View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
July 11, 2016
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m., declaring a quorum of three
members present. Voting and Seating Order: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten,
and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were
also present. Councilmember Etten arrived at approximately 6:07 p.m. and
Councilmember Willmus arrived at approximately 6:18 p.m.
2. Pledge of
3. Approve Agenda
As a point of
personal privilege, Mayor read a statement related to recent events in Falcon
Heights, MN, and the States of Louisiana and Texas, offering condolences to victims,
their families, and the respective communities involved. Mayor Roe recognized
the community support evident after these events and the challenges represented
and opportunities for construction discussion to find solution. Mayor Roe
encouraged positive versus diverse dialogue; and expressed personal honor and
support of law enforcement personnel. Mayor Roe asked that all parties
inclusively dedicate themselves to finding a solution until the hard work is
done in solving such diverse issues.
arrived at this time and requested removal of Item 8.e from the Consent Agenda
for separate consideration.
McGehee moved, Laliberte
seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.
Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
Rita Mills, Representing the Roseville Area League of Women Voters
stated that the LWV shared the same thoughts as those expressed by Mayor Roe.
Ms. Mills read
a prepared statement related to the recently-completed LWV's final report on
their year-long study of police services provided in Roseville, Maplewood,
Little Canada, Falcon Heights and Lauderdale. Ms. Mills reported that the
report involved data collected and interviews of Police Chiefs and the Ramsey
County Sheriff. Ms. Mills publically thanked Roseville Police Chief Rick
Mathwig for his help and feedback, and willingness to be interviewed as well as
serving on the panel. As conclusions were arrived at, Ms. Mills noted a
subsequent meeting with Ramsey County Attorney john Choi was held focusing on
domestic violence as well as with the Executive Director of the Minnesota Board
of Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) on training efforts. Ms. Mills
advised that a consensus of the LWV was achieved in April of 2016 based on
findings of this comprehensive report and represented the position of the LWV.
Ms. Mills shared the position statements from the report.
advised that this report had been electronically distributed to the City
Council several weeks ago, and noted print copies and electronic copies were
also available for the public through the LWV website, as well as viewing the
panel discussions held in developing the study at lwvroseville.org or on
Facebook at www.facebook.com/romafh.lwv.
thanked the LWV for the report and the study that went into its preparation.
Carolyn Cushing, Roseville resident and Member of the LWV
On a personal
note, Ms. Cushing reviewed her vast service to the community and area in
donating time in the community and area as a resident since 1963, as well as
serving as the past President of the LWV. Ms. Cushing noted she had always
been proud of living in Roseville and proud of its government, thus her service
on various committees with and for Roseville and for Ramsey County. Ms.
Cushing expressed her personal distress that the LWV had been removed from the
agenda to present their study; and to-date, the lack of questions received from
the City Council. Ms. Cushing stated this was very different treatment from
what the LWV had received from other communities in which they were involved,
and and expressed her disappointment and lack of being aware of this ever
having happened before. Ms. Cushing noted that the LWV had always been
recognized high-level and pertinent work on various issues. Ms. Cushing noted
Mayor Roe's comments tonight seeking construction conversation; and opined it
seemed to her that if anyone could do that, it was the LWV.
also offered hard copies of the final report available to anyone making a
Mayor Roe clarified
that the LWV had not been removed from tonight's agenda; but having requested
time on the agenda, given meeting time constraints, the broader point and
purpose had been achieved in bringing the study forward for public awareness.
and City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements
announced the upcoming natural resources restoration at Central Park's Bennett
arrived at this time.
Trudgeon announced a new topic on future community development on Speak Up!
Roseville, seeking feedback from the community on how businesses and Roseville
should be developed in the future. Mr. Trudgeon encouraged citizens to provide
their input; as well as bring forward any other ideas for conversation going
Laliberte thanked volunteers for their efforts during the week of Rosefest and
Party in the Park. Councilmember Laliberte specifically recognized the efforts
of the City's Community Engagement Commission in rallying other advisory
commissioners to attend the Day in the Park event in their roles representing
the city, and encouraging their involvement. Councilmember Laliberte opined it
was a great day with many enjoyable family festivities.
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 June 20, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the June 20, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended.
Page 7, Lines 37 - 40 (McGehee)
read: "As part of this process, Councilmember McGehee asked if the intent was
to ultimately [make] [correct] a problem [go away]
versus " [institutionalizing the current practice] every winter
due to the"
Page 23, Lines 31 - 32 (Roe)
read: "Mayor Roe clarified that the Metropolitan Council was not [suggesting
special] [projecting specific] traffic levels, but their traffic
Page 28, Lines 19-20 (McGehee)
read: "side, Councilmember McGehee opined [that was] the
best that [staff and the City Council] could [be
McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, 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 July 11, 2016.
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and
81877 = 82145
Approval of 2016-2017 Business and Other License Renewals
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, approval of annual business and other license renewals as detailed,
dependent on successful background checks.
Approve Business & Other Licenses
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, approval of business and other licenses and permits for terms as
noted, dependent on successful background checks.
Approve General Purchases in Excess of $5,000 and Sale of Surplus
McGehee asked if, in addition to golf carts, the Park Patrol Service used
Mayor Roe noted
the considerable number of those volunteers who were elderly.
Rick Mathwig confirmed that the majority of the Park Patrol were senior
volunteers; but advised one member used their own bike, and some walked, but
others used the golf carts. Chief Mathwig advised that the department was option
to any method available for this volunteer patrol.
moved, Etten seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services
as noted in the RCA dated July 11, 2016, and Attachment A entitled, "2016
Capital Improvement Plan Summary," dated June 30, 2016.
Approve a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed, Authorize
Final Payment, and Commence One-Year Warranty Period on the St. Croix Lift Station
moved, Etten seconded, adopted Resolution No. 11334 (Attachment A) entitled, "Final
Contract Acceptance - St. Croix Lift Station;" accepting work completed,
starting the one-year warranty period, and authorizing final payment in the
amount of $64,618.98.
9. Consider Items
Removed from Consent
Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan Update
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in
the RCA and related attachments, dated July 11, 2016.
Etten advised that he had spoken with staff about this item earlier today, but
wanted to bring up one component of this proposed plan update. Councilmember
Etten expressed his interest in a specific area addressing ponds, lakes and
water quality within those area water bodies, whether shared or within the
confines of Roseville. Councilmember Etten noted his intent was to ensure the
City of Roseville was doing its part in working cooperatively with area watershed
districts in addressing those issues.
McGehee seconded that interest; noting her observations with Langton Lake and
the condition of the lake compared to that of the last eight years in which
she'd been involved in taking samples.
McGehee sought additional comment from staff on the enormous disparity between
bids when the evaluation criteria and process appeared to be similar in all
Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer responded that the scope of work for
those engineering services was intentionally left open-ended to allow bidders
to propose ideas, improvements and additions to the city's Comprehensive
Surface Water Management Plan (CSWMP), originally adopted in in 1990 and
subsequently updated in 2003 and 2013 respectively. Mr. Freihammer noted that
some firms were not as familiar with the community as others and would need to
perform additional work to get up-to-speed; while S.E.H. had worked with the
city in the past and was more familiar with Roseville, resulting in different
scope for the proposed work.
the additional scope added tonight as initially requested by Councilmember
Etten to obtain environmental feedback on area water bodies, Councilmember
McGehee asked if this would change that criteria and bids.
Freihammer advised that anything related to water quality would automatically
be addressed in the updated CSWMP, and that update would involve cooperatively
working with all area watershed districts as that was part of the original
scoping item required as part of the CSWMP.
McGehee asked if Mr. Freihammer could highlight any other value-added aspects
of the recommended proposal.
Freihammer stated he had nothing specific other than the intent to consult with
the City's Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC) as
well as to receive public input during the update process. Since the city's
current CWSMP isn't that old, Mr. Freihammer opined that may have played into
the dollar amount received from S.E.H. for their proposal.
McGehee opined that the city tended to use the same companies on a frequent
basis for their contract consultancy work.
moved, Laliberte seconded, approval to award an engineering services contract
(Attachment A) to S.E.H., Inc. for engineering services for the Comprehensive
Surface Water Management Plan Update, in an amount not to exceed $45,500.
General Ordinances for Adoption
City Council Discussion and Approval of the Tree Replacement
Policy and Amendments to Roseville Zoning Code, Sections 1011.04.J.8.a and b -
Replacement Tree Locations (PROJ0017, Amendment 27)
Thomas Paschke and Interim Community Development Director Kari Collins were
available for this presentation.
Thomas Paschke briefly reviewed the request for ordinance adoption and policy
approval as detailed in the RCA of today's date.
noted the three options available for the City Council's consideration, as
outlined in lines 57 - 67 of the RCCA.
McGehee questioned rationale in the 400' replacement for trees off-site of a
development rather than a larger area.
noted the intent was to ensure the second tier of residential lots adjacent to
a development project still received the most benefit for replacement if not
Applewood Point project currently underway as an example, Councilmember McGehee
noted a considerable number of residents farther away than 400' would be
impacted. Therefore, Councilmember McGehee stated she say no particular value
in limiting the area to 400' particularly if moving beyond that for public
sites; and opined public and private sites should be considered no differently.
clarified that one of the goals of the Replacement Fund was to provide
immediate relief to properties directly adjacent to a development site, with
the shorter that distance the better. If unable to achieve that goal, Mr.
Paschke then noted the flexibility for plantings further away, but still within
the general vicinity versus the broader community; and allowing the city to
achieve the biggest bang for the buck in finding positive results from a
development project if not tree replacement is not feasible on the actual site
In using the
Applewood Point development as an example, Mr. Paschke questioned the benefits
to adjacent property owners to the development project if replacement trees
were planted across the street, or by going further than 1,000' feet from the
site. Mr. Paschke noted this would not address any screening for those
adjacent properties, the essence of the city's landscaping and screening requirements.
While staff may
be viewing the parameters of the ordinance from a screening or landscaping
point of view, Councilmember McGehee clarified that was not her intent when
originally bringing the idea up.
Community Development Director Kari Collins clarified that the 400' was a
recommendation of the Planning Commission as reflected in the draft ordinance,
and intended by them as a buffer if needed and still able to capture tree replacement
within the outskirts of a development site.
McGehee stated she found a significant difference between 400' and 1,000'.
At the request
of Councilmember Etten, Ms. Collins confirmed that the 400' included the road,
and could involve 3-4 homes before moving out of that 400' zone.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Paschke advised that city staff and property
owners would work with developers in addressing safety and sight lines in
accordance with city code and sight line triangle parameters.
further noted that any tree replacement plans had to be reviewed by the City's
Replacement Fund Policy (Draft Resolution - Attachment D)
Specific to the
policy, Mr. Paschke briefly reviewed policy points as outlined in the RCA. Mr.
Paschke noted the policy and ordinance had been presented to and vetted by the
PWETC and Parks & Recreation Commissions for their input. Mr. Paschke
advised that good feedback had been provided by both advisory commissions, and
incorporated into these most recent documents for City Council consideration.
Paschke noted the revised Attachment D provided as a bench handout tonight was
a result of additional feedback from Mayor Roe and Councilmember Etten since
the distribution of the meeting packet; allowing for additional clarification
of the policy.
reviewed some of the revisions as noted in the policy as a result of initial
City Council discussions, feedback from the PWETC and Park & Recreation
Commission, as well as comments of Mayor Roe and Councilmember Etten as
previously noted. Mr. Paschke reminded all that this proposed ordinance
amendment and policy were the preliminary step for directing staff to develop a
plan for expending those dollars; and expressed staff's hope that this would
result in achieving the city's goals.
clarifying the distance issue, Ms. Collins noted the intent of the ½ mile was
to achieve additional tree coverage within that area if it couldn't be met closer
to the development area or on the site itself. Ms. Collins noted a variety of
options were available with flexibility to add those replacement trees in
pockets throughout the community where needed due to prior removals for
whatever reason, including disease, even though outside the development area.
the point made by Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe also questioned if the
intent of the policy was strictly to deal with screening or results of a
particular development; or if the intent was to replace trees lost due to development
and replacement elsewhere.
McGehee spoke in support of a ½ mile distance in both the policy and ordinance.
Etten thanked staff for working with the City Council to make adjustments to
better clarify wording in both documents.
D, page 2, Item c (line 46), Councilmember Etten asked for a definition of
"difficulty," opining the current language appeared too broad to him as it
related to the 'expenditure radius." Councilmember Etten suggested revised language
that wasn't as vague, such as: "Consideration shall be given to broadening the
expenditure radius if [difficulty is encountered] [it is difficult
to find tree locations] within the ½ mile radius."
Also, on the
same page, Item D (lines 48 - 51), Councilmember Etten addressed staff time involved,
should multiple neighbors need to meet with staff around a development site to
address types or sizes of trees. Councilmember Etten questioned if it was more
appropriate to have development contractors responsible for the time-consuming
work with the neighborhoods, making that part of their bid. Councilmember
Etten stated his concern was the amount of staff time involved.
with the proposed policy and city receipt of funds, Mr. Paschke clarified that
there would need to be some staff time, with the obvious staff being from the
Planning Division. Mr. Paschke noted this would be subsequent to contractor
involvement once the city accepted those funds and the city's responsibility
going forward at that point as recipient of the funds for their expenditure.
Mr. Paschke noted the only other option would be for the city to hire a tree
consultant to take over that responsibility, but questioned how that would be
Etten referenced the specific note for "landscape contractors" to bid on a
final plan for replacement (line 49) and how that involved the previous
clarified that initially the burden was on the developer to initiate a dialogue
with adjacent neighbors, but as the fee was paid by the developer to the city,
the Planning Division would need to be tasked to find sites and subsequently
approach property owners. Ms. Collins noted each situation would need impact
determination on a case by case basis as it related to staff capacity. Ms.
Collins noted that if the tree replacement involved public improvement projects
underway, it wouldn't tax staff too much, but agreed there would be some cases
that may involve considerable staff time. Ms. Collins advised that staff would
monitor their time and make recommendations to the City Council as the policy
developed and any changes that were needed in the process or fees.
area, Councilmember Etten noted Items 2 and 3 (lines 39 - 45) addressing public
versus private properties, and questioned if those both involved the ½ mile
clarified that line 43 addressed that for public or private properties.
At the request
of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Paschke confirmed that the policy would dictate the
dollar amounts and how those funds were expended.
noted if stump removal was involved to replace existing trees that would also
diminish the portion those dollars available for trees on a given site.
On Attachment D
Item D (line 48), Councilmember Laliberte noted here concern with the term
"ALL" individuals involved, and how that was defined.
clarified it would involve property owners within ½ mile of the development
site and staff working with them.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Collins clarified that in rental situations,
staff would work with property owners versus tenants for tree replacement
brought forward several technical corrections for the draft documents that were
subsequently incorporated into the revised language.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1503 (Attachment C) entitled, "An
Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Title 10, Zoning Ordinance of Roseville
City Code;" amended as follows:
Section 2, Item J.a, line 16)
to read: "property within  feet [1,000] [to] [of] the
subject development site"
stated his concern was not screening as much as to remedy the environmental
loss of trees (e.g. natural habitat, shade, and/or environmental controls),
with less concern about screening other than as part of the development process
and city code requirements. While recognizing the intent to keep those
replacements closer to the development site, Councilmember Etten opined that
1,000' would still make that possible.
stated that one advantage he found under this part of the policy was that tree
replacement was part of the development versus the city having to fund that
replacement cost and expend staff resources to do so.
McGehee seconded the comments of Councilmember Etten and Mayor Roe; and
expressed her appreciation of the amendments made.
apologized for neglecting to offer a chance for public comment and offered an
opportunity for public comment on this ordinance and policy, with no one
appearing to speak.
Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11335 (revised Attachment
D) entitled, "A Resolution Establishing a Policy Regarding Tree Replacement
Options Addressed in Section 1011.05.J8.A and B of Roseville Zoning Code
(PROJ0017, Amendment 27); amended as follows:
Item 3, Line 43
to read: "private [property] within ½ mile"
Item c, Line 46-47
to read: "Consideration shall be given to broadening the expenditure radius if
[difficulty is encountered] [it is difficult to find tree locations] within
the ½ mile radius."
Item d, Lines 48 - 51
to read: "The Planning Division will work with [all individuals]
[property owners involved] in the off-site tree planting component" "These
bids will be reviewed-will be a component of the Council's approval process."
thanked staff and advisory commissions for their work on these documents.
Private Hydrant & Sump Pump Ordinance Amendments
Jesse Freihammer was available for this presentation, as detailed in the RCA
for recommended ordinance updates. Mr. Freihammer provided updates and
modifications made by staff since the last discussion with City Council, including
additional information since that time.
Ordinance - Section 802 (Sewer Use and Regulations)
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Freihammer clarified that staff was suggesting no
fee for appeal, and that a 30-day timeframe for the initial staff ruling on a
waiver seemed reasonable from staff's perspective, while allowing some
flexibility for more complicated situations (e.g. survey work) or additional
staff time that may be required to resolve specific situations.
McGehee noted for those homes identified as having sump pump discharges into
the sanitary sewer system, "reasonable time" may mean a long wait especially if
requiring services of a firm with an existing waiting list. Councilmember
McGehee opined it may not be unusual for a homeowner to experience an 8-9 month
waiting period to resolve an issue, especially with Minnesota's seasonable
weather. Councilmember McGehee questioned collection of fees from property
owners in relationship to the time required to resolve a situation, and the
intent of and/or timing of a waiver in those cases once they notified by the
city of the problem. Councilmember McGehee stated she was not comfortable with
the property owner having to pay a fee throughout that entire time period when
they were making efforts to get the work done.
clarified his understanding of the language related to waivers to not discharge
into the sanitary sewer system.
advised that the intent with this language was that a property owner would be
charged a one-time $50 fee if found in violation of the ordinance, and once the
situation had been fixed, there was no more waiver in effect and no longer any
surcharge fee applied.
McGehee questioned if that was clear in the current language. Councilmember
McGehee stated it was her impression that if found in violation and having
applied for a waiver and making payment of $50, if the ground was frozen, the
property owner was out of luck. Councilmember McGehee stated it was her
concern that this ordinance be reasonable and used to incent residents to make
the required changes.
Mayor Roe noted
that not all changes to discontinue discharging into the sanitary sewer system
required exterior work.
Director Marc Culver noted this discussion brought up good points. However,
Mr. Culver noted that each case would be handled individually; and clarified
the difference in the "fee" and the "surcharge," noting they were two distinct
things. As noted by Mr. Freihammer, Mr. Culver advised that the waiver was
established at $50 and intended on a temporary basis only for those situations
involving a safety hazard or some other hardship if the sump pump discharge was
routed outside the building.
Specific to the
surcharge, Mr. Culver advised that was to address how the city enforced its
existing ordinance to prevent discharge into the sanitary sewer system. Mr.
Culver advised that the city was aware of those properties currently discharging
into the sanitary sewer system; and as existing city code clearly states, that
is a violation. However, Mr. Culver admitted the city didn't have a current
recourse available to enforce those violations. Under the modified ordinance
language, Mr. Culver advised that once a property owner is notified by the city
that they're in violation, a variable timeframe would be established depending
on each situation and whether the resolution would be easy or more extensive.
If the property owner still didn't respond to the city's initial notice, at
that point the city would apply the surcharge and allow them to explain why
they continued to be noncompliant. Mr. Culver advised that the intent was to
enforce action for those properties appearing to ignore the notice of
noncompliance and resolve the issue.
McGehee thanked Mr. Culver for that explanation to clarify the fees.
temporary waiver, Councilmember McGehee asked if the city had a definite
timeline for those situations where property owners were required to run water
due to lack of depth of water lines. Councilmember McGehee stated her concern
was that temporary fixes don't serve as a permanent solution.
advised that staff would continue to monitor those properties with freeze
problems depending on the frost depths annually since they varied from year to
year. Mr. Culver noted timeframes would not be that date-specific that it would
impact those properties.
At the request of
Mayor Roe, Mr. Freihammer advised the intent was that those properties apply
annually for a waiver since staff was unaware of their ground water situations
that could change and may only be temporary. At the further request of Mayor
Roe, Mr. Freihammer confirmed that if a property owner paid a waiver they would
not be paying a surcharge.
further clarified that the first time a waiver was applied for if a property
owner was discharging to the front of their home, the waiver may apply this year,
but once other options were identified to redirect that sump pump flow, waivers
would no longer be granted in most cases.
McGehee opined that seemed to be institutionalizing something that should be
corrected; further opining she couldn't imagine any situations that could not
be corrected and water routed accordingly, whether underground or via another
option. Councilmember McGehee stated her preference would be to use the waiver
to assist residents with an appropriate amount of time to get the problem
permanently fixed, but not to seek an annual waiver.
advised that if staff determines a situation is not correctable, which may be
possible in limited cases where the back yard grading isn't conducive to
correct it, it may be necessary to direct the sump pump flow to the front
yard. However, in the majority of situations where a solution can be found,
Mr. Culver advised that if the property owner continues to seek an annual
waiver, the city could deny those waivers and require the situation be resolved
or the property be subject to the ongoing surcharge.
McGehee expressed her hope that, going forward, staff would pay careful
attention to new construction projects and development (e.g. new subdivisions)
and ensure similar water issues are not repeated.
Etten agreed with that point; opining that he wanted the waiver used only to
allow residents time to resolve the current situation as soon as humanly
possible, with few exceptions. As noted in the remaining ordinance language,
Councilmember Etten noted the intent to keep that water on each property.
Mayor Roe noted
a technical correction to Attachment C, line 174 to read as follows: "property
[for] which the sump pump serves."
hydrants - Section 801 (Municipal Water System)
Attachment F, Councilmember Etten asked if staff found the proposed hydrant
inspection fee by city staff sufficient. Councilmember Etten noted private
contractor fees were significantly higher.
responded that staff felt it was reasonable especially since many were located within
a small area. Mr. Freihammer confirmed that many private contractor fees were
higher, but in comparing fees with other communities (e.g. Apple Valley), they
were comparable, between $50 and $75. Since these fees will be part of the
city's annually fee schedule review, Mr. Freihammer advised that staff would
continue to evaluate them moving forward.
Etten expressed concerns with staff performing these inspections and potential
loss of staff time in doing so; stating he didn't want to expend too much staff
time in providing this great hourly rate compared to private contractors.
As an example
with smaller townhome developments, Mr. Freihammer noted staff's intent to
balance having those private hydrants inspected to ensure they're working
without it becoming a hardship for those property owners and thereby forcing
them not to have the inspections done. Mr. Freihammer noted staff was
considering hiring additional labor as part of its seasonal crew used for
flushing hydrants to accomplish the task. Mr. Freihammer advised that the
city's preference was to have city staff make the inspections by making it more
financially feasible for those developments versus hiring a private contractor
to perform the inspections.
offered an opportunity for public comment on this ordinance and policy, with no
one appearing to speak.
McGehee moved, Willmus
seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1504 (Attachment A) entitled, "An
Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Title 8, Chapter 801,
Municipal Water System."
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1504 (Attachment B) entitled, "An
Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Title 8, Chapter 801,
Municipal Water System."
Call (Super Majority)
moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1505 (Attachment C) entitled,
"An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Title 8, Chapter
802, Sewer Use and Regulations;" amended as follows:
Page 5, Line 174
to read as follows: "property [for] which the sump pump serves?"
moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1505 (Attachment D)
entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Title 8,
Chapter 802, Sewer Use and Regulations."
Accept the 2016 Community Survey and Analysis by William Morris
and Peter Leatherman
Manager Garry Bowman introduced Peter Leatherman from Morris Leatherman Company,
welcomed by Mayor Roe.
were forty-six charts included in the City Council meeting packet materials,
Mr. Leatherman advised for time expediency, he would summarize the
information. Mr. Leatherman encouraged Councilmembers to ask for additional
information during the presentation. Mr. Leatherman reviewed the methodology
used (page 8) for the survey; and reported the enthusiasm found in this most recent
survey when compared with the 2014 survey. Mr. Leatherman stated this was an
impressive enthusiastic move for the community in the last two years, and
should be deemed as a significantly positive indicator.
Mayor Roe noted
the position the city was in two years ago specific to the Park Renewal
Program, and suggested that may be part of the shift as those initial community
concerns and awareness of tax and fee changes in that and in addressing other
infrastructure improvements, may reflect the "new normal" as residents adjusted
agreed that may be a possibility. Specific to the Park Renewal Program, Mr.
Leatherman noted the survey indicated a high level of awareness and use of
those facilities by the community, as seen in the park and recreation ratings.
While the facilities were highly used, Mr. Leatherman noted the city's ratings
for maintenance appeared to also be highly regarded.
thanked Mr. Leatherman for performing the community survey and for synthesizing
the report for tonight's meeting.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 7:55 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:02 p.m.
Planning Commission Joint Meeting
welcomed Planning Commissioners present at tonight's meeting: Chair Michael
Boguszewski and Commissioners James Bull, Chuck Gitzen, Julie Kimble, and
Robert Murphy (Variance Board Chair). Vice Chair Shannon Cunningham and Commissioner
James Daire were unable to attend tonight's meeting.
Boguszewski looked to individual commissioners for an introduction and to
provide their years of experience on the Commission.
Boguszewski referred to and expounded on the Commission's accomplishments since
the last joint meeting.
Items with the City Council as Identified by Staff
Mayor Roe noted
this item may have been prompted by recent legislation mandating cities to
approve drop homes unless opting out of doing so. Mayor Roe suggested the
question is whether or not the city wants to opt out or not.
McGehee shared her personal thoughts on drop homes, using the recent media
coverage of the Village of St. Anthony's mobile home park. Councilmember
McGehee stated there was no reason individuals could not have some flexibility
for their properties in creating those long-term stable communities as found with
other housing stock options. Councilmember McGehee stated she was interested
in the drop home option as an alternative to typical high-rise or low-rise as
Roseville standards, and providing a sense of ownership versus rental properties.
Willmus stated he was not familiar with the drop home legislation, but
expressed interest in reviewing it and how it compared to or aligned with the
city's accessory unit language recently modified.
Mayor Roe noted
the legislation related more to temporary housing styles.
Etten expressed appreciation for that clarification; and expressed his interest
in the Planning Commission initially reviewing the legislation and its
requirements and how it may or may not fit with what the city already had in
place. Councilmember Etten noted the urgency of the Commission's initial review
and recommendation to the City Council in light of the need for a decision by
the city to opt out or not by September 1, 2016.
In his initial
review of the legislation, Commissioner Murphy opined there appeared to be a
choice for the city to adopt it in whole with few changes or reject it
completely. Commissioner Murphy sought Council thoughts as to whether it may
be prudent for the city to reject it completely, and then adopt if after being
able to fine tune it using a majority of the proposed legislation and minor
local changes specific for Roseville. If that was of interest to the City
Council, Commissioner Murphy noted this would allow a more thorough review by
the Commission and City Council to meet the deadlines, and not just adopt the
legislation in a wholesale manner without further review.
Mayor Roe noted
the City Council would not be opposed to considering that suggestion, and
opined it was certainly within the realm of possible outcomes.
Boguszewski noted that for future direction to city staff to provide the
Commission with the currently underlying city ordinance, and a copy of the legislation,
for a future Commission agenda and discussion with the goal of making a
recommendation to the City Council in the near future.
Councilmember McGehee's comments to heart, Chair Boguszewski related his
experience in moving to Roseville from Chicago, IL and failure of housing in
Chicago at that time other than the option for high-rise condos that provided
no community building or pride for those residents in their dwelling and/or location.
Chair Boguszewski opined that pride of ownership was a key driver in making
housing work and its ultimate maintenance and community-building.
Murphy's point, Chair Boguszewski agreed with the option to reject the
legislation as written, but return with a Roseville-specific ordinance revision,
it would provide a good solution.
small home concept, Mayor Roe questioned if some of the city's existing zoning
code may not address that already (e.g. Planned Unit Developments or Low
Density Residential-2 on smaller lots). Mayor Roe opined there may be
possibilities within the existing city code for short-term housing options; and
agreed with the initial option to opt out due to the September 1, 2016
timeframe and allowing for a more permanent, thoughtful solution.
time residing in trailer homes and parks, Councilmember McGehee noted she was
familiar with their culture; and while often having a bad reputation, that
didn't need to be the case. Councilmember McGehee noted she was unsure whether
this type of home would fit on existing city lot sizes without a PUD in place;
but asked that the Commission carefully consider the city's accessory dwelling
code, which she found to be quite good, and whether it couldn't be used for
this type of housing option.
Gitzen noted the obvious interest of the City Council in the Commission's
broader review beyond the legislative mandate or opt out; to review other
topics and what was already in city code.
Level of Commission
Involvement in Small Area Planning Projects (e.g. SE Roseville)
perspective, Mayor Roe suggested the stage of the process may premature to
consider involvement. However, Mayor Roe stated he thought there was a role
for the commission in the future, but it had yet to be defined.
Laliberte agreed with the comments of Mayor Roe.
At the annual
joint meeting last year, Chair Boguszewski noted it had been brought up that
the Commission be more proactive and brainstorm issues beyond just being a
review body for land use applications. Chair Boguszewski opined he thought the
current Commission and their particular skill set was very strong at this time,
and given those levels of expertise, he thought the Commission would be more
than eager to help the City Council with those tasks. With concurrence of that
interest by his colleagues, Chair Boguszewski suggested a joint working session
in the future to assist with those efforts.
Boguszewski noted the numerous questions at the last Commission meeting,
especially involving the scope of the process and whether or not it was intended
as an update or improvement/upgrade on the current plan or if it was intended
to be opened up and widespread with new ideas and concepts to be considered.
Whichever one is right or wrong, and dependent on the City Council's direction
and level of cost/time involved, Chair Boguszewski stated the Commission would
support their direction.
Since the last
Commission discussion, Mayor Roe noted the City Council's more recent
discussion for the plan update and its scope; and suggested that discussion may
inform the Commission accordingly and their future role.
Willmus stated he thought the current plan was a good guiding document, and
from his perspective, he wasn't looking to start from scratch. Councilmember
Willmus advised he was leaning more toward updating the technical aspects for
most chapters to allow the plan to continue serving the city well in the coming
McGehee stated she thought the current plan was quite good, but didn't think it
precluded new topics or ideas being introduced, without requiring that the
entire plan be opened up simply to add those new items. Councilmember McGehee
agreed technical changes were needed in some cases; using her continued
interest in revising the definition between Regional and Community Business
designation. However, Councilmember McGehee stated she was open to any
suggestions for new ideas or items; but agreed that as a group the consensus
was that there was little interest in starting from scratch. While recognizing
the current plan is ten years old, and not perfect, Councilmember McGehee it is
relevant yet; and could easily incorporate some additional ideas.
Work Plan for the Upcoming Year
four suggested work plan items as outlined by staff, Chair Boguszewski advised
the Commission had not yet considered them, but would discuss them at a future
invited the Commission to provide input in the future on recent City Council
discussions related to High (HDR) and Medium Density (MDR) zoning designation
and areas throughout the community.
agreed, noting staff could provide the Commission with those relevant City
Council detailed discussions and the specific areas being reviewed related to
HDR versus MDR designation and any initial conclusions already determined up to
this point and other areas for moving forward. Specific to the level of
comprehensive plan changes based on cost considerations, Councilmember Etten
opined it was important for the Commission to be aware of the City Council's
direction before putting too much work into the process.
Specific to the
HDR/MDR discussion, Councilmember Willmus noted a considerable amount of this
discussion had been initially undertaken by former Community Development
Director Paul Bilotta prior to his departure; and suggested the Commission
review those materials and his presentation. Councilmember Willmus stated opined
it was good information for the Commission's review and should set in place the
City Council discussion to-date regarding balancing HDR and MDR community-wide.
comprehensive plan update process itself, Mayor Roe indicated one area of
discussion for the City Council had been the public involvement in that update;
and a check-in with the previous community visioning of Roseville to determine
if those goals and objectives were still relevant. Mayor Roe noted the need to
review those community aspirations with the community to make sure they
remained in line, or if there were additions or changes needed. Mayor Roe
noted this should be a significant part of the public process for staff as
directed by the City Council; and serve to point in the right direction in
reviewing the existing plan and any new topics that haven't yet come up or
ideas from the public that hadn't been considered.
Bull noted some of the initial information provided by staff that raised
concerns with the Commission prompting significant conversations involved
quality of life issues that were suggested as goals for the new comprehensive
plan, without the Commission being aware of where those ideas had come from
(e.g. having fresh food in the vicinity of senior living, community health initiatives,
etc.). Commissioner Bull stated the Commission saw that as well as the
apparent exclusion of several departments (e.g. Parks and Recreation Department
relying on their Parks Master Plan work to-date without further update). As a
result, Commissioner Bull advised the Commission questioned how this comprehensive
plan could be comprehensive by excluding various components from the update.
Therefore, Commissioner Bull opined the Commission needed guidance on how that
worked. Commissioner Bull further questioned how the short RFP process time
and vendor selection could work without the Commission knowing the scope for
the update; and concerns with having a contract in place and potential changes
of the scope that could impact costs for the update.
assured the Commission that the timeline had since been changed based on the
most recent City Council discussions. Also, while some of the topics mentioned
had been suggested by third parties as a consideration in updating
comprehensive plans, Mayor Roe noted they were not mandates, but offered as
suggestions for communities choosing to include them. Mayor Roe opined many of
those ideas may come into the process that way, but overall the intent was that
the update be informed through public input on past aspirations. Mayor Roe further
assured the Commission that the City Council didn't consider any of those ideas
as mandates, but potential areas of interest identified by other planning organizers
glow of tonight's community survey results, Chair Boguszewski asked
Councilmembers if the Commission was serving them and the city well.
stated there was a very good working relationship with this Commission, and
thanked them especially for their review and recommendations for the tree
preservation and PUD ordinances, opining it represented excellent work. Mayor
Roe also recognized the Commission's thought process used with staff on numerous
text amendments (e.g. subdivision ordinance) and expressed appreciation for
their recommendations and the input received from residents at the Planning
Boguszewski noted several issues over the last year that had received one
recommendation from the Commission, but the City Council had chosen a different
direction. However, from his perspective Chair Boguszewski noted that was a
good thing, as the Commission had certain parameters for their review, and sometimes
didn't have the additional information later brought forward to the City
Council, as well as being able to consider things form a broader perspective.
Etten agreed that the Commission was confined in their task for land use
considerations, while the City Council had a different task to supplement that
initial review. However, Councilmember Etten thanked the Commission for their
depth and breadth of their review of land use cases and code provisions obvious
from their meeting minutes; and the questioned they asked that helped the City
Council to understand the broader picture.
Willmus also expressed his appreciation for the level of discussion by the
Commission and the decision-making that went into their recommendations to the
City Council. Through that discussion and deliberation, while the roles of the
Commission and City Council may vary with separate and distinct roles in that
decision-making process, Councilmember Willmus opined that the Commission was
right on track in their role and advice they provided.
McGhee seconded the comments of her colleagues; and thanked the Commission for
the numerous ordinance changes they'd undertaken over the last 12-18 months.
Councilmember McGehee expressed her appreciation that the City Council didn't
always take every recommendation of the Commission as the rule of law; and suggested
the Commission also feel free to advise the City Council when they took action
that the Commission disagreed with. Councilmember McGehee agreed that many of
the issues considered by both bodies had provided for additional facts on which
the City Council could base their deliberations and decisions. Councilmember
McGehee stated the Commission was doing a great job.
Laliberte noted things had been well stated by her colleagues; and this had
provided a good discussion of the issues and areas for both bodies. With the
complete meeting minutes provided by the Commission, Councilmember Laliberte
noted their discussion frequently triggered areas for further review or
answered similar questions she had. Councilmember Laliberte stated her appreciation
of the Commission's work whether or not the City Council was in agreement with
their recommendations or not. Councilmember Laliberte stated she was very
comfortable and pleased with the work of the Commission; and she considered it
a great commission and appreciated the working relationship between the two
personal perspective, Chair Boguszewski noted the commissioners were citizen
volunteers, and while not knowing individual council members personally, he
found this City Council collectively to be doing a good job, which was obviously
reflected in the community survey results. In addition, based on his formal
personal interactions and involvement with the group, Chair Boguszewski opined
that each and every one of the current council members has the heart interest
of the city as their driving force. While each may have different viewpoints
and interests, Chair Boguszewski opined that he saw no personal advance or
political future considerations in the City Council's decision-making; and
thanked them for setting that example. Chair Boguszewski stated it had made it
a real pleasure and privilege for him to serve on the Planning Commission.
thanked the Commission for their work and the process they followed in
providing recommendations; and expressed the City Council's appreciation for
their work and time spent researching and reviewing many difficult land use
cases and city code topics beyond just meeting attendance.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 8:36 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:37 p.m.
Public Hearings and Action Consideration
introduction to the next three action items, Mayor Roe reviewed the differences
in minor subdivisions compared with more significant subdivisions and zoning
changes with hearings held at the Planning Commission level versus these heard
at the City Council level for subdivisions of three or fewer lots.
Request for Approval of a Minor Subdivision at 2201 Acorn Road
into Two Parcels (PF16-018)
Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly summarized this request for the subdivision of an
existing property into three parcels, to create two additional parcels. Noting
the Public Works Department review of the application, Mr. Lloyd advised that
they had required additional stormwater easement width to help mitigate stormwater
issues that had been observed in this area in the past. However, Mr. Lloyd
noted that while the lot lines may vary, the minimum lot sizes per city code
were still met, and each still provided for large lots in character with
Lloyd advised that staff supports the request as presented and meeting city
code requirements, with the additional stormwater easement width for mitigation
of stormwater issues.
the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Lloyd advised that Mr. Mueller was
not a party to this application; and clarified that the property was under contract
for purchase as per the application. While Mr. Mueller may still have an
ownership stake in the property, Mr. Lloyd advised that he was not involved per
se in the application itself.
Attorney Gaughan deferred to staff's comments; and advised that with a contract
for ownership in play, staff would process this application as per past practice
for any subdivision ownership application.
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Lloyd clarified that the subdivision
application process at this point didn't provide the formal or final stormwater
Public Works Director Freihammer, in agreement with Mr. Lloyd, advised that the
formal grading plan was not part of this subdivision request. However, being
aware of drainage issues with this parcel and in the area, Mr. Freihammer
advised that it had prompted staff to require additional stormwater easement
area for drainage mitigation of existing runoff. Mr. Freihammer noted that
staff would monitor future grading of the lots and directing that grade for drainage
toward Acorn Road; but also advised he anticipated there would be some that
would move toward the rear of the properties; thus the required additional
easement area to mitigate it.
the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Freihammer confirmed that city staff
would work with the developer on that additional easement in the back part of
the parcel(s); and that the city would most likely assume most of that
additional mitigation in the future as a city project.
Etten questioned how this differed than previous applications with the
developer responsible to achieve mitigation goals.
Freihammer advised that in this case, there was no public infrastructure being
installed as part of plat requirements and therefore no stormwater mitigation requirements
as part of this subdivision application process.
Roe clarified, with confirmation by Mr. Freihammer, that there were no
additional requirements beyond those already in place by the applicable
watershed district and existing city stormwater management ordinance, all part
of any subsequent building permit that needed to meet all those requirements
even though all of those requirements were not yet known at the point in the
Etten asked if staff anticipated working with a developer in conjunction with
housing construction on the parcels, or if the reserve setback was intended for
Freihammer responded that would depend on how quickly the developer moved, and
whether that development occurred as a mass project or individually per lot and
individual lot grading. Mr. Freihammer advised that would inform whether it
made more sense to do the mitigation all at once or as a stand-alone
Roe reviewed the protocol for public hearings and opened the public hearing at
approximately 8:46 p.m.
email dated July 7, 2018 from Paul Romanowski, 2195 Acorn Road, was provided as
part of the record, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
McLoon, 1920 Gluek Lane
a general comment and in context of the next three action items, Mr. McLoon
asked that the City Council consider preservation of neighborhoods. While not
knowing this neighborhood well, Mr. McLoon opined that this application, as
well as the next two applications for subdivision, did not fit the nature of
their neighborhoods, nor did they support the reasons residents originally
located in Roseville in these specific neighborhoods.
Thomas, Property Owner at 2177 County Road B West
of today, Mr. Thomas stated he had owned his property for forty-two years. Mr.
Thomas opined that any increase in impervious surface on the subject property
at 2201 Acorn Road would increase runoff to adjacent lots. Mr. Thomas further
opined that this and numerous previous configurations over the last few years
for this parcel would all result in the same reality. However, given those
previous proposed plats, Mr. Thomas noted that they at least had some built-in
mitigation to address existing and future drainage issues; while this version
appeared to have abandoned any mitigation of or concern by the city for any and
all development on the lot and various runoff considerations; and any concept
of how much water actually needed to be retained on these proposed lots
seemingly abandoned. Mr. Thomas noted that the present drainage situation was
already problematic, especially on the southwest corner of the subject lot, and
had been evident in May of this year after a significant rainfall event. Mr.
Thomas provided photographic evidence of his lots, and referenced other lots as
outlined in Attachment A to the staff report, and how runoff is channeled along
the southern border of 2196 Marion Road due west of the southern edge of the
2201 property. Mr. Thomas provided a photo of the storm drain that was higher
than upstream ponding, even though initially designed to pick up runoff from
that southern border. Mr. Thomas opined that any additional impervious area is
placed on the 2201 Acorn Road parcel, it will negatively impact the use of
neighboring properties. Mr. Thomas further opined that a previous plat and
plan for runoff containment in a 4-lot configuration seemed to provide the most
adequate plan so far; but reiterated this latest plan seemed to abandon any
formal control measures for these three proposed lots.
Willmus clarified with Mr. Thomas that he preferred the previously approved
plat with three lots and a private drive out to Acorn Road.
Thomas stated he thought that was at least marginally adequate compared to this
latest version. While this may generate less runoff than that previous plan,
Mr. Thomas advised there wasn't enough detail provided to judge the impact on
surrounding properties if three separate and individual lots are approved with
no particular plan in place to deal with additional runoff.
Romanowski, 2195 Acorn Road
comments received as part of the record).
a resident immediately adjacent to this parcel, Mr. Romanowski reiterated his
previously expressed concerns with runoff from this site; opining more construction
will only increase the situation, already a serious concern. Mr. Romanowski
stated his understanding of the difficulty in analyzing future runoff issues,
but asked that it be seriously considered, as addressed in his written
comments. Further, Mr. Romanowski stated his difficulty in understanding the
tree preservation system, noting there were currently a tremendous amount of
nice trees in the area; and expressed concern that during construction they
would all be destroyed, and questioned if they would be replaced with smaller
trees that would take years to preserve and grow. Mr. Romanowski stated that
if Councilmembers had lived in their area as long as current residents had,
they'd also enjoy the natural area, and pedestrian amenities; and stated the
preference was to keep things the way they were now, but any changes should be
seriously considered and those concerns expressed by residents before voting on
changing the neighborhood.
Representative, Richard Kotoski, 2570 Grotto Avenue, Roseville
Kotoski clarified that he had not been involved with any of the previous subdivision
applications, he noted he was very aware of existing drainage issues. Mr.
Kotoski stated he would comply with the wider easements as mandated by staff to
address any future broader area mitigation efforts deemed necessary.
to tree preservation efforts, Mr. Kotoski advised that the last thing he wanted
to do was remove trees; and noted the plan was to carefully preserve the site
as much as possible, with the intent to remove very few trees.
to the size of the proposed lots, Mr. Kotoski opined that the character of the
neighborhood would involve little change and most likely remain the same as adjacent
Roe closed the public hearing at approximately 8:59 p.m.
Laliberte asked Mr. Kotoski if he yet knew the placement for proposed homes on
these three lots.
still pending finalization, Mr. Kotoski advised that the structure placement
would meet Roseville city code minimum setback requirements, and anticipated
they would be located approximately central on each lot.
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Kotoski further confirmed that the
structures would be individual, custom-built, single-family homes.
moved, McGehee seconded, approval of a MINOR SUBDIVISION of the property at
2201 Acorn Road into three parcels; based on the comments and findings of the
RCA dated today's date, input received during public hearing, and subject to
conditions as detailed in the RCA, page 4, lines 74 - 89; emphasizing
condition d (lines 86 - 89) that prior plat approval for Oak Acres Plat,
preliminary approved on February 8, 2016, will be rescinded prior to signed
subdivision documents being released for recording with Ramsey County; and recognizing
the broader easement width as noted by the Public Works Department.
Willmus opined that with this proposal with two additional homes being added to
the existing Mueller home, and elimination of the large private roadway in the
middle of the parcel as previously presented, this concept will have a less
intensive or massive impact on existing tree coverage as well as the
neighborhood. Therefore, Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the proposal.
McGehee specifically addressed the comments raised by Mr. McLoon tonight;
stating she had long been a supporter of this parcel and any subdivision
limited to two lots. However, due to current city code, Councilmember McGehee
stated the proposal currently before the City Council was not something that
could be objected to; and barring that, every effort had been made to provide
for sufficient easements to address runoff issues, as recognized by the city
and this applicant. Councilmember McGehee noted that it had been clearly documented
and recognized that this area had an existing problem with runoff. Councilmember
McGehee noted this drainage issue was not the city's sole jurisdiction, and any
development would need to meet state mandates; but opined she found this latest
iteration an improvement from previous proposals. As noted by Councilmember
Willmus specific to tree preservation, Councilmember McGehee agreed that this
proposal provide a potential improvement in terms of runoff and to allow
custom-built homes to blend into the neighborhood. While she still wished
there were only two homes total proposed, Councilmember McGehee stated she saw
no legal recourse for the City Council to do anything other than approve this
Laliberte expressed her agreement with the comments of her colleagues, also
opining this plan was better than those previously presented, and noted her
appreciation that the private road and increased impervious surface had been
reduced. Councilmember Laliberte also expressed appreciation that the middle
lot drainage had been addressed; and with increased easement width, she
anticipated better mitigation potential if problems did arise.
Etten also concurred with the comments of his colleagues, opining this
presented an improvement to the overall situation, as well as significantly
reducing the amount of grading that had previously been proposed. With this
proposal falling under the city's newly-revised tree preservation policy,
requiring more tree replacement on the subject property, Councilmember Etten opined
it would serve to benefit the entire community. Councilmember Etten thanked
the Public Works Department for pursuing the wider easement to address future
mitigation; and recognized the concerns of Mr. Romanowski. Councilmember Etten
did note that there was a group of trees in the middle of the easement area
that in the future may require removal by the city, but asked consideration by
staff for any possible mitigation now in the development process that could
preclude that necessity to cut down trees.
Roe clarified the location of this subject property directly west of Cleveland
Avenue and north of County Road B, considerably distant from the next two Gluek
Lane subdivision request and not part of those considerations in any way.
Specific to the question of neighborhood character, Mayor Roe noted this had
been a concern voiced since the original proposal had been made in 2007, at
which time the city had also discussed at some length whether or not the city
should revise city code to accommodate different lot sizes in this area and
throughout the remainder of the community. At that time, Mayor Roe clarified
that the conclusion had been to maintain current lot standards for minimum
width, depth and square footage citywide. Mayor Roe noted that conclusion set
the city's standards and requirements for a minimum depth, width and square footage.
Mayor Roe noted that this area is definitely unique but having evolved over
time, several surrounding properties had also subdivided prior to this request,
creating the Marion Road and County Road B neighborhoods, and changing that
neighborhood character accordingly. Mayor Roe shared the neighborhood interest
in preserving current tree cover, and expressed appreciation that the City
Council now had in place a revised ordinance to enforce that to significantly
impact this and surrounding properties. Mayor Roe further noted there were stormwater
requirements in place, not only in city code, but also through the Rice Creek
Watershed District and other jurisdictions including the State of Minnesota
that any project would need to meet for approval. Under those circumstances
and realities, Mayor Roe spoke in support of this application.
McGehee noted the city's current visioning and comprehensive plan tacit
acknowledgement for preservation of neighborhood character, but opined there
was not enforcement mechanism and without that it was difficult to defend the
position. As a result of the 2007 proposal as referenced by Mayor Roe,
Councilmember McGehee clarified there was no action taken on small or large lot
area; and expressed her interest in undertaking such action especially in this
part of the community. Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of doing so in
the near future, based on the community interest frequently expressed in preserving
Request for Approval of a Minor Subdivision at 1926 Gluek Lane
into Two Parcels (PF16-014)
Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly summarized this request for subdivision of an
existing parcel into two parcels, creating one new parcel for future development
for a single-family, detached home, as detailed in the RCA and related attachments
presented. Mr. Lloyd noted the actual alignment of the new property line
remained pending more detailed survey data, but clarified that the homeowner
was interested in tying the setback from the existing pavement edge to the
current garage, and any configuration would retain the intent to meet minimum
rear property lines for width, depth and square footage. Mr. Lloyd asked that
the City Council's review evaluate the general property boundary alignment for
conformity with the recently-adopted code amendment for flexibility with lot
the written comment from area property owners (RCA Exhibit D), Mr. Lloyd
addressed those highlighted stormwater drainage issues compared with platted
areas running throughout the neighborhood, and impacts found from stormwater
generated by developments further south (Roselawn Avenue) moving north and
surcharges north in several locations of easement/infrastructure areas. Mr.
Lloyd noted the written comments were not opposed to either Gluek Lane
subdivision application, but just wanted to make sure their concerns were
brought forward as either project went through design/permitting phases of
Lloyd advised that staff recommended approval, subject to those conditions as
outlined in the RCA.
support and questions related to the larger stormwater management for this area
from several Councilmembers, Mayor Roe asked the city's engineering staff to
address the various issues form the Public Works perspective for drainage in
this area and impacts this and the next proposal may create.
Public Works Director and City Engineer Jesse Freihammer
both proposals on Gluek Lane, Mr. Freihammer noted there were already
significant stormwater issues in that neighborhood; and further advised that
the city had been slowly addressing the problem through various projects in
recent years, including the stormwater drainage infrastructure improvements at
Corpus Christi Church as part of that mitigation. Mr. Freihammer stated these
were small incremental steps to eliminate the overall problem; and clarified
there was a need to withhold a considerable larger amount of drainage upstream
of this area, especially during large rain events, such as that experienced
last week that caused flooding in the area.
as much with this proposal as the upcoming one, Mr. Freihammer noted both
grading and building plans would impact the floodway; but clarified that the
next subdivision proposal tonight would most likely have a more significant
impact than this application. Mr. Freihammer noted staff's review and approval
of those grading plans, as well as that of other jurisdictional regulating
agencies, in addressing how current flooding issues are mitigated would serve
to address concerns to prevent exacerbating flooding elsewhere or making it
worse than currently found. Mr. Freihammer clarified that the problem areas
from the negative upstream stormwater impacts were seen with large rainfall
events; and as evidenced in the dramatic pictures presented by some residents.
However, Mr. Freihammer reiterated that most of the problems were coming from
runoff from the south and backing into the stormwater management system rather
than from those yards on Gluek developing that much water.
the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Freihammer advised that the majority of
the stormwater system is the city's responsibility rather than that of the Metropolitan
Council, negating the potential of any assistance or cost-sharing on their part
in alleviating the broader situation. Mr. Freihammer advised that a small portion
was under Ramsey County's jurisdiction, but the majority was under the city's
Roe asked if there had been any discussion about having additional dedicated
easements on this proposal on the easterly property line or elsewhere to address
Freihammer advised that other than traditional easements, at this point additional
easements wouldn't gain anything significant without a huge easement to
mitigate the issues.
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Freihammer confirmed that the homes
in this area were built around the edges, with the entire middle area of the lots
basically serving as a wetland. Councilmember McGehee opined that the more
those lots were divided up and more impervious surface constructed around the
edges, the more water would run off into the wetland, further opining the wetland
already appeared beyond capacity during large rain events. Mr. Freihammer
clarified that the city's underground stormwater pipe system was under
capacity, causing the runoff to surcharge into the wetland during large rain
events; but agreed in concept with Councilmember McGehee that the more put into
the system, the worse the problem became.
Roe noted the applicant was present in the audience and available to stand for
questions, but sought to make no additional comment beyond staff's report.
Roe opened the public hearing at approximately 9:22 p.m.
written comment was included (RCA Exhibit D) dated Jun3 28, 2016 from Carl
& Charity Willis, 1885 Gluek Lane and Jim & Jan House at 1896 Gluek
Lane specific to this request and the next application; both expressing concern
for and seeking a clear understanding of stormwater drainage impacts.
King, 1861 Gluek Lane
King addressed the standing water in the wetland due to last Tuesday's significant
rainfall. However, Mr. King took issue with the statement made by Councilmember
McGehee, while agreeing any more hard surface will allow more rainwater into
the area, but disagreed that adding the proposed concrete driveway would make
any difference considering the broader square mile of drainage coming into the
wetland from the south. Mr. King also took issue with the perception that the
proposal, while agreeing it would add more runoff, but not significantly
compared to the broader problems already in the area, and noted the problem was
with the existing stormwater system being inadequate to address the larger area
draining into it.
Roe agreed to hear comment from Mr. McLoon on both proposals on Gluek Lane.
McLoon stated he had so many objections to these proposals, especially in light
of last week's major rain event, making the road impassible at several locations
for a considerable amount of time, and stormwater rising almost to the level of
his storage shed. Mr. McLoon stated he had researched the definition of a federal
wetland area, and opined this body of water certainly qualified, and further
opined the wetland area in the back was only the tip of the iceberg. If adding
another 1,000 square feet of roof alone multiplied by two, Mr. McLoon opined
would not be inconsequential. Mr. McLoon asked to see a hydrologist's report
or have stormwater drainage issues addressed through an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for drainage and tree removal that would be lost with either development
and the benefit of their leaf canopies. Mr. McLoon noted he and his wife had
initially moved to this area from a short distance away due to the amount of
tree cover and lack of traffic; and opined that every home constructed would
reduce trees and increase traffic. If the rationale of the property owners was
based on economics, Mr. McLoon suggested they simply sell their entire property
as is and relocate to a property suiting their needs better. As examples, Mr. McLoon
opined the recently-constructed home at 1931 Gluek Lane didn't fit the
neighborhood at all; and even though his property would support five homes if
subdivided, it would also not belong in this neighborhood.
House, 1895 Gluek Lane
both properties being considered for subdivision tonight, and as a senior
member of the neighborhood for over forty years and one of the last original
lots as developed for this plat, Mr. House noted there had been other property
splits through the years, including subdivision of his lot at one point. Mr.
House addressed the easement, culvert and catch basins located in several
places, but noted the issue isn't sufficiently addressed through vertical
appearance of displayed maps, but rather on a topographical map showing depth
and ability to accommodate water in a holding area. Mr. House noted the
location of his home was on a fairly high lot, and based on studies when his
lot was subdivided, the neighbor property was already running two sump pumps in
their full basement; and since then other developments had tried to address
drainage issues, since the original stormwater system was built (in the late
noted in their written comments, Mr. House advised that they had no objection
to the proposed subdivisions, but agreed that some of the points raised by Dr. McLoon
were relevant; but more importantly this area was designed around a low area to
accommodate water and deal with the flow from the Ramsey County watershed
area. Mr. House opined that additional fill would need to be accommodated by
additional excavation or water holding capacity, even with a small rain and
street flooding experience, if no accommodation was made for that larger square
mile drainage need, it would be problematic. Mr. House further opined that
anything built would create the need for major excavation of peat and major
fill to elevate homes so there were not dramatically below the water level.
Therefore, Mr. House further opined that design and building recommendations
would need to be complex and in turn costly to address that issue. Mr. House
agreed that the size and character of neighborhood lots were important, but not
if accommodated appropriately; and if that was the case, he would have no major
objections to having a few more neighbors.
Cheney, 2172 Acorn Road
in general, Mr. Cheney noted he had no specific comments to either subdivision
proposal being considered tonight. In moving to Roseville from White Bear Lake
in 2002, Mr. Cheney noted he had not considered property in other suburbs such
as Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center or Crystal, instead preferring the character
found in this Roseville neighborhood with large treed lots, windy roads,
proximity to both downtowns, and other amenities making Roseville immensely
attractive to his family. Mr. Cheney stated that combination of charm and
efficiency and convenience was immensely attractive to him. However, the
direction the city seemed to be taking with this type of subdivision in the
community seemed to be moving toward big box stores, smaller lots, broader tax
base, and trees resistant to disease, opining that it was turning Roseville
into another community like Brooklyn Center, and he didn't like that trend.
Mr. Cheney urged the City Council to look at the broader picture and other
suburbs preserving larger lots sizes and their character. While not trying to
appear selfish, Mr. Cheney noted there were benefits to Roseville from
preserving these types of amenities and asked that they consider that perspective.
Koland, Applicant and Property Owner at 1926 Gluek Lane
response to public comments, Ms. Koland addressed several issues. In the staff
report, Ms. Koland highlighted lines 88 - 104 specifically addressing some of
those raised concerns as part of staff's review. Ms. Koland noted the new parcel
would be subject to city codes standards, including grading, stormwater management
and tree preservation. Specific to drainage, Ms. Koland referenced line 98
addressing that drainage in some detail. As noted, Ms. Koland referenced the
flooding resulting from the larger system and not residential development itself.
At the time their project pulls a grading permit, Ms. Koland noted there would
be significant review to ensure compliance with code.
Koland assured her neighbors that their intent was to continue living alongside
the divefided parcel, and therefore it was also important that there was no
flooding issue. Specific to their property as it currently stands, Ms. Koland
noted they experienced no catastrophic flooding from rainwater, and it seemed
to be centered in another area of Gluek Lane.
their neighbor Mr. McLoon stated the area proposed for subdivision and
development was completely tree filled, Ms. Koland clarified that it was not,
and those trees proposed for removal were Cottonwood trees, with the remainder
of the parcel formerly holding a large garden space, no longer in place.
her personal perspective, Ms. Koland agreed their neighborhood was well treed
and very enjoyable, and therefore looked forward to letting someone else
utilize this portion of their parcel to also enjoy the neighborhood.
the request of Councilmember Willmus, and with the assistance of Mr. Lloyd, it
was clarified by Ms. Koland that the actual measurements and potential location
of the home was not yet determined until a formal survey was completed.
However, Mr. Lloyd addressed proposed subdivision property lines based on city
code requirements using the displayed map.
Knutson, 1854 Gluek Lane
his parents had moved to this property thirty years ago, Mr. Knutson noted it
served as an oasis in the middle of a busy suburb. To now further distribute
lot sizes and make them smaller, Mr. Knutson opined completely changed the character
of the neighborhood, as the lots continue to be chopped up. Mr. Knutson opined
this area was designed with a drainage pond, and not for high density housing.
While his parents had now moved into Eagle Crest, Mr. Knutson noted how livid
his father had been when hearing about this proposal; and his first response
had been to question what legal recourse was available to prevent more
subdivisions from happening. Mr. Knutson suggested property owners move
somewhere with smaller lots if that was their preference.
Koland, Applicant and Property Owner at 1926 Gluek Lane
to the comments about high density housing, Mr. Koland clarified that this
subdivision request represented two lots of just over a half acre and the other
just under half an acre respectively, and therefore the high density term was
not an appropriate description; when one acre lots are quite common in this
Roe closed the public hearing at approximately 9:46 p.m.
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Public Works Director Marc Culver advised
that a hydrologist had not been consulted as part of this proposal; with Mayor
Roe further clarifying that there was no requirement indicated as part of the
city's subdivision ordinance.
McGehee opined it should only be common sense in this type of situation.
Roe noted there had also not been any trigger for an EIS; and while there was
always the possibility that one or both of those two items could be required,
he noted it was not typically part of subdivision consideration and certainly
McGehee moved, Laliberte
seconded, DENIAL of a MINOR SUBDIVISION of the property at 1926 Gluek Lane into
two parcels; based on the following findings:
§ Runoff and
drainage issues in this area are extreme to say the least without more
information being known about the proposed subdivision and impacts to current
drainage issues; and
§ City Code is
not being met as recently amended for lots no smaller than 85' in width, making
one of the proposed parcels actually an unbuildable lot, as well as not in
keeping with existing and adjacent lot sizes within the character of this
Willmus asked staff if the angle of the proposed lot line as it intersected
with Gluek Lane created a grey area. Councilmember Willmus noted he had long
been a proponent of perpendicular lot lines with the roadway.
Lloyd stated he didn't think there was any grey area as lot lines were currently
proposed. As with the previous application on Acorn Road, Mr. Lloyd noted city
code allowed some flexibility by the City Council in the size and shape of lots
and their suitability for single-family residential development. While the
code prefers nice, rectangular lots easier to understand with property boundaries,
Mr. Lloyd noted other subdivision approvals with anomalies; and with these lot
lines parallel to existing side property lines, they are allowed even if not
within the strict confines of code, as noted in the RCA.
Etten stated he would not support this motion to deny, even though he
understood the concerns of the neighborhood. Councilmember Etten noted both
developments considered so far tonight had existing water drainage issues, and
both had been on the city's radar for some time and efforts were being made to
address them. Councilmember Etten referenced bids that had come in too high
several years ago that would have gone a considerable way to mitigate those
issues and subsequent rejection of the bids and a project accordingly.
However, Councilmember Etten questioned how the city could hold individual
homeowners responsible for additional and minor stormwater drainage due to the
city's inadequate system. Also since these lots will be double the typical
standard size in Roseville for single-family residential lots, Councilmember
Etten stated he could not support the motion to deny based on that finding
on the findings as articulated, and staff's review as noted by Senior Planner
Lloyd, Mayor Roe stated he could not support the motion to deny either. Mayor
Roe noted the lot conforms with conventional requirements for lot width and
area, and stated he was satisfied that the applicant had made the effort to
meet requirements of lot lines as recently updated by city code, noting that a
lot line parallel to the northerly lot line would also work and could be
considered as an option depending on the final survey data. However, as it
currently stands, Mayor Roe opined the proposal met minimum requirements for
lot lines and setbacks. Mayor Roe further stated that he didn't feel building
a home on this site, with any new property or development requirements in
place, would constitute a major negative impact to the existing drainage
problem; and therefore he didn't find this proposal created an issue in that
on the comments made by Senior Planner Lloyd indicating the lot would be
suitable on which to build a home, Councilmember McGehee opined that the dimensional
width of the lot did not conform to city standards; and she was aware of the
City Council having turned down previous and similar applications elsewhere in
the city for that same reason. In addition to her prior comments, and the
comments made subsequent to her motion, Councilmember McGehee opined how people
valued their neighborhoods served as a real benefit to the community, as
indicated on the recently community survey, and as commented on by the public
tonight. Councilmember McGehee suggested that it seemed when people needed
more money one solution was their attempt to divide their lots according to
some standard of the city's grid system, and then change the character of a
neighborhood for everyone else. Councilmember McGehee stated she personally
didn't think that was a valid reason to split lots, and based on calls she had
received from other citizens, felt her position was upheld by others.
Councilmember McGehee noted there had been some reference by property owners of
an understanding when people built their homes or purchased property in this
area, there would be no splitting of lots; but noted this apparently hadn't
been documented. Councilmember McGehee further opined that Roseville's plan
for uniform infill lots that seemed to be underway was short-sighted and
wrong. Councilmember McGehee noted the massive water problems already existing
that the city didn't have finances nor sufficient easements or access to
Willmus stated he would not speak to a property owner's motivation to subdivide
their parcels, noting they had the ability to do so to a point. However,
Councilmember Willmus opined that point was that any subdivision not be
injurious or harmful to other adjacent properties. Based on staff's comments
about that drainage, Councilmember Willmus stated he could not say added impervious
surface would not harm those adjacent property owners, and therefore he would
side with the findings as proposed, and support the motion for denial.
Roe stated he maybe could be persuaded to support denial based on drainage, but
not the finding on whether the parcel meets the city's buildable lot requirements;
or parameters for neighborhood character, since there were not standards for
such character addressed in subdivision or zoning code. As previously stated,
therefore, Mayor Roe advised he could not support denial based on the stated
McGehee, Willmus and Laliberte.
Etten and Roe.
announced the findings would be presented at the next Council meeting for
to Extend Meeting Curfew
10:00 p.m., McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, extension of City Council curfew
to complete Item 12.c.
Etten noted there were a number of community members in the audience who had
been waiting for some time for the City Council to address Item 14.a; and
proposed that item be considered as well.
makers of the motion agreed with that friendly amendment; amending their motion
to include agenda items 12.c and 14.a as part of the meeting curfew extension.
Request for Approval of a Minor Subdivision at 1861 Gluek Lane
into Two Parcels (PF16-016)
Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly reviewed this request for subdivision, as detailed
in the RCA and related attachments; and noted similar drainage concerns. Mr.
Lloyd referenced written comments as noted with the previous application and
photographic evidence provided from neighbors to the south of this site. Mr.
Lloyd advised that staff supports approval of this subdivision application.
Laliberte referenced comments from City Engineer Freihammer that he had more
concerns with this property than the previous application and sought
Freihammer concurred, noting that in the other project, there was minimal area
along the length of the lot while this lot held for a larger impact of the floodway
area, making the biggest difference in the two applications.
Arlene Menke, 1861 Gluek Lane
to past comments, Ms. Menke clarified that their intent as property owners
seeking to subdivide their parcel was not to make a killing on selling a
portion of it. Ms. Menke advised that their practical reason was to build a
new home for their use and for one-level, aging-in-place living rather than
their current multi-level home they were finding it difficult to navigate (e.g.
stairs). Ms. Menke advised that they had looked at homes in other areas of the
community, but their rationale in asking for the subdivision is based on their
love for the neighborhood. Ms. Menke advised that they intended to preserve as
many trees as possible; and recognized and were aware of grading issues and
some development of the property below street level. However, as noted before,
Ms. Menke reiterated that this drainage issues was clearly not their personal
need to resolve, but up to the city to do so; and assured the City Council that
they didn't do anything nor did they plan to do anything to make that drainage
situation worse. Ms. Menke noted their part in helping to maintain the area as
the request of Councilmember Etten, Ms. Menke confirmed their intent to build
their new home on the southern portion of the parcel.
Roe thanked Ms. Menke for her comments, and opened the public hearing at approximately
noted with the last application, joint written comment was included (RCA Exhibit
D) dated Jun3 28, 2016 from Carl & Charity Willis, 1885 Gluek Lane and Jim
& Jan House at 1896 Gluek Lane specific to this request and the next application;
both expressing concern for and seeking a clear understanding of stormwater
McLoon reiterated previous comments, and areas under water last week based on
the displayed map. If a home is built at this proposed location, Mr. McLoon
asked where that stormwater would go.
the property immediately adjacent, Mr. House reiterated his concerns and those
of his neighbor. As part of those concerns, Mr. House provided photos he had
taken within 3-4 months of moving into the property and comparison photos in
2011 when the entire area was flooded, including the street. Mr. House
utilized a Ramsey County aerial map to see the evolution of development in this
area and area storm ditch and easement areas shown. If the intent is to fill
in a portion of the site below the road for another home, Mr. House opined
there was the need to mitigate that stormwater drainage elsewhere.
House addressed another concern was already dangerous corner at Gluek Lane and
the roadway circle, and safety concerns to pedestrians and bicycles, that would
only increase with more development. Mr. House proposed additional mitigation
(e.g. tree removal) to improve sight lines in that area.
Roe closed the public hearing at approximately 10:10 p.m.,
McGehee seconded, DENIAL of a MINOR SUBDIVISION of property at 1861 Gluek Lane into
two parcels; based on the following findings:
Subdividing this lot and adding impervious coverage with a
new home will prove injurious to adjacent and area properties due to negative impacts
with increased drainage needs.
Willmus stated he had no problem with the proposed configuration of the lot or
changes to the character of the neighborhood beyond the finding as stated; and
therefore could not support approval of the proposed subdivision.
the request of Councilmember Etten, City Engineer Freihammer advised, without
benefit of a complete grading plan at this stage of the process, and
identification of any area or fill in the flood area, he could not adequately
address the impacts to drainage. However, Mr. Freihammer advised that there
would be some mitigation required (e.g. a storage area), and as with the city's
requirement for any grading plan, that would dictate the location of the proposed
home and how those impacts would be mitigated for the most benefit.
the proposed subdivision still met city code for holding water on site,
Councilmember Etten asked if Mr. Freihammer found any real concern as stated by
neighbors given existing flooding issues.
Freihammer reiterated that would depend on the location of the house and how
the lot was graded; but advised there were options available for the property
Laliberte stated she did not question a property owner's right to subdivide
their property, nor the desire to stay within the Roseville community and their
current neighborhood, nor the need to obtain the type of housing stock they
were looking for. However, Councilmember Laliberte expressed concern in the additional
fill required with another home foundation at a higher spot creating additional
runoff along that easement area. Councilmember Laliberte questioned if that
had the potential to create considerable issues for other property owners in
the area; and since the city isn't yet in a position to resolve or mitigate
existing issues, she would need to support denial of the subdivision request.
Roe stated his support for denial as well, opining if this were a flat property,
it was well within city standards for approval, but this subdivision would unfortunately
create more drainage issues.
Roe noted denial findings would be presented at the next City Council meeting,
for formal adoption according to that specific language.
Business Items (Action Items)
Receive Feasibility Report and Order Public Hearing for South
Lake Owasso Private Drive Storm Sewer Improvements
Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer briefly summarized this request as
detailed in the RCA and related attachments. Mr. Freihammer presented staff's
analysis of the proposal for these seven property owners seeking this improvement;
and reviewed assessment methodology and outlined financing for the project.
drainage of this area into Lake Owasso, Mr. Freihammer advised it was high on
the priority list for Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District and therefore
this best management practice (BMP) project would qualify for some grant
funding from them, and therefore further reduce the city's cost.
specifically addressed City Council questions since their last discussion as
part of the benefit appraisal study and maximum assessment rate for those eight
parcels and related cost breakdown based on the feasibility study until actual
costs are known if and when bid (Attachment B).
clarified that tonight's action is only to receive the feasibility report and
schedule a public hearing for August 8, 2016. At the public hearing, Mayor Roe
noted specific plans would be reviewed at that time, and as part of the process,
the decision made whether or not to proceed with the project at that time, or
subsequent to the public hearing.
Etten opined this was an important project, understood well by the neighbors,
and addressed private versus public roads and cost sharing accordingly.
However, Councilmember Etten asked staff to address the rationale for
considering the project and any precedents for private road projects such as
this. Also, Councilmember Etten noted the goal to reduce phosphorus currently
going into Lake Owasso as part of this project; and asked the source of that
drainage right now.
Roseville Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson
advised that the phosphorus source is a combination of overland runoff from
yards, the adjacent railroad rights-of-way, atmospheric and sediment tracking
from cars, and other sources in this area. While there wouldn't be a considerable
reduction in phosphorus loading as a result of this improvement, Mr. Johnson
noted even an estimated reduction of pounds annually could be considered a
Etten asked staff to define how this project would help the water quality of
Lake Owasso and benefit the community.
Owasso is currently meeting state standards for water quality, Mr. Johnson
noted it was considered a water body at risk. Therefore, Mr. Johnson advised
that if improvements were not implemented to further mitigate those contaminants,
and assist in rate control with larger rainfalls and that volume moving
directly into the lake with no infiltration treatment beforehand, Lake Owasso's
water quality would continue to deteriorate. By allowing runoff to filtrate
through the properties while pulling out more phosphorus and sediment into
piping that could be monitored more frequently, Mr. Johnson noted this would
continue to improve overall water quality.
Etten stated his support for the project and potential water quality
improvements as well as benefits to the private property owners in reducing runoff
and pooling on their yards through this proposed drainage system.
opened the meeting for public comment specific to whether a public hearing
should be held for this project.
comment was provided for the record from Kristi & Jeremy Green, 313 South
Owasso Boulevard W.
Torgerson, 337 South Owasso
reviewed the history of this neighborhood, noting that a solution to the
problem had been sought for years by users of Lake Owasso. Mr. Torgerson noted
the majority of the issue is the Class 5 dirt road easement owned by the railroad
that continued to produce that runoff. However, Mr. Torgerson opined all users
would benefit from this stormwater project; and while having worked with staff
over the last few years, the price kept increasing. Mr. Torgerson expressed
the interest in making this a win-win project for the watershed district,
Ramsey County, and the entire Roseville community, as well as all users of Lake
Owasso; but noted the aging demographic of these private property owners and
asked that while supporting the project, the costs be kept down as much as
Peterson, 345 S Owasso
spoke specifically to tree preservation; based on the two choices most
impacting his property in solving this drainage issue. Mr. Peterson referenced
comments of the surveyor and asked for consideration by the City Council on the
best solution since his property was being used to route water to Lake Owasso;
but also his preference for the least impactful to his property.
addressed the proposed alignment and existing location on the east side of Mr.
Peterson's property and locate of the city's vacated easement and other option
needing another easement to be obtained if the west side was used.
admitted there were engineering challenges depending on the easement location;
requiring further consultation.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Mr. Peterson expressed his preference for an easement on the east
side of his property.
313 S Owasso Blvd. (end of road)
As stated in
written comments, Ms. Green asked for the City Council's consideration in
moving forward with this project.
Bennett, 349 S Owasso
behalf of his girlfriend's mother, owner of the property, Mr. Bennett noted the
location of an existing culvert draining directly into the lake. However, Mr.
Bennett questioned if it was currently plugged since it no longer drained, and
created trouble for their property with water backing up and flooding their
driveway and garage, creating a problem. Mr. Bennett noted if the city was able
to use that culvert, even though a heavily treed area, those trees consisted
mostly of weeds and buckthorn or other species that needed to be thinned or
thanked Mr. Bennett for the information and advised staff would investigate accordingly.
329 S Owasso
stated he was in favor of the project and thanked the City Council for
considering it, and staff for bringing things to this stage in the process.
Mr. Rustad provided photographic testimony of problematic drainage from his
culvert and functionality as it impacted property to the west. Even though the
City's Public Works Department grades the area annually and it helped some, Mr.
Rustad noted it remained problematic.
closed public comment at approximately 10:40 p.m.
among staff and Councilmembers included winter maintenance and plowing of this
private road by the city due to its nature and location of utilities at its
end; ongoing maintenance going forward continuing by the city in accordance
with a maintenance agreement with the watershed district as a stormwater management
device; and importance of sweeping to keep the device open and function as an
ongoing city maintenance responsibility.
discussion included life span of the paving system estimated at 25-30 years,
and replacement and/or maintenance as part of the city's annual capital improvement
program going forward; design of the block system allowing more flexibility;
vacuum sweeping for maintaining the roadway system; and improbability of
receiving any cost participation from the railroad even though their runoff
contributes significantly to the issue for Lake Owasso.
Willmus moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of Resolution No. 11336 (Attachment A) entitled, "Receiving
the Feasibility Report for Owasso Private Drive Stormwater Improvements and
Ordering Public Hearing for Improvement;" scheduled for August 8, 2016 at 6:00
to comments about special assessments, Mayor Roe referred residents to the
Ramsey County deferral program for those qualifying due to financial hardship
as an option for their assessments that would be activated at the time of the
Roe further pointed out that, after grants and property assessments the
remaining $187,000 cost for improvements would come from the City's Stormwater
Fund, funded by Roseville citizens, and served as a significant contribution
citywide. Mayor Roe further clarified that this action was to order the public
hearing on the improvement for August 8, 2016, at which time the City Council
would consider whether to proceed with the project.
Approval of Planned Unit Development (PUD) Fees Necessary to
Implement and Process the Recently Adopted PUD Ordinance (PROJ0017, Amendment
Recycling Services Proposal
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Trudgeon provided a preview of upcoming agenda items.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:47 p.m.
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.