Roseville MN Homepage
Search
 

View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

RosevilleHeadline

City Council


City Council Meeting Minutes

May 8, 2017

 

1.            Roll Call

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 Allegiance

 

3.         Approve Agenda

City Manager 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 this site.

 

Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Items 9.d and 9.e from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.

 

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.

 

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

4.         Public Comment

 

5.            Recognitions, Donations and Communications

 

a.            Human Rights Essay Contest Winners

Mayor Roe 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.

 

Groff 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.

 

Chair Groff presented certificates to Honorable Mention winners: David Vincze and Nina de los Reyes and summarized their essay topics.

 

This year’s 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 Kelly Patrick

§  First Place: Seigenn Thao, 8th grade, Roseville Area Middle School (RAMS), Instructor Scott Lauinger

 

Mayor Roe congratulated students, and recognized and thanked all instructors involved for their participation in this annual event.

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:08 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 7:11 p.m.

 

b.            Introduction of Assistant City Manager Rebecca Olson

City Manager 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).

 

Assistant City 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.

 

6.            Items Removed from Consent Agenda

 

d.            Approve Planning and Design Services for 1716 Marion Street

At 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.

 

Councilmember 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.

 

While 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.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that there may be amenities other than playgrounds that could be of more use to this neighborhood in that area.

 

Councilmember 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.

 

Mayor Roe offered an opportunity for public comment, with no one appearing to speak.

 

McGehee 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.

           

Councilmember Etten 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 this case.

 

Councilmember 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.

         

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

e.            Approve Planning and Design Services for 2132 Cleveland Avenue

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly highlighted this item as detailed in the RCA and related attachments dated May 8, 2017.

 

As 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.

Public Comment

Vijay Pothapragada, 2250 Midland Grove

Mr. 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.

 

Mayor 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.

 

Councilmember 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.

 

Motion pending a neighborhood meeting to gauge interest in a park at this location.

McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, delaying action on this planning effort pending a meeting to gauge interest in a part at this location, 2132 Cleveland Avenue.

 

Councilmember 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.

 

In 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.

 

Mayor 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.

 

Councilmember 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.

 

Councilmember 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 issues.

 

Parks 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.

 

Councilmember 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.

 

Mayor Roe ruled the McGehee motion to delay action therefore failed due to the lack of a second.

 

Willmus 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.

 

Councilmember Laliberte expressed appreciation for this more in-depth discussion.

 

Councilmember 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.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that it wasn’t attractive to threaten the public in such terms as those expressed by Councilmember Etten.

 

Mayor 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.

                       

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.

Abstentions: McGehee.

Motion carried.

 

7.            Business Items

 

a.            Receive 2016 Audit Report and Financial Statements

Assistant 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.

 

Documents 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.

 

Mr. Grice’s 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.

 

Councilmember 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 web page.

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, acceptance of the 2016 Annual Financial Report as presented.

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

b.            Consideration of a Community Development Department Request to Perform an Abatement for Unresolved City Code Violations at 1715 Rice Street

As previously noted, this item was resolved by the property owner and removed from tonight’s agenda.

 

c.            Approve Request for  Noise Variance for the 2017 Cured-In-Place-Pipe (CIP) Project

Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer provided a brief summary of this request as detailed in the RCA.

 

At 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.

 

Roe opened the public hearing for this request at approximately 7:52 p.m.

 

Public Comment

Virginia Johnson, 955 Woodhill Drive (first house next to the Nursing Home)

Ms. Johnson questioned when the work would occur, how long it would last and how loud it was expected to be.

 

Mr. 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.

 

With no one else appearing to speak for or against, Mayor Roe closed the public hearing at approximately 7:54 p.m.

 

Councilmember 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.

 

Mayor 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.

 

McGehee 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.                      

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

d.            Consider Presumptive Penalty Approval – Cub Liquor Store Compliance Failure

Police 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.

 

No representative of the business was present at tonight’s meeting.

 

McGehee 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.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

e.            Consider Presumptive Penalty Approval – Hamline Liquor Store Compliance Failure

Police 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.

 

Sia Saeyang, Business Manager

Ms. 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.

 

McGehee 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.

 

Councilmember 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.

 

Mayor 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.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:04 p.m., and reconvened at approximately  p.m.

f.             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 (Subdivisions) (PROJ0042)

As 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 approached similarly.

 

With 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.

 

As 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.

 

Consultant Mike Lamb and Leila Bunge, Kimley-Horn

Mr. 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

1101: General Provisions

Mr. 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.

 

Page 1 (Purpose and Jurisdiction)

In Section 6, Mayor Roe noted that Minnesota State Statute Chapter 471 was highlighted but 462 was the actual addition.

 

Mr. Lamb agreed that was an error, and confirmed that Chapter 471 had been in previous subdivision code, and Chapter 462 was now added.

 

Page 2

In Section 11, Councilmember McGehee asked if a diagram or something less cumbersome than the description for a “corner lot” could be used.

 

Mayor Roe agreed that illustrations are helpful.

 

Mr. Lloyd advised that, per the latest Planning Commission discussion, they were recommending that no definition of “corner lot” was necessary.

 

Mr. 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.

 

Councilmember 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.

 

Page 3

Mayor 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.

 

Page 4

In Section 25, Mayor Roe requested correction in the definition of “pedestrian” for language “on foot,” rather than “afoot.”

 

Page 5

In Section 38, Mayor Roe asked why a subdivision was identified as less than five acres in area.

 

Mr. Lamb agreed that was a good question; whether it was related to function or maximum lot size.

 

Mayor 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.

 

Mr. Lloyd responded that in his review of State Statute earlier today, it addressed size parameters, but agreed it didn’t match this language.

 

Page 7, Chapter 1102: Plat Procedures

 

Page 8

In Section 57, Councilmember Etten asked that staff talk about common wall duplex subdivisions.

 

Mr. 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.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Lloyd stated staff’s recommendation to allow the provision in the revised draft, depending on City Council direction.

 

It was the consensus of the City Council to keep this provision in the revised subdivision code.

Page 9

In Section 58, Councilmember McGehee questioned the rationale for no public hearing required for a recombination.

 

Mr. 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.

 

Councilmember 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.

 

Councilmember 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. 

 

Mayor 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.

 

Councilmember 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.

 

Mr. 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.

 

Mayor 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.

 

Page 10

In 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.

 

Mr. 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.

 

Councilmember Willmus opined that any timeline called out should mirror that in place at the county level.

 

Mr. Lloyd advised that he would research those timelines for city approved items.

 

Mayor Roe suggested a six-month timeline as a reasonable compromise providing the process is clear for applicants and anyone involved.

 

Page 11

In 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 process.

 

Councilmember 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.

 

Mr. 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.

 

Mayor 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.

 

Councilmember 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.

 

Councilmember 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.

 

Councilmember 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.

 

Page 12

In 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.

 

Mr. 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.

 

Mayor Roe duly noted that clarification, agreeing that his proposed language may not be necessary, but suggested it be considered as food for thought.

 

Councilmember McGehee suggested the need to make sure things were properly recorded to ensure there were no unrecorded outstanding approvals.

 

Mr. 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.

 

Mayor Roe opined that if they were recorded, they should still be available for the city.

 

In Section 63, Councilmember McGehee noted the one year reference for approval as an example she’d previously addressed.

 

Page 13

In 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 process.

 

Mr. 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.

 

Councilmember 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.

 

Councilmember 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.

 

With the combination of Chapter 1102 with Chapter 1004, Mr. Lamb noted that the next iteration would look different.

 

Councilmember McGehee sought clarification from staff on which portion of the open house process staff had taken back from the developer based on practical use.

Mayor Roe noted that the open house process itself had been updated recently, and this process would parallel it.

 

City 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.

 

Page 15

In Section 72, Councilmember McGehee suggested requiring drainage as one of the criteria; with Mayor Roe clarifying that this was simply an abbreviated list of basic requirements.

 

Page 18

In Section 83.F, Mayor Roe asked staff to make sure the validation timeframe language was consistent.

 

Page 19 (Variances)

Mr. Lamb noted this had been relocated from Chapter 1104.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned why Minnesota Statute Chapter 462 language had been removed as related to “undue hardships.”

 

Mr. 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 difficulty.”

 

Page 20

In 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.

 

Councilmember McGehee reiterated her suggestion to include something related to drainage in this section.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that this is intended as findings and grounds to grant a variance.

 

Mr. 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.

 

In 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 performance standards.

 

Mr. 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.

 

If 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 granted.

 

City Attorney Gaughan asked that the City Council think about what it believes is appropriate for an unusual hardship that they may want to include.

 

Mayor Roe questioned if that could be known until practical use under the revised subdivision code.

 

At 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.

 

Councilmember Etten asked if this specificity would create adverse impacts on neighboring properties that could open up new issues.

 

City 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.

 

Mr. 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.

 

Mayor Roe suggested an adverse affect could be stormwater, but not limited to that only.

 

Page 28

In 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.

 

Page 29

Councilmember 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.

 

Mr. 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 periodically.

 

In 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 Mr. Lloyd.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned if the manual had been completed and was available.

 

Mayor Roe suggested that it would eventually become a public document.

 

Public 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.

 

In 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.

 

Mr. 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.

 

Page 30 - 31

Councilmember McGehee noted references (Section 157 as an example) that could provide for more flexibility and more subtle than a rain garden.

 

Councilmember Willmus agreed with Councilmember McGehee’s point and area of concern; and suggested removal of the term “sodded.”

 

Mr. Culver duly noted the requests, and suggested referencing “stabilized” rather than “sodded.”

 

Mayor 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.

 

Mr. Lamb duly noted this discussion.

 

Councilmember 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.

 

General Comments

Community 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.

 

Some 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.

 

8.            Approve Minutes

Comments and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight’s meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council packet.

 

a.            Approve City Council/Roseville School Board Joint Work Session Minutes – April 17, 2017

Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the April 17, 2017 City Council/Roseville School Board Joint Work Session Meeting Minutes as presented.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

b.            Approve City Council Minutes – April 24, 2017

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the April 24, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes as presented.

 

Mayor 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.

 

Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of attaching it to the meeting minutes, since it had been brought forward at a public meeting for consideration. 

 

Without objection, staff was directed to include the bench handout as an attachment to the meeting record.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.

                       

9.            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 8, 2017.

 

a.            Approve Payments

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and detailed.

 

ACH Payments

$482,609.44

85285 – 85464

790,010.25

TOTAL

$1,272,619.69

           

b.            Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of $5,000

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.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.

           

c.            Appoint Members to the Human Rights, Inclusion and Engagement Commission (HRIEC)

Etten moved, 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.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

Etten 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 the Commission.

                        Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

f.             Approve Contract for Engineering Services for Rehabilitation of Lounge Lift Station

Etten moved, 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.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

g.            Approve Resolution Awarding Bid for 2017 Utility Projects

Etten moved, 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.

                       

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

h.            Approve Resolution Authorizing Bonten Driveway Easement Agreement

Etten moved, 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.

                        Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

i.             Approve Resolution Approving the Acquisition of Easement at 345 S Owasso Boulevard

Etten moved, 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.

                       

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

j.             Approve Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Master Partnership Contract

Etten moved, 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.

                       

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

10.Council & City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements

11.Councilmember Initiated Future Agenda Items and Future Agenda Review

 

Referencing an 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 p.m.).

 

After some 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.

 

11.        Adjourn

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:18 p.m.

 

                             Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.

           

  1. Roseville MN Homepage

Contact Us

  1. Roseville City Hall

  2. 2660 Civic Center Drive

  3. Roseville, MN 55113


  4. Monday - Friday
    8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.


  5. Phone: 651-792-7000

  6. Email Us

Arrow Left Arrow Right
Slideshow Left Arrow Slideshow Right Arrow