to read: "Councilmember
McGehee thanked City Manager Trudgeon for a recent newspaper article extending
wishes for a Happy New Year and highlighting some city-related items. [Councilmember
McGehee suggested a follow-up article on building bee houses and the affects of
pesticides on the health of bees.]"
Page 4, Line 36 (McGehee)
Correct to read: "noted [that]
home delivery issues"
Page 5, Lines 1 - 3 (McGehee)
Correct to read: "asked that
staff [keep] [remain] aware of the need to publicize
issues in the newspaper and not [depending] [depend]
January 11, City Council Meeting Minutes
Laliberte seconded, approval of the January 11, 2016 City Council Meeting
Minutes as presented.
Laliberte, McGehee and Roe.
Approve Consent Agenda
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being
considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for
Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, dated January 25, 2016.
McGehee seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented
Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits
McGehee seconded, approval of business and other licenses and permits for terms
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of
McGehee seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as
noted in the RCA and Attachment A entitled, "2016 Capital Improvement Plan
Summary," dated January 11, 2016.
moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the sale of surplus vehicles or equipment
as noted in the RCA dated January 11, 2016.
Approve Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Master
McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11292 (Attachment C) entitled, "Resolution [to] Enter Into a
master Partnership Contract with the Minnesota Department of Transportation;" and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute MnDOT
Agreement #1002070 (Attachment B), subject to approval by the City Attorney.
Approve DigniCare Senior Living Encroachment Agreement
McGehee seconded, approval of the Encroachment Agreement (Attachment A), as
conditioned in detail in the RCA dated January 25, 2016, at 197 West County
Road B-2 (DigniCare).
Approve Valley Park Storm Water Treatment Pond Complex
Maintenance Cooperative Agreement with City of Shoreview
McGehee seconded, approval of a Cooperative Agreement (Attachment A) between
the Cities of Roseville and Shoreview, for maintenance and repair activities
associated with the Valley Park Stormwater Treatment Pond Complex.
Approve Memorandum of Agreement Amending the Terms of IAFF Fire
Fighters Contract to Recognize the Battalion Chief job Classification
McGehee seconded, approval of the proposed terms and conditions of the
Memorandum of Agreement to amend the 2016-2017 collective bargaining agreement
with the IAFF; and direct City staff to prepare the necessary documents for
execution, subject to City Attorney approval.
Due to the lateness of the hour,
and without objection, Mayor Roe amended the agenda to hear the Lake Owasso
Safe Boating Association's request at this time (Action Item 12.a).
Public Hearings and Action Consideration
Consider Lake Owasso Safe Boating Association's Request for
Permit Renewal of the Water-Ski Slalom Course on Lake Owasso
Lorne Rosand briefly presented this annual request, noting Mr. Joe Bester from
the Lake Owasso Association was present for any questions.
Roe opened and closed the public hearing at 9:12 p.m. with no one appearing for
Manager Trudgeon noted four written comments received via email in support of
this request, provided as bench handouts, and advised they would be entered
into the record of these meeting minutes. Those submissions were received from
Cory and Sue Parnell, 405 S Owasso blvd.; James Badzinski, 385 S Owasso Blvd.
West; Michael Walz, 389 S Owasso Blvd. West; and Pat Martin, 363 S Owasso Blvd.
McGehee thanked the Association for their continued respect for and use by the
association of Lake Owasso.
moved, Etten seconded, approval of the Lake Owasso Safe Boating Association's
request for a permit from the Ramsey County Sheriff for a water ski course on
Lake Owasso for the 2016 season.
Consider Items Removed from Consent
General Ordinances for Adoption
Consider Approval of Rezoning of Properties within the Twin Lakes
Bryan Lloyd briefly summarized this request as detailed in the RCA dated
January 25, 2016.
reviewed the background in the City Council's creation of four distinct
community mixed use (CMU) districts, and the public input provided during that
lengthy process, to rezone and further define the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area
CMU district designation. Mr. Lloyd advised that this resulted in amending the
comprehensive plan for four parcels north of Terrace Drive and the incomplete
segment of Twin Lakes Parkway and its alignment for guidance similar to other
Twin Lakes parcels. Mr. Lloyd noted those amendments had previously been
approved by the City Council, and the comprehensive plan map subsequently
As part of that
approval process, Mr. Lloyd noted that the comprehensive plan amendment had
then been sent to the Metropolitan Council for their review and approval, which
had been completed, and now was back before the City Council for completion of
the rezoning process as the next step. Mr. Lloyd reviewed the various zoning
designations and least extensive uses tailor-made for those parcels between
those lower density residences to the north and commercial uses.
advised that a draft ordinance was included in meeting packet materials for
consideration by the City Council as part of tonight's requested action.
offered an opportunity for public comment, while noting the formal public
hearing had been held at the Planning Commission meetings of September 2 and
17, 2015. Mayor Roe noted that the Planning Commission voted 5/0 to
recommending zoning changes for these particular properties as well as others
at that time.
No one appeared
to speak to this issue.
McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1491 (RCA Exhibit B) entitled, "An
Ordinance Amending Title 10 of Roseville City Code Changing the Zoning
Designation of Certain Real Property for Consistency with its Designation in
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map;" rezoning existing High Density
Residential-1 (HDR-1) zoned parcels addressed as 2805 - 2837 Fairview Avenue,
2830 Fairview Avenue, and 1633-1775 Terrace Drive to Community Mixed Use-1
(CMU-1); based on the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission,
public input, City Council deliberation, as detailed in the RCA and attachments
dated January 25, 2016.
Mayor Roe noted
this signified the last step in a lengthy process resulting from past
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 9:15 p.m., and reconvened at approximately
Park & Recreation Quarterly Update
welcomed Commission Chair Jerry Stoner; and Commissioners Philip Gelbach and
Luke Heikkila. Discussion items were provided in detail in the RCA and
attachments dated January 25, 2016.
Street Park Proposal
advised that the Parks & Recreation Commission had voted unanimously to
recommend acquisition of this parcel to the City Council.
Cedarholm Golf Course Clubhouse Replacement
Commissioner Dave Holt having a prior commitment and needing to leave the
meeting before this presentation, Chair Stoner advised that while he served as
the Task Force lead on this issue, Commissioner Gelbach would substitute making
the report for Commissioner Holt.
Gelbach summarized the process and approach for creating a community
involvement process for Cedarholm Golf Course Clubhouse Replacement (Attachment
A) and accomplishments of the task force since the Commission had last met
jointly with the City Council. Commissioner Gelbach reported that the task
force was providing options and seeking subsequent direction and input to inform
that community involvement process moving forward. Commissioner Gelbach
advised that the Parks & Recreation Commission had approved the document as
presented; and asked that the next steps include recruitment and appointment of
one or more City Councilmembers to serve as a liaison to a community advisory
committee at the City Council's discretion.
document as an outline, Commissioner Gelbach referenced possible make-up of the
community advisory committee and representation of various participants,
including representatives of other advisory commissions as applicable, golfing
groups, and individuals along with a representative of the business community.
Gelbach reported that the intent was to work on that representation over the
next 30-60 days and have something available for approval by the Parks &
Recreation Commission and subsequent recommendation to the City Council by the
next quarterly joint meeting.
McGehee asked the intent or mission of the task force.
Gelbach responded that the goal was to define a process that included and
engaged the community on rebuilding or rehabilitating the current clubhouse;
exploring potential partnership in the community; create a process to keep the
public informed and the Parks & Recreation Commission in the forefront;
with subsequent information or proposals provided to the City Council for their
McGehee expressed her understanding and preference that this was intended as
more of a fact-finding effort and explanation of available options as to
whether or not to rebuild the golf course or convert it to something completely
Gelbach stated that the last joint meeting had not provided that specific of a
directive; and opined that those decisions shouldn't be made without public
clarified that the direction of the City Council at that joint meeting had been
to research and provide options for the club house.
Gelbach noted that a number of potential options had been laid out at that
McGehee stated that she wanted to be very careful about the process; and the
rationale for her question was her concern that there may be a goal already in
play and if the process was intended to move toward an established goal and
only that goal, she had numerous concerns. Councilmember McGehee opined that
there were differing opinions as to the future clubhouse; and she didn't want
anyone left out of or unheard during the process; and also to make sure the
mission remains open enough for any outcome informed by who served as a
representative on the committee. Councilmember McGehee stated that she was not
in favor of the application process of advertising as it precluded some members
of the community that may not be at the heart of the issue, but should be
represented. Councilmember McGehee opined that she had seen that happen
repeatedly in Roseville with task forces, in that the make-up of the committee
matches a desired outcome.
Willmus referenced the January 5, 2016 Commission meeting minutes that clearly
laid out a process and timeline (Attachment B). Councilmember Willmus
suggested that the make-up or membership be similar to that successful process
used by the Oval Task Force. Councilmember Willmus noted that it involved on
member from the rink operation side, it involved someone from the Schwann's
Super Rink, and suggested this committee include a representative from another
community that had chosen to go a different direction with their clubhouse.
Councilmember Willmus noted that the overall make-up, timeline and preliminary
objectives remained preliminary at this time until the committee actually met
and laid out their process, and allowing for more flexibility at that time.
Other than his last comment, Councilmember Willmus offered his approval of the
proposed objectives and process.
At the outset,
Councilmember Laliberte opined that Attachment A provided a good place to start
as presented; and agreed with the process for public engagement and vetting by
the Commission. Councilmember Laliberte expressed her appreciation of
Councilmember Willmus' suggestion for representation from another community
and/or golf course involved with this type of decision-making; and also
supported representation from the Roseville business community, perhaps sourced
through the Chamber of Commerce or Roseville Visitors' Association.
Councilmember Laliberte suggested including a representative of the area School
Districts; and offered her full support of the proposed engagement process.
councilmember expressed interest, Councilmember Laliberte offered to serve as
City Council Liaison on the committee.
Etten expressed appreciation for the timeline and process; and in general
offered his support. As he had previously mentioned to Parks & Recreation
Director Brokke, Councilmember Etten noted that the proposed number of
representatives may prove too unwieldy. However, in addition to the
suggestions of Councilmember Willmus, Councilmember Etten suggested it may be
prudent to include input from a successful municipal course, as well as a
community having chosen a different direction. To keep the committee size
manageable, Councilmember Etten suggested having some of those proposed as
representatives, simply make a presentation versus serving on the committee.
Other than that, Councilmember Etten thanked the task force for how they laid
out various ideas.
Mayor Roe noted
the need for a broad group of people providing input to the advisory committee
and process; and opined that similar to the Park Master Plan process, there
were many different ways to plug in that community input. Mayor Roe referenced
the 'meetings in a box" or "discover your parks" events; or meetings with
specific user groups - all used successfully with the Master Plan process for
gaining input rather than serving on a task force or committee. Mayor Roe
opined that there was a need to eliminate the idea that just because there was
a steering committee and process, other ideas were not just as valid and to be
input is such a big part of the process, Mayor Roe noted that other
considerations and issues are also needed to inform those decisions, including
funding options/opportunities and whether or not a bond issue is appropriate or
prudent and whether a bond issue could be incorporated with other community
needs, and related trade-offs and impacts beyond the footprint and amenities of
a clubhouse. From the City Council's perspective, Mayor Roe opined that was a
key piece and involved community input on whether or not to bond for the
improvement or if they had a preferred option.
noted that this is modeled after the Park Master Plan process and from his
research and observations included a culmination of the Oval Task Force
process, the Parks Master plan, and evolution to this with the idea to seek
staff's institutional knowledge of those past processes including what worked
and what didn't and attempt to correct any past problems with this process.
suggested the task force get on an upcoming Community Engagement Commission
meeting agenda to gain their perspective and thoughts.
duly noted that suggestion; and advised that the intent was to also use the new
electronic communication medium Speak Up! Roseville.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Commissioner Gelbach confirmed that the proposed
facilitator will be different.
reported that Commissioner Holt's appointment time was ending this March, he
would no longer be serving on the Parks & Recreation Commission, but use
his historical knowledge of processes to-date and move to serve as facilitator
for the task force through August or September.
Since the parks
had a Master Plan process was mentioned, and she represented a group that felt
completely left out of that process, Councilmember McGehee expressed her hope
that when thing were "fixed" with this iteration, the facilitator would see that
opinions not representing the Parks & Recreation Commission's viewpoint
were not slighted or run over at meetings. Councilmember McGehee advised that
she had been asked to relay that message and concern on behalf of residents
having shared that with her.
asked that those instances or perceptions be reported to the Commission
immediately for resolution, assuring all that certainly was not their intent
nor did they see themselves confining any ideas or options.
Master Plan process, Councilmember McGehee noted that when wishes or ideas for
parks were brought forward, a concern of hers was that they were not tied to
any costs, leaving many residents without sufficient information.
Councilmember McGehee suggested if an estimated target cost for each park had
been provided, it could have provided choices for residents by making them
aware of realistic parameters related to their expectations.
McGehee seconded, to approve going forward with the community process as presented
in Attachment A, and to include a representation from a Roseville business
and/or Roseville Visitors' Association; with appointment of Councilmember
Laliberte to serve as City Council Liaison to the committee.
McGehee suggested an amendment to the motion to include one public meeting with
a member from one or two municipalities as discussed.
clarified that this would be under separate direction related to the make-up of
objection, Mayor Roe directed the task force to involve other communities with
Receive Presentation and Consider a Resolution Authorizing City
Staff to Apply for Community Development Block Grant Funding and U. S. Bank
Grant Funding for the Acquisition and Maintenance of 1716 Marion Street as
Public Park and Play Space
the City Manager/City Clerk Kari Collins provided an overview of this request
as detailed in the RCA dated January 25, 2016, and support from the Karen
Interagency Group created in October of 2014 and their subsequent
identification of four challenges in this area of Roseville as detailed in the
noted the opportunity for a possible playground at 1716 Marion Street
(Attachment B area map) and lot that has been for sale for some time, not only
providing this playground space but also abutting the housing units for Karen
immigrants and low income youth living in those apartments. Ms. Collins provided
a photo of the property and its topography, naturally sloping down to a foot
trail accessing the apartments. Ms. Collins opined it would take minimal site
improvement to make that footpath a legitimate pathway to access the playground
from the apartments.
funding for the project, Ms. Collins reviewed U. S. Bank funds (Attachment C)
for proposals demonstrating a need for up to $50,000 for park site improvements
or playground equipment in low-income neighborhoods, with applications due by
February 18, creating some momentum for this proposal. Ms. Collins noted there
was also funding available through Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funding available that could be applied for in February for acquisition of the
property. Ms. Collins noted acquisition of the Marion Street parcel is
schedule for the City Council's consideration in a closed session on February
identified community partners, including the City of Roseville and multiple
departments, Roseville Police Foundation, Roseville Area Schools, Karen
Organization of Minnesota, International Institute of Minnesota, and Roseville
Parks & Recreation Commission. Ms. Collins noted that letters of support
from partners were provided in tonight's agenda materials.
introduced partner representatives present tonight, with each speaking in
support of this initiative.
Schaub, Roseville Area Schools Representative
expressed support for this exciting idea and unique way to bring together this
group of partners to address ongoing concerns for youth in the Karen
community. Ms. Schaub reported that the School District had sent cultural
representatives to these housing units and ventured into other ways to engage a
variety of residents by going directly to them. However, Ms. Schaub noted the
advantages of having an opportunity for youth and older adults to access this
park and use it as a gathering place. Ms. Schaub reiterated her excitement to
see the group willing to partner in this; and stated that the School District
was more than happy to be part of that partnership and help write the grant
Organization of Minnesota (KOM) Representatives
Nana Loo, Hta
Thi Yu Moo, and Lisa Givens, serving youth and social services needs at KOM to
enhance the quality of life for former residents of Burma. Each representative
in turn spoke of their support for youth programs possible and challenges with
current lack of transportation for these low-income youth to access other
recreational areas or be able to participate in summer youth programs, and how
this park would alleviate those issues. Comments included the benefits of such
a playground to avoid these youth playing on the street or throwing things
through apartment windows, causing safety concerns for them and area
residents. Additional interest was expressed in the benefit of a playground
for gathering and play for the youth as well as their parents and extended
families in a safer environment, as well as hosting community events to engage
these residents with the broader community.
Schuneman, Director of Refugee Services at International Institute of Minnesota
reported that in this upcoming and next fiscal years, it was expected that more
refugee families will be relocated to Minnesota, resulting in more than thirty
additional families seeking housing in Roseville. Ms. Schuneman noted that
this opportunity would serve to benefit not only current but future clients.
Sanders, Lake McCarrons Neighborhood Association Chair and SE Roseville
Interagency Work Group Subcommittee for Community Gardens
thanked the City Council for the opportunity to serve on the Interagency Work
Group and Subcommittee. Ms. Sanders agreed that there was a sore need for a
playground in this location, and this parcel would provide a wonderful source
for children to play.
In a related
note, Ms. Sanders plugged the anticipated community gardens to help serve this
Karen community, with the first planned in the City of Maplewood, with this
area involving the tri-city area of Maplewood, St. Paul and Roseville, and
recognized the dozen churches in the area working with the Interagency
Subcommittee for Community Gardens, with 150-200 16' x 20' plots currently planned
to be allocated, including veterans.
stated that the Lake McCarrons Neighborhood Association wholeheartedly
supported this playground as well.
Hilden, Lake McCarrons Neighborhood Association Founder and Board Member
Ms. Hilden reiterated
the comments of Ms. Sanders and the need for a playground. Ms. Hilden noted
that she was glad to hear that the Roseville City Council considered issues and
opportunities in SE Roseville to be a priority in the year ahead, agreeing with
that priority moving forward. As the oldest neighborhood association in
Roseville, Ms. Hilden reported that there were lots of things they wanted their
neighborhood to represent and one of those efforts was to continue fostering
community engagement, not only for the Karen community but for this to serve as
a model and process to integrate with the Karen community and improve
international relationships. Ms. Hilden expressed her hope that this park
would have that effect and improve relationships for all residents of the
At 10:02 p.m., Willmus moved,
Etten seconded, extending the meeting beyond curfew to conclude this item and
to consider one remaining agenda item, 15.b (not 15.a).
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte,
Etten, McGehee and Roe.
noted that, while this seems focused on the Karen as the largest refugee group
represented in this area of Roseville and the tri-community area, all
backgrounds would have use of the park and help serve the community purpose and
intent through this collaborative process. Ms. Collins referenced the
community aspirations long held important in Roseville as a welcoming and
inclusive community, and opined that this got to the heart of that goal. Ms.
Collins noted the excitement of the partners and widespread community support,
noting that this effort was in no way self-serving, but based on a genuine
partnership to meet the needs and identify goals for this community in SE
Roseville. Ms. Collins referenced the two grants available to offset costs for
acquisition and equipping this park, making it a great opportunity at a small
asked for support for this initiative to provide play space and gathering space
for these families given their limited transportation to access other such
facilities in the community or area. Ms. Collins provided a timetable for the
grant and project completion process scheduled for November of 2017, and
allowing sufficient time to gather the area community together to seek their
input and ideas for the park's design and genuinely engage them at this
location for this purpose.
Laliberte asked if there were other phases for these grants offered at other
times of the year.
advised that according to the U. S. Bank materials provided, this was a new
initiative for them in conjunction and on the heels of the new Minnesota
Vikings Stadium. While the grant award would not be announced until May of
2016, Ms. Collins reported that it was the intent to apply for this cycle based
on their initiative.
Willmus recognized and expressed his appreciation for the proactive efforts of
the partners. Councilmember Willmus noted another larger parcel directly north
of the Marion Street Parcel (identified on displayed maps) and asked how
broadly the entire area had been reviewed. Councilmember Willmus stated that
he had some concerns with the physical size and topography of this lot,
particularly the slope that fell off rapidly; and with his estimate of 33,000
to 35,000 square feet total, with only about one-third of that level ground
that would require little expense to prepare it for playground equipment, etc.,
when comparing it to the potential of the larger parcel, he had difficulty
visioning programming on it. In addressing the big picture, Councilmember
Willmus asked how broad the search had been geographically for other parcels.
responded that the dollar investment for this lot and potential cost
preliminarily identified made it very attractive and attainable. Regarding the
lot size mentioned by Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Collins advised that a Parks
Master Plan process was needed, and while it may be suitable for a playground,
she anticipated such an acquisition further down the road. With this parcel
directly abutting the rental property, and actually gently sloping down, Ms.
Collins opined that it provided a neat opportunity for a gathering spot for these
families as well, one of the reasons the lot intrigued her beyond the youth
component. By allowing elderly residents access for gathering, sitting on
benches, and easy access to the park by proximity, Ms. Collins noted the sense
of community it provided versus a larger lot that may require them finding
transportation or not physically able to access that area.
the displayed map, directly north of Marion and South McCarrons Boulevard,
Councilmember Willmus opined that it abutting the apartment property as well.
While understanding that SE Roseville is a priority, if looking at a broader
approach, perhaps both parcels should be considered for acquisition and a
broader planning process for further housing development on that larger parcel abutting
South McCarrons Boulevard in addition to providing room for a nice park.
Councilmember Willmus suggested partnering with the School District and further
meeting needs of that area of Roseville with a more permanent pavilion and
greater access for mobile service vehicles (e.g. dental services, food trucks,
or other amenities). Councilmember Willmus stated that he really wanted to
take a broader look at available vacant space.
suggested that could be done in the long-term to make a thoughtful investment
in the community. However, Ms. Collins noted that right now, 200 youth
desperately needed recreation space, and this site could be immediately
utilized while doing that long-term master planning to acquire larger and more
parcels that would address the additional families and youth anticipated. Ms.
Collins noted that most of the Karen population lived off the Woodbridge Court
Apartments and currently play in the only available green space available to
them, the street boulevard, thus prompting the energy focused on this
Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11293 (Attachment G) entitled,
"Resolution Authorizing City Staff to Apply for Community Development Block
Grant Funding and U. S. Bank Grant Funding for the Acquisition and Maintenance
of 1716 Marion Street as Public Park and Play Space."
McGehee spoke in support of the motion, and expressed the importance she placed
in pursuing housing programs going forward that included sufficient green space
to include children and elderly residents. In her walk-through of this parcel
and adjacent buildings, Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Willmus
about the need to look at the larger site as well; however, she agreed that this
parcel felt right as a starting point to engage this community to see what they
wanted and develop interaction and engagement opportunities through the
process. With the community garden initiatives, the ECHO video coming out, and
other efforts, Councilmember McGehee opined that it served to signal that we're
bringing services to this unique sub-community of Roseville and into the larger
Roseville community. Councilmember McGehee noted that there were some real
challenges and needs, and only so much can be done with so little, but in this
case noted that there is nothing available for these children at this time.
Etten stated that this was a great thing for a number of partner organizations
and was a concrete step for the City Council's Priority Planning Program (PPP)
and for SE Roseville. As grants are pursued from U. S. Bank and CDBG,
Councilmember Etten noted that some of the costs will be shared by other groups
in addition to the city. When doing this Playground Build, Councilmember Etten
suggested involving not only city representatives, but representatives of the
broader neighborhood as well as renters adjacent to the park. Councilmember
Etten opined that the difference he found in this parcel and the larger one
identified by Councilmember Willmus was this is closer to the community needing
it and served as a positive in addressing that neighborhood, as well as being
much less expensive to address at this time.
Laliberte agreed that this fits with the City Council's SE Roseville
priorities, and was perfectly positioned. However, Councilmember noted the
importance of having this conversation, which was almost missed, before moving
forward to consider acquisition. If that opportunity had been missed,
Councilmember Laliberte noted the other moving pieces and partners engaged
wouldn't have been part of the discussion nor allowed the broader community to
hear this discussion. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she felt it was
important to pause the process to have this conversation. Having walked the
parcel over the weekend, Councilmember Laliberte stated she found it a great
location, and even though there are some challenges such as additional cost of
equipment and safe surfaces, beyond the approximate land value and anticipation
of grant funding to assist, prompting additional conversation in the near
Willmus expressed the vital need, before getting to the point of closing on
this parcel, to nail down costs, not only those for acquisition of the site and
infrastructure planned there, but ongoing capital costs and how those dollars
are allocated. Councilmember Willmus opined that that needed to be part of the
front-end discussions as well.
Laliberte stated that, while not part of her support of lack of support in
acquiring this parcel and those partnering in doing so, she thought there was a
need to get input from the SE Roseville Interagency Working Group to hear their
thoughts and how the parcel should be used. Councilmember Laliberte noted that
if seeking community engagement, the City Council needed to abide by that goal
all the way around, and suggested putting decision-making and the city's
commitment on future movement until that input had been received.
stated that he was supportive of the motion and thanked the partners for their
involvement and their comments tonight. Mayor Roe opined that this was a great
experiment and opportunity to see what could be accomplished in this unique
community in Roseville, and how it could serve as a model for comparable areas
of the community in need of services coming to them, or as an incubator to
address the larger SE Roseville vision. Mayor Roe stated that he was looking
to an even broader perspective than Councilmember Willmus, such as the whole
complex on the larger parcel, such as seeking if AEON or other developers are
interested in turning that parcel into something the community could be proud
of by taking on that site for a multi-use development of housing and green
space and accomplish broader goals at the same time. Mayor Roe expressed
appreciation again for the partners stepping forward on this effort, opining it
gave the opportunity for a stake in the ground going forward. In speaking to
neighborhood associations in general, Mayor Roe noted that there were a number
of things the city could help facilitate, but reminded everyone that neighbors
can and do accomplish a lot without the city's involvement, and he encouraged
them continuing that, and offered his support in those efforts. However,
speaking from the voice of reality, if the grants are not successful since
they're key to making this work, the project would not proceed unless something
else was figured out.
McGehee suggested looking into the Bremer Foundation for a possible area of
support as well.
conversation earlier today with Ms. Collins, Councilmember Etten noted that as
part of the City Council's PPP, he had requested that the SE Roseville
Interagency Working Group provide an update on a regular basis to the City
Council to keep them and the public in the loop and get that information out to
the broader community on a more regular basis.
Councilmember Willmus' request for future costs, Councilmember Etten referenced
Attachment F for that information, duly noted by Councilmember Willmus.
Willmus noted that she had also spoken with Ms. Collins earlier today, and as
part of this exciting experiment had suggested some sweat equity community
engagement to help maintain the facility in the future as well as perhaps
creating a long-term association or board for long-term support of the
playground and area.
Trudgeon thanked Councilmember Willmus for bringing up the larger parcel,
noting that it would be a critical component for SE Roseville and has been a
long-time consideration for redevelopment.
Willmus suggested including discussion on that parcel and redevelopment in that
area as part of upcoming EDA discussions.
Business Items (Action Items)
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
High Density Housing Discussion
Discuss High Density Residential (HDR) Interim Ordinance
Mayor Roe noted
that this agenda item had been previously requested by Councilmember Willmus,
and asked him to summarize the request.
Willmus stated that his intent and the staff comments included in the RCA dated
January 25, 2016 were the result of his not having an opportunity to talk to
Community Development Director Bilotta before the packet was put together and
distributed. Councilmember Willmus clarified that his intent of a short-term
moratorium was not to slow down or prohibit development of HDR, but to take a
brief 60 to 90-day pause on any rezoning to HDR and provide an opportunity to
have the HDR discussion and implement what may or may not come as a result of
those discussions and to make sure all the pieces of the puzzle were in place
before moving forward.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Councilmember Willmus confirmed that his intent would be that the
moratorium would apply to any new HDR zoning as well.
Development Director Paul Bilotta noted that any application(s) already in
process would continue to go forward, per state statute, and opined that a
moratorium may not be necessary if language was adopted guiding anything zoned
HDR would need a comprehensive plan amendment and would be at the full
discretion of the City Council with the required super majority vote. Mr.
Bilotta noted that the City Council could use staff to screen applicants ahead
of time, and if the proposal was not in line with desired goals, it could be
stopped at that point of the process until or if any more rezoning was approved
in the future.
Willmus expressed concern with the subjectivity of that staff determination and
potential litigation for the city. Given his proposed short timeframe and
specificity, Councilmember Willmus opined that the moratorium shouldn't be an
McGehee stated that she could support a moratorium in that very narrow
timeframe, especially since tonight didn't allow for the HDR discussion, she
had some questions including the 80/20 split, green space, side setbacks, etc.
that she'd like to revisit as part of that discussion. Councilmember McGehee
stated that she was leaning toward supporting a moratorium on a specific
Mayor Roe asked
if the intent of Councilmember Willmus was to adopt an ordinance tonight, or
have it come back to the City Council; with the consensus to bring it back to
the February 8th meeting after tonight's discussion provided more
guidance to staff and as suggested by City Manager Trudgeon.
Mayor Roe summarized the discussion for consideration of an interim ordinance related
to new rezoning to HDR-1 or HDR-2 for a 60 to 90-day period for the purpose of
more extensive HDR discussions by the City Council and their reaction to that
discussion as well as allowing the opportunity to complete Planned Unit
Development (PUD) discussions.
Willmus advised that he had originally thought a 60-day moratorium was
sufficient, but City Manager Trudgeon suggested 90 days based on realistic
timing issues, and deferred to staff on the maximum time.
Etten expressed his preference for the narrowed time focus, but suggested 90
days was more realistic and wiser given the amount of time required to
accomplish things, including the PUD process. Councilmember Etten stated that
he didn't want to feel pressured in his deliberations.
McGehee seconded, directing staff to prepare an interim ordinance incorporating
as its content tonight's discussion and parameters; and bring it forward on the
February 8, 2016 City Council meeting agenda for additional discussion and
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Trudgeon provided a preview of upcoming agenda items.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:31 p.m.