View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
May 8, 2017
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:35 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: Laliberte,
McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. City Manager Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark
Gaughan were also present.
2. Pledge of
3. Approve Agenda
Trudgeon reported that Business Item 7.b could be removed as staff had
confirmed earlier today that the property owner had resolved the violations on
requested removal of Items 9.d and 9.e from the Consent Agenda for separate
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.
Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.
4. Public Comment
Recognitions, Donations and Communications
Human Rights Essay Contest Winners
recognized and introduced Human Rights Commission (HRC) Chair Groff. Chair
Groff briefly described the annual essay contest as detailed in the Request for
Council Action dated May 8, 2017.
recognized fellow HRC Commissioners Mankpondehou Etienne Djevi, Nicole Dailey, Lauren
Peterson, and Youth Commissioner Elizabeth Hansel; along with Cedric Fuller,
Assistant Principal at Roseville Area Middle School. Chair Groff noted that
all essays were available on the city’s website.
presented certificates to Honorable Mention winners: David Vincze and Nina de
los Reyes and summarized their essay topics.
first, second and third place winners were invited to read their essays aloud:
Third Place: Alicia Hopper, 7th grade, RAMS,
Instructor Cameron Johnson and Emily LaPierre, 8th grade RAMS,
Instructor Rebecca Blanch
Second Place: Ellie Long, 8th grade, RAMS, Instructor
First Place: Seigenn Thao, 8th grade, Roseville Area
Middle School (RAMS), Instructor Scott Lauinger
congratulated students, and recognized and thanked all instructors involved for
their participation in this annual event.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 7:08 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 7:11
Introduction of Assistant City Manager Rebecca Olson
Trudgeon introduced Assistant City Manager Rebecca Olson and provided a brief
biography of her municipal experience, most recently with the Cities of
Shoreview and Blaine, MN. Mr. Trudgeon reviewed Ms. Olson’s background and
expertise in the areas of community engagement and equity; announcing that part
of her new role would be to serve as staff liaison to the newly formed Human
Rights, Inclusion and Engagement Commission (HRIEC).
Manager Olson thanked the City Council for this opportunity to work with them,
staff and Roseville residents and expressed her excitement to begin these new
opportunities and challenges.
Mayor Roe welcomed
Assistant City Manager Olson to the Roseville City organization.
Items Removed from Consent Agenda
Approve Planning and Design Services for 1716 Marion Street
the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly highlighted this item
as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments
dated May 8, 2017.
McGehee noted her past involvement with this area and stated that the proposed
park at this location met the mission of the city’s Parks and Recreation
Department. Noting, the uniqueness of this particular parcel, . Councilmember
McGehee stated that she’d like to see more public engagement with residents
living in this area before selecting a designer and plan consultant and
spending this money.
this consultant, LHB, is part of the process, City Manager Trudgeon clarified
that as with other park facility processes, they were here to listen to the
public with no pre-conceived notions. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the consultant
would work with staff to facilitate conversations in the neighborhood and
community, at which time design options would be presented to residents to see
if it met their expectations. As with past Parks Renewal Program projects, Mr.
Trudgeon assured all that citizens would be involved throughout the process,
with special care for this proposed park in a neighborhood with more
individuals who spoke English as a second language.
McGehee opined that there may be amenities other than playgrounds that could be
of more use to this neighborhood in that area.
Laliberte noted that when first talking about this park, the discussion had
been to remain open-minded so this didn’t only become a park dedicated to
youth, but also addressing the needs of elders in the area. When doing public
outreach during this process, Councilmember Laliberte asked that staff and the
consultant ensure that a potential park met all of those prevalent needs.
Roe offered an opportunity for public comment, with no one appearing to speak.
moved, Etten seconded, authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a
Professional Services Agreement (Attachment A) with LHB for design services for
a new city park at 1716 Marion Street, in an amount not to exceed $28,900 to be
funded through the Park Dedication Fund.
spoke in support of the motion, opining that LHB had done a great job with
other city parks, and expressed his assurance that they would do the same in
McGehee opined that the Parks Renewal Program provided for a specific
park/recreation purpose; and clarified that her intent in making this point was
that this park may not represent a standard approach, thus her question if this
consultant would be sufficiently flexible in presenting options.
Mayor Roe opined
that the consultant ought to be responsive to the city’s direction since the
city would be paying for these consulting services, and to-date any updates to
city parks had always involved the community throughout the process. Mayor Roe
expressed his confidence that this process would show those same engagement
opportunities in this case as well.
Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.
Approve Planning and Design Services for 2132 Cleveland Avenue
the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly highlighted this item
as detailed in the RCA and related attachments dated May
he had communicated with the previous request, City Manager Trudgeon stated
that the consultant and staff would be coming forward to the neighborhood with
a clean slate. Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff had held periodic discussions
with the property owner of the 2025 Cleveland Avenue parcel, but there had as
yet been no agreement on a potential city purchase. However, Mr. Trudgeon
advised that the city remained open to talking about that parcel as a potential
park moving forward.
Pothapragada, 2250 Midland Grove
Pothapragada thanked the City Council and City Manager Trudgeon for their quick
response to his emails, expressing his appreciation that the neighborhood
continued to be part of the communication process. Mr. Pothapragada sought
clarification that the neighborhood could still seek the 2025 Cleveland Avenue
site for park/open space.
Roe confirmed that while this specific planning process was specific to the
2132 Cleveland Avenue parcel owned by the city, it did not preclude residents
from advocating for additional park space at 2025 County Road B.
McGehee expressed her concern that no current outreach had been done with
residents in this quadrant as to their preferences, and when outreach had been
done several years ago, the neighborhood specifically preferred the 2025
Cleveland Avenue site, with this 2132 Cleveland Avenue parcel not their first
choice for a park when the city had initially proposed buying it. In many
ways, Councilmember McGehee opined that this was not an under-served area, with
other parks located in several directions within ½ mile and accessible via
pathways. Councilmember McGehee noted that while Park Master Plan funds had
been reserved for park/open space in this area, it should be expended for this
option. Councilmember McGehee reiterated her preference that a larger
community meeting and opportunity for public input from this neighborhood was
prudent before moving forward with any planning. For those preferring the 2025
Cleveland Avenue parcel across the street, Councilmember McGehee opined that it
didn’t require planning and development, simply purchase. Councilmember
McGehee reviewed other park amenities available within a ½ mile radius of this
neighborhood. She noted that Councilmember Willmus had stated in the past
that even though the city owns the 2132 Cleveland Avenue parcel, if it was
later determined not to be needed for a park or if people didn’t want a park at
that location, the city could sell the parcel.In conclusion, Councilmember
McGehee asked that planning for this parcel be delayed until further community
outreach was done tobetter understand what residents in that quadrant wanted.
pending a neighborhood meeting to gauge interest in a park at this location.
moved, Laliberte seconded, delaying action on this planning effort pending a
meeting to gauge interest in a part at this location, 2132 Cleveland Avenue.
Laliberte stated that while not opposed to the planning effort for this site,
she had previously stated that if it was determined at a later date in this
process that the property didn’t meet the preferred needs of this neighborhood,
it could potentially be sold. Councilmember Laliberte stated her support of
adding more parks to the southwest quadrant of Roseville and noted that she was
not in complete agreement that it was an under-served area for all. However,
Councilmember Laliberte stated her willingness to open up community discussions
via an open house to discuss the property, but to get off track about this
particular parcel to open up the entire southwest area sent things in a
different direction rather than making a decision about this parcel.
response to Councilmember McGehee’s comments, Councilmember Etten clarified
that both of these parcels had been identified in the Parks Renewal Program
Master Plan as under-served areas when the constellation areas were identified,
even though somepark amenities and open space were within walking distance to
this neighborhood. Councilmember Etten further clarified that this provided an
opportunity for the city to follow through on the interests of dozens of
southwest Roseville residents involved in the Master Plan and Park Renewal
process when this parcel became available and open for sale to the city.
Therefore, Councilmember Etten opined that it was important for the city to
fulfill its pledge to this area of Roseville as it had done with other areas of
the Master Plan process.
Roe stated his concern about continued hope that the 2025 parcel was available
for purchase and park development as opposed to this city-owned parcel. Even
if the 2025 parcel was more desirable to some residents, Mayor Roe reminded all
that there was no guarantee it would become available at a viable cost if at
all. Mayor Roe opined that a park on the 2132 parcel could be anything, and
while a wide-open area now, it was not impossible for it to develop into what
the neighborhood desires. Mayor Roe reiterated his concern that some kept
holding out hope for purchase of the 2025 parcel, noting that the comments
related to the previous request about pre-conceived notions could also be
applied to this request. Mayor Roe stated that he preferred to move forward
with the planning process on a parcel that the city owned; and if citizens
didn’t want the city to develop this parcel as a park, they would let the city
know. However, Mayor Roe opined that he anticipated that the neighborhood and
community would support a park on this parcel.
McGehee stated that she had no problem except in spending money on this parcel
that could be used for other projects instead of spending the money on developing
a mowed area next the freeway entrance. Councilmember McGehee noted that the
overarching problem is the city’s need to seriously address another area to be
maintained, with the Parks and Recreation assets the most poorly sustained
capital assets, with this becoming just one more park to maintain.
Councilmember McGehee clarified that as long as it was clear that this was not a
substantial need, and that this parcel (2132) was not considered a blank slate
for a natural area that would never come to fruition in this City Council’s
lifetime, as long as there was a clear understanding that this wasn’t the only
park development available as part of remaining Parks Renewal Program monies, and
there would be additional funds available to actively pursue the resident
requested2025 site, she was satisfied that her point had been made.
Laliberte asked staff if the $28,900 to LHB for design services could be staged;
and if after one initial community conversation about this parcel, there was no
clear consensus about potential park amenities, would there be an opportunity
to pause the process and not commit all of the dollars. Councilmember
Laliberte clarified that this was the parcel she was focusing on, and that she
considered the other parcel and the larger southwest quadrant as separate
and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke noted that the cost was a “not to exceed
cost” and concurred that if one meeting was held and there was no neighborhood
and/or community support for a park on this parcel, the process would be paused
and no more monies expended than with that initial effort. Mr. Brokke noted
that there was no interest by the city or consultant in moving forward with
something that the community didn’t want.
Laliberte withdrew her second to the motion, opining that outside comments and
the perspective of an outside entity would prove helpful at this point.
Councilmember Laliberte also noted that there may be residents who haven’t yet
been engaged before now, and therefore, taking a step back to involve those
voices would be helpful.
Roe ruled the McGehee motion to delay action therefore failed due to the lack
of a second.
moved, Laliberte seconded, authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to enter into
a Professional Services Agreement (Attachment A) with LHB for design services
for a new city park at 2132 Cleveland Avenue, in an amount not to exceed
$28,900 to be funded through Park Renewal Program monies.
Laliberte expressed appreciation for this more in-depth discussion.
Etten cautioned that by not developing a park on this parcel it may preclude
any park development in this area in the near future. Councilmember Etten
opined that the city had made a promise to this quadrant of the city as part of
the Parks Renewal Program process and this was a way to fulfill that promise.
McGehee opined that it wasn’t attractive to threaten the public in such terms
as those expressed by Councilmember Etten.
Roe noted that threatening types of comments had been made by some
councilmembers over the years; and opined that he didn’t see Councilmember
Etten’s comments as a threat, but a caution to those intent to stack the deck
and negate development of the 2132 parcel as a potential park. Mayor Roe reminded
all that the city had looked at two other properties along with other sites for
potential parks as part of the Parks Renewal Program, with none of them working
out so far. Mayor Roe noted that these parcels had also been identified for
park/open space potential, and this one site had become available. Mayor Roe
clarified that this wasn’t using up remaining Parks Renewal Program monies, but
did allow the process to move forward most rapidly rather than experiencing
further long-term delays.
Willmus, Etten, Laliberte and Roe.
Receive 2016 Audit Report and Financial Statements
Finance Director Jason Schirmacher introduced Auditor Andrew Grice from the firm
of BerganKDV, Ltd. for an overview of the 2016 annual audit report, the audit
process itself and any required disclosures or findings. Mr. Grice
congratulated the City of Roseville on their “Certificate of Achievement for Excellence
in Financial Reporting” presented again this year for the city’s comprehensive
annual award-winning financial reports, and recognition by other jurisdictions
for that effort.
provided and reviewed by Mr. Grice were entitled: “Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report,” “Communication Letter,” and Reports on Internal Control and
Compliance with Government Auditing Standard and Legal Compliance” for fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016.
presentation included a review of the General Fund budget to actual for 2016;
and a financial analysis by fund: the General Fund, Tax Capacity, Levy and
Rates; and the following Enterprise Funds: Water Fund; Sewer Fund; Golf Course;
Solid Waste Recycling; and Storm Drainage.
Laliberte thanked Mr. Grice for his summary report and asked that a copy of the
presentation be included in tonight’s meeting packets. Mayor Roe also noted
that all documents would subsequently be made available on the city’s financial
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, acceptance of the 2016 Annual Financial Report as presented.
Consideration of a Community Development Department Request to
Perform an Abatement for Unresolved City Code Violations at 1715 Rice Street
noted, this item was resolved by the property owner and removed from tonight’s
Approve Request for Noise Variance for the 2017
Cured-In-Place-Pipe (CIP) Project
Works Director Jesse Freihammer provided a brief summary of this request as
detailed in the RCA.
the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Freihammer estimated that the work would involve taking
place in one day. Mr. Freihammer advised that staff would notify neighbors
hopefully one week in advance of the work.
opened the public hearing for this request at approximately 7:52
Johnson, 955 Woodhill Drive (first house next to the Nursing Home)
Johnson questioned when the work would occur, how long it would last and how
loud it was expected to be.
Freihammer responded that the equipment sound would be similar to that of a car
idling; and the most noticeable sound would probably come from back-up alarms
on the vehicles (Attachment A). As displayed in a map by Mr. Freihammer, Ms.
Johnson was provided the probable location of the equipment to be used.
no one else appearing to speak for or against, Mayor Roe closed the public
hearing at approximately 7:54 p.m.
McGehee advised that this type of work had occurred in front of her home and
was not problematic. Councilmember McGehee suggested that Ms. Johnson work
with staff to find a location where similar boilers were being used to get an
idea of the noise level.
Roe agreed that the contractor could alert Ms. Johnson to another location that
she could observe so she could be aware of what to expect.
moved, Etten seconded, approval of a request to extend working hours on the
2017 CIPP Lining Project for the Woodhill Drive segment between Lakeview Avenue
and Victoria Street.
Consider Presumptive Penalty Approval – Cub Liquor Store
Lt. Lorne Rosand provided a brief summary of this compliance failure as
detailed in the RCA and attachments. Lt. Rosand also reviewed the process used
for this semi-annual alcohol compliance check.
representative of the business was present at tonight’s meeting.
moved, Etten seconded, authorization for the Roseville Police Department to
issue and administer the presumptive penalty for Cub Liquor Store at 1201
Larpenteur Avenue as set forth in Section 302.15 of Roseville City Code; for a
zero day suspension and $1,000 fine.
Consider Presumptive Penalty Approval – Hamline Liquor Store
Lt. Lorne Rosand provided a brief summary of this compliance failure as
detailed in the RCA and attachments. Lt Rosand advised that this licensee had
been found to be two years out of compliance for training; but since then all
records had been brought up-to-date. Lt. Rosand advised that the business
manager was present in tonight’s audience.
Saeyang, Business Manager
Saeyang stated how sorry she was and how horrible she felt with this mistake.
Ms. Saeyang promised that in the future, they would improve and try their best
not to let this happen again.
No one appeared
for public comment related to this issue.
moved, Etten seconded, authorization for the Roseville Police Department to
issue and administer the presumptive penalty for Hamline Liquor Store at 2825
Hamline Avenue N as set forth in Section 302.15 of Roseville City Code; for a
zero day suspension and a $1,000 fine.
McGehee thanked Ms. Saeyang for appearing and expressing her unhappiness with
the mistake. Ms. McGehee stated that while there was no alternative but to
administer the presumptive penalty, she appreciated Ms. Saeyang’s appearance at
the Council meeting, her apology for the mistake, and her bringing the server
training documents up to date.
Roe sought the City Council’s interest in applying a penalty for the lack of
up-to-date training records; with no interest shown in doing so.
Mayor Roe recessed
the meeting at approximately 8:04 p.m., and reconvened at approximately p.m.
Review and Provide Comment on the First Two Chapters of a
Comprehensive Technical Update to the Requirements and Procedures for
Processing Subdivision Proposals as Regulated in City Code, Title 11
detailed in the RCA dated April 24, 2017 (tabled to tonight’s meeting), Senior
Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed the process in this first iteration of a
side-by-side comparison of current subdivision code and preparation revisions.
In the review of the first two chapters, Mr. Lloyd noted that consultant and
staff comments and suggested revisions, as well as Planning Commission
discussions of the first two chapters were reflected in this draft for City
Council review and comment. Except in those areas highlighted, Mr. Lloyd
advised that the majority of the revisions represent replacement or removal of
outdated language, definitions needed or no long relevant, and other updates as
indicated. Mr. Lloyd also noted that while the more important details remain
in the subdivision code, staff was recommending relocation of more technical
(e.g. street types and specifications) in documents outside city code for
easier and more periodic updating. Mr. Lloyd advised that this was in response
to the City Council’s interest in a more streamlined process but greater depth
of detail similar to the preliminary plat application process, and thus
the Planning Commission just having completed their review of the remaining
chapters, a second look at the first two chapters at their May 3, 2017 meeting,
and meeting minutes pending, Mr. Lloyd advised that a more formalized version
and those minutes would be available for the City Council at their next review,
May 15, 2017.
to the proposed formatting and drafting of a new subdivision code, Mr. Lloyd
advised that the intent was that, since platting alternatives are more
concentrated in the last chapter of the current subdivision code, they would
now be encompassed in a process-focused chapter. Therefore, Mr. Lloyd advised
that revisions from the fourth chapter and final chapter of current code were
not located in another portion of code that the City Council would see tonight
unless found unnecessary to retain. While there remain three chapters yet to
review, Mr. Lloyd advised that all content of current code would and could be
accounted for in the new proposed code in some way.
Lamb and Leila Bunge, Kimley-Horn
Lamb clarified that closer tracking would be accomplished in the next draft as
Chapter 1104 procedure language is brought into Chapter 1102, and reducing the
subdivision code from four to three chapters to make it more streamlined. Mr.
Lamb suggested the City Council proceed with their review page by page,
addressing each accordingly.
RCA Exhibit C
Lamb noted that while the Planning Commission continued their interest in discussing
each definition, he suggested that the City Council review only those with
which they had questions or comments. Mr. Lamb noted that there were few
additions, with the majority eliminated or consolidated.
1 (Purpose and Jurisdiction)
Section 6, Mayor Roe noted that Minnesota State Statute Chapter 471 was
highlighted but 462 was the actual addition.
Lamb agreed that was an error, and confirmed that Chapter 471 had been in
previous subdivision code, and Chapter 462 was now added.
Section 11, Councilmember McGehee asked if a diagram or something less
cumbersome than the description for a “corner lot” could be used.
Roe agreed that illustrations are helpful.
Lloyd advised that, per the latest Planning Commission discussion, they were
recommending that no definition of “corner lot” was necessary.
Lamb agreed that graphic representations were an excellent suggestion, often
proving helpful and expressed his willingness to consider them in other areas
of the subdivision code, even though he had intended to exclude “corner lots”
from the revised subdivision ordinance.
Willmus noted the reference to “corner lots” and “interior lots;” with Mr.
Lloyd advising that they were now in other areas of city code, but not in the
revised subdivision code.
Roe noted a number of places in the subdivision code that referenced “parcel,”
(e.g. Section 20) and while there was a definition for “lot,” there was not one
included for “parcel.” Mayor Roe suggested one be included or one for “parcel
of record;” and that either the same term be used throughout the document or
referred to individually in the definitions.
Section 25, Mayor Roe requested correction in the definition of “pedestrian”
for language “on foot,” rather than “afoot.”
Section 38, Mayor Roe asked why a subdivision was identified as less than five
acres in area.
Lamb agreed that was a good question; whether it was related to function or
maximum lot size.
Roe questioned why this was, and if it would preclude meeting the needs of a
particular subdivision, and suggested it may be carried over from original code
and asked for further research; duly noted by Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Lamb.
Lloyd responded that in his review of State Statute earlier today, it addressed
size parameters, but agreed it didn’t match this language.
7, Chapter 1102: Plat Procedures
Section 57, Councilmember Etten asked that staff talk about common wall duplex
Lloyd advised that he only remembered two times it came up during his tenure,
but reviewed potential division of common wall duplexes into two separate
parcels with the common wall dividing the building and parcel. Mr. Lloyd
advised that the suggestion was to make this currently handled administrative
process consistent with other administrative processes for approval by the
Community Development Department rather than the City Manager. Even though the
Planning Commission recommended removal of this provision from the subdivision
process due to the small scale of requests in which an application or process
is necessary, Mr. Lloyd noted that it could come up from time to time such as
with a duplex becoming a townhome with separate ownership.
the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Lloyd stated staff’s recommendation
to allow the provision in the revised draft, depending on City Council
was the consensus of the City Council to keep this provision in the revised
Section 58, Councilmember McGehee questioned the rationale for no public
hearing required for a recombination.
Lloyd clarified that this was not new to city code, but in discussions with the
Planning Commission, it had been their thought that if there was no process
required for public notification or discussion of an application, not much was
to be gained as a City Council consideration for action. Mr. Lloyd advised
that the process could change if preferred by the City Council and notification
requirements met accordingly, since those people affected may not even know an
application had been made in the first place.
McGehee stated that she preferred a public hearing for recombinations,
especially if they create a much larger lot that could be used for a different
use than the original parcel; and at a minimum opined that the community or
neighborhood should be informed.
Willmus stated the opposite perspective, and questioned if a hearing was
needed. Councilmember Willmus stated that he saw recombinations as a homeowner
purchasing a lot or portion of a lot next door to increase the size of their
lot. Councilmember Willmus opined that some protections were in place if a
recombination was to subdivide and create multiple lots of four or more, at
which time it would come back before the City Council, as well as if there is a
potential change to zoning after a recombination. Therefore, Councilmember Willmus
questioned the need for a formal public hearing.
Roe stated his preference to think it through more, noting that some
administrative actions of the Community Development Department provide that
notice is required. Therefore, Mayor Roe suggested such notice could still be
required in the case of a recombination even if there was no formal public
hearing held before the Planning Commission or City Council, and still allow an
opportunity for citizens to be aware of it.
McGehee agreed with the comments of Councilmember Willmus, stating that she had
initially thought that multiple lots could be acquired and re-divided with
building removed, with notice provided before that was all done and money
invested with those having an interest made aware of it beforehand.
Lloyd clarified that a recombination process was of much smaller scale than
Councilmember McGehee was addressing; similar to one seen last year by the City
Council where two adjacent homeowners made application to change the make-up of
their adjoining lots for the addition of an unattached garage on one of those
lots. For subdivisions that change the overall make-up of a series of lots,
Mr. Lloyd advised it was similar to a plat application instead.
Roe noted that with a recombination, the total outcome of the process was that
you started and ultimately ended with two lots, and were simply shifting lot
lines. Without objection, Mayor Roe asked that consideration be given to
providing notice to neighbors similar to that done for other administrative
actions by the Community Development Department.
Line 60, Mayor Roe noted the comment for the Planning Commission’s
recommendation to add a deadline once approved but staff’s comment that it
would be difficult to enforce; and sought clarification.
Lloyd explained the timeline involved, making it difficult for applicants to
meet if a resident was carrying it forward on their own and not immediately
familiar with the process itself; and if not completed, subsequently difficult
for staff to enforce. If not enforceable, Mr. Lloyd questioned if it was
worthwhile imposing it to begin with. However, since the Planning Commission
discussion, Mr. Lloyd referenced discussions with the City Attorney who recommended
that it was still appropriate to have a timeline, and enforce it by withholding
a building permit to ensure the process is completed. Therefore, Mr. Lloyd
advised that staff’s recommendation, based on the City Attorney’s advice, would
be to add a reasonable timeline for recording of any of these applications.
However, Mr. Lloyd opined that one year may be more than enough, but two months
seemed not enough time.
Willmus opined that any timeline called out should mirror that in place at the
Lloyd advised that he would research those timelines for city approved items.
Roe suggested a six-month timeline as a reasonable compromise providing the
process is clear for applicants and anyone involved.
Section 61 (Minor Plat), Mr. Lloyd advised that the idea was essentially for a
Minor Subdivision process with a greater level of detail at the front end of
applications, and required filing of the plat documents at the end of the
McGehee stated her interest in providing public notice of a project with a map
or picture of the area; and addressing the layout, drainage and tree
preservation in this area as well as with other areas of code where applicable.
Councilmember McGehee referenced the Oak Acres project as a case in point,
where the results had been clear-cutting with no drainage plan; opining
something was missing in the city’s current process.
Lamb noted that this was intended to be addressed in Chapter 1103; with
concurrence by Mr. Lloyd in the standards and layout provisions. If the City
Council agrees that this process seems reasonable to pursue, Mr. Lloyd
recommended that staff then begin drafting application forms and a process
providing specific requirements for the detail required versus having it
codified in the subdivision ordinance itself.
Roe suggested that the broader question for the City Council is how much to
take out of requirements shown in the subdivision code and moved to the
application form. Mayor Roe stated that he was uncomfortable with virtually
everything removed from the code and moved to the application form since part
of the City Council’s legislative power was for these basic things. Especially
with the minor subdivisions coming forward over the last few years, Mayor Roe
noted the lack of specific information that created problems. Since the City
Council has voiced their collective and individual concerns with that, Mayor
Roe asked for discussion (e.g. page 12, applications) and whether the
preference was for a basic list of requirements that carry through from this
preliminary plat and other processes without lengthy details for every aspect
of each requirement.
Etten concurred with the comments of Mayor Roe and Councilmember McGehee, and
while trusting staff, stated his preference that the requirements are described
in this subdivision code in some way to clearly set forth the expectations of
the City Council of those requirements.
Laliberte agreed, stated that she wasn’t comfortable with all of those
requirements coming out of this code to the application form; opining that
minimum requirements should remain in the subdivision code.
McGehee stated her preference that the City Attorney provide some level of
confidence that the City Council has sufficient enforcement authority through
its City Code to exercise its legislative authority in approving or denying things
that could become problematic and having an opportunity to have adequate
finding for Council action.
Section 62, Item 2.ii, Mayor Roe noted the important language that something
couldn’t be applied for multiple times; and suggested even further clarified
language such as approved “and recorded” within five years.
Lloyd clarified that Subpart 2.i stated that, and Subpart 2.ii was intended for
five acre pieces of land to ensure that they couldn’t be divided multiple times
to subvert the major plat process.
Roe duly noted that clarification, agreeing that his proposed language may not
be necessary, but suggested it be considered as food for thought.
McGehee suggested the need to make sure things were properly recorded to ensure
there were no unrecorded outstanding approvals.
Lloyd advised that those things were easier to catch as they showed up on
Ramsey County parcel maps used by staff. However, Mr. Lloyd advised that they
were harder to catch if, for example, something was approved this year with
recording of the documents required within a few months, but not done for
several years, but instead done immediately before coming to the city with a
new application and now yet making it through the process for easy tracking.
Roe opined that if they were recorded, they should still be available for the
Section 63, Councilmember McGehee noted the one year reference for approval as
an example she’d previously addressed.
Sections 65 through 71 (Developer Open House Meeting), while not brought up
until Item 72 (Preliminary Plat Process), Councilmember Etten suggested those
sections may better fit between Sections 72 through 83 on page 17.
Councilmember Etten opined it would catch the eye of the developer as part of that
Lloyd hesitated in his response based on his perspective of how those
provisions fit into the broader or global picture. While it’s helpful in this
initial review to see a side-by-side presentation of today’s code and that
proposed, Mr. Lloyd advised that when the format is changed for the new
iteration, some of those sections will come to light; at which time he’d prefer
that the City Council see if it made more sense than as suggested by
Councilmember Etten. Mr. Lloyd advised that one reason to have it out front
was because it didn’t apply to all plats (e.g. several commercial plots into
one), and while not every application will include it as part of the process, he
would consider its placement.
Etten questioned if Mr. Lloyd was looking for a separate definition; with Mr.
Lloyd responding that yes, the process would be outlined and then an applicant,
in consultation with staff, could determine if they met the parameters.
Etten suggested points of reference for people to look to as developers review
a particular segment of code; agreeing to consider whether it made more sense
upfront or as a reference point.
the combination of Chapter 1102 with Chapter 1004, Mr. Lamb noted that the next
iteration would look different.
McGehee sought clarification from staff on which portion of the open house
process staff had taken back from the developer based on practical use.
Roe noted that the open house process itself had been updated recently, and
this process would parallel it.
Planner Paschke clarified that the only part of the open house process staff
had taken back from the developer was drafting the invitations, with the
developer still responsible for holding the open house.
Section 72, Councilmember McGehee suggested requiring drainage as one of the
criteria; with Mayor Roe clarifying that this was simply an abbreviated list of
Section 83.F, Mayor Roe asked staff to make sure the validation timeframe
language was consistent.
Lamb noted this had been relocated from Chapter 1104.
McGehee questioned why Minnesota Statute Chapter 462 language had been removed
as related to “undue hardships.”
Lloyd clarified that the term in the current subdivision code is “unusual
hardship” which represented a different standard from “undue hardship” used in
zoning code and now referred to based on revised language in State Statute as “practical
Section 87, Mr. Lloyd noted one provision in State Statute was that a variance
was only approved when specific grounds had been identified. Mr. Lloyd advised
that the proposed subdivision code language had been specifically taken from
current zoning code, and asked the City Council if they seemed adequate on
their own or if more items than the proposed four items shown were needed.
McGehee reiterated her suggestion to include something related to drainage in
Roe clarified that this is intended as findings and grounds to grant a
Lloyd provided an example of a large residential parcel subdivided in a way to
create two conforming sized lots, but with the existing improvement over the
allowable impervious coverage, which may affect drainage in some way. Mr.
Lloyd advised that would be what the applicant was seeking a variance to; and a
specific item for City Council review at that time.
To get at Councilmember McGehee’s point, Councilmember Willmus asked under what
obligation the city was required to issue a variance or what specific language
the city could impose. Councilmember Willmus stated that he wasn’t sure the
city was required to provide a variance in the first place.
response, City Attorney Gaughan advised that an applicant for a subdivision
must adhere to standards unless there was a hardship, and at the City Council’s
discretion they could then grant a variance. In working with staff on this
provision, Mr. Gaughan suggested that specificity was good in terms of
conditions proceeding a variance approval. Mr. Gaughan clarified that this
wasn’t intended as a tug of war whether or not a variance should be granted,
but if a particular item was of particular importance to the city for
subdivisions, as per Councilmember McGehee’s point, he suggested that it would
be appropriate to include those items as the basis for approval or denial. For
example, Mr. Gaughan suggested that including specific reference to city
standards, including water issues and drainage if that was one of the city’s
priorities; and therefore, recommended that the city consider specific
references in variance provision or at least reference adherence to land
Lloyd reminded the City Council that they would see this again for action and
suggested that between now and then, opportunity would be available for the
City Council to consider what provisions would work well in this section.
a variance was granted to a particular provision of the subdivision code, Mayor
Roe noted that the city could still be approving the subdivision and adhering
to requirements with the exception of that one thing. Mayor Roe opined that
the City Council’s catch in that process was that ultimately it would still be
approving the subdivision other than the requirement to which the variance was
Attorney Gaughan asked that the City Council think about what it believes is
appropriate for an unusual hardship that they may want to include.
Roe questioned if that could be known until practical use under the revised
the request of Mr. Lamb, the consensus of the City Council was that they were seeking
for more specificity beyond the currently listed four points and more specific
than those references.
Etten asked if this specificity would create adverse impacts on neighboring
properties that could open up new issues.
Attorney Gaughan responded that similar to Item 4, about not altering the
essential character of the locality, suggested that “adverse impacts on
surrounding lots” may be a good starting point for an Item #5.
Lamb suggested those adverse impacts may be applicable in more specificity to
Item #4; with Councilmembers Etten and McGehee disagreeing, opining that #4 was
different than “adverse affects;” duly noted by Mr. Lamb.
Roe suggested an adverse affect could be stormwater, but not limited to that
Section 141, Item 2 (Storm sewers), Councilmember McGehee questioned if there
were areas in Roseville still having private storm sewers, with Public Works
Director Marc Culver confirming that there were.
Etten asked for an explanation of staff’s comment about the Public Works
Department confirming if this section should be in the subdivision code or the
Public Works Design Standards manual.
Lloyd noted that this had been part of earlier discussions today with Public
Works staff. While these provisions are currently included in this draft of
the subdivision code, Mr. Lloyd advised that greater specificity (Section 147 –
e.g. standard of pavement construction) seemed more applicable in the Design
Standards manual. As with the need to balance information that should be
included in the subdivision code or on the particular plat application, Mr.
Lloyd suggested language in code that referenced city standards, with deeper
detail provided in the manual itself and as industry standards changed
Section 29, questioned if those specific references in Item 3 (concrete curbs
and gutters) were what Mr. Lloyd was referring to as moving to applicable
requirements of the Public Works design document; with confirmation of that by
McGehee questioned if the manual had been completed and was available.
Roe suggested that it would eventually become a public document.
Works Director Marc Culver advised that the manual was still a work in
progress; with initial reviews done by the Public Works, Environment and
Transportation Commission (PWETC) and Planning Commission. Mr. Culver advised
that the City Council would see it as an attachment to the subdivision code at
upcoming meetings prior to their final approval of the code. While close to
completion, Mr. Culver advised that it was still in draft form until completion
of this subdivision code rewrite to determine what information goes where.
general and based on previous discussions with Environmental Specialist Ryan
Johnson related to storm water efforts and green streets, Councilmember McGehee
opined that the city should rethink its current practice requiring sodding
behind curbs when installed allowing all the runoff going into the gutters.
Since sod doesn’t end up working for boulevards most of the time, Councilmember
McGehee suggested that “sod” be removed as a requirement allowing for small
swales to be installed behind curbs where applicable.
Culver referenced Section 153, Item 7 as a location of the term “sodding;” with
Mr. Culver duly noting Councilmember McGehee’s request for more flexibility in
actual practice with flexibility to allow rain gardens, etc, with some already
installed behind curb areas.
30 - 31
McGehee noted references (Section 157 as an example) that could provide for
more flexibility and more subtle than a rain garden.
Willmus agreed with Councilmember McGehee’s point and area of concern; and
suggested removal of the term “sodded.”
Culver duly noted the requests, and suggested referencing “stabilized” rather
Roe noted that the city had a requirement for lot coverage that it needed to be
finished in accordance with that section of code and not just black dirt.
Lamb duly noted this discussion.
McGehee also noted the need to look at tree preservation in the context of the
subdivision code, which had proven difficult to address to-date.
Development Director Kari Collins reviewed timing for the remainder of this
review as previously addressed by Mr. Lloyd; with part two of the review
scheduled for next week’s Council meeting. Ms. Collins noted that the initial
plan was to have the City Council adopt the revised subdivision code by the end
of May. However, Ms. Collins advised that the Planning Commission had tabled
the public hearing until their June meeting for one more look at the document
before making their recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Collins stated
that the City Council would be proud of the thorough job the Commission was
doing; but clarified that the schedule would not meet the expiration of the
moratorium. Ms. Collins advised that staff was monitoring any applications
that may come in between that expiration and enactment of this new code.
discussion was held as to extending the moratorium, with staff and Mayor Roe
confirming that the city would not be able to meet the statutory requirements
for an extension at this point.
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 City Council/Roseville School Board Joint Work Session Minutes
– April 17, 2017
moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the April
17, 2017 City Council/Roseville School Board Joint Work Session Meeting
Minutes as presented.
Approve City Council Minutes – April
Willmus seconded, approval of the April
24, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes as presented.
Roe pointed out a seven-page bench handout from the April 24th
meeting from the Citizens Climate Lobby requesting a city resolution of
support; and sought consensus as to whether to include it as an attachment to
the meeting minutes, since it was not testimony related to a specific proposal
before the city and material not considered or approved by the City Council.
McGehee spoke in support of attaching it to the meeting minutes, since it had
been brought forward at a public meeting for consideration.
objection, staff was directed to include the bench handout as an attachment to
the meeting record.
Approve Consent Agenda
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly highlighted those items being
considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for
Council Action (RCA) and related attachments dated May
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and detailed.
85285 – 85464
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as noted in
the RCA and Attachment A entitled, “2017 Summary of Scheduled CIP Items,” updated
April 30, 2017.
Appoint Members to the Human Rights, Inclusion and Engagement
McGehee seconded, appointment to the Human Rights, Inclusion and Engagement
Commission of Lisa Carey, Wayne Groff, and Lauren Peterson to respective terms
ending March 31, 2018; Nicole Dailey, John Eichenlaub, and Erik Tomlinson to
respective terms ending March 31, 2019; and Etienne Djevi, Chelsea Holub,
Edward Johnson and Michelle Manke to respective terms ending March 31, 2020.
moved, McGehee seconded, authorizing the City Council Subcommittee on
Commissions to serve as the ex-officio chairs of the Human Rights, Inclusion,
and Engagement Commission until such time officers are elected by members of
Approve Contract for Engineering Services for Rehabilitation of
Lounge Lift Station
McGehee seconded, authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a
Professional Services Agreement (Attachment A) with Bolton & Menk, Inc. for
engineering services for reconstruction of the Lounge Sanitary Sewer Lift
Station, in an amount not to exceed $44,400.
Approve Resolution Awarding Bid for 2017 Utility Projects
McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11415 (Attachment A) entitled,
“Resolution Awarding Bids for 2017 Utility Project to Northdale Construction
Co., Inc., in an amount not to exceed $146,929.36.
Approve Resolution Authorizing Bonten Driveway Easement Agreement
McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11416 (Attachment A) entitled,
“Resolution Approving Driveway Easement Agreement (Attachment B) with Bonten
VII, LLC; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document.
Approve Resolution Approving the Acquisition of Easement at 345 S
McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11417 (Attachment A) entitled,
“Resolution Approving the Acquisition of a Drainage and Utility Easement
(Attachment B) by the City of Roseville;” at 345 S Owasso Boulevard; and
authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document.
Approve Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Master
McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11418 (Attachment A) entitled,
“Resolution to Enter into a Master Partnership Contract (Attachment B) with the
Minnesota Department of Transportation;” allowing for numerous partnership
services in accordance with work orders executed for each activity by the
Public Works Director.
& City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements
Initiated Future Agenda Items and Future Agenda Review
email sent to council members earlier, City Manager Trudgeon noted that
interviews were planned for one vacancy on the Planning Commission, with seven
applications received to-date. Mr. Trudgeon asked if council members preferred
a date other than a regular City Council meeting date, proposed for May
22, 2017, with an earlier start date (e.g. 5:30
discussion, and without objection, Mayor Roe confirmed the council’s preference
to schedule a 5:30 p.m. start time for the May 22, 2017 City Council meeting,
starting with interviews.
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:18