View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
September 12, 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 Mark Gaughan were also present.
2. Pledge of
Mayor Roe requested
a moment of silence to commemorate the life of Jacob Wetterling and to honor
his family and the work they have done to save the lives of numerous children
in our communities and around the country and to also recognize the hard work
of those involved with the prosecutorial and law enforcement teams. Out of
that respect, he asked those in attendance to observe a moment of silence.
Mayor Roe noted
yesterday was the 15th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks
so we want to honor those who lost their lives in those attacks and those who
served valiantly in the days, weeks, and months afterwards in a variety of
roles. He asked those in attendance to take a moment to reflect and remember
the anniversary of 9/11.
3. Approve Agenda
requested removal of Item 8h from the consent agenda for separate
consideration. Mayor Roe offered the public an opportunity to also remove
items from the consent agenda to make comment as those items will be taken as a
Willmus 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.
1161 Laurie Road W, commented on the Sunday article in the Star Tribune,
entitled "Roseville Civic Engagement Outreach has Folks Spitting Mad." She
stated she is concerned that based on the article, the Council will react only
on the focus about issues with a specific individual and on the recent
neighborhood association work and simply disregard it. Ms. Ramundt stated
actions by the City Council in recent years that stick out in her mind suggest
also that the City is not listening to residents. As an example, she noted
Rita Mix joined the original Community Engagement Task Force because of anger
over the handling of development near her townhomes on Old Highway 8. Another
member of that same Task Force quit because of her anger over the handling of
the County Road C2 construction. Ms. Ramundt stated other concerns are that Walmart
was built despite strong objections from the community and the Twin Lakes
Neighborhood Association was formed to fight a parkway and is struggling
because they felt they were not heard even after organizing. Ms. Ramundt suggested
that instead of debating whether these projects should have moved forward or
not, or debating about specific projects, especially since some members were
not on the Council at that time, the Council provide multiple and historical
examples that could be used to evaluate how the City Council has made decisions
that affect Roseville residents. Ms. Ramundt stated she does not socialize
with any on the Council but has had conversations or exchanged e-mails with
most of the Council at some time, which leads her to believe that, in general,
each are a decent caring individual. She stated she has been struggling to
understand what happens when the Council gets together as a group to make
decisions for Roseville residents. Ms. Ramundt stated when she has come before
the Council the past three times regarding the formal complaint process, the
Council was, at best, slow to react and now the City is left with a resident
with a restraining order and an unflattering article in a major metropolitan
newspaper. She stated she loves the City and knows we can do better.
stated in looking at the composition of the Council there is an engineer, a
marketing person, a teacher, a realtor, and a retiree. She suspects that none
have been offered a class or seminar on conflict resolution, which she thinks
would be very valuable. She stated her belief that if the Council had the
right tools, it would do things differently. At a minimum, she suggested when
making decisions where residents have expressed strong disagreement, the
Council would and should publicly respond to specific concerns from residents
so they know they have been heard, using language such as: "We have heard and
understand the concerns expressed by "X" number of residents who currently
reside on County Road C2 and that extending County Road C2 will negatively
impact their housing values by "X" dollars of percent. We have read the
reports on Walmart that show it will increase crime in our neighborhood by "X"
percent." Ms. Ramundt stated people want to know that they have been heard.
Then the Council would and should provide clear rationale for their decisions
including addressing resident concerns such as: "Although County Road C2 will
negatively impact the housing values of current residents, we are going to move
forward with that construction because..." "We are going to accept the risk of
increased crime due to Walmart because"
stated our residents are intelligent and according to the article, even above
average and mature. Residents know every decision will not go the way they
want; however, if the Council can't or are not willing to provide the rationale
for their decisions, it suggests the Council is not confident they are making
the right decision for the right reasons.
Ms. Ramundt continued
stating she has been before the Council before saying if the Council doesn't
address resident's concerns when they are small, they will continue to escalate
until the Council is forced to address them. She thinks this article proves
her point. Ms. Ramundt stated you can rationalize this article any way you
want, but she sees it as an escalation of resident anger over not being heard.
She tries to focus on the positive and hates that she felt the need to come
before the Council multiple times. Ms. Ramundt indicated if she ruled the
world, Sherry Sanders and her would spend all their time doing things that had
a positive impact on the community rather than spending even a moment fighting
battles to try to ensure City officials are doing the right thing.
noted Ms. Sanders has said multiple times that the Lake McCarron Neighborhood
Association focuses on bringing neighbors together for community building so
they have a strong foundation when issues arise. She stated that is the City
environment that she wants to live in. Her biggest fear is that if the Council
continues to alienate residents by lack of real community engagement related to
decision making, all of these groups will eventually unite against the common
enemy and that common enemy will be the City officials, which is not a City she
wants to live in. Ms. Ramundt stated that is not the energy she wants in her
community and it doesn't have to be that way. She asked the Council to please
not disregard the warning that this article is sending.
thanked Ms. Ramundt for her comments. No one else appeared to speak.
and City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements
announced several upcoming community activities and events for the benefit of
the listening audience. Saturday, September 17, 2016, is the Wild Rice
Festival at the Harriot Alexander Nature Center from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Mayor
Roe described the events that will take place including food products available
for sale, noting the Tetonka Food Truck, winner of the 2015 Charlie Award, will
also be there.
Mayor Roe announced
the City is accepting applicants for a partial term on the Finance Commission
that runs through March 31, 2017. This Commission focuses on the budget
process, financial policies, recommendations, funding strategies for capital
improvement plans, as well as budget goals and objectives. The Finance
Commission meets the second Tuesday of each month at 6:30 p.m. The deadline to
apply is September 21, 2016, and an application is available on the City's
announced a volunteer opportunity on Saturday, September 24, 2016, to help
build a playground at Central Park, 2540 Lexington Avenue, under supervision by
the playground company. He encouraged those interested to contact the City's
Volunteer Coordinator Kelly O'Brien with questions or to sign up. Mayor Roe
noted this is the largest playground build the City will undertake so they are
looking for at least 50 volunteers to complete this project.
reviewed the Ramsey County Library Roseville Branch workshop topics including
Bulb Care and Getting Your Yard Ready for Winter on Thursday, September 15,
from 3 to 4 p.m. and again on Saturday, September 24, from 11 a.m. to 12:30
p.m. This will be presented by Ramsey County Master Gardeners and include a to
do list and tips. The second workshop is Get Your Home Ready for Winter on
Thursday, September 15, from 7 to 8:30 p.m. and on Saturday, September 24, from
2 to 3:30 p.m. The Neighborhood Energy Connection will provide hands-on
demonstrations and tips. These workshops are free of charge.
announced the Roseville Community Health Awareness Team (CHAT) has been
collaborating with the Ramsey County Library and the City of Roseville to
provide a three-part educational series designed to provide essential
information about vital healthcare topics. The first session is this Saturday
at the Roseville Library from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The goal is for
attendees to learn how to empower themselves when interacting with the health
care system and finding health care information on the internet. She advised
of those participating in a panel presentation and discussion. In response to
Councilmember McGehee, Councilmember Laliberte stated the second session on
October 1st will be a discussion on healthcare homes as a provider
process, and the third session will be a repeat of the April discussion on
advanced care planning and health care directive documents.
City Manager Patrick
Trudgeon stated this Friday afternoon he will be interviewed on the Hmong TV
Network in St. Paul to talk about the program the City helps produce with TPT
ECHO relating to rental rights and responsibilities in five different
languages. Mayor Roe thanked all who participated in creating that video.
Willmus stated during Public Comment, Ms. Ramundt had mentioned a newspaper
article and one of the things that concerned him with the article is that only
one Councilmember had been interviewed for that story. He stated in the
future, he would hope, out of fairness, that reporters would do their
journalistic duties to at least make an effort to reach out to the entire
Council as there are often different perspectives with regard to issues that
come before this body. Councilmember Willmus stated there is a difference between
being heard and the outcome of this body that falls in line with a particular
individual's line of thought. He noted the Council is charged with making
decisions on various issues but that's not to say that everyone is always going
to agree. However, at the end of the day, he believes this body has the best
interest of Roseville at heart and if he didn't believe that, he does not think
we would all be sitting here.
Mayor Roe stated
one of the pieces of information in the article, which is a rather technical
correction, but the article made it sound like the proposal for neighborhood
associations in Roseville was, essentially, to impose the associations on
residents but that was not an accurate characterization of the proposal that
came from the Community Engagement Commission and Task Force. Mayor Roe
explained the whole point was that if neighborhoods wanted to form a
neighborhood association, the City would provide the resources to facilitate
Mayor Roe stated
he was not able to attend but understands a new Veterans Memorial was opened at
the Roselawn Cemetery on Saturday, September 10. He stated this Memorial looks
to be quite a tribute to our soldiers and those who have lost their lives in
service to the country. Mayor Roe stated he appreciates that is in our
community as a resource to help honor those who have served.
Donations and Communications
Proclaim Sept. 23 Kiwanis Peanut Day
Mayor Roe read
in full a proclamation declaring September 23, 2016, as Roseville Golden K
Kiwanis Peanut Day in the City of Roseville.
Suburban Golden K Kiwanis Club Representative Philip Goodrich
briefly summarized the work of Kiwanis that meets at the Roseville Skating
Center every Tuesday. He stated funds raised through fundraisers go to the
Keystone Food Shelf, Youth Leadership Training in Roseville Parks &
Recreation, Rose Parade, donation of dressers at Bridging, two scholarships
annually, Northeast Youth and Family Services, Gillette Children's Hospital, and
internationally through the Eliminate Program. Mr. Goodrich stated they do not
sell peanuts but reward people who donate with peanuts.
consent and acclamation, the Council proclaimed September 23, 2016, as
Roseville Golden K Kiwanis Peanut Day.
Mayor Roe presented
the Proclamation to Mr. Goodrich and thanked the Golden K Kiwanis for all they
do for the community and support for those around the world with their good
Proclaim Constitution Week
Mayor Roe read
in full a proclamation declaring September 17 to 23, 2016, as Constitution Week
in the City of Roseville.
the American Revolution Representative Ms. Parker
Parker, Regent of the Nathan Hale Chapter of St. Paul, stated they celebrated
120 years last year. She provided a brief history of the Daughters of the
American Revolution (DAR) that started in 1890 and focus on historical
preservation, patriotism, and education. Ms. Parker stated they were excited
to be asked to create a display case outside the Chambers to commemorate
Constitution Week. She thanked Girl Scout Troop 56916 from Falcon Heights
Elementary School for their help in distributing a copy of the Bill of Rights,
the Preamble to the Constitution, and a quiz. She also thanked member Betty Wolfangle
who is a Roseville resident for her contributions to DAR and the City of
concurred with the importance of Ms. Wolfangle's contributions and a round of
applause was offered for her and Girl Scout Troop 56916.
moved, Etten seconded, proclaiming September 17 to 23, 2016, as Constitution
Week in the City of Roseville.
presented the Proclamation to Ms. Parker and invited the Girl Scouts to return
to a future meeting to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. He encouraged those
present to view the display case and City Hall entrance monument that was
installed in 1987 on the Bicentennial of the Constitution.
Willmus and the Council thanked Betty Wolfangle for her contributions to
Introduce Police Officer Thomas Hicke
Mathwig read a brief bio and stated he is pleased to introduce Police Officer
thanked the Council for this opportunity and stated it is a true pleasure and
honor to work for one of the best Departments with the best officers in the
Mayor Roe and
the Council welcomed Officer Hicke and thanked him for his service.
Proclaim Hispanic Heritage Month
Mayor Roe read in
full a proclamation declaring September 15 to October 15, 2016, to be Hispanic
Heritage Month in the Roseville.
Laliberte seconded, proclaiming September 15 to October 15, 2016, as Hispanic
Heritage Month in the Roseville adoption of the Proclamation.
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 August 22, 2016, City Council Meeting Minutes
Etten moved, Willmus
seconded, approval of the August 22, 2016, City Council Meeting Minutes as
Page 20, Line 9 (McGehee)
remove the extra "she" after McGehee's name
Page 29, Line 16 (McGehee)
Correct to strike
"and response time"
Page 31, Lines 6 and 7 (Mayor Roe)
Correct to delete
"City most Code violations" after the word "noted"
Page 44, Lines 11 (McGehee)
spelling of "McGehee"
McGehee noted reference on Page 33 of the bench handout indicating "attached
hereto." However, it is not attached. Mayor Roe explained it is common for the
draft minutes to not contain bench handouts but they will be attached with the
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Approve August 29, 2016, REDA Meeting Minutes
As he found
several notable and potential corrections to the August 29, 2016, EDA minutes, Mayor
Roe suggested tabling that consideration to the September 19, 2016, meeting.
He stated Councilmember McGehee also had a notable correction to those minutes
that may be easier to work through the staff process than to make the
correction tonight at the dais.
McGehee asked whether staff preferred to make the correction on line or by hard
copy. Mayor Roe indicated either process will work.
stated his copy of the draft EDA minutes did not contain line numbers or
highlighted changes so it was difficult to track corrections. Also, in the
bench handout, a piece was missing.
agreed with the suggestion of Mayor Roe to table consideration of the August 29,
2016, REDA Meeting Minutes to September 19, 2016.
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) dated September 12, 2016, and related attachments.
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and
Approve Business and Other Licenses
Etten seconded, approval of new 2016-2017 Massage Therapist Licenses as
detailed, dependent on completion of successful background checks.
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of
regard to selling the equipment to pick up leaves and eliminating that City
service, Councilmember McGehee asked City Manager Trudgeon to determine if more
information can be provided to residents who may want to hire a lawn service
company at an affordable price. City Manager Trudgeon stated staff will try to
gather and promote that information, noting staff has already made an effort to
alert residents that this City service will be discontinued and where to turn
to if they are in need of assistance.
Works Director Marc Culver stated staff has updated the website to include a
list of contractors that offer general landscaping services including leaf
removal; however, many do require a certain minimum level of service. He
stated staff is working to also highlight contractors who will offer curbside
leaf pick up, similar to what the City has provided in the past.
moved, Etten seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services
as noted in the RCA dated September 12, 2016, and Attachment A entitled, "2016
Capital Improvement Plan Summary;" trade-in/sale of surplus equipment.
Approve 2017 City Benefits Insurance Renewals & Cafeteria
Roe thanked those serving on the Employee Benefit Committee who look at the
plans and assure buy-in by employees.
moved, Etten seconded, approval of 2017 City benefits insurance renewals with
the insurance carriers (subject to review and approval by the City Attorney)
and the City employer cafeteria contributions as described in the RCA dated
September 12, 2016.
Receive Feasibility Report and Order Public Hearing for Wheeler
Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11353 (Attachment A) entitled, "A
Resolution Receiving the Feasibility Report for Wheeler Street Closure and
Ordering Public Hearing for Improvement."
Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering
Advertising for Bids for South Lake Owasso Drainage Improvement Project
Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11354 (Attachment A) entitled, "A
Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for
Bids for South Lake Owasso Drainage Improvements Project."
Public Right of Way ADA Transition Plan
moved, Etten seconded, approving the City of Roseville ADA Transition Plan for
Facilities within Public Right-of-Way.
Consider Items Removed from Consent
Approve a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed, Authorize
Final Payment, and Commence the One-Year Warranty Period on the Corpus Christi
the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed
in the RCA dated September 12, 2016, and related attachments. He indicated the
contractor is asking for final payment in the amount of $5,621.84.
McGehee stated she thinks this was a very ugly project, which had been
discussed at the last meeting, and she is not sure it is the City of
Roseville's due to make it look better but it is singularly unattractive as it
looks like a weed basin with no shape, aesthetics, or trees. Councilmember
McGehee commented on a nice looking BMP that is located on the other side of
Works Director Culver indicated there have been issues getting the ground cover
to fully establish in that area and agreed there is necessary follow up work
needed in that regard. He stated the basin on the other side that
Councilmember McGehee referenced has been there for some time so that
vegetation has had time to establish. Public Works Director Culver offered an
option to work with Corpus Christi for more intensive plantings to improve
aesthetics after the field is fully graded and established and stated he will
follow up with Corpus Christi and Councilmember McGehee on this matter.
moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No.11355 (Attachment A) entitled,
"A Resolution Final Contract Acceptance Corpus Christi Drainage Project."
General Ordinances for Adoption
Police Civil Service Commission Meeting with the City Council
Zoe Jenkins, Police
Civil Service Commissioner, thanked the Council for the opportunity to present
this report. She reviewed the purpose of the Police Civil Service Commission
to promote efficiency in the Police Department, assist the Chief by reviewing
the hiring procedures of certified and qualified applicants, and respond to the
mandate of Minnesota Statute Chapter 419 that requires a uniform and
comprehensive hiring procedure to select the best qualified applicants and
protect them from political interference and give fair and equal opportunity to
all qualified citizens. Ms. Jenkins stated this Commission is required by law
to hold its first meeting in February of each year with subsequent meetings
called by the Chief as related to hiring needs.
reported in 2016 they only had two meetings. On February 1st the
Chief advised of current Department staff, anticipation there would be one
opening that would occur relatively soon, and that the hiring process would be
the same as used in the past. On April 19th, after the hiring
process was completed, the Chief brought and reviewed a list of candidates and
reported on how they performed. The person is then hired to join the Department.
stated she can't commend the Department and Chief Mathwig enough for their
continued hard work and commitment to the community. She commented on how nice
the swearing-in ceremonies are and that the officers hired are the sharpest and
nicest you'd ever want to meet. She stated it has been a great pleasure to
serve on the Police Civil Service Commission, noting that when everyone knows
and follows the rules, there are no problems and the City is able to attract
the best candidates for hire.
Laliberte thanked Ms. Jenkins for the report and guiding the process. Ms. Jenkins
responded it has been most enjoyable and Chief Mathwig has always been open,
honest, and invited the Commission to attend the interview process.
Mayor Roe added
his thanks to the Police Civil Service Commissioners and Ms. Jenkins for her
service to the community and with the Park Patrol. Ms. Jenkins stated she
thinks her term on the Police Civil Service Commission is coming to an end in
February of 2017.
encouraged the Council to enjoy boardwalk and described the wildlife observed
while she was on Park Patrol.
Public Hearings and Action Consideration
Public Hearing for Victoria Street Project to be Assessed in 2017
Roe stated this is a public hearing to consider the special assessments rolls
for the Victoria Street Project that has been constructed. The decision will
be whether the Council wishes to approve the assessment rolls as presented or
make modifications to the assessment rates. The hearing will discuss how the
project costs will be allotted and rate of assessments against benefiting
properties. The Council will consider individual assessment rolls for
individual projects at this hearing. The Council may by simple majority vote
to approve the assessment rolls for each project.
Manager Patrick Trudgeon stated in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
429, required published and legal mailed notices have been provided for each of
the special assessment public hearings. Legal notices appeared in the City's
legal newspaper, Roseville Review, on August 17, 2016, and August 24,
2016. In addition, mailed notices were sent on August 15, 2016, to each
affected property owner in accordance with the statute. Affidavits of mailing
are available in the office of the City Engineer.
Public Works Director and City Engineer Jesse Freihammer presented details of
the Improvement 15-02, Victoria Street Reconstruction Improvement Project,
between Larpenteur and County Road B, and sidewalk extension between County
Roads B and B2 that was included as part of the project. He displayed a map of
the project site and summarized the nature of the improvements completed last
year as detailed in the RCA dated September 12, 2016, and related attachments.
Freihammer explained the special assessment rates are based on the actual costs
of the project and front footage based on the feasibility report. The
assessment rate for LDR1 and LDR2 properties is 25% of the street reconstruction
costs for a 7-ton road design; however, the street was actually constructed to
a 10-ton design. The assessment rate for non-residential uses is 100% of the
street reconstruction costs. There is no assessment cost for the sidewalk,
pathways, storm sewer, or watermain.
Freihammer displayed a parcel map identifying the properties to be assessed
adjacent to Victoria Street. He explained the three scenarios to determine how
front footages are calculated and presented the assessment schedule to pay the
assessments over a 15-year period with a 5.5% annual interest rate collected by
Ramsey County through taxes. The assessment hearing will be held tonight and
the assessment can be prepaid during the next 30 days. Following that period,
the City will tally the final assessment roll and certify it to Ramsey County
on October 21 so it can be put on the property taxes.
Roe noted if the assessment is 100% prepaid in the next 30 days, it does not
get assessed over 15 years and no interest is paid. Mr. Freihammer confirmed
that is correct.
Freihammer explained the opportunity for assessment deferral if the property is
homesteaded, the owner is age 65 or older or retired by virtue of a disability,
or payment would be a hardship. If the assessment is deferred, it will accrue
interest. He stated an application for deferral is available at City Hall but
to date, staff has not received any requests for assessment deferrals. Mr. Freihammer
presented a summary of the project costs as follows:
Freihammer explained that costs did go up on this project due to subgrade
issues that changed the overall scope of the pavement procedure. The road is
still built to handle the load and carry on for many years to come. In
addition, there were storm sewer modifications due to poor soils.
Freihammer presented the assessment breakdown between residential and all other
lots, noting only one lot falls into the "all other" category. For the
feasibility report, the proposed assessment was $27.49/linear foot and the
actual rate based on the project costs is $34.18/linear foot or a difference of
24.3%. He explained this is still below the maximum assessment rate of
$35/linear foot based on the appraisal conducted in 2015. For the feasibility
report, the proposed assessment for non-residential properties was $60/linear
foot and that stayed the same as it was capped at the maximum assessed rate
determined by the appraiser.
Freihammer displayed pre- and post-project photographs of the reconstruction.
He recommended the Council open the public hearing and approve a resolution
adopting and confirming assessments for City Project P-ST-SW-W-15-02, Victoria
Street Reconstruction Project.
Freihammer advised one property sent a letter identifying some problems with
the project. Staff has talked with that resident and the Public Works
Department will be replacing their steps that had been removed.
Roe noted that was the communication from Tony and Mary Anderson and was
included in the meeting packet. He asked the Council if they have questions of
McGehee noted the Anderson's letter also mentioned the steepness because the
road was raised. Mr. Freihammer responded staff did compare the design versus
existing conditions and found with the overall design of the road, the
centerline remained the same. The one thing that did change a little with the
slope by the stairs is that the old County road had been overlaid significantly
so there was a lot of crown in the road. The project reduced that crown and
modified that section to reduce the steepness of the roadway. But, it did
affect that curb line to make it slightly steeper. Mr. Freihammer explained there
were design constraints in that location due to the existing pathway and
watermain so there were not many options to lower the road elevation in that
location. He estimated the elevation changed less than one foot.
Freihammer stated staff did meet with the property owner to address this
concern. The property owner had a stone pathway to that location and Public
Works will replace those steps.
McGehee asked whether the project impacted the Andersons getting out from their
driveway. Assistant Public Works Director and City Engineer Freihammer stated
it did go up marginally so a landing was provided to create a flat spot and
mitigate some of the slope. He stated the property owner had mentioned last
year that it didn't seem to be a problem but it was an easy winter last year as
Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 7:17 p.m. for the
purpose of receiving public input on the above-referenced Victoria Street
Project assessment; with no one appearing for or against.
moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11356 (Attachment A)
entitled, "A Resolution Adopting and Confirming 2016 Assessments for City
Project P-ST-SW-W-15-2: Victoria Street Reconstruction, between Larpenteur
Avenue and County Road B."
McGehee stated this is the second time since she has been on the Council where
a road project created a problem for a homeowner because the elevation has been
raised more than anticipated. She noted for homes with tuck-under garages,
that can be a serious problem. Councilmember McGehee stated it looks like a
nice road but she wanted to make Public Works aware of her concern and she was
sorry the assessments are slightly higher than anticipated.
Etten stated the Public Works Department worked hard to lower the elevation,
understanding there was concern, but ran into a series of constraints as
outlined by the City Engineer including the need for extra depth for the water
pipe insulation. He noted staff also worked to mitigate the problem on the entrance
of the driveway. Councilmember Etten thanked the Public Works Department for
their work in that regard.
Public Hearing to Approve/Deny a Renewal of a Minor Subdivision
of 1926 Gluek Lane into Two Parcels
Roe explained that unlike other subdivisions in the City of Roseville, minor
subdivisions into three or fewer lots go directly to the City Council for
hearing rather than before the Planning Commission, which is the norm for most
land use decisions.
Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly reviewed this request as detailed in the RCA dated
September 12, 2016, and related attachments. He noted this is a revision of a
request that came before the City Council a couple of months ago that was
denied based on three findings, two being related to the existing storm water
situation in the area and concern for adding more impervious coverage through
development of a new home on the subdivided parcel. The third finding related
to the lot width requirements in the Subdivision and Zoning Codes. Mr. Lloyd presented
the request and described how it mitigated the three findings previously cited
Lloyd stated a petition in opposition was submitted by several of the nearby
homeowners. That opposition is in recognition of concern for storm water and
preferring no new residential subdivisions until the storm water situation is
resolved so it does not make an existing problem worse. He referenced the
staff report section addressing that scenario as the application seeks to
mitigate the storm water that would be created by a new residential development
on the new parcel.
Lloyd noted prohibiting subdivisions and new home development would minimize
impervious coverage but it would not eliminate impervious coverage immediately
in this neighborhood or in the storm water subwatershed that leads to storm
water pipes backing up in this neighborhood. He explained the benefit of a
proposal like this is the possibility of attaching a condition of approval that
does mitigate the additional storm water versus other possible improvements
that don't require permits or do need permits issued if there is no codified
reason to deny.
Lloyd stated given this information and despite the opposition to the
subdivision request, Planning and Public Works staff does recommend approval of
the proposed subdivision subject to a series of conditions as listed in the
the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Lloyd read the list of four recommended
conditions and explained the need for each.
Roe referenced the communication from a resident asking why this is back before
the Council as it was previously denied and explained there is not a Code
requirement that you cannot reapply. Mayor Roe stated the Council may want to
look at that provision during the update of the Subdivision Code as in other
sections there is prohibition from making essentially the same proposal within
a period of time after a denial unless changes are made that meet the findings
of the denial. He noted in this case, it can probably be argued that even
without the requirement for a timeframe, the applicant is contending they have
met the requirements of the denial.
Roe acknowledged two communications from residents as contained in the meeting
packet, one from Carl and Sherry Willis and another from Brad and Jan
Peterson. In addition, the Council received a bench handout from the
applicant, Mr. Koland, clarifying the numbers in a previous communication.
Willmus referenced the Public Works Engineer Department memorandum and asked
about the location of the approximate 2 percent of the new lot that would be
located in the floodway. Mr. Freihammer displayed a slide that was based off
the Ramsey County aerial and pointed out the far east corner.
McGehee asked whether Basin 1 is not within the wetland. Mr. Freihammer indicated
it is conceptual in nature and very close but depending on how it is
constructed it would or would not impact. Councilmember McGehee asked if the
City requires setbacks from a dedicated wetland. Mr. Freihammer stated the
floodway is defined based on what they know the elevation goes to. That is
typically when it is going over and outside of the wetland area. In general,
the floodway is at a higher elevation than the wetland.
McGehee stated she is trying to understand how DNR regulations and wetland
regulations dovetail with the City's Shoreland Ordinance. Mr. Freihammer stated
they would have to make sure any disturbances are outside of that 25-foot
distance from the edge of the wetland to meet the wetland and storm water
management sections of Code.
Freihammer stated he is not sure whether, as part of the Shoreland Ordinance,
this is a designated body of water. He does not believe it is. Councilmember
McGehee stated she does not know what those State regulations are for wetlands
or how much you can do or how close you can go.
McGehee stated she has noticed during a heavy rain, the street that runs from
Ferris Lane down into North Gluek Lane carries a lot of water directly onto
this site. She felt that should be a consideration though she likes to avoid
mitigating when possible. Councilmember McGehee stated she is concerned about
that basin and as she looks at the map, wondered whether the driveway and
parking area are included as part of the setback. In addition, she is dubious
about the proposed lot width, thinking it is too schematic given the number of
problems and issues with the wetland, water, arbitrary distances, and guess on the
lines and final distances.
Roe asked about the existing storm water system eastbound between Ferris Lane
and Gluek Lane. Mr. Freihammer stated there are catch basins and storm water
inlets to pick up water at the intersection, which may tie into this location
at South Gluek Lane or go around North Gluek Lane but either way, it would
convey into the same storm system. Mayor Roe asked whether Gluek Lane has curb
and gutter. Mr. Freihammer answered in the affirmative and stated it is a
32-foot wide road just like Ferris Lane.
Koland, Applicant and Property Owner at 1926 Gluek Lane
Koland stated he is not familiar with the bench handout mentioned by Mayor
Roe. Mr. Lloyd stated it was a communication forwarded to him this morning
about neighbor's concerns and alerting them to the time and place of tonight's
Koland stated he will be providing the Council with some additional
information. He opined the proposed subdivision meets all and exceeds most
outlined criteria by the City Code. It also addresses the concerns voiced by
his neighbors concerning any additional water runoff by the development. Mr.
Koland reaffirmed his sympathy to residents who are dealing with drainage
issues and indicated he supports their statement that the City should take
action on the situation; however, he deviates with their opinion with the
proposed action of limiting his rights as a lawful process guaranteed by the
City of Roseville.
Koland indicated City staff has recommended and approved, as noted, that the
application has met and exceeded the requirements in accordance with the City
Code. He respectfully requested the City Council approve this lawfully
compliant proposal for a minor subdivision.
Koland read an excerpt from his application as contained in the meeting packet
stating, "I listened and I understood your denial and the facts supporting the
denial of my previous application. I will trust you find the current submittal
meets all Code requirements and satisfies all facts purported by the denial.
Please find attached two diagrams, one of which you have already seen, with
relevant information as follows:
Lot dimensions of the revised subdivision. I have highlighted the Code
requirements that were stated by the Council and are in the Code.
The lot drainage retention plan. City Code sections 101726 allows for
the use of a constructed facility to address storm water runoff. The Council
has made it clear through the previous denial that the additional run off might
be injurious to neighbors. This subdivision proposal retains all additional
run off and eliminates any potential injuries to our neighbors. This action
also eliminates any contribution or compact to the extreme drainage issues in
response to a question raised by Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Koland noted, as
was stated by Mr. Lloyd, this plan is conceptual as required by the City Code.
That is the standard for submission and the storm water basin can be moved well
outside of the 2% or 450 square feet on 23,000 square feet of the flood plain.
Koland stated the next item he submitted is a diagram from the letter detailing
the proposed locations, which the Council has already seen. With regard to
history, Mr. Koland noted he had stated during the July 18th meeting
a bit about lot subdivisions in Gluek Lane. He displayed Item 3, a
presentation on lot splits starting with 1933 Gluek Lane, the most recent lot
split on Gluek Lane, noting it was created from 1937 Gluek Lane and when
approved there were no drainage considerations. Mr. Koland stated there has
been some controversy in the neighborhood about what this house looks like and while
he does not necessarily think it is the best fit for the neighborhood, once
again, he is not in an association and there are no covenants outlining or
requiring any sort of oversight of that.
Koland stated 1903 Gluek Lane submitted a petition statement about not
supporting the lot split of 1926 Gluek Lane but eight or nine years ago, they
subdivided from 1907 Gluek Lane, which was 1.4 acres, smaller than what he
currently has at 1.6 acres, and occupied the house themselves at 1903 Gluek
Lane. Mr. Koland opined this is nearly an identical lot split. According to
the tax records, there are about 7,000 square feet of impermeable surface added
with no storm water retention.
regard to the approximate positive tax implications from the lot split, Mr. Koland
stated the totals for 1903 and 1907 Gluek Lane are $12,512 compared to his lot
at 1926 Gluek Lane at $8,702, meaning the difference in potential revenue from
taxes is $3,810, the additional revenue to the City of Roseville is $1,782, and
the additional revenue to ISD 623 is over $1,000. Mr. Koland stated the
potential additional tax revenue to ISD 623 would be equivalent to 20% of the
cost to support one student for the entire year. He offered, if the Council
wished, to bring a City of Roseville Foundation Member to the meeting to
support and say how much $1,000 means to them.
Koland displayed the letter that lot owner wrote indicating they opposed this
lot split, which he finds ironic as eight years ago they were in this same
chair sitting in front of the Council and no one objected to their lot split.
Now eight years later, that resident chose to come out and object to his based
upon the findings, one of which is that it doesn't fit into the neighborhood.
Koland stated he is not sure when the lot split of 1895 and 1885 Gluek Lane
took place, but it did. It was platted in the late 1960s and early 1970s. His
house was built in 1969 and is one of the original lots that remains. Mr. Koland
stated the Council may remember lot number 1885 from other correspondence
received about opposing this lot split. He finds this interesting also where
we have a member of the community that has benefitted from a lot split and now
wishes to constrain another member to enjoy those same benefits.
Koland displayed the letter referenced by Mayor Roe requesting no property
subdivision should be permitted, yet noting the original submission on June 28th
indicates they are not opposed to this minor subdivision or the future site
Koland commented on 1920 to 1910 Gluek Lane, stating he is unsure when it was
split but the 1985 aerial photos from the Ramsey County mapping site identifies
only one house. He stated he got information from a long time and
distinguished member of the neighborhood about this lot having gone through a
lot split, which he does believe is trustworthy information. Mr. Koland stated
again one of the people who voiced against his lot split last time also enjoys
the benefits of having a lot split, which is something they enjoyed when they
purchased that facility though they were not part of it when it was split.
Koland displayed the petition the Council had received, noting it was signed
and circulated to stop any further property subdivision on Gluek Lane. He
stated the Council has heard and seen in his submissions and application has it
meets all of the City's requirements. This is a legal right that he has to do
with his property what he wishes in accordance with the laws of the City of
Roseville. He opined this petition is a direct attack on his rights as a legal
option within the city of Roseville and his rights would be damaged by not
allowing this subdivision.
Koland stated his concern that this petition specifically and unfairly and, in
his opinion, illegally discriminates against one pair of home owners. However,
it does not address other sorts of runoff that are impactful to lots in this
area, which include as stated in the Council's minutes, a 2,500 square foot
patio that's being added and does not require a permit in Roseville. He
pointed out no one has talked about that except for the engineering report. In
addition, neighbors have built sheds and replaced track driveways and
sealcoated driveways that have added to impervious surface. Another
consideration is potential additions to homes, future outbuildings, or any
modifications, because this petition does not require or does not look for any
remedy from them, just from a single homeowner.
Koland commented on changes to the large watershed outside of Gluek Lane,
noting Gluek Lane is 41 acres and the watershed is 120 acres. Gluek Lane is
34% of the water that goes into that yet the petition did not address any of
Koland stated if the residents are concerned about drainage in the
neighborhood, there are actions they can take to install a raingarden. He
noted Councilmember McGehee had commented on the beauty of the raingarden at
Corpus Kristi and displayed a colored photograph of the raingarden he has had
for over four years. He stated the Rice Creek Watershed District visited them
recently to talk about basins, conduct infiltration tests, and had commented on
how well his drainage basin actually works as infiltration is less than 24
hours and the Rice Creek Watershed District Code is 48 hours.
Koland commented there are other simple things beyond building raingardens that
the neighborhood could do. He displayed a picture of a well-cared for lawn and
catch basin covered with a pile of leaves that remained three days after a
storm event, noting that the simple act of clearing storm water drains can
actually do a lot of good things.
closing, Mr. Koland respectfully asked the City Council to approve this
lawfully compliant proposal for a minor subdivision. As noted in public
hearing notice, the City Council's role is to determine the facts associated
with a particular request and apply those facts to a relevant legal standard
contained within the City Code and law. He noted the City staff has
recommended approval and opined he has met or exceeded all of the requirements.
Koland stated when he bought this home he conducted due diligence and had asked
the person he bought the home from if she would mind if they split the lot and
she said it doesn't bother her at all. She actually went to the City Planning
Department at that time and staff said that's something you can do but it has to
be brought in front of Council. Mr. Koland stated he has not signed an
association agreement, is not a party to a covenant, and while he respects that
his neighbors may not like this, feels that's too bad as many enjoy the same
liberty he is seeking to pursue. He thanked the Council for their
consideration and offered to answer questions.
Roe thanked Mr. Koland for his comments.
Roe opened the public hearing at approximately 7:50 p.m. for the purpose of
receiving public input on the above-referenced minor subdivision of 1926 Gluek
Lane into two parcels.
Willis, 1885 Gluek Lane
Willis pointed out the location of her house two doors from the proposed
subdivision. She displayed pictures taken on July 5, 2016, after a rainfall of
less than two inches showing her back yard looking east, noting her property
collects all the neighborhood's water north of Roselawn as it feeds through the
drains and enters the Gluek Lane pipes. She pointed out the location of a
manhole cover, noting it was under water and blown off. Ms. Willis stated this
rainfall came to within 12 feet of their basement windows. She displayed
second and third photos showing the extensive flooding of their back yard. Ms.
Willis then displayed a topographical map of the neighborhood, pointing out the
center wetland is the lowest area at 954 feet and not a very wide area,
estimating it is about 350 feet across, which is not a large enough area to
hold this accumulation of water pouring into the neighborhood.
Willis also pointed out the lowest part of the lot under consideration is the
part proposed to be subdivided off and asked if they would put a house in that
location and have to remove trees for the driveway. She opined that grading
and filling the new lot will push the water into the middle of the wetland and
decrease the capacity of the wetland storage. With regard to the storage basin
and raingarden proposed by the applicant, Ms. Willis felt it would account for
the runoff of the new impervious surface but not take into consideration that
it pushes the wetland edge farther in. To her, the runoff is not the big issue
as the applicant can probably accommodate it with enough gardens, it is the
fact that the whole basin will be made smaller and there will not be enough
room to hold as much water.
Willis pointed out the 958 line that goes past the edge of her house, around to
the applicant's lot, completely surrounds the house at 1910 Gluek Lane, and then
goes around the back of 1903 Gluek Lane. She quoted from Mr. Freihammer's
report indicating, "When the Gluek Lane area floods, we have empirical data to
suggest that the high water mark is around elevation 957." Ms. Willis pointed
out an area she believed may be the 957 line inside of her fence, meaning that
entire area is under water with a two-inch rainfall, which happened four times
this summer when Gluek Lane North and South were impassable and Fairview was
under water. She stated if that is happening now with a two-inch fall, she
would ask what are they going to do when there's a three or four-inch rainfall
or even more. Ms. Willis stated it will go to the lowest areas from 958 to 960
so she does not see how there can be any sort of grading or fill allowed on the
lot of the proposed subdivision as it will reduce the water storage area.
Willis stated some may think Gluek Lane floods because it is a low area but
that is not true as 954 feet is not low for Roseville, noting the high school
is at 940 feet, the south side of City Hall is at 920 feet, and the new Wal-Mart
is at 918 feet. She stated it is not the elevation that's the problem, it is
there is no way to get the water out of the neighborhood due to inadequate
Willis stated in 2005, the City of Roseville had a 110-year event, a six-inch
rainfall, after which the Fairview underpass was under water. However, four
times this summer it has happened where Fairview has to be closed and it was
not a 100-year event. Ms. Willis stated until something is done to clear this
flooding problem, she does not see how the City can have any more development
at all in the Gluek Lane area. She requested the City Council deny this
House, 1895 Gluek Lane
House stated he has lived at this address for 40 years. He stated the letter
and petition reflect a concern and does not primarily reflect a denial. It is
the concern that water issues need to be mitigated. Mr. House noted that Ms.
Willis has pointed out a lot of things including the recognized flooding that
occurs all across South Gluek Lane. In addition, her picture showed the water
was coming out of the storm sewer and had knocked off the heavy metal covers.
Mr. House stated the mitigation proposal, to him, may be a valid answer and
provide some holding capacity but he is not an engineer. He stated he is
friends with the neighbors at 1926 and they informed him they have two sump
pumps running all the time because there was a lot of water in the area.
House explained a Ramsey County ditch had run through this area and the
easements reflect the outline of the storm sewer. He used a map to point out
the locations of catch basins including the one in the photograph and stated
the low area needed to be appreciated. Mr. House stated in the development of
1898 Gluek Lane, they had to deepen and enlarge a pond but over the last year
or so, that area is filling in so its holding capacity may not be the same.
House stated the addition of a pond on the proposed new lot raises additional
questions as to where it will empty once it fills, how long the water will
remain, and if it will become a mosquito breading pond if the water is
retained. He added that on the north end of Ferris Lane, there are two holding
ponds that retain water and have to rise to a certain level before draining
into the sewer system. Those two ponds have aeriation fountains to decrease
algae accumulation and eliminate mosquitos.
House stated when they build their home in 1976, there was more low area and
water and, in fact, they used to put pellets out in the spring to control
mosquitos. With regard to Basin 2, he noted it is not in the lowest area as
the lowest area is in the easement so he is not sure the role Basin 2 would
play in solving the overalls water storage capacity issue.
House stated he considers Brad Koland to be a good friend and personally does
not think they are trying to block development that's consistent with the area
and doesn't create additional problems provided the water problems are dealt
with. Mr. House pointed out the drainage is not Gluek Lane's problem as this
neighborhood is absorbing some of the water running through the area. He
stated he is unsure where the Fairview Avenue storm sewer fills but water in
the whole area needs to be dealt with.
McLoon, 1920 Gluek Lane
McLoon stated he is still opposed to this though appreciates the efforts that
have been made. He stated the Council has heard from the residents that there
is pretty unanimous opposition to this plan and while the landowner says he
doesn't care what the neighbors think, he hopes the Council as their elected
representatives do care about what they think.
McLoon stated he has two concerns with the proposal. It was not clear to him
what will be done as compared to what could be done. It also was not clear to
him if the catch basins are going to be put into the deed and required. He stated
in the spring, the larger catch basin in the newly subdivided property is
already up at the water level so if you are just putting in a "swimming pool,"
that's not very useful for catching more water. Mr. McLoon stated the water
table in the springtime is a few inches under the ground, even without rain.
He acknowledged the catch basins were a nice idea but he does not think the
larger one in that new property will be useful. Mr. McLoon strongly encouraged
the Council to again deny this request.
King, 1861 Gluek Lane
King stated the flooding on Gluek Lane is completely unrelated to the wetlands,
which is lower than Gluek Lane because all the water that floods Gluek Lane
comes from above. Now the lot proposed to be subdivided is below Gluek Lane so
nothing he does is going to change the flooding as water goes downhill.
King stated everyone is saying it is terrible and something needs to be done
and he will suggest doing something. He stated he heard at an earlier Council
meeting that the wetland has a capacity of 1.3 to 1.6 million gallons. The
geological formation there has an impervious bottom so the water does not drain
out, it only evaporates. Mr. King explained that since no drainage happens,
once it fills up it is not a catch basin but instead an impervious surface and
all summer it made the flooding on Fairview worse because when that basin is
full it floods out onto Fairview.
King opined the solution to the problem is to do something about the water that
accumulates in the impervious flood retention basin and that is to pump the
water out because there is no outlet except through the storm sewer system. He
noted the storm sewer systems are dry most of the year but in the area on Gluek
Lane, it is flooded. Mr. King stated it seems the Rice Creek drainage area and
the City of Roseville should be interested in pumping out the area after a few
days of no rain, noting it would give increased storm sewer capacity because it
would create a retention area the City could actually use.
King stated the flooding shown in the photographs is from rainfall rates of two
inches within thirty minutes, or 100 millimeters an hour, a very hard rain.
That flooding came from Gluek Lane down into the retention pond and filled it
in about 15 minutes. He pointed out the higher land is driving this problem,
it is not the low lands, and Mr. Koland's proposal at 1926 Gluek Lane is in the
low lands. He believed the City has to do something to the high lands to fix
this overall neighborhood and it has to involve the drainage district and City
of Roseville because the neighbors are getting fed up with it and trying to
blame the rest of residents whose land is lower, which is unfair.
King stated he understands from drainage law that people in the high lands have
all the rights and people in the low lands just have to take it but the City can
do something about it by putting in a mini lift station and pumping out the
pond, which is a mosquito trap and deep enough to be a drowning hazard for
children. He stated this pond has been full all year with the exception of two
weeks. Mr. King reiterated that this problem needs to be solved and the City
can increase its storm water retention capacity by 1.5 million gallons by
pumping it dry when it is not raining.
Rydaker, 1886 Gluek Lane
Rydaker stated she thinks something needs to be done in the south corner
because it becomes a sea during heavy rain.
Roe asked whether she is talking about the southeast corner. Ms. Rydaker
answered she is at 1886 Gluek Lane so it's between 1885, 1886, 1876. She
stated it is not good.
Roe closed the public hearing at approximately 8:11 p.m.
Roe noted there were not a lot of questions raised that need to be answered by
a question-by-question method but, perhaps, more general information can be
provided. He asked Mr. Koland if he would like to specifically respond to
anything said during the public hearing.
response to the question about storm water best management practices (BMPs), and
the rain garden, Brad Koland stated they showed it to the Rice Creek Watershed
last week and talked with them about infiltration rates, which is 24 hours on
their existing rain garden. He explained the Rice Creek Watershed mandates 48
hours for infiltration and has conducted infiltration tests at 1926 Gluek Lane,
at the corner. Mr. Koland stated they talked with Rice Creek Watershed about
doing a curb cut. The City of Roseville cooperates with the Rice Creek
Watershed, which has a storm water improvement plan (bench handout) where they
could do a curb cut before the storm drain to catch the first flush, which
carries all the contaminants.
Koland acknowledged there was a lot of commentary about the drainage of his
specific lot but if you think about it, when talking about water rights or
water obligations, his is for 1,000 gallons, which he is able to manage
anywhere on his lot as he sees fit and is functional. He used a lot diagram to
point out another space where he could manage a significant amount of rain
water and do more benefit to the overall neighborhood by taking the first flush
and all of the contaminants out of that portion of streaming water.
Koland also spoke with the Rice Creek Watershed about areas of other catch
basins but was told there's not really much he can do there as far as storm
water drainage basins because the catch basins collect the water coming down
from the Ferriswood development. Mr. Koland stated he has done a lot of
research on rain gardens and offered to answer additional questions, if any.
response to the question posed by Councilmember Willmus relating to the
Condition d, Mr. Freihammer explained with any grading plan, staff would assure
it meets the City's requirements and a certain design level. In this
situation, staff would assure it is not in an area believed to be a floodway.
Typically, if a new development, the design has to meet 2-year, 10-year, and
100-year requirements in terms of rate and volume control.
Willmus referenced the last paragraph of the September 12, 2016, memorandum (Exhibit
E) and asked Mr. Freihammer if he believed Condition d, as worded in the RCA,
would capture all additional infiltration needs as a result of constructing a
new home and satisfy Code requirements. Mr. Freihammer stated he cannot
comment on the infiltration without seeing and confirming the soil tests but
there is potential it could be mitigated by rate control through other means,
similar to what the City did with the Corpus Christi project.
Willmus asked whether the Public Works review would take into consideration
those factors related to infiltration and rates. Mr. Freihammer answered in
the affirmative. Councilmember Willmus asked if that is covered in Condition
d. Mr. Freihammer again answered in the affirmative.
Roe asked whether there are particular standards or requirements that should be
added to the conditions that staff could weigh the BMPs against, such as a rate
requirement or wording such as, "everything must be handled on the site." Mr.
Freihammer stated for a commercial property that was expanding, the City would
require all new additional run-off to be treated for 2-year, 10-year, and
100-year events. That is a typical City requirement.
Roe noted the conditions refer to additional run-off but the wording does not
get specific as to the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year events. He asked if that
is the standard staff would also apply in this case. Mr. Freihammer answered
in the affirmative.
Etten stated a public comment had been made whether there is need to require
entering into a legal agreement to build and maintain this BMP. Mr. Freihammer
explained if the applicant installs a BMP, the City would require a maintenance
agreement to assure it functions properly.
response to the questions by Mayor Roe relating to whether the agreement would
be filed against the property, enforcement, and the BMPs, City Attorney Mark
Gaughan advised the condition states the BMP plan would have to be approved
prior to issuance of the development permits.
Willmus noted Condition d is not really binding on the subdivision and unless
the applicant would volunteer to construct it on the front end, that Condition
would not be binding until the applicant applies for a building permit. At
that point, the applicant would have to do the survey and design work for the
BMPs. Mr. Gaughan stated that is his understanding.
Works Director Marc Culver explained that staff would enforce Condition d, as
written, as part of the review and approval of the grading plan, which would
have to identify BMPs that meet the standard mentioned earlier by Mr.
Freihammer relating to the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year design. Staff would
require a maintenance agreement as part of that, the same as required with all residential
storm water permits and it would get filed against the property.
Willmus asked the applicant if he has the same understanding as just stated by
the City Engineer. Mr. Koland answered in the affirmative and stated the Rice
Creek Watershed also requires a maintenance agreement. He explained the City
of Roseville and Rice Creek Watershed work closely together and any storm water
BMPs put in place will require a maintenance agreement for the duration of ten
Willmus asked Mr. Koland whether he was familiar with and in agreement with all
four conditions as detailed in the RCA. Mr. Koland stated he is in agreement
if the City makes him do so. His position is still that it is not required by
City Code but he is willing to do this.
McGehee stated it was her understanding that the BMP runs with the land and is
inspected every five years. Mr. Freihammer stated that is correct.
Councilmember McGehee stated she does not understand the statement made that
Rice Creek Watershed does something for ten years. Mr. Culver stated the
City's five-year requirement would supersede that term. He explained that Rice
Creek has its own requirements, policies, and practices with maintenance
agreements if they partially fund a BMP through a grant. In addition, if the
development is large enough, the maintenance agreement is then with the Rice
Creek Watershed and not the City. However, the City has several requirements
that are triggered prior to the Watershed's requirements and in those cases,
when the maintenance agreement is with the City, the City's recertification
requirements would be applied. Councilmember McGehee asked whether the City's
requirements would be the dominant. Mr. Culver answered in the affirmative.
McGehee noted the memorandum indicates if the impervious surface is less than
30%, they don't have to do it, which causes her considerable difficulty since
it appears to be in legalistic terms at this point. She asked how staff
determines the correct size of the BMP. Mr. Culver explained when the City
requires BMPs, the standards are to handle rainfall for the 2-year, 10-year,
and 100-year rain events. That calculation would be based on the impervious
surface being added and that amount of water would have to be mitigated by
McGehee noted some residents talked about standing water in the central area
and staff has previously indicated there is a problem in that area and they
couldn't solve that problem. She asked staff if they maintain that same
position that the problem, whether an impervious basin or whatever, is not
within the City's foreseeable capacity to solve. Mr. Culver stated if talking
about the problem of water flooding in the backyard area of the inner circle up
to the 957 elevation on a recurring basis, that problem is outside of the scope
of this in terms of being able to solve it. He stated staff will work with the
Watershed and other agencies over a long period of time to continue to address
McGehee asked for staff's opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Willis about the
957 elevation storage line and whether building within that area results in
reducing the area for retention. She noted the goal, since this can't be
fixed, is to assure a 100-year flood will not result in these residents having
to buy FEMA insurance or have their homes flooded. Mr. Culver stated the City
would probably require grading to stay two feet outside of the defined 957
contour so it should not impact the storage of the existing floodway that is
being witnessed now.
McGehee asked whether Minnesota has experienced two 1,000-year floods this
summer. Mr. Culver stated he does not know the size of two 1,000-year floods.
Councilmember McGehee stated she knows there has been one so it is not out of
the question. Mr. Culver agreed it is not out of the question and he would not
counter there have been some significant rainfall events.
McGehee noted that if less than 30% of the lot is impervious surface, even the
BMP for Basin 1 is not required by Code. She asked under what circumstances the
two other BMPs options would come into play. Mr. Culver stated the proposal,
partly through negotiations, is to install the BMP with the recognition they
may not be required by Code or City Policy for this proposal and to do that is
an extra measure in recognition to mitigate and slow down the runoff.
McGehee asked whether Condition d states that any grading has to be outside of
the 957-958 elevation by two feet and that all of buried storage Option 1,
buried storage Option 2, Basin 2, and Basin 1 has to be installed in advance of
Roe opined it does not and pointed out his understanding that buried storage
Option 1 is an alternate to Basin 1. It is one or the other and likewise,
buried storage Option 2 is an alternate to Basin 2. Mayor Roe stated his
understanding that Option 1 deals with the new lot and potential impervious
surface added as a result of developing that lot. Option 2 is additional and
not necessarily part of the adding development to that new lot. Mr. Freihammer
stated his understanding the basins would address the new impervious surfaces.
Koland stated it has already been established the City Council did not approve
his previous application without consideration of the drainage so he provided
options for the City Council to leverage with approval consideration. The
basins proposed are concepts, as required by the planning phase, and the
thought process was to take all, if not more, of the additional drainage caused
by any proposed development in the subdivision. Mr. Koland stated it does not
make a difference to him whether Basin 2 or Basin 1 and he is willing to work
with staff to establish that or the Council could set ground rules if it wants
the BMP located on the subdivided lot. Mr. Koland stated it does not matter to
him where the water comes from as long as 1,000 gallons gets impounded as
offset for the additional drainage caused by the additional development.
Roe asked whether Basin 1 and storage 1 options handle just the new lot and Basin
2 is not, or if it is a combination of all four options having to be done. Mr.
Koland stated he would definitely not have to do all four options to address
the newly created drainage. He stated City Code 1017 does not prefer storage
bins, like the Aqua blocks, but that is an option so you can construct a
pervious driveway for all of the drainage and then use that water for
Roe asked if this is very conceptual from that point of view. Mr. Koland
answered in the affirmative and explained he had just offered ideas of how he
could easily accommodate the requirement to impound all water from additional
development and then it could be taken through negotiations if to the point of
development. Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Koland for that clarification.
Laliberte asked if this subdivision is approved, will the new owner of the
subdivided property be held to this grading plan and not necessarily Mr. Koland
since it will no longer be his property. Mr. Culver explained the owner of the
property where the basins are placed will be responsible for installation,
maintenance, inspection, and recertification every five years. Councilmember
Laliberte stated how the subdivided lot will be flagged to alert staff when a
grading application comes in. Mr. Culver stated there are ways to place such
an alert within the City's record keeping system.
Laliberte asked whether, with the recommended actions, Conditions a-d, and what
has been conceptually offered, staff supports statements provided by Mr. Koland
that this subdivision proposal retains all additional run off and eliminates
any potential for injury to his neighbors. Mr. Culver stated that involves some
very broad statements and whether or not it addresses all of the run-off from
the site will depend on the design of the BMPs and on the size of the rain event.
He stated it will be able to handle all of the run off from a certain size
event but at some point, for a very large rain event, it will not be able to
handle all of the run off. He stated the City has standards to design for
certain rain events and the intent is to address rate control to slow the water
before entering the storm water system for those rain events.
Laliberte stated the rain events the City has been experiencing are not typical
of rain events when past subdivisions were granted approval in this area by
previous Councils. She asked staff if the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year
thresholds are still the correct ones to be evaluating. Mr. Culver stated that
is a topic for a much larger debate. He stated the City does have updated
rainfall standards through Atlas 14 that were studied a few years ago and
adopted by a lot of Watersheds. The City of Roseville adopted those new
standards as well. Mr. Culver explained that is not to say that in five years,
those will remain the current standards but given the current data and studies,
that is what the City designs for.
moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the minor subdivision of 1926 Gluek Lane
into two parcels, based on the comments and findings of the RCA dated September
12, 2016, and subject to conditions, a-d, as outlined in said RCA.
Etten stated he has heard the concerns of the neighbors around the historical
water issues and agrees with the petition that this is an area the City needs
to address, of which staff is acutely aware. He stated he is interested in
looking at ways to address those concerns and how to fund it. Councilmember Etten
noted the Roseville School District is considering updating its facilities at
Fairview School and asked whether the City can work with them as they do other
construction to retain and hold water from affecting Gluek Lane.
Etten stated he does not think this property owner can be held responsible for
water arriving from other sites and noted the proposed BMPs will meet
Roseville's and the Rice Creek Watershed's standards and carry maintenance
agreements to hold the water on the subject property. He felt Condition d
clearly outlines the requirement to retain and mitigate on site run off caused
by the proposed new development, which addresses the concerns both from within
that property and future impacts on other properties.
Willmus stated when this subdivision came before the Council previously, his concern
was with regard to the site exacerbating the situation that currently exists.
He stated Condition d goes a long way, in his mind, to getting at that concern
with respect to the finding he had put forward previously so he is comfortable
with Condition d being in place. Councilmember Willmus stated he had a bit of
hesitation knowing that this is going well beyond something that is typically
outlined in Code but confident that the applicant has come forward and
testified to the fact that he (Mr. Koland) will accept this condition and go
forward in good faith and put in place. Councilmember Willmus agreed with
Councilmember Etten's comments relating to existing conditions in this area and
those not lying at the feet of the applicant and not being punitive in that
regard in the applicant's ability to subdivide his property.
McGehee stated she does not support this as she does not feel comfortable with
Condition d, enforcement, and is not happy with sketches and seeing the
engineering information she would like to see. Also, she is not of the opinion
that the Council has seen the end or limit of the rain events experienced this
summer. Councilmember McGehee stated she prefers to err on the side of caution
given what the City Engineer said we have the potential of mitigating in that
area right now. She preferred a more cautious approach of the petition and
majority of residents who think it should be limited now until there is a
better handle on what the rain events are going to be, what mitigation can go
on around this 120-acre site, which may not include the back fields of
Fairview. She is also not sure whether Fairview is that much higher than the
high edge of Gluek Lane. Councilmember McGehee continued she is not sure that
anything she sees in the foreseeable future or that she heard from the City
Engineer is going to ameliorate the problem that already exists. She does not
support the argument that other people got to do this in the past because in
the past, we had different rain events and conditions. Councilmember McGehee
stated she does not think it is the prudent thing to do at this time and agrees
that if there is still standing water there now and it is an impervious basin,
then the opportunity for a more significant rain than we've had this summer to
actually flood those homes in this area is worrying to her so she will not support
Laliberte stated this is as difficult as the first time it came before the
Council. She thanked the applicant for the additional work done and
willingness to go above and beyond what is actually required in order to alleviate
these issues. She felt that subdivisions of the past, patios installed, and
sheds built should not be held against the applicant and shares the concern
that if the subdivision is not allowed to go through, it would be nice to halt
all kinds of improvements to this area until more work can be done to address
the drainage issues. Councilmember Laliberte stated she is very supportive of
moving that issue higher on the Council's priority list as it has been a
concerning summer where lives have been at risk under Fairview and it is not a
small deal. She is also concerned about other resident's property but it is no
one's fault the City is having the rain incidents being experienced.
Councilmember Laliberte continued that without being able to say, in her own
mind, that this can definitely alleviate it, she is hesitant to go forward.
Roe stated he had supported the subdivision when it came before the Council the
first time. At that time, he was not supportive of the findings related to the
lot standards as he did not believe that was correct. Mayor Roe stated he
believes there is no issue at this time with the lot standards based on what he
is hearing from the neighborhood and Council so he will not dwell on that
issue. His biggest potential concern had been with storm water issues and he
appreciates very much that the applicant has come forward voluntarily with some
mitigation for the subdivided property, which is above and beyond what is
required. Mayor Roe stated he would be supportive of this subdivision without
that because it is above and beyond what is required but he does appreciate it
will be done.
Roe stated it is worth noting that if the City stops the construction of sheds
in this neighborhood then to be fair it would also have to be restricted
upstream and uphill. He noted the cost estimate for the mitigation at Fairview
was in the couple of million-dollar range so the City will need to keep working
on creative ways to move water out of that existing basin and size of the storm
water infrastructure to accommodate rainfalls. Mayor Roe stated he would be
very concerned about stopping activity in the area because by having that
activity, the City can require or negotiate mitigation as done with properties
around Rosedale that contribute to the problem downstream. Mayor Roe stated
his support of the motion for approval.
Laliberte thanked Mr. King for the good information he offered, which helped
her realize there are other options the City should be considering to fix the
problem. Because she would like to fast track discussions about those
suggestions, she prefers to hold off on this subdivision request.
Willmus, Etten, and Roe.
Willmus stated not directly related to this as it cannot be a retroactive
consideration on this application, but it was mentioned several times previously
about having uniform standards within the Minor Lot Subdivision Code. He
suggested the Council look at that option and consider whether to put a
short-term moratorium into place for minor subdivisions until staff can review
the Code. With regard to the application process, he suggested requiring surveys
and elevation drawings so the consideration before the Council is not so subjective
and it is clear what is being proposed.
Roe asked about the status of updating the Subdivision Code. Interim Community
Development Director Kari Collins stated staff recently received a proposal to
start the subdivision review process; however, the consultant typically used is
not available until the beginning of 2017 due to staffing issues. Staff has
held internal discussions about whether or not, due to the current case load
with the Comprehensive Plan update, to wait until that consultant is available
or move forward to solicit proposals from other firms if this issue is rising
to a top priority. In answer to Mayor Roe's question, Ms. Collins estimated
the Subdivision Code update would take three to four months.
McGehee suggested the application information include a perk test so soil
permeability is known. Mayor Roe noted the Council is not drafting a list of
requirements tonight. Councilmember Willmus suggested placing the topic of a
moratorium on an upcoming agenda for discussion and to determine whether there
is support to put something in place.
Roe asked staff to provide information on what is involved with placing such a
moratorium, implications, and next steps for the Council's future
Laliberte requested staff also present a recommendation on whether to wait
until 2017 to use the current consultant and timing to look at other firms.
Trudgeon explained the Subdivision Ordinance update would address more than
minor subdivisions but that could be the special focus of a moratorium. Mayor
Roe offered the option to address submittal requirements for minor subdivisions
through a text amendment, perhaps referencing the same requirements as required
for standard subdivisions.
Willmus clarified that Mr. Koland's application would not be subject to any new
regulations, if adopted, as they are not retroactive. Mayor Roe agreed, noting
determinations are made based on the requirements at the time of consideration,
not on potential future standards.
Laliberte clarified the Council is already talking about looking at the Minor
Subdivision Code as a result of this proposal and previous proposals where the
Council felt it did not have adequate information. It is not solely an outcome
of tonight's consideration. Mayor Roe agreed it has been discussed since the
2010 Zoning Code update.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:57 p.m.,
and reconvened at approximately 9:04 p.m.
Adopt a Preliminary 2017 Tax Levy and Budget
Director Chris Miller referenced the RCA and summary provided for the 2017 preliminary
budget and tax levy dated September 12, 2016, and related attachments. Mr.
Miller advised this is the same information presented to the Council on August
22nd when a public hearing was held to solicit comment. This is the
sixth time the Council has deliberated on the recommended spending plan.
Miller indicated the overall recommended budget is $52.1 million, a slight overall
decrease of $1,900, and the tax supported budget is $29.4 million, an increase
of $671,000 or 2.3%. Staff recommends a tax levy increase of about 5.5%, which
is just over $1 million. The resulting impact on a median valued single-family
home would be approximately $51 a year, a 5.94% increase, or $4.22 per month.
Mr. Miller clarified this impact is independent of the EDA levy and water and
sewer rates, which will be discussed in the near future.
Miller reported on the lower than expected health care premium increase,
resulting in a $40,000 savings more than anticipated. Those funds remain
programmed in the City budget and tax levy so the Council can consider use of
those funds to address other unmet needs. He reviewed staff's recommended action
to adopt three separate resolutions.
regard to the $40,000 savings on the projected health care premiums, Mayor Roe
asked if it is entirely funded through the tax levy or through other sources.
Mr. Miller stated most of it is tax levy supported.
McGehee asked how much is being taken from reserves. Mr. Miller stated just
over $400,000 of reserves is programmed for spending to meet the established
budget goals. Councilmember McGehee asked if that is to meet the 5.5%. Mr.
Miller clarified there is no money set aside in the levy to wean off cash reserves,
which are being used at the same rate as the previous year, but that will be a
future consideration of the Council.
McGehee recalled three years ago the City started with taking $325,000 from
reserves, last year $375,000 was taken, and this year $400,000 was taken. She
noted the amount taken from reserves has increased every year. Mr. Miller
stated that is correct but the Council has talked about the reserve levels and
thinks it is fine for 2017 but long term, staff is a strong advocate for the
concept of having a structurally balanced budget and the Council will need to
make those efforts in future years.
Willmus stated one reason the City has strong reserves is that in prior years
the City has taxed over what was needed for that budget year. That is where
the reserves came from, tax dollars paid in advance. He stated in considering
the information provided by the Finance Commission, the City is able to spend
down reserves without impacting ratios within the General Fund. Councilmember
Willmus stated when the City has amassed this size of cushion, it should hold
itself to being within the target ranges as identified by the Finance
McGehee asked how it works when taking $400,000 from the reserve and if the
same money could be applied to any of the three funds discussed last time:
Maintenance Fund, Pavement Program, or Parks Improvement Fund. Mr. Miller
stated the Council has discretion to move discretionary funds from one to
another so that could be a strategy to address long-term capital funding.
Councilmember McGehee stated this money could actually be used to assist in
addressing other places of shortfalls.
Laliberte asked if that were to be done, then would it leave the City Manager's
budget short by $400,000. Mr. Miller answered there would be a gap between
proposed spending and proposed revenues. Councilmember Laliberte noted it
would then have to be addressed in a different way.
Etten asked how much of the reserve dollars are being used for on-going versus
one-time costs in the 2017 budget. Mr. Miller answered $375,000 is for
on-going costs and the other $30,000 was for a one-time portion of the
Comprehensive Plan update.
Roe stated it is important to note the increase of $51/year on the average
property is on a base amount from 2016 of $854 tax per year to $904 with
rounding. That takes into account that the property has seen a 4.8% increase
in its value as well. Mr. Miller stated that is correct and is based on the
median valued home in Roseville from 2016 to 2017.
Roe noted during the previous discussion about the property being subdivided
and the tax collected is different because it's not that the City is getting
more money because there is additional property and value. Every year the City
sets a levy amount, the dollar amount to be collected, and then that is divided
amongst all of the properties proportionally based on their value and State
law. So just having more property and value does not mean the City collects
more money, it just means there are more properties paying tax. Also, the
dollars discussed are only the City's portion of the taxes.
McGehee stated this levy, since being considered in three stages, is a $4.22/month
increase on the tax levy; a $2.28/month increase in the utility fee; and a $1.51/month
increase in EDA if the Council approves as presented. This would total a $8.60/month
increase or $103.20/year for every residential homeowner in the median
classification. Mr. Miller confirmed that is correct when you factor in the
proposed EDA levy and forecast for water and sewer rate increases.
Roe offered the opportunity for public input prior to Council action on the
2017 not-to-exceed levy and proposed budget, noting the budget can be adjusted
between now and the end of the year but the levy cannot be increased between
now and the end of the year from what is adopted tonight. No one appeared to
moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11357 (Attachment A)
entitled, "A Resolution Submitting the Preliminary Property Tax Levy on Real
Estate to the Ramsey County Auditor for the Fiscal Year of 2017."
moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No.11359 (Attachment B) entitled,
"A Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Adjust the Approved Tax Levy for
2017 Bonded Debt."
moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No.11358 (Attachment C) entitled,
"A Resolution Adopting the Preliminary 2017 Annual Budget for the City of
advised the next steps will be to report this information to the Ramsey County
Tax Department. The tax numbers will then be divided by the values noticed to
property owners and that will determine the proposed tax for 2017. The tax
statements will go out after November 10, 2016, and the City will have
continuing budget discussions between now and the end of the year so a number
of opportunities will come forward for input. The final budget will be
considered for adoption at the December 5, 2016.
McGehee stated she has a proposal to save $2 million to $3 million in the tax
supported levy. She stated she will provide that documentation to Mr. Trudgeon
and asked the Council to consider this information at the October 17, 2016, Work
Adopt a 2017 Preliminary EDA Tax Levy
Director Chris Miller referenced the RCA and summary provided for the 2017
preliminary EDA tax levy dated September 12, 2016, and related attachments. Mr.
Miller advised this is the same information considered at the August 29, 2016, meeting
for a levy of $356,585. This is a not-to-exceed levy and it is expected the
Council will have at least one other conversation relating to it between now
and the end of the year.
Roe offered the opportunity for public input on the proposed 2017 EDA budget
and levy prior to Council action. No one appeared to speak.
moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11360 (Attachment A)
entitled, "A Resolution Approving a Special Property Tax Levy, for the Benefit
of the Roseville Economic Development Authority, on Real Estate to the Ramsey
County Auditor for the Fiscal Year of 2017."
Business Items (Action Items)
Consider Request for an Interim Use to allow temporary outdoor
storage of semi-trailers at 2470 Highcrest/2501 Walnut
Planner Thomas Paschke referenced the RCA and summary form provided for the interim
use request to allow temporary outdoor storage of semi-trailers at 2470
Highcrest/2501 Walnut as detailed in the RCA and related attachments. He
presented the three criteria reviewed and considered by the Planning Division
staff and Planning Commission and conclusion the criteria can be met; however,
as in the case of the two current outdoor storage facilities, there are other
conditions believed to be necessary and appropriate for this outdoor storage
proposal. He referenced the Fire Marshal recommended conditions and stated the
Planning Commission recommends approval of a two-year interim use for the
temporary outdoor storage with a number of conditions. Mr. Paschke advised
that the resolution contains all pertinent conditions. He displayed a site
plan and pointed out the proposed location intended for the temporary storage
of semi-trailers and drive lane to provide access.
response to questions by Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke confirmed the
Highcrest side abuts the golf course, the fencing requirement will remain in
place, and the drive lane will be adequate for the fire truck per the
Dorff, Meritex, Applicant
Dorff introduced himself and offered to answer questions.
Willmus stated the proposed Interim Use Permit is for two years and asked about
the long-term plan beyond two years. He also asked whether the applicant has
had an opportunity to review the seven conditions and if so, was he in
Dorff explained that long-term plans will depend on the real estate market. He
used a map to point out another property owned by Meritex that is kiddy-corner
from the subject site. He stated in 2005, Meritex had petitioned for an
outdoor Interim Use Permit to store the same trailers on that site and had
improved the property recently with a tax assessed value of about $7 million,
which also improved the tax situation in Roseville. At that location, they got
in excess of 300 trailers and at the time the Fire Marshal had requirements to
provide drive lanes between trailers, noting the trailers were double stacked
in the middle.
Dorff stated they plan to raze the other building, noting the Ramsey County Tax
Assessor agrees it is an obsolete structure and subsequently reduced the value
down to about $4 million. He explained the potential on the property is far in
excess of that with either multiple buildings or one large building.
Preliminary plans indicate three buildings but it will depend on the real
estate market in late-2017, 2018 when they expect the building to go through a
regard to the conditions set, Mr. Dorff stated he understood it to be a
ten-foot setback from the fence, a drive lane with access to the building for
fire purposes, and a five-foot aisle between lengthwise of the trailers so
firemen could access should there be an incident inside a trailer. Mr. Dorff
stated that would be his only distinction between the seven items.
Willmus referenced Condition 1 and asked whether ten feet is adequate. Mr. Paschke
explained that is the setback from the property line and the other one has to
do with the drive lanes to be able to park the semi-trailers, get them out, as
well as for fire vehicles access to extinguish a fire, if needed.
Dorff stated there would be a drive lane all the way around the building,
trailers will be no closer than ten feet from the fence, and a drive lane will
be provided in front of the trailers. The trailers will be single stacked
Roe clarified the language indicates the trailers can be as close as ten feet
from the west property line and the final width and number of fire lanes shall
be approved by the Fire Marshal. That is the standard at this time so the
applicant's understanding is correct as long as the Fire Marshal approves the
Laliberte stated the conditions of this interim use may be different from the
one on the other Meritex property because the City has updated its commercial
inspections for the Fire Department. She noted the City has recently
experienced tractor trailer fires so some things being requested now may be
different than before.
Roe asked Mr. Dorff if he understands and accepts those conditions based on
that clarification. Mr. Dorff answered in the affirmative.
Roe offered the opportunity for public input on the proposed Interim Use for
outdoor storage of semi-trailers prior to Council action. No one appeared to
moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11361 (Attachment F)
entitled, "A Resolution Approving an Interim Use for Outdoor Storage of
Semi-Trailers at 2470 Highcrest/2501 Walnut."
Roe restated this is consideration of a two-year Interim Use and if at any time
the conditions are not being met, this approval can be revoked.
Twin Lakes Parkway to Langton Lake Trail Connection
Public Works Director and City Engineer Jesse Freihammer referenced the RCA and
summary provided for the Twin Lake Parkway to Langton Lake trail connection as
detailed in the RCA dated September 12, 2016, and related attachments. He
explained that because of the Twin Lakes Parkway project, staff suggests adding
a 325-foot pathway segment, which is well used by the neighborhood, to the Twin
Lake Parkway contracts since they are already on site. The cost is estimated
at $20,000 and due to cost savings by using Public Works staff for two of the
sidewalk segments there are funds available from remaining Park Renewal Funds.
McGehee referred to a photograph on display of the unimproved pathway and asked
if it is showing a City barrier. Mr. Freihammer stated it is one of the
barriers from the Twin Lake project. Councilmember McGehee asked if it is a
barrier that doesn't actually hold back the silt. Mayor Roe ruled that is not
a pertinent question to this proposal because it is a question about the
ongoing road project rather than the trail extension.
moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of adding the trail connection between Twin
Lakes Parkway and the Langton Lake Trail to the Twin Lakes Parkway Contract.
Roe asked if the Twin Lakes Parkway connection currently in progress includes a
sidewalk or pathway on the north side. Mr. Freihammer stated the pathway is on
the north side and the sidewalk is on the south side.
McGehee stated there is a decline in this pathway towards the Lake so she would
like the project to be mindful and assure there is no erosion. She stated she
walked the entire area about two weeks ago and found a combination of buckthorn
and burdock, noting burdock can be lethal for some birds and bats so she should
like the restoration to remove invasive and dangerous species.
Etten stated support for this pathway construction, noting it will add
tremendous value for properties in the area and be of benefit to new hotels in
the area and future development.
Non-Residential Stormwater Impact Fund
Public Works Director and City Engineer Jesse Freihammer referenced the RCA and
summary provided for the non-residential storm water impact fund as detailed in
the RCA dated September 12, 2016, and related attachments. Mr. Freihammer described
the application process and hardship consideration, noting the cost would be
$22.50 per cubic foot to account for long-term maintenance costs.
Roe reviewed the priority for mitigation would be: first within the same sewer
and drainage district, drainage area; second in the same receiving water body;
third in the same watershed district, and then within the City limits.
McGehee asked whether the $22.50 is a flat fee you would have to pay forever.
Mr. Freihammer explained the fee would be set in the City's fee schedule.
Councilmember McGehee stated in that case, there would be an opportunity to
consider it every year should the City find it is falling behind with
McGehee stated she would like this consideration tied to more opportunities
because Roseville has a lot of parking lots and while there have been past
discussions on how to use water within parking lots and making them more
attractive by incorporating BMPs of some type, that is not included in the Code
or this language. As an example, Councilmember McGehee noted the Wal-Mart
parking lot is very large and includes underground tanks but if the Code
required a certain number of trees, water features, or on-site mitigation in
the parking lot, it would be more attractive. She asked if that could be
required in this Policy. Mr. Freihammer answered that would not fall in line
with the intent of this Policy which addresses properties that cannot
accommodate any mitigation practices due to on-site constraints. He provided
several examples and explained that for most sites, this Policy will not apply
as it will only apply to sites that cannot handle on-site mitigation.
Councilmember McGehee stated in that case, this Policy would not be impacted if
there were Code changes to encourage more plantings within parking lots.
Etten thanked staff for the Policy changes to incorporate feedback and asked
for an estimate on how long that money would cover maintenance. Mr. Freihammer
answered that is difficult to estimated but it would cover to the point the
system would need to be rebuilt.
McGehee stated in that case, staff will estimate how much water has to be moved
and the property owner will have to pay the fee that will be held by the City
to cover on-going maintenance in perpetuity. Mayor Roe noted all of the fees
from all of the sites, together, will fund the on-going maintenance process,
similar to CIP funds. Councilmember McGehee stated two years from now, if
someone has the same issue, they may or may not pay this same fee because the
fee may be higher but it is a one-time charge. Mr. Freihammer stated that is
Roe asked the Council if they support limiting the exception to low density
residential (LDR) and if it should or should not apply to medium density
residential (MDR). The Council consensus was to revise the Policy to include
an exception for both LDR and MDR properties.
Roe referenced the last sentence in Item 1a, noting it is difficult to locate
the referenced questions. Mr. Freihammer answered there is no need for that
Roe referred to Page 2, Item b, and suggested the word "creations" be correct
to indicate the word "creation." In Item e, he suggested "of this part" be
clarified to "of this Policy." Mr. Freihammer agreed.
McGehee stated she considered this Policy more for commercial and not housing.
Mayor Roe stated sometimes we consider high density residential (HDR) to be
sort of pseudo commercial because of things like large parking lots and higher density.
Councilmember Laliberte stated she would not want to exclude HDR.
moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of the Non-Residential Stormwater Impact
Fund Policy including revisions as suggested by Mayor Roe to Items 1a, b and e,
and excluding low and medium density residential.
McGehee asked if the Council could require an annual report on the status of
the maintenance fund. Councilmember Etten felt that would be included with
staff's annual presentation on the fee schedule. Mayor Roe stated there should
probably be a CIP category for storm water facilities. Councilmember McGehee
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Trudgeon announced the September 19, 2016, Work Session agenda items. In
addition, the EDA will meet in Closed Session to discuss 196 South McCarron.
Councilmember Laliberte stated the neighborhood association discussion should
also be on the Work Session agenda. Mayor Roe stated the Council may want to
invite representatives of the Community Engagement Commission for the Speak Up
reminded the Council he will not be in attendance at the September 26, 2016, meeting
so Finance Director Chris Miller will be taking his place. He reviewed the
agenda items for that meeting and the October 17, 2016, Work Session.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Etten moved, Laliberte
seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:56 p.m.