View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
February 8, 2016
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00
p.m. Voting and Seating Order: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney Erich Hartman were present,
along with City Attorney Mark Gaughan arriving at approximately 6:23 p.m. City
Attorney Hartman left shortly after the City Council reconvened in open session
following the closed executive session.
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Approve Agenda
City Manager Trudgeon noted the written request of appellant
Vogel Mechanical via email dated February 8, 2016, seeking deferral of the
Consent Item 8.l and a resolution stating findings for denial of their
administrative appeal until receipt and approval of the January 25, 2016 public
hearing and meeting minutes outlining the findings for denial.
Councilmember McGehee asked City Attorney Hartman whether or
not the meeting minutes were necessary as long as the resolution recorded the
findings in accord with the meeting.
Mayor Roe clarified that the findings were developed during
the meeting and questioned if having the meeting minutes available was any
different than adopting the resolution memorializing those findings from the
meeting of January 25, 2016.
City Attorney Hartman clarified the question being asked of
him, and Mayor Roe's confirmation of the resolution (Attachment A) providing an
extract of minutes of the meeting' and those findings as noted. City Attorney
Hartman advised that as long as the minutes were in the format as indicated by
Mayor Roe and provided as an excerpt, having the actual full meeting minutes
available would only be a formality; and he would agree that there was no
reason to not take action on the Consent Agenda memorializing that action
accordingly and as planned on tonight's agenda.
Without objection Mayor Roe indicated that the item would
remain on tonight's Consent Agenda as presented.
Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Items 8.h and j
from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the agenda as
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Etten and Roe.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the
audience on any non-agenda items.
Kathy Ramundt, 11651 Laurie Road
Ms. Ramundt noted her ongoing
attempt to focus on what was good in the community; however, she noted the need
she felt to address the recent resignation of Sherry Sanders from the City's
Community Engagement Commission (CEC). Ms. Ramundt asked that this be
considered by the City Council as a formal complaint related to a fellow CEC
commissioner and similar to her personal issues specific to her past
resignation from the Neighborhood Association Task Force serving under that
same advisory commission. Given these formal complaints, Ms. Ramundt suggested
it was perhaps time for the City Council to address something that was
obviously not working.
Ms. Ramundt addressed the problems
working with a CEC commission, poor treatment of residents by that
commissioner, her attempts to resolve those issues personally without success,
and her contact with Mayor Roe and City Council members, as well as meeting
with Mayor Roe and City Manager subsequent to her resignation, with still no
resolution. Ms. Ramundt noted that without an established process in place as
she had previously requested, and once again being faced with the same issue,
it was hard to determine what expectations or objectives were preferred.
Ms. Ramundt asked that the City
use what it had learned and institute a Code of Conduct with the expectations
that those representing the City and the City Council show respect. Ms.
Ramundt suggested that, if "Code of Conduct" language was found to be too
strong by the City Council, it call them "Guidelines." However, Ms. Ramundt
opined that at a minimum a written process be established for complaints and
issues, particularly for the City Council's community advisory commissions; and
suggested the City's Volunteer Coordinator be considered as the initial contact
person. Ms. Ramundt noted that this issue was not new, and stated that others
had resigned due to being unable to work with a commissioner. Ms. Ramundt
opined that this was sad to think about the great resources having been lost
due to an unfortunate situation.
Ms. Ramundt advised that, when
speaking with Mayor Roe, he indicated that there were no previous complaints,
or none documented. However, Ms. Ramundt noted that there was at least one
other "formal complaint" months prior to hers. In Mayor Roe's added comment
about what was considered a free speech issue, Ms. Ramundt suggested that a
written complaint not being responded to was not the same as it not being
Ms. Ramundt noted that Ms. Sanders
had stated that her resignation was a formal complaint against the same
commissioner; but she was unaware that anyone had yet to address her problem.
Since this behavior appears to continue without a record being kept, Ms. Ramundt
opined that it was time to do so.
Ms. Ramundt recognized the City
Council's understanding of the importance of community engagement, as well as
that of others in the community; and asked what the City Council considered
their legacy would be when it did or did not address these warnings and the
disrespectful atmosphere created and continuing to crop-up. Ms. Ramundt noted
the need for a long-term strategy, since this isn't the first time she's
brought forward the need for a formal complaint process and code of ethics.
Given the existing problem, Ms.
Ramundt reiterated the need for a process to be in place to address; and asked
that she not need to come before the City Council yet again on this topic.
However, if no resolution is put forward, Ms. Ramundt promised to come forward
again; and stated that she held each Councilmember responsible for those
volunteering on their advisory commissions; and asked again what message they
were sending to the community.
Ms. Ramundt stated that she
expected that no one should ever say they were disrespected by a commissioner
or anyone else representing the City Council. Ms. Ramundt concluded by stating
the City Council's action or lack of action would follow them into the next
election and after.
Sheila Rose, 2175 Victoria Street (at County Road B and Victoria
As a thirty-plus year resident of
Roseville, Ms. Rose stated that she felt disrespected by the City and its
employees, specific to the work done on Victoria Street. After having been
told that there would be nothing done on the west side of the street where she
lives, Ms. Rose noted coming home to find markings on her yard, but after again
contacting City Hall, was assured nothing was being done on that side.
However, Ms. Rose reported that she came home one day to find her driveway dug
up, necessitating her need to park off-site, and her and several neighbors
being inconvenienced. Ms. Rose also noted that they received notices about
their water being shut off after the work had already been done in her case.
Ms. Rose stated it was her
understanding that public hearings were required and notices provided prior to
work being done; however, she noted this had not been done, nor had her
neighbors received any notice. Ms. Rose noted that she had complained several
times, to no avail.
Now with the work proposed at
Victoria and the Lexington Avenue bridge, with the City Council being the final
rule in the city, she asked what recourse citizens had. With that work
proposed for burying sewer during the night and early morning hours, and even
though she had sent emails to the Public Works Department, Ms. Rose expressed
her lack of confidence that her voice had been heard. Ms. Rose questioned
whether others would want work being done in front of their homes during those
hours and causing them to lose sleep. Therefore, Ms. Rose stated her intent to
make the City Council aware that their employees were not respecting the rules
and holding public hearings as required. If employees are not doing their jobs
in following the rules, Ms. Rose opined that it started at the top.
Mayor Roe clarified that no action
had been taken yet on the noise variance request (Sandhurst project) for sewer
projects of concern to Ms. Rose.
Specific to the Victoria Street
project of 2015, Mayor Roe asked City Manager Trudgeon to report back to the
City Council, Ms. Rose, and public on that situation at an upcoming meeting.
Diane Hilden, 466 Bayview Drive
Ms. Hilden stated her intent to
reinforce and wholeheartedly agree with the comments of Ms. Ramundt related to
unethical behavior occurring in the city, noting that she had also addressed
these concerns to the City's Ethics Commission, with no response to-date. Ms.
Hilden stated that these issues had been of concern to her over the last year,
and now again with this most recent issue. Ms. Hilden noted that she had
communicated these concerns to each councilmember and with the City Manager and
had not yet received a response.
Ms. Hilden noted that the last
communication she had sent via email was concerning the January 25, 2016
meeting and Vogel Mechanical issue where she had observed some very rude and
impertinent behavior from a fellow Roseville citizen, questioning the
credibility of another Roseville citizen. Ms. Hilden opined that this behavior
should not be allowed in the city, and she had found it disheartening not to
have received a response other than one stating that she was personally "strong
enough to take care of it" on her own. Ms. Hilden expressed her disappointment
with that vein of argument and stated she would have appreciated some response
and action by the City Council.
Ms. Hilden expressed her hope that
citizens would not have to endure similar or repeated offensive behavior in the
Ms. Hilden noted that she had also
written to Councilmembers in the past about her experience with the CEC, and
while not serving in the role of advisory commissioner, she had served on a
task force discussing possible changes for community neighborhood
organizations. Ms. Hilden noted her founding of and service on the Lake
McCarrons Neighborhood Association. While serving on this task force, Ms.
Hilden advised that she had been forced to resign, as had most of its members,
due to the disrespectful and mean behavior of one member.
Ms. Hilden clarified that it was
not her intent with these comments tonight for any type of character assassination
but only to ask that the City initiate a process to address citizen concerns
expressed via written, verbal or, email to assure their complaints were being
heard and responded to.
City Attorney Gaughan arrived at this time, approximately
Ms. Hilden stated that this is a
plea for citizens to be heard; and that whatever the circumstance, they receive
at a minimum a response. Ms. Hilden clarified that this was not a request for
an official city complaint department, but much more than that, a
recommendation for a formal process to be developed to deal with this type of
situation in order to avoid stifling discussions and allowing for differing
points of view to be expressed. Ms. Hilden opined that the behavior that has
gone on at the CEC and events at the January 25, 2016 meeting detracted from
residents seeking volunteer opportunities in the community.
Ms. Hilden reiterated that this is
not personally directed against anyone; but expressed her interest in hearing
from council members and their intent to develop a written policy. Also, Ms.
Hilden requested a formal response to her emails from someone at City Hall to
at least let her know their feelings on this. Ms. Hilden opined that when
residents spoke publically, it was nice for them and fellow residents to be
assured they would be responded to. Ms. Hilden recognized that it wasn't easy
for many citizens to speak publically; and therefore was seeking a constructive
and productive means to address this type of situation in the future.
Sherry Sanders, S McCarron's Boulevard
Ms. Sanders stated that she fully
supported the comments made by Ms. Hilden and Ms. Ramundt; and encouraged the
City Council to create some form of formal complaint process to protect
5. Council & City Manager Communications,
Reports, and Announcements
Mayor Roe announced vacancies on Roseville citizen advisory
commissions and the process for applications, interviews and appointments, and
contact options for additional information.
Mayor Roe provided a reminder of upcoming open houses for
information on MnDot projects occurring in 2016 in or near Roseville.
Mayor Roe reminded residents of upcoming Buckthorn brush
removal at Materion Park and the State of the City Address.
City Manager Trudgeon reported on his attendance last week
at the Mounds View School District No. 621 meeting and shared demographic
information from that meeting, similar to that being experienced in District
623. Mr. Trudgeon noted the tremendous uptick in enrollment in District 621
students, resulting in their closure of open enrollment. Mr. Trudgeon reported
that the anticipated development of the former Twin Cities Army Ammunition
Plant (TCAAP)/Rice Creek Commons would result in those new students eventually
ending up at Irondale School. Mr. Trudgeon also noted current construction on
Highway 96 of the new Ramsey County Library - Shoreview branch and move of the
Mounds View School District headquarters into the current library upon
completion of the new building.
Councilmember McGehee responded to comments during public
comment this evening, stating that she was a long-time proponent of
acknowledging those comments at the time they occur. Having experienced
similar situations in the past, Councilmember McGehee advised that she had spoken
to the City Council and City Manager about the need for a process.
Councilmember McGehee noted that the City Council had the authority to take
action, but had chosen not to do so to-date. Councilmember McGehee opined that
it besmirched the City Council as well as those advisory commissioners
representing them, and further opined that the City Council needed to take some
action or set a process to address these issues as they arise, some of them
having been outstanding for some time.
Councilmember McGehee noted that she had also experienced
the water to her home being shut off before she received notice. Now that the
turnover in the Public Works Department had waned, Councilmember McGehee voiced
her hope that the process would improve; but was hopeful as well that the
speaker would get a follow-up report.
Mayor Roe reported on his attendance at a meeting last week
on the renewal of the Comcast Franchise Agreement. Mayor Roe further reported
on the second franchise, CenturyLink, and their report that they had 73%
Roseville residents who were theoretically capable of obtaining their service
if interested. Mayor Roe reported that CenturyLink would need to verify speeds
on their maps, and as that is completed, if a resident is interested and calls
CenturyLink, they would sign them up for their services
6. Recognitions, Donations and Communications
Present Green Building Award Winner
Mayor Roe recognized the 2015
Roseville Green Award Program first prize winners, Anthony & Julie
Albecker, 405 Lovell Avenue, noting this award presentation had been postponed
from the last meeting.
Jeanne Kelsey introduced Anthony
Albecker and asked him to review some of the improvements to their home and to
share his passion for the project and use of green materials.
As a resident of Roseville for the
last ten years, Mr. Albecker expressed his family's desire to stay in
Roseville, while recognizing the limitations of their two-bedroom rambler with
a single-car garage. As an employee at the U of MN, Mr. Albecker expressed
their interest in doing their remodel right, and use of structural insulated
panels versus conventional construction for walls. Mr. Albecker reported that
the material was performing as expected and even after experiencing fraud
issues with their contractor, were pleased with the process. Mr. Albecker
noted that, along the way and due to the challenges of the process, his family
had gotten to know some great city officials and employees, especially after he
and his wife took over as General Contractor for the project.
At the request of Councilmember
Willmus, Mr. Albecker displayed the prefabricated insulated panels,
manufactured in Cottonwood, MN from recyclable wood chips surrounding Styrofoam
Councilmember Laliberte thanked
Mr. Albecker for his family's investment in Roseville; with Mayor Roe adding
their being an example for other residents as well.
Ms. Kelsey presented a certificate
and $500 check to Mr. Albecker as the 2015 Green Award Program recipient.
Mr. Albecker thanked the City for
this acknowledgment and the financial reward of their community efforts and
Mayor Roe announced that, in accordance with Minnesota State
Statute, Chapter 13.D.05 and exceptions to open meeting laws, he would
entertain a motion to move into closed session.
Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, recessing the City Council
meeting at approximately 6:42 p.m. and convening in Closed Executive Session,
per State Statute 13.D.05 for the purpose of discussing negotiations and
potential acquisition of property at property at 1716 Marion Street
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Mayor Roe convened the City Council in Closed Executive
Session at approximately 6:45 p.m. for the purpose of discussing negotiations
and possible property acquisition at 1716 Marion Street. In addition to the
Councilmembers, City Manager Trudgeon, City Attorneys Hartman and Gaughan, and
Assistant to the City Manager Kari Collins were also present.
At approximately 7:26 p.m., McGehee moved, Willmus seconded,
adjourning the closed session and reconvening in open session.
7. Approve Minutes
8. Approve Consent Agenda
Mayor Roe reconvened the city council in open session at
approximately 7:30 P.M. 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 February 8, 2016.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded,
approval of the following claims and payments as presented and detailed.
80304 - 80418
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee,
Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits
McGehee moved, Etten seconded,
approval of business and other licenses and permits for terms as noted.
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of
Councilmember Laliberte asked if the
expenses for the Police Department Interview Room indicated a total cost or if
additional charges or work would be coming later.
City Manager Trudgeon responded that he was
unsure and would follow-up with more definitive information later; while
clarifying that this was a budgeted expenditure and assumed there may be some
additional expenditures forthcoming.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of
general purchases and contracts for services as noted in the RCA dated February
8, 2016, and Attachment A entitled, "2016 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," dated January 31, 2016.
Adopt a Resolution to Approve 2016 Apportionment of Assessments
McGehee moved, Etten seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 11294 entitled, "Resolution Relating to
Apportionment of Assessments for the year 2016."
Approve Resolution Awarding Bid for 2016 Sanitary Sewer Main
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of
Resolution No. 11295 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Awarding Bids for
2016 Sanitary Sewer Main Lining;" awarding bid total B to the firm of
Insituform Technologies USA, LLC in an amount not to exceed $790,727.70.
Certify Unpaid Utility and Other Charges to the Property Tax
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of
Resolution No. 11298 entitled, "Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Levy
Unpaid Water, Sewer and Other City Charges for Payable 2015 or Beyond."
Accept Shared Services Update
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, received the quarterly
update on shared services as presented by staff.
Award Custodial Services Contract Agreement for Park Buildings
At the request of Councilmember Laliberte,
City Manager Trudgeon confirmed that city staff was taking care of custodial
needs in restrooms and central areas in Jaycee and Central Parks, and that
those were not part of this outside service contract.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of an
Agreement for Professional Services for cleaning services between the City of
Roseville and The Cleaning Authority for professional cleaning services at
Autumn Grove, Lexington, Oasis, Rosebrook Sandcastle and Villa Park Buildings,
and the Muriel Sahlin Arboretum support building, in an amount not to exceed
$51,000, funded through the adopted 2016 Parks & Recreation budget; and
authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document(s).
Adopt a Resolution DENYING the Appeal of an Administrative
Decision by Vogel Mechanical, Inc. at 2830 Fairview Avenue N
Mayor Roe asked if the draft resolution,
as Attachment A to the RCA dated February 8, 22016, reflected the motion maker,
seconder, and vote at the Board of Adjustments and Appeals on January 25,
Community Development Director
Paul Bilotta advised that the resolution had been drafted by the City
Attorney's office and memorialized the findings of that meeting.
City Attorney Gaughan noted lines
88-91 of the resolution providing a recitation of the Board motion of January
25, 2016; and as stated by Mr. Bilotta served to memorialize the findings of
that action and would be appropriate for adoption on the Consent Agenda.
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Attorney Gaughan stated that there was no need for the makers of the motion
tonight to match those of the action by the Board on January 25th.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of
Resolution No. 11297 (Attachment A entitled, "Resolution Governing an Appeal by
Vogel Mechanical, Inc. regarding an Administrative Decision; DENYING the
9. Consider Items Removed from Consent
Accept Grant Applications update
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item being considered under the Consent
Agenda; and as detailed in the RCA and related attachments dated February 8,
Councilmember McGehee noted the total
project amount of $139,000 for the Legion Baseball Field Improvements, and only
$10,000 grant funds received from the MN Twin Baseball Club. Councilmember
McGehee opined that it appeared the city in-kind match far exceeded any
advantages of the minimal grant award; and questioned if it was appropriate to
spend city staff time in pursuing such minimal amounts.
City Manager Trudgeon stated that approval
of the Legion Ballfields had been approved and funded through the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) budget as an expenditure. To the credit of the Parks
Department staff, City Manager Trudgeon advised that the $10,000 in grant
funding from this organization had reduced that city expenditure by $10,000,
otherwise it would have all been borne by the city.
Councilmember McGehee noted that her concern
was based on past situations where the city match far exceeded the grant award.
Councilmember Laliberte noted that the
grant requested from the MN Department of Public Safety for human trafficking
investigations indicated no award amount; and questioned if this indicated
there was no grant awarded or if it was still pending.
City Manager Trudgeon suggested it meant
the grant award was still pending, but offered to follow-up with additional
information on that as well.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, receive the
quarterly update on grant applications as presented by staff.
Approve Farrington Estates Public Improvement Contract
Mayor Roe suggested, without
objection, since the Final Plat approval required approval of the Public
Improvement Contract, that these items be combined. At the request of Mayor
Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA
and related attachments, dated February 8, 2016.
Councilmember McGehee noted previous
discussion about tree preservation on the Outlot on Highway 36; and immediately
following that discussion, the lot was clear-cut. Councilmember McGehee opined
that if the city was serious about tree preservation, particularly along
Highway 36 where the trees provided a noise buffer and beautification, she
found this result disappointing to say the least. Councilmember McGehee asked
if the Outlot was a stormwater management area, or if it included public space
for walking or would be fenced as an Outlot.
City Manager Trudgeon stated he didn't
believe it was intended to be fenced in, and if it was a utility easement, the
city would have access.
Mayor Roe clarified that the parcel is only
accessible from Highway 36 or from private property, and therefore would not be
advertised as a city amenity for the use of the general public.
Councilmember McGehee questioned if it
would be possible to use some dedicated funding for planting along Highway 36
to make that area more attractive.
Mayor Roe suggested that would be
appropriate to bring up for City Council consideration at a future date.
Councilmember McGehee stated her interest
in having that discussion if Councilmembers were interested in doing so, noting
that since the Outlot had been clear cut along Highway 36 already, it shouldn't
be a big job to add vegetation while other work was underway.
Councilmember Willmus questioned if the
city could require the property owners to do so at this point unless the city
wanted to partner with them, which would be a later discussion and not germane
to this current discussion before the City Council on acting on the Final Plat
or the Public Improvement Agreement.
Mayor Roe concurred with the comments of
McGehee moved as part of the Public
Improvement Contract consideration of planting public trees along Highway 96.
Mayor Roe ruled the motion failed for lack
of a second.
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, a Public
Improvement Contract - Farrington Estates - subject to final approval of the
Final Plat; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the
Councilmember Laliberte expressed her
interest in a future discussion on how and why a lot can be clear cut, and as a
separate discussion from this action.
Mayor Roe noted it was his understanding
that the decision had been related to tree preservation and stormwater
management issues; and suggested if the city wanted to plant trees at some
point in the future it could do so.
Councilmember Laliberte expressed interest in
future discussion and hearing from the Public Works Department about the issue.
Approve Farrington Estates Final Plat, Premium Real Estate
Solutions, LLC, 311 County Road B (PF15-004)
As previously noted by Mayor Roe after
consultation with City Attorney Gaughan, this item was also removed from the
Consent Agenda pending affiliated action of the Public Improvement Contract.
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of
Resolution No. 11296 (RCA Exhibit C) entitled, "A Resolution Approving the
Final Plat of Farrington Estates (PF15-004); and accepting a park dedication
fee in lieu of land in the amount of $17,500, payable by the applicant before
the signed final plat is released by City staff for recording at Ramsey County,
for property located at 311 County Road B.
For the benefit of the public, Mayor Roe
clarified that the Planning Commission and City Council had taken previous
action approving the Preliminary Plat for this area, and this administrative
action was basically formalizing of the lots.
McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
10. General Ordinances for Adoption
Proposed Text Amendments to Roseville City code, Chapter 907,
Registration of Residential Rental Property of 1 to 4 Units
Community Development Department staff,
Jeanne Kelsey, summarized this requested action as detailed and highlighted in
the RCA dated February 8, 2016. Ms. Kelsey thanked Trevor Johnson, Intern
provided and paid for by the University of Northwestern to review Roseville's
Rental Registration Program for its effectiveness and to recommend any
administrative changes now that it had been in operation for a while. Ms.
Kelsey noted that the general recommendation was that the program continue to
focus on educational versus inspection efforts as indicated in the report.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Kelsey
confirmed that the City Attorney recommended not striking language from rental
units and not identifying them as non-owner occupied.
Annette Phillips, 3084 Shorewood Lane
Ms. Phillips noted that she had served as
an original member of the task force creating this ordinance; and opined that
she found the majority of language changes to be good.
However, Ms. Phillips questioned Item
0907.04 (5) and striking out owner language.
Mayor Roe clarified that the old item
number 5 language indicated whether a unit was occupied by the owner and
borders; and this new language only spoke to how many bedrooms and bathrooms
were in a unit and the number of renters allowed per unit; both with the same
Ms. Phillips stated her understanding was
that it referenced whether or not a unit was owner-occupied, and noted she had
heard otherwise if a unit was not owner-occupied.
Mayor Roe noted that this language applied
to owner-occupied or non-owner-occupied units, as long as it was rental
property and whether or not the owner lives on site or not, the information has
to be recorded. Mayor Roe noted that was his initial question to staff and
their response that this language was recommended by the City Attorney.
Ms. Phillips opined that this made sense
now that it had been clarified for her.
Ms. Phillips questioned city code definition
of family, and read that portion out loud, opining that she found it vague
indicating any individual owner living and maintaining a common household and
using a common kitchen and cooking facility and to her seemed to be a separate
issue from defining a real family unit.
Mayor Roe clarified that was language from
the zoning code as referenced, and that "family" was not previously defined. However, regardless of requirements related to whether or not a unit is being
rented to a family member, Mayor Roe noted the same requirements would apply,
and the exception to the fee would also still apply.
Ms. Phillips cited an example known to her
of a rental house with five people living there: two brothers so they'd be
considered family, but she questioned how to eliminate that type of
Mayor Roe recognized Ms. Phillips example,
and suggested that needed further consideration and review regarding how
exceptions may be made for one person.
Ms. Phillips commented on what had been
happening through this process since the original recommendations had been put
together by the Rental Task Force and they defined all actions weekly without
emphasis on any type of commitment and enforcement or ordinance. Ms. Phillips
opined it had been their intent to put the responsibility on the owner for
voluntary registration, and she further opined that some good things in having
that knowledge had resulted and it had accomplished several things. Ms.
Phillips noted that the task force had shied away from inspections or code
enforcement; but expressed her disappointment to see that this new draft didn't
show any city interest in action to allow more code enforcement in order to
maintain good rental properties in the city.
Councilmember McGehee recognized that it
was a common issue that too many occupants were housed in a rental unit, and
also noted there was an exception for family for owner-occupied rental units.
Councilmember McGehee asked Ms. Kelsey for examples of such a definition.
Ms. Kelsey responded that there were
several definitions, and referenced them in the ordinance language: one related
to single-family rentals and another to how many non-related entities can live
Community Development Director Bilotta
concurred, noting that the entities couldn't be added together, and provided
several examples, indicating that the maximum number should be four unrelated
adults living in one rental unit; not a mix and match situation, but either or.
Discussion ensued regarding various
Councilmember Laliberte noted that the
study looked at the language and not necessarily where rental properties were
located citywide. Councilmember Laliberte noted that other cities had looked
at high usage areas for rentals in their communities, considering minimums and
maximums, and asked if anything had been done to-date similar to that in
Ms. Kelsey and Mr. Bilotta noted that this
was not part of the study performed by the Intern, but had been talked about
Mayor Roe and Councilmember McGehee
recognized and gave credit to Mr. Johnson for his thorough, well-written
document and asked that staff relay that appreciation to him of a job well
Mayor Roe opined that this document
provided valuable information, and suggested the study be made available on the
City's HRA/EDA webpage for reference.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, enactment of
Ordinance No. 1495 (Attachment D) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 907
to the City of Roseville City Code Regarding Registration of Residential Rental
Property of 1 to 4 Units;"
Mayor Roe noted that there was no
ordinance summary for this chapter, and since it was fairly lengthy and would
be costly to publish, suggested it may be prudent to table enactment until a
draft ordinance summary was prepared and presented for consideration and formal
Willmus moved, Etten seconded
TABLING consideration of this action to the February 22, 2016 meeting.
Consider Rezoning of Property at 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8
City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly
summarized this request as detailed in the RCA dated February 8, 2016.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke
confirmed that once the property is designated in the comprehensive plan, the
city was obligated to rezone it to match it, and if rezoning was not approved,
it would be inconsistent with that plan and in violation of that requirement.
No one appeared to speak to this issue.
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, enactment of
Ordinance No. 1493 (Attachment B) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Roseville
City Code, Chapter 10, Changing Zoning Designation of Certain Real Property
located at 3261 and 3253 Old Highway 8 from High Density Residential - District
(HDR-1) to Medium Density Residential District (MDR)
Councilmember McGehee spoke in
support of the motion for the reasons listed: density use of adjacent
properties being similar; sufficient traffic at that 5-way intersection and
lack of sidewalks in the area to dissuade HDR designation; opposition to HDR by
neighborhood property owners; and the significant wetland and environmental
issues related to this site.
High Density Residential Interim Ordinance (Moratorium)
Community Development Director Bilotta
summarized the purpose of and impacts of the proposed moratorium on rezoning
and comprehensive plan amendment requests during its duration. Mr. Bilotta
clarified that there were currently two rezoning applications in process that
had been submitted prior to this action; and noted that they would continue
forward accordingly without ramifications of a moratorium.
Having brought this request forward,
Councilmember Willmus elaborated further on his intent to halt further rezoning
requests or comprehensive plan amendments related to HDR throughout the city
until the City Council had an opportunity to review citywide issues and future
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, enactment of
Ordinance No. 1494 (Attachment C) entitled, "An Interim Ordinance Establishing
a Moratorium Temporarily Prohibiting the Rezoning of Property for HDR-1 and
HDR-2 in the City of Roseville;" effective upon publication and for a period of
up to 90 days.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) National Academy
Chief Mathwig introduced the
opportunity provided by the FBI for officers to participate in graduate level
discussions, training and education through the academy. Chief Mathwig proudly
noted that Lt. Erika Scheider was the fourth member of the Roseville Police
Department over the last thirty years.
Lt. Erika Scheider
Lt. Scheider reported on her
recent attendance at the FBI National Academy, Session 262, stating it was a
humbling experience to represent the City of Roseville and its Police
Department. Lt. Scheider thanked the Police Department, Chief Mathwig and
officers who had performed a lot of extra work during the ten weeks she was
attending the academy; and thanked family and friends for their care of her
family during that time also.
Lt. Scheider reviewed some of her
experiences at this national academy attended law enforcement officials and
held four times per year, offering different courses throughout the ten-week
program. Lt. Scheider noted that the intent of the program was to support,
promote and enhance development of law enforcement leaders; and had been
initiated at Quantico in 1935 and served approximately 200-240 students at
each program, with those officers averaging nineteen years of experience in law
enforcement. Lt. Scheider reported that the program focused on four pillars of
education, covered academics and leadership development, and addressed
challenges currently being faced by law enforcement personnel across the
country, as well as physical fitness challenges.
Lt. Scheider reported that her
take away from the academy included the relationships with law enforcement
peers and development of a network to over 200 fellow officers, sharing of
ideas and their availability to each other; achieving the "yellow brick road" obstacle course over that ten-week period; and the speech of the FBI Director
at the 262nd graduation of the FBI National Academy. Lt. Scheider
opined that her attendance would be of benefit to her, her colleagues, and the
citizens of Roseville.
Mayor Roe congratulated Lt.
Scheider, noting that her accomplishments had now raised the city's
expectations of her, which may be an unintended consequence of her attendance.
However, Mayor Roe noted the City of Roseville and City Council's pride in Lt.
Scheider's work; and thanked her for that and her service to the community.
Councilmembers concurred with
Discussion with Various Commissions (Community Engagement, Human
Rights and Ethics Commission)
At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager
Trudgeon referenced recent conversations late last fall (Attachment A) when the
City Council directed the Human Rights Commission (HRC) and Community
Engagement Commission (CEC) to review the scope and functions found in their
specific city code commission chapters and make recommendations of any changes
they considered applicable. As part of a broader discussion, City Manager
Trudgeon reported that the City Council discussed the current Ethics Commission
and whether or not it should be looked at differently going forward.
City Manager Trudgeon noted that Chair
Wayne Groff of the HRC and Chair Scot Becker of the CEC were in attendance
tonight, as well as Norine Quick-Lindberg representing the Ethics Commission;
and invited them to briefly speak to their recommendations.
Chair Wayne Groff, HRC
Chair Groff reviewed the HRC projects
projected in 2016, including the Naturalization Ceremony swearing in new
residents and sponsored by the HRC; the annual Essay Contest, reporting the
much better response of students this year (tripling to over 130 applicants),
based on the hard work of former HRC Commissioner Bachhuber and Commissioner
Christianson who worked directly with teachers at the school to phrase this
year's question with school curriculum. While this means a lot of work for HRC
Commissioners, Chair Groff stated that he anticipates a good contest this year
and anticipated presenting winners to the City Council in May.
Chair Groff noted the HRC's excitement to
have a presence in the Rosefest Parade this year; and looked forward to the
appointment of three new commissioners to serve soon and hearing their ideas.
As noted in the packet materials, Chair
Groff referenced the HRC's review of Chapter 205 related to the HRC and noted
minor questions or suggested revisions. Chair Groff noted the HRC's interest
in participating in the City Council's efforts as outlined in their strategic
planning document (PPP) focusing on SE Roseville.
Mayor Roe thanked Chair Groff for his
comments; and noted that much of the draft HRC ordinance language remained from
the 1960's and its initial establishment; and expressed his appreciation for
their review and suggestions.
Councilmember McGehee questioned the HRC's
interest in bringing up ethnic days as part of the Rosefest parade or at
different times of the year, such as recent activities at the Central Park band
shell as an example. While unsure of the role of the HRC in promoting those
ethnic events, Councilmember McGehee expressed the interest of the City Council
to bring some of those groups forward to share their culture with the
community, and of considerable interest to her. Councilmember McGehee
expressed her appreciation for what the HRC had done to-date, not just in terms
of their general scope of diversity, but also recognizing mental illness,
physical handicaps, and accessibility to city facilities and amenities,
representing a broader mission than human rights. Based on comments made
earlier tonight during public comment related to a city complaint process,
Councilmember McGehee suggested the HRC may be able to work with the Ethics
Commission to look into such a process.
Councilmember Etten also expressed his
appreciation for the work of the HRC in redefining its scope and defining
itself from the CEC. Councilmember Etten further expressed appreciation for
the strong programs they facilitated and reaching into the schools and revising
the annual Essay Contest to coordinate with student curriculum and the positive
results in getting more students involved.
Referencing the HRC's highlighting of their
Scope, Duties and Function, Section 205.02, Item B of Chapter 205 and
uncertainty about the intent of a "human relations project," Councilmember
Etten expressed his confusion as well about what that statement meant or
whether the HRC should be doing that or whether it was meaningful to the
commission code without further definition. Councilmember Etten opined that he
found that section superfluous.
Councilmember Laliberte thanked the HRC for
their work in updating this chapter, which hadn't been addressed during the
broader Uniform Commission Code review, she opined that they had made it a
better document. Councilmember Laliberte agreed that the aforementioned Item B
should be removed from the HRC scope, duties and function, as it was no longer
Mayor Roe agreed that he had no interest in
retaining that Item in this document.
If the HRC doesn't feel it should be part
of their mission, Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in it being
looked at as part of the City Council's ongoing look at SE Roseville, or
planning and programming for Parks & Recreation programs to ensure
accessibility to existing or future buildings and facilities. If not belonging
under the HRC's scope, Councilmember McGehee suggested it belong by reference
somewhere for city staff as part of their process.
Chair Groff offered his agreement in part
with Councilmember McGehee specific to "human relations," and opined he thought
it covered educational efforts and should refer back to the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).
Mayor Roe agreed that a human relations
program sounded like a document, and if based on programs and education, it was
covered elsewhere allowing for removal of Item B from this chapter to eliminate
Mayor Roe addressed language highlighted by
the HRC under Section 205.02 (third line) related to participation in the
affairs of this community by assisting the state department of Human Rights in
implementing the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Mayor Roe questioned what form
that would take for the Roseville HRC.
Chair Groff advised that the HRC had discussed this section, and suggested it
needed further clarification to remove any indication of an enforcement
function, but also allowing reference to the State Human Rights Act as the
initiation of the Roseville HRC and its promotion and education of those values
Mayor Roe questioned if the language
included in the following paragraphs (Items A through F) sufficiently covered
other agencies and groups that allowed eliminating the aforementioned language.
Councilmember Willmus opined that by
leaving the language within the scope of this chapter, it created an
environment of confusion of what the Roseville HRC could actually do, and therefore
caused him concern.
Councilmember Laliberte expressed her
interest in leaving the language referencing the Minnesota Human Rights Act,
and its reference in that paragraph, but instead of saying the Roseville HRC "advised," perhaps state that it "supported" those efforts.
Mayor Roe suggested that the HRC look at
that language again and make a recommendation to the City Council.
Councilmember Etten agreed with
Councilmember Laliberte's suggestion of the Roseville HRC advocating and
supporting the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
Mayor Roe suggested substituting
Councilmember Laliberte's language and remove "in implementing" and replace it
with "by assisting the state department of human rights in implementing the
Minnesota Human Rights Act by advocating and supporting the Act, and advising
the City Council." Mayor Roe personally suggested that there be no modifier
related to advising the City Council on programs to improve community relations,
whether short- or long-range programs, that either should be considered.
Chair Groff advised that he would bring
that suggestion back to the HRC at their next meeting.
Mayor Roe echoed the comments of his
colleagues on the good work accomplished and being done by the HRC and thanked
them for their review of this document. Mayor Roe recognized that it had been
stressful for the HRC over the last few months with a shortage of members.
Mayor Roe further echoed support to build cultural activities into existing
events or into the life of the community; and encouraged the HRC to foster that
and make recommendations to the City Council accordingly.
Chair Scot Becker, CEC
Chair Becker briefly summarized the
materials (Attachment C) providing the status of 2015 CEC priority projects and
an overview of CEC adopted 2016 priority projects proposed. Chair Becker
reported that the joint task force of the CEC and Planning Commission to study
notification issues and formats, as well as recommendations to the City Council
on formation of neighborhood associations was anticipated early in 2016.
In 2016 Priority Projects of the CEC, Mayor
Roe noted the third bullet point -expanding city leaning/engagement
opportunities - suggesting the need to discuss with the CEC the line between
recommending, advocating, advising and implementing. Mayor Roe opined that the
implantation category needed further review of those lines from his
perspective, specifically if considerable time was intended to be spent by the
CEC in forming a welcome packet and/or implementing a city open house.
Chair Becker advised that he shared those
concerns, and part of the CEC's recommendations to the City Council would be
directing reliance on city staff for implementation.
Mayor Roe stated that his personal
expectation specifically with starting community visioning work prior to the
2017 comprehensive plan, one thing talked about with the CEC last year and the
different categories and spectrum of engagement (e.g. identifying stakeholders
and tools for each type of process). Mayor Roe opined that was key in looking
at the comprehensive plan update. However, with the current Imagine
Roseville 2025 document being over ten years old and some of its provisions
out-of-date based on decisions before the city now, Mayor Roe suggested it may
be time to recommend a process to update -not recreate - that community vision
as a starting point to initiate the comprehensive plan update. Mayor Roe
opined that it would be his goal to have that update, not an extensive document
difficult to use, but as a reference document at which time that related
infrastructure work could be tied into other engagement processes (e.g. SE
Roseville) and without giving the CEC too much that would prove difficult for
it to accomplish in a timely manner.
As a member of the Imagine Roseville 2025
Subcommittee, Councilmember Willmus stated he found the organization of that
group overall quite effective and broad, with a number of satellite groups
reporting back to the broader steering committee. Councilmember Willmus
expressed his interest in retaining that model, but questioned it that effort
should be put on the CEC.
Mayor Roe clarified that it was not his
intent that the CEC run the process, but simply recommend a process back to the
Councilmember Willmus suggested the CEC
could recommend utilizing the past process and ways to tweak it; and expressed
appreciation to Mayor Roe for clarifying his intent. Councilmember Willmus
stated that it was his intent to look to the CEC to recommend models used in
the past, their areas of success, areas needing revision and ideas to do so;
but clarified he was not intending that the CEC become that steering committee
nor that he had any intent of mixing those two contexts.
Mayor Roe agreed with the comments of Councilmember Willmus.
Councilmember Laliberte also agreed with
those comments; clarifying that the City Council was not asking the CEC to
recreate the wheel if good processes were already in place or simply needed
tweaking, she would consider that first before working from scratch.
Councilmember Laliberte spoke to learning lessons from those past processes and
applicable suggestions for employing those strategies in some but not all
cases, and why not; and systematically engaging processes in one place but not
Councilmember Laliberte expressed her
disappointment that the City Council hadn't received the CEC's recommendations
on formation of neighborhood associations sooner, and expressed her personal
concern in the 2015 CEC status update using words like "assist" and "encourage"
when her understanding was that the intent was to create a guide for the
process versus pushing neighborhoods to do something they're not motivated to
do. Councilmember Laliberte expressed her anticipation of that coming back to
the City Council soon.
Chair Becker advised that his estimated
timing was conservative and as an individual commissioner hoped to have it
ready to handoff sooner, but noted it may be necessary to delay it another month
realistically, even though the final document and recommendation to the City
Council was very close to being completed. Chair Becker clarified that the CEC
was bringing forward a set of recommendations for the city to assist formation
of neighborhood associations, but further clarified that the intent was not for
the CEC to take any active role once that handoff to the City Council had been
Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was
envisioning a proposed step by step kit for neighborhood organization, such as
done for the organized trash hauling effort.
Chair Becker advised that some of that was
included in CEC recommendations.
Councilmember Laliberte recognized the
CEC's interest in receiving direction related to SE Roseville, admitting that
she was also struggling with what had been done, what was being done, and what
still needed to be done; whether all stakeholders are plugged in or others
remained to be engaged; and how to get to fruition. Councilmember Laliberte
stated that she wasn't even aware if the right people were currently working on
the issue; and expressed her understanding of the CEC needing to figure out
where they fit in.
Specific to a previous City Council
directive and 2014 strategy included in the CEC ordinance, Councilmember
Laliberte asked that the City's Volunteer Coordinator have touch points with
the CEC in areas where volunteer opportunities are available. Councilmember
Laliberte opined that the CEC has a better idea of that piece related to
volunteerism since it was part of their ordinance language.
As heard earlier tonight during public
comment, Councilmember McGehee stated that she was not a big supporter of the
CEC and had never been, noting the many problems. While expressing
appreciation for the CEC's work on the city website which was vitally needed
and had been accomplished, along with the work she anticipated from the
notification task force, Councilmember McGehee opined there was little need for
a group to work on community engagement and involvement as long as the City
Council now had policies in place. Councilmember McGehee noted her ongoing
concern in the lack of City Council responsiveness when the public comes
forward with issues or concerns; but opined those issues will not be solved by
a commission since they were the City Council's concern. During her five-year
tenure, Councilmember McGehee noted many requests by large groups of citizens
that had not been addressed, while special interests of smaller groups seemed
to get quicker responses from the City Council. Councilmember McGehee
cautioned that this did not go unnoticed in the community.
Specific to neighborhood associations,
Councilmember McGehee opined that coalescence was needed, not a check list; and
expressed her confusion as to what happened to the task force and why it was
dissolved. Councilmember McGehee further opined that when community visioning
is started, if there were any previous problems it was too much was directed by
the City Council and their desire for control. Whether vetting of the steering
committee or those participating, Councilmember McGehee stated it would be nice
to get something advising what should and should not be done and providing
particularly broad direction while establishing a process in place allowing
engagement of the public in ways not currently being done. Councilmember
McGehee stated she hadn't seen that coming forward from the CEC to-date.
Specific to her perception of the SE
Roseville issue, Councilmember McGehee noted lots of stuff going on (e.g.
community gardens) with long-term residents living in that area wanting to be
involved, and committed to those efforts without the need of an association.
Councilmember McGehee opined that there were many natural communities in
Roseville and groups continually forming without attempting to put them into
Specific to involving renters, youth and
senior citizens, Councilmember McGehee stated that the Business Retention
Program was addressing outreach needs, while she was most interested in
involving renters in the process since renters were remaining in the community
longer versus their former transient nature. Therefore, Councilmember McGehee
opined that it would now be timely to see if there was a way to reach renters
to determine their interest in being involved in their community.
As heard earlier tonight about the action
or inaction of the City Council, Councilmember McGehee stated her
disappointment in the availability of a broader list of jobs for the CEC to
undertake; and opined that she didn't support the targeted ideas presented by
the CEC. Specific to the neighborhood association bullet point, Councilmember
McGehee agreed with the comments of Councilmember Laliberte, opining that she
didn't see it.
Chair Becker advised that, while unable to
address Councilmember McGehee's five-year tenure and those experiences, he
clarified that the task force did not dissolve in July of 2015 nor had their
work been in vain. Chair Becker further clarified that remaining members of
the task force and citizens-at-large, as well as other participants, were not
actively forcing neighborhoods to form associations, but were intent on
recommending ways for the City Council to proceed and encourage those groups to
form around issues or activities, and represent their potential.
Councilmember Etten opined that the
discussion around "assist" and "encourage" formation of Roseville neighborhood
associations suggested action, and suggested a better term may be "formulate" new ideas or ways to reach other populations. Councilmember Etten noted
another item he supported from the listed CEC strategies was outreach to
unrepresented groups, and expressed his interest in seeing more related to
that. Councilmember Etten stated his support for the CEC and infrastructure
work of community engagement processes; and agreed with their purpose for
neighborhood associations in strengthening the community. Councilmember Etten
opined this served as a way to bring people together in a positive versus
negative way, and encouraged their formation rather than forcing them, with the
model available as a tool for them moving forward.
Councilmember McGehee opined that the Dale
Street Project process brought things forward in a positive way, and noted that
the city had provided that opportunity.
Mayor Roe clarified that the intent of the
CEC had been defined as an engagement process and not requiring the formation
of a neighborhood association as noted by Councilmember Etten.
Councilmember Laliberte opined that the CEC
list involved a lot of great things, and asked if the CEC would be talking
about priorities to bring things to conclusion and move on to their next
priority, or if they envisioned doing many of these initiatives at the same
Chair Becker advised that the CEC had
collectively come up with the ideas they wanted to pursue, and noted that he
had intentionally added one more thing than he felt reasonable to accomplish
within one year, hoping to get feedback from the City Council. Chair Becker
advised that the 2014 ideas supported by the City Council had been included
while eliminating those that had not received that support, and noted the CEC
would expend their energy accordingly, incorporating tonight's feedback to
inform the next draft of this document. Chair Becker advised that he would
intent to pursue all of the initiatives during the year, while some may depend
on outside timing beyond the CEC (e.g. SE Roseville).
Chair Becker referenced the comments
related to decreasing meeting frequency, but opined that the CEC would need all
their scheduled meetings to accomplish the work before them.
For the record, Mayor Roe asked if the CEC
had any recommendations to change their scope of duties or ordinance language;
with Chair Becker confirming that they had no recommendations to that effect.
City Manager Trudgeon addressed the role of
the Ethics Commission (EC), noting two members were present in tonight's
audience. Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the original intent of the EC when set up and
their current quarterly meeting schedule given the limited number of issues
coming before the EC of late. Mr. Trudgeon suggested another approach may be
prudent comprising the EC with other commission members to meet annually for
training. As expressed by the City Council, the EC meets infrequently and
there appears to be a lack of meeting substance, creating hesitancy on the part
of the City Council to appoint someone to serve. Therefore, Mr. Trudgeon
suggested that consideration be discussed to have commission chairs serve on
the EC on an as-needed basis, since the Ethics Code and annual training are in
place. Mr. Trudgeon advised that he had prepared a quick draft of such a
potential ordinance with tonight's meeting materials as a starting point off
point for feedback.
Councilmember Laliberte asked for input
from the EC commissioners tonight and whether or not they found their work
Norine Quick-Lindberg, Heinel Drive,
Representative of the EC
Ms. Lindberg offered a prepared statement
providing her personal opinion, suggesting that the City Council revisit the
Ethics Code and revise it. Ms. Lindberg opined that Roseville was unique, but
without formal complaints that didn't necessarily equate to a sound system, and
suggested refinement of the code prior to eliminating scheduled meetings of the
EC, which may then prompt less frequent meetings than even quarterly.
Ms. Lindberg shared inconsistencies she
found (e.g. definition clarifications between employee and non-employee public
officials being unclear - Section 5.d criminal); the lack of denied sanctions
and advisory positions (e.g. Section 2.4); and whether the City Attorney or EC
are given more weight in issuing advisory opinions. If the EC doesn't have
that authority, Ms. Lindberg questioned their purpose.
Ms. Lindberg further noted that the City
Council determined its own sanctions if found in violation, and as discussed
before and with minor revision, thought more discussion was needed for all
Councilmembers if an ethics complaint was filed. Ms. Lindberg advised that she
had compared the Roseville Ethics Code with those of other metropolitan
communities, and based on complaints heard earlier tonight and those attendees
at the Roseville EC, opined that the City of Minneapolis had a general Code of
Ethics to guide behavior and Human Rights Act definitions. With the addition
of a general discrimination statement and federal and state law references and
inclusion, Ms. Lindberg offered to submit those ethics findings annually to the
Mayor Roe noted a number of reasons the
code language was as currently written, and sough to make sure this City
Council and Ethics Commission understood that initial rationale and whey it was
established as written. Mayor Roe referenced discussion held at the time the
original code was in place, and not to imply these are not valid questions,
expressed the need that those past discussions inform this process. Mayor Roe
noted that the City Attorney had worked with the Code and could advise the City
Council if they decided to move in this direction.
Councilmember McGehee noted that she was
also here when working through the Ethics Code subsequently reconstituted in a
different tone; and suggested it may be worthwhile to review that previous
process, since she was also not sure everyone was privy to how and why those
revisions were applied. Specific to complaints brought to the EC without
formal filings, Councilmember McGehee asked if that wasn't due to no process
being in place. Councilmember McGehee opined that a process was needed, and
whether or not it belonged in the Ethics Code, there needed to be a process for
Mayor Roe clarified that he didn't think it
had been established that the complaints brought forward were ethics
Councilmember McGehee stated that she
understood that, but still thought a Code of Conduct was needed.
Mayor Roe suggested that this discussion
not get into that level of detail tonight; and thanked commissioners for their
Councilmember Willmus stated that he hated
to set the clock back and revisit mistakes under the previous code, opining
that often that commission had been used as a political tool for disagreements,
which was why the EC had been dissolved in the first place. Councilmember
Willmus opined that he found the focus of the current Code of Ethics aligned
where it needed to be, and as far as the complaint process itself, expressed
his disinterest in seeing anyone labeled as an ethics violator if there was any
disagreement in how to best proceed at the commission level. Councilmember
Willmus opined that he thought the function of how the EC should work or how to
assemble it was needed, and he expressed his appreciation for the model provided
in the packet in draft form, allowing a complaint to be dealt with as it comes
forward. Councilmember Willmus also spoke in support of further discussion on
the continuation of the three commissions and their scopes and duties for
further discussion and attempting to free up administrative personnel as
Councilmember Etten expressed his support
of the EC format and representation on it by representatives of standing commissions.
However, Councilmember Etten questioned if that role should be held by
chairpersons, since they already had a bigger work load, and suggested that
each commission could annually elect or appoint one member, not necessarily the
chairperson, to serve on the EC. Councilmember Etten suggested that, after
hearing from commission chairpersons beforehand and tonight commissions that
perhaps the EC could hold their annual meeting shortly after those elections,
with the focus of the EC to prepare the annual ethics training and up-to-date
ethics issues if they are the body to do so. Councilmember Etten suggested
inserting language in to the draft EC ordinance to "hold an annual meeting and
meet otherwise on an as-needed basis."
Mayor Roe concurred with Councilmember
Etten's suggested language.
Councilmember Laliberte concurred, noting
that she was going to ask for an annual meeting for those EC members to guide
the ethics training versus putting that decision on city staff. Councilmember
Laliberte further suggested inserting a sentence to the Uniform Commission Code
in the "officer" section providing for that expectation that a member would
serve on the EC.
Discussion ensued on the need to review
specific language of the Uniform Commission Code to determine if the officers'
section applied to the commissions themselves.
Councilmember Laliberte suggested a meeting
of the existing EC and City Attorney to walk through rationale for the current
code and take input of any suggested recommendations for revision to it.
Mayor Roe agreed and suggested that could
be their parting recommendations; with Councilmember Laliberte agreeing with
the value of that input from existing EC members before moving on.
Councilmember McGehee agreed with those
suggestions going forward, especially those of Councilmember Laliberte, given
the EC commissioner's service and specific recommendations. Councilmember
McGehee opined that it would be rude to not allow them to meet with the City
Attorney to offer their recommended changes and address any inconsistencies.
City Manager Trudgeon noted that the EC would
be meeting in two days, and to the extent it could be accomplished advised that
he would begin that conversation, and suggested scheduling meetings more
frequently than the current quarterly meeting, depending on future direction of
the City Council.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of looking to
members of commissions versus only the chairpersons; and agreed with a minimum
annual meeting and definition of their purpose, but involving commission chairs
at a minimum. Mayor Roe also supported the current EC reviewing the current
Code of Ethics and providing their parting recommendations to the City Attorney
for the record.
Councilmember Laliberte reiterated the
importance in holding themselves and those representing the city to high
standards, and the importance of getting this work done. Councilmember
Laliberte, with agreement by her colleagues, thanked the work of the EC
to-date, stating that their work and service did matter.
Meeting Frequency Discussion
City Manager Trudgeon noted comments in the
RCA (lines 23 - 46) related to frequency of HRC and CEC meetings, but noted the
number of and importance of tasks covered by the city's Administration
Department. Mr. Trudgeon expressed his concerns with the long-term
expectations of administrative staff from the public and commissions, which
represented a large task, and the desire of city staff to provide dedicated
service to all parties. Therefore, Mr. Trudgeon noted his suggested change in
frequency of meetings to facilitate quality versus quantity of meetings and
allow staff to be or remain effective in their interaction with commissioners
by providing guidance and context. However, Mr. Trudgeon expressed his concern
as City Manager, with the long-term impact to city staff in sustaining that
coverage, given the multitude of many objections placed upon them, and possibly
taking away from other important issues. Mr. Trudgeon recognized the desire of
commissions to meet monthly, but opined that it was unsustainable and
eventually something would break down and issues would not be addressed in a
timely manner or issues not reviewed sufficiently. Based on past and current
discussions, Mr. Trudgeon restated his recommendation for less frequent meeting
schedules for commissions served by administrative staff.
Councilmember McGehee noted that one
long-term commission had been reduced, and the CEC intended as a policy group,
with the HRC more active in doing things. Councilmember McGehee asked it City
Manager Trudgeon saw a reduction in meetings of the CEC to every other month
and keeping the HRC meeting monthly, both meeting monthly, or each meeting
once/month opposite the other.
City Manager Trudgeon noted that was the
From a trial period, Councilmember McGehee
opined that she could see the policy group getting direction and discussing
that, but opined it would be harder for a more active group offering
educational programs such as the HRC.
City Manager Trudgeon advised that it
seemed to him based on the approach he was suggesting and based on his outside
observation, that having the HRC and CEC both alternate meetings, their
planning activities and policy issues overall could be addressed sufficiently.
Mr. Trudgeon questioned the need for the HRC to meet regularly or monthly other
than to update status versus the CEC actively working on issues and policies
needing more touches along the way. Mr. Trudgeon opined, that if having to
choose, the HRC could meet less frequently, recognizing the HRC may have a different
Councilmember McGehee stated she would be
happy to support City Manager Trudgeon's proposal understanding that it needed
to remain as a pilot program, allowing City Manager Trudgeon the discretion for
Councilmember Laliberte noted she had been
anxious to hear the HRC's 2016 plans; and noted that moving forward in filling
vacancies related to those items listed in their work plan, and noted that they
listed only one new item beyond their current work plan. Councilmember Laliberte
admitted she didn't have a good feel for the work of the HRC and staff need,
since there didn't appear to be much new ground to cover other than plugging
into the SE Roseville efforts. Therefore, Councilmember Laliberte suggested
seeing if the HRC meeting 4-6 times per year was viable unless needed more
often, while continuing to have the CEC meet 12 times per year.
Mayor Roe noted that a commission could
also cancel meetings if and when they were found unnecessary.
After hearing from the chairs of both
commissions, Councilmember Etten opined that it was important for them to
retain a full slate of meetings to continue their work. Therefore,
Councilmember Etten admitted he was struggling with the recommendation of City
Manager Trudgeon and was reluctant to cut back on meeting frequency when
commissioners were saying they still needed monthly meetings to accomplish
their tasks. Councilmember Etten opined that he found it hard to consider
cutting their meeting frequency without cutting reducing their tasks
accordingly, especially if that meant the work would be accomplished offline
versus in the public arena.
Councilmember McGehee noted that commission
meeting minutes were not previously formalized as they are now; and questioned
how essential that is especially if it took staff time.
Mayor Roe clarified that the staff time
being discussed was that in preparing for the meetings; with City Manager
Trudgeon concurring, noting that frequently it required 2-3 hours for each
In response to Councilmember McGehee
referencing past meeting agendas, and not full meeting packets, City Manager
Trudgeon clarified that as with any commission, a lot of input was needed,
including background materials. Depending on the commission, Mr. Trudgeon
noted that some did their own work in preparation for their meeting (e.g. CEC)
with staff only gathering and copying those materials.
Councilmember McGehee suggested that work
would be slower if only meeting every other month.
City Manager Trudgeon admitted that would
be a question to consider, and asked what the City Council was interested in
commissions pursuing. Specific to the CEC, Mr. Trudgeon opined that it would
be challenging for them to move to an every other month meeting given their
current work load. If in the future that work load changed or as things were
removed from that docket, Mr. Trudgeon noted it may be possible then to reduce
meeting frequency of the CEC.
City Manager Trudgeon reiterated that his
broader area of concern was the mismatch of staff resources and number of
advisory commissions in an effort to be fair to those volunteer commissioners
and their tasks; and his interest in making the overall process work to some
Councilmember McGehee opined that a lot of
the work indicated didn't need to be assigned to the CEC, but could come
through staff suggestions or by hiring a consultant.
Mayor Roe clarified that tonight's goal was
not to get into a discussion of the specific work of commissions. Mayor Roe
reviewed the comments of council members tonight that there was some support
for fewer meetings of the HRC at a minimum, but not so much with the CEC at
Mayor Roe suggested continuing with the
current meeting schedule and revisiting it after six months or at the end of
2016 unless a better proposal was brought forward, anticipating each commission
would continue to meet 12 times per year.
Councilmember Laliberte reiterated her
recommendation, opining that 20-24 meetings for staff just with the HRC and CEC
may prove challenging; and therefore she had recommended that schedule be
reduced to sixteen meetings to be more manageable. Councilmember Laliberte
questioned if some of the work of staff could be accomplished by the advisory
commissions themselves if meetings were reduced from twelve to six meetings
City Manager Trudgeon noted that both
commissions had discussed that option, and felt it should be left as is.
Mayor Roe advised that he was not hearing a
majority offer support for any other option other than keeping it as is; with
City Manager Trudgeon advising that he would continue to monitor the situation.
12. Public Hearings and Action Consideration
Approve Request for a Noise Variance for the 2016 CIPP Project
Assistant Public Works Director Jesse
Freihammer summarized this request of the Engineering Department for a variance
from the City's noise ordinance for the 2016 Cast-in-Place Piping Project
(CIPP). As detailed in the RCA dated February 8, 2016, Mr. Freihammer noted
that the variance was based on an operational and curing standpoint for the
material, and as designated on the map would involve the main impact of
generator noise and boilers used to cure the pipe. Mr. Freihammer noted that
this would involve a constant hum, and effort would be made to try to limit
major vehicle or construction traffic noise overnight.
Mr. Freihammer reviewed alternatives if the
variance was not granted, including not lining the pipes that would not solve
the city's aging infrastructure issues, or digging up the pipes that would
prove much more impactful to residents based on the depth and large diameter of
Mr. Freihammer reported that he had sent
out 150 notices to those affected by this project, and only received one email
and one phone call objecting to the variance, in addition to the audience
member heard from earlier this evening also in opposition.
Mr. Freihammer recommended the variance as
detailed in lines 48 - 54 of the RCA.
Mayor Roe opened and closed the public
hearing at approximately 9:38 p.m. with no one else appearing to speak.
Councilmember McGehee advised that she had
experienced this work done in front of her residence, and hadn't found it
extraordinarily noisy. Councilmember McGehee sought clarification from staff
on the length of sections running and length of time involved.
Mr. Freihammer clarified that the work
would be done in sections of approximately 500' each before moving to the next
section and as indicated in the RCA conditions.
Councilmember Laliberte questioned the
extent of lights needed during that night work.
Mr. Freihammer responded that the only
lights would be on the vehicles themselves, with set-up done during daytime
hours, and the night operations only involving boilers operating and waiting
for pipes to cure, and should be minimal.
Councilmember Laliberte opined that the
timing of notices for residents was very important; noting that she was
troubled by the comments heard earlier tonight. Councilmember Laliberte noted
how vital it was to perform due diligence with those notices.
Mr. Freihammer advised that the city would be working with the same contractor
for this work as last year, and reported that they had been found very diligent
and good to work with.
In response to Councilmember Laliberte's
notification concerns, Mayor Roe noted that staff had been asked to follow-up
and clarified that the public comments tonight had been related to a project
done the previous year and not the CIPP project, but Victoria Street project,
with follow-up on that notice issue coming from staff at a later date.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of
the request to extend working hours on the 2016 CIPP Lining Project as
presented; noting the conditions in lines 48 - 54 of the RCA dated February 8,
14. Business Items (Action Items)
Approve Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of 1716 Marion Street
by the City of Roseville
As a result of the closed session earlier
tonight, Mayor Roe reported that there was no resolution to consider as the
City Council had provided direction to staff as to terms. Mayor Roe advised
that staff would follow-up on that and the issue addressed in open meeting in
the near future.
Mayor Roe recognized the receipt of written
comment via email from Dick Houck dated February 5, 2016 in opposition to the
acquisition of the 1716 Marion Street property by the City of Roseville.
Financing Agreement with Calyxt for Brownfield Clean-up
Community Development Director Paul Bilotta
briefly summarized the RCA dated February 8, 2016 related to this request. Mr.
Bilotta noted the addition of the resolution (Attachment B) provided earlier
tonight as a bench handout and incorporated into the meeting packet materials.
At the request of Mayor Roe regarding the
$400,000 cap, Mr. Bilotta advised that the resolution addressed that as part of
the Developer's Agreement language.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of
Resolution No. 11299 entitled, "Resolution Approving a Development Agreement By
and Between the City of Roseville and Calyxt, Inc;" as provided as a
Bench Handout and made part of this RCA (Attachment B).
Request for Approval of a Preliminary Plat at 2201 Acorn Road
Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd noted this
request and referenced previous iterations all detailed in the RCA dated
February 8, 2016; and this specific plat as noted in that detail. Mr. Lloyd
noted that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this iteration
at their December 15, 2015 meeting, but it had been delayed in coming before
the City Council due to scheduling conflicts and health issues of Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Lloyd advised that staff recommended approval as conditioned in the RCA.
Mr. Lloyd reported that in response to
notification sent to neighboring property owners, staff had received one email
from an attendee at the Planning Commission public hearing reiterating his
opposition to the project. Mr. Lloyd advised that this was the neighbor to the
west of the subject parcels, and noted the concern was based on drainage
concerns from past proposals and potential flooding of his property, the
proposal being out-of-character with the neighborhood, concerns with additional
traffic onto County Road B, tree loss, and disruption to the neighborhood
during and as a result of this construction.
Mr. Lloyd advised that no other comments
had been received by staff to-date.
Councilmember Willmus asked staff to
address stormwater flow estimates brought forward with this proposal and
compared with previous proposals, noting the presentation at the Planning
Commission indicated further reductions had been provided with this iteration,
and some of that stormwater would be rerouted to existing infrastructure within
City Engineer Jesse Freihammer
Mr. Freihammer noted that, as indicated in
the grading plan, there would be overall significantly less water with this new
plat, with an approximate projection of a 57% reduction, and 82% reduction in
volume leaving the site.
Mayor Roe sought clarification as to
whether that meant an 82% reduction from previous proposals or from the current
situation; with Mr. Freihammer responding that it would be based on reductions
from the current situation.
Mayor Roe stated that he was concerned with
the conflicts with city code in the line between Lots 1 and 2 and coming off
the drive; and asked if staff had looked at the possibility of addressing that
Mr. Lloyd advised that as noted in the
Planning Commission meeting minutes, it had been discussed, specifically city
code requirements that side lot lines are required to be perpendicular or
radial to homes. Given that a private road is proposed, Mr. Lloyd noted it
became a judgment question on the intersection and whether it was actually
considered radial. In staff's judgment and for all practical purposes, Mr.
Lloyd opined that there was a radial line with the end of the street and the
center line. Mr. Lloyd noted that an alternative had been presented to the
Planning Commission, and sketched out by the project engineer if a 16' radius
was considered. However, Mr. Lloyd noted that that made the property line
inarguably radial but only made sense if more obvious than existing proposals
with additional asphalt. Therefore, Mr. Lloyd advised that neither staff or
the Commission ended up recommending that option, but admitted it could be a
topic for additional conversation at the City Council level.
Mayor Roe suggested if the lot line between
Lots 1 and 2 remains as shown on the plat, it could be moved at the point where
the south edge of the private street continued west from its current
termination and intersected with the lot line and becoming the lot line between
those two parcels, and still meet city code requirements and making the lot
lines perpendicular to the north/south end of the street and following the edge
of the private street.
Mr. Lloyd admitted that would conform to
the strict letter of city code, but argued that the intent of the code
provision was for straight and predictable property lines. Mr. Lloyd opined
that the proposal as presented, while either option could be defensible, was
better achieved by the proposed alignment.
Mayor Roe asked if staff was aware of any
reason that the lot line couldn't proceed from the corner of the proposed
street to the corner of the property and thereby more closely meet city code
Mr. Lloyd agreed that was a possibility.
At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr.
Lloyd advised that the private drive was proposed at approximately 175' with
one side longer than the other.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus,
Mr. Lloyd confirmed that the street width was proposed at 32' to accommodate
parking on both sides; and if parking was considered on only one side of the
street, Mr. Freihammer responded that the width could be minimized to 28' at
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Lloyd
confirmed that the intent of the width was for people residing at these future
properties or for their visitors; and had not been prompted to facilitate
emergency or public safety vehicles. Mr. Lloyd advised that the intent for
emergency vehicles was that they would either back out or turnaround over
surmounting curbs, whichever provided the best and quickest access. Mr. Lloyd
reiterated that the 32' width was strictly applied to accommodate parking on
both sides of the street, a preference expressed by the City Council during
their review of a previous site plan.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee,
Mr. Lloyd verified that the diameter required for the end bulb for cul-de-sacs
was a 100' minimum radius for a city street.
Councilmember McGehee spoke to the number of
retention ponds and their sizes; the reduction of trees indicated and amount of
grading being proposed or required; and questioned the responsibility for those
items going forward.
Mr. Lloyd responded that the quantity of
trees removed related to grading and trees in stormwater drainage pond areas,
and responsibility for their maintenance moving forward. Mr. Lloyd noted that
grading would impact trees removed, but also noted that the current plan with
fewer lots minimized that tree removal to a significant degree. Specific to
the number and location of drainage ponds, Mr. Lloyd noted that was an
engineer-driven plan to reduce stormwater west to the storm drain, with the
current plan collecting runoff in a central location and directing it out to
existing stormwater infrastructure located within the Acorn Road right-of-way.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee,
Mr. Lloyd advised that a specific best management practice (BMP) would be put
in place and subject to maintenance by written agreement with the City of
Roseville and to be done by the Homeowner's Association, including funding and
maintenance schedules and their access for that maintenance.
At 10:00 p.m.,
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, extending the meeting curfew to complete this
item and a brief presentation or discussion of the following item.
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Chuck Plowe, Plowe Engineering, Inc.,
Representing Art Mueller
Mr. Plowe responded to the questioned
raised by council members tonight, advising that great efforts had been made to
address resident concerns related to drainage issues and those previously
identified by the City Council as their areas of concern. Mr. Plowe noted the
reduced rate and volume to the southeast as Mr. Lloyd addressed as being of
important consideration to the neighborhood. Mr. Plowe also noted the effort
made to shorten the street and reduce impervious surfaces. Mr. Plowe clarified
that the access to maintain the stormwater ponds would not be done through the
sloped area with the intent to allow the Homeowner's Association freedom of
gaining that access at the points where the ground was flat enough to
facilitate maintenance equipment.
Councilmember Willmus asked Mr. Plowe to
respond to the discussion earlier tonight on the angle of lot lines consistent
with city code.
Mr. Plowe stated he was open to the
suggestions of the City Council; however, he noted the suggestion of Mr. Lloyd
that the lot lines as shown made more sense. If the City Council preferred the
developer to increase the radius with additional bituminous, Mr. Plowe
expressed their willingness to do so at the City Council's discretion and
Councilmember Willmus clarified that he
wasn't looking for a radius, but simply lot lines better aligned with city code
and as drawn in earlier tonight by Mr. Lloyd, he realized that the building
pads may need to shift some, but expressed how odd he found it that Lot 1 would
own 95% of the access to the driveway for Lot 2. Councilmember Willmus stated
that remained of concern to him going forward; and spoke in support of Mayor
Roe's proposal for the lot line falling along the southern boundary of the
southern drive as a more sensible approach and as sketched out by Mr. Lloyd
during that initial discussion.
Mayor Roe asked if Mr. Plowe saw any
adverse impact with that proposal versus their original proposal; with Mr.
Plowe responding that he did not.
Gary Boryczka, Acorn Road
Mr. Boryczka advised that he sold a parcel
approximately 1.5 years ago that he had owned on Acorn Road for eighteen years,
and still owned another parcel along Acorn Road and the I-35 service road. For
the benefit of those new to this issue, Mr. Boryczka advised that this was the
10th anniversary that this proposal had been brought up over and
over again, without being passed, and still having the same problems as this
Mr. Boryczka referenced the site plan, and
expressed concerns that there was no easement for overflow water onto the Irv
Cross property to his knowledge, and opined that there never would be,
therefore throwing the proposed grading plan into turmoil.
Mr. Boryczka reviewed his perception of
problems with this proposal and his interpretation or perception of each, including:
size, depth, location and future maintenance of stormwater ponds, their flow
and overflow potential; death of remaining trees if grading done under their
drip lines; concerns with a homeowner's association and their governance with
future responsibility for maintaining the area; the private street and
connections to private water and sewer lines and whether they would be
according to city code; location of a fire hydrant on the end of a lot at the
cul-de-sac turnaround and responsibility for those water lines up to the main;
and the financial folly of homes proposed at the price range set by Mr. Mueller
but not backed up by factual sales information for adjacent properties to
support their price.
Irv Cross, 2196 Marion Road
Mr. Cross noted that he had read his
comments into the Planning Commission's public hearing record, and provided
updates by the same venue tonight, addressing his concerns with this potential
residential development to the property he shared with his wife Liz. Mr. Cross
noted that he and his wife had been residents on Marion Road for over
twenty-six years and directly abutted this property. Mr. Cross reiterated his
concerns related to drainage, runoff from Acorn Road causing flooding and
adding to the river that runs through their property and that of Mr. Mueller
during heavy rainfall; and the size of the proposed adjacent lots.
Mr. Mueller stated that he would not agree
to any easement through his property; and if the City Council was aware of how
the property runs, it would note that the proposed lots are at a higher level
than his, and stormwater already pooled from County Road B and the golf course
onto his property, meeting in the corner where the large pool was designed,
with that current stormwater hard to slow down or stop. Even though the
proposed plan indicates it will resolve that issue, Mr. Cross expressed his
lack of confidence that it would do so.
Mr. S. Ramalingam, 2182 Acorn
In writing, Mr. Ramalingam reiterated his
previous calculations related to stormwater runoff, flow and volume, as
presented to the Planning Commission and part of the record. Mr. Ramalingam
further calculated the proposed 82% reduction in current flow; existing and
proposed permeable surfaces; and ramifications if the basin and treatment plans
for that stormwater flow worked or didn't work. If it didn't work, Mr.
Ramalingam noted the results would be to flood neighboring properties and
Mr. Ramalingam opined that the proposed
private road and parking was unsightly and unsafe for emergency access, and
questioned if the length marginally smaller than 200' was intended as a dodge
of city code. Mr. Ramalingam opined that mature trees would die after grading
to the extent proposed resulting in an area looking more like a cornfield than
Paul Romanowski, 2195 Acorn Road (next to
Mr. Romanowski addressed their
personal situation, with poor clay soils 1.5' below the surface, becoming like
cement and not allowing for significant drainage. Therefore, Mr. Romanowski
opined that he didn't feel the holding ponds would prove of any value, and
still result in overflow. If the proposed drainage pond worked, Mr. Romanowski
stated it may prove their salvation, but otherwise this project would result in
continuous and ongoing drainage problems, especially with the elimination of
trees that will only create more flow.
If he and his wife plan to sell
their home, Mr. Romanowski noted that they would need to disclose to the
realtor and future purchasers the drainage issue and it could negatively impact
the resale of their home. Mr. Romanowski opined that if the City Council
checked with property drainage engineers, the only salvation for their property
would be installation of a stormwater pipe system.
Robert Mueller, Son of Art Mueller
Mr. Mueller recognized that everyone would
love for this property to remain as a park. However, Mr. Mueller noted that
engineers had been hired for their expertise in addressing stormwater
concerns. While that professional engineer had indicated a stormwater
reduction of 82%, Mr. Mueller noted that non-expert residents insisted that the
professional engineering firm didn't know what they were talking about. Mr.
Mueller noted that stormwater had been a problem, but the intent was to reduce
it; with the proposed holding ponds intended to help if not resolve the
Joel Cheney, 2271 Acorn Road
While admitting he was not qualified to
judge, based on his review of the grading plan, Mr. Cheney stated he had
ongoing questions. Mr. Cheney noted the heavy clay soils also on his property
that held water and didn't allow much permeation. Having installed two rain
gardens twelve years ago, Mr. Cheney reported that he could no longer find them
due their overgrowth.
Mr. Cheney advised that his question was,
if this engineering solution worked well in year one, what assurances would the
neighbors have that as the ponds started to fill after 5-6 years and were under
the homeowner association's responsibility, what inspection or monitoring process
would be in place to ensure their continued viability. Mr. Cheney stated that
he was seeking built-in safeguards for the longer-term picture.
Vivian Ramalingam, 2182 Acorn Road
Ms. Ramalingam responded to the comments
made by Mr. Mueller's son regarding stormwater drainage, and tree root systems
currently available to break up clay soils, and disputed his perceptions.
Ms. Ramalingam opined that it seemed that
everything around the Mueller property would be destroyed; and reiterated her
past comments recommending that this not be approved.
Chuck Plowe Responses
At the invitation of Mayor Roe, Mr. Plowe
attempted to respond and clarify those issues brought up during public comment.
Mr. Plowe noted that a previous plat had
been approved by the City some years ago, but due to various circumstances
never got built; resulting in this latest proposal and current request.
Specific to the stormwater ponds, Mr. Plowe
clarified that these are dry ponds, and only intended to hold water temporarily
when it rains, with special media placed in the ponds and under design
requirements, review and approval by the City Engineer and Watershed District.
Mr. Plowe reviewed the intent of that design through drain tile installed to
slow the rate of flow and volume. Mr. Plowe assured residents that the water
would pool, filtrate and leave the site as the system was designed to
facilitate. Regarding the depth of the proposed ponds, Mr. Plowe advised that
the depth would vary, and would be designed in accordance with soil borings to
address their specific design to accommodate storage for larger rainfall
Mr. Plowe further clarified that the
developer had been told that a hydrant was not required at the end of the
private road, with access available to one in the immediate vicinity; and
therefore not an issue. At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Plowe
showed the location and proximity to the subject parcel of the nearest existing
Mayor Roe asked staff to discuss the
concern voiced by Mr. Cheney on long-term functionality and maintenance of the
Mr. Lloyd responded that in general, the
process and timeline would be established to recertify any and all BMPS
citywide to determine their functionality as intended. Mr. Lloyd noted that
this may be done by a third party consultant to make that determination and the
level of maintenance indicated or required and if deemed not performing as
designed. Mr. Lloyd advised that a city mechanism would be in place, similar
to the code enforcement abatement process followed, if the city was required to
perform that maintenance and invoice owners via property taxes accordingly for
those costs if not paid in a timely manner.
Mr. Freihammer concurred, noting that both
the city and any watershed districts required maintenance agreements as part of
any BMP being installed.
Mayor Roe asked who performed that analysis
and who paid for the maintenance.
Mr. Lloyd responded that it would be up to
the homeowner to fund that maintenance.
Councilmember McGehee noted that this
five-year plan seemed different than the current BMPS throughout the rest of
the city. Councilmember McGehee stated that it was her understanding that BMPS
on private property experienced similar problems and while they were supposed
to be periodically inspected, this had yet to be fully outlined with a plan and
Mr. Freihammer responded that staff was
currently going through some of the City's own BMPS and would also evaluate
private BMPS as time allowed.
Mayor Roe also clarified that it would
depend on when BMPS were actually installed, since older ones installed under
previous standards, could not be required to be under the same application.
Mr. Freihammer agreed, recognizing that
some BMPS had not been inspected recently based on available staff resources.
McGehee moved to DENY this Preliminary Plat
request at 2201 Acorn Road predicated on at least two engineers testifying that
this stormwater plan won't work.
Councilmember McGehee noted, based on her
personal experience living under a quasi--homeowners association with shared
road and maintenance, similar issues to those brought up had occurred.
Councilmember McGehee stated her further concerns in not being convinced this
proposal would work based in part on having no good access to stormwater ponds
and that they would fill in and result in other ongoing problems; and her
opinion that a private road was unnecessary and should not be approved as a
private road, further opining that it was inevitable that it would eventually
become a public road. Councilmember McGehee further opined that if one wished
to have three properties, the way to do so was to provide three individual
accesses. Councilmember McGehee also opined that a single-family residential
area was not the area for a homeowner's association; and the best value for
Roseville citizens and drainage in the neighborhood would be to let Mr. Mueller
built on separate and divided lots.
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, APPROVAL of
the proposed PRELIMINARY PLAT of Oak Acres, dated November 5, 2015 and
comprising the property at 2201 Acorn Road, based on the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission, public input, details provided in
the RCA dated February 8, 2016, and City Council deliberation; and conditioned
as outlined in lines 58 - 76 of that RCA; amended with an additional
line between Lots 1 and 2 will be realigned as discussed earlier tonight to
come off the southwest corner of the private roadway direct to the southwest
corner of the lot
Etten moved, Willmus seconded an AMENDMENT
TO THE MOTION proposing the private road be narrowed to 28' to reduce
impervious surface; and allowing parking on only one side of the private road.
Councilmember McGehee spoke in opposition
to the proposed amendment, opining that it was totally inappropriate and she
could see no benefit; and noted that previous objections had been addressed for
parking on the narrower street due to shorter driveways and avoiding parking
off Acorn Road.
As was attested by engineering staff,
Councilmember Willmus clarified that a 28'
Wide road would still accommodate parking
on one side of the road.
Councilmember McGehee further opined that
would still be insufficient for three single-family homes.
Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was
more comfortable with a 32' roadway; even though recognizing the desire to
reduce impervious surface.
Mayor Roe stated that he would not support
the motion to amend.
Ayes: Etten and Willmus.
Nays: Laliberte, McGehee
Motion to amend failed.
Councilmember Etten noted that he hadn't
supported approval of this development in the past due to concerns voiced by
neighbors. However, Councilmember
Etten opined that he believed that those
concerns had been directly addressed; with actual drainage improvements for
neighbors to the south or southwest beyond the current situation.
Councilmember Etten recognized that more trees will be preserved with this
plan; and spoke in agreement that it was important to reduce stormwater runoff
issues already being experienced in this neighborhood. Therefore,
Councilmember Etten spoke in support of the motion.
Councilmember Willmus noted that he was
initially not in favor of the four lots proposed in the past due to stormwater
issues. However, Councilmember Willmus expressed his confidence in Mr.
Mueller's addressing that issue by removal of one building pad, and reducing
his proposal to three lots and shortening the length of the private road. Based
on those concerted efforts of the developer and the information presented by
professional engineers for the city and Mr. Mueller, Councilmember Willmus
expressed his confidence that approving this proposal would serve to balance
the rights of Mr. Mueller as a private property owner wishing to subdivide his
property, while at the same time affording protections to surrounding
Councilmember Laliberte concurred with the
comments of Councilmembers Etten and Willmus; noting that she had also opposed
previous plans presented with four lots. Councilmember Laliberte stated that
she was most concerned with drainage on the back portion of the subject parcel;
and opined that the stormwater drainage situation was bad now and this should
provide some improvement and alleviate the problem to some extent.
Councilmember Laliberte stated that she felt better supporting some stormwater
improvement and allowing Mr. Mueller to subdivide his privately-owned property;
and offered her support for approval.
Councilmember McGehee stated that she would
not support the motion. While recognizing that a property owner always had a
right to subdivide their parcel if applicable, Councilmember McGhee noted that
such a right didn't extend to the right to install a private road or to pursue
such a drastic grading plan as proposed. While deferring to public engineering
expertise, Councilmember McGehee opined that the city didn't have as much of a
role in addressing the competency of that drainage; and didn't think the
homeowner's association would pay to maintain the ponds on an annual basis, and
if not maintained annually wouldn't work, nor did she see a good access road to
reach the ponds. Councilmember McGehee referenced the City Council's ideas of
maintaining the integrity of its neighborhoods, and noted repeated discussions
with Mr. Mueller on what he could or could not do on his property and be
compliant with city code. However, Councilmember McGehee noted that Mr.
Mueller continued to come back over and over again until he received the
majority support he sought.
Mayor Roe stated that he originally
supported the proposal when first brought forward; and offered his continued
support of it. Mayor Roe noted the good faith efforts of the Mr. Mueller and
his development team to address concerns and as objections arose. Mayor Roe
expressed his concern in not approving a subdivision based on assumed failure
of BMPS, tree preservation, or an adequate association to meet the dictates
laid out by the City Attorney and Community Development staff going forward.
Mayor Roe opined that he would continue to accept the professional engineers of
the city and the applicant rather than those self-appointed experts in opposition
to a project and interpretation that they were better informed than paid
project engineers using their expertise to perform their jobs. Mayor Roe
stated that he would continue to support this project.
Ayes: Laliberte, Willmus,
Etten and Roe.
15. Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
High Density Housing Discussion and Housing/Economic Development
16. City Manager Future Agenda Review
City Manager Trudgeon provided a preview of upcoming agenda items.
17. Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at
approximately 10:47 p.m.