City
Council Meeting Minutes
January 10, 2011
Convene as Board of Adjustments and Appeals
1. Roll Call
Chair Roe called to order the
Roseville City Council, convening as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals at
approximately 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone. (Voting and Seating Order for
January: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe). City Attorney Charlie
Bartholdi was also present. Councilmember Johnson was not present at
tonight’s meeting due to illness.
Chair Roe briefly reviewed the
process during the initial portion of the meeting as the City Council met as
the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, at which he would serve as the Chair and
Councilmembers would serve as Members of the Board.
A.
Receive Appeal from Woods Edge Homeowners Association and Old
Highway 8 Neighborhood Residents regarding rejection of petition requesting a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the land use guidance for 3253 and 3261 Old
Highway 8; and referring the appeal to the Planning Commission
Community Development Director
Patrick Trudgeon summarized the Request for Board of Adjustments and Appeals
Action dated January 10, 2011, and as amended at 4:00 p.m. on January 7, 2011,
provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the background of the petition originally filed with the
Community Development Department by Ms. Rita Mix representing Woods Edge Homeowners
Association and Old Highway 8 Neighborhood residents on November 16, 2010,
requesting that the City Council “amend the Roseville Comprehensive Plan to
recommend “MDR (Medium Density Residential) with future zoning to be of a density
no greater than R-6 for 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8.” On December 8, 2010,
Community Development Director Trudgeon forwarded to Ms. Mix, as the
petitioners’ representative a memorandum from the City Attorney stating that
the petition should be rejected on procedural grounds since neither state
statute nor City Code allowed for abutting property owners to initiate a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment. However, Mr. Trudgeon noted that staff included the petition
as part of the case material presented to the City Council on December 13, 2010
where the City Council considered adoption of a new zoning map.
Mr. Trudgeon noted that on
December 20, 2010, an Appeal of City Council Decisions was received by City
Manager Bill Malinen from Woods Edge Homeowners Association and Old Highway 8
Neighborhood Residents appealing decisions of the Roseville City Council
regarding zoning of 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8 and Petition of Surrounding
Property Owners (Attachment A) outlining the basis of the appeal. The City
Attorney’s responses for recommendation to the City to reject the appeal were
outlined in two memorandums from their office dated January 5, 2011 and
provided in the agenda packet materials attached to the staff report,
identified as Attachments B and C).
At the request of Chair Roe, City
Attorney Charles Bartholdi verbally reviewed background of laws related to the
appeal process and the recommendation of his office; and clarifying that the
law in pace at the time of the decision by the decision-making body was
applicable, even though in this regard there was no difference in the old and
new City Codes. Mr. Bartholdi reviewed the process for the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals to refer this appeal to the Planning Commission for
their review and report on the Appeal prior to any decision of the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals, in accordance with Minnesota State Statute, Chapter
462.354, Subd. 2.
Regarding the next two (2) appeals
to be heard by the Board, Mr. Bartholdi advised that City Council decisions
were handled differently between the old and new City Codes; and that under the
new Code, no City Council action was appealable to the Board; while under the
old Code, certain actions were appealable, specific to approval or denial of
applications under the Zoning Code. Mr. Bartholdi noted that the remaining two
appeals were related to land use decisions of the City Council, not initiated
by applications, but initiated by the City Council itself on behalf of the City
of Roseville and were therefore not appealable under the old zoning code or the
new zoning code.
Mr. Trudgeon clarified that City
Attorney Bartholdi’s analysis addressed all three (3) appeals.
Chair Roe briefly reviewed the
timing of the appeal and whether the proper procedure was followed.
City Attorney Bartholdi advised
that the appeal had been received and staff response provided in an appropriate
timeframe, based on ten (10) business days, not ten (10) calendar days. Mr.
Bartholdi further noted that staff’s reply was to one (1) party, not all the
petitioners, since addresses were unavailable to staff, as Ms. Mix was serving
as the representative.
Member McGehee reviewed an additional
portion of State Statute, Chapter 462.357, sub. 6, addressing appeals; and requested
additional information on the remedies available to citizens under the new City
Code.
Mr. Trudgeon and City Attorney
Bartholdi reviewed the processes available, including a petition to rezone the
property versus their previous petition for Comprehensive Plan Amendment;
application by the neighbors for rezoning; lobbying of City Councilmembers to
initiate rezoning; or judicial action under Minnesota State Statute 462.361.
Chair
Roe opened the meeting to public comment specific to this issue and clarified
the requested action before the Board and respectfully requested speakers focus
on that issue, noting that additional opportunities would be provided at the
Planning Commission and City Council level for public comment related to the
appeal itself.
No one
appeared to speak for or against. For the record, a bench handout consisting
of an e-mail from Mr. Trudgeon to Ms. Mix dated January 10, 2011 and in
response to her e-mail and document entitled, “Statement for appeal by Old
Highway 8 Neighborhood,” dated January 9, 2011; attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
Pust
moved, McGehee seconded, to refer the appeal of staff’s administrative decision
to reject a petition requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment on properties
located at 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8 to the February 2, 2011 Planning
Commission meeting for their review and recommendation.
Roll
Call
Ayes:
Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays:
None.
At the
request of Members, Mr. Trudgeon advised that the issue would be scheduled and
noticed for the February 2, 2011 Planning Commission; and that their
recommendation would then be scheduled at one of the City Council’s February of
2011 regular meetings.
Chair
Roe sought clarification on how and to whom notices would be provided.
City
Attorney Bartholdi advised that only notices to the property owner(s) and
applicant(s) were required; however, he noted that it would be worthwhile to
ask that names and addresses of all petitioners be provided to staff; and recommended
that staff re-notice the next meeting versus continuing this meeting.
Chair
Roe requested that additional information from all petitioners be provided to
staff.
B.
Appeal from Woods Edge Homeowners Association and Old Highway 8
Neighborhood residents regarding property zoning decisions made by the City
Council on December 13, 2010
Community Development Director
Patrick Trudgeon reviewed the background of the City Council’s adoption of a
new Zoning Map as part of the overall Zoning Code Update to bring the City’s
Zoning Code into compliance with the City’s updated Comprehensive Plan; and
subsequent appeal of that decision by the Woods Edge Homeowners Association and
surrounding Old Highway 8 neighborhood residents regarding the decision to
rezone 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8 from R-1, Single Family Residential District
to HDR-1, High Density Residential District.
Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the basis of
the appeal; review of the appeal by City staff and the City Attorney; and their
determination that there was no provision under the new City Code to allow for
residents to appeal a decision made by the City Council to the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals. Mr. Trudgeon noted staff’s response to Ms. Mix by
letter dated January 5, 2010 (Attachment D) and recourse available to the
appellants to seek judicial review of the City Council action pursuant to
Minnesota State Statutes, Chapter 462.361.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that no
action by the Board was recommended at this time, and that this case was
presented for informational purposes only. Mr. Trudgeon advised that, if an appeal
was received regarding this above-mentioned administrative ruling, the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals would need to look at the administrative ruling and
determine whether staff’s determination was correct under Chapter 1009.08 of
City Code.
Member McGehee asked if it was
possible for the City Council to take action itself without appeal from the
public.
City Attorney Bartholdi advised
that there were procedures in place should a member of the City Council come
forward to initiate placing such a matter on a City Council agenda.
Member Willmus clarified that this
would be done after the City Council reconvened as the City Council.
Chair Roe concurred, noting that
this would be addressed under the Rules of Procedure adopted by the City
Council.
Chair Roe opened the meeting to
public comment specific to this issue.
Public Comment
Karen Hagen, 2485 County Road
C-2 West
Ms. Hagen requested that the Board
reconsider, noting that while many residents of the neighborhood would prefer
not to continue attending public meetings regarding this issue, they were
committed and asked that the Board take into consideration that evident commitment,
despite staff’s recommendation. Ms. Hagen asked that the Board carefully
review this neighborhood and whether the decisions made to-date are in the best
interest of the neighborhood and its residents.
Joe Giannetti, 3209 Old Highway
8
Mr. Giannetti expressed his
confusion and sought clarification as to why the residents couldn’t appeal this
zoning decision.
Chair Roe clarified for Mr.
Giannetti the current appeal and alternative re-zoning processes for residents
and/or the City Council related to this zoning.
Member Pust apologized that the
process sounded somewhat circular, but clarified that the Board did not have
legal authority to grant this appeal.
Chair Roe noted that the appeal as
stated was a request to undue something; however, noted that the residents
could request to rezone the parcels if it was a majority decision of the neighborhood.
Member McGehee expressed her
disappointment that letters sent to people did not lay out options and clearly
explain problems, and just to be the recipient of a letter from their City
government that the appeal was insufficient and incorrect. Member McGehee
advised that she had previously spoken to City Manager Malinen about this
issue, and for the residents, briefly reviewed the process available to the
residents to proceed. Member McGehee noted that the residents had already
presented a petition with 69% of the surrounding neighborhood property owners
signing, when only 50% was needed; and rewording their appeal would make it
possible for the Board to rule. Member McGehee opined that it was unfortunate
that, in order for the Board to change the process to over-ruling a staff
process, it needed to make a determination as the City Council rather than the
Board of “Adjustments and Appeal.
Chair Roe reviewed the process
available for the neighborhood in submitting an application for rezoning,
holding an open house prior to submission of the application to the Planning
Commission, receipt of the application by staff, scheduling and noticing the
public hearing at the Planning Commission level, the Planning Commissions’
recommendation to the City Council, and the final decision by the City
Council. Chair Roe advised that the other option would be for the City Council
to initiate rezoning.
Rita Mix, 3207 Old Highway 8
Ms. Mix sought clarification on
the waiting period between petitions.
City Attorney Bartholdi clarified
that there was a one-year period if an application is denied; however, he noted
that there was no application filed to-date since the City Council initiated
the rezoning of the property, so no application had yet been filed and the
one-year period was not applicable.
Ms. Mix reviewed the testimony
submitted regarding the wording of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning of
properties to be consistent, during which time the neighborhood had become
aware of the intent to rezone the parcels at 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8; and
subsequent understandings of the neighbors and discussions with staff. Ms. Mix
expressed frustration in having to return to the Planning Commission when they
had originally supported the request of the neighborhood to rezone the property
to MDR, Medium Density Residential, rather than the City Council decision to
rezone the property to HDR, High Density Residential.
Chair Roe advised that the
Planning Commission would take under consideration whatever the applicant
requested, and make their recommendation to the City Council based on the
application itself.
Ms. Mix further questioned the
timing and need for an open house.
Chair Roe clarified that the open
house was part of the application process prior to submission of the
application and its being heard by the Planning Commission.
Member Pust assured Ms. Mix that
they had done nothing wrong in the process, and clarified the appeal process
under a new law, following the previous decision of the City Council.
Member Willmus clarified that, if
the neighbors so chose to do so, they could initiate rezoning of the properties
at 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8.
Member McGehee opined that, if the
group decided to proceed with an application for rezoning, that the City
Manager be directed to have staff provide clear steps for the process to avoid
similar confusion.
City Manager Malinen assured the
Board and public that staff is available to assist, as it served with any and
all applications.
Member McGehee opined that she
wanted to see every step put in writing.
Brian Buck, 3609 33rd Avenue
NE, St. Anthony Village
Mr. Buck questioned if the
neighborhood needed to be concerned, if it pursued rezoning, that the correct
land use designation was applicable.
Chair Roe noted that the zoning
did need to comply with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that the two
needed to conform; with the Zoning change approval or denial based on simple
majority vote, but any Comprehensive Plan Amendment needing super majority
vote. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the property owners at 3253 and 3261 Old Highway
8 may have concerns and challenge any determinations and require additional
resolution.
Chair Roe suggested, and Mr.
Trudgeon concurred, that if so determined, the City Council may wish to
initiate that the Planning Commission consider their recommendation related to
a Comprehensive Plan Amendment concurrent with the neighborhood’s request for
rezoning of the two (2) subject parcels.
At the request of Member Pust, Mr.
Trudgeon clarified that the only people having the potential to request a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for land use designation are the property owner or
the City Council; but that the neighbors could request rezoning, noting that
the zoning and Comprehensive Plan land use designation must conform.
Based on those circumstances, Mr.
Buck advocated the Board/City Council to bring forward a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, noting the complex issues presented in October of 2010 when the City
Council was considering changes. Mr. Buck opined that MDR seemed like a fair
compromise for existing adjacent residential properties, as well as the
property owner(s) of 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8. Mr. Buck expressed concern
with the timing and potential sale and/or project on the subject parcels moving
ahead prior to resolution of this concern.
City Manager Malinen suggested
that, if and when staff received an application for rezoning, staff could bring
a recommendation forward for City Council consideration related to a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment.
Member McGehee questioned density
of R-6, with Chair Roe advising that this was no longer a land use designation
or zoning district.
Member McGehee suggested another
compromise to consider a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the subject
properties to allow any future development to come before the City Council for
additional conditions; noting that under the new zoning rules, if a development
adheres to standards, it was most likely that neither the Planning Commission
or City Council would hear the case or have any impact on the development.
Member McGehee opined that if a PUD were approved even under current Comprehensive
Plan land use designation and HDR zoning guiding the property to twelve (12)
units per acre, a realistic project could transition well with existing
developments and improve upon green space.
Chair Roe noted that, in order to
consider instituting the PUD process, discussion and consideration would need
to be taken up at an appropriate time as the City Council.
C.
Appeal from Har Mar Mall area residents regarding property zoning
decision made by the City Council on December 13, 2010
Community Development Director Trudgeon
reviewed this request for appeal, similar to the previous case, and as detailed
in the staff report dated January 10, 2011; the Appeal of Rezoning of Har Mar
Mall Parking Lot received by staff on December 23, 2010 from Neil Nelson, 142
Ryan Avenue, and J. O. Thompson, 2008 Asbury Street N (Attachment A); and
staff’s response dated January 5, 2010, outlining the administrative decision
of staff after consultation with the City Attorney (Attachment C). Mr.
Trudgeon noted that the neighborhood’s recourse would be similar to those
addressed in the previous case.
At the request of Members Willmus
and McGehee, Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the open house and public hearing mailed and
published notices prior to approval by the City Council; and the timing and
type of notice provided. Mr. Trudgeon clarified that this was not an anomaly
property, even though discussed at the same time as anomaly properties
throughout the City and part of the rezoning process to bring the City’s Zoning
Code into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan update.
At the request of Member McGehee,
City Attorney Bartholdi confirmed that there was case law related to notice
requirements for specific parcels and community-wide rezoning. Mr. Bartholdi
advised that the mailing of notices was an extra communication tool used by
staff, but not required by law for city-wide rezoning.
Public Comment
For
the record, two bench handouts were provided as part of this discussion,
consisting of an e-mail dated January 10, 2011, from Richard and Sandra Smith,
1371 Ryan Avenue W, and an e-mail dated January 9, 2011 from Heidi & Neil
Nelson, 1442 Ryan Avenue W, both requesting reconsideration of the rezoning of
the southern portion of Har Mar parking lot; and attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
J. O. Thompson,
2008 Asbury Street
Mr.
Thompson opined that this property had been zoned R-1 for approximately 50-51
years; and further opined that the original rationale in zoning it R-1 was that
it was property suitable for residential use. Mr. Thompson advised that this
changed when the Har Mar Mall owners prevailed on a past City Council to change
that situation; and ramifications for the residential properties on the
southern edge of the Mall being attacked in subsequent years from various
commercial uses. Mr. Thompson alleged that the Planning Commission had
arbitrarily changed the overall area plan and map; with multiple actions, and
requiring ongoing advocacy of surrounding residential properties to repeatedly
defend the area. Mr. Thompson opined that the Planning Commission never seemed
to do anything very constructive or supportive for residential neighborhoods,
but only supported commercial ventures. Mr. Thompson expressed confusion as to
how this problem had been created; opined that the hearings had not been
advertised correctly, and continued to be disconcerting for residential
taxpayers to not have their voices heard, and only those of commercial
taxpayers addressed. Mr. Thompson further opined that the residential
taxpayers are who had made Roseville what it was today, and questioned why the
appeal could not proceed.
Member
Pust reviewed the appeal process, and how the neighborhood could bring forward
an application for rezoning, with staff providing assistance; but recognizing
the lack of legal authority of the Board in considering the appeal as
presented.
Chair
Roe encouraged neighbors, similar to the previous case, to lobby Councilmembers
to pursue an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment concurrent with any
application for rezoning that they brought forward.
Discussion
ensued among several Board members and the City Attorney clarifying the appeal
process; with only administrative appeals, not legislative appeals appealable
to the Board; and action available to the City Council when they reconvened as
such.
Ward Schwie,
1383 Ryan
Mr. Schwie expressed continued
confusion, opining that there should have been public notice to change the
circumference around the Mall; and expressed concern that a petition effort
would succeed; and questioned how the neighbors could appeal to the City
Council.
Chair Roe clarified that the
rezoning could not be appealed, but a petition to affect rezoning could be
provided by the neighbors to change the rezoning adopted on December 13, 2010
by the City Council to Community Business, upon signatures received by a
minimum of 50% of the neighbors. Chair Roe reiterated the process for such a
petition process to the Planning Commission, with the assistance of staff.
Mr. Schwie expressed concern that
the Har Mar neighborhood would be adversely affected by a potential “Apache
Plaza” type development, and the neighborhood‘s assurance that the R-1 zoning
protected them from such a plight and provided a calming effect and retained
Har Mar Mall as a good neighbor. Mr. Schwie expressed little confidence in the
expanded buffer zone to protect residents.
Mr. Schwie further expressed
frustration in ongoing dump truck activity moving snow all night; and trucks
parking in the Mall parking lot and running all night.
Member Pust noted those are
complainable issues.
Mr. Schwie advised that neighbors
continually called the Police Department, but sleep was still lost, and the
problems continued to repeat.
At the request of Member Pust, Mr.
Trudgeon advised that staff would get in contact with Har Mar Mall ownership to
determine the source and enforcement of the problems brought forward by Mr.
Schwie. Member Pust noted that the City Council had recently enacted an
ordinance that property owners pay for additional patrol services, and opined
that Har Mar Mall should be made clearly aware of that.
Chair Roe concurred; and thanked
all for coming tonight and for their comments.
Member Pust moved, and Member Willmus moved to adjourn the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals at approximately 7:18 p.m.; and Mayor Roe
reconvened in regular City Council session.
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called to order the
Roseville City Council in regular session at approximately 7:20 pm. (Voting
and Seating Order for January: Willmus; Johnson; Pust; McGehee; and Roe). City
Attorney Charlie Bartholdi was also present. Councilmember Johnson was not
present at tonight’s meeting due to illness.
2. Approve Agenda
Councilmember McGehee moved to take
up the matters related to Har Mar and Old Highway 8 at tonight’s meeting to
outline proper procedure at the Planning Commission level; based on the massive
confusion of those concerned citizens, not through any fault of their own.
Mayor Roe declared the motion
failed for lack of a second.
Councilmember Pust noted, for
record, that if the issue was to be brought up the entire City Council should
be present for the discussions; particularly based on the need for a super
majority vote.
Mayor Roe concurred; noting that it
also provided additional notice of that upcoming discussion at the City Council
level.
Councilmember Willmus requested
removal of Consent Items 7.d and 7.f respectively entitled, “Adopt a Resolution
Approving the Request by Meritex to Allow Outdoor Storage as an INTERIM USE at
2295 Walnut Street;” and “Adopt 2011 City Council Rules of Procedure.”
Councilmember McGehee requested
removal of consent Item 7.a entitled, “Approve Payments.”
Mayor Roe requested removal of
Consent Item 7.b entitled, “Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items
in Excess of $5,000.”
Mayor Roe suggested removing
Consent Item 7.f entitled, “Appoint City Council Member to Grass Lake Watershed
Management Organization Ten-Year Watershed Management Plan;” to determine if
Councilmember McGehee had agreed to be the City Council’s designee for that
appointment. After clarification by City Manager Malinen and Councilmember
McGehee, Mayor Roe retained Item 7.f on the Consent Agenda, with Councilmember
McGehee’s name inserted as the designee for appointment.
By consensus, the agenda was
approved as amended.
3. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called for public comment
by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one appeared to speak
at this time.
4. Council
Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(HRA) Report
Councilmember Pust, in her role as
President of the North Suburban Community Foundation provided copies to members
of the Council of the “Report on Audit of Financial Statements” dated June 30,
2010.
Mayor
Roe announced an upcoming Open House of the Grass Lakes Water Management
Organization (GLWMO) on Wednesday, January 12, 2011, as the Organization began
development of their Third Generation Ten Year Water Management Plan. Mayor
Roe briefly reviewed the GLWMO and their role in managing water flowing into
Snail Lake, Lake Owasso and Lake Wabasso; with additional information available
on the GLWMO website or through a link on the City of Roseville’s website.
Mayor Roe announced the upcoming
Roseville Restaurant Week, along with the Roseville Jazz Blast, sponsored in
part by the Roseville Visitor’s Association (RVA), with additional information
available at the RVA website or through a link on the City of Roseville’s
website.
In recognition of those injured or
killed over the weekend in Tucson, AZ, Mayor Roe called for a moment of
silence.
5. Recognitions, Donations, Communications
a. Proclaim
Martin Luther King Jr. Day
Mayor Roe read a proclamation
declaring January 17, 2011 to be Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the City of Roseville,
urging all citizens to join together to recognize, praise and honor the efforts
of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Pust moved, McGehee seconded, a
proclamation declaring January 17, 2011 to be Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the
City of Roseville, urging all citizens to join together to recognize, praise
and honor the efforts of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Roll Call
Ayes:
Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
6. Approve Minutes
a.
Approve Minutes of January 3, 2011 Meeting
Willmus moved, Pust seconded,
approval of the minutes of the January 3, 2011 meeting as amended.
Corrections:
Corrections had been previously
made by Councilmember Willmus and Mayor Roe and incorporated into the draft of
meeting minutes as presented for tonight’s meeting.
Roll Call
Ayes:
Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
7. Approve Consent Agenda
There were no additional changes to
the Consent Agenda than those previously noted. At the request of Mayor Roe,
City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under
the Consent Agenda.
c.
Approve a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of White Bear Lake
for Telephone System Support
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the City of White Bear Lake
and the City of Roseville for the purposes of the City of Roseville providing
telephone systems support (Attachment A).
Roll Call
Ayes:
Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
f.
Appoint City Council Member to Grass Lake Watershed Management
Organization’s Ten-Year Watershed Management Plan Process
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded,
appointment of Councilmember Tammy McGehee to serve as City of Roseville City
Council Liaison to the Grass Lake Watershed Management Organization’s Ten
(10)-Year Watershed Management Plan process.
Roll Call
Ayes:
Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
8. Consider Items Removed from Consent
a.
Approve Payments
Councilmember McGehee noted that
several times at past meetings, Councilmembers had requested a different and
more informative format for the Check Register; however, the format of
tonight’s Check Register remained the same. Councilmember McGehee expressed
her frustration and confusion in attempting to decipher what was being paid and
their allocation in the approved budget; and provided several examples: rental
of three (3) Bobcats, charges from the company handling confiscated vehicles
for the Police Department, and identification of the Veit Company.
City Manager Malinen advised that
staff was aware of the previous requests of and the difficulties being
experienced by Councilmembers and the public in deciphering the Check
Register. Mr. Malinen noted that the City had undertaken a significant
software change, and was continuing to work with the vendor to revise the report;
and apologized for the delay in achieving those revisions. Mr. Malinen
encouraged Councilmembers or members of the public to contact him directly for
explanation of any payments made or any other questions.
For those items City Manager
Malinen was unable to identify at this time, he advised that he would review
and contact Councilmembers with a more detailed description.
McGehee moved, Pust seconded,
approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
|
ACH Payments
|
$109,894.27
|
|
61203-61267
|
459,547.08
|
|
Total
|
$569,441.35
|
Roll Call
Ayes:
Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
b.
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding
$5,000
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed this item.
Mayor Roe questioned if this
purchase was part of a proposal or bid process.
City Engineer Debra Bloom advised
that this was the lowest proposal staff had obtained from three (3) quotes
received; and recommended moving forward at this time as a significant cost
increase was anticipated in the near future for this type of material.
Mayor Roe suggested, and City
Manager Malinen duly noted that, in the future, a brief memorandum accompany
such requests providing basic details allowing better decision-making by the
City Council.
Roe moved, Pust seconded, approval
of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for services presented
as follows:
|
Department
|
Vendor
|
Item/Description
|
Amount
|
|
Streets
|
Crafco Inc.
|
Crack sealing material
|
$11,301.50
|
Roll Call
Ayes:
Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
c.
Adopt a Resolution Approving the Request by Meritex to Allow Outdoor
Storage as an INTEIM USE at 2295 Walnut Street (former Consent Item d)
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed this item, noting that the rubble was
part of a demolished building, and that staff continued to work with the property
owner; and that this request was moving forward by unanimous recommendation of
the Planning Commission, thus staff’s inclusion of it on the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Willmus noted that
the unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission was that the INTERIM
USE run no longer than July of 2010; and questioned why that condition had now
been changed to October of 2010.
Community Development Director
Patrick Trudgeon advised that staff’s original recommendation was for the
INTERIM USE to expire October 31, 2011; however, some members of the Planning
Commission expressed their desire to hear directly from the applicant the timeframe
being required to remove the remaining rubble; and since the applicant was not
present at the meeting, they chose to send a direct message to the applicant by
shortening the time period. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the City Council had the
discretion to reduce the permit period as well. Mr. Trudgeon advised that,
from staff’s perspective, their recommendation for approval to expire at the
end of October 31, 2011 was simply to allow the applicant the full construction
season, rather than choosing July or August for expiration, and requiring the
applicant to return for additional extensions, similar to what had occurred
with Reservoir Woods’ INTERIM USE application.
Councilmember Willmus noted that
the applicant’s original request was for the end of August of 2011; and opined
that he concurred with the July expiration as recommended by the Planning
Commission, rather than the October date; as well as supporting an increased
fine structure of $500 per day rather than that of $100 per day.
Willmus moved, Pust seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 10871 (Attachment G) entitled, “A Resolution
Approving Outdoor Storage of Demolition Rubble, at 2295 Walnut Street as an
INTERIM USE in Accordance with Roseville City Code, Chapter 1013.09
(PR10-029);” amended to increase the fine from $100 to $500 per day, and
that the approval shall expire at the end of July of 2011, rather than October
31, 2011 (both under Condition C).
Community Development Director
Trudgeon noted that the applicant was unable to attend tonight’s meeting;
confirming for Councilmembers that they were noticed of tonight’s meeting.
Councilmember Pust suggested that
staff provide the applicant, in writing, the discussion and consequences of
tonight’s meeting.
City Attorney Bartholdi advised
that, subject to the 60-day review rule, the City Council should provide
findings for the changes in fine and expiration for the INTERIM USE.
Councilmember Willmus advised that
those findings should be in accordance with those items mentioned by the
Planning Commission and their recommendations.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
staff on the size of the remaining rubble pile.
Community Development Director
Trudgeon did not have a firm tonnage amount; however, he advised that upon
staff’s last review in June of 2010 the pile had been substantially larger, and
estimated that approximately one-half of the rubble pile had been removed
to-date.
Councilmember Pust opined that the
remaining pile remained very visible.
Councilmember McGehee advised that
she had received complaints regarding dust from the rubble pile; and questioned
if the material was large component rubble, or if there was some dust,
particularly during summer months with additional wind. Councilmember McGehee
questioned if the applicant could make an attempt to cover the pile to
eliminate or reduce dust.
Community Development Director
Trudgeon noted that the material was Class 7 gravel, and probably had some
dust; and advised that the applicant was motivated to get rid of the pile
sooner than later.
City Engineer Debra Bloom advised
that the applicant could wet it down; with Councilmember McGehee seeking to
amend the motion to require that the applicant wet the pile down.
City Engineer Bloom clarified that
the applicant was already under an existing erosion control condition on site;
with the City requiring them to wet the pile down. Ms. Bloom advised that, if
the City Council had additional concerns, they could include an additional
condition in their motion; however, she noted that staff continued their weekly
inspection of the site to ensure erosion control ordinance regulations were
being met.
Roll Call
Ayes:
Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Mayor Roe advised staff and City
Attorney Bartholdi to provide findings to the applicant as previously stated by
the Planning Commission to address amendments to the requested action.
d.
Adopt 2011 City Council Rules of Procedure (former Consent Item
7.e)
Councilmember Willmus recalled
that there were to be additional discussions at an upcoming meeting related to
Rule 9 and simple minority versus majority voting to suspend rules.
City Manager Malinen recalled that
staff was going to further research that particular application of simple
minority versus super majority votes and any implications not evidenced at this
time; and bring that information forward to the City Council at a meeting in
the near future.
Pust moved, McGehee seconded,
adoption of amended City Council Rules and Procedures for 2011.
Roll Call
Ayes:
Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
9. General Ordinances for Adoption
10. Presentations
11. Public Hearings
a.
Public Improvement Hearing for the Reconstruction of Dale Street
between County Road C and South Owasso Boulevard
Mayor Roe and City Manager Malinen
reviewed the Agenda for Public Improvement hearing for Dale Street
Reconstruction (Attachment A). City Manager Malinen advised that there had
been no written public comment received by staff to-date.
City Engineer Debra Bloom provided
specific information for the project, including existing conditions, proposed
construction, special conditions, schedule, cost estimates, and proposed
financing sources. Ms. Bloom reviewed the four-step planning process with the
neighborhood since receipt of a petition for pathways was received by the City
Council in 2009; and the road reconstruction project moved up from 2012 to 2011
from projected scheduling in the City’s Pavement Management Plan (PMP), based
on the petition for pathways, existing pavement conditions, recurring water main
breaks in the area, and other drainage issues.
Ms. Bloom provided detailed review
of the various components and options of this reconstruction project, including
pathway, street from County Road C to Iona Lane, and Iona Lane to South Owasso
Boulevard, traffic management options to address major concerns of residents,
drainage of the roadway and some surrounding properties with specific drainage
issues (628 Terrace Drive and along 608 Terrace Court, 2815/2823 Dale Street,
and& 629 Terrace Drive), public utilities, residential driveways, sanitary
and water services, private underground and/or overhead utilities, and unique
considerations with the overall project.
Ms. Bloom reviewed various traffic
management options, and advised that staff was recommending including several
speed tables to reduce speed, based on application and results apparent by use
in the City of St. Paul (Otis Street); and reviewed the areas proposed for
sewer lining and/or replacement based on recent completion of televising of the
sanitary sewer lines in that area.
Ms. Bloom addressed considerations
and cost estimates provided by Xcel Energy to underground their lines,
including Comcast, Qwest, and electric service lines, and options for paying
the estimated $170,000 cost through the Community Requested Facility Surcharge
(CRFS) similar to that on Rice Street. Ms. Bloom noted that additional pricing
would need to be completed by Xcel prior to proceeding, and if approved by the
City Council, estimated by Xcel at approximately $2,500 for additional design
work to determine a monthly customer charge, and to refine their estimate and
identify easements. Ms. Bloom advised that, in her unofficial survey of
affected residents, approximately 75% of them did NOT support undergrounding if
it was to be assessed; while approximately half of those surveyed would support
undergrounding if it was done community-wide as a CRFS.
Ms. Bloom summarized those costs
detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated January 10, 2011; with
the engineer’s estimate for total assessable costs assessable, in accordance
with the City’s Assessment Policy), at $755,689.19. Ms. Bloom reviewed various
unique considerations related to this project: Ramsey Square Condominiums;
Westwood Village II Townhomes; Owasso Hollow Townhomes; vacant land; City storm
pond; and a vacant parcel north of 2823 Dale Street (currently owned by the
George Reiling Trust).
Ms. Bloom advised that staff was
recommending removal of the vacant parcel previously identified from the assessment
roll, noting that with the significant easement for the power line, only 757
square foot of the lot was not covered by the easement, and given City Code
requirements for setbacks and the easement, she questioned the ability to build
a house on the site, and thus recommended its removal from the assessment
roll. Ms. Bloom questioned if the property owner would appeal any assessment,
estimated between $3 – 4,000, and whether the City could prove any actual
benefit to the parcel that would substantiate such an assessment.
Ms. Bloom reviewed the proposed
assessment map and the City’s Assessment Policy, advising that the townhomes
having access on Woodhill and MacKubin would not be assessed as they had no
access to Dale Street; and that remaining properties would have an estimated
assessment of $48.66 per foot based on a standard lot width of 85 feet and
assessment average of $4,136.10. Ms. Bloom reviewed the timing for the project
and subsequent assessments and assessment deferral process; and funding for the
project. Ms. Bloom noted that if the City Council approved the project, staff
would work on final plans and specifications and return to the City Council for
approval to go to bid.
Discussion among Councilmembers
and staff included location of proposed speed tables and potential noise
concerns as cars drove over them, and potential disruption to the neighborhood;
speed reductions achieved over three years of operation by the City of St.
Paul, based on comment by their Engineer; no impediments to snow removal or
drainage from the speed tables; and sunset provisions for city-wide CRFS for
undergrounding utilities over a three year window, and how to address
consistent criteria for determining undergrounding.
Councilmember Willmus advised that
he was not generally supportive of undergrounding utilities.
Further discussion included the
City’s Assessment Policy assessing property owners for 25% of the cost of road
construction for a 32’ wide, 7-ton road, even if built to higher
specifications; the City’s road rating index and Pavement Management Plan
(PMP): condition of turnback roads and recourse for the City to address those
turnback road conditions; negotiation by staff on maintenance of turnback roads
prior to accepting them and options to accept or not accept them; and types of
curbing, including ribbon curbing to minimize stormwater runoff.
Ms. Bloom assured Councilmembers
and the public that staff considered many options when reviewing various road
projects based on the specific area and unique situations of that particular
section. Ms. Bloom reviewed the concept of ribbon curbing, noting that it was
another tool to consider, and further noting that there was only a small
portion that would have ribbon curbing, with staff not recommending it for Dale
Street based on the grading of the road and erosion concerns in the design of
ribbon curbs.
Further discussion included
staff’s recommended width for boulevard to facilitate trees and grass, and to
provide additional protection for pedestrians from the roadway; and previous
City policy (prior to 2001) for assessing portions of the cost for pathways or
trails whether requested through petition or initiated through other avenues.
City Manager Malinen questioned
potential policy implications for speed tables, similar to undergrounding of
electric lines that may need to e addressed by the City Council as future
requests are received. Mr. Malinen questioned if the speed limit in this area
had always been 38 mph.
Ms. Bloom concurred, noting that
the estimated cost of each speed table was approximately $3,500, and indicated
a larger policy discussion for traffic management as well as other options
available. Ms. Bloom noted that staff consistently told residents that if
staff could find an engineered solution to address their areas of concern, they
would bring it to the attention of the City Council. Ms. Bloom advised that
the speed along Dale Street ranged from 30-35 mph, and opined that the area was
a transition zone, and those signs currently installed had originated when it
was a county road. Ms. Bloom advised that there were many people not heeding
the signs.
Mayor Roe opened the Public
Hearing at 8:34 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment on the
reconstruction of Dale Street between County Road C and South Owasso Boulevard.
Public
Comment
Maureen Murphy, 2700 Dale Street
(Ramsey Square resident)
Ms. Murphy advised that her unit
faced Dale Street; and suggested that Councilmembers check the area at night.
Ms. Murphy opined that there were no lights there, and while she had no problem
paying an assessment, she wanted the project to include lighting. Ms. Murphy,
as a twenty-seven year resident, opined that it made more sense to put the
sidewalk on the west, rather than east side. Ms. Murphy further questioned
what would happen to the trees on their property. Ms. Murphy noted that
approximately 70% of the residents in the area were over 65 years old, and
suggested an assessment could prove a hardship for them.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms.
Bloom responded to Ms. Murphy’s concerns, noting that there were four (4)
street lights on Dale Street, and while there had been some discussion of
additional lighting, the City’s current policy was that lights were only added
to existing overhead poles and not less than 700 feet between, and that 100%
of the property owners within 150’ of the proposed light need to support that
lighting. Ms Bloom noted that there was a $12/light monthly charge for the
City; but that lighting could be installed at any time, not just during reconstruction.
Ms. Murphy addressed security
concerns at Ramsey Square properties, noting there were lots of problems with
people crossing their property, specifically teenagers and dogs; vandalism and
break-ins at garages; and expressed concern with the sidewalk on their side of
the street creating more trouble in the future.
Ms. Bloom advised that the
majority of the trees on the property were Ash trees, and when staff had met
with the Ramsey Square Board, they had advised the Board that there was no
intention to remove any trees in that location; and advised that the roadway
was much further away from the trees than originally thought.
Jean Hadlick, 2287 Dale Street
Ms. Hadlick advised that she and
her husband had led the petition for the sidewalk with 80% approval of petition
by residents; and expressed her support for the proposed project. Ms. Hadlick
spoke in further support of the speed tables, opining that speeds in the area
far exceeded 38 mph; and that any additional noise would be balanced by the
improved safety by reducing speed and providing further protection to the many
young children in the area. Ms. Hadlick asked that the City Council look at
the broad perspective for Roseville undergrounding utilities, opining that
Roseville was far behind metropolitan communities in doing so; and spoke in
support of the City Council prioritizing undergrounding utilities, not just on
Dale Street, but throughout the City, and expressed sport for paying additional
taxes or sharing costs to achieve this priority goal. Ms. Hadlick expressed
interest in seeing Roseville come up to speed in this area, and perhaps shift
spending from parks to fix sidewalks, make street repairs, and bury utilities.
Tom Hadlick, 2287 Dale Street
Mr. Hadlick concurred with Jean’s
comments; and opined that this was a great project to move forward. Mr.
Hadlick advised that with the many children crossing the street at Iona and
Dale for the school bus stop, they had clocked speeds at 3:00 p.m. at 75 mph;
and advocated additional protection for those children, opining that speed
tables were a good start. Mr. Hadlick noted the flashing yellow crosswalk
light near the arboretum and suggested a similar amenity at Iona and Dale. Mr.
Hadlick spoke in support of shoulders to reduce speed; and while supportive of
additional trees, questioned if they would remain uniform and conforming if the
overhead utility lines remained, noting that the utility lines crossed from the
west to east sides of the street at Iona.
Linda Allman, Ramsey Square Resident
Ms. Allman noted that Roseville
may be behind the times, but reiterated the comments of Ms. Murphy in the age
of a majority of the residents at Ramsey Square; and opined that many of those
residents felt left out, in addition to elderly residents in other areas of
Roseville. Ms. Allman opined that the Ramsey Square residents had not been
asked to sign the petition for a sidewalk or even to consider it. Ms. Allman
provided her perspective on the proposed location of the sidewalk, opining that
it seemed more prudent to install it on the west side to connect with the
sidewalk on the south side of County Road C. Ms. Allman referenced the survey
done by staff by computer, noting that many elderly people didn’t have access to
a computer, and opined that surveys should have been mailed out instead.
Roger Toogood, 601 Terrace
Court; Owasso Hollow townhome Association
Mr. Toogood expressed appreciation
and compliments to Roseville City staff, and specifically Ms. Bloom. Mr. Toogood
advised that he had attended every session and opined that Ms. Bloom did an
excellent job of listening, asking the right questions, and being open to all;
and complimented her and the good information process. Mr. Toogood spoke in
support of the sidewalk on the east side, considering the number of seniors
living on the east side, and their access to the park. Mr. Toogood opined that
he’d rather see seniors crossing at Dale Street at an intersection having some
traffic controls. Mr. Toogood emphasized his strong support for the results of
the process; and noted he was one of the louder voices to underground
utilities, opining that this reconstruction project provided a unique
opportunity. While understanding the cost issues, Mr. Toogood remained in support
of the undergrounding.
Judd Whiting, 628 Terrace Drive
– corner of Terrace and Dale Street
Mr. Whiting thanked Ms. Bloom for
the entire process; and opined that the proposed street construction was
fabulous and would be a great change from current. While not supportive of
having the pathway on his side of the street, Mr. Whiting spoke in support of
it, while also recognizing the security and safety concerns expressed by other
speakers.
Mr. Whiting spoke to
undergrounding and questioned the luxury of having the entire City of Roseville
pay for that privilege over and above the cost of this project, noting the
existence of surcharges already on utility bills for one project. Mr. Whiting
spoke in opposition to raising taxes or adding another surcharge to pay for
something not necessary and having functioned well over his twenty-one years as
a resident.
Mr. Whiting spoke to speed, and
agreed that there was an issue, and admitted he was also guilty of speeding in
that area. However, he spoke in opposition to having to drive over speed
tables in a residential neighborhood as a way to get drivers to obey the law,
and expressed preference for having the street choked and additional trees
planted instead.
Brad Skow, 635 Iona Lane
Mr. Skow addressed the staff
lifecycle cost analysis on pathway materials to consider concrete or asphalt,
and questioned whether a similar analysis had been done for the road materials.
Ms. Bloom responded that the City
did not currently have a design perspective for concrete pavement, nor did they
have much experience with concrete. Ms. Bloom reviewed the projected life span
for pavement, based on periodic maintenance. Ms. Bloom noted that problems
developed when contractors needed to access utilities under the street, creating
problems in those areas patched; and noted that concrete patches were
significantly more cost prohibitive for residents, as well as access issues
with concrete installation versus bituminous; another reason staff has
continued to recommend asphalt roads. Ms. Bloom noted that staff was always
open to other options as technologies developed, and as directed by the City
Council to look at other materials.
Mr. Skow suggested staff may
consider other options to address vehicle speed and improve pedestrian and
bicycle safety.
Ms. Bloom advised that traffic
management options was another broader policy discussion that could be
approached by the City Council; and further advised that staff brought forward
various options for City Council consideration, as well as vetting those
options with the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission for
address speed issues and other traffic management
Dave Bogee, 2783 Dale Street
Mr. Bogee spoke in strong support
of something to manage speed in the area. Mr. Bogee advised that he had a home
business, and often observed City dump trucks and other tandem vehicles
exceeding the speed limit. Mr. Bogee advised that he had reported this
concern, but it continued. Mr. Bogee noted the excessive noise when the vehicles
hit the existing cracks and blemished roadway, and anticipated even more noise
upon installation of the speed tables, particularly with semis.
Ms. Bloom advised that the larger
vehicles actually drove over the speed tables easier due to their larger wheel
base.
Ms. Hadlick
Ms. Hadlick suggested a sign
announcing the speed tables, to which Ms. Bloom responded that such signage was
a requirement.
Mr. Whiting, 628 Terrace Drive
Mr. Whiting expressed concern that
once someone hit the speed tables at an excessive speed, they would be more
inclined to find an alternate route, and that the rout may be Terrace,
increasing traffic and safety issues on Terrace, similar to that experienced
with people cutting down County Road C to Owasso Hills.
Roger Toogood
Mr. Toogood opined that the issue
was not isolated to Dale Street, but was a major issue on every street in
Roseville and in every community; and further opined that it wasn’t realistic
to attempt to control speed on Dale Street. Mr. Toogood opined that there was
no consistency in the community on speed limits, adding to the confusion and
ignoring the signs, adding to basic human nature to speed.
Mayor Roe closed
the Public Hearing at 9:07 pm.
12. Business Items (Action Items)
a. Consider
the Reconstruction of Dale Street between County Road C and South Owasso
Boulevard
Ms. Bloom advised that staff could
research options and come back in the future with recommendations for speed
tables or other options for future installation on existing pavement during or
after the proposed reconstruction project.
At the request of Councilmember
Pust, Ms. Bloom again reviewed the construction and concept of speed tables,
further addressing drainage issues and the flat space on top for vehicles to
transition. Councilmember Pust questioned how they affected bicycle traffic.
Ms. Bloom advised that she had
ridden by bicycle over the Otis ramp, with no issues at average speed.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
the cost of adding a flasher at the crosswalk where children caught the school
bus, with Ms. Bloom responding that they averaged $12 – 15,000 depending on the
type chosen. Ms. Bloom advised that staff had not recommended installing a
flasher at that particular crosswalk, but could do so at the direction of the
City Council, noting that State Aid funds may apply.
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, Ms. Bloom responded that the cost to grind off a speed table if
determined detrimental and/or ineffective would be minimal.
Councilmember Willmus questioned
how staff evaluated placement of sidewalks.
Ms. Bloom reviewed those
considerations, including existing pathways, driveway crossings, where the
majority of the population is located, and other safety considerations.
In further addressing flashing
lights at crosswalks, Ms. Bloom noted that realistic observations noted that
vehicles didn’t always stop; and she expressed a preference to have the
sidewalk cross at Dale Street due to the 4-way stop signs in place.
In addressing the missing or
inoperable light in front of Ramsey Square, Ms. Bloom advised that the light
was not on public right-of-way, but was private; and further noted that if
residents wanted an additional light installed, they needed to formulate a
petition.
Councilmember Pust noted the need
to develop a policy to move toward undergrounding of utilities now that Rice
Street had been done through a CRFS, and some interest in doing so on Dale
Street. However, Councilmember Pust noted the need to determine if there was a
consensus to develop criteria to determine if and when to do the undergrounding
and whether the City wanted to pursue that aesthetic investment.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of
developing a policy for when undergrounding was indicated. Mayor Roe noted
that one of the incentives for Rice Street was the cost-sharing with the City
of Little Canada, reducing the CRFS for Roseville residents.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms.
Bloom noted that Xcel designers indicated that the undergrounding could be
accomplished before or after the project, as they intended to use directional
boring rather than open trenching. Ms. Bloom further advised that Xcel noted
the need to relocate several poles, and they would deduct removing those 3-4
poles rather than relocating them, creating an additional cost to the City from
the estimated $170,000 for undergrounding, estimated at approximately $1,000
per pole.
Councilmember Pust noted that she
didn’t want to bury utilities only where there were cost-share opportunities
with neighboring communities, while the remainder of Roseville remained the
same as it did fifty year ago.
Further discussion included power
poles in back yards; feeder lines similar to Dale Street; undergrounding for
streetscape and environmental reasons; recurring power failures with overhead
lines; reluctance of utilities to co-locate in a single trench; rationale for
utilities not being located in single conduits due to interference issues of
various services; and benefits to each party in co-locating service.
Ms. Bloom noted the need for
broader policy and rights-of-way discussion at the City Council level.
City Manager Malinen suggested
staff provide an analysis of implications of undergrounding throughout the City
beyond this specific project; noting that the City didn’t have the financial capacity
to achieve this goal for the entire city long-term.
Councilmembers concurred that this
needed to be a future policy discussion; with Mayor Roe suggesting that the
City’s Public Works, Environment and Transportation Committee be asked for
their input as well.
Mayor Roe requested that staff
prepare the plans and specifications for the basic project; with speed tables
broken out as option for further discussion when considering bid award.
Pust moved, McGehee seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 10872 (Attachment C) entitled, “Resolution Ordering
the Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Dale Street
between County Road C and South Owasso Boulevard.”
Roll Call
Ayes:
Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Mayor Roe thanked
the public for their comments.
Councilmember Pust congratulated
those petition for the sidewalks, and encouraged them to serve as a great
democracy in action.
b. Consider
Appointing a Grass Lake Watershed Management Organization (GLWMO) Board Member
City Engineer Deb Bloom briefly
reviewed the background of the GLWMO as a joint powers organization managing
water resources in the northeastern portion of Roseville and southern
Shoreview. Ms. Bloom reviewed the rotation outlined in the Joint Powers
Agreement (JPA), and the unanticipated two (2) applications received for the
one (1) board vacancy for a Roseville resident. After review of both very
qualified applicants, Ms. Bloom advised that staff was recommending appointment
of Mr. Jonathan Miller to serve, unless the City Council preferred to interview
both candidates before making an appointment.
Discussion included the
appointment and interview process; frequency of GLWMO meetings usually
quarterly, but currently monthly until completion of the Third Generation Water
Management Plan is completed at the end of 2011; and future timing of
applications with other advisory commissions if possible.
Pust moved, McGehee seconded,
appointment of Jonathan Miller to the Grass Lake Watershed Management
Organization (GLWMO) Board for a three (3)-year term to expire on December 31,
2013.
Roll Call
Ayes:
Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
c. Consider
Authorizing the Budget and a Survey for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Parks and Recreation Director
Lonnie Brokke; Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Jill Anfang; and Parks
and Recreation Chair Jim Stark were present.
Mr. Brokke reviewed the background
of the Master Plan process as detailed in the RCA dated January 10, 2011; and
the firms contacted and two proposals received. Mr. Brokke reviewed the
proposed three-month timeframe for the survey, with questions yet to be
established and guided by the Parks and Recreation Commission and Master Plan
Guiding Team.
Mayor Roe noted the breakdown of
the proposed budget for implementation purposes (Attachment A) included in the
agenda packet, opining that it was helpful. Mayor Roe questioned who of the
Council would be participating in the organization team.
Mr. Brokke responded that
Councilmember Willmus had been identified, based on his past involvement;
however, he welcomed additional involvement of any Councilmembers.
Councilmember Willmus expressed
some concern with how the funds were being allocated, and provided as a bench
handout, a memorandum from Finance Director Chris Miller dated January 6, 2011,
attached hereto and made a part hereof. Councilmember Willmus
spoke in support of using the Communications Fund versus taking allocated
monies from Park Improvement Plan (PIP) funds. Councilmember Willmus suggested
consideration be given to fully funding the survey through the Communications
Fund, currently at 94% funding and significantly exceeding the target range of
20%.
Councilmember McGehee concurred;
opining that she was not interested in taking money from the Parks and
Recreation Budget. Councilmember McGehee questioned the budget amount of
$24,500 for marketing, and whether that was anticipating marketing for a
referendum. Councilmember McGehee noted previous movement for a referendum and
anticipated that the Master Plan process was building toward that again.
Mr. Brokke advised that the funds
were proposed to provide community information and involvement. Mr. Brokke
reviewed the Master Plan process as community value-based, and anticipated that
the survey would validate what had been done to-date; and the purpose of the
community outreach budget was to inform citizens of what was being done and
seek their support for how to proceed.
Discussion ensued related to
whether or not positive results were achieved by the survey and ramifications
of those results; and assumptions on the statistical validity of the survey no
matter its results.
Councilmember Pust noted her
well-established reputation for being opposed to surveys; however, if being
pursued, spoke in support of it being paid for from Communication Funds, not
the PIP. Councilmember Pust spoke in support of using Survey Monkey and
designing it exclusive to the City of Roseville.
Willmus moved, Pust seconded,
approving the budget and authorizing a budget of $50,000 for the Master Plan
Implementation process with ALL funds to be taken from Communications Reserve
Fund
Councilmembers Pust and McGehee
spoke in support of the motion; but were not supportive of any further action
at this time.
Roll Call
Ayes:
Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Councilmember Pust suggested that
further action on this item and the proposed motion as presented by staff be
tabled until the full City Council is available.
Willmus moved, Roe seconded,
TABLING discussion on the proposal of Leisure Vision to conduct a
statistically-valid survey including the benchmark option to the next regular
City Council meeting.
Roll Call
Ayes:
Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
13. Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
a. Discuss
the Request for a City Code Variance by Grumpy’s Bar & Grill to allow a
non-Roseville-based organization to conduct lawful gambling activities
Finance Director Chris Miller
briefly summarized the RCA dated January 10, 2011 for potential consideration
of changing City Code, Chapter 304, to accommodate organizations other than
Roseville-based, but conducting lawful gambling activities within the City
limits. A representative of Grumpy’s Bar & Grill and a representative of
the Blaine Lion’s Club, the organization interested in pull tabs at Grumpy’s.
A letter of request form Grumpy’s had been included as part of the RCA.
Mayor Roe clarified that this was
for discussion purposes only tonight, and no action was requested, but to seek
Councilmember input on any interest in making revisions to the City Code.
Discussion included rationale for
restricting gambling activities to Roseville-based businesses, a common
restriction for cities in the metropolitan area; benefits to the community from
profits; and the percentage of those profits.
Blaine Lion’s Club Representative
The Lion’s Club representative
reviewed the international organization and their profits not exclusive to
individual cities but used internationally for organizations and individuals
based on requests received and their accordance with the Lion’s organization’s
mission; with a minimum of 10% of their net proceeds going to charitable
causes.
As President of the North Suburban
Community Foundation, Councilmember Pust expressed concern in how a separate
operation would be addressed for charitable grants and how to decide where
funds were distributed.
Mr. Miller addressed additional
anomalies of the current code beyond that addressed by Councilmember Pust in
requiring that 10% of all gambling proceeds got a designated fund, rather
exclusive compared with other communities; and specifying that Bingo Hall
operations be required to hire a CPA to review their books, but not imposing
similar requirements for pull tab operations.
Councilmember Pust noted that
based on these anomalies and further research on the 10% state law issue, there
may need to be a further review of this code, given the lack of additional
review and discussion since its inception.
Mayor Roe addressed another issue
brought to his attention by Councilmember Johnson in Section 304.02 in limiting
organizations to work with only one venue for their charitable gambling.
Further discussion included the number of establishments running pull tabs in
Roseville estimated at five; various venues served by contributions consisting
mostly of youth athletic organizations; use of remaining profits used for administrative
costs of the gambling organization; provision for having a presence in the
community for three years and how to ensure a mechanism the funds remain in
Roseville; and recent state legislative changes abolishing the two-year lease requirements
for lessees with their lessors.
City Manager Malinen suggested
that other organizations be contacted for their input and to alert them that
this issue was under discussion and would be returning to the City Council at a
future date.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
the timing as it related to Grumpy’s and their ongoing business operations.
Robert Petersen, Grumpy’s Bar
& Grill
Mr. Peterson advised that it was
getting quite desperate due to the loss of charitable gambling and customers
utilizing those activities.
Pust moved, Willmus seconded,
extending the meeting beyond curfew to complete discussion of this item.
Roll Call
Ayes:
Willmus; Pust; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Consensus appeared to be a review
of existing City Code, Chapter 304, for the issues previously identified, and
to talk to existing organizations and charitable gambling institutions to
receive their input and observations.
Guidance seems to be to review
ordinance issues; talk to existing organizations or charitable gambling
institutions
The Blaine Lion’s Club
representative indicated that they had been operating at one venue in Blaine
for almost 34 years, and had eight (8) paid staff currently, and would need to
hire additional staff if the City Council approved this request of Grumpy’s Bar
& Grill. An unidentified speaker in the audience, and apparently part of
the Blaine Lion’s Club, advised that their organization contributed 35% back to
charitable causes, and 65% was retained for administrative and overhead costs,
in accordance with limits established by the Gambling Control Board.
By consensus, Mayor Roe advised
that the City would review its ordinance in the near future, and asked that Mr.
Petersen and the Lion’s Club representative make their contact information
available to staff for follow-up.
14. City Manager Future Agenda
Review
City Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items.
15. Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Councilmember McGehee noted her
desire to consider the process for moving forward amendment to the City’s
Comprehensive Plan in anticipation and in conjunction with further petition by
neighboring property owners adjacent to 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8, and the
Har Mar neighborhood.
Mayor Roe suggested that
Councilmember McGehee work with the Mayor and City Manager Malinen to determine
how best to proceed.
16. Adjourn
The meeting was
adjourned at approximately 10:08 pm.