View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
March 28, 2016
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: Willmus,
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City
Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.
2. Pledge of
3. Approve Agenda
Etten requested removal of Item 8.g and Councilmember McGehee requested removal
of Item 8.f from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one
appeared to speak.
& City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements
announced a vacancy on the Finance Commission for a mid-term appointment
through March 31, 2017, and reviewed the application process and anticipated appointment
by April 18, 2016.
announced upcoming "Ask the Experts" seminars on various topics of interest to
homeowners, scheduled during April at the Ramsey County Library " Roseville
Branch, sponsored in part by the Library and City of Roseville.
Laliberte provided an update to the City Council and public on the first
meeting of the Cedarholm Golf Course Task Force. Councilmember Laliberte
reported that the first meeting involved introduction of a good, large and
diverse group, scheduling and calendaring of meetings. Councilmember Laliberte
advised that information would be posted on the city's website for citizens to
follow along with this group of volunteer decision-makers tasked with making a
recommendation to the City Council on the existing and future clubhouse
Laliberte asked staff to provide announcement information at the next few City
Council meetings related to the April 16, 2016 CHAT (Community Health Awareness
Team - successor to the Block Nurse Program) event scheduled to be held at
Centennial Methodist Church in Roseville. Councilmember Laliberte advised that
this event would include a panel discussion on health care directive; and
specifics for future meetings.
Trudgeon provided an update on the deer population, and recognized receipt of
emails from citizens to staff. Mr. Trudgeon advised that Ramsey County had recently
completed their flyover to estimate a preliminary deer population and their
general locale. Mr. Trudgeon reported that, similar to last year, the deer
herds appeared to be centralized in the north and northeast portion of
Roseville. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the next steps would be for Ramsey County
to meet with cities in Ramsey County sometime in April to consider options, at
which time Roseville staff will provide more detailed information to the City
Council and public.
Trudgeon confirmed that the meeting would be held by Ramsey County with city staff
from various communities; and noted many of the cities in Ramsey County already
had well-established deer management programs in place, and staff intended that
their first involvement after enacting the Wildlife Management Ordinance and
Plan would be a learning experience for them. Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff
would bring back that information and perhaps schedule a future presentation to
the City Council on those findings and suggested options.
Donations and Communications
Proclaim Arbor Day
Mayor Roe read
a proclamation proclaiming April 29, 2016 as Arbor Day in the City of
Roseville, encouraging citizens to nurture and protect trees to help positively
impact the environment.
moved, Etten seconded, proclaiming April 29, 2016 as Arbor Day in the City of
and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior
to tonight's meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft
presented in the Council packet.
Approve March 14, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the March 14, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended.
Page 7, Line
Typographical correction: Correct to read "Roseville County" to
Page 12, Line 2 (Laliberte)
correction: Correct to read: "Councilmember Etten's thoughts about having that
information available; advising that [staff] [he]"
Page 21, Line 37 (Roe)
correction: Remove parentheses from "in parks"
Page 24, Line 41 (Roe)
correction: Add "and" before Chelsea Holub
Page 29, Line 27 (McGehee)
correction: change "paid" to "paying"
Page 29, Line 35 (Roe)
correction: Remove "back-ups"
Page 31, Line 13 (Roe)
correction: Revise to read "ownership [before] [for]
the [main] [lateral] for the sanitary sewer;"
Page 32, Line 17 (Roe)
Roe" from this sentence
Page 33, Line 6 (McGehee)
read: "[form] [from] the view given during [inspecting]
[the inspection of] mains,"
Approve Consent Agenda
At the request of
Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being considered
under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for Council
Action (RCA) and related attachments dated March 28, 2016.
Etten moved, Willmus
seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and
80775 - 80933
Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits
Laliberte noted several applicants had checked the box "yes" in having had
previous licenses that had been revoked, suspended or not renewed.
Councilmember Laliberte sought to make sure staff had not overlooked these responses
and background investigations had been thorough for all applicants.
Councilmember Laliberte also noted fees having been revised and reduced in several
Director Miller responded that, for license fees, staff's remarks indicated
prorating of the fees to reflect a different calendar cycle and payment for the
number of months a license is in effect.
having personally reviewed the business license applications, Finance Director
Miller advised that city staff and Roseville Police had done criminal
background checks, and licenses would not be issued unless each application was
completely vetted and met all city code requirements.
Laliberte admitted her discomfort in approving business licenses without having
that information documented with the applications.
Etten moved, Willmus
seconded, approval of business and other licenses and permits for terms as
Approve General Purchases in Excess of $5,000
Willmus seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as
noted in the RCA dated March 28, 2016, and Attachment A entitled, "2016 Capital
Improvement Plan Summary," dated February 29, 2016.
Approve July 4th Fireworks Display Agreement
Etten moved, Willmus
seconded, approval of an Agreement with Pyrotechnic Display, Inc. (Attached);
and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the documents for the
firm's performance of the 2016 fireworks display.
Consider Donation of Property Located at 0 North McCarrons
Laliberte suggested a future public recognition of the McCarron Family for
their donation of this 1.17 acre parcel adjacent to Villa Park, and perhaps a
marker on the property acknowledging the family's donation. Councilmember
Laliberte asked staff if they had an estimated value of the property and/or
future work for restoring this natural area.
Trudgeon reported that this is a work-in-progress, and there had been talk of a
bench on the parcel to acknowledge the McCarron family donation; but advised
staff would report back to the City Council when a recommendation is finalized.
McGehee also thanked the McCarron family as well and applauded the city's
intent to keep this as a natural area, noting that it serves as part of the
watershed for Lake McCarron.
Etten moved, Willmus
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. (Attachment D) entitled, "A Resolution
Accepting a Gift of Real Property located in Roseville, Minnesota;" and
authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the necessary documents to
secure the property's acquisition.
Approval to Renew Minnesota Criminal Justice Data Communications
Network Subscriber Agreement and Court Data Service Subscriber Amendment
Etten moved, Willmus
seconded, approval of the renewal of the Minnesota Criminal Justice Data
Communications Subscriber Agreement (Attachment A); and approval of the Court
Data Services Subscriber Amendment to the CJDN Subscriber Agreement (Attachment
B); authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the documents.
9. Consider Items
Removed from Consent
Authorize Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Property
Access Agreement to Villa Park
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in
the RCA and related attachments of today's date. Mr. Trudgeon noted that this
was part of a larger statewide effort, at no cost to the city, and supported
and recommended by staff.
McGehee stated her rationale in emphasizing this item was to request that staff
provide timely periodic reports on how this system is working, since the city
currently didn't have any experience with this type of installation. Since
this is a device being used heavily as part of the city's overall storm water
management best management practices (BMP) program, Councilmember McGehee
suggested updates on how effective it was proving to be.
Trudgeon noted that actually two situations were occurring: MPCA monitoring of
pathogens and bacteria, and the Capitol Region Watershed District monitoring
for the infiltration system itself. Mr. Trudgeon agreed that this provided a
great opportunity to expand the knowledge of the city and staff related to this
type of BMP.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of an MPCA Property Access Agreement (Attachment A) at Upper
Villa Park Property and their installation of a monitoring well, with staff authorized
to work with the MPCA on final placement of the monitoring well to avoid any
use conflicts; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the
Order Feasibility Report for the Owasso Private Drive Storm Water
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in
the RCA and related attachments of today's date. For cost-sharing purposes,
Mr. Trudgeon noted that the proposal was for benefitting residents to be
assessed 25% of the actual cost for this improvement. Mr. Trudgeon clarified
that this request is seeking authorization for ordering the feasibility report
as a first step, and not authorizing the improvement itself.
Etten asked the estimated cost for replacement of the road surface only on this
Jesse Freihammer estimated the cost of surface pavers would be $110,000, but
noted the underlayment worked as a system with the pavers as well.
At the request
of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Freihammer advised that the city currently
maintains this road (e.g. snow plowing), and this paver system would require
additional long-term maintenance by the city for periodically vacuum sweeping
of the pavers.
Etten questioned the city paying a large portion of this private road
improvement and long-term maintenance as well. While recognizing the goal of
the city to address water quality and the need for maintenance to do so,
Councilmember Etten opined that there was a fine line in taking such action;
and further opined that this was over and above the city's responsibility in
using public funds to pay for part of the construction of and long-term
maintenance of a private road.
Mayor Roe asked
if this roadway was intended to have curb and gutter installed, or if it would
drain off the sides.
advised that, while the road doesn't need curb and gutter since it didn't
function as a normal road and water would drain through the pavers, residents
had been considering asking for installation of curbs on one side of the road
as a buffer. Mr. Freihammer noted that this would be one of the items
identified as part of the feasibility study.
Mayor Roe asked
staff's estimated cost for an asphalt road.
advised that he didn't have that information available offhand; but also noted
there would be complications in meeting stormwater needs and designing a system
at that location.
Specific to the
paving itself, Mayor Roe supported looking at the options through a feasibility
report. However Mayor Roe agreed with Councilmember Etten in questioning at
what point the city was providing a nice road compared to the current gravel
option when that road is basically used as a private road. Mayor Roe
suggested, similar to the city paying for asphalt equivalent costs when patches
are required to concrete roads, that funding mechanisms consider that the
neighborhood pay for the equivalent of an asphalt road and then further
negotiate maintenance options and costs going forward.
Willmus asked if at any time discussions had occurred about the city taking
over right-of-way aligning with the private drive.
advised those discussions had not occurred based on his knowledge. Mr.
Freihammer noted that several years ago, the affected residents had sought and
received a permanent easement versus a lease from the railroad; and noted that
the city also had utility easements running through that area.
Willmus questioned if the adjoining property owners to the easement had
requested that the city take over that private roadway.
stated that he believed those neighbors had asked the city to take on the road
as a city road; but noted there were too many issues required to bring it up to
city street standards.
maintenance (snow plowing), City Manager Trudgeon noted that there were city
utilities (e.g. fire hydrant) at the end of the private road supporting the
city's long-standing practice to provide snow maintenance to make those
Etten noted that, for the most part, the city would be paying a significant
amount of the cost for construction and maintenance of this private road, even
though. Councilmember Etten opined that there should be a more significant
cost-sharing by residents adjacent to this private road to address the improvements
as well as long-term maintenance and future replacement. At a minimum,
Councilmember Etten suggested an upfront contribution by the residents to the
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to address those future needs, or other
options to facilitate them. Councilmember Etten reiterated his concern in the
city having significant costs for the private road and future maintenance of
noted numerous locations within Roseville with private drives; and as addressed
by Councilmember Etten's concerns, questioned if the city was setting a
precedent with this private drive.
Etten also asked for information of other situations citywide with city
utilities at the end of private drives; and how the line is drawn in each of
recognized these were all valid questions needing to be addressed as part of
the feasibility study.
McGehee referenced the technical nature of this, as tied to the previous Item f
on another lake with stormwater runoff supposedly with more filtering, but
remaining an unknown at this time. Councilmember McGehee expressed her
interest in learning how the city and watershed districts can embed something,
if the decision was made to move forward with this request, to determine what
contaminants were actually entering the lake(s). Since there is no other
system currently like this in Roseville, and from her perspective it seemed the
intent was to address runoff currently sheeting off the surface and not
infiltrating before reaching the lake, Councilmember McGehee expressed her
interest in learning if the goal was being reached with efforts such as this
and the previous request.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11310 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution
Ordering Preparation of a Feasibility Report for Owasso Private Drive Storm
General Ordinances for Adoption
Adopt an Ordinance Creating Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Standards within the City Code
Thomas Paschke reviewed past action of the City Council in hiring the firm of
Sambatek to complete PUD standards for the city; and discussions to-date at
Planning Commission and City Council levels. Mr. Paschke noted the Planning
Commission's public hearing held on March 2, 2016 leading to tonight's updated
presentation to the City Council since their last review of the document on
December 7, 2015. Attachments were provided as detailed in the RCA of this
Prior to his
presentation, Mr. Gozola referenced the various attachments, as well as an
additional marked up copy of new Chapter 1023: Planned Unit Developments,
provided as a bench handout and made part of the staff report.
reviewed the history of the process, the project understanding by his firm, and
overarching goals of the PUD ordinance.
Attachment B during his presentation, Mr. Gozola noted this is a clean copy of
the proposed language allowing for easy reading of the ordinance, and including
comments explaining specific provisions being proposed in addition to items for
further consideration by the City Council. Mr. Gozola noted that the City
Attorney had reviewed the document as well; and reviewed those areas receiving
major and minor changes since the document was last before the City Council,
moving section to section of Chapter 1023, and referencing the comment section
of the marked-up ordinance.
Page 13, Line 318 (McGehee)
McGehee noted the need to correct language using PUD as a possessive noun, duly
noted by Mr. Gozola.
Page 9, Line 260 (McGehee)
McGehee agreed that the term "true north" was too technical and use of "north
arrow" by the consultant was preferable.
Page 4, Line 106-108 (Willmus)
density, Councilmember Willmus asked if that would be phrased differently for
residential and commercial developments.
At the request
of Mr. Gozola, staff confirmed that there was no standard commercial floor
ratio, and this was unique to residential density.
suggested stating "residential" density accordingly, duly noted by Mr. Gozola.
Willmus suggested the ordinance include a termination clause, with his
preference being termination at 12-months post-approval of the final PUD
Page 9, Lines 249-250 (Willmus)
Willmus suggested similar language for Concept and Final PUD Plan submittals,
allowing items flagged and/or waived or if different than those initially
submitted between those stages.
referenced language on Page 8, lines 224-225 related to PUD Sketch Plans,
suggesting that language be inserted as noted by Mayor Roe on Page 12, Item c
between lines 370-371 and paralleling that other language.
PUD Qualifications (Willmus)
Willmus questioned PUD qualifications related specifically to multi-party
ownership, such as situations with silent partners. Councilmember Willmus
noted the specificity of this proposed language identifying "all persons or
entities with ownership interests," and questioned if the proposed language
precluded Limited Liability situations having silent partners.
Gaughan opined that he didn't believe it would preclude that situation, noting
that typically non-silent partners would possess authority to act on behalf of
the entity as a whole. Mr. Gaughan opined that he was not aware of a situation
where any partnership contingent within an entity of such size and authority
would allow partners to act without the knowledge or authority of all partners.
Mr. Gaughan further clarified that this could be part of the legally written
consent, and part of that consent would be affirmation of purported owners.
Traffic Studies (Laliberte)
Laliberte noted the city typically requesting traffic studies, but if
mitigation solutions were subsequently required as a result of that study (e.g.
parking structures) questioned if that would that be appropriate based on Mr. Gozola's
familiarity with other PUD models.
responded that such a study would be a submittal requirement at the Concept
Stage, and if deemed necessary by the city, then the study would be requested
outlining what would be needed for subsequent approval by the city, and
conditions placed on PUD approval as such.
Second Notice Elimination (Laliberte)
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte as to when notice of the process would occur, Mr.
Gozola reviewed the steps, (Page 6, line 151) with the first step being the
initial developer open house required (Chapter 1102.01) and the process to be
followed for those meetings. As part of that process, Mr. Gozola clarified
that notices of upcoming developer open houses and City Council review dates as
indicated by staff would already have been sent out as part of that first step.
Mr. Gozola noted that the question became whether that same review was needed
for the City Council portion.
Laliberte agreed with that process as long as the open house and City Council
dates were included in that notice and not skipped over to allow constituents
to be aware of City Council actions.
noted that the second open house, which was also noticed, would be another
opportunity for connecting with surrounding residents.
Laliberte agreed with Councilmember Willmus that something specific was needed;
and agreed with a twelve-month duration if nothing happened, the
developer/applicant would need to start the process over again.
Etten and McGehee agreed with the addition or a termination clause.
noted that, if no action occurred during that 12-month period, approval became
moot, but agreed with adding that language to the termination clause. However,
Mayor Roe suggested language for twelve-months, or as per any other City
Council approved timeframe, allowing greater flexibility.
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and McGehee agreed with Mayor Roe's suggestion, as
long as the termination didn't remain open-ended.
staff and council members were aware of the intent now, Councilmember Willmus
noted the need to address future personnel to ensure something didn't fall
between the cracks due to it not being memorialized within the PUD ordinance.
stated staff's openness to including such language, but suggested an option be
included should a developer choose to extend the period before or prior to the
PUD becoming a moot point and seeking an extension of a reasonable period along
with their reasons for not yet having begun the project. Mr. Paschke noted
that this would require the developer to seek City Council approval to extend
the PUD with language addressing that extension accordingly.
Willmus agreed with the proposal, but asked to see the actual language itself.
Councilmember Willmus noted building permit language for subsequent
construction. If actively engaged in implementing it, Councilmember Willmus
opined that was a different situation than final approval having been granted
and then the developer goes away and the city doesn't hear from them for a
noted that, without objection, the City Council was interested in language to
address this issue.
Page 12, "2.i PUD Final Plan Submittal Requirements," Lines
358 - 362 (City Attorney Gaughan)
Gaughan noted that provision related to an operating and maintenance plan for
common areas provided on page 13; and suggested it be struck out of this
section on page 12. Mr. Gaughan noted it originally came from a new provisions
and referenced a Development Agreement, but noted that a Development Agreement
is not required at the Final Plan submitted making the reference inappropriate.
Since that was
not a mandate, and at the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan suggested
striking the first sentence from Item 2.i, and the remainder remain as written.
objection, Mayor Roe noted the City Council's agreement with this revision.
Page 3, PUD Qualifications, Section 1023.05 (lines 68 - 70)
Etten asked how and why this needed sorting out and how it was unique,
suggesting it was applicable to enhanced developments no matter their size.
noted this same discussion occurred with the City Council in December of 2015,
with the conclusion being that while PUD's were typically set for two acres,
some flexibility was preferred so as not to eliminate some projects that the
city may want. Mr. Gozola noted that it would be harder to achieve some of the
goals outlined in the ordinance to qualify under a PUD as those properties
decrease in size. But, Mr. Gozola stated the intent was for the city to state
to a developer that if they could show us they could achieve a desired project
on a smaller parcel, the City Council would consider it.
with concurrence by City Attorney Gaughan, agreed this would retain the City
Council's discretion for each project.
Page 12, Lines 377 - 381 Voting Majorities (Etten)
Etten sought clarification as to whether this vote required for approval was a
simple or super majority vote.
stated it would be a simple majority vote.
Willmus questioned if that was always applicable, should a PUD be considered a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
with confirmation by City Attorney Gaughan, responded "no."
noted that the PUD had to meet the underlying zoning. However, he noted some
votes required a simple majority vote of the full City Council versus a simple
majority vote of the quorum present and sought clarification of which applied.
Gaughan clarified it would be a simple majority vote as required for a zoning
amendment, unlike the super-majority necessary for "up zoning, and thus the
existing Comprehensive Plan designation." At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr.
Gaughan opined that he didn't suspect it would not require a majority of the
full body for a PUD, but offered to verify that information.
Page 15, Section 1023.11P: PUD Cancellation (Etten)
Etten again sought clarification as to the percentage vote required to create a
cancellation, with Mr. Paschke and Mayor Roe agreeing that a simple majority
requested that Mr. Gozola and staff return with a document reflecting tonight's
discussion and revisions for final review and approval.
Willmus asked that only one copy of the document be included in the next agenda
packet to avoid confusion.
McGehee thanked Mr. Paschke and Mr. Gozola for getting this PUD ordinance done,
opining that on her part it had been long-awaited and much appreciated.
by his colleagues, Mayor Roe stated this document was much better than the
city's previous ordinance.
Consider Amendments to Roseville City Code Chapter 201, Advisory
Commissions; Chapter 205, Human Rights Commission; and Chapter 207 Ethics Commission
Trudgeon briefly summarized the RCA and Attachment B consisting of a draft
ordinance highlighting proposed amendments to City Ordinance, Chapter 201
related to the city's advisory commissions. Mr. Trudgeon sought feedback from
Councilmembers as to staff's proposed changes based on previous discussions and
Etten expressed his appreciation for the majority of the changes.
201.06: Organization (Etten)
Etten suggested moving the contents of Item H (lines 34-25) into Item A related
to election of officers at the first meeting or change language in line 14 to
include "appointment of an Ethics Commission representative (per Chapter 207 as
Laliberte agreed that was a great fix.
suggested the same could be accomplished by striking Item H up to the word
"appoint" with the remaining language moved to Item A, immediately after
"elect a chair and vice-chair, [and a member to serve on the Ethics Commission]
from among its appointed members for a term of one-year."
Trudgeon duly noted Mayor Roe's suggestion; without objection.
questioned the need to include language related to special meetings for all
advisory commissions, while recognizing the necessity for the Planning
Commission for certain land use items and their timing. Councilmember Willmus
questioned what had previously been in individual advisory commission language.
advised that it varied, with some not mentioned and others having a separate
chapter, some in-depth about operations and others not addressing it; and
resulting in an inconsistent standard. While it is critical for the Planning
Commission to hold a special meeting as needed, Mr. Trudgeon suggested the
revised language allowing all advisory commissions to hold a special meeting.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that he didn't know if and when it may come up, but noted
as an example the current language that prevented the Ethics Commission from
calling a special meeting under current code.
Laliberte noted that lines 39 - 40 (page 1) allowed commissions to amend their
regular meeting schedules.
clarified that current language requires a majority vote of the advisory
commission at a regular meeting, but didn't allow a special meeting being
called between regular meetings, noting that the revised language provided them
with a mechanism to do so.
205.02 (page 2, lines 57-58): Scope, Duties and Function (Laliberte)
Specific to the
Human Rights Commission (HRC), Councilmember Laliberte expressed appreciation
for their suggestions, making their scope much better and more relevant than it
had been. However, Councilmember Laliberte stated she was struggling with the
purpose language stating "to encourage full participation in and uphold the
Minnesota Human Rights Act" Councilmember Laliberte suggested a transition
word may be missing.
agreed, suggesting that "the affairs of this community and uphold the
Minnesota Human Rights Act."
objection, Councilmembers agreed with Mayor Roe's suggested language, duly
noted by City Manager Trudgeon.
Mayor Roe asked
that City Manager Trudgeon double-check that revision with the HRC Chair.
207.01 (page 3, line 98): Establishment and Membership (Roe)
Mayor Roe noted
a grammatical correction, revising "all" to "each" and changing "commissions"
to singular case when referencing appointment of Ethics Commission
representatives, duly noted by City Manager Trudgeon.
objection, Mayor Roe requested that staff return with final revisions for
review and consideration by the City Council.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte specific to the Ethics Commission, City Manager
Trudgeon reported that the Commission had met a few days after the last City
Council discussion while that feedback was still fresh. However, due to
current code language, Mr. Trudgeon advised that a subsequent special meeting
could not be scheduled. In an email to current Ethics Commissioners, Mr. Trudgeon
advised that he asked them to share any comments with him going forward that he
would subsequently share with the City Council. Mr. Trudgeon advised that he
had heard nothing to-date, but was aware sitting commissioners fully supported
the City Council's rationale and didn't feel any personal rejection or animosity,
recognizing that the proposed changes made sense.
Receive Presentation from Northeast Youth and Family Services
welcomed Jerry Hromatka, President and CEO of NYFS.
A copy of Mr.
Hromatka's presentation was included as part of the agenda packet materials for
tonight's meeting; and he highlighted some of those items.
noted the partner relations with fifteen "municipalities" not just cities; and
advised that initially the program had been a partnership of ten, and was now
up that 15 after the recent merger.
between Mr. Hromatka and council members included academic and therapeutic
support in area school buildings; day treatment for mental health issues being
of a more intensive nature and during the class day lasting from six months to
one year; transitioning clients back into the community as they lean to manage
their illness and return to their classroom or a less-restrictive learning environment.
noted that NYFS will be celebrating their 40th anniversary this
year, with a Leadership Lunch scheduled in May of 2016; and the annual NYFS
Board of Directors' initiative for the Mayors Challenge Golf Tournament at Keller
Golf Course scheduled June 13, 2016, serving as a fundraiser above and beyond
grants and contracts used to fund NYFS programs.
McGehee personally thanked Mr. Hromatka for this annual presentation, and
recognized his commitment to the community and the work he did.
Hromatka served as the face of the NYFS organization, Mayor Roe recognized the
many people making it work. On a personal note, Mayor Roe again highlighted
the Mayors Challenge Golf Tournament, and offered various ways to participate,
thanked Mr. Hromatka for his attendance and presentation.
Public Hearings and Action Consideration
Public Hearing to Approve/Deny an On-Sale Wine and On-Sale 3.2%
Liquor License for New Bohemia-Roseville LLC, d/b/a New Bohemia Wurst &
Bier Haus, a new restaurant located at 2730 Snelling Avenue N
Director Chris Miller briefly summarized the request for this new restaurant in
Mayor Roe noted
that no representatives of the restaurant were in attendance to speak.
opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 7:55 p.m., with no one
appearing for or against.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of New Bohemia - Roseville LLC's request for an On-Sale Wine
License and an On-Sale 3.2% Liquor License located at 2730 Snelling Avenue N;
contingent on successful completion of background checks.
Receive 2015 Budget to Actual Results for Selected Funds
the request of Councilmember Willmus, Finance Director Miller provided two
bench handouts, showing cash reserve level comparison information for key operating
and capital funds for years 2014 and 2015.
Director Chris Miller clarified that the 2015 budget to actual results for
selected funds as detailed in the RCA remained preliminary and had not been fully
audited at this point. Mr. Miller clarified that the anticipated General Fund
surplus had yet to be realized and instead noted a current operating deficit of
$311,000+. Mr. Miller noted that this was in part due to December tax
collections of approximately $400,000 less than expected due to a number of
properties filing tax petitions contesting their assessed market valuations.
Until those outcomes are settled, Mr. Miller advised that Ramsey County would
withhold funds, and anticipated the petitions should be finalized later in
2016, but recognized some may extend into 2017. Mr. Miller advised that
similar tax petitions had been filed in 2015 and since resolved. Mr. Miller
noted that the current properties represented several office buildings and
hotels in the Twin Lakes area, and warehouses on the west side of Roseville.
Once the petitions move through the tax courts, Mr. Miller advised the funds
should be received by the city, but he was unable to project how much until
later this year or early in 2017. While staff often anticipates some
petitions, Mr. Miller noted that the magnitude this year had proven remarkable
based on the city's past experience.
the request of Mayor Roe for clarification of the viewing audience, Finance
Director Miller displayed the graphs for the four funds: General, Parks &
Recreation, License Center and Communications, and provided specifics of each.
the request of Councilmember Willmus, Finance Director Miller noted the significant
jump of $300,000 in Community Development Department reserves was due to a huge
jump in permit activity levels between 2014 and 2015.
Willmus sought clarification on structural changes made to the Water Fund.
Director Miller noted that this fund had always been in a tenuous position as
the city struggled to meet infrastructure needs for the Water Fund without also
building up that fund's cash reserves. Given the excess reserves in the Stormwater
Fund, Mr. Miller noted last year that the City Council authorized a $2.5
million transfer from the Stormwater Fund to the Water Fund. As a result, Mr.
Miller referenced favorable and positive comments from several bond agencies as
they recognize the proactive steps taken by the city to strengthen its
financial situation and provide some tax relief. Mr. Miller congratulated the
City Council for taking those steps, noting that people were noticing.
recognizing that the City Council authorized some new positions in the License
Center this year, Councilmember Laliberte asked Finance Director Miller for his
projections for 2016 revenue versus that of 2015.
Director Miller responded that it was too early in the process to make such a
projection, with some of that additional staffing just coming on board and only
three months into 2016. However, Mr. Miller opined that 2016 was on a pace to
beat last year's mark, even with that additional staffing. Also, Mr. Miller
noted that new staffing models had yet had a chance to capitalize those new positions
by soliciting new auto dealer and/or passport business.
the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Finance Director Miller advised that he
and City Manager Trudgeon had been discussing the number of new positions and
restructuring within the organization and suggested a report or update to the
City Council after six months underway.
Manager Trudgeon concurred with that timeframe.
Roe noted the additional tax relief realized from License Center revenue in the
past, and expressed his hope that business levels would further add to those
Approve Amendments to the 2015 Budget
detailed in the RCA, Finance Director Miller noted only one requested budget
amendment, noting this was an annual procedural step to demonstrate compliance
from the authorized budget to actual budget. Mr. Miller advised that the City
Council had already authorized the expenditure, but his was simply formally documenting
moved, McGehee seconded, approval of a year-end amendment to the 2015 Roseville
City Budget as detailed in the RCA dated March 28, 2016.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 8:14 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:21 p.m.
Business Items (Action Items)
Request for Approval of REZONING a Portion of Property along Dale
Street from Low Density Residential-1 (LDR-1) District to Low Density Residential-2
(LDR-2) District; and PRELIMINARY PLAT of 5.82 acres in 17 Lots
Preliminary Plat dated March 28, 2016 was provided as a bench handout, and made
part of the staff report. Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd summarized this request
as detailed in the RCA involving a rezoning request for a portion of properties
along Dale Street from LDR-2 to LDR-2, and approval of a preliminary plat of
5.82 acres into seventeen lots.
Mr. Lloyd noted
that with submission of the preliminary plat as presented tonight, the original
request for outlots was no longer necessary to facilitate lot boundaries, based
on the most recent updated survey. Mr. Lloyd referenced remaining conditions
recommended by staff and outlined in the RCA.
Mr. Lloyd noted
that the proposal is for 32' wide streets with parking on both sides as
supported by staff. However, Mr. Lloyd advised that the developer is interested
in limiting that width to 28' with parking along one side if the City Council
is supportive. Mr. Lloyd noted that the developer is proposing the reduced
width of the street to facilitate traffic calming. However, Mr. Lloyd noted
that nearby residents expressed concern in transition from a 32' to 28' wide
street; and in recognition of their apprehension, the Planning Commission had
recommended 32' wide streets. Mr. Lloyd advised that the developer is fine
with either width, but clarified that the City's Public Works and Planning
Departments could support the 28' wide substandard street, leaving that final
decision at the discretion of the City Council.
advised that earlier today, an email discussion had occurred related to the
Tree Preservation Plan associated with this particular request. Mr. Lloyd reported
that due to his initial misunderstanding of that request and the application,
and the dates when the current Tree Preservation Ordinance too effect, he had incorrectly
assumed all materials would be based on that new version. However, Mr. Lloyd
noted that astute members of the City Council noted that not all calculations
or information accompanied the Tree Preservation Plan, and he had incorrectly
identified that the new ordinance was governing this application, when instead,
the old ordinance was governing and those requirements would be put in place.
As a result, Mr. Lloyd recommended an additional condition (F) be placed on the
approval, requiring approved tree preservation plans, grading plans, and other
documentation required by code as a condition of approval of the final plat.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Lloyd clarified that his understanding of this
applicant was that they were in the land development business, and then turned
over actual construction of the homes to builders rather than looking at each
lot for specificities of the home's footprint and driveway construction. Mr.
Lloyd noted that the developer and planning staff had made the best guess about
how the development may occur; in addressing construction limits and tree
removals/damages as part of the actual construction process. If the removals
and/or damage exceeded those limits, Mr. Lloyd advised that a supplemental tree
preservation plan would need to be submitted.
rezoning of Lots 7 - 12 to LDR-2, Councilmember Willmus asked what steps were
involved for individuals potentially acquiring one of those parcels and instead
of constructing a one-family detached home, to construct a two-family detached
of attached dwelling, since either were permitted uses in LDR-2 districts.
responded that while both are permitted uses in LDR-2 zones, the proposed size
of the lots between 6,000 to 7,000 square feet in area would not facilitate
anything other than a single-family detached home, since a two-family unit on a
single parcel required 4,800 square feet per unit.
Mayor Roe noted
that such a use would require replatting of a lot; with Mr. Lloyd confirming
asked that the applicant provide information regarding their intent for
protective covenants and what those covenants might look like regarding the
physical structure or style of home a potential builder or lot purchaser could construct.
McGehee requested that Mr. Lloyd or the applicant explain in more detail the
nature of the issue(s) with transition from a 32' to a 28' wide street.
Councilmember McGehee noted that her street was an example of such a transition
and she found no noticeable transition, opining that the curve in this case
would provide a nice traffic calming approach, especially with this new through
street coming off Dale Street. Councilmember McGehee further opined that she
had a hard time understanding the angst of the neighbors with such a transition
responded that neighbors apparently found the change in width to be generally
disorienting, noting that the proposal for a 28' wide street had been supported
initially by the City's Public Works Department in their report to the Planning
Commission and recommended condition with parking allowed on the south side and
width transition occurring on the north side.
McGehee noted that traffic is always a problem raised by neighbors, and
recognized that the developer had tried to address that through the reduced
width and traffic calming efforts. Councilmember McGehee also noted this would
reduce impervious surface; and reiterated her inability to see a problem with
Willmus referenced his viewing of the Planning Commission meeting and the
number of residents speaking to the width, noting the concern was one of
transition and also stacking all parking on one side of the roadway. From his
perspective, Councilmember Willmus opined that he found a wider road to be
better, and expressed his preference in hindsight that it had been followed
with the Mueller Development. While the road will carry some level of traffic,
Councilmember Willmus further opined that, from a traffic perspective, he'd prefer
a wider roadway and noted the number of speakers at the Planning Commission
meeting having concerns with that transition.
In RCA Exhibit
A (page 5, line 162), Councilmember Etten referenced City Code, Section 1103.04
related to drainage and utility easements and their 12' width. Councilmember
Etten noted that this plat shows 10' and questioned why that width had not been
corrected since the Planning Commission meeting.
responded that it had been revised in the intermediate version of the plat
related to outlots; but opined it may not have been caught in this latest preliminary
plat presented tonight. However, Mr. Lloyd noted that it is addressed in
Condition A and continued standing language that the plat shall meet all subdivision
code requirements for easements, etc.
Etten clarified that the condition would demand that the final plat provide a
12' utility easement, with Mr. Lloyd confirming that width at 12'.
On that same
RCA Exhibit A (page 7, lines 231 - 245), Councilmember Etten noted concerns
about ponding and drainage in the overall stormwater management plan; and asked
if any updates were available on those concerns.
deferred that question to Public Works staff or the applicant, reporting that
he had not been involved in those conversations and how the plans were advancing
in meeting some or all of those concerns.
Etten referenced Lots 4 and 5 on the north edge of lots abutting Wheaton Avenue,
noting that it appeared that several trees on the east side of the proposed
drainage pond would be unable to survive, even though they were shown as
remaining in the applicant's tree preservation plan as submitted. Councilmember
Etten questioned how much elevation change (e.g. 3') would be involved and how
the trees could possibly survive.
advised that he would make a note for the City's Arborist to review that area.
sought clarification on the next steps for this process, assuming this request
is approved. Mayor Roe noted that the final plat had not yet been submitted
and would be a separate approval process from this preliminary approval. Under
those circumstances, Mayor Roe asked staff if the new tree preservation
ordinance would apply to the final plat.
advised that the old city code specified that a preliminary plat would not be
approved without a tree preservation plan, and assuming the tree preservation
plan and preliminary plat develop in tandem and meet requirements for approval,
he interpreted that this version of the tree preservation plan as part of the
preliminary plat would remain the approved plan and not a new tree preservation
plan accompanying the final plat.
Gaughan concurred with Mr. Lloyd that the actual tree preservation plan
submitted with the preliminary plat would remain throughout the final plat
Mayor Roe noted
that the property lines relative to a roadway were the subject of an upcoming
text amendment and subdivision code amendment coming before the Planning
Commission next month. Mayor Roe noted that the lot lines included in this
preliminary plat didn't meet the letter of current city code requiring that lot
lines be perpendicular or radial to the road. Mayor Roe recognized that this
had been addressed in the draft Planning Commission meeting minutes, but asked
staff how the City Council dealt with that situation and approve a plat not
meeting lot requirements for LDR-2 districts under the current subdivision
code, and with that code not currently allowing non-radial sidelines.
Mr. Lloyd read
actual text from that section of current city code related to lot standards and
its specificity. However, Mr. Lloyd noted that that code also provide no
definition of "street line" and in this case could therefore either apply to
the right-of-way or the curved line of Wheaton Avenue, or more even more
broadly from one end to the other end of the east/west street. Mr. Lloyd
advised that staff had reviewed both scenarios for the Planning Commission, and
suggested if the City Council was most comfortable with the street line
interpretation, they could approve the application with the straight line
right-of-way and all lost could still continue to meet minimum size
requirements and that interpretation would not compromise the ability of the plat's
approval. On the other side, if interpreted more broadly with the east/west
street line connection, Mr. Lloyd noted that all lots would be perpendicular to
that in contrast to the street that is in the actual curve from one direction
to another versus the gently undulating line of Wheaton Avenue. Mr. Lloyd
opined that either choice was reasonable and defensible.
Regarding the size
of LDR-2 lots as proposed, Mr. Lloyd read the subdivision code standard
requiring 85' wide and 110' deep lots, totaling a minimum of 11,000 square feet
in area. Mr. Lloyd advised that staff's position, since the new zoning code
had been adopted in 2010 for a variety of reasons, was that while this
single-family detached dwelling lot size applied to LDR-1, due to that new zoning
code as adopted, LDR-2 detached developments with homes smaller than standard,
as well as in medium density residential (MDR) districts, were appropriate for
smaller lots than indicated in the subdivision code. As an example, Mr. Lloyd
noted that the City Council had approved a similar situation for Garden Station
(former Fire Station site) for smaller than standards but still conforming to
MDR lot sizes for that type of development. Mr. Lloyd referenced RCA Exhibit
1, staff's report to the Planning Commission March 2, 2016, where considerable
time was spent discussing any apparent conflict, but staff still advocating and
supporting the LDR-2 part of the plat and its conformity to city requirements
for single-family lots even though it appeared to conflict with the subdivision
sought clarification that the street line definition and zoning code application
for lot sizes were included in the request for applicable text amendments
coming before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Lloyd confirmed
that, noting two minor amendments were anticipated: side lot lines and street
lines. Mr. Lloyd advised that both would deal with eliminating existing
conflicts between single-family detached lot sizes and substandard lots
Etten requested additional discussion and clarification of the old tree
preservation plan as part of preliminary plat approval.
Mr. Lloyd noted
that the trouble had always been that the final approved tree preservation plan
couldn't be finalized until after final plat approval, and stormwater grading
and other components had been sufficiently addressed. Mr. Lloyd advised that
the best staff could do was include a recommended condition of approval to
ensure that staff and the developer continue to update the tree preservation
plan to meet any of those changes with engineering plan.
Etten questioned if there had ever been a final tree preservation plan as part
of preliminary plat approval.
responded that, while the tree preservation plan may appear final, it would
change with grading on the site. Mr. Lloyd noted that the tree preservation
plan basically conforms to the former ordinance's requirements in accordance
with findings of the City's Arborist and reasonable accounted for trees under
those calculations. Depending on whether the City Council approves a straight
or curving street, Mr. Lloyd noted that would also affect the tree plan and
requested rezoning and lot density along Dale Street. Mr. Lloyd opined that
the plan as presented is as reasonable as can be accomplished for this type of
Lloyd's initial misunderstanding and the significant difference between the old
and new tree preservation plans, in terms of the final outcome, Councilmember
McGehee questioned if the new plan would have significantly changed the number
or size of trees required to be preserved.
responded that the level of detail submitted under the provisions of the new
tree preservation plan would have provided a more detailed inventory and more
refined breakdown of trees accounted for versus dismissing some of the trees
not required for preservation due to their species. Therefore, Mr. Lloyd
opined the new plan may have indicated replacement obligations would be higher
with the new version of the ordinance, based on the consultant's review of
various examples between the old and new ordinances as presented prior to its
McGehee asked if it was possible to add a condition of this preliminary plat
approval that it conform to the new tree preservation plan.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan clarified that this request is not simply a
preliminary plat application, but also a rezoning request. Specific to
rezoning requests, Mr. Gaughan advised that the city retained a wide latitude
and broader leverage for approval, much wider than that of preliminary plat
approval if the applicant conforms to those regulations.
noted, with confirmation by City Attorney Gaughan, that this leverage was
limited to those lots along Dale Street, under the specifics of the rezoning request.
Gaughan advised that the City Council could make the argument that this
preliminary plat violates current zoning as presented, and could be denied based
on that finding. However, City Attorney Gaughan clarified that the City
Council's basis for denial of the application would be nonconformance with zoning
code. With Councilmember McGehee's request that a condition of approval be the
applicant's conformity with the city's new tree preservation ordinance, City
Attorney Gaughan responded that this would be a more appropriate topic for
agreement between the parties. City Attorney Gaughan cautioned that the City
Council also needed to be cognizant of the 60-day approval schedule in enumerating
their findings, pending any extension of that approval schedule.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan further clarified that if the City Council
chose to deny approval of the preliminary plat as presented, it would be based
on the finding that Lots 7 through 12 did not conform to the city's present
zoning code. Mayor Roe noted that this provided rationale for the developer to
apply for rezoning at this time in conjunction with the preliminary plat to remove
Knaeble, Golden Valley Land CO. and Matt Pavek, Land Development Partner; both
Civil Engineers specializing in infill land development
provided a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof,
consisting of an updated aerial view of the proposed Wheaton Woods; and an architectural
rendering of a sample single-family home for the smaller lots along Dale
provided a brief review and background of their firm's expertise in other
challenging development infill projects in first-ring suburbs in the metropolitan
area, mostly in the western suburbs. Mr. Knaeble noted this would be their
first development project in Roseville, and expressed their excitement in
addressing this unique site. Mr. Knaeble noted their work with staff for a
number of months, and meetings to-date with neighbors, and their attempts to
address some of the concerns expressed by neighbors during those initial
meetings as the proposed development evolved.
Councilmember Willmus' request for clarification of their role in this project,
Mr. Knaeble advised that their firm was a land development company; and while
they didn't do the actual construction themselves, but designed the project
with the expertise of their development and engineering staff, they did hire
contractors. Mr. Knaeble advised that those contractors would then be responsible
to submit final home plans to the city to obtain a building, while the Golden
Valley team would oversee that construction, and then sell finished lots to
those contractors. With the seventeen proposed lots, Mr. Knaeble advised that
they had been talking with two local builders, both having had Parade of Home
models in adjacent communities in the recent past.
information from customers, Mr. Knaeble noted their firm had received positive
interest in a project such as this in Roseville, with several potential customers
having been interested in smaller lots, similar to those on Dale Street, for a
number of reasons including their affordability. Mr. Knaeble anticipated
future homes on those smaller lots being marketed in the range of $350,000 to
$400,000; while the larger lots on Wheaton Avenue will be valued at $600,000 or
higher. Mr. Knaeble noted that it was increasingly difficult to find this type
of housing in Roseville as well as other metropolitan cities, creating some of
that positive response to-date. Mr. Knaeble noted that his firm would retain
architectural approval for the project and contractors. Mr. Knaeble advised
that their firm didn't typically record covenants with their projects, but
addressed housing styles and sizes as part of their plan review process.
recognizing that rezoning of Lots 7 through 12 to LDR-2 allows for twin homes,
Mr. Knaeble stated his firm's select interest in single-family detached homes
on those lots. As had been stated at the Planning Commission meeting, Mr.
Knaeble noted his firm's willingness to adhere to any additional restriction or
condition placed by the City Council to ensure that understanding.
question of 32' versus 28' wide streets, Mr. Knaeble advised that, when looking
at this project and existing platted rights-of-way from the cul-de-sac to Dale
Street, they thought that by shrinking the street width it would provide
traffic calming for Wheaton Avenue. Mr. Knaeble noted that many communities in
which they worked were reducing city street width standards from 28' to 32'.
Mr. Knaeble recognized the neighbors' points of view with the remainder of the
neighborhood built to 32' wide streets and not wanting anything significantly
different. However, Mr. Knaeble spoke in support of the benefits of the 28'
width slowing traffic as well as reducing impervious surfaces. Based on their
considerable amount of work with various metropolitan watershed districts, Mr.
Knaeble noted the advocacy of those watershed districts in encouraging any
opportunities to reduce impervious surfaces. Mr. Knaeble stated that he didn't
expect the transition in width to be a problem once built, noting that it would
result in 2' to 4' on one side of the road and typically stretched out on the
curved portion, not readily visible compared to a straight shot. However, Mr.
Knaeble stated his firm's willingness to agree with the decision of the City
Council and their discretion as to width, reiterating his preference for a 28'
wide roadway extension on Wheaton Avenue.
Specific to the
12' versus 10' easement, Mr. Knaeble admitted that was his error in quickly
getting revisions for the latest version of the preliminary plat as presented
tonight and as a result of county surveyor clarifications eliminating the need
for the small outlots. Mr. Knaeble advised that he would correct that to 12'
on the final plat.
code requirements that lot lines be perpendicular to the roadway, Mr. Knaeble
advised that they had initially looked at radial lot lines, but questioned if
the city would be interested in a lot being configured accordingly. While with
a larger subdivision it may make sense, Mr. Knaeble opined that with a smaller
subdivision such as this it didn't make much sense. Mr. Knaeble advised that
their infill developments also plat lots opposite each other; and opined that adhering
to that particular code requirement would not be appropriate nor would the city
like the way it looked. While recognizing that the design may not meet the
strict interpretation of current code, Mr. Knaeble advised that their firm
tries not to ask for variances for their projects, and opined that the current
city code is not as clear as it could or should be for a project such as this.
tonight's discussion related to the subdivision code for LDR-2 districts, Mr.
Knaeble advised that he couldn't address that and their relationship to each
advised that when meeting with neighbors and hearing their concerns, admittedly
something he and his firm had not thought about, drainage issues had been one
of those concerns. Mr. Knaeble noted one of the neighbors next door to their
project's proposed Lot 1, Block 2 experienced standing water in this landlocked
area every spring before the grand thawed, creating a significant drainage
issue. Therefore, to help alleviate that and as part of their development
project, Mr. Knaeble proposed that a rain garden be installed to provide
positive drainage to solve that concern, as well as addressing retention of the
natural habitat area expressed as another concern for neighbors. Mr. Knaeble
noted that another major concern of residents was connection from the street,
with Wheaton Avenue currently dead ended or served with a cul-de-sac as the
right-of-way was currently platted, Mr. Knaeble noted that it was their firm's
understanding that the city's intent was to eventually connect it, while
recognizing that a lot of neighbors were under the impression it would not and
actually preferred a dead end on Wheaton Avenue.
Specific to the
tree issue, Mr. Knaeble suggested a proposal to the city, similar to that his
firm had done on other projects. Mr. Knaeble advised that normally they would
perform custom grading for the eleven larger lots, including addressing interim
grade limits and rain garden infiltration in all areas beyond the strip where
homes will be constructed. While assuming trees will be removed as part of the
home's construction, Mr. Knaeble advised that they left that up to the
builders; but frequently found that the pads they laid out actually proved
larger than the typical homes coming in. By doing this process, Mr. Knaeble
noted that if the builders build the homes, they'll typically design them
around existing trees, an amenity in marketing the homes and properties. While
the tree preservation plan submitted by his firm shows the ultimate grading
limit and calculates tree removal based on that limit, Mr. Knaeble noted that
it was fairly conservative and anticipated fewer trees may be removed versus
more. By providing this more intense tree preservation plan, Mr. Knaeble noted
that it served to eliminate any unexpected surprises during the engineering
Willmus sought clarification as to whether Mr. Knaeble's firm designed the
building pads and ran utilities or not.
responded that their firm didn't do the design and ran utilities 10' in beyond
the right-of-way (easement line).
new tree preservation ordinance, Councilmember Willmus noted its language excluded
single-family lots. Councilmember Willmus asked what had served as the trigger
regarding tree placemen ton smaller lots if not doing building pads and selling
them to builders. In other words, Councilmember Willmus sought clarification
as to any obligation on the part of the builder pulling the building permit for
a home under the new ordinance.
advised that he had stopped consulting code provisions under the new ordinance
since the old code would apply to this application. However, Mr. Lloyd
estimated that if lots developed under the old tree preservation plan they could
be in compliance, but if under the new code a new home may exceed the new
preservation plan by as much as 50%. Mr. Lloyd noted that the tree preservation
plan developed for the plat was triggered by the plat, and all lots would need
to conform to the tree preservation plan and extends to any homes with a new
accounting needing to be done at that point under the preservation plan attached
to the plat itself.
Willmus noted that some new homes may not see a permit pulled for 6 months to a
year, and in some cases perhaps not even for ten years. Councilmember Willmus
asked if, in those vacant lot cases, if those homes would remain under the old
tree preservation plan.
responded that the tree preservation plan, as approved with the preliminary
plat, was effective for two years.
McGehee asked Mr. Knaeble if they could include a more consistent tree
preservation plan with their various covenants for these lots.
offered to study that as an option; reiterating that their grading plan shows
the anticipated limit and tree removal and/or replacement calculations, but
expected the limit to be smaller than anticipated. If for any reason the
limits proved larger than anticipated, Mr. Knaeble agreed that it made sense
and seemed fair from his perspective to meet those stricter requirements if
additional trees are involved.
Mayor Roe noted
that this remained voluntary on the part of the developer, since there was no
trigger guaranteed from the city's perspective or required.
Willmus noted if a Developer's Agreement was involved, the majority of the
improvements would occur under the majority owner.
McGehee asked City Attorney Gaughan if he saw an appropriate mechanism whereby
the city could take advantage of its new tree preservation plan for development
of these lots.
further discussion, City Attorney Gaughan reiterated the only recourse would be
for the City Council to memorialize findings to deny the rezoning application.
Mr. Gaughan clarified that the city had a code in place setting forth
regulations for subdivision approval; and if the applicant is consistent with
those regulations as stated in current city code, the plat could move forward,
as conditioned. Mr. Gaughan advised that a voluntary agreement could not be
used as part of the approval.
noted that the two builders he referenced are both currently working on designs
for potential customers, and in displaying one of those house style examples as
previously noted, he noted it indicated they're working on two-story homes of
approximately 2,000 square feet to fit on these smaller lots. Mr. Knaeble
noted that this represented a relatively modest home and as with any smaller
home with a variety of architectural design, any larger existing trees would
serve as an asset.
question of which standards apply under which tree preservation plan, Mr.
Knaeble advised that his firm would be comfortable with an additional condition
as part of the plat approval such as if they exceeded grading limits, those
additional trees would be subject to the new ordinance provisions.
reviewed those trees identified on the lot (477 in number) and those meant to
be preserved (approximately 30 in number) and asked Mr. Knaeble if this was
part of his grading plan, and sought clarification of what Mr. Knaeble
anticipated would remain after site preparation was completed.
responded that, after all homes were constructed, he anticipated Councilmember
Etten's estimation of trees removed or lost would be relatively accurate. Mr.
Knaeble stated that the resulting 477 trees were identified as "significant"
based on the city's current tree ordinance. As noted and within grading
limits, trees removed for rain gardens, ponds, and building sites would be
counted as removed as part of the calculations.
Mayor Roe noted
that those trees outside the ultimate construction limits were not counted as
being removed or requiring mitigation, and as noted by Mr. Knaeble, only a
handful of existing trees qualified for that.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee for clarification purposes, Mr. Knaeble sought to
identify the areas inside or outside the grading limits, basically leaving a
strip on both sides of Wheaton Avenue.
earlier regarding plans meeting neighborhood concerns related to stormwater
management and drainage, especially for Lots 8 through 10, Councilmember Etten
opined that rezoning those lots to LDR-2 would only serve to exacerbate the
potential water problem, especially if a retaining wall is installed.
Councilmember Etten admitted he was concerned with the developer being able to
comply with stormwater requirements, especially along Dale Street and those
advised that his firm was continuing to firm up those plans and final design of
the lots. Among those plans, Mr. Knaeble reported that an additional catch
basin is intended on Dale Street at Wheaton Avenue based on concerns provided
in staff's report for any additional water coming down Wheaton Avenue and
escaping newly-installed infiltration ponds and before it gets to Dale Street.
Etten noted the elevation along Dale Street from those lots to the streets
versus north to Wheaton Avenue, and asked specifically how drainage issues for
Lots 8, 9 and 10, currently landlocked, would be addressed with these plans.
Mayor Roe noted
this involved addressing the Wheaton Avenue runoff in particular.
noted existing drainage from Dale Street with its steep north/south grade. Mr.
Knaeble advised that the intent was with the new catch basin added in addition
to those two to three already along Dale Street, and Wheaton Avenue drainage,
any runoff coming from their lots would be addressed.
Etten noted that a retaining wall was proposed for Lots 8 through 10 and asked
how the additional catch basin would facilitate that blocked drainage.
advised their plan anticipated a worst case scenario, but depending on house styles
and plans, there may be no need to install retaining walls. Mr. Knaeble
advised that he didn't see anything currently blocking those existing drainage
areas; but reiterated things would be worked out as part of the final design
Etten stated his interest in receiving a response from the Public Works
Department before those plans went too far to see if there was any problem from
Engineer Jesse Freihammer
Freihammer advised that the intent of the conditions applied (RCA page 2, lines
21 - 29) were to address any drainage requirements. Mr. Freihammer noted one
option, if additional mitigation was indicated, would be to require the
developer to add a pipe or outlot if drainage is held back from or in front of
a retaining wall. Mr. Freihammer noted that these requirements would all be
worked out as the Public Improvement Contract (PIC) was developed.
At the request
of Councilmember Etten in addressing additional runoff from these homes into the
street, Mr. Freihammer advised that any additional runoff or flow from Lots 7
through 12 would be addressed through the additional catch basins. Mr.
Freihammer noted that considerable flow was already running down Dale Street;
and opined that the change in flow is not that significant.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, and final width determination, Mr. Knaeble advised
that they were not intending to construct a sidewalk along Wheaton Avenue. At
the further request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Freihammer clarified that
with a 28' wide roadway and parking on one side at approximately 7', it would
provide two 10.5' lanes.
allowed on Wheaton Avenue, Councilmember Willmus asked where residents were
intended to safely walk in this apparently heavily-used neighborhood connecting
directly through to Dale Street.
admitted they would still have to walk on the roadway, even though it could be
argued that the smaller width would serve to reduce traffic.
Mayor Roe noted
it could also be argued that a 32' wide road with 9' drive lanes and parking on
both sides may provide even less room for pedestrians to walk safely.
Willmus expressed concern with the curvature of the road and the city's ability
to maintain and plow it to its full width in winter, noting similar situations
where the snow doesn't get plowed curb to curb. With a considerable number of
active walkers in the community, Councilmember Willmus noted his concern with
the safety aspect. Based on that concern, Councilmember Willmus expressed his
willingness to support a 28' roadway if a sidewalk was constructed on the
western edge of the development carrying over to Dale Street, otherwise he
stated he would support a 32' road width.
offered an opportunity for the public to speak on this issue, with no one
appearing for or against.
Willmus moved, Laliberte
seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1496 (RCA Exhibit C) entitled, "An
Ordinance Amending Title 10 of the City Code, Changing the Zoning Designation
of Certain Real Property;" rezoning Ramsey County PIN 02-29-23-44-0065 from
LDR-1 to LDR-2.
Etten stated his opposition to the motion, opining that he didn't agree with
the RCA that these homes fit that neighborhood other than possibly on the
full-width, larger lots. As brought up in previously-expressed neighbor comments,
Councilmember Etten stated his concern with stormwater drainage as more density
is added in that area especially with existing drainage issues; and questioned
if or how they could be fully addressed.
As the maker of
the motion, Councilmember Willmus stated his support of the motion. While
recognizing the concerns of Councilmember Etten, Councilmember Willmus also
noted the strong demand for this style and type of single-family structure as
proposed along Dale Street. Although the yards are smaller, Councilmember
Willmus opined that the homes would fit and based his support on that.
Laliberte also agreed that this concept supports the variety of housing stock
being sought in the community. With multi-family housing across Dale Street,
Councilmember Laliberte stated that she didn't find this proposed development
to be out-of-character with the neighborhood.
McGehee noted a development may come in that is worse than this; and while it
may not be her first choice, opined that the applicant had made every effort
from her perspective to alleviate some of the existing drainage issues.
Overall, Councilmember McGehee stated she found it fitting with the adjacent
neighborhood, and agreed that this type of housing stock on smaller lots was
strongly desired in Roseville, and served to provide an alternative for new
homes being constructed in the community.
Mayor Roe spoke
in support of the rezoning, even though it had involved considerable
deliberation on his part and after reviewing the Planning Commission's
discussion, and references to the Farrington Estates proposals of the past and
how this proposed development related to the surrounding area. Mayor Roe
stated that he had ultimately come to the conclusion that, with its location on
the edge of the existing neighborhood on the north and west, he could support
the increased density and upzoning. Mayor Roe noted this was more amenable on
his part when clarifying that any duplexes or townhomes in the LDR-2 zoning
district would still require platting on their own, making him much more
comfortable in making this zoning amendment permanent.
Laliberte, McGehee and Roe.
Willmus moved, Laliberte
seconded, approval of the proposed Wheaton Woods revised/updated PRELIMINARY
PLAT (Bench Handout dated March 28, 2016) of Ramsey County PIN's
02-29-23-44-0065, -0066, and -0067; based on the findings and recommendations
of the Planning Commission, public input, City Council deliberation, and
content of the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated March 28, 2016, and
conditions detailed in lines 60-74, page 3 of that RCA; amended as
Additional Condition F: "Final plat approval shall not be
issued without approval of a tree preservation plan accounting for any changes
to grading, utility or stormwater plans not yet anticipated by the Community
objection, Mayor Roe confirmed that this approval understood a road width for
the Wheaton Avenue extension of 32'.
Laliberte and Roe.
objection due to time constraints, Mayor Roe deferred action on Agenda Items
14.c and 15.a to a future time; with tonight's meeting concluding with Agenda
Items 14.b and 15.b.
Finalize Community Survey Discussion and Survey Budget
As part of the
RCA, Communications Manager Garry Bowman presented proposed final community
survey questions based on previous City Council direction and costs based on
sample sizes. At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Bowman confirmed
that no additional questions had been added to the feedback most recently
received from the City Council.
Mayor Roe asked
Councilmembers to first focus discussion on the sample size and budget.
Etten and McGehee supported staff's recommendation for 400 samples with their
specific margin of error; with agreement by Councilmember Laliberte with that
sample size to maintain consistency with the previous survey.
objection, Mayor Roe noted support for the 400 sample size in accordance with
staff's original proposal at a projected cost of $18,500.
the draft survey questions provided by staff as Attachment A to the RCA, Mayor
Roe asked if individual Councilmembers found anything that didn't align with
having been at the last City Council meeting, Councilmember Laliberte thanked
Mayor Roe for bringing up the possibility of including a question on organized
trash collection in this year's survey. While recognizing that the Council
majority did not support that inclusion, Councilmember Laliberte asked once
more to provide tracking trends and potential changes in community feedback.
Councilmember Laliberte questioned why tracking that trend would differ in any
way from tracking trends for the community center. Councilmember Laliberte
spoke in support of keeping the organized trash collection question in this
year's survey, but expressed her willingness to accept Council consensus.
recent email requests she had received, Councilmember McGehee suggested adding
a question about the annual Home & Garden Fair, recently discontinued.
Since some members of the community felt this was a community event that built
community spirit, but also recognizing that it was a big expense and
inconvenience for staff, Councilmember McGehee suggested asking for feedback on
whether or not respondents attended past fairs, letting them know if had been
discontinued, and whether they had ideas for something to take its place.
Councilmember McGehee suggested this would provide the City Council with information
as to whether or not the community missed it and therefore, whether they should
consider reinstating it.
Etten noted that discussion, and opportunity for public input, had already been
held by the former Roseville Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) with
comparative information from other communities provided by staff as well as
specific costs for Roseville with staff and/or a consultant undertaking the
annual event, and options for less frequent or revised formatting. Councilmember
Etten stated that the determination had been that it was not a great use of
staff time and resources. Given the cost, Councilmember Etten opined he didn't
see anything changing anytime soon; and therefore he personally found no reason
to ask the question.
Laliberte agreed that the HRA had sufficiently studied that issue and had made
a viable determination. While some feedback may be good, Councilmember
Laliberte suggested it as a topic at some point for Speak Up! Roseville.
Mayor Roe noted
the seminars now being held to replace the annual Home & Garden Fair, since
workshops seemed to be a popular part of that annual event. Mayor Roe stated
he was not supportive of a survey question related to the event, which he
feared may raise some expectations that it was going to be reinstated. Mayor
Roe opined that there would be no change in the decision unless significant
outcry was received from the community.
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of the 2016 residential survey draft as presented
(Attachment A) for a 400-resident community survey; and authorizing the City
Manager to finalize a contract with The Morris Leatherman Company.
Recycling Request for Proposals (RFP)
Due to time constraints, this item was deferred to a future agenda.
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Twin Lakes Parkway East Collector Project - Authorization to
Proceed with Final Design
Due to time
constraints, this item was deferred to a future agenda.
Park & Recreation Renewal Program Update and Nearing
& Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke provided a Park Renewal Program (PMP) and
related financial updates, outlined as part of the RCA and attachments.
Information also included a park building usage synopsis by staff. Mr. Brokke
provided a general overview of the PMP and its focus on the existing park system
and the timeframe initially set between 2012 and 2016, with a $19 million
budget paid through General Obligation Bonds approved by the City Council.
Brokke's presentation reviewed major project areas, various maps showing the
breadth of the citywide program, and identification of the six park buildings
replaced along with facility upgrades at other locations. Among those improvements,
Mr. Brokke noted replacement or updates at fourteen playgrounds planned, with
ten replaced to-date using "Community Build" programs that served to establish
a stewardship network and involved a significant number of volunteers involved
with those playground upgrades. Mr. Brokke also noted natural resource
restoration efforts using volunteer networks and grant funds received to-date
specifically for those efforts. Mr. Brokke reviewed some of the other
miscellaneous projects completed at ballfields, lighting and other improvements
at the ice rink, disc golf and tennis court refurbishment, irrigation
improvements, sidewalk extensions, replacement of the boardwalk at Harriet
Alexander Nature Center (HANC), and lighting improvements at parks and along
trails. Mr. Brokke provided project results and budget expenditures to-date;
and a review of various project awards, current expenditures and an itemized
list of areas of overages or under-spending per project.
At 10:00 p.m., Laliberte
moved, McGehee seconded, extending the curfew to complete this item and
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings.
Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Brokke continued his review of various projects, and property acquisition as
part of the PMP. Mr. Brokke also addressed specific costs for administration
of the PMP for planning and management of the various projects; and costs for
litigation and bonding as part of the PMP. Mr. Brokke advised that the total
spent to-date for the PMP was $16,692,999 as of February 22, 2016 from that
initial allocation of $19 million. Mr. Brokke reviewed funds committed but not
yet spent totaling $1,667,647 to cover additional sidewalks and pathways, well
monitoring of Autumn Grove Park South over the next four years, and development
of a park in SW Roseville. Mr. Brokke noted that this brought commitments up
to $18,360,535; leaving uncommitted and unspent funds of $639,464 from the overall
Brokke provided an itemized list of remaining items unfunded, suggesting the
City Council consider future authorization for some or all of those projects,
totaling $204,000. Among those projects, Mr. Brokke described them as follows:
site lighting, downspouts, landscape items, moving Autumn Grove playground, improvements
to Autumn Grove South, HANC improvements (windows/railings/display replacement),
site furnishings, Legion Field scoreboard, electronic doors, and additional skating
Brokke provided a pictorial review of new park facilities and their amenities,
and events utilizing the buildings.
Brokke thanked City Manager Trudgeon, Mayor Roe, Councilmembers Willmus,
Laliberte, Etten and McGehee, members of the Parks & Recreation Commission,
the community of Roseville, and City staff from all departments for their
invaluable assistance over the years in facilitating this PMP. Mr. Brokke also
recognized the PMP Management Team from the Parks & Recreation Department,
including Jill, Brad and Sean as well as the entire department.
Brokke concluded his presentation by noted the success of the PMP was being
evidenced by the many in the community and surrounding area using the facilities.
Roe emphasized and echoed Mr. Brokke's comment about the incredible involvement
and support from the community.
noted future decision points for the City Council to ponder related to the
options listed by Mr. Brokke totaling $204,000, and preference to receive that
authorization on some projects yet this spring.
McGehee asked Mr. Brokke to provide a copy of his presentation for the City
Council, duly noted by Mayor Roe and City Manager Trudgeon.
Director Julie Wearn, Roseville Visitors Association (RVA)
the heels of Mr. Brokke's PMP presentation, Ms. Wearn asked that, as part of
the RVA's strategic planning and community relations, the City Council consider
signage in the area of Langton Park for visitors to Roseville.
Wearn displayed pictures of the two access areas to Langton Lake from Cleveland
Avenue and current round-about way to access the area. Ms. Wearn noted there
were nine hotels in that area serving significant visitors during the year, and
all within blocks of a 1.6 mile radius of Langton Lake Park yearly.
Wearn reviewed why access to the park was important, allowing visitors the
ability to find it, and offering an easily accessed and safe route to do so.
Ms. Wearn referenced various studies and provided statistical data on the
importance of these healthy options for visitors.
Wearn respectfully asked the City Council to think about this area and address
signage using part of the allocated PMP dollars remaining.
the benefit of Mr. Brokke and Ms. Wearn, Councilmember McGehee asked that, in
addition to the requested signage, they work toward a decent pathway that could
be easily found and accessed by people, especially where new development comes
Wearn advised that she was working with Ms. Kelsey and the Community
Development Department as new development comes in, as well as with Ramsey
County Commissioner Mary Jo McGuire since Cleveland Avenue was a road under
Ramsey County jurisdiction.
moved, Willmus seconded, approval of additional project categories totalling
$204,000 as presented and detailed in the RCA dated March 28, 2016.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Trudgeon distributed a preview of upcoming agenda items.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Laliberte requested in future business license approvals, staff provide more
detailed information of internal and/or Police Department reviews, with a
minimum one-page assurance from staff that those reviews had been completed and
addressing any inconsistencies.
Laliberte requested an updated organizational chart and pay structure for the
Community Development and Administration Departments, before and after, the
most recent staffing shifts. Councilmember Laliberte opined that she felt she
had lost track of things in the process.
At the request
of City Manager Trudgeon, Councilmember Laliberte stated she was open to either
having that organizational chart sent to the City Council or as a future City
Council agenda items. Mayor Roe suggested that the organizational plan update
be provided to the City Council for now.
the construction presentation by MnDOT at last week's Council Meeting,
Councilmember Laliberte expressed her ongoing concerns and rerouting traffic
off Lexington Avenue. Councilmember Laliberte reiterated those past concerns
she had with local traffic choosing Hamline Avenue or Dale Street as alternate
routes, and her concerns with southbound traffic on the north end of the library
at the turning lane and repercussions to traffic flow, causing traffic to back
up over the Hamline Avenue bridge. Councilmember Laliberte suggested another
discussion with Ramsey County to seek a resolution; and asked that staff and
the City Council pay particular attention to that pressure point, especially
with 2016 construction projects.
McGehee requested an update from the Public Works Department on a projected
schedule for recertifying citywide stormwater BMP's such as raingardens, especially
public best management practices (BMPs) for which the city is responsible.
As an addendum
to Councilmember McGehee's request, Mayor Roe asked that an itemization of
ongoing expenses for public (e.g. city) BMP's be provided. Mayor Roe noted
that the city would be responsible for any failed certifications and costs for
their restoration, creating an ongoing capital improvement program (CIP)
expense. Mayor Roe advised that he had previously spoken to Public Works
Director Culver about that needed information, along with a plan from staff for
how and when that inventory and recertification would be accomplished.
Laliberte seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:24 p.m.