View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
August 24, 2015
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order:
Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and
City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.
2. Pledge of
3. Approve Agenda
McGehee requested removal of Items d, g and i from the Consent Agenda for
Etten seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.
McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one
appeared to speak.
Communications, Reports, and Announcements
announced ongoing classes through the City's Roseville University providing
opportunities to learn how local government works and to obtain details of
behind-the-scenes operations. Mayor Roe advised that September classes would
feature the Fire Department with courses in operations 101, emergency
management, and a fire 101 offering a broader perspective of the Fire
Department, with classes on September 22, 23, 24 and 29, 2015 from 6:00 to 7:30
p.m. Mayor Roe noted that the classes are free, but sign-up is available by
contacting City Clerk Kari Collins at 651/792-7023 or via e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org;
as well as on the City's website, including showing other course offerings.
Donations and Communications
Proclaim September 25, 2015 Golden Kiwanis Peanut Day
invited representatives of the North Suburban Golden K Kiwanis Club,
headquartered in Roseville, to share about their organization in general and
this specific fundraiser. Representatives reported on the purpose of this
annual fundraiser, with funds going to the area food shelf and other programs
to help community youth educationally and spiritually.
Mayor Roe read
the Proclamation declaring September 25, 2015 as Golden K Kiwanis Peanut Day in
moved, McGehee seconded, proclaiming September 25, 2015 as Roseville Golden K
Kiwanis Peanut Day as a day set aside in Roseville for distribution of peanuts
as a fundraising effort to support the many and varied community youth programs
of the Golden K Kiwanis Club.
and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior
to tonight's meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft
presented in the Council packet.
Approve July 20, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes
Mayor Roe noted
that Councilmember McGehee had several corrections yet to be reviewed on pages
20-21, but did not have them available at tonight's meeting.
Laliberte seconded, TABLING action on the July 20, 2015 meeting minutes until
the next regular business meeting.
Approve Consent Agenda
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being
considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for
Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, dated August 24, 2015.
Etten seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and
78520 - 78697
Approve Business Licenses and Permits
Etten seconded, approval of renewals of business and other licenses and permits
for terms as noted.
Certify Unpaid Utility and Other Charges to the Property Tax
Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11242 (Attachment) entitled,
"Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Levy Unpaid Water, Sewer and Other City Charges for Payable 2015 or Beyond."
Approve Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for I-35W
at Cleveland Avenue Interchange Project
McGehee asked if any further discussion had been held about the Cleveland
Avenue crosswalk in this segment.
Trudgeon advised that the City had formally requested that Ramsey County
provide their rationale for denial of a crosswalk as had been requested by the
Director Marc Culver reported on a conversation late this afternoon with Ramsey
County staff, advising that they were going to perform a pedestrian count
crosswalk study at that intersection. However, Mr. Culver noted that, whether
marked or unmarked, the State of Minnesota was lacking in good education and/or
enforcement of intersections; with concerns in the industry that pedestrians
have an over-reliance of marked crosswalks anticipating vehicles will yield the
right-of-way and when marked providing a false sense of security for
McGehee advised that she had spoken with representatives of the school district
and their concerns were related to getting children across the street to the
bus stop; and she suggested other off-street options.
stated that he would further review and discuss the situation; however, from
his observations, it was safest for students to wait on one side until the
school bus crossing arm was out, as violations of that were enforceable when
reported by school bus drivers.
McGehee opined that was an excellent suggestion and sounded like a safer choice
for students, and suggested that information be shared by City staff with the
school district and neighbors.
Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11243 (Attachment A) entitled,
"Resolution Awarding Bid for Project P-14-81 - I-35W at Cleveland Avenue Interchange Reconstruction Project;" awarding the bid to Forest Lake Contracting, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $1,598,448.00.
Approve Licenses for Multi-family Rental Dwellings with Five or
Etten seconded, approval of multi-family rental dwelling licenses of five or
more units as listed and detailed in the RCA and related attachments dated
August 24, 2015.
Approve Resolution Requesting Speed Study on Cleveland Avenue
Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11244_ (Attachment A) entitled,
"Resolution Requesting Ramsey County to Request a Speed Study on Cleveland Avenue from Larpenteur Avenue to County Road B;" to be done by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT).
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of
Etten seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services, and
where applicable, trade-in/sale of surplus equipment as noted in the RCA and
Attachment A entitled, "2015 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," updated July
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Consider Items Removed from Consent
Adopt a Resolution Approving the Use of New Voting System
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed this request as
detailed in the RCA and related attachments, dated August 24, 2015.
Since the City
had chosen to contract election oversight to Ramsey County, Councilmember McGehee
asked if projected cost savings were still holding given the cost of these new
machines; and also asked if the new machines would be required if the City was
not part of Ramsey County's operations. Councilmember McGehee noted that there
still seemed to be considerable staff time involved with elections.
Trudgeon responded that with new federal and state laws, requirements to update
the current machines would be inevitable, especially given the age of the
existing machines. Mr. Trudgeon clarified that the cost of elections was
determined by the number of voters and annually reviewed, but given the
historically large voter turnout in Roseville, he saw no indication that costs
would be lessening.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, City Manager Trudgeon advised that the upcoming
school board election would involve a number of Roseville precincts and the new
voting machine system should be up and operating by then.
Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11245 (Attachment) entitled, "A Resolution Adopting the Use of New Voting System."
Laliberte asked staff to review municipal costs as they related specifically to
school board elections, with that request duly noted by City Manager Trudgeon
for future reporting to the City Council.
Laliberte noted that there had been some talk in the past about moving school
board elections to even years to correspond with municipal, state and federal
elections, thus her question regarding actual costs to the city for school
As part of that
information to be provided by staff, Mayor Roe asked that include if the city
received any reimbursement for those costs from the schooldistrict.
Resolution Approving TH36 at Lexington Avenue Bridge Project
Cooperative Construction Agreement
Willmus asked staff for how traffic volumes were anticipated to be handled
during the detour for this project; and how that impacted County Road B-2,
school start times, and dismissal times for the high school.
Director Culver advised that after Councilmember Willmus had previously brought
up those concerns, staff consulted with MnDOT staff specifically on those
issues; with a subsequent rerouting of the detour to County Road C and Snelling
rather than using County Road B-2.
sought clarification that Roseville did not currently have any pathway on the
east side of Lexington Avenue, with only the segment under the bridge as part
of this project proposed for now based on MnDOT's requirements that one be
located on both sides, and asked if that was a correct presumption on his part.
Director Culver responded that this was not actually the situation, but this
proposed sidewalk segment under the bridge had come about through staff working
with MnDOT based on the community's strong demand for additional pedestrian
facilities on the east side. Mr. Culver advised that there actually worn paths
currently in that area, indicating frequent use; therefore staff took advantage
of this reconstruction project opportunity to provide a more cost-effective way
to address that need and in a more timely way with less inconvenience to the
motoring traffic for its installation. Mr. Culver noted that subsequent to
that segment, the City still needed future conversations to determine how to
address the north and south sides of that, which were part of the larger
pathway priority picture. Mr. Culver noted that taking advantage of this construction
project was similar to past practice in installing segments wherever and
whenever possible at the lowest possible cost even without immediate benefit of
connecting to a larger system.
At the request
of Councilmember Etten, Public Works Director Culver clarified the location of
this segment and how it related to future segments and how far to extend those
connections in the future.
Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11246 (Attachment A) entitled,
"Resolution Approving MnDOT Cooperative Construction Agreement No. 06980;"
approving TH36 at Lexington Avenue Bridge Project Cooperative Construction
Agreement (Attachment B).
Request for Renewed Approval of the Existing Temporary Classroom
Structure to Remain on the Property at 2131 Fairview Avenue as an Interim Use
for an Additional Two Years, through 2018
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed this request as
detailed in the RCA and related attachments, dated August 24, 2015. Mr.
Trudgeon noted a revised resolution was made available as a bench handout that
was more reflective of the Planning Commission's additional Condition B and
providing more direct language about the applicant providing information to the
Community Development Department sufficient information regarding their sewer
access charge (SAC) obligations before expiration of the Interim Use on August
McGehee sought assurances that the comprehensive stormwater management of that
area would not be interfered with moving forward.
Works Director Culver advised that the intent of this and the City's work with
the landscape architect for Corpus Christi Church and the watershed district
was to expand the proposed stormwater system for more benefit to the broader
area. Mr. Culver advised that the proposed temporary structure and plans would
not interfere with anything existing, but during construction staff would
continue to review current stormwater devices and outlets to make sure they
were properly maintained and any improvements possible would be incorporated to
address past complaints and issues.
Since there would
be no impacts to playgrounds or academic programs over the next few years,
Councilmember McGehee opined this was a good agreement.
Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11247 (RCA Exhibit C as
revised) entitled, "A Resolution Approving a Temporary Classroom Facility as an INTERIM USE at 2131 Fairview Avenue (PF-13-010)."
General Ordinances for Adoption
I-35W North Corridor Project Presentation
Works Director Marc Culver introduced MnDOT Project Manager Jerome Adams
(Contact Information: Jerome.email@example.com
or 651/234-7611), with a copy of this study linked to the MnDOT website in
addition to other links provided in Attachment A. Mr. Culver noted that MnDOT
Area Engineer Mark Lindeberg was also present for any questions that may
require his expertise.
Project Manager Jerome Adams
Adams' presentation was specific to the I-35W North Corridor Preliminary Design
Project from TH 36 to Lexington Avenue in Blaine to the intersection with
Adams reviewed the intent to add a MNPass lane in each direction as an
alternate to four general purpose lanes that would be cost-prohibitive due to
social aspects, bridge replacements along the corridor, interchange
requirements, stormwater management issues, and additional property acquisition
to move ramps further out. Mr. Adams noted the long-term advantages of $120 to
$180 million for the MnPass lane versus the projected $2.5 billion for the
general purpose lanes that would serve to alleviate problems and made the most
sense. Mr. Adams noted noise walls along the corridor would also be evaluated,
with an anticipated 2019 construction timeframe, even though that would be
subject to fulfilling the current funding shortfall.
Etten noted that this proposal seemed to indicate a policy that used buses for
future transit improvements versus light rail options for this corridor.
Adams responded affirmatively, especially based on previous planning studies of
bus rapid transit (BRT) versus light rail transit (LRT) in the median and
determination made that this would not be the best method in this corridor due
the not enough density in neighborhoods for riders to conveniently walk to a
nearby transit hub.
Etten asked for additional comments regarding past presentations about adding a
temporary lane north between County Road E-2 and I-694.
Adams advised that this project would consider that option, with the MNPass
lane considered as the base project, with other spot enhancements, including
auxiliary lanes in certain segments. Mr. Adams noted that the additional lane
had been removed from the current County Road E-2 project as it was not seen as
a benefit now, but he was it as more beneficial with this project. Mr. Adams
clarified that he could not promise it would be built, but assured that it
would be looked at to determine if that enhancement would improve that entire
Etten spoke in support of that option, opining it would make a big difference
not only to Roseville residents, but for the transportation in the broader
that same presentation referenced by Councilmember Etten, Councilmember McGehee
noted improvements to the sound wall had been discussed at the entrance into
Roseville on the split with highway 36 and I-35E; and asked if that would be
reviewed as part of this project as well.
the sound wall referenced by Councilmember McGehee was in the TH-36 area south
of County Road C, Mr. Adams clarified that this project's limits were at County
Road C but not further south, and therefore those sound walls would not be part
of this project. However, Mr. Adams noted that he expected they may be
considered as part of a future project dealing with lanes interchanging with
Highway 280 and TH 36 and the sound wall immediately adjacent to that section.
the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Adams confirmed that MnDOT is evaluating a future
potential MNPass project on eastbound only TH 36 due to its lack of
complication to facilitate from TH 36 leaving I-35W east to I-35E. Mr. Adams
advised that the project was in the very preliminary scoping process at this
time, meaning it had no funding identified or any had construction date, but
was definitely something being looked at. Mr. Adams clarified that the intent
was to stay out of the common areas (e.g. TH 36 and Highway 280) as there was
nothing identified or reworking in this area; but the long-range goal was to
get a MNPass system all the way into Downtown Minneapolis and onto TH 36
through using baby steps if necessary. If that segment could be started, Mr.
Adams opined that it would put subsequent pressure on the TH 36 interchange to
accomplish the entire segment, since performing the physical work often
prompted that scenario.
the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Adams agreed to send a copy of his
power point presentation to staff for dissemination to the City Council.
Roe thanked Mr. Adams for tonight's presentation.
Mayor Roe recessed
the meeting at approximately 7:02 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 7:05
Joint Meeting with Community Engagement Commission (CEC)
Roe welcomed the full commission and turned it over to CEC Chair Scot Becker
for introduction of commissioners present: Chair Becker, Theresa Gardella, Gary
Grefenberg, Michelle Manke, Jonathan Miller, Sherry Sanders, Ebony Adedayo.
Liaison and Communications Manager Garry Bowman was also present in the
detailed in the RCA, Chair Becker reviewed 2015 priority projects of the CEC
and accomplishments to-date with individual commissioners addressing various
areas as noted in lines 6 - 16 of the RCA; and publically expressed his
personal appreciation of individual commissioners for their ongoing efforts and
dedication. Chair Becker highlighted the Definitions of Community and Civic
Engagement - Attachment C as a recommendation to the City Council for future
formal adoption moving forward and posting on the City's website, even as it
was recognized that it would continue as a working document.
addressing the CEC assisting and encouraging formation of neighborhood
associations, Commissioner Sanders noted the passionate discourse to-date, with
the task force continuing discussions before presentation of recommendations to
the City Council.
Gardella noted the evolution of learning events created for community
engagement from originally thought of as conferences to a series of learning
events or listening/learning events and target groups in line with the City
Council's strategic initiative, and ongoing work with staff and advisory
commissions as this priority continued to evolve.
Manke noted the considerable efforts of this joint task force and members of
the Planning Commission and staff in notice to those marginalized at this time
in their awareness of development or zoning issues impacting them.
Commissioner Manke noted the proactive efforts of staff in developing
apartment/condo, 1-4 unit rental property, and commercial space databases to
provide a tool for property tenants/renters to provide feedback to the City.
Once these databases were up and running, Commissioner Manke advised that they
would be adding commercial and industrial tenants given significant growth of
late; and providing geographical notification based on certain triggers.
Commissioner Manke opined this task force consisting of two CEC and two
Planning Commissioners, in addition to Community Development Director Bilotta
and City Planner Thomas Paschke, had worked together very well.
Grefenberg echoed the support received from and appreciation for staff's
efforts. Commissioner Grefenberg added that additional discussion had been
held related to notices about making zoning notices more understandable and
less legalese in language; in addition to involving renters in decision-making
and civic affairs, a critical step not always achieved in the past.
Becker referenced Attachment A and recommendations of the joint task force on
zoning notification as detailed in their meeting notes dated June 18, 2015.
Becker reported on the resumption of Roseville U educational programming for
residents after a one-year hiatus and feedback being evaluated on what does or
does not work, and commended staff for their initiatives in getting this
opportunity back on track. Chair Becker encouraged individual City
Councilmembers to provide their feedback as well as suggestions over the next
few months to help define what next year's program would look like.
the proposed online civic engagement module to be integrated into the City's
website, Chair Becker noted this was the next item on tonight's City Council
agenda, and was nearing deployment at the discretion of and formal action by
the City Council.
Grefenberg summarized the RCA, lines 14 - 16 identified as "Additional Priorities," stated his preference to not identify them as "additional," but
ongoing efforts, since the CEC remained focused on the six initial priorities.
Commissioner Grefenberg reviewed Attachment B listing those six priorities and
detailing work to-date on each, dated August 6, 2015 and drafted by
conclusion, Chair Becker sought guidance from the City Council on future
priorities to inform work going into 2016 and beyond.
evaluation of Roseville U, Councilmember Willmus highlighted the recent
decision by the Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to discontinue the
annual Living Smarter Home & Garden Fair in its current format, opting for
a series of speakers and workshops. As part of this evaluation process, Councilmember
Willmus asked the CEC to provide feedback regarding the potential of reverting
back to previous City Campus open houses, including involvement by and greater
exposure for advisory commissions.
the welcome packet, Councilmember Willmus further noted that the HRA had been
looking into revitalizing that as well, and spoke in support of the CEC's role
overlapping that of the HRA cooperatively in evaluating that valuable tool.
Laliberte suggested a pairing of the CEC and HRA to work on the welcome packet
and potential format for open houses so as not to duplicate efforts.
Councilmember Laliberte thanked the task force for their work and staff for
building the databases. Regarding the preference to make notices less
legalistic, Councilmember Laliberte cautioned that some may require that legal
language and asked that they keep that in mind, while perhaps including more
summary language as well for the general public's easier and better
McGehee echoed the comments regarding notification, and expressed her
appreciation for that work to-date. Specific to Attachment B, page 12, Item f,
Councilmember McGehee questioned the viability of staff advising advisory
commissions on City Council agenda items falling under their purview.
Councilmember McGehee noted the short timing for packet delivery and review,
not allowing much time for advisory commission receipt, review and comment
prior to a Council meeting. Councilmember McGehee suggested getting advisory
commissioners on the city server list for an agenda and meeting packet to
determine areas of interest.
Laliberte suggested it may be sufficient if staff liaisons to advisory
commissions send an alert when they're aware of something on agenda that the
commission should be aware of, perhaps on the Thursday before a City Council
meeting when packets are made available and distributed.
Etten concurred with Councilmember Laliberte's suggestion regarding staff
liaisons alerting advisory commissions of pending discussion items of the City
Council. Councilmember Etten stated he was an advocate for reducing legalese
in notices, and while recognizing some parts were required, it still may not
provide a clear understanding for residents to know what is actually happening,
suggesting the need to continuing to make the process more accessible, and
opining that he found pictures to be very instructive. Councilmember Etten
spoke in support of reaching out to renters or those leasing commercial space,
citing an anecdotal example. Councilmember Etten stated that he was intrigued
by listening/leaning groups and supporting under-represented groups in
different ways than attempted in past practice, allowing opportunities to learn
more about each other and find ways to help those groups be included in the
communities in which they live.
Roe referenced one of the major topics the City Council originally looked at
during discussions regarding creation of the CEC was ways and methods for
community engagement. Mayor Roe noted a recent League of Minnesota Cities
(LMC) educational workshop attended by him and Councilmember Laliberte that
talked about the different types of engagement processes. Mayor Roe suggested
the CEC consider which are useful in which situation (e.g. SE Roseville) and
identify stakeholders and proposed aspects of engagement needed. Specific to
SE Roseville, Mayor Roe recognized that many things are already in the works,
but moving forward, he wanted to be sure the CEC was clear that they had the
City Council's guidance to review current processes and methods and provide
feedback and how resources were being or could be allocated accordingly.
McGehee, regarding the definitions identified by Commissioner Gardella, asked
that it be explained to renters and/or under-represented groups as well as the
entire community to advise them how they can effectively engage with their
local government or how to response or seek additional information or a clearer
understanding if and when they received a public notice, not just how to meet
their neighbors. Councilmember McGehee opined that this should include how the
process worked, how local government is structured, and how to make speakers
more comfortable expressing themselves to the City Council or make a statement
or point, even if that involved mock scenarios in public speaking, which she
considered a huge part of civic engagement in removing those barriers.
Laliberte opined that, no matter the steps taken, there would remain hesitation
or lack of involvement from some, and sought additional feedback from the CEC
on how best to address that. Councilmember Laliberte agreed with Mayor Roe in
looking at the points of contact with the community during a process to identify
which stage a project was at and what tools to use for particular stages for
community engagement. Councilmember Laliberte expressed her interest in the
CEC being involved in the SE Roseville process, even though the work was
underway, but perhaps in compiling the bits and pieces to make sure the overall
picture was available given the number of components in this large project.
Councilmember Laliberte clarified that she was not intending that the CEC own
the SE Roseville initiative, but just to ensure all touch points and
stakeholders were addressed and familiar to all.
Roe concurred with that suggestion. Mayor Roe suggested that since the SE
Roseville project was so all-encompassing, his intent with previous comments
was for the CEC to provide ideas not for a generic set of tools that would be
relevant to all situations, but for a process and specific tools for a
particular target - tools, timing and process - that would be beneficial to all
involved and moving forward. Mayor Roe noted that this may even involve,
specifically with the SE Roseville initiative already in process, a review in
hindsight of missing pieces or something that stands out that would involve
stakeholders in the future, perhaps using this as a case study in progress.
Roe noted the City's Comprehensive Plan update due in 2017 as a major
initiative that would benefit from suggestions of the CEC before getting into
the process. Mayor Roe suggested this may include whether or not to update the
community vision before then or how that informed the Comprehensive Plan
update. Mayor Roe noted the need to be prepared for those steps now before
getting into the Comprehensive Plan process itself.
Council consensus was that the CEC focus on SE Roseville and Community
Visioning/Comprehensive Plan update processes for feedback to the City Council
at their earliest convenience.
a separate item, Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of the idea of the
proposed listening/learning events, but at this point didn't know how to or how
not to support them, since the Human Rights Commission (HRC) was also in flux
with that initiative and she didn't want the efforts of the CEC and HRC
duplicated until the City Council had more time to consider the role of the HRC
Roe clarified from his perspective that the CEC's role would involve more how
to engage people.
Gardella opined that, based on staff and City Council feedback, it seemed the
reason for gathering people would be to determine what if any barriers existed
for their participation and to provide better access to their local government
or how they felt about their community, their quality of life, and what they
desired for their children in the community. Commissioner Gardella noted,
depending on the direction desired by the City Council in serving that purpose,
it could be designed in numerous ways, but a determination was needed on the
best ways to perform them. Commissioner Gardella proposed going beyond the
three pilot listening/learning events if successful, but pursuing an ongoing
method to hear from the community about different topics and develop a process
recognizing that the sky was the limit, Councilmember Laliberte reiterated her
concern that she needed a better understanding of the HRC's role before
directing the CEC to move forward on it.
Roe suggested there may be a role for the HRC or other parts of the city in
various topics, but the first 1-3 sessions could determine what the city wanted
to focus on.
McGehee opined that her interpretation of the role of the CEC was to focus on
civic engagement and barriers to residents being involved in speaking at or
attending meetings, or understanding their rights as a citizen. Councilmember
McGehee suggested listening sessions involving how residents liked their
community, how they felt about diversity in the community - all of which may
belong to different advisory commissions - but involving the overall process of
listening/learning that would eventually become available to all advisory
commissions related to their specific topics of interest and targeted to
Commissioner Gardella mentioning education, Mayor Roe suggested sharing ideas
and seeking feedback from the school district as apartner.
that an interdepartmental group was working with the Karen community and
representatives from neighborhood associations, Commissioner Grefenberg
personally thanked City Clerk Kari Collins and City Manager Patrick Trudgeon
for their work on those efforts. However, as referenced in the December 8,
2014 joint meeting of the CEC and City Council, Commissioner Grefenberg
clarified the 2015 work plan priority items and charge to the CEC. In response
to that, Commissioner Grefenberg presented a summary of that charge via a bench
handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, stating that the
intent was to continue working on those six priority items as listed.
Roe clarified that it was not the City's intent to create associations, but
instead to facilitate, foster or advise that process when neighbors expressed
an interest in doing so.
McGehee opined that neighborhoods typically coalesced around and reacted to
issues impacting neighborhoods, not socially driven action. While noting there
were different issues that touched different people and how they worked through
those issues with the City, Councilmember McGehee expressed hope that a
procedure could be developed by the CEC for such an interest group might
involve itself with the City. Councilmember McGehee opined that this concept
was of much more importance to her than formation of a unit.
Willmus referenced past examples of reactive groups coming together which to
him didn't serve to diminish the goal of helping associations and proactive
gatherings. Councilmember Willmus stated it would be his desire or vision to
help establish associations to be more proactive and get neighbors together
even without the benefit of any hot button issues, but to minimize reactive
forces in the future.
Councilmember Etten expressed his wholehearted agreement with that comment.
Roe opined that neither objective was ultimately that far away from each other.
McGehee concurred, but clarified her intent was that the City not facilitate
creation of a formal, non-profit legal status for groups.
Roe stated formal legally created groups didn't appear to be what the only
approach the CEC was attempting to facilitate.
Becker concurred that he didn't see an effort such as that receiving much
support if any from the CEC.
Roe thanked the CEC for their work to-date and attendance tonight with their
Mayor Roe recessed
the meeting at approximately 7:52 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 7:53
Discussion of Civic Engagement Module Police & Procedures
Manager Garry Bowman provided a draft policy and procedure manual (Attachment
A) for "Speakup, Roseville!" as requested in previous discussions, and as
detailed in the RCA dated August 24, 2015. Mr. Bowman noted this request was
prompted specifically by a request of Councilmember Laliberte to take a more
in-depth look at the module before full launching and integration with the
City's website. Mr. Bowman highlighted several items specifically, including
Section VI (Management of Civic Engagement Module), Section VII (Use), Section
VIII (Posting of Topics) and Section XIV (Moderating Public Comments) as having
addressed a majority of the concerns previously expressed.
suggested that there be no survey component immediately until the site matures;
and if chosen in the future, it receive City Council blessing prior to initiation,
and be clearly identified as information versus scientific in nature.
Laliberte clarified that it was not her purpose to delay or stall launching,
but noted her concerns that further conversation was needed as to the specifics
of how the module would work in reality before launching rather than making up
the rules along the way. Toward those efforts and in light of her concerns,
Councilmember Laliberte advised that she met last week with Mr. Bowman and City
Manager Trudgeon, with some of the results of those discussions incorporated
into this draft, for which she thanked staff.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Bowman responded that the CEC had not yet
weighed into this draft document as they had met the week prior to its formulation;
but noted it incorporated things taken from previous subcommittee meetings even
though without benefit of their thoughts and feedback about the actual document
itself. Mr. Bowman reviewed some of the items addressed via the actual page,
those items still needing to be addressed or provided with a better description
between forums, ideas and discussion pages or tabs; and clear identification of
whether it is the city or residents initiating the pages and upfront
expectations as to whether or not a response is intended, and clarification of
when a follow-up will occur.
Laliberte noted that moderation questions were addressed sufficiently in the
policy guidelines for those signing up on the site; but also noted the
seven-page list of privacy issues and conditions of use from Granicus needed to
be linked to City of Roseville terms.
Laliberte reiterated her suggestion that a quick instructional video be
developed or a generic one from Granicus be made available; or consideration of
an open house to inform first-time users how it works. Councilmember Laliberte
questioned how the city intended to promote the site or drive residents to it.
Councilmember Laliberte further questioned how the success or lack thereof of
the site would be measured, beyond the dashboard reports to see the analytics
behind the scenes; opining the importance of plugging topics into respective
commissions for review on a regular basis.
Willmus asked if Councilmember Laliberte felt her questions had been addressed
sufficiently in this draft document.
Laliberte responded that not sufficiently in the pilot live site, with work
still needed to address those clarifications and addressing the intent of the
page and when and if to expect follow-up responses.
live, Councilmember Willmus expressed his preference to have the entire CEC
look at the policy document and the site to see if there were other things
needing to be addressed and determine if there was anything missed.
Councilmember Willmus also asked that consistency be maintained throughout the
process with things as basic as the City's logo and brand that was not
currently evident at the top of the web page; opining that the City and staff
needed to seek that consistency in everything put out. While understanding the
language issues on the opening page and that from Granicus and need to clean
that up further, Councilmember Willmus agreed with Councilmember Laliberte's
comments that the CEC should review it before coming back to the City Council
for formal action, and after the City logo is revised.
clarified that the intent was to start with discussions, forum and ideas, but
not meetings or surveys at this point.
Laliberte opined that the meeting component was one of the easiest things to
do, whether by posting the same agenda packets on the other website or
accomplished another way in another place as done with other Granicus websites
responded that, from his observations of other city samples using Granicus, the
meeting site didn't get much traction, indicating that component was not highly
If that was an
easy component to accomplish, Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of
including the meeting portion, but also analytics available to determine
interest levels. Councilmember McGehee agreed with comments of her colleagues
so far during this discussion, especially the need for additional clarification
about the idea page for participants to say what they think, and those sections
that assured a response if and when applicable. Councilmember McGehee
expressed less concern in the same brand or logo being used than in the more
important issue to use different colors or identification to indicate which
particular component you were in and what to expect if asking a specific
question and a timeframe to receive a response. Councilmember McGehee
suggested a visual identification may be most useful in this case.
McGehee expressed some confusion related to data retention as to what would be
available for future reference, opining that this then became dangerously close
to "Snap Chat" or other means of transitory correspondence that wasn't retained,
causing her concern if posting on a city-related topic.
clarified that on the discussions component, once closed, you could still
access discussions after thefact.
McGehee asked that, on the home page, the language be changed to "the City reserves the right at "its" sole discretion" rather than "our" sole discretion.
agreed there were a number of grammatical items he had for staff to follow-up
on that he would provide off-line.
seeing the need to edit comments, Councilmember McGehee did express interest in
a way to immediately remove particularly offensive or derogatory comments,
whether short-term or not.
concurred with that preference.
questioned if the desire was to embargo comments for a period of time or until
McGehee opined she didn't see an initial problem as she didn't see an
outpouring of such comments initially, but did foresee some caution needed
editorially at the front end after launching the site to be sure there were no
stated he didn't think that was possible the way things were set up with
Granicus or the ability to moderate every comment before it went live; since
the site was set up so that residents could have a discussion without the city
At the request
of Mayor Roe, and based on the history of Granicus sites, Mr. Bowman advised
that those types of concerns were not seen often, and with the City of Edina
example had not been seen. However, since monitoring multiple accounts could
become problematic, and this was an official city site not a standalone site
that may be less official, Mr. Bowman recognized that personal attacks or
offensive comments were always a possibility while not frequently found.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Mr. Bowman noted that if something was flagged as potentially
inappropriate, it immediately came off line until reviewed by staff for its
editorial content and would not be live or in the public domain until that
Laliberte advised that she had the opportunity to participate in an online
webinar for Granicus and they repeated the comments of Mr. Bowman, and since
this site was slated for going live on September 1, 2015, while not wishing to
delay it further, she did ask for the CEC or the subcommittee review before
launching if the City Council majority was not opposed to additional short
Willmus agreed that the CEC take a cursory review, along with addressing those
issues he'd raised with branding and the City logo, in addition to grammatical
points raised. Councilmember Willmus opined that this was not ready to go live
opined that he was hearing no objection from the City Council in making sure
the CEC had one last look before taking the site live; and agreed with
Councilmembers Laliberte and McGehee that visual identification of different
pages was needed to better understand each beyond the language on each. Mayor
Roe suggested that may be something the CEC could provide feedback on as part
of their review.
responded that this is part of the issue with the cookie-cutter designed by
Granicus, advising that he had been attempting to address that initial language
with them for some time, but their response to him that he could not edit that
language. Mr. Bowman advised that the option was to remove the language, but
noted this then removed other important information in the grey boxes making
him question if he'd need to rebuild it in some other format, which may not be
a bad thing is the City could provide better insights, but with that yet to be
suggested more explanatory information on the City's website may be
appropriate, with Mr. Bowman suggesting that may also be the most appropriate
site for the instructional video as well.
suggested that creation of an instructional video may also be of interest by
McGehee suggested getting rid of the grey boxes to design the City's own color-coding.
suggested staff determine what is technically possible; with Mr. Bowman
advising he would check into that further.
Trudgeon clarified the City Council's direction to staff was that this policy
and issue return to the CEC for feedback, that remaining issues be resolved or
addressed at a minimum, with the City Council wanting to see the final product
Mayor Roe noted
no objection and confirmed this directive.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 8:20 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:25 p.m.
Public Hearing to Consider Amending TIF Districts 10 and 12,
Approval of a Development Agreement, and Approval of a Final Plat of the
Development Property at 2325 - 2335 Dale Street and 657-675 Cope Avenue into 18
Medium Density Residential Lots
Roe introduced this project and various steps requiring formal City Council
action, with Community Development Director Paul Bilotta briefly reviewing the
various components as outlined in the RCA dated August 24, 2015.
Roe opened the public hearing at approximately 8:26 p.m. for the purpose of
considering an amendment to Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Districts 10 and 12
for the Development Property at 2325 - 2335 Dale Street and 657 - 675 Cope
Avenue into 18 Medium Density Residential Lots.
Roe closed the public hearing at approximately 8:27 p.m., with no one appearing
for or against.
Business Items (Action Items)
Consider Amending TIF Districts 10 and 12, Approval of a
Development Agreement, and Approval of a Final Plat of the Development Property
at 2325 - 2335 Dale Street and 657 - 675 Cope Avenue into 18 Medium density
moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11248 (RCA Exhibit A, B, C
and D) entitled, "Resolution Approving the Modification to the Development Program for Development District No. 1 and Approving the Modifications to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing District Nos. 10 and 12."
referenced a revised Purchase and Redevelopment Contract by and between the
City of Roseville and Dale Street Station, LLC dated August 1, 2015 and as
drafted by the City's TIF Consultant Briggs and Morgan (RCA Exhibit F) provided
as a bench handout providing additional refinements and a more realistic
timeframe based on latest developments.
sought public comment on the Redevelopment Contract agreement. No one appeared
for public comment on this component.
McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11249 (RCA Exhibit E) entitled,
"Resolution Approving a Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with the Dale Street Station, LLC by the City of Roseville;" for redevelopment of the project
area and performance of the actions necessary to meet the City's obligations
identified in the executed purchase and redevelopment contract (RCA Exhibit F as
Laliberte expressed her appreciation of the two changes made in the revised
contract, opining they represented a much more realistic picture for the
addressed the proposed final plat as displayed on screen.
sought public comment on the proposed Final Plat with no one appearing to speak
to this component.
Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No.11250 (RCA Exhibit I) entitled, "A Resolution Approving the FINAL PLAT of Garden Station (PF15-011); of the property at 2325 - 2335 Dale Street and 657 ? 675 Cope Avenue, based on the public record and conformity of the proposed Final Plat with the approved Preliminary Plat (RCA Exhibits G and H), and the content of the RCA as conditioned."
Laliberte personally thanked the City's HRA for their work initially done on
this project and neighborhood process that provided an end product that
everyone felt good about and moving the City and its residents to this point
McGehee seconded those comments; expressing her support for the Outlot design;
opining this was the best design and most consistent with desires of the
echoed thanks to the HRA for their significant work on this project, and
expressed his personal disappointment in the demise of the original project
proposed, even though he understood the financial implications and other
unknowns involved with that demise and reasons for it, he still found it to be
a unique and interesting project for Roseville.
Review of Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Levy
Request for 2015
Executive Director Jeanne Kelsey; HRA Vice Chair Vicki Lee; and Subgroup
Finance Committee members Jason Etten and William Masche were present; along
with HRA Member Dan Wall in the audience. The remaining member of the
subcommittee, former Chair Maschka, was not present.
Kelsey noted that a revised RCA dated August 24, 2015 was
provided as a bench handout with minor corrections including the year corrected
from 2015 to 2016, and annual estimated tax impact for residential home values
(heading on lines 20-21) of the RCA corrected from an estimated 7.6% decrease
to a 9.9% decrease.
Kelsey referenced the attachments to the RCA providing budget detail and
account balances related to specific programs administered by the HRA.
Roe expressed appreciation for the format of the budget this year, opining it
was much easier to read. Mayor Roe advised that no formal action was required
on this request, in accordance with statutory deadlines for action, until
mid-September. Mayor Roe opined that this 2016 budget request seemed pretty
straightforward from his perspective.
Finance Subcommittee Member Masche reported that the attempt was to present a
preliminary budget eliminating programs or initiatives that were outdated or no
longer performing, and match this budget to the recently-updated HRA Strategic
Plan to implement it with dollars needed to take action on those initiatives
included in that Plan. Member Masche recognized that the Plan was aggressive
and included many initiatives identified by the HRA as a whole and attempted to
listen carefully to City Council discussion and input regarding the future role
and work of the HRA. Member Masche expressed the HRA's interest in moving
forward in a cooperative, collaborative experience with the City Council over
the next year in trying to accomplish some of these goals in year one of the
four year Plan.
Roe noted the request of Councilmember Laliberte for interaction with
representatives of the HRA.
Laliberte recognized the attendance of HRA Member Wall in the audience noting
he had not voted with the HRA majority in supporting this document, seeking his
Wall indicated from the audience that he had no comment.
Roe reiterated that this preliminary levy request would come before the City
Council for formal action in September.
touched on by the HRA several years ago, Councilmember Willmus noted the
current HRA model that provided many functions, including discussion at that
time involving port authority, HRA and Economic Development Authority (EDA)
models. Councilmember Willmus opined that, the more he considered it, the more
he wanted to pursue looking into the EDA model, since it afforded the ability
to continue performing as an HRA, but also broadened and allowed it to reach
out in a different way to the business community beyond the current business
retention efforts of the HRA. Councilmember Willmus opined that the EDA would
certainly be an extension of that and could facilitate economic development
beyond what was possible under the HRA model. Councilmember Willmus asked if
staff could research this further and bring it back to the City Council for
their full discussion.
Laliberte expressed her interest in learning more about the commercial
properties and industrial areas based on her understanding that there may be
some limitations to the current HRA model and their abilities. While admitting
she didn't know much about EDA models, Councilmember Laliberte expressed
interest in further education about it.
Laliberte expressed her interest in learning about the broad models, process
and availability, noting her consistent support of businesses and providing
head of household jobs, and recruitment efforts for businesses that could serve
the community as strong employers for those efforts.
Etten expressed concern in losing the HRA's ability to focus on housing, noting
the ongoing needs for diverse housing in the community; questioning how the
City Council would have time to focus on some of those efforts while
accomplishing what was already on their plate. Councilmember Etten stated that
he was always open to learning more, but questioned how the City Council could
accomplish its own work and focus on these other details as well.
Roe recognized previous comments as all being valid points to consider. From
his personal perspective, Mayor Roe stated that he was intrigued with the EDA
side-by-side with the HRA, or an EDA with HRA powers. Mayor Roe noted that the
potential make-up of an EDA Board hadn't yet been discussed, and there was
valuable expertise among community members that would be important to include
as part of the process if it went forward. Mayor Roe stated he was open to
having those conversations, and if a change was indicated as a result of this
broader discussion, further stated that he did not want to lose the important
housing component going forward. However, given the historic interest of the
City Council to focus on economic development and strategic priority of the
City Council going back for some time in making sure the right set of tools was
available and approaching this discussion that way, Mayor Roe opined that it
made sense to look at the possibility at this juncture. Mayor Roe agreed that
there were concerns if the City Council served as the EDA, especially related
to efficiencies, but opined it was up to the City Council to study it and make
a determination if this was the direction it wanted to go at this time.
Etten recognized that a lot of EDA's are made up of City Councils, but
emphasized the community experience brought to the HRA board and general
community knowledge; asking that discussions include that as a key part of
a side by side comparison of the different ways to populate an EDA Board,
Councilmember Willmus noted many variables including it being comprised of the
City Council serving in the role of an EDA, some populated by volunteers or a
combination; and noted a number of things to consider and review as part of
this future exploration, including thoughts from staff about the what, where
and when of that potential.
deadlines in terms of the budget, Mayor Roe asked staff how to fit this
discussion into that timeline.
Manager Trudgeon advised that there was a tremendous amount of information and
resources already available, with the HRA having talked about this several
years ago. Mr. Trudgeon suggested, with the three-week break in Council meetings
at this point, staff could prepare information for the September 14, 2015
meeting if so directed for comparison and an outline of next steps if that was
the City Council's potential way to go.
Roe noted the importance of gathering information related to each function, and
including experiences and pros and cons of an EDA, and researching EDA's in
other communities, in addition to staff's input on preferable options as well.
McGehee questioned, if during the September 14th discussion, it was
determined to establish an EDA based on that information presented, what was
the next step or would a public hearing be required and what all would be
the decision was to change to anything beyond the current HRA model, City
Manager Trudgeon noted that State Statutes would identify the process,
including public hearing requirements, dissolution of the HRA, transfer of
assets and other steps in a transition.
McGehee opined that given budgetary timing constraints, it may be prudent to
schedule a public hearing now so if a decision was made on September 14 to
create a new EDA or pursue a different structure, the hearing would already be
Roe advised that statutory requirements for a not-to-exceed HRA levy would not
imply such a strict deadline and could be changed moving forward. However,
Mayor Roe expressed his discomfort in scheduling a public hearing on September
14th for something yet unknown; further recognizing that hearing
deadline notice requirements may differ, and suggested waiting until September
14th when more information and a potential council consensus was
Attorney Gaughan advised that there were particular public hearing notice
requirements identified for potential dissolution of an HRA, with 10 days
advance notice required and 2 weeks' notice required for establishment of an
EDA. However, Mr. Gaughan advised that provisions were in State law regarding
transfer of assets or projects from one body to another, and even if not commensurate,
HRA funds would revert back to the City of Roseville, allowing for some
flexibility even with the awkward timing involved in the 2016 budget process.
Willmus reiterated his request to gather additional information and hold that discussion
before getting too far ahead of things.
objection, Mayor Roe directed staff accordingly as per discussions. Mayor Roe
stated that it was important to note that this was in no way intended as any
criticism of anyone serving on the HRA and the work they'd done, including many
tremendous accomplishments, going back to their rental registration and
licensing, and code enforcement focus. Mayor Roe reiterated that this was not
a reaction on his part to the HRA, but just an attempt to make sure the best
tools for the City of Roseville were put forward. If a different model was
decided on in the near future, Mayor Roe expressed his hope that a way could be
found to keep the HRA engaged and part of the process. Mayor Roe stated his
intent to make sure that was on the table upfront and this discussion was not
in any way a bad reflection on the current HRA board members.
Laliberte suggested others on the City Council were more knowledgeable about
EDA's than she was and therefore would be looking for information on EDA and
HRA models, whether combined or standalone, and City Councils serving as EDA's.
Roe stated his interest was in obtaining pros and cons of each approach, in
addition to other information requested, but was not sure a staff
recommendation was needed other than for their input.
Roe again thanked the HRA for their budget work, and noted there may be
interesting days moving forward.
Request for Approval of a Preliminary Plat at 2668 - 2688
Lexington Avenue (southeast corner of Lexington Avenue and Woodhill Drive,
excluding the County Cycles Property)
Thomas Paschke provided a brief summary of this request as detailed in the RCA
dated August 24, 2015. Mr. Paschke noted that the developer intended to take
the existing three lots it owned and make them into two lots; with Lot 2
defined as the city-owned parcel at 2668 Lexington Avenue. Mr. Paschke noted
the additional of conditions h and g by the Planning Commission to those
recommended by staff.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke reviewed the grading and drainage plan as
displayed and proposed location of parking stalls and primary drop-off on the
McGehee opined that it seemed drainage and tree preservation would be
better-served if the building was located and oriented elsewhere on the site
that appeared barren. Councilmember McGehee questioned if the watershed
district had yet approved this preliminary plat.
advised that both the City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District had been
in consultation with the developer, and advised the rationale in placing the
structures on site was due to previous fill on the site that was not conducive
to building construction, but adequate for a parking lot to avoid substantial
cost in removing that fill. Mr. Paschke further noted that the City's zoning
ordinance and design standards required placement of the building front and
setback facing Lexington Avenue as the primary street.
to yield the final decision to Community Development Director Bilotta,
Councilmember McGehee wondered why the developer would want the building facing
the parking lot across the street when it could face another way with a much
better view, questioning what precluded them from that option to face Woodhill
rather than Lexington Avenue and facing directly into the fire station.
Development Director Bilotta concurred that the building would face the fire
station at that location; however, he noted a key determination was which was
considered the main street. Mr. Bilotta advised that representatives of
United, the developer, felt that Lexington Avenue was their key entrance point
for this assisted living facility based on visibility and access points
critical to the development; even beyond the issue with previous fill on the
lot being the largest driver.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus related to Condition D and vacating the existing sewer
easement, Mr. Bilotta confirmed that the easement did not have sewer lines
currently within that area, and the intent was to relocate sewer lines for this
project with establishment of a new easement area; with the developer bearing
the full cost to do so.
Specific to the
site plan orientation, from his perspective, Councilmember Willmus stated he
had no issue with the developer's choice, noting it would continue to run along
with vacant parcels yet to be redeveloped.
confirmed that there appeared to be a north/south sewer line on the existing
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke advised that there was no pathway or
sidewalk on the east side of Lexington. Councilmember McGehee suggested that
should be considered as part of this project at least down to County Road C.
Representative Mark Nelson, United Properties
While having no
formal presentation, Mr. Nelson responded to several questions and comments of
the City Council at this time.
siting of the buildings, Mr. Nelson confirmed staff's comment about the debris
and fill found on the eastern portion of the site. Mr. Nelson noted that the
reason there were no trees growing there was due to the poor soils, concrete
and asphalt fill and other materials buried there. In addition, per City Code,
Mr. Nelson noted that if Lexington Avenue was identified as the primary access
point since it was the most visible, it allowed surface parking off Woodhill
Drive. However, if Woodhill was chosen for the front door, Mr. Nelson advised
that then the main surface parking area would be along Lexington Avenue,
opining that would not prove aesthetically pleasing for the development or the
community. Mr. Nelson opined that the developer thought this orientation provided
the nicest view of the buildings along Lexington Avenue.
displayed a colored site map different and more detailed than those in the
agenda packet that highlighted the areas not to be disturbed where tree
preservation would occur. Overall, Mr. Nelson advised that the developer would
be replacing a large number of existing trees not only in number but in caliper
stormwater concerns, Mr. Nelson advised that on the east side of the
development, storm water management included retention and infiltration areas
before runoff reached the wetland to the south. While the developer had
already received preliminary approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District,
Mr. Nelson advised that revised plans had been submitted as well seeking their
updated approval prior to finalization of plans.
stated that the developer accepted and agreed with, and would comply with all
conditions applied to approval from staff and the Planning Commission.
McGehee thanked Mr. Nelson for displaying the more detailed site plan providing
a much clearer picture of the development site. Being familiar with other
United Properties projects in the community and elsewhere in the metropolitan
area, Councilmember McGehee opined that they did typically provided a nice end
Mayor Roe asked
for public comment on this preliminary plat consideration. No one appeared for
public comment on this issue.
Willmus seconded, approving the proposed PRELIMINARY PLAT for Cherrywood Pointe
at Lexington, dated August 3, 2015 and generally comprising the property at
2668 - 2688 Lexington Avenue based on the findings and recommendations of the
Planning Commission and the content of the RCA dated August 24, 2015 and as
Laliberte thanked staff for including notes from the Planning Commission
meeting, opining she found it very helpful in her decision-making.
Determine Fence Screening and Landscaping Requirements for Vogel
Sheetmetal Interim Use, 2830 Fairview Avenue
Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the chronology of actions and submittals
to-date for the initial Interim Use (IU) permit for Vogel Sheetmetal, also known
as Vogel Mechanical, located at 2830 Fairview Avenue; and as detailed in the
RCA dated August 24, 2015.
Paschke advised that the outstanding issue remained for compliance by Vogel
with the condition for IU ultimately revised by the City Council from the
original condition applied by the Planning Commission and further defining it
as: "The applicant shall install opaque fencing of 6' to 8' in height, coniferous plantings, and, landscaping along the northern edge of the property;" and "Doors shall be closed during periods of operation."
Paschke reviewed meetings held to-date with the Vogels, neighbors and staff to
resolve ongoing issues in complying with the condition and meeting expectations
of the adjacent neighbors. Details of these meetings and negotiations are
outlined in the RCA. As noted in lines 54 - 61 of the RCA, Mr. Paschke advised
that on August 11, 2015 the Vogel's submitted their new proposal (Option 2,
Attachment D) to comply while addressing requirements of the utility easements,
and staying out of those respective Xcel Energy and CenturyLink easements along
their northern property line.
to that submittal, Mr. Paschke noted that that option was rejected by the
neighborhood and on August 12, they submitted their own alternative plan
(Attachment E) with their belief that the Vogels can install the fence on the
property line without severing underground cable or violating Xcel's overhead
Paschke advised that staff had requested both parties or their legal counsel to
be present at tonight's meeting; and is seeking clarity from the City Council
regarding their IU condition of June 23, 2014 and direction for staff to work
with the Vogels on a provision that meets this confirmed requirement to
finally resolve this situation.
McGehee had several questions of staff, with staff responding accordingly and
addressing plan submittal timing and site plans displayed and their creators;
comparisons of submittals from the applicant and the neighborhood, and staff's
rendition for a potential resolution of their interpretation of the City
Council's intent with their condition; fence locations and heights as well as
their beginning and end; and the status of and intent for the existing fence in
disrepair and poorly maintained as currently evidenced.
clarification was requested by Mayor Roe and Councilmembers Willmus and
Laliberte specific to clarifying the location of the property; what is left of
the existing fence; actual location and width of the easement area as it
relates to the property lines and existing fence; intent of the applicant to
retain the existing fence and install a secondary wooden fence at a height of
6' in front and 8' for the remainder to the other end of the Vogel property; and
defining changes between the City Council's June of 2014 condition applied by
the City Council and the situation today that would prohibit the Vogels from
complying and locating the fence in that location, with staff confirming there
was nothing preventing that compliance to his knowledge.
discussion ensued regarding unconfirmed requirements of Xcel Energy and
CenturyLink easements for over ground and/or underground utilities that would
preclude installation of a fence; or whether hardships could be addressed for
future access by hand digging versus machine excavation as necessary; and the
intent of Vogel for maintenance of the existing fence.
Representative, Dan Wall, Esq.
counsel for Vogel Mechanical, Mr. Wall provided written comments to staff
earlier today via e-mail dated August 24, 2015, and presented as a bench
handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof..
As outlined in
his written comments, Mr. Wall noted his client was unaware of the existence of
easements already in place; but questioned the City Council demanding that the
applicant go to the expense of $30,000 to $40,000 installing a fence over a
utility easement that may later be removed or destroyed if and when access is
required. Mr. Wall stated his intent to perform further due diligence and
research in searching the title for the origin or potential existence of other
easements on this property before an application is submitted to the City's
Building Department for installation of the fence.
Mr. Wall referenced
meetings of himself, Mr. Bilotta and Mr. Paschke, and the fence contractor that
they thought responded to neighborhood concerns and located the fence 20' back
in addition to plantings to shield the parking lot from neighbor's decks to the
north and provided for a visual extension of their backyards as well, and
further softening the area. Mr. Wall clarified that it is not the intent of
the Vogels to obstruct anything, simply to realistically address neighborhood
concerns while complying with the City's IU conditions and meeting requirements
of the utility easements on their property. Mr. Wall admitted that, when the
IU was applied for and subsequently granted, the existing of the utility
easements had been an unknown.
became available, Councilmember Willmus requested a copy from Mr. Wall of the
actual easements and also for the actual language; opining that there were
fences installed in easements all over the community.
responded that he would comply with that request; however, he suggested
Councilmember Willmus consult with the City Attorney on whether or not the City
Council could require a fence to be installed on an easement whether or not
Xcel Energy was insistent regarding its location or not.
Willmus further opined that the actual language of the easement could make a
difference in what would be placed within that easement.
advised that the easement language would be included in the fence permit application
when the process evolved to that point. Once the easements were defined, Mr.
Wall noted that the project could proceed without further delay avoiding
further disruption from a small pocket of the neighborhood to the north of the
With Mr. Wall's
request that the City Council take immediate action to vote up or down the
Vogels' permit application for the fence installation, Mayor Roe clarified that
this was a staff action based on the City Council's direction, at least under
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Wall advised that the Vogels were willing to go
back 20' from the existing fence for installation of the new fence, which was
of no consequence to the applicant.
Councilmember McGehee's request about maintenance of that area, Mr. Wall
advised that it was Vogel property so they needed to maintain it. However, Mr.
Wall noted that at issue was the neighbors' objection to a greenway allowing
dog walkers or lawn mowing; opining that was an unrealistic objection and part
of living in an urban environment. Mr. Wall offered the Vogels' willingness to
apply for a building permit to install a fence to comply with the easements or
back 20' staff, however, recommended by staff. From his point of view, Mr.
Wall opined that the option of 20' back provided the neighbors with the best
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Wall advised there was no reason to extend the
fence along the entire northern property line when the original intent and
request of the neighborhood was to screen the parking area. However, when the
actual permit application is submitted, Mr. Wall advised that they would rely
on staff's discretion as to their approval or denial based on the City
Council's direction regarding the utility easement issue.
At the request
of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Wall advised that he anticipated a timeframe to
confirm the easements and their specific language would be approximately two
weeks. Based on the land record in the process survey recently completed by
the Vogels, Mr. Wall advised that it shows that some neighbors on the north
may actually be encroaching with a fence post of structure (shed) on the Vogel
parcel. Once the land title information has been provided, Mr. Wall advised
that more refined information would be available to clarify the situation. Mr.
Wall noted that the easement shows up on a prior deed but not on the Vogel deed
they received when purchasing the property. Mr. Wall reiterated that the
applicant had no intention of installing a fence on top of a utility easement
protecting underground power lines. Mr. Wall noted that the easement was
intended for the protection of the neighbors and for their benefit.
McCormick, Terrace Drive North Neighborhood Representative (legal representative)
In response to
Mr. Wall's comments, Ms. McCormick sought to clarify a few facts regarding the
initial Vogel IU request before the Planning Commission in June of 2014; and addressing
some misrepresentations or minor inaccuracies she found in staff's RCA. Ms.
McCormick stated that the original request was not just to screen the parking
lot, but as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes, the neighbors' request
was for a barrier between the commercial and residential uses, not simply to
screen the parking lot. With parallel conversations at that time about the
potential rezoning of this area for community mixed use (CMU), Ms. McCormick
noted neighborhood concerns for potential increased density or intensity of
adjacent uses, thus prompting this additional barrier; and subsequent responses
by the Planning Commission and City Council with relevant conditions applied.
noted that the Vogels signed the IU agreement, as conditions, and between then
and now sufficient time should have been available for them to research this
situation. As referenced by the Vogels' legal counsel, Ms. McCormick noted a
misquote specific to apparent neighbor objections about lawn mowing or dog
walking in the easement area, clarifying that the author of that e-mail was
Community Development Director Bilotta, not the neighbors or their
noted the increasing animosity between the neighbors and Vogels throughout
this process, which seemed to indicate a tall fence may be a good, ultimate
solution and prove most beneficial for the neighborhood. Ms. McCormick noted
concerns of the neighbors with the opening behind their lawns; but clarified
that any fence or fence posts or other structures did not belong to the
neighboring properties, but had been place - and never maintained - by former
Vogel parcel and building owner Aramark. With the Vogels indicating the
existing fence could or would be removed, Ms. McCormick advised that this
prompted the neighbors' rejection based on potential trespass issues and in
response to Vogel concerns about neighbors potentially encroaching onto their
property. Ms. McCormick noted the fence is shown on the property line, and in
her personal observation of the site, she found stakes indicating that the
existing fence had actually been constructed on neighbor properties.
opined that the point about easements was being missed, since a fence currently
exists, the Vogel parcel would benefit from that fence since Xcel had installed
a new transformer feeding off those underground utility lines within the
easement area to facilitate their business needs. Ms. McCormick noted there
had been no interruption from any parties while Xcel Energy was digging the
trench to construct those transformers.
appreciating easement concerns, Ms. McCormick noted that the applicant had not
provided any documentation to support their concerns. In her work with an Xcel
designer for another municipal client, Ms. McCormick asked for an Xcel contact
who confirmed for her that this utility easement was only 10' in width; and
referred her to materials online (e.g. Xcel Energy guidelines, general policies
and procedures, tree maintenance near power lines supported by diagrams,
distances for plantings, and brochure outlining plantings for safety near
electrical service distribution versus transmission lines), as displayed for
the City Council and public audience, indicating another inaccuracy alluded to
in the RCA.
existing fence has been in existence for at least thirty years, Ms. McCormick
stated that she would like to see proof that they can't comply with the
condition as applied. However, Ms. McCormick noted that it was up to the City
Council to decide if Vogel was required to abide by those conditions before
operations; further noting the expiration of provisional occupancy as of August
15, 2015, yet without compliance.
Ms. McCormick referenced
and read a portion of the neighborhood petition originally submitted to the
Planning Commission and City Council regarding the applicant's request, seeking
100% opaque fencing for the entire length of the northern parcel boundary as
part of any conditions applied for IU approval; and for the purpose of
providing a barrier and visual screening for immediate neighbors related to
light and noise, and at no time requested only for the purpose of screening
just the parking lot.
At the request
of and referencing the currently displayed landscaping diagram, Ms. McCormick
clarified that the neighborhood proposal was seeking replacement of the
existing fence versus previous consideration and discussion of a sleeve to
convert the existing fence posts for board on board fencing. While not having
heard whether or not that option remains viable, Ms. McCormick stated that in
her own independent consultation with a fencing contractor, if the Vogels' contractor didn't think that was possible, she had been advised that there
where augers to accomplish that task.
McGehee sought confirmation as to neighborhood agreement if the fence was moved
10' to 15' closer to the Vogel property with their maintenance of trees from
boundary to boundary.
consultation with neighbors, Ms. McCormick advised that she was unable to
respond. However, Ms. McCormick noted that the Vogels had made it clear that
they do not want trespassing on their property, causing her to think that
proposed solution may be problematic for the Vogels' lawn care of that
In response to
Ms. McCormick's statement, Councilmember McGehee opined that would be the
Vogels' problem based on assurances from their representative tonight that they
would maintain the area.
If the Vogels
shifted the fence to the south and installed plantings on the north side of the
fence, Councilmember Willmus asked Ms. McCormick if that would provide a
potential solution, if it was determined that vegetation could be installed on
the utility easement versus a fence.
questioned what would happen under that proposal with the space between,
depending on what was determined sufficient for the utility company if they
only needed 10' or 15' easement; and whether or not the existing fence would
remain or be removed. Ms. McCormick opined that she'd expect the neighbors
would want some barrier on the property line, but reiterated that the existing
fence had not been maintained for years. If the Vogels agreed to do
maintenance and clean it up from their side, Ms. McCormick stated that she
would still need to consult with the neighbors to confirm their agreement with
clarified that this last proposal would benefit the neighbors not the Vogels,
with the fence on the south and plantings on the north, since most of the
growth is on the neighbors' side, not the Vogel side. If the growth was on the
Vogel side, Mr. Wall advised that it would have been addressed already.
responded that she and/or the neighbors could walk the property to confirm that
statement by Mr. Wall, but had been told not to trespass on Vogel property.
Laliberte questioned the topography of the properties along the boundary lines
if the fence was located 10' further to the south and closer to the Vogel
building and whether this would impact views if the fence was higher in one
place than the other.
responded that it would not; and Mayor Roe responded that only the sight line
may be impacted.
original proposal for the fence shifting to the south and plantings on the
north side and what it would look like, Councilmember Willmus asked if there
wasn't some compromise for both parties, and leaving the existing fence in
confirmed that this was the Vogels' proposal for resolving this issue.
At the request
of Councilmember Etten as to how that differed substantially from the Vogels' proposal #1 or #2, Councilmember Willmus advised that the only difference would
basically be the fence would not be continuous.
Laliberte referenced the latest rendition of the diagram most recently created
by Mr. Paschke, stating her preference the fence not on the line and continuous
from the east to west property lines, with the only reduction in height to 6'
on the east edge and the remainder at 8' in height.
Mayor Roe noted
the 6' height was based on City Code and that location closer in proximity to
Erickson, 1790 Centennial Drive
provided written comment to staff via e-mail dated August 21, 2015 regarding
this agenda item, presented as a bench handout, and attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
referenced her written comments as noted above and history of this IU and
proposals related to conditions applied to its approval.
provided a photo of the Vogel property being mowed immediately adjacent to the
existing chain link fence and to her residential property and deck as an
example of why the neighbors were insistent in the need for the opaque
fencing. In the picture, Ms. Erickson noted the person on a riding mower with
protective headgear unable to hear their requests to vary mowing times, or in
some way respond to their concerns about disrupting meals or family gatherings
on the deck. Ms. Erickson addressed visual issues, with the photo taken from
their kitchen table that very evening and immediately adjacent to their deck
creating additional issues with fumes and noise. Ms. Erickson noted a recent
family gathering that had to be moved indoors from the deck due to fumes and
reiterated Ms. McCormick's comments that the fence had been installed by
Aramark at least thirty years ago. Ms. Erickson also noted the unknown with
the Vogels as to traffic generated and their operations and what all that
entails, opining it may prove worse than the Aramark operation. Ms. Erickson
noted their observations of the Xcel work on the line for the Vogel operation.
stated that it had been sixteen months since Vogels agreed to the conditions,
and while the neighbors had tried not to complain, there kept waiting for
noted a recent situation where she observed from her property that there were
two men out behind their property looking through the fence; and when she asked
them what they were doing, they responded that they were performing a survey
for Vogels to determine their property line, at which time she requested their
business card for verification. When pursuing the conversation, Ms. Erickson
stated their response was that whoever installed the existing fence did a good
job as it was almost right on the property line.
repeated that neither she nor the neighbors were trying to be mean or cause
trouble for the Vogels, but they just wanted to have their privacy and have
the Vogels take responsibility for their own property and provide a
differential between residential and commercial properties, as was the
Willmus asked the City Attorney to opine regarding legalities of locating a
fence within an easement area.
Gaughan advised that a review of each specific easement agreement would be critical
in defining requirements. However, Mr. Gaughan clarified that the question
before the City Council for direction to staff and interested parties was
strictly related to whether or not a 6' to 8' opaque fence and plantings - as
conditioned - should be installed at the northern edge of the property line if
the easement language prohibits fence construction there, or installation at
the northern edge of the easement point as the second option.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, City Attorney Gaughan agreed with the applicant's
legal counsel that two weeks seemed a reasonable amount of time to obtain and
Willmus suggested having this item return for formal action by the September
14, 2015 regular City Council meeting.
suggested, since the City Council condition was already memorialized, the only
direction needed to staff was to clarify that the fence must be built on the
property line or northern most point not encumbered by a utility easement.
Gaughan confirmed Mayor Roe's comments, including installation of coniferous
plantings as part of that condition as well.
Etten seconded, clarification and direction to staff that the City Council's
Interim Use condition of June 23, 2014, as referenced in the RCA dated August
24, 2015, that the opaque fencing of 6' to 8' in height, coniferous plantings,
and landscaping will be installed along the northern property line in its
entirety, unless easement agreement(s) preclude a fence from being installed at
that point; and if so the installation will occur at the northernmost point
allowed and tied into the eastern property line at that point.
At approximately 10:00 p.m.,
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, extension of the curfew to finish this
discussion, to hear the presentation and update related to the draft tree
preservation ordinance amendments (Item 15.a), and to address any Councilmember
initiated items for future meetings (Item 17).
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee,
Willmus, Etten and Roe.
an amendment that if the easement requires fencing move to the south of the
northerly property line, and if plantings are allowed on the easement in
accordance with easement language, and if neighbors agree to it, plantings be
located on the north side of the fence. Willmus further clarified the point,
with agreement by the makers of the motion, that the plantings be placed on the
northern edge of the fence, subject to easement requirements.
The makers of
the original motion agreed with that amendment, allowing for three
possibilities to resolve this issue.
noted that the original Planning Commission record indicated coniferous and
over-story canopy trees.
clarified, with confirmation by City Attorney Gaughan, that the language of the
Interim Use as conditioned was the official record, not discussion at the
Planning Commission meeting and was not under consideration be changed at this
Laliberte expressed concern with plantings on the northern side if the fence
was moved to make room, this brought up the grey area again between one
location or another.
Mayor Roe noted
that the safeguards were in place for the neighborhood's approval of tree
Based on his
reading of the Interim Use, City Attorney Gaughan advised that it struck him
that the Vogels would be in compliance if they installed the fence on the
northern most edge of the property - or subject to easement restrictions.
While placement of the line of trees could be subject to a discussion between
the Vogels and neighbors, City Attorney Gaughan advised he didn't think it was
appropriate to have that included in the directive to staff that installation
was subject to neighbor approval as it would not be consistent with the
With Mayor Roe
expressing confusion as to how to word the motion to provide for that
discussion with neighbors regarding location of plantings, City Attorney
Gaughan reiterated that discussion with neighbors was not nor should it be part
of the Interim Use.
Mayor Roe noted
that whether the plantings were all north or all south of the fence should not
make a difference to the Vogels.
existing fence and lack of maintenance, Councilmember Laliberte sought to
confirm who was responsible for that maintenance.
clarified that the maintenance of the existing fence continued to be the
responsibility of the existing owner; ant they could take it down or leave it at
their discretion, since it was their property.
Specific to the
purpose of the trees, Community Development Director Bilotta noted that while
the neighbors may view this as a second barrier, staff's interpretation of that
purpose would be more aesthetic to break up the fence, and was intended as one
tree per 50 linear feet to achieve that aesthetic perspective. Mr. Bilotta
sought confirmation and agreement with that perspective from the City Council
allowing staff to work out the details.
According to Mr.
Paschke's drawing, Councilmember McGehee opined that it seemed to provide even
distribution and an aesthetic second barrier without creating a solid
windbreak. Councilmember McGehee noted her recollection of a noise attenuation
stated at some point, with Mayor Roe clarifying that it may have been
requested, but had not been included as a condition of IU approval.
Willmus agreed that noise had been referenced by a member of the Planning
Commission, but not included in the IU; or as confirmed by Mayor Roe that it
was part of their discussion, but not a recommendation to the City Council.
Etten agreed with the aesthetic purpose, allowing staff to make a determination
on the exact number of trees.
advised Mr. Bilotta that the City Council agreed with staff's perception
regarding an aesthetic purpose for tree plantings.
Restated as Amended
Etten seconded, clarification and direction to staff that the City Council's
Interim Use condition of June 23, 2014, as referenced in the RCA dated August
24, 2015, that the opaque fencing of 6' to 8' in height, coniferous plantings,
and landscaping will be installed along the northern property line in its
entirety, unless easement agreement(s) preclude a fence from being installed at
that point; and if so the fence installation will occur at the northernmost
point allowed and tied into the eastern property line,in which case, if
plantings are allowed on the easement in accordance with easement language ,
and if neighbors agree to it, plantings will all be located on the north side
of the fence.
Call (As Amended)
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Consultant Check-Back Regarding Draft Tree Preservation Ordinance
consultants Ben Gozola from Sambatek, and Mark Rehder from S & S Tree
Service were present for this update of a DRAFT Tree Preservation Ordinance
dated August 24, 2015.
summarized work done since last meeting with and direction provided by the City
Council, resulting in this latest draft and seeking additional direction based
on this update, clarifying that it remained a work-in-progress.
Mr. Gozola went
over each section as Councilmembers provided their feedback as applicable.
Tree Preservation Plan Set Requested - Matrix, (Page 5), Subd. D.i.1
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Mr. Gozola confirmed that the difference in determining final
diameter and caliper inches was addressed in definitions.
Tree Preservation Simplified Plan Set (Page 7)
suggested that the simplified plan set show setbacks and landmarks to quantify
where they were located, or include a simple drawing to the effect.
responded that specifications were intended as part of the policy to handout;
and enforcement would include someone on staff verifying tree protection
fencing was in the proper location.
suggested as part of the "trees in lieu of" portion, that it be addressed via policy rather than in the ordinance to determine that direction.
noted some things yet to be addressed included, but were not limited to, rate
replacement numbers allowed, removals allowed, and equivalencies.
For the benefit
of staff and his Council colleagues, Councilmember Willmus requested review of
the triggers or development of a special set of regulations pertaining to minor
lot subdivisions in an attempt to avoid larger lot splits for smaller lots to minimize
impacts. Councilmember Willmus noted that, while it may be initially expensive
to put together, he had seen it done successfully in other communities.
suggested that may be part of minor subdivision platting discussions.
Paschke advised that it was actually part of the Building Permit process,
allowing property owners to split a lot for a minor subdivision of up to three
lots at a time, at which time the Building Permit required the builder to
provide that survey and tree protection documentation.
Willmus opined that his concern was that a developer or property owner could
impact the valuation of a lot by going that route.
As it now
stated in existing policy and as proposed, Mr. Paschke advised that the builder
was required one way or another to provide a tree restoration or preservation
Willmus referenced current minor lot subdivision requirements in low density
residential (LDR) Districts.
clarified that they were not required if exempted in minor subdivisions, but
required by the Building Permit for at least 50% of the structure which should
address any new construction; but not an issue created by the subdivision
Willmus reiterated that he still wanted to look at it.
To that point,
Councilmember Etten referenced situations where people may divide properties
and remove trees before actually proposing a development to skirt the tree
current tree preservation ordinance was enacted, Mr. Paschke advised that he
was not aware of any such situations with trees cut down or complaints to that
effect. Mr. Paschke opined that most people are conscious of regulations and
any property owner doing minor code provisions similar to those being proposed
and seemed amenable to them, mostly affecting smaller developers building on
vacant lots of split lots.
proposed ordinance, Mayor Roe sought comment from Mr. Gozola on how to avoid
the potential concern raised by Councilmember Etten about someone taking out
trees in anticipation of a replatting application.
responded that one of the main ways cities addressed that concern was in
requiring permits to cut down trees, but recognized that the City of Roseville
wished to avoid that and therefore had not proposed such a provision.
Etten stated that he was fine in exempting minor lot splits as he didn't
consider that to be a potential major issue; but his concern was in demolition
for new construction and heavy impacts with clear cutting on adjacent
McGehee expressed her concern in looking more closely at impact zones around
roots, questioning whether that should be exempt related to minor subdivisions.
Etten noted the proposed provision for a tree inventory of trees along property
lines that may be impacted but not on the subject property.
McGehee suggested she discuss her additional concerns offline as she had
numerous issues that she didn't see addressed in this draft, some of which
included habitat, clustering, techniques for boulevard trees. However,
Councilmember McGehee expressed appreciation for providing that decisions would
be made by registered foresters or certified arborists as addressed in the
beginning of the document, but preferred consistency in qualifications
throughout the ordinance for those specifications.
advised that the language had been drafted to provide for potential vacationing
or unavailability of the forester, at which time someone else can be assigned
that role provide they had the same qualifications.
McGehee questioned the difference in protecting roots through a drip line
versus measuring the diameter at breast height of a tree, suggesting a simple
calculation for residents was preferred. Councilmember McGehee clarified that
she wasn't so much concerned in cost savings for developers, but for residents
without access to or understanding a CADD system, the ordinance needed to
provide an easy-to-use system that worked for all trees.
provided rationale for choosing the "root protection zone" language as it was actually easier to measure in the CADD system without having to assess each and every tree for the drip line based on a particular species. Mr. Gozola advised that this provided for an average methodology and provided overall cost savings for applicants-whether residents or developers, since they would both need to hire a survey done to locate trees.
McGehee further addressed her appreciation of including pruning based on timing
if not allowing for wound dressing.
McGehee opined that it appeared that this draft exempted a lot of areas for
ponding, rights-of-ways, and other areas that may need included; and asked if
Mr. Gozola was aware of any other communities that may have addressed that
concern. Councilmember McGehee noted problems in potential cutting of trees
during the height of nesting that may be in the way, but endangering individual
exceptions, Mr. Gozola opined that most cities would consider such a
requirement to be onerous for residents in general.
Memorandum, Section I. Allowable Tree Removal, (page 4)
Etten expressed concern in tree removal process versus results, suggesting it
may be just the opposite of what he intended. Councilmember Etten clarified
that he was addressing developments clear cutting parcels with little tree
return, dramatically affecting neighborhoods and ecosystems; and represented
his reaction to several developments where this had happened within the last
few years, where significant growth trees were gone and sticks planted.
Councilmember Etten noted this was a very important purpose aspect for him in
Etten expressed appreciation for a number of the pieces included in this draft,
including the numbering systems to determine a clear way forward.
Tree Preservation Plan Set Requested - Matrix, (Page 5), Subd. D.i.4
Etten noted the actual size for deciduous trees and coniferous trees and their
respective diameter breast heights (DBH), which varied with each of those
types. While the draft ordinance provided a window on page 3 for coniferous
trees, Councilmember Etten questioned why the target had been established in
that range and how to make the conversion for coniferous and deciduous trees.
noted that the numbers are a best guess starting point at this time, and the
different ranges shown on page 3 were subjective at best.
agreed, noting that future tweaking of the matrix would address those numbers.
Etten stated his interest in considering a range of deciduous and lower DBH
numbers due to tree growth as referenced in the summary table on page 6,
essentially preserving more trees and counting more types of trees as part of
those considerations that he'd find important; while addressing rights-of-way
that may include more trees.
Etten opined that the example provided was interesting, but in his review of
previous developments, it would seem that requiring no trees where the existing
ordinance may have required more plantings seemed more appropriate, while this
again seemed to move in the opposite direction. Councilmember Etten reiterated
his overall concern that this draft may actually preserve fewer trees, and he
didn't want to create something moving in the opposite direction.
opined that wasn't the situation, with the proposed numbers supporting more
trees. Mr. Rehder opined that the point of looking at a property and working
backward, addressing the value of existing trees and fitting them into a matrix
to arrive at a suitable number was a more realistic approach, and in the case
of the cash in lieu of option, not as much of a burden.
Etten thanked Mr. Gozola and Mr. Rehder for the good information provided that
showed how the new calculations would have affected past developments.
Replacement Tree specifications, Item 2 (page 8)
Etten asked if a tree preservation plan was presented, after which a totally
different development with grading plan, was developed that impacted trees differently,
how this section would apply unless the same plan came back with the same type
agreed that clarifying language was needed in that section.
Etten stated that he was comfortable with the process to use 1.25" per DBH for clarity and providing an electronic process for a certified person to accomplish.
Councilmember Etten thanked Mr. Gozola and Mr. Rehder for their work to-date on
suggested setting minimum radii of a circle and referencing the drip line as
well to provide more flexibility.
agreed that there should be a minimum referenced.
McGehee stated she was not much in favor about cutting down all trees on a
parcel and planting them elsewhere in the community, and questioned if that was
becoming a common practice. Councilmember McGehee expressed her preference
that some of the new tools for development providing for grouping of clumping
plantings on a site would be of more help. Councilmember McGehee stated that
she envisioned such an option creating a sea of asphalt, and a developer
deciding there was no good place to plant trees, so they'd choose to do so
off-site. While the concept of distributing trees around the City is a nice idea,
and understanding difficulties in some commercial areas, Councilmember McGehee
opined that if adjustments were made to accommodate planting on site, she found
it difficult to believe that reasonable accommodations could not be made on
clarified that the intent was not to state categorically that all planting on
site may be inconvenient, but instead allowing that if one or two trees
couldn't be accommodated on site, their relocation off-site may be allowed.
Mayor Roe further noted that clumping trees is permissible - either currently
McGehee opined that her rationale in discussing some of her ongoing concerns
was to avoid giving someone an option not to comply, but providing that an
outside forester making the observation and stating what can or cannot be done.
clarified that there were no differing opinions on that concern, and there were
three options provided in the draft ordinance addressing it.
thanked Mr. Gozola and Mr. Rehder for their work to-date, opining with some
additional tweaking, it was a very good document.
Policy Priority Planning Document Discussion
Deferred to a
15. City Manager Future Agenda Review
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Laliberte advised that she had several phone calls over the last few weekends
from residents complaining about drones flying over their properties during the
night and asked that a future meeting agenda provide for discussion of this
issue. Councilmember Laliberte asked that City staff check with neighboring
public safety staff, particularly in Ramsey County and/or the Village of St.
Anthony, about any ideas they might have to address this issue before it became
more prevalent. Councilmember McGehee reported on instance where the drone had
actually hit the side of a home.
McGehee advised that she'd even had requests from residents that the City
Council consider a drone ordinance; and asked that this be part of the broader
discussion requested by Councilmember Laliberte.
Laliberte also asked for an update from staff on the neighborhood
self-organizing kits for trash collection at a future meeting.
continued deferment due to lack of time on meeting agendas for discussion of
the Policy Priority Planning document, Councilmember Laliberte asked that a
special meeting be scheduled for the sole purpose of finalizing that document.
Mayor Roe agreed
with Councilmember Laliberte's suggestion for a special meeting to address the
Policy Priority Planning document.
Laliberte seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:58 p.m.