View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
June 13, 2016
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order:
Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and
City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present. Councilmember Willmus had
previously advised he would be arriving late for tonight's meeting, and arrived
at approximately 6:42 p.m.
2. Pledge of
3. Approve Agenda
Laliberte requested removal of Item 8.i from the Consent Agenda for separate
potential minor language revision suggested as part of the minute amendments
for the May 23, 2016 meeting, Mayor Roe noted this would possibly affect
Consent Item 8.j resolution language as well, and therefore, requested removal
of that item for separate consideration.
McGehee, Etten and Roe.
As requested by Councilmember
McGehee, at approximately 6:03 p. m. the City Council observed a moment of
silence in remembrance of this weekend's Orlando, FL terror victims.
Advisory Commission Interviews
Councilmembers conducted interviews
with four applicants for one vacancy each on the Human Rights Commission and
Community Engagement Commission respectively.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 6:54 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 6:58 p.m.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
Wayne Groff, 2266 Marion Road
thanked the City Council for observing a moment of silence in recognition of
the tragic events that transpired in Orlando, Fl over this past weekend. Mr.
Groff presented a written copy of his language suggestions for a resolution of
support, respectfully asking it be adopted by the Roseville City Council
condemning such hate crimes and sending consolation and hope of healing to the
city and the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual and Transgender (LGBT) community.
Brett Kolland, 1926 Gluek Lane
advised that he had recently received a notice of violation for a two-axle
trailer at his residence, noting apparently all two-axle trailers were
considered commercial and in violation of Roseville City Code. Mr. Kolland
advised that this trailer was used for residential and volunteer work only, and
asked the City Council to reconsider this code.
McGehee sought a photo of the trailer and follow-up information from Mr.
Kolland on the nature of his volunteer work.
advised that this would be taken under advisement for future response; and if
there was a recommended change to city code for this particular type of
trailer, the issue would be taken up at that time at the discretion of the City
Council, or at their request during Councilmember initiated items for future
McGehee spoke in support of the resolution of support proposed by Mr. Groff.
Since this item
was not on tonight's agenda, and Councilmembers had not yet seen a copy of the
proposed language, Mayor Roe suggested it be added to a future agenda.
McGehee opined that it would no longer be as relevant as it would tonight, and
asked that it be included on tonight's agenda.
Willmus stated he had no problem adding the proposed resolution to tonight's
agenda, as long as Councilmembers received a copy of the suggested resolution.
moved, Willmus seconded, adding the proposed resolution of support for the City
of Orlando, FL; directed staff to make copies available for the dais and for
the public audience.
objection, the proposed resolution was added as Business/Action Item 14.a to
tonight's agenda, with staff providing a copy of the proposed resolution
language from Mr. Groff.
McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
and City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements
announced upcoming Human Rights Commission-sponsored book selections and
subsequent discussions as part of the summer reading program, scheduled for two
Saturdays in June.
Laliberte thanked city staff for their involvement over the weekend of the
Metro Transit's Bus Rapid Transit A-line launch along Snelling Avenue from
Rosedale Center to the Hiawatha Street station. Councilmember Laliberte noted
the community planning group she had participated with, and commended staff's
involvement at that planning level as well as their presence at the kick-off
Laliberte reported the most recent meeting of the Cedarholm Golf Course Club
House Task Force, discussing financial considerations for how to pay for a
clubhouse and thanked Finance Director Miller for his presentation of options
and accounts for how the facility is currently funded. Councilmember Laliberte
noted that this provided a better understanding of the situation for the task
Donations and Communications
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 May 23, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes
McGehee seconded, approval of the May 23, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as
Page 11, Line 39 (Etten)
Typographical Correction: Delete one "50%" reference.
Page 18, Line 30 (Laliberte)
read: Remove the additional "not" that occurs before the one this is already
stricken out" (Councilmember Laliberte would support the PUD process if it
provided a better solution.)
Page 20, Line 27 (McGehee)
Correct to read: "[but] for this small parcel"
Page 24, Line 32 (Laliberte)
Correct to read: "add an "s" to "tank."
Page 25, Lines 4 - 5 (Etten)
read: "sufficient space between homes, noting [recent large new
developments] [homes in LDR-2 sections of this development]
continued to increase in value resulting in some pretty expensive homes.'
Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Approve Consent Agenda
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being
considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for
Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, dated June 13, 2016.
For the benefit
of the public, Mayor Roe clarified that there were two items duplicated in the
check register (page 49) that had been incorrectly paid to one entity versus
the correct one, and had subsequently been reimbursed by the original entity,
but in the check summary, it didn't provide for this detail.
Willmus moved, Laliberte
seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and
81533 - 81762
Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Approval of 2016-2017 Business and Other License Renewals
Laliberte seconded, approval of annual business and other license renewals as
Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits
Laliberte seconded, approval of business and other licenses and permits for
terms as noted.
McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Approve General Purchases in Excess of $5,000 and Sale of Surplus
moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for
services as noted in the RCA dated May 9, 2016, and Attachment A entitled, "2016 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," dated May 31, 2016.
moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of the sale of surplus items for trade in
on replacement or for sale at public auction or bid process as applicable, and
as detailed in the RCA dated June 13, 2016.
e. Adopt Resolution Rejecting Bids for 2016 Larpenteur Avenue
moved, Laliberte seconded, adopted Resolution No. 11323 (Attachment A)
entitled, "Resolution Rejecting Bids for 2016 Larpenteur Avenue Sidewalk."
f. Adopt Resolution to Accept Work Completed and Authorize Final
Payment on the 2015 Pavement Management Project (PMP)
moved, Laliberte seconded, adopted Resolution No. 11324 (Attachment A)
entitled, "Final Contract Acceptance - 2015 Pavement Management Project;" accepting the work completed, initiating the one-year warranty period, and
authorizing final payment in an amount not to exceed $63,094.19.
Adopt Resolution Awarding Bid for Twin Lakes Area Traffic Signals
Laliberte seconded, adopted Resolution No. 11325 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Awarding Bids for Twin Lakes Area Traffic Signals;" awarding bid to
Forest Lake Contracting, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $179,600.
Adopt Resolution Awarding Bid for 2016 Heinel Watermain Lining
moved, Laliberte seconded, adopted Resolution No. 11326 (Attachment A)
entitled, "Resolution Awarding Bids for 2016 Heinel Watermain Lining;" awarding
the project to the firm of Fer-Pal Construction USA, LLC, in an amount not to
Adopt Resolution Memorializing Denial of an Amendment to the
Official Zoning Map for Property at 1415 County Road B (PF16-006)
Mayor Roe noted
that this item had originally received a 3/2 vote, but without objection the
item remained on the Consent Agenda for action.
moved, Laliberte seconded, adopted Resolution No. 11327 (Attachment A)
entitled, "A Resolution Memorializing the Denial of an Official Zoning Map
Change (Rezoning) from High Density Residential-1 District to High Density
Residential-2 District at 1415 County Road B (PF16-006)."
Set Date for I-35W Managed Lane Public Hearing
moved, Laliberte seconded, adopted Resolution No. 11328 (Attachment A)
entitled, "Resolution Ordering Public Hearing for Municipal Consent of I-35W
Managed Lane Project Final Layout;" scheduled at the July 25, 2016 City Council
9. Consider Items
Removed from Consent
Authorize Purchase Agreement to Purchase Property located at Zero
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in
the Request for Council Action and related attachments, dated June 13, 2016.
City Manager Trudgeon clarified that this would be only a first step to acquire
the property, and prior to any development of the parcels, community
discussions would definitely take place.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke displayed a Parks
Master Plan update map of the parcels.
Laliberte advised that she had asked for removal of this item from the consent
agenda as she felt it didn't belong there without public discussion.
Councilmember Laliberte noted considerable community concern related to the
project that residents apparently felt had come out of nowhere. Councilmember
Laliberte noted the need for more clarification from the City Council's
perspective and explanation of their rationale in moving forward.
provide additional context, Mayor Roe reviewed the City Council meeting in
closed session several weeks ago to consider this property that had been put on
the market, with the current owner offering the city the first option to
acquire it. At that time, Mayor Roe advised that it had been brought to the
City Council to consider the acquisition, and as per State Statute, the City
Council had met in closed session to consider making an offer on the property.
Mayor Roe further clarified the closed nature of that consideration was for the
purpose of forming a potential offer, and to not make such an offer known in a
public forum to disadvantage the city making an offer. Mayor Roe noted that
these parcels located in this southwestern part of Roseville had been reviewed
as part of the 2010 Park Master Plan and subsequent Park Renewal Program, and
identified as possible future park land opportunities at that time.
the displayed map specifically, Councilmember Etten identified the "circles"
and their distances from green space or public use land, noting that this land
is outside every existing circle, and would serve to bring more people closer
to available park land. Based on the concept of the map, Councilmember Etten
opined that this acquisition would ensure more people within that area could be
tied into the park systems in that area of Roseville.
McGehee stated that she had originally been opposed to this acquisition, and
that opposition had been reinforced with several neighborhood meetings since
then. Councilmember McGehee stated that most people in the southwest area of
Roseville more commonly identified the vacant parcel across the street rather
than these parcels. She stated that this parcel (2025 County Road B) had been
brought to the attention of the Parks & Recreation Commission and
Department, but for reasons she couldn't understand, was apparently found
undesirable. Councilmember McGehee opined that every city park did not need to
facilitate recreation land and ballfields, which apparently was the rationale
of one commissioner who stated the preferred parcel (2025 County Road B) wasn't
big enough to toss a ball. Councilmember McGehee stated that the way the
street was set up, and with the city continuing to work on connecting the
community through pathways and sidewalks, the same distance of ¼ mile to reach
the preferred parcel was not problematic. Councilmember McGehee stated that
most residents could access green space, ballfields, and tennis courts
elsewhere within a ¼ mile radius, including at the adjacent Brimhall School
when school was not in session, as well as those same activities available at
Falcon Heights Community Park. All of these areas are currently easily and
safely accessible using Roseville-installed pathway connections. However,
Councilmember McGehee opined that the one piece still missing was natural
parkland in this southwest area of Roseville, which had been requested by
residents during Park Renewal public hearings, seeking a relaxing park similar
to those areas of Central Park, the Nature Center, and Arboretum, having
identified the preferred parcel as that kind of property for complementary
green space versus active space. Councilmember McGehee noted that SW Roseville
also had access to skiing and sledding on the two golf courses (University of
Minnesota and Midland Grove) and a dog park located at Lauderdale Park, all
connected by pathways.
Willmus stated it was important to note the difference with the subject parcel
and one that may be preferred by neighbors was that this parcel and the one
immediately north of it were potentially available for acquisition now, with a
willing seller, thus the reason for Council consideration of its acquisition.
public comment in opposition to proposed land acquisition by the city for a
park at Zero Cleveland and supportive of a park at 2025 County Road B, instead
had been submitted for the record, attached hereto and made a part hereof,
from Kathleen Turner, 2250 Midland Grove Road, #209; Jackie Eastman, Midland
Grove Road, #107; Satya & Vijay Pothapragada, 2215 Midland Grove Road,
#105; and Richard & Florence Holmsten, 2240 Midland Grove Road #107.
Pothapragada, 2215 Midland Grove, #105
Pothapragada submitted a formal petition to City Manager Trudgeon signed by 135
Midland Grove residents asking for the city's purchase of property for a park
at 2025 County Road B rather than the proposed parcels. Mr. Pothapragada
stated there was a lot of support and demand for a simple, nature-themed park
in the area rather than what could be developed on these proposed parcels under
consideration. Mr. Pothapragada questioned the notification process that was
involved to residents for this acquisition, opining most had found it came out
of left field, and asking to be involved in the process based on the definite
interest in a small, nature-themed park. Mr. Pothapragada encouraged
Councilmembers to view the 2025 site, opining it was amazing and like going
back to the rain forest, while at the best, the proposed park across the street
would be only a mediocre park while this one could be exceptional. While
unsure of the history of this proposed parcel being on the market, Mr.
Pothapragada noted the 2025 parcel had been on the market several times, and
while only marketed to developers to-date, why not to the City of Roseville as
well. While unable to comment on the proposed park without knowing the details
of it, Mr. Pothapragada reiterated that a lot of residents in the area support
a park at 2025 County Road B.
Groff, 2266 Marion Road (west side of Cleveland Avenue)
Groff relayed comments from residents in this area, and their concern if the
city purchases a smaller piece of property, it would eliminate the possibility
of a better, larger park in the future if such an opportunity came up. Also,
Mr. Groff noted resident concerns with the city going ahead with a purchase
without residents knowing the details of a potential park. Summarizing, Mr.
Groff noted resident concern was related to the community engagement process
and the park's potential location.
Teilen, 2210 Midland Grove Road, #302
Teilen spoke in support of the 135 signatures on the petition and living at
Midland Grove, and potential development of the proposed parcel as a park. Ms.
Teilen expressed concern about a park in area in her neighborhood, and her
personal concerns with drugs, and asked if a park was developed, whether the
city would consider a safety feature by closing the park at dark, noting other
small parks to limit use of the park by those in the immediate neighborhood.
Ms. Teilen noted that the preferred parcel for a park at 2025 County Road B was
covered by 100-year old trees, and since the gentleman owning it had come
before the city twice seeking to build a large condominium development, she had
publicly spoken in opposition to those developments. In this instance, Ms.
Teilen opined that the owner could sell the property to the city for a good
price, and have the property serve as a memorial to his grandmother, the
original owner of the property. Ms. Teilen asked the city to consider this
option before making any other decisions, and to have that discussion publicly
and through open dialogue to hear everyone's opinion.
Eastman 2250 Midland Grove Road, #107
the knowledge that the current owner of the 2025 property wants to sell the
property adjacent to their condominium complex, and isn't interested in living
in the neighborhood, Ms. Eastman asked if the city had ever put a proposal in
front of the owner that he would consider in an affirmative manner. Ms.
Eastman asked that the City Council made such a proposal to this property owner
Willmus noted it was important to recognize that these particular parcels are
actively on the market for sale, and therefore the city has an opportunity to
acquire and take position of them, setting into place the planning for their
future use. Councilmember Willmus opined that the Parks & Recreation
Department has a history of doing an excellent job for community outreach and
involvement, particularly in the Parks Master Planning process and neighborhood
engagement to determine each neighborhood park's amenities. While the city
could engage in that public planning over a number of months at this time,
Councilmember Willmus noted that during that time, the parcel could be
purchased by a private party for another use. Councilmember Willmus opined
that that it was particularly advantageous for the city to take control of
these parcels now; and even if the community later says they aren't interested
in a park on those parcels, the property could be resold by the city, with no
damage in their having taken control at this time. While there is also a lot
of speculation at this time regarding the 2025 parcel, Councilmember Willmus
noted the owner had been working with developers to maximize the return on his
investment; and therefore, questioned if the city was in a position to acquire
the parcel for a comparable price that the owner could receive in the private
development market, which was considerably different. Councilmember Willmus
reiterated the process involved in considering public input for park planning
and development that will be ongoing through the Parks Master Plan process if and
when the city acquires this site.
moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution (Attachment E) No. 11329
entitled, 'Resolution Approving the Purchase/Sale of Certain Land by the City
of Roseville;" authorizing the purchase of property located at "O" Cleveland
Avenue and "O" Cleveland Avenue in Roseville, MN from Constance J. Ternes, as
Trustee, for a sum of $154,000; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to
execute the Purchase Agreement (Attachment D) on behalf of the City setting
forth the terms and conditions of the sale and undertaking any actions or
contingencies contained therein.
Councilmember Position Statements
McGehee stated she would not support the motion, and was doing so for a number
of reasons, including community survey results of 2014 and 2016. Councilmember
McGehee stated this was another expenditure of public money when there were
willing private buyers interested in purchasing the property for new home
construction that would add to the city's tax base rather than removing the
parcels from that base. Councilmember McGehee further opined that the majority
of residents in the area didn't want this particular property for a park, and
advised that when park staff had been approached on at least two different
occasions about pursuing purchase of the parcel at 2025 County Road B, staff's
response had been that the city wasn't interested in pursuing that
acquisition. Councilmember McGehee noted that that parcel was larger with
mature trees and vegetation, while this land may be available for purchase, but
much less desirable with fewer amenities. Councilmember McGehee opined that to
acquire these parcels and then engage in a planning process for their
development was a folly and waste of taxpayer money while other things were
already on the agenda, including the Cedarholm Golf Course and funding needed
there. Councilmember McGehee opined that this is not a significant or
important purchase at this time, especially when numerous requests had been
made by SW Roseville residents for the city to purchase the 2025 parcel, with
funds available to do so without effort versus spending part of those funds to
purchase something not wanted by residents. Councilmember McGehee further
opined that this was not a desirable location for a park while overlooking
other preferable sites, not desired by residents, an inappropriate use of
public funds, and represented poor public policy.
Etten stated that he generally concurred with Councilmember Willmus' comments
that this is not a mutually exclusive acquisition, allowing other possibilities
as well. Councilmember Etten clarified that this was part of the process
identified in the Park Master Plan update that looked at creating pocket park
concepts, since another Central or Villa Park was not feasible, but still
providing a positive gathering and community space in neighborhoods; and opined
that this potential purchase addressed the general concept of such a pocket
park. Councilmember Etten noted that the city could move forward over time as
such parcels became available, and noted that the sites currently under
consideration were accessible from sidewalks on the east and south sides, as
well as from the new sidewalk along County Road B west of Cleveland Avenue.
Laliberte stated her agreement with her colleagues for the most part, while
questioning the accuracy of some of the comments without further research and
related to acquisition of the 2025 parcel and apparent lack of interest by the
Parks & Recreation staff or their level of interest. However,
Councilmember Laliberte stated she was not interested in paying developer-level
pricing for the 2025 parcel, but couldn't comment further without knowing more
information on the asking or appraisal prices. Councilmember Laliberte agreed
with Councilmember Etten's comments that this property and the engagement
process is a result of the Master Plan discussion updates, and opined that was
a good thing. Councilmember Laliberte opined that anytime the city went back
out into the community for additional feedback that was good public process.
When the city asks residents what they'd like their neighborhood park to be,
and if that feedback comes back that they can't envision any use for the land,
Councilmember Laliberte agreed that the parcels could be resold and other
opportunities seized at that time. Councilmember Laliberte stated she would
support the motion, since it provided an opportunity that was available now for
the city, and didn't preclude further consideration in the future to pursue
other opportunities. Councilmember Laliberte opined it would be good to get
more information as to what other parcels may be available to the city for
Roe stated he had no information about another potential buyer for the Zero
Cleveland parcels, nor did he have information that the Parks Department was
not interested in the 2025 County Road B parcel. However, Mayor Roe noted that
he did know that there had been a land use application before the city for the
2025 parcel for redevelopment, and opined it would have been extremely
inappropriate for the city to attempt an offer on the parcel when at the same
time being asked to consider a development proposal, creating an obvious
ethical issue with the city appearing to have a vested interested in not
approving a proposal because it wanted to acquire the parcel for park use.
Mayor Roe suggested that may have been staff's rationale in expressing a lack
of interest in the parcel at the time they were asked to avoid putting the city
in a position to appear interested in a property before them for redevelopment,
again creating a strong appearance of conflict of interest.
Manager Trudgeon confirmed staff's response rationale as noted by Mayor Roe.
stated by Councilmembers Etten and Laliberte, Councilmember Willmus reiterated
that this purchase in no way precluded the city from looking at the 2025 parcel
in the future, and volunteered to work with Councilmember McGehee to pursue
that option. However, Councilmember Willmus stated that he planned to fully
support this motion.
McGehee stated she would not oppose the motion if there was some agreement
going forward to look at the 2025 parcel. Councilmember McGehee stated that
she was very adamant that the city not do anything while that 2025 parcel was
under land use consideration, being fully aware of potential conflict of
interest concerns, but rather supported the city waiting to see if it could be
purchased. Given the strong community desire to look at that 2025 parcel for
park land, Councilmember McGehee opined that the city needed to take a strong
role to acquire the parcel for the city. Councilmember McGehee stated she
would be happy to work with Councilmember Willmus or anyone else to accomplish
such an acquisition, opining it would make a spectacular addition to not only
the SW Roseville park amenities, but for the entire community-wide park system,
creating a parcel unlike any other currently available.
numerous reasons stated, Mayor Roe spoke in support of both perspectives, but
clarified that acquisition of the parcels at "0" Cleveland Avenue for potential
park use in no way diminished consideration of looking at the 2025 County Road
B parcel as well. Mayor Roe reiterated and made clear for the public that
nothing would be built or developed on any public parcel without a significant
public process, in line with the historic community engagement processes
McGehee seconded, directing staff to seek an appraisal for the property owner
at 2025 County Road B for potential acquisition by the city.
Etten suggested amending the motion directing staff to consult with the
property owner since the parcel was not on the open market for purchase, and an
appraisal could be premature.
Laliberte agreed with Councilmember Etten; that staff should be directed to
have a conversation with the property owner, and then proceed to an appraisal
if the property owner was found receptive to selling. Councilmember Laliberte
cautioned that the property owner may have a particular use in mind for
developing the property, and since he's waited ten years to bring forward two
similar development proposals, his intent was unknown at this time.
McGehee referenced the suggestion by a resident during public testimony for the
property to serve as a memorial to the property owner's grandmother, allowing
for several options to honor that past association with the land.
sought clarification on the actual motion intended based on further discussion,
and the language of the motion was subsequently reordered by the makers of the
motion as follows:
McGehee seconded, directing staff to initiate a conversation with the property
owner at 2025 County Road B about potential acquisition by the city; and if a
favorable reception was received from the current property owner, staff was
further directed to pursue an appraisal on the parcel.
Adopt a Resolution Memorializing Denial of the Request to Amend
Roseville City Code, Section 1004.09.C (Improvement Area) to allow Greater
Development of Building Footprints and Paved Surfaces on Parcels in the LDR-2
Zoning District (PF156-010)
noted by Mayor Roe, a minor language revision was implemented as amendment to
the May 23, 2016 meeting minutes; and therefore consistent revision was
indicated for the proposed resolution. Mayor Roe noted this was on line 18 of
the resolution, revised to read:
percentage would be too limiting [for] [of] sufficient
green space between or surrounding individual homes; and"
McGehee seconded, adopted Resolution No. 11330 (RCA Exhibit A) entitled, "A
Resolution Memorializing the Denial of a Request to Amend Zoning Text
Pertaining to the Amount of Building Footprint and Paved Surface Allowed in the
LDR-2 Zoning District (PF16-010);" as amended.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 8:05 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:17 p.m.
General Ordinances for Adoption
Community Development Department Requests Approval of Proposed
Text Ordinance Amendments to Roseville City Code, Title 9, Chapter 908, to
Regulate Rental Licensing for Multi-Family Rental Dwellings of 5 or more Units
Coordinator Dave Englund briefly summarized the changes incorporated since the
last presentation, as detailed in the RCA.
For the benefit
of the listening audience, Mayor Roe briefly summarized those revisions (lines
19 - 34 of the RCA), and as noted in Attachment A, including other technical
Laliberte seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1502 (Attachment A) entitled, "An
Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Chapter 908, to
Regulate Rental Licensing for Multi-Family Rental Dwellings of 5 or More
Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1502 (Attachment B)
entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Chapter
908, to Regulate Rental Licensing for Multi-Family Rental Dwellings of 5 or
thanked staff for their proposed revisions, and for providing the additional
research as previously requested by the City Council.
New Election Equipment Demonstration
introduced City of Roseville Elections Coordinator Carolyn Curti for a
demonstration, as required by state law, of new election equipment for use over
the next decade. Ms. Curti noted the equipment will be on display for the month
of June at City Hall, and encouraged residents to stop in to try out this newer
technology equipment with enhanced security.
Ms. Curti noted
equipment was also available for visually impaired voters now able to vote
privately rather than in the past with the assistance of two election judges,
and able to be coded to ensure the ballot was submitted successfully.
demonstrated various types of ballots for the public, and advised that
equipment would be available at all polling places for absentee or early voting
one week prior to this year's primary and general elections.
Joint Meeting with the Park & Recreation Commission
welcomed Parks and Recreation Commission members present, including Chair
Terrance Newby, and Commissioners Jerry Stoner, Philip Gelbach, Cynthia
Warzecha, Nancy O'Brien, Luke Heikkila, Jamie Becker-Finn, Ronald Bole, Lee
thanked the City Council for this opportunity to briefly review projects the
commission was working on and updating them on projects still in process.
Chair Newby delegated reports on various activities and accomplishments as
detailed in the RCA to Commissioners Becker-Finn, Heikkala, Gelbach and
Stoner. Chair Newby concluded the presentation by addressing other activities
before seeking feedback from the City Council.
Gelbach noted a typographical error in the "Summer Fun 2016 Events" flyer on
the date of the parade shown as a Thursday, when it was Monday, June 27, 2016.
At the request
of Commissioner Becker-Finn, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Jill
Anfang reported that 110 volunteers had volunteered approximately 900 hours on
Community Playground Builds to-date.
discussion was held on the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) update, prompted by Councilmember
McGehee's request to know more about the city's goal for the program.
Chair Newby advised that the commission and staff were exploring ways to
minimize the impact on Roseville, with one option to treat individual trees
even though he noted this was an expensive option and not always practical.
Since the borer appears here to stay, Chair Newby reported that when exploring
various alternatives with a goal not to isolate the disease, but consider
replacement trees, removal of diseased trees, or treatment if appropriate while
realizing treatment may not be the most cost-effective measure depending on the
number of trees infected. Chair Newby reported that another option was finding
new species that were not as susceptible to the borer.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Commissioner O'Brien responded to the question if
trees were found infected, if they could withstand infestation without
treatment. Commissioner O'Brien reported on information the commission had
been told through consultation with the city's arborist, that once treatment
was begun it needed to be continued for the life of the tree or was not
viable. Commissioner O'Brien noted that was one reason why the long-term
process became expense for areas unless those trees were important in a certain
area. Commissioner O'Brien suggested that the reports from the arborist that
the Commission received on a regular basis could be shared with the City
Council more frequently to keep everyone more informed. Commissioner O'Brien
noted EAB seemed to now be moving like wildfire, and assured the City Council
and public that the city was working locally but also with Ramsey County to
address EAB infestation.
In response to
whether once infestation was found, was there any hope for the tree,
Commissioner Gelbach stated that the need remained to get rid of the bark and
beetle to remove the danger of further infestation.
McGehee asked if the city had published information for the benefit of private
property owners on removal requirements or past experience in removing infested
Stoner responded that public or private parties were subject to Ramsey County
rules for transporting wood from a quarantined area, such as Roseville was now
designated. Commissioner Stoner stated that it was his understanding that the
more cost-effective way now being used was to chip infested wood to
mechanically destroy the beetles. Commissioner Stoner advised that there was a
plethora of information available from Ramsey County and the State Department
of Natural Resources. Commissioner Stoner advised that; and at this time, the
recommendation was that if you found a tree in poor condition due to EAB, you
took it down, with those infected deteriorating quickly, with a projected five-year
cycle from start to finish for the disease, and possibly sooner depending on
the health of the tree, with visible deterioration seen as the canopy starts to
McGehee suggested including educational flyers or handouts for the community
and golfers as part of requested public input for the Cedarholm project to help
spread the word.
Stoner duly noted that request; and also noted the expenditure of funds to-date
for treatment of significant public trees, which included some on the golf
course within a limited scope.
Specific to the
Wildlife Management Program and Ordinance, Councilmember Laliberte noted
previous discussion about the educational component (e.g. feeding ban), and
asked how or when this was being done.
Chair Newby advised it was an ongoing process; and noted it had been found that
the feeding was frequently going on in city parks. Therefore, Chair Newby
advised that the commission would be returning to the City Council in the near
future with a recommendation to consider signage in parks explaining and
summary the city ban as a gentle reminder.
Becker-Finn advised that when city staff receives a call reporting a resident
feeding wildlife, in response a staff person was sent out to help educate
residents. Commissioner Becker-Finn noted that the city was not just citing
people without a prior warning that they were in violation of city ordinance,
especially in certain specific areas of the city where this has been
problematic, but that education is being done on a person-to-person basis.
Chair Newby had
noted communication received by staff and the commission on the deer issue; and
sought assurances that the City Council was also being copied on those emails.
Chair Newby reported that the only information not forwarded to the City
Council was informal comments when commissioners had been out and about the
community, and people had inquired about the ordinance, with most of those
inquiries about misconceptions about hunting and feeding.
McGehee thanked the commission for endorsing the Marion Street park; opining it
was a wonderful thing and very much needed; and stated her often voiced opinion
that the city adopt a policy to ensure adequate green space in all High Density
Residential (HDR) zoning districts.
noted the commission's involvement in reviewing and providing input into the
city's asset management program, and adoption by the City Council in 2015 of
the civic priority plan, including asset management. Chair Newby assured
Councilmembers that the commission would continue to review respective parks,
facilities and infrastructure segments related to parks and recreation.
Willmus specifically asked the commission to review the 2016 community survey
results about park building use, noting the comments were quite impressive.
Etten thanked the commission for all their work, especially the huge
accomplishment as the Park Renewal Program nears completion, as well as for
looking down the road going forward on new items.
noted, as a key thing the City Council addressed as part of the city's 2016
budget process was the proactive tackling of capital improvement program (CIP)
issues. Given the significant and immediate deficit in the parks and
recreation area of the CIP, Mayor Roe noted that the funds go negative this or
next year; and noted the Commission and staff were tasked to look at that very
closely. Mayor Roe asked that the commission do so as well to identify any
expenditures that could be reasonably delayed or changes made to the plan; or
if additional funding sources could be identified beyond the
previously-discussed park dedication fee. Mayor Roe noted recent accountings
indicating surplus Park Renewal Program bond funds that may be applicable to
park CIP uses and help to somewhat alleviate the deficit situation. Mayor Roe
stated that he wanted input from the commission and their recommendations about
how to address this deficit, noting he didn't want to see negative lines in the
CIP going forward, but to see it adequately and realistically funded.
Willmus noted past commission discussions about a local option sales tax,
especially for the city's major regional component (skating center).
skating center, Mayor Roe noted that staff-level discussions were ongoing about
how to approach and receive state bonding funds at the next opportunity, in the
2018 legislative session.
noted these were some difficult and complex issues, but assured the City
Council that the commission was holding those discussions now.
thanked commissioners for their attendance and update.
Public Hearings and Action Consideration
Public Hearing to Consider the Transfer of an Off-Sale Liquor
License and Cigarette/Tobacco Products License to Roseville Liquor, Inc., d/b/a
Director Chris Miller briefly summarized the request as detailed in the RCA.
The applicant was present but did not seek recognition or to make comment.
Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 9:06 p.m.; with no
one appearing for or against.
Etten seconded, approval of the transfer of the Off-Sale Liquor License and
Cigarette/Tobacco Products License to Yeng Vang for the remainder of the 2016
calendar year, 700 West County Road B.
Public Hearing to Approve/Deny an On-Sale Wine License for
MIAMSP, LLC, d/b/a Painting With a Twist, located at 2100 Snelling Avenue N,
Suite 72C (Har Mar Mall)
Director Chris Miller briefly summarized the request as detailed in the RCA.
Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 9:08 p.m.; with no
one appearing for or against.
this is a national chain based on her review of the request with this location
the first Minnesota franchise, Councilmember Laliberte noted the application
stated that food was not their principle business, but questioned the
percentage and type of food service intended, and how it would be monitored.
Director Miller advised that staff had spoken with the applicant about that
and, while it may be a grey area initially, the intent was to serve simple
sandwiches and snacks that would complement wine. Mr. Miller advised that this
satisfied city requirements as per state law, but advised that staff would
monitor it in its annual review of sales data provided.
Laliberte noted that her review had also indicated a number of youth options,
making it appear that the use of the facility was not limited to adults.
Director Miller advised he would need to research that further for a future
report to the City Council if so directed.
noted by Councilmember Willmus, the city's ordinance specifically addresses
food sales, with Finance Director Miller noting this was mostly related to
full-liquor licenses, with differences for on-sale wine licenses. During
staff's review of the application, Mr. Miller reported that staff had been
satisfied the applicant met requirements, but would continue to monitor the
building. Mr. Miller noted that the applicant had been fully made aware of the
city's requirements as they begin operations; and assured councilmember that
staff would review sales and follow-up accordingly.
future reference, Mayor Roe asked staff to include the section of code
addressing these specific licenses as part of the meeting packet materials.
the request of Councilmember Etten, Finance Director Miller assured that the
applicant had received full information in their application materials for
training compliance and identification of minors.
Etten seconded, approval of the request of MIAMSP, LLC for an On-Sale Wine
License, located at 2100 Snelling Avenue N, Suite 72C (Har Mar Mall).
Laliberte stated she would vote in support of the motion; but asked that staff
provide the City Council with a six-month report on the business and food
Request for Approval of a Minor Subdivision of the Residential
Property at 545 Roselawn Avenue into Three Parcels (PF16-014)
Roe opened the public hearing at approximately 9:13 p.m., noting this type of
minor subdivision request came directly to the City Council versus the Planning
Commission for the public hearing process.
Planner Thomas Paschke briefly summarized the request as detailed in the RCA. Mayor
Roe noted that the applicant was present, but sought no recognition or to make
Roe closed the public hearing at approximately 9:17 p.m., with no one appearing
for or against.
McGehee seconded, approval of a MINOR SUBDIVISION to allow the property at 545
Roselawn Avenue to be subdivided into three conforming parcels; based on the
comments and findings of the staff report and input received during the public
hearing; and subject to conditions as outlined in lines 92 - 95 of the report
as presented and dated June 13, 2016.
Business Items (Action Items)
NEW ITEM - Resolution of Support for the City of Orlando FL
Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11331 (draft provided as Groff
bench handout) entitled, "Resolution of Support and Solidarity with the City of
Orlando;" as follows:
the attack of June 10, 2016, at the nightclub in Orlando, FL was a
reprehensible act of terror against the United States, the people of Orlando,
and the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community specifically;
RESOLVED, that the City of Roseville extends its deepest sympathy and stands in
solidarity with the City of Orlando against all hate crimes and acts of
terrorism, sending consultation and hope of healing to the city and the LGBT
community and their families and friends."
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Receive Information on the Upcoming Comprehensive Plan Update and
Provide Direction on the Scope of the Update, the Public Engagement Strategy,
and the Overall Timeline of the Process to Update the Comprehensive Plan
Community Development Director Kari Collins and Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd were
present to provide an overview of information regarding the upcoming
comprehensive plan update, as detailed in the RCA. Ms. Collins asked the City
Council to provide direction to staff on the scope of the update, the public
engagement strategy, and overall timeline of the process.
presentation, and as per the RCA, staff highlighted each chapter or section,
and advised that the scope of the project defined by the City Council would
inform the degree of outside consultant use for specific chapters versus
in-house technical review of those deemed consistent with the 2008 update.
Director Marc Culver briefly reviewed those chapters under the Public Works
realm, noting that a different outside consultant would be reviewing those
chapters on a parallel track with other consultant work and including public
input. Mr. Culver reported that all chapters would be presented together upon
their completion for City Council final approval prior to seeking review and
comment by other jurisdictions and agencies, before final submission to the
Metropolitan Council. Mr. Culver noted that staff intended to integrate and
update the Pathway Master Plan into the transportation chapter, including
seeking public input on updated pathway priorities.
Specific to the economic
development and redevelopment chapters, Ms. Collins noted the need to identify
whether a consultant specializing in those areas was needed to assist the
process, noting there would be some level of updating needed in transitioning
from the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to the Economic Development
Authority (EDA), even though some of the policies and goals remained
Specific to environmental
protection and utilities chapters, Mr. Culver advised that some consultant
assistance may be needed for special modeling and data production, most of the
work could be completed in-house by staff and then incorporated into the
highlighted the surface water management section, advising that this was
already out for a Request for Proposals (RFP) due to timing with one of the
three area watershed districts and their review slated for the city in August
of 2017. However, Mr. Culver noted that this information would also be
reviewed and presented to the public for their feedback.
Specific to the parks, open space
and recreation chapter, Ms. Collins advised that the Park Master Plan and Park Renewal
Program documents would be integrated into the comprehensive plan update.
Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd
reviewed the implementation chapter as detailed in the RCA; as well as
additional considerations as outlined in lines 119-195 of the RCA.
Ms. Collins noted Planning
Commission input included in lines 196 - 216 of the RCA.
If the City
Council had any additional considerations, Ms. Collins asked that they direct
that information to staff. For those with little or no familiarity with the
comprehensive plan or updates each decade, Ms. Collins referred them to the
Metropolitan Council's local community handbook, opining it was a wonderful
reviewed the draft timeline for City Council consideration, noting it was
mirrored against the 2007-08 plan update timeline, and addressed in lines 48 -
71 of the RCA. Ms. Collins advised that the significant time between November
2017 and December 31, 2018 was to allow review by local jurisdictions, agencies
and the Metropolitan Council.
preparing an RFP, Ms. Collins advised that staff was seeking specific City
Council guidance on their preferred scope of the update and preferred option(s)
for public engagement strategies. The recommended choices outlined by staff
were as follows:
Scope of Update
update - system statements issued by the Metropolitan Council; OR
and content update; OR
update and full re-write/re-vision of the comprehensive plan.
strategy developed with consultant, staff and various advisory commissions; OR
suggested engagement process with Community Engagement Commission (CEC)
representation in review of proposals; OR
steering committee process similar to that used for the 2008 update.
Based on her
familiarity with the Comprehensive Plan, Councilmember McGehee stated she found
the current plan pretty good. From her perspective, Councilmember McGehee
opined the only piece missing from the engagement strategy used last time was
that the process didn't go deep enough into small groups or districts thereby
not allowing significant changes to be noticed and vetted by neighborhoods
being affected by the corresponding changes as proposed. Without an
opportunity for those neighborhoods or community areas to review those sections
and goals, or to voice their concerns, Councilmember McGehee opined that
negated ownership by those neighborhoods in the process. Otherwise,
Councilmember McGehee opined that she thought the sections, goals and overall
vision was good, but it simply lacked that necessary outreach component and
engagement at the level neighborhood and community within the city for the
Specific to the
scope of the update, Councilmember McGehee stated that only a few technical
updates were needed due mostly to legislative changes since 2008.
Councilmember McGehee opined that the vision was fine, but the vision was
before the new normal; and it didn't hurt in this process to take that vision
back to smaller neighborhoods to take their pulse and make sure everything was
Willmus stated that he agreed with much of Councilmember McGehee's comments,
opining he found it to be a good document and didn't require a rewrite or
complete revision, but to simply look to the technical update to make sure a
review of goals are still relevant to accomplish, those no longer valid, or
those needing new things plugged in. Councilmember Willmus noted he included
bringing the EDA into it. Councilmember Willmus stated that one thing he would
like to consider bringing back into the focus of the comprehensive plan, was a
review of the vision, goals and policies related to HDR housing, and to take a
second look at that based on recent presentations and former Community
Development Director Bilotta's report on the amount of Roseville acreage zoned
HDR versus what the community needs.
Etten stated he would support a middle-of-the-road approach, or option "b" with
a technical and content update. Councilmember Etten suggested some areas
needing more time spend on them included housing and economic development; and
expressed appreciation for Public Works Director Culver's intent to provide
connectivity with the community's Pathway Master Plan, and suggested including
that connectivity outside the city or regionally as well. Also as the city
moves forward in reviewing development proposals, Councilmember Etten suggested
a more in-depth look, form a public works or parks and recreation perspective,
how those pieces connect (e.g. water, climate, health, etc.) and consider them
part of the comprehensive plan as well.
Laliberte stated her agreement with her colleagues for the most part, noting
that the City Council and community had been addressing those areas of the 2008
plan that didn't seem right or needed refinement over the last few years.
Regarding the scope, Councilmember Laliberte supported option "b" to make sure
the updated plan was current. Councilmember Laliberte agreed that obviously
the EDA and structural planning changes made since the 2008 plan update needed
to be updated, including HDR designations.
Mayor Roe noted
it was helpful that the city was already planning to review HDR designations,
and integrate those analyses without the need for a separate outside
consultant. Mayor Roe concurred with an option "b" scope as well as engagement
strategies that made sure the goals and policy section of each chapter at a
minimum met with acceptance of the general public for what the community was
looking for and to make sure they were given time to specifically weigh in on
goals. Mayor Roe noted that may have something to do with the Imagine
Roseville 2025 community visioning process to ensure those remained in play
without opening up that vision again from a clean slate and starting over; but
instead to use this opportunity as a check-in with the public to make sure the
city is still on the right track or make adjustments as needed. Mayor Roe noted
that one of the downsides of that community visioning process was that it had
been huge and unwieldy. If that could be simplified to a simple draft of
aspirations, which had proven to be unsatisfactory to him and Councilmember
McGehee, Mayor Roe suggested that a more succinct process could prove more
McGehee agreed, opining that if groups were vigorously sought out and small
enough for engagement and interaction, all components for goals, vision and a
lot of HDR considerations and questions heard throughout the community could be
addressed and HDR sites defined community-wide. Councilmember McGehee
referenced the "Thrive" document, noting that it wasn't predicting much growth
or increase in affordable housing needs; therefore not strapping the city to
any unreasonable goals. Therefore, Councilmember McGehee opined that this
should open up opportunities for environmental and sustainability components if
that was part of climate change and more discussion about green steps to pursue
(e.g. solar, community gardens, etc.), but reiterated the need to make these
discussion groups smaller versus a giant district that were too intimidating
for people to weigh in.
stated he didn't find the steering committee process used in 2008 to be the
right process to repeat; and given the community's experience with engagement,
didn't think a consultant-suggested process was needed either. In general,
Mayor Roe stated his preference for a city-developed process.
agreed, and also stated he didn't want this to fall into the lap of one
particular commission, but to receive input from all advisory commissions as
part of the process.
clarified that he thought all city commissions had a role in informing the
document's content, but considered the CEC's role to define the engagement
process itself, but not tasking them with how something was or was not
presented, or not functioning as a steering committee.
Etten, Laliberte and McGehee concurred.
McGehee suggested that council members might consider attending some smaller
group meetings help inform the council as a whole.
Mayor Roe noted
that a lot of input in the Park Master Plan process had been achieved through
the "meeting in a box" concept which was great for engagement, but may depend
on a consultant versus CEC directed but could also be directed sufficiently to
provide good results. Mayor Roe noted that consultants were the experts in
defining those tools.
Trudgeon noted that the CEC had a better understanding that their role was to
come up with best practices to present to the City Council, upon consulting
with staff. Mr. Trudgeon noted those tools could include "meetings in a box,"
or other options; and anticipated those recommendations coming forward from the
CEC within the next few months. Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was clearly
identified for the CEC and he had reinforced to them that the CEC's role was
not to serve as a steering committee for the comprehensive plan.
expressed hope that tonight's scope and goal engagement would serve to inform
the CEC's discussion.
Without objection, Mayor Roe
confirmed to staff that the Scope option "b" was preferred; and engagement
option was a combination of options "a" and "b."
Accept the 2016 Community Survey
Due to time constraints, this item
At 10:00 p.m., Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, extending
the City Council's curfew by five minutes.
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee,
Willmus, Etten and Roe.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
18. Adjourn to EDA
At 10:02 p.m.,
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adjournment of the City Council meeting, and
reconvening as the Roseville Economic Development Authority.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (REDA)
approximately 10:02 p.m., President Roe called to order a Special REDA meeting,
and without objection, the roll call and agenda stood as stated.
CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION
Roe advised that the closed session, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
13D-05, Subd. 3(b) (3) was for the purpose of reviewing confidential or
protected nonpublic appraisal data under Section 13.44, Subd. 3 and to develop
potential offers for the purchase of property located at 196 S McCarrons Boulevard and 210 S McCarrons Boulevard
approximately 10:03 p.m., Etten moved, and Willmus seconded, moving into closed
Roe convened the Roseville EDA in closed executive session. In addition to the
REDA members, REDA Executive Director Pat Trudgeon, Interim Community
Development Director Kari Collins, and REDA Attorney Martha Ingraham were also
approximately 10:16 p.m., Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, recessing the Closed
Session and reconvening in Open Session
Willmus moved, Laliberte
seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:16 p.m.