City
Council Meeting Minutes
January 28, 2013
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called to order the
Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed
everyone. Voting and Seating Order: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present.
2. Approve Agenda
Mayor Roe noted that Item 12.d
entitled, “Approve Performing Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code
at 1136 Sandhurst Drive” had been removed by staff from tonight’s agenda due to
resolution with the property owner.
Councilmember Willmus requested
removal of Consent Item 7.p entitled, “Receive Feasibility Report and Set
Public Hearing for Public Improvements at 3040 Hamline Avenue.”
Councilmember McGehee requested
removal of Consent Items 7.m and 7.n respectively entitled, “Approve Agreement
with Metropolitan Council regarding Repayment of LCDA/TBRA Grant Funds made
Available as Loans to the Sienna Green Project;” and Approve a Resolution
regarding the Public Improvements associated with Applewood Pointe of Langton
Lake and Applewood Pointe of Langton Lake Second Addition.”
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded
approval of the agenda as amended.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte;
Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
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 and Announcements
Mayor
Roe announced the 17th Annual Roseville Living Smarter Home and
Garden Fair scheduled for Saturday, February 16, 2013 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00
p.m. at the Fairview Community Center, 1910 West County Road B. Additional
information available at www.LivingSmarter.org
or at 651-792-7079.
Mayor Roe announced scholarships
available for communications/journalism students in member cities of the North
Suburban Cable Commission, including Roseville, with applications and
additional information available at CTVNorthSuburbs.org with an application
deadline of April 12, 2013.
Mayor Roe announced the next seven
week session of Roseville University every other Thursday from 6:30 – 9:00
p.m., starting on February 28, 2013. Mayor Roe noted that this interactive
process provided a fun and informative behind-the-scenes look at local
government. Mayor Roe advised that Roseville U was free, but since space was
limited, residents were asked to sign up to keep class sizes reasonable; with
sign up available at City Hall or via the City’s website.
Mayor
Roe noted the opportunity to support local military troops and their families
on the second Monday of each month (next event February 11, 2013) at the White
Bear Lake V.F.W. on Highways 96 and 61 in White Bear Lake, with burgers and
chips available for $5.00 each.
Mayor Roe reminded Roseville
citizens interested in applying for an advisory commission to the City Council,
that the application deadline was February 28, 2013, with applications
available at the City’s website or through calling City Hall at 651/792-7001.
Mayor Roe noted that vacancies existed on the Ethics Commission (1 vacancy),
Parks and Recreation Commission (2 vacancies) and the Planning Commission (2
vacancies).
As the recently-appointed Roseville
City Councilmember appointed to serve on the Ramsey County League of Local
Governments (RCLLG), Councilmember Laliberte reported on her attendance at
their meeting last week. Councilmember Laliberte noted that it was an
informational evening with area legislators in attendance to provide their backgrounds
and history of service, and their committee assignments for this session.
Councilmember Laliberte advised that the RCLLG March 21, 2013 meeting had
Ramsey County Emergency Management as its topic, and encouraged all Councilmembers
to attend. Councilmember Laliberte noted that the topic for the May 30, 2013
RCLLG meeting would focus on how local government could work more closely with
area school boards. Councilmember Laliberte advised that she brought new directories
to distribute to Councilmembers tonight.
Councilmember Laliberte, as a
member of the Subcommittee studying City Advisory Commissions along with
Councilmember McGehee, advised that dialogue had been initiated; and encouraged
former and current commissioners to share their input with the Subcommittee.
Councilmember McGehee advised that
the first meeting of her unofficial Roseville prostitution issue task force had
been held, with participants given homework assignments as the task force began
its broad approach to this subject, including reaching out to the Ramsey County
Attorney, school districts, and other interested organizations.
5. Recognitions,
Donations, Communications
a. Proclamation of February
as Black History Month
Mayor Roe read the proclamation
providing the background of and declaring February as Black History Month
McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded,
proclaiming February 2013 as Black History Month, celebrating “At the
Crossroads of Freedom and Quality: The Emancipation Proclamation and the March
on Washington;” inviting all members of the Roseville community to renew their
commitment to ensuring racial equality, understanding and justice.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
6. Approve Minutes
a.
Approve Minutes of January 7, 2013 Meeting
Comments and corrections to
draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight’s meeting
and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council
packet.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded,
approval of the minutes of the January 7, 2013, meeting as presented.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; 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.
a.
Approve Payments
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded,
approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
|
ACH Payments
|
$592,280.12
|
|
68747-68886
|
777,422.69
|
|
Total
|
$1,369,702.81
|
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
b.
Approve Business Licenses
Willmus
moved, McGehee seconded, approval of business license applications for the period
of one (1) year, for the following applicants:
|
Applicant/Location
|
Type of
License
|
|
Veolia; 309 Como Avenue; St. Paul, MN
|
Recycling Hauler
|
|
Veolia
|
Solid Waste Hauler
|
|
Laura Quamme at Mind, Body & Soul Wellness
2201 Lexington Avenue N; Roseville
|
Massage Therapist
|
|
|
|
Parkview Center School; 701 West County Road B
(raffle scheduled for April 5, 2013 at the school)
|
Exempt Gambling
|
|
Corpus Christi Church; 2131 Fairview Avenue N
(three fish fries at the church scheduled for February 22,
March 8, and March 22, 2013
|
Temporary Liquor
|
|
Art of This; 2731 14th Avenue S; Minneapolis,
MN
(temporary liquor license for February 23, 2013 at 2755
Long Lake Road; Roseville)
|
Temporary Liquor
|
Roll
Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
c.
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding
$5,000
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval
of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for services presented
as follows:
|
Department
|
Vendor
|
Description
|
Amount
|
|
Storm Sewer
|
Towmaster
|
Dump Truck box; hydraulics; plow; wing; sander (new
parts will be coupled with subsequent vehicle purchase order for replacement
of existing equipment)
|
$88,568.38
|
|
Vehicle Maintenance
|
Yocum Oil
|
Blanket Purchase Order for fuel – State Bid Contract
|
315,000.00
|
|
Information
Technology
|
Hewlett Packard
|
Network Services
|
21,719.84
|
|
Information
Technology
|
Hewlett Packard
|
Tape back-up Drive
|
7,699.99
|
|
Police
|
Strichers
|
Ammunition
|
11,183.94
|
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
d.
Receive Imagine Roseville 2025 Update
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, receipt
of the quarterly update of the Imagine Roseville 2025 Medium and Long
Term Goals.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
e.
Receive Shared Services Report
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, receipt
of the quarterly Shared Services Update.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
f.
Receive Grant Application Report
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded,
receipt of the City Grant Applications quarterly update.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
g.
Approve a Resolution for the Final Acceptance and Maintenance for
Public Improvements Constructed for Highcrest Park and Highcrest Park Third
Additions
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption
of Resolution No. 11040 (Attachment A) entitled, “Final Acceptance and Maintenance
for Public Improvements Constructed for Highcrest Park Addition and Highcrest
Park Third Addition (PDF11-002 and PF11-020).”
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
h.
Accept Housing and Redevelopment Authority Contracts
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval
to consent to converting the Housing Program manager and Community Development
Department Assistant positions to full-time employment; and authorizing the
City Manager to enter into agreements with the Roseville HRA for the City to
provide fiscal services (Attachment A); Administrative Staff Support
(Attachment B); and the Services of the Community Development Director
(Attachment D); and Housing Program Manager (Attachment C); and to charge the
Roseville HRA $168,040 for those services.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
i.
Award Sewer Lining Contract
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption
of Resolution No. 11041 (Attachment A) entitled “Resolution Awarding Bids for
2013 Sanitary Sewer Main Lining;” in an amount not to exceed $1,150,835.25 to
SAK Construction, LLC of O’Fallon, Missouri.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
j.
Approve Emergency Operating Plan
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption
of the updated City of Roseville Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) as presented
(Attachment A).
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
k.
Adopt a Resolution Requesting Part-Time Firefighter be Accepted
as a Member of the Public Employees Police and Fire Plan
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption
of Resolution No. 11042, “Part-Time Firefighter PERA Declaration;” accepting
part-time firefighter James Chandler (Employee #50238) as a member of the
Public Employees Police and Fire Plan effective the date of the employee’s
initial salary deduction by the City of Roseville.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
l.
Approve Extension of Construction Management Services
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, authorizing
Contract Amendment No. 1 (Attachment A) for Construction Management Services
with Bossardt Corporation for completion of a new fire station in an amount not
to exceed $13,300 per month for an extension period not to exceed six (6)
months.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
o.
Award Contract for Demolition of the Buildings on the PIK
Terminal Co. Limited Partnership Property located at 2680/2690 Prior Avenue
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adopting
Resolution No. 11048, Award Contract for Demolition of the Buildings on the
PIK Terminal Co. Limited Partnership Property Located at 2680/2690 Prior Ave
awarding a demolition contract for the PIK Terminal Co. Limited Partnership
property located at 2680/2690 Prior Avenue to Urban Companies of St. Paul, MN
in an amount not to exceed $39,480.00; contingent upon final review and approval
by the City Attorney.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
q.
Approve Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Mahtomedi
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval
of a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the Cities of Roseville and Mahtomedi
(Attachment A); for the purpose of the City of Roseville to provide information
technology and network-related services and support to the City of Mahtomedi.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
- Consider Items Removed from Consent
m.
Approve Agreement with Metropolitan Council Regarding Repayment
of LCDA/TBRA Grant Funds Main Available as Loans to the Sienna Green Project
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the Request for
Council Action (RCA) dated January 28, 2013.
Councilmember McGehee noted that
payment of this loan extended through a number of years at 3% interest; while
elsewhere in tonight’s agenda materials, interest rates for citizens choosing
to have their reconstruction costs (County Road D Project) applied to property
taxes as special assessments were to be assessed at 6% interest. Councilmember
McGehee questioned why commercial businesses appeared to be charged a lower
interest rate than that charged to residents.
Finance Director Chris Miller
advised that he had no knowledge of how the 3% interest rate had been derived
for the Sienna Green loan proceeds. However, he noted a significant
distinction between that loan, originating in 2007 and involving the Metropolitan
Council as grantor, and the City’s upfront loan to Roseville taxpayers for
construction costs, such as that for the proposed County Road D Reconstruction
Project. Mr. Miller advised that this represented an “opportunity cost” for
those funds spent upfront by the City for actual construction costs to be
unavailable for investment by the City to realize some interest, or their lack
of availability for other uses by the City during that time, typically over a
fifteen (15) year period. Mr. Miller advised that today’s market dictated that
interest rate at 6%. Mr. Miller, in addressing the Sienna Green project
suggested that the lower interest rate may have been negotiated as part of the
City achieving housing goals or consistent with the Metropolitan Council grant
at that time; however, he reiterated the definite distinction between the two
issues.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of an agreement (Attachment A) between the City of Roseville and the
Metropolitan Council entitled, “Agreement Requiring Repayment of Metropolitan
Livable Communities Act Grant Funds Made Available as Loans to the Sienna Green
Project in Roseville;” for repayment of grant funds made available as loans to
the Sienna Green project for Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA)
funds for stormwater management and other on-site improvements ant Tax Base
Revitalization Account (TBRA) funds to undertake asbestos abatement within the
existing structures
As noted by Finance Director
Miller, Mayor Roe reiterated that the Loan Agreement for the Sienna Green
project had been issued a number of years ago as part of the project, and that
interest rates were not being established tonight as part of this motion.
Mayor Roe noted that tonight’s action required no changes other than clarifying
the original agreement from 2007 with the Metropolitan Council, converted from
a grant to a loan.
Roll
Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
n.
Approve a Resolution Regarding the Public Improvements Associated
with Applewood Pointe of Langton Lake and Applewood Pointe of Langton Lake
Second Addition
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the Request for
Council Action (RCA) dated January 28, 2013.
Councilmember McGehee sought more
explanation on the latest stormwater management for this site.
City Engineer Debra Bloom reviewed
the history of stormwater management at this site during construction, as
applicable to each phase of the project, and temporary or interim versus final
management for the drainage needs. Ms. Bloom noted that a temporary drainage
pond had been located on site as part of the first phase of construction until
a permanent drainage facility and easement could be established as the second
phase of construction was completed, and that action now before the City
Council.
Ms. Bloom noted that the City
Council, at their November 19, 2012 meeting, had approved the vacation of the
drainage and utility easement dedicated as part of this original project.
Prior to that action, on February 14, 2011, Ms. Bloom noted that the City
Council approved a Public Improvement Easement and Maintenance Agreement
defining future maintenance responsibilities and modification of storm sewer
design as indicated on the amendment to the agreement. Ms. Bloom clarified
that the requested action was three (3) different and separate actions contained
in the draft resolution prepared by staff for this meeting.
Ms. Bloom advised that throughout
the construction process, the developer and staff had worked cooperatively with
the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) to construct the new pond and
underground chambers, including new cutting-edge technologies, including an
iron/sand enhanced filter bench and piping serving to remove suspended solids
and dissolving phosphorus.
Councilmember McGehee sought
assurances that none of the runoff was going into Langton Lake.
Ms. Bloom noted that requirements were that runoff remained on site for treatment,
in accordance with State and RCWD stipulations, and that this example of
stormwater management was certified and verified, and that this site does not
drain to Langton Lake in any event.
McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 11043 (Attachment A) entitled, “Public Improvement
Construction for Applewood Pointe Langton Lake and Applewood Pointe Langton
Lake Second Addition;” accepting the public improvements constructed for
Applewood Pointe of Langton Lake – Phase I; approving Applewood Pointe of
Langton Lake – Phase II Public Improvement Contract (Attachment B); approving
Applewood Point of Langton Lake – Phase II Public Improvement Contract; and
approving First Amendment (Attachment C) to Amended and Restated Public
Improvement Easement and Maintenance Agreement (Attachment D); subject to
review and final approval by the City Attorney.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
p.
Receive Feasibility Report and Set Public Hearing for Public
Improvements at 3040 Hamline Avenue
Councilmember Willmus recused
himself from the dais and left the Council Chambers during discussion of this
item at approximately 6:33 p.m.
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the Request for
Council Action (RCA) dated January 28, 2013.
Mayor Roe advised that
Councilmember Willmus had chosen to recuse himself during discussion of this
item, as the petition had been brought forward by his father, the property
owner of record; and that while no actual conflict of interest was evident,
Councilmember Willmus chose to recuse himself to avoid any perception of one.
Councilmember McGehee advised that
she had personally visited the property and discussed the request that had
actually been approved long ago. Councilmember McGehee requested that, as
always when installing public utilities that as many mature trees as possible
be saved in the immediate vicinity, specifically some very nice oak trees in
this instance. Councilmember McGehee expressed her hope that City Engineer
Bloom would work with the property owner to minimize mature tree loss.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 11044 (Attachment A) entitled, “ Receiving the
Feasibility Report for Public Improvements at 3040 Hamline Avenue and ordering
Public Hearing for Improvement;” with the public hearing scheduled for February
25, 2013, at 6:00 p.m.
Mayor Roe clarified the intent of
the motion by resolution to accept the feasibility report and schedule a public
hearing date.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
At approximately 6:36 p.m., Councilmember
Willmus returned to the Council Chambers and dais.
12.
General Ordinances for Adoption
a.
Revise the 2013 Fee Schedule to Accommodate Increased Pawn Shop
Transaction Fees
At the
request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Chris Miller briefly reviewed this item
as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated January 28, 2013
McGehee
moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1433 entitled, “An Ordinance
Adopting a Revised 2013 Fee Schedule;” specifically revising the 2013 Fee
Schedule (Attachment B) for the Police Department as a customer for the Automated
Pawn Shop (APS) tracking system, thereby increasing Roseville’s pawn shop fee
from $2.60 to $2.90 per transaction; effective upon publication of the Ordinance.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
13.
Presentations
Parks and Recreation Director
Lonnie Brokke provided an introduction to the presentation as detailed in the
RCA and attached invitation flyer included in the agenda packet materials. Mr.
Brokke introduced presenter, Dr. Dean Kashiwagi, Professor at the Arizona State
University, and founder of the Beset Value PIPS Contract Model
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 6:41 p.m. to
move to the audience for Dr. Kashiwagi’s presentation.
a.
Receive Arizona State University Best Value Presentation
Presentation
by Dr. Dean Kashiwagi, Professor at the Arizona State University, and founder
of the Beset Value PIPS Contract Model
Recess
The City Council returned to the dais and Mayor Roe reconvened
the regular business meeting at approximately 7:38 p.m.
14.
Public Hearings
a.
Public Improvement Hearing for the Reconstruction of County Road
D between Lexington Avenue and Victoria Street
A revised Feasibility Report
(Project P-ST-SW-W-13-02) for County Road D Reconstruction from Lexington
Avenue to Victoria Street, with attached maps and citizen petition, was
provided as a bench handout. The citizen petition was to communicate to the City
Council that residents/property owners on County Road D West did not want a
sidewalk added to the south side of the road, and to keep the width of the road
and curb position as close as possible to its present state.
Mayor
Roe introduced City Engineer Debra Bloom for staff’s presentation, as detailed
in the RCA dated January 28, 2013, provided a brief statement on the process
for public hearings.
City
Engineer Bloom reviewed this joint City of Shoreview/City of Roseville project,
advising that her presentation would be specific to the City of Roseville’s
portion of the joint project, and based on the City of Roseville Assessment
Policy, with a few staff-recommended amendments to proposed funding for the
project outside of that current Policy.
Ms. Bloom
noted the public information meetings held to-date, and reported that 60% of
the plans had been completed to date on the project:
August
8, 2012 General Information Meeting with Residents
October
4 Presentation of Preliminary Design
October
27 “Walk Thru” Meeting on Site with Residents
November
29 Feasibility Report Presentation
January
28, 2013 Tonight’s Public Hearing
Ms. Bloom
reviewed the various design elements, including street design; traffic
management; sidewalks; required drainage; public utilities; residential
driveways; sanitary services; and private underground utilities (Xcel gas,
Qwest; Comcast) included in the overall project. Ms. Bloom reviewed three
sections of the project design between Lexington Avenue and Victoria Street
with dividing lines for those sections at Chatsworth Street, Hafner Street, and
Victoria Street.
Specific
to sidewalk construction, Ms. Bloom noted receipt of the citizen petition
signed by eleven (11) of the twenty (20) affected properties in Roseville,
asking that the sidewalk not be installed on the south side. Ms. Bloom provided
three (3) different scenarios specific to sidewalks with the project.
Scenario
1 = $55,030.80 to construct a new sidewalk on the entire length of the
south
side of the street
Scenario
2 = $23,090.54 to construct a new sidewalk from Lexington Avenue to
Churchill
Street
Scenario
3 = $17,456.36 for no new sidewalk construction
Ms.
Bloom reviewed the total cost for the City of Roseville portion of the joint
project at $994,461.72; and cost breakdowns for those not assessed at $453,667.32
(sidewalk at $55,030.80; water main at $209,902.00; sanitary sewer at $22,000.00;
street costs for a 10-ton street at $107,560.53; and associated engineering costs
at $59,174.00. Based on the City’s current front foot assessment formula, Ms.
Bloom noted that this represented a total cost of $2,214.13 per foot for
assessable frontages, and as per Assessment Policy, indicated $122.12 per foot
for 50% of that cost per foot for property owners.
Ms. Bloom
clarified that, at this point, these costs represented “up to” costs; with
appraisals recently completed to provide the special benefit test based on
market values; and recommendations based on those appraisals for $60 per foot
assessable for single-family residential properties, and up to $90 per foot assessable
for the Lutheran of the Resurrection Church. Ms. Bloom further noted recommendations
for the twenty-five unit apartment building at $90 per foot assessable; and
commercial properties assessed at $110 per foot. Ms. Bloom reiterated that
these costs were based on the recommended engineering estimates, and would be adjusted
based on actual construction costs upon completion of the reconstruction
project, with those actual costs, typically lower than estimates, what
assessments would ultimately be based upon.
Ms.
Bloom reviewed specific corner properties at Churchill and Chatsworth Streets,
and staff recommendations based on front footage assessments done in 1995 when
a previous reconstruction project had occurred.
Ms.
Bloom noted that deferral options were available for qualified homeowners of
homesteaded properties who were 65 years or older, retired by virtue of a
disability, or where payment would create a significant hardship; with any deferrals
accruing interest and becoming payable upon sale or transfer of the property.
Ms.
Bloom reviewed the funding for the City of Roseville portion of the joint project,
with the street qualifying for Minnesota State Aid (MSA) funding:
MSA funds = $552,045.22
Assessments
= $139,976.10
City
Engineering = $329,186.30
If the
project is approved, and the Cities of Shoreview and Roseville concur, Ms.
Bloom advised that the project would be timed to coordinate with school schedules
and their summer school sessions.
At the
request of Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Bloom confirmed that the assessments
would be at 6% over a fifteen (15) year period, with payments applied to 2014
property taxes, unless deferred through means testing, based on the same rate
and term.
Councilmember
Willmus thanked Ms. Bloom for her presentation; and sought clarification for
the timeframe for property owners to apply for deferral, with Ms. Bloom
advising that the period was from when assessment notices would be sent in September
of 2014 until the assessments were certified to Ramsey County in November of
that same year.
Discussion
among Councilmembers and staff included possible realignment of a portion of
side streets in the project area, with insufficient rights-of-way available to
do so as determined in discussions among the cities; stop signs at the intersection
of Chatsworth and County Road D not meeting warrant requirements; current
parking on both sides of County Road D versus proposed parking standards as an
MSA-funded roadway, and changes in jurisdiction from Ramsey County as a
turnback road in the mid-1990’s to City jurisdiction; current abrupt ending of
the south side sidewalk along the Church’s west property line; and current
crosswalk areas as designated on displayed maps.
Ms.
Bloom reviewed staff’s recommendations for sidewalk and crosswalk placements
based on safety concerns, and the roadways status as a regional corridor as
identified in the Pathway Master Plan, and under discussion for some time by
the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission for connectivity goals, with it recommended
for installation but not shown as a high priority in the overall Master Plan.
Further
discussion included speed boards and school speed zones and timing of that
programmable signage; preference for sidewalks rather than trails/pathways
adjacent to residential properties and staff recommendations for a six foot
(6’) wide sidewalk versus wider eight foot (8’) detached pathway, and the need
for a City Council Policy discussion related to final design of this corridor
and current opportunities versus potential future retrofit for a sidewalk; and
Roseville/Shoreview City staff not recommending any enhanced or decorative crosswalks
based on cost considerations, with a simple striped crosswalk the recommendation.
At the
request of Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Bloom reviewed storm water drainage
recommendations for a catch basin into pipes and infiltration trenches in the
ground for filtering and pretreatment. Ms. Bloom advised that property owner
feedback was not that supportive of swales or depressions in their front yards,
with only a few interested in rain gardens, and staff seeking alternative
designs with RCWD to address drainage issues.
Mayor Roe reviewed Public Hearing
protocol and opened the Public Hearing at approximately 8:16 p.m., for the
purpose of accepting public comment on receipt of a feasibility report for reconstruction
of County Road D between Lexington Avenue and Victoria Street.
Public
Comment
Wayne Griessel, 1067 Harriet Lane
While not a resident along this
corridor, Mr. Griessel advised that he was speaking as a representation of the
Lutheran Church of the Resurrection, and spoke in support of the south side sidewalk
for safety reasons. Ms. Griessel noted the current need for students to walk
in the streets to and from home to catch their school bus on Victoria. Even
though acknowledging that, if not maintained in the winter time, sidewalks
became frozen rivers requiring people to walk in the street anyway, Mr.
Griessel opined that for students, the elderly, and general public, it was
beneficial to have a sidewalk in place. While recognizing the citizen petition
received, Mr. Griessel noted the crumbling status of the church’s sidewalk and
their desire to replace it, and asked that their particular section be
considered as part of the reconstruction project no matter the outcome of the
petition.
Vance Kusler, 1010 County Road D
Mr. Kusler stated that he had two
(2) problems with the proposed project: the high assessment cost, representing
$5,500 for his family; and a sidewalk that he didn’t want. Mr. Kusler
referenced the Pathway Master Plan and his review of the lack of priority given
this section, even though recent comments by a Public Works, Environment, and
Transportation Commissioner indicated sidewalks and pathways were a broader
issue beyond the individual homeowner preferences, but the connectivity of the
community. Mr. Kusler took issue with that view, opining that the sidewalk was
being pushed onto the neighborhood; and the Master Plan appeared to be thirty
(30) years old, and seemed to continually come into question, and needed
updated to accommodate current lifestyles and preferences versus those of that
time period.
While recognizing that the sidewalk
installation would not fall under assessments, Mr. Kusler opined that there was
no need to go beyond the roadway and utility reconstruction with this project.
Mr. Kusler further opined that while costs continued to escalate, he didn’t see
local government attempting to cut costs; and that it would be refreshing if
that could be done in this case. Mr. Kusler noted the poor condition of the
north side sidewalk in Shoreview, with the concentration of winter sale
destroying the boulevard and making the corridor very unsightly, not something
wanted on the south side of the street. Mr. Kusler also noted his very steep
driveway and limited amount of flat area, expressing concern in having a
sidewalk that would require extra diligence that may not be possible under all
circumstances. Mr. Kusler opined that a sidewalk on both sides of the street
would be redundant, since he and his family crossed County Road D all the time
to access that sidewalk. Mr. Kusler asked that the City spend tax monies
wisely to provide reliable utilities, and to ensure that the City of Shoreview
planners were containing their costs to avoid further impacts to Roseville
residents.
Brian Stendquist, 1022 County
Road D W
Mr. Stendquist expressed three (3)
concerns: the size of the assessment relative to the cost for neighbors across
the street on the Shoreview side; his concurrence with Mr. Kusler and lack of
support for a sidewalk on the south side of County Road D, and in support of
alternatives for sections of sidewalk offered by City Engineer Bloom from
Churchill Street to Lexington Avenue versus other options; and the current
speed challenges along the street, opining that 30 mph would be much more
reasonable than 35 mph.
Brad Wiggins, 932 W County Road
D
Ms. Wiggins spoke in support of
the sidewalk due to the church and school on County Road D and nearby parks,
and safety concerns for students and elderly residents currently walking in the
street. Mr. Wiggins noted that the street would not be reconstructed for
another 30-50 years, and future residents and their long-term needs should be
taken into consideration as well as those of current residents based on
changing demographics in the community. Mr. Wiggins concurred with comments
about speed along the roadway, opining that lower speed limits and speed signs
used beyond school hours may address problems of those exceeding 38 mph. Mr.
Wiggins noted problems with show plowing on the Shoreview sidewalk, due in part
to the poor condition and/or alignment, expressing hope that this situation
would be remedied with new installation and more cost-effective to do now as
part of the project.
Brian Johnson, 3114 Churchill
Street
Mr. Johnson expressed concerns
with driveway access and sidewalk installation as it related to bikers and pedestrians
and sign issues. Mr. Johnson sought clarification on the 85th
percentile for speeds at 38 mph addressed by Ms. Bloom versus the written speed
of 43 mph, and which was correct. Mr. Johnson also sought information on the
life expectancy for a seven (7) ton versus a ten (10) ton road, and questioned
if seven (7) ton would not be sufficient.
Nancy Messer, 1022 County Road
D
Ms. Messer opined that there
existed a nice community on this street that valued its neighborhood
character. Given the age of the current property owners on both sides of the
street, Ms. Messer opined that there would only be a few property owners paying
the assessments if deferrals were granted; and further opined that this created
an inequity that was not conducive to build the type of community they
currently had and preferred to maintain along County Road D.
Regarding safety concerns, Ms.
Messer opined that reconstruction of the road created the potential for people
to drive faster than 43 mph, and spoke in support of 30 mph signage based on
her twenty-year history on the street. Ms. Messer questioned if installation
of a sidewalk would increase safety or reduce risks for students, suggesting
that lower speeds would make the street more livable. Regarding the driveway
grades, Ms. Messer expressed concern with icy conditions in winter and the
ability to stop backing out of her driveway, creating additional concerns if
pedestrians or bikers were on a sidewalk. While the street was based in two
different communities, Ms. Messer stated that it was still one neighborhood.
Doug Schumacher, 948 County
Road D
Mr. Schumacher spoke in support of
installing a sidewalk between Chatsworth and Churchill for safety and crossing
considerations. However, when moving on to Hafner and the current versus
proposed intersection, Mr. Schumacher noted the need to often walk over a mound
of snow or wait until buses leave the school site to reach two of the main
intersections. Mr. Schumacher also addressed his concerns with speed for
safety considerations, opining that keeping the speed at 30 mph versus 35 mph
would meet the needs of the neighborhood better, especially elderly people
and/or younger children using the street.
Mayor
Roe closed the Public Hearing at approximately 8:38 p.m.; and asked Ms. Bloom
to address those specific questions brought up by public speakers that were in
her domain.
Ms.
Bloom clarified that the Pathway Master Plan had been in place for thirty (30)
years; however, it had been updated in 2008.
Regarding
speed along County Road D, Ms. Bloom apologized for misrepresenting the speed
during her presentation, clarifying that the feasibility report was correct at
43 mph. Ms. Bloom reviewed the process for setting speed limits through the
Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation, school speed zones (already in
place), and proposed flashing speed boards. Based on recent studies done on
Snelling Avenue and Ford Parkway, Ms. Bloom advised that it had been found that
flashing signs actually caused people to slow down. Ms. Bloom advised that she
would consult with the City of Shoreview for the possibility of having the
speed boards on beyond school times. Ms. Bloom further highlighted the 85th
Percentile, based on Police Department records and common practice; and the process
for requesting changes to the Commissioner of Transportation through a city
petition, based on completion of a traffic study of existing speeds and recommended
land use. Ms. Bloom advised that the study would determine the speeds at which
people are traveling, and would not necessarily result in lower speed limits,
often indicating a higher speed limit was put in place. Ms. Bloom advised that
a petition could be filed with the Commissioner of Transportation as part of
the project scope or outside it, as directed by the City Council.
Regarding
the life expectancy of a ten (10) ton road, Ms. Bloom advised that this
project, as an MSA project using gas tax dollars for such higher volume roads,
dictated a certain width and strength for the roadbed, at ten (10) ton.
However, Ms. Bloom noted that the City did not assess for that extra strength
or tonnage. Ms. Bloom advised that normal life expectancy for a roadway was
usually thirty (30) years, with ongoing maintenance projects for sealcoating
and mill and overlay done to lengthen that life expectancy, all financed
entirely with city tax dollars.
At the
request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bloom addressed differences in the Assessment
Policies of the City of Shoreview and the City of Roseville. With the State of
MN having over 800 different cities, Ms. Bloom noted that no two (2) Policies
could be found the same. As an example, Ms. Bloom noted that she also served
through her capacity in Roseville, as the City Engineer for the City of Falcon
Heights, who assesses at 40%, but also assess for mill and overlay, which the
City of Roseville did not do. Ms. Bloom advised that an Assessment Policy was
put together by the City Council to determine project financing for application
city-wide. Ms. Bloom noted that the Shoreview City Council had chosen that
their Assessment Policy would be paid differently than that of Roseville, with
an average assessment for an MSA project such as this at $2,900 per property.
However, Ms. Bloom advised that the City of Shoreview also assessed a portion
of curb and gutter installation; and was also in the process of holding
internal discussions about revising their Assessment Policy. Ms. Bloom advised
that it was necessary to demonstrate benefit and whether a proposed assessment
would increase the value of the home in a comparable amount to the assessment,
thus the appraisals and staff’s subsequent recommendation for lowering the
standard assessment rates.
At the
request of Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Bloom advised that the appraisal did not
include the installation of sidewalk, as that was not part of the assessable
costs.
In
response to Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Bloom advised that the Pathway Master
Plan addressed the priority for their installation based on connectivity as
well as design standards based on the type of roadway. Ms. Bloom noted that
some roads indicate a need for pathway projects on both sides (e.g. Lexington
Avenue, Roselawn Avenue), and recommended installation especially in areas
where schools were located.
At the
request of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Bloom confirmed that traffic counts on
Lexington Avenue were considerably higher than on County Road D.
Mayor
Roe asked that the public consult with Ms. Bloom after the meeting if additional
follow-up was needed.
At the
request of Councilmember Laliberte, Ms. Bloom advised that she would research
with Ramsey County if and when the speed limit was changed from 30 to 35 mph on
County Road D. Ms. Bloom reiterated that the road was a turnback from Ramsey
County, and while not disputing the memory of residents along the roadway, she
was not aware from her research to-date of the speed limit every being at 30
mph, but would perform further research and report back to the City Council.
15.
Business Items (Action Items)
a.
Approve a Resolution Ordering the Improvement and Preparation of
Plans and Specifications for County Road D, between Lexington Avenue and Victoria
Street
Mayor Roe requested individual
Councilmember input as to how they wished to proceed, and which of the recommendations
of staff detailed in the RCA dated January 28, 2013, it wished to define.
Mayor Roe noted that another option would be to adopt the resolution as
presented by staff to order the project, and define specific options at a later
date.
Councilmember Willmus questioned
if this was a case where the question could be divided, and if there were
aspects where a consensus was already evident with those items addressed first.
Mayor Roe suggested that the issue
not be divided and taken up as presented.
Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded adoption
of Resolution No. 11045 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Ordering the Improvement
and Preparation of Plans and Specifications for County Road D between Lexington
Avenue and Victoria Street;” amended to recognize the revised feasibility
study; and excluding installation of any new or additional sidewalk along
County Road D in its entirety.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee,
Councilmember Willmus advised that his intent would be that the City Council
could still make a decision on the sidewalk yet this evening, but do so
separately.
Councilmember Willmus spoke to his
rationale for the motion as stated, and after hearing from many property owners
along County Road D expressing concern with the sidewalk installation, he
thought this was an opportunity for the City to mitigate costs and share
infrastructure, with the sidewalk already in place on the Shoreview side and
readily accessible by the neighborhood. With proposed crosswalk improvements
on Chatsworth and Churchill, Councilmember Willmus opined that existing
sidewalks would be even more readily accessible. Councilmember Willmus opined
that installing a sidewalk on the south side of County Road D would be a
duplication of infrastructure; and further opined that the traffic levels on
County Road D did not rise to the same levels as that of Lexington or Roselawn
Avenues.
Councilmember Etten spoke in
opposition to the motion, opining that access was vital based on the school,
church and local parks on or near this corridor. Councilmember Etten noted
that Roseville was originally constructed without pathways for a more suburban
rural feel. However, Councilmember Etten noted that was a few years ago, and
citizens continued to seek connections within the community to further build
upon that community. Councilmember Etten opined that such connectivity would
serve to further build and strengthen the entire community even further, and
served to look to the future. As an example, Councilmember Etten referenced the
adjacent City of St. Paul where even small city streets, not even identified as
collectors such as County Road D, had sidewalks on both sides for safety and to
connect the community. Councilmember Etten opined that this was an especially
important consideration with the school and church located on County Road D,
and would provide a stronger sense of community for future quality and safety.
Councilmember McGehee advised
that, in her review of the plan, she was seeking continuity, and since
sidewalks were in place with the exception of one block, she would echo
Councilmember Etten’s remarks that pathways and trails continued to be the
number one request of citizens and what taxpayers wanted their money spent on.
Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of a continuous sidewalk.
Councilmember Laliberte, while
recognizing that installation of the sidewalk would be most cost-effective and
efficient during reconstruction of the roadway, she also took into
consideration the number of citizens who had worked on the Pathway Master Plan
who did not consider this a priority spot. Councilmember Laliberte opined that
she would prefer to spend money in areas where sidewalks or pathways are more
needed and of higher priority in the overall Plan.
Mayor Roe noted the difficulty in
making this decision for the entire body. However, he noted that his biggest
pet peeve, and that often heard from other residents, was existing pathways and
sidewalks in Roseville to “nowhere;” and recognizing those concerns about
providing continuity, and not having a gap along this corridor, which didn’t
make sense to him. However, Mayor Roe noted that there are existing crosswalks
to access crossing, but in the end he could not support a proposal with that
discontinuity. While having an existing sidewalk on the north side in
Shoreview accomplished the needs of the Pathway Master Plan, Mayor Roe advised
that he could support the project with no sidewalk installation on the south side;
however, he could not support a discontinuous sidewalk along the corridor, or
to remove the sidewalk in front of the church.
Councilmember Willmus clarified
that his motion was not to remove the existing church sidewalk.
Roe moved, Etten seconded, amending
the original motion to include installation of a continuous sidewalk along the
south side of the entire County Road D corridor.
With a point of order called by
Councilmember Laliberte, Mayor Roe clarified that someone other than the maker
of the original motion could make amendments; with only friendly amendments with
acceptance by the maker/seconder of the motion. However, in this case, Mayor
Roe suggested that the maker of the motion would not consider this a friendly
amendment, which Councilmember Willmus confirmed.
Roll Call
(Roe Amendment)
Ayes: McGehee;
Etten; and Roe.
Nays: Laliberte;
Willmus.
Motion carried.
With that amendment, Councilmember
Willmus advised that he would offer his support of the original motion as
amended to proceed with the project.
Councilmember McGehee advised that it was unusual for her to go against the
wishes of citizens; however, when she weighed her decision with the location of
the school and church, and speed concerns, she would support the motion as
amended. Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of the motion including
traffic calmers and extended flashing speed boards beyond school hours; and to
direct staff to poll members of the neighborhood to ensure they were aware that
results of a traffic study may result in a higher speed of up to 40 mph.
Mayor Roe noted that the City did
not control the results of a speed study; nor may the City be able to flash
speeds that were not in the legal parameters.
City Engineer Bloom advised that
she would include those items addressed as part of the additional research
previously requested during tonight’s public comment and subsequent City
Council discussions.
Councilmember Laliberte expressed
her strong belief in the City Council’s role to take care of the City’s
infrastructure, and therefore could not support extra costs or amenities that
had not been identified as priorities, particularly with so many residents speaking
primarily against it.
Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded,
to divide the question.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus;
Laliberte.
Nays: McGehee,
Etten; Roe.
Motion failed.
Moving forward, Councilmember Etten
noted that installing sidewalks or pathways on roads during reconstruction,
while perhaps not deemed a priority, was still more cost-effective than retrofitting
roads at a later time. Councilmember Etten used County Road B and safety
issues as an example affecting connectivity and timing concerns.
Councilmember Laliberte recognized
Councilmember Etten’s viewpoint; however, she noted that there was an existing
pathway on the north side that served safety and connectivity concerns.
Motion
Adoption of Resolution No. 11045 (Attachment
A) entitled, “Resolution Ordering the Improvement and Preparation of Plans and
Specifications for County Road D between Lexington Avenue and Victoria Street;”
amended to recognize the revised feasibility study; and including installation
of a continuous sidewalk along the south side of the entire County Road D corridor.
Roll Call
(Willmus motion as amended)
Ayes: McGehee;
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 9:07 p.m.
and reconvened at approximately 9:15 p.m.
b.
Consider the 2013 Water Consumption Rate Adjustments
A bench handout entitled,
“Attachment C, Alternative 1 – Proposed Water Utility Rates” was provided, attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
Finance Director Chris Miller advised
that tonight’s requested action was a continuation of City Council discussions
held December 3 and December 10, 2012; at which time 2013 Utility Rates had
been adopted with the exception of water consumption rates until staff could
gather additional information regarding water conservation rates and other
concerns or issues raised during those discussions. Mr. Miller noted these
discussions were related to ramifications and considerations if the City
Council was to revert back to its previous rate structure as opposed to adding
additional tiers. Mr. Miller advised that the staff report included that
further research and staff recommendations, as well as information from Public
Works Director Duane Schwartz related to compliance issues if a multi-tiered
rate structure was used versus a uniform rate.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus,
Mr. Miller confirmed that the City Council had adopted a base water rate of
$49.50 in 2011, and validated it in December of 2012 for transparency purposes.
Mayor Roe suggested that if the
City Council wished to have additional topics of discussion about the base rate
or a single tier for the water consumption rate, that it be discussed at a
future meeting; and to focus on whether or not a 2013 consumption rate could be
adopted at this time. Mayor Roe noted that the February 11, 2013 meeting
agenda was rather light at this time, and would lend itself to a policy
discussion on rate structures.
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11046 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution
Establishing the 2013 Water Consumption Rates;” amended to maintain the base
usage rate currently in effect; and maintain 2012 consumption rates for 2013 in
the interim until further discussion could be held by the body.
Discussion ensued regarding the 2013
wholesale water rate for purchases by the City of Roseville from the St. Paul
Regional Water Utility, with Mr. Miller advising that the rates had originally
been increased by approximately 5%; however, they were in the process of
reviewing their internal rate structure, and had indicated that the proposed
rate could decrease.
However, Mr. Miller advised that
no matter that outcome, which will not be known until February or March of
2013, if the City Council retained the 2012 usage rates, the City should remain
viable, as long as it acknowledged that the rate model and methodology used
over the last ten (10) years by the City of Roseville and St. Paul Regional Water
Utility could be changing significantly. Mr. Miller anticipated the earliest
staff would be able to discuss results of that internal rate study would be
sometime in February, and may incur a major structural change affecting all St.
Paul Regional Water Utility customers across the board, including Roseville.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr.
Miller advised that the 2012 rate from St. Paul Regional Water Utility was
somewhat less than projected; however, he anticipated that the City could
realize a rate increase in 2013, and needed to be alert for that.
Councilmember McGehee asked that
staff display historical data of what the City Council had done to its utility
rate structure; and address whether or not the conservation rate structure had
worked. Councilmember McGehee opined that her perception of the current
structure served to subsidize individuals in the community using excessive
amount of water.
Mayor Roe asked that such a
discussion be part of future agenda topics, and refocused discussion on the
motion currently before the body to set 2012 water consumption rates, with
other discussion not germane to that motion.
At the request of Councilmember
Laliberte, Mr. Miller confirmed that the water consumption rate could be
revised at any time and at the discretion of the City Council. Mr. Miller
advised that the only difficulty would be in staff’s ability to communicate
that message to residents in a timely manner between quarterly billings, noting
that staff was fielding considerable questions from residents at this time on
what they should expect for rates.
McGehee moved a friendly
amendment to the original motion that these items of discussion be included on
the February 11, 2013 meeting for further exploration and 2012 usage analysis,
allowing for full discussion of the issues raised tonight. Makers of the
original motion (Willmus/Etten) accepted this friendly amendment.
At the request of Mayor Roe as to
whether or not all information would be available at that time, Mr. Miller
advised that staff would not have December 2012 usage available on all City accounts
until the end of March; however, he confirmed that he would have information on
how much water the City had purchased from St. Paul Regional Water Utility at
that time, but not all specific customer consumption information.
Roll Call
(as amended)
Ayes: McGehee;
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
At the request of Finance Director
Miller for the specific additional information being requested beyond the
philosophical questions, Mayor Roe asked that he clarify that with
Councilmember McGehee and other individual Councilmembers outside the meeting,
given the lateness of the hour and additional agenda items still pending.
Councilmember Willmus offered to
have further discussion with Public Works Director Schwartz and Finance
Director Miller to formulate ideas for the broader policy discussion.
c.
Request by HostasDirect for Approval of a Commercial Greenhouse
as an Interim Use at 691 Larpenteur Avenue
Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly
reviewed the request by Tom Carlson of HostaDirect for approval of a commercial
greenhouse as an INTERIM USE at 691 Larpenteur Avenue, property owner by Mr.
Henry Linder, as detailed in the RCA dated January 28, 2013. Mr. Lloyd
reviewed general considerations for Interim Uses, a history of the property and
previous use as a commercial greenhouse, and staff’s recommendation for a term
of three (3) years for the INTERIM USE to allow the applicant to find a more
suitable long-term or seek a Zoning Text Amendment allowing greenhouse use on
this property on a permanent basis. Mr. Lloyd noted that staff’s
recommendations, as reviewed and enhanced by the Planning Commission, were
intended to ensure this use as a low intensity commercial activity to limit neighborhood
disruption.
Discussion included the time
lapse(s) for previous greenhouse use that had caused that provision to expire;
previous use for a commercial landscape use that had not been well-received by
the neighborhood; other quasi-commercial uses allowed in LD-1 Zoning Districts
limited to home-based businesses (e.g. daycare); and intent of this applicant
for online sales via the internet versus retail sales on-site, with specific
conditions included by staff to prohibit on-site retail sales; and anticipated
lot coverage displayed by staff.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
this use, as presented, appeared low impact from her perspective.
At the request of Councilmember
Willmus, Mr. Lloyd noted the antique boats currently and proposed to remain on
site and owned by the property owner and within allowable parameters of City
Code as long as they remained in the back yard as opposed to owned by others
and stored publically on site.
At the request of Councilmember
Laliberte for benefit of the listening audience, Mr. Lloyd reviewed each
condition as detailed in the RCA.
Roe invited applicant to add any
additional information
Applicant Tom Carlson, Owner of
HostasDirect
Mr. Carlson explained his business
model, as detailed in the staff report and application narrative, and his
intent for the site. Mr. Carlson’s only deviation from and request was that
the Interim Use be for a term of five (5) years versus the proposed three (3),
to allow him to realize some benefits from the expenditures he had made and
would continue to make on the property. Mr. Carlson emphasized that this was
not a retail operation, would only operate for up to six (6) months annually,
would have limited deliveries by trucks, and would employee Roseville residents
and students in the operation.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus,
and concern expressed by neighbors along Saint Albans, Mr. Carlson reviewed the
complications and restrictions if deliveries accessed Larpenteur Avenue, since
this would require access across and through Mr. Linder’s personal residential
property; and not allow utilizing the concrete driveway apron off Saint Albans
directly in front of the structure to be used.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr.
Carlson advised that he had operated in Falcon Heights at Hermes Floral for 2-3
years, and also in the Como area for two (2) summers.
Mr. Carlson advised that when
first putting up a regular hoop greenhouse on the site, neither he or Mr.
Linder were aware that they were out of compliance with City Code, and had
since modified their plans from that type of structure to shade houses that
would be 3-5’ in height, and should serve to make the neighbors happier.
Further discussion ensued
regarding employee parking and/or deliveries off Larpenteur Avenue, with Mr.
Carlson reviewing the difficulties created through use of that access related
to safety directly on the street and grass versus concrete driveway areas; and
the few deliveries that would serve to impact residents in that area.
At the request of Councilmember
Laliberte, Mr. Carlson reviewed employee counts and hours over the six (6)
months of operation annually in comparison to current use by residents along
Saint Albans, with average trips between 9-11 in addition to deliveries to
those residential properties. Mr. Carlson opined that he failed to see how the
few employee vehicles during the week and limited trips or deliveries would
create a big inconvenience to the neighbors, since many of them were parking on
the Linder side of the street anyway.
Mr. Carlson expressed his
appreciation to staff and Planning Commissioners for their professionalism
during this process, and noted his only additional request was to extend the
term of the Interim Use from three (3) to five (5) years.
Given the applicant’s commitment
to improving the property at their expense, and the City’s desire to support
businesses in the community, Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of a five
(5) year term for the Interim Use, and suggested that any extensions for the
Use be made as streamlined as possible in support of the business.
Mr. Lloyd noted that the Zoning
Code prescribed Interim Uses and their limit for five (5) year maximum terms
with subsequent extensions following a similar application process. Mr. Lloyd
noted that the other option for Mr. Carlson would be to seek a Zoning Text
Amendment as previously discussed, which would provide for a public hearing at
the Planning Commission and re-approval process.
Councilmember Willmus noted that a
shorter term provision would provide an opportunity for neighbors to have
recourse after three (3) years to allow comment and a check on the use.
Councilmember Willmus noted that an added benefit for the applicant would be
that if he was up to standards and meeting conditions, there should be no
problem in approval of an extension; with the other resource to seek rezoning
of the property allowing for this type of use indefinitely.
Public Comment
Written comment, consisting
of an e-mail dated January 28, 2013 from Rev. Arne K and Meryl C. Jessen, 1716
Saint Albans Street N, in opposition to the Linder Interim Use Permit
Application, was provided as a bench handout.
Henry Linder, Property Owner
Mr. Linder provided a history of
greenhouse use on this property by his father, and then its use by Landscape
Alternatives; and his interest in utilizing the structures originally built by
his father and make it a viable business again. Mr. Linder advised that he
thought Mr. Carlson was a great fit for that interest; and asked that the City
Council approve a five (5) year Interim Use, noting that it could be revoked at
any time if conditions were not met, and therefore a longer term was moot.
Mr. Linder reviewed the access
with a sliding gate off Saint Albans with a 15’ concrete apron allowing for
delivery vehicles to have direct access to the building.
Mr. Linder advised that he was
more than willing to look at further improvements to the property, something he
had intended but been unable to finance to-date; and expressed his personal
concern with safety s in using the Larpenteur Avenue access for parking as well
as interfering with his private driveway, back yard, and family garden, with
little room between the garden and greenhouse to allow convenient access.
Kathleen Soderberg, 1732 N St.
Albans
Ms. Soderberg referenced her
written comments pertaining to this issue as previously submitted; and spoke in
support of Mr. Linder and Mr. Carlson intent, opining that having someone reliable
on the street would serve as an asset for the neighborhood.
Motion to Waive
the Curfew and Extend the Meeting
McGehee moved,
Etten seconded, extending the meeting until 10:15 p.m.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Discussion among Councilmembers
and Mr. Linder included intended upgrades to the existing fence (e.g.
painting); current deciduous trees providing good screening; potential
relocation or sale of boats, even though there were not part of this issue.
Discussion among Councilmembers
and staff included a realistic timeframe if the City would be required to take
action to revoke the Interim Use, while allowing for due process for the
applicant; and rights of the applicant outside the City process (e.g. court
action) to appeal any revocation if conditions were not met.
McGehee moved, Roe seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 11047 (Attachment G) entitled, “A Resolution
Approving a Commercial Greenhouse as an Interim Use at 691 Larpenteur Avenue
(PF13-001);” amended to extend the term of the Interim Use to five (5)
years to expire December 31, 2017, versus the -recommended three (3) years.
Councilmember Willmus spoke
against the motion, speaking in support of the three (3) year term in
accordance with the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
Councilmember Etten concurred with
Councilmember Willmus, as long as this use remained in an LDR-1 Zoning
District, with another process available to look at re-designation and not
requiring the applicant to remain in long-term limbo.
Councilmember Laliberte concurred
with Councilmembers Willmus and Etten; noting that during the three (3) year
term, the City and the applicant would have ample time to make a decision
whether to restore this to a residential zoning or apply for a more permanent
zoning change.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of a
five (5) year term.
Given the lack of a majority,
Councilmember McGehee withdrew her motion; reiterating her argument that as a
community strongly supportive of small business, this lack of flexibility for a
small business and his growing operation, versus a commercial business, was not
consistent.
Willmus/Etten
Willmus moved, Etten seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 11047 (Attachment G) entitled, “A Resolution
Approving a Commercial Greenhouse as an Interim Use at 691 Larpenteur Avenue
(PF13-001)” as presented; with conditions A-F as detailed in the RCA
dated January 28, 2013, including a term of three (3) years.
Councilmember Willmus concurred
with Councilmember McGehee in honoring and supporting local business; however,
he noted the need to balance that support with support for residents and
neighbors, stating that protecting the neighborhood was important to him as
well. Councilmember Willmus opined that three (3) years provided a good amount
of time for all parties to determine if this was a good fit, as well as
allowing for a check-in to make sure things were working well in the
neighborhood.
Mayor Roe concurred with
Councilmember McGehee’s preference for the five (5) year term, while
recognizing neighborhood concerns as well. However, Mayor Roe used as an
example the North Como Church community gardens, with initial concerns
addressed and the use becoming a good neighbor; and anticipated that the same
thing would happen in this case or the City Council would certainly hear about
it.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Motion to Waive
the Curfew and Extend the Meeting
At approximately 10:17 p.m., Roe
moved, Etten seconded, extending the meeting for an additional five (5) minutes
for a brief discussion with Verizon representatives in attendance at tonight’s
meeting to determine if there was City Council support for them to make
application to the Planning Commission for a VARIANCE
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte;
Etten; and Roe.
Nays: Willmus;
McGehee.
Motion carried.
d.
Approve Performing Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City
Code at 1136 Sandhurst Drive
As previously noted, this
item was removed from tonight’s agenda Permit Coordinator Don Munson
16.
Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
b.
Consider Modifying Ground Space at Reservoir Woods
Finance Director Miller briefly
reviewed areas without cellular coverage in the community, and the current
request by Verizon for expanding their ground space area by approximately 280
square feet, as detailed in the RCA dated January 28, 2013. Mr. Miller noted
that this would require a VARIANCE from the Variance Board proposed for their
March 2013 meeting; and that this initial request to determine whether there
was sufficient City Council support to allow such an expansion to accommodate
the needs of the applicant.
Councilmember Willmus advised that
he was not opposed and opining that one way or the other, the City would
ultimately wind up accommodating Verizon in some way to improve service. Councilmember
Willmus advised that his concentration would be more directed to how revenue
from the lease would be directed.
Councilmember McGehee concurred
with Councilmember Willmus. However, Councilmember McGehee advised that her
concerns would also be what the equipment storage looked like and the effect of
the generation, as she considered that one of the city’s premier parks, and she
was tired of having unpainted fences. Councilmember McGehee advised that she
would be interested in what could be done to beautify the area and any
structures in that area.
Councilmember Etten concurred with
the comments of Councilmember McGehee.
Councilmember Laliberte shared
concerns of the aesthetics and visual and auditory impacts, as well as sharing
Councilmember Willmus’ concerns about fund allocation from lease proceeds.
Mayor Roe noted the apparent
willingness of the City Council to consider the VARIANCE; however, he also
noted that the devil would be in the details.
Mr. Miller displayed what a
proposed shelter would look like, noting that it was typical for all major
carriers, and similar to that currently located on the City Hall campus.
16.
Adjourn
Willmus moved,
Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:21 pm.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus: Laliberte;
Etten; and Roe.
Nays: None.