City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

April 21, 2014

 

1.       Roll Call

Mayor Roe called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m.  Voting and Seating Order: McGehee; Willmus; Etten; Laliberte; and Roe. City Manager Pat Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.

           

Mayor Roe made the following statement:

"The civil suit filed last week against four Roseville Police Officers, and the video from the incident that was released as a result of that filing, have prompted serious and important questions that must be answered.

 

Those answers will come in part through the legal process, and in part from the internal investigation that has been begun, as well as through other discussions and dialogues that folks will likely be having in the coming weeks and months as a community.  What we learn through those processes will guide our future actions.

We in the City of Roseville have expressed that we aspire to be both "Safe and Law-Abiding" as well as "Welcoming and Inclusive."  Often those two aspirations can intersect, and must be appropriately balanced in all the City does, but certainly in the day to day work of our Police Department.

 

We rightly have high expectations for the performance of our police, who are constantly asked to make judgments that relate to their own safety and the safety of the public.  When it has been determined that we have fallen short of those high standards, appropriate consequences must follow, and lessons learned must be taken forward.

 

I believe that I speak for everyone in our City government when I say that we are committed to a fair and thorough review of this incident, and that it is completed in a timely manner, so that our community can receive the answers we deserve.

 

Although, as I said, we are committed to the process being completed in a timely manner, that process is subject to the schedule of the civil litigation activities, and involves determinations about what information is considered public, and when information may be made public, so the City will not be able to provide further details at this time."

 

2.       Approve Agenda

Etten moved, Laliberte seconded approval of the agenda as presented.

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; Willmus; Etten; and Roe

Nays: None.

 

3.       Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. 

 

a.            Ron Bowen, Representative of Prairie Restorations, Princeton, MN (with five other locations around the state)

Mr. Bowen stated that his had been one of the firms requested to bid through a Request for Proposals (RFP) process on a project for the City of Roseville to manage its natural resources.  Mr. Bowen advised hat his concern was that the City may not get good value from the apparent selected contractor, Stantec, a Roseville firm.  While often competing with this firm, Mr. Bowen advised that they typically were involved in general consultant work, while his firm was the contractors for projects.  Mr. Bowen opined that the selected firm didn't have the
wherewithal to do the work requested by the City; and expressed concern that
they had even been allowed to bid; and further opined that he found the entire
process subject to criticism and review.  Further, Mr. Bowen stated that the
bid results and information, all public information, had not been made
available to the public or other contractors, making them unable to know the
scores and the bidding process followed.  Even though repeated attempts have
been made to obtain the data, Mr. Bowen stated that it had been denied.  Mr.
Bowen also expressed his frustration in the notice or lack thereof of the
information meeting held following the process and concern that their firm had
not been invited to attend.  Mr. Bowen recognized that the City Council
retained up to two weeks to accept the contract; and if they do so, Mr. Bowen
opined that it would be an unfortunate decision by the City Council in awarding
a bid to a firm not sufficiently qualified to do this substantial job.

 

Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Bowen for his comments; and asked that City Manager Trudgeon and Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke follow-up with him tonight to get his contact and other pertinent information.

 

b.            Tim Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane

Mr. Callaghan provided a history of the lane built in front of his home 10-15 years ago, at which time the City apparently found a number of driveways that didn't meet code at that time, and required variances.  Mr. Callaghan opined that he had seen this same occurrence throughout Roseville a lot; and then four weeks ago, when the University of Northwestern presented their plan to add lights and rebuild their athletic field stadium, including rebuilding their sound system, they were not required to have a variance, with the excuse that they were "grandfathered in."  Mr. Callaghan alleged that the City was therefore illegally treating one party differently than another, and had made a mistake.  However, Mr. Callaghan stated that he was willing to go with that, since none of the City's zoning regulations any longer applied to him anymore, as his property was also "grandfathered in."  Mr. Callaghan advised that he intended to restart his well, and would not pursue a permitting process, as he was "grandfathered in;" and if the City disagreed with him, they could talk to him elsewhere.  Mr. Callaghan reiterated that the City had made a significant mistake to grandfather someone (e.g. University of Northwestern) who was totally rebuilding something, while a neighbor of his with a disabled child had to go through considerable permitting and other processes to comply to modify their home to accommodate that disability.  Mr. Callaghan expressed his concerns with the Public Hearing held at the Planning Commission, where the noise issue was not discussed, but a decision made beforehand by City staff. 
Mr. Callaghan asked the City Council if they had voided ordinances for half the City; or why they didn't treat everyone the same, or whether zoning ordinances didn't apply to the entire City, and suggested the City Council check with the City Attorney.

 

c.            Joe Schaeffer,

Minnesota Native Landscapes, Inc., 8740 77th St NE Monticello, MN

Mr. Schaeffer reiterated the comments made by Mr. Bowen tonight; with their firm also asked to participate in this charade called Parks and Recreation improvements.  Mr. Schaeffer stated that he also had a lot of concerns in how the process was conducted; and expressed his interest in making sure the Roseville City Council and residents knew what was going on.  When the project was originally announced, and his firm was asked to bid, Mr. Schaeffer stated that his initial thought was that there would be no point in bidding, as   Stantec was a Roseville firm, and would be awarded the bid.  However, when he saw what all was involved in the project, Mr. Schaeffer opined that it became clear to him that  Stantec was not as qualified as his firm or other contractors to do the job.  Mr. Schaeffer advised that two other prominent and qualified restoration contractors had bowed out of the process.  Mr. Schaeffer noted that the RFP process had been very costly for his firm, spending between $5,000 and $10,000; but pursued it thinking it would be a fair and reasonable process; with Stantec ultimately not stacking up with what his firm had to offer for those services.  Mr. Schaeffer further stated that he had not been communicated with, even though leaving messages with staff, he didn't get return phone calls, which he
opined was indicative of what was occurring with the entire process.

 

Mayor Roe reiterated his comment that staff would follow-up as previously stated.

 

4.       Council Communications, Reports, and Announcements

          Mayor Roe acknowledged that notification had been received that the Roseville Area High School had been named as a finalist in the Environmental Education category for its involvement in the Youth Environmental Activists Minnesota (YEA!MN) project, Environmental Activism in Minnesota; a program connecting youth in the metropolitan area with finding solutions to encourage behavior change related to the environment.  For those interested in supporting youth in these efforts, Mayor Roe advised that an awards ceremony was scheduled for May 22, 2014 at 5:30 p.m. at the Roseville Area High School.  R.S.V.P.'s are required by April 12, and more information available by calling Danny Schurter at 612/337-3388, Ext. 137.

 

Mayor Roe announced an upcoming ECFE sale at Parkview Center School on April 26, 2014, with additional information available at Scottbecker.com; and the book sale sponsored by Friends of the Library, to be held at the Roseville branch '
Ramsey County Library from April 23 through 27, with additional information
available from Director Sue Gehrz at sgehrz@rclreads.org or by calling 651/486-2213.

 

Additional announcements by Mayor Roe included announcing a Human Rights Commission  vacancy for a partial term, with the application deadline April 25, and applications available by calling 651/792-7001 or online at cityofrosevile.com/commissions.

 

Councilmember Laliberte thanked the Human Rights Commission and City staff for their work on the recent Naturalization Ceremony, with fifty-four new citizens from twenty-seven different countries being naturalized.

 

Mayor Roe echoed those thanks, and specifically acknowledged City Clerk Kari Collins for performing the National Anthem at the event.

 

          Councilmember Willmus suggested Ms. Collins be invited to at least annually sing the Anthem at a Council meeting; and echoed Councilmember Laliberte's comments that it had been a very impressive event, and looked forward to repeating it.

 

Councilmember McGehee thanked speakers for coming forward, as a part of community engagement efforts, and suggested a response be given to those speakers and their issues rather than simply sitting at the dais with hands folded.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the City had not done a good job with environmental efforts in the past, and thanked those contractors speaking at tonight's meeting,
opining that the situation may not have otherwise been brought to the City
Council's attention. Furthermore, Councilmember McGehee thanked Mr. Callaghan
for again coming forward to speak, and anticipated comments from the City
Attorney about his situation.  Councilmember McGehee recognized the difficulty
in people coming forward to make public statements before the City Council, and
suggested more was needed from the City Council than a simple nod of their
heads.  Regarding the statement read at the beginning of the meeting by Mayor
Roe, while seeing nothing she didn't support in the statement, Councilmember
McGehee expressed her distress over the weekend in hearing about the situation;
and expressed her hope that quick action allowed release of as much information
as possible.

 

City Manager Trudgeon announced that he had just heard today that Roseville's 2014 Human
Rights Essay first place winner Elijah Sailer-Haugland had been named first
place winner at the State level.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that he would have
additional information available in the near future.

 

5.         Recognitions, Donations and Communications

 

a.            Proclaim May Asian Pacific American Heritage Month

Mayor Roe read a proclamation declaring May 2014 as Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Month, celebrating and recognizing the accomplishments and contributions of Asian Americans Pacific Islanders, and inclusion of all people in building a better future for its citizens.

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, proclaiming May 2014 as Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Month in the City of Roseville.

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; Willmus; Etten; and Roe

Nays: None.

 

b.            Proclaim National Police Week and Peace Officer's Memorial Day

Mayor Roe read a proclamation declaring May 15, 2014 as Police Officers' Memorial
Day, and May 11- 17, 2014 as National Police Week; calling all citizens to join
in commemorating law enforcement officers, past and present, for their faithful
and loyal dedicated service to their communities in preserving the rights and
security of all citizens; and honoring law enforcement officers who have made
the ultimate sacrifice in service to their community or have become disabled in
the performance of duty, and recognizing and respecting the survivors of those
fallen heroes.

 

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, proclaiming May 15, 2014 as Police Officers' Memorial Day, and May 11-17, 2014 as National Police Week in the City of Roseville.

 

Mayor Roe asked staff that information be provided to the public on the location of the 2014 memorial ceremony, noting that the City of Roseville had hosted the ceremony last year.

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; Willmus; Etten; and Roe

Nays: None.

 

6.        Approve Minutes

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.

 

a.            Minutes of April 14, 2014 Meeting

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of Meeting Minutes of April 14, 2014 as amended.

 

Corrections:

·         Page 6, Line 38 (Laliberte)

Typographical error: delete the word "only"

·         Page 22, Line 14 (Roe)

Confirmed the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; Willmus; Etten; and Roe

Nays: None.

 

7.         Consent Agenda

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.

 

a.            Approve Payments

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.         

ACH Payments	$1,588,010.59
73373 - 73429	714,110.49
Total	$2,302,121.08

 

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; Willmus; Etten; and Roe

Nays: None.

 

b.            Award 2014 Pavement Management Contract

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11143 (Attachment B) entitled, "Resolution Awarding Bids for 2014 Pavement Management Project;" awarding bid to Valley Paving, Inc. in amount not to exceed $2,281,585.89; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute documents.

 

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; Willmus; Etten; and Roe

Nays: None.

 

c.            Authorize Purchase Agreement for Property Located at 2959 Hamline Avenue N

Councilmember McGehee sought clarification that the motion allowed for review of the title on the property, and did not commit the City to subsequent purchase. 

 

Mayor Roe confirmed that the City would be required to pay $5,000 in earnest money while performing due diligence; and could extend the offer for a certain period with additional funds if so indicated.

 

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of a Purchase Agreement (Attachment C) authorizing the City to purchase the property located at 2959 Hamline Avenue in Roseville, MN from Independent School District No. 612, in an amount not to exceed $415,000; and authorize them Mayor and City Manager to execute the Purchase Agreement on behalf of the City, setting forth the terms and conditions of the sale.

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; Willmus; Etten; and Roe

Nays: None.

 

d.            Adopt a Resolution Approving the Vacation of a Pathway Easement Vacation/Relocation at 1045 Larpenteur Avenue

Since the Request for Council Action provided several options, Mayor Roe clarified that the motion on the Consent Agenda would be to adopt the resolution.

 

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11144 (Attachment E) entitled, "A Resolution Vacating a Pathway Easement at 1045 Larpenteur Avenue."

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; Willmus; Etten; and Roe

Nays: None.

 

e.            Approve Annual Variance Board Appointments

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, ratification of the selection of Roseville Planning Commissioners Michael Boguszewski, Shannon Cunningham, Bob Murphy, and Jim Daire (alternate) as Planning Commissioners appointed to serve as the Variance Board from May 7, 2014 to April 1, 2015.

 

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; Willmus; Etten; and Roe

Nays: None.

 

12.         Consider Items Removed from Consent

 

13.         General Ordinances for Adoption

 

a.            A Request by the Community Development Department to Amend Roseville's City Code to Prohibit the Long-term Storage of Trailers, Boats on Trailers, and Large RVs on Public Streets

Codes Coordinator Don Munson summarized the request to amend City Code to prohibit the long-term storage of trailers, boats on trailers, and large recreational vehicles (RVs) on public streets, as detailed in the RCA dated April 21, 2014; and based on previous discussions at the City Council level. 

 

Mr. Munson clarified that the proposed amendment sought to address long-term storage, as noted on Attachment A, while still allowing temporary parking of those items for a maximum of four days in each and any calendar month.  Mr. Munson noted that parking of these units in driveways was still permitted at this time; as well as extended parking of smaller units and/or vehicles on streets if permitted.  Mr. Munson clarified that enforcement was proposed to be done reactively after a public complaint was received by the Community Development, Police and/or Public Works Departments; but not proactively.  Mr. Munson anticipated owners would comply to avoid impound charges and other administrative fees for violations of this section of the City's Nuisance Code.

 

Councilmember Etten thanked staff for bringing this forward; and specific to line 15 of the RCA, sought clarification of the actual amount of time allowed, whether 4 days, 5 days, or a week.

 

Mr. Munson advised that, if staff observed and confirmed the violation, they would continue the process, but the process would halt once the offending unit was gone, with no specific action then taken.

 

Councilmember Etten observed that this appears to be largely complaint-driven, with Mr. Munson confirming that it would be basically complaints of the public, or Police or Public Works Departments based on safety issues.

 

At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Munson confirmed that former public complaints heard about not knowing whom to direct their calls to have been addressed in this proposed process.

 

At the request of Councilmember Etten as to how to verify the length of parking to initiate the process, Mr. Munson advised that the time would be structured for City staff, with two hours or more constituting one day, verified by photo evidence as staff confirmed the problem unit, also reviewing the adjacent neighborhood to ensure the unit had not simply been relocated in the same vicinity.  Mr. Munson noted that this would require more staff inspections than a typical nuisance case, but expressed his confidence that staff would be able to verify those violations.

 

At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Munson advised that this portion of code related to the size and type of vehicle would be consistent with other areas of code specific to dual axles or tires.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Munson advised that the City's entire public nuisance section is enforced reactively, with staff not typically looking for violations other than when performing the Neighborhood or Business Enhancement Program (NEP or BEP) inspections, but using a complaint-driven or reactive process. 

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned the timing of the process with 4 day limits and the two-week notice prior to City Council action, and how that would work effectively and avoid creating a loophole in the system.

 

Mr. Munson responded that, while the first violation could take up to two weeks for City Council action, depending on how those meetings were scheduled, the offending unit would be posted so the neighbors and owner knew it was being addressed, at which time they were given four days beyond that notice and posting for action at the next City Council meeting. Mr. Munson advised that if the City Council authorized impounding, and the unit showed up as in violation after that, Council action would include staff having the authority to impound the unit right away at that point to avoid any attempts to extend the violation all summer long.

 

Councilmember Laliberte expressed her concern that there were inconsistencies in several areas of the proposed language, but thanked staff for bringing this forward as a result of previous discussions.  Councilmember Laliberte expressed further concern in creating an ordinance to address the behavior of only a few; and sought additional dialogue to address some remaining limitations with units in driveways that may not be remedied by this proposed language, creating the need for expanding current restrictions.  Without addressing units parked in driveways, Councilmember Laliberte expressed her hesitation in moving forward.

 

Councilmember Willmus expressed similar concerns as those expressed by Councilmember Laliberte; however, he supported this proposed language, anticipating that the approach would be done more incrementally.  However, since this is a blanket action covering the entire community, Councilmember Willmus expressed concerns about lakefront properties and other special circumstances that code addressed.  In the near future, Councilmember Willmus asked that this aspect be addressed.  Councilmember Willmus opined that this tool could certainly help solve many issues citywide; and offered his support moving forward.  While recognizing that this was not where the discussion stopped, Councilmember Willmus opined that the discussion should continue with respect to driveways and unique situations and/or lakefront properties.

 

Mayor Roe expressed his concern in how to verify the prohibition on parking more than 4 days in a given month.  At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Munson reviewed a scenario for addressing a complaint and the timing of the reactive process and how short- versus long-term storage was defined by staff.   Mr. Munson advised that staff would be looking to neighbors to keep them informed, but they didn't take the word of the complainant alone, with staff verifying specific issues.

 

As the discussion continues as requested by Councilmembers Laliberte and Willmus, Mayor Roe also requested that it include how the visibility triangle language in Code could also be used to address and enforce public nuisance concerns.

Public Comment

Dan Kelsey, 735 Heinel Drive

As someone who has spent the last fourteen years reviewing, writing, adopting and enforcing state rules similar to the proposed ordinance, Mr. Kelsey stated that he had learned a lot during that time.  Mr. Kelsey cautioned that it was easy to get more restrictive and overreact, opining that there were times when government should move slowly, suggesting this instance may be one of those times.  Mr. Kelsey expressed appreciation for the comments about driveways, opining that by today's standards, a 20' boat was not considered large; and it was nice to have some flexibility, especially with recreational vehicles parked on cul-de-sacs.

 

Mr. Kelsey stated that another thing he had learned from rules was that there were people on both sides of the spectrum, and if the intent was to keep people happy and to approach the problem methodically, as a resident, he would prefer that other portions of the discussion be held before action taken.  Mr. Kelsey stated that, while he wasn't happy with having more rules and regulations, but he wouldn't object to the proposed language moving forward as proposed by staff.

 

Robert Seebow, 657 Heinel Drive

Mr. Seebow expressed similar concerns as expressed by Councilmembers Laliberte and Etten, in creating blanket ordinances for only a few violators.  Mr. Seebow opined that Mayor Roe's suggestion for a review of the visibility triangle would be better versus this overarching ordinance; and questioned how many neighbors needed to complain. Mr. Seebow opined that there was a lot of ambiguity with this proposal at this current time, and asked for more consideration and exploration versus taking action at this time.

 

Richard Karlan, 693 Heinel

Mr. Karlan advised that one concern of his was singling out one class of vehicle without a particular validated study on which class of vehicle was more of a nuisance than others.  Mr. Karlan opined that he didn't see a difference in a passenger vehicle being parked on the street every night and a boat/trailer that doesn't move frequently.  When defining nuisance, Mr. Karlan opined that the City
opened itself up to more litigation if singling out one vehicle from others;
and suggested that the proposed language not remain arbitrary.  Mr. Karlan opined that it was unreasonable to prevent people from parking on a street for a reasonable amount of time; and suggested one class of user should not be singled out from another.  Mr. Kaplan advised that he owned an RV and didn't typically keep it in front of his property, but as a physician, he didn't always get it out as soon as he planned, depending on his unpredictable schedule.  Mr. Kaplan opined that his neighbors were not complaining, and recognized that the City needed to plow streets; however, he reiterated that the proposed language should have non-arbitrary distinctions with clear vehicle classes provided.

 

Mayor Roe thanked speakers for their comments; and advised the City Council of their options for this item: adoption, tabling, or rejecting the proposal.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that the ordinance didn't imply one type of recreational vehicle user over another; but took it to apply to people having trailers, with ATVs, water skis, lawn care equipment, or enclosed work trailers, and not only affecting boats.  Councilmember McGehee recognized that everyone on Heinel Drive probably had a boat, and assured speakers that boat owners were not singled out.  Councilmember McGehee advised that she continued to hear numerous complaints about RV parking on City streets, with some used for storage, and some actually
larger than the homes they're parked in front of.  Councilmember McGehee stated that she didn't share the feeling that this was in any way a blanket restriction or addressing one particular RV user; while agreeing that more discussion was needed regarding driveways and trailers, and making accommodations in some situations.  Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of staff's proposal and the reactive nature and safeguards built in and flexibility allowed for staff to address unique circumstances.

 

Mayor Roe suggested one technical change to Attachment A, in Section 2, Item b, to specify "this item", rather than "Item #5."

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1466 (Attachment A) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Roseville City Code, Section 407.02.M of Title 4, Health and Sanitation;" adding Item #5 to Section 407, making the long-term storage of trailers, boats on trailers, and large recreational vehicles on public streets, a public nuisance and prohibited; as amended to revise language of Section 2, Item b to read as follows:

"Posting for a public hearing, before City Council, shall be a minimum of 10 days for violations of this item."

 

Councilmember Willmus concurred with the comments of Councilmember McGehee; opining that this addresses the most frequent complaints heard; while allowing for additional discussion to continue; and therefore, inF that context, he spoke in support of the motion.

 

Councilmember Etten, while supporting the motion as it directly addressed things from previous discussions, asked that staff bring forward in the near future other items discussed, including an administrative process to make reasonable accommodations for those with side yards not allowing them to access the rear yards for storing units.  Councilmember Etten, in his review of adjacent community ordinances, noted that both Arden Hills or Shoreview simply banned overnight parking of anything, making the City of Roseville much more lenient than its neighbors across the lake, while remaining respectful of its citizens and addressing more city-wide nuisances.

 

Councilmember Laliberte opined that the proposed language was written in way that does allow neighborhoods to go on as they are if no problems exist; however, she remained troubled that the full discussion was not taking place at this time.  Councilmember Laliberte expressed her interest in addressing sight lines, driveways and other issues at the same time this proposed language is considered.  Not that she didn't support this proposal and recognizing it as a good start in solving problems for particular residents using streets for storage and creating safety concerns, a pattern in some places, but Councilmember Laliberte opined that without subsequent changes being addressed also, she was not ready to support only this portion of it.

 

Mayor Roe, assuming specifics and reasons for leniency were still needed, with those options available when an issue came before the City Council for action, he opined that this allowed the City Council to stay on top of any additional discussions, while looking at the maximum and specific number of items occurring on a given property.  Mayor Roe recognized that there were many aspects of the existing Nuisance Code that needed refreshing, he spoke in support of this revision, and anticipating further and ongoing discussion as the larger issues were reviewed.

 

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Etten; and Roe

Nays: Laliberte.

Motion carried.

 

By consensus, it was determined that no Ordinance Summary was necessary.

 

b.            Adopt an Ordinance amending the Definition of Community Mixed Use in Chapter 4, Land Use of the Comprehensive Plan and the Statement of Purpose in Section 1005.07.A of the Zoning Ordinance

City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized the request as detailed in the RCA dated April 21, 2014.

 

City Manager Trudgeon noted that, since this was proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, it required a super majority vote of the Council.

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11145 (Attachment B) entitled, "A Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Definition of Community Mixed-Use (CMU) in Chapter 4, Land Use (PROJ0030) of the Comprehensive Plan."

 

Mayor Roe, speaking in support of the motion, noted that it was consistent with City Council discussions held over the last few months.

 

                                    Roll Call (Super Majority)

Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; Willmus; Etten; and Roe

Nays: None.

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1467 (Attachment C) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Title 10, Zoning Ordinance of the Roseville City Code;" amending the "CMU Statement of Purpose."

 

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; Willmus; Etten; and Roe

Nays: None.

 

c.            Request by J. W. Moore, Inc., holder of Purchase Agreement for the Residential Property at 297-311 County Road B, for Approval of a Rezoning from LDR-1 to LDR-2, and a Preliminary Plat creating Seven (7) Residential Lots

Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd summarized this request as detailed in the RCA dated April 21, 2014, and related attachments.  Mr. Lloyd noted that the request had three elements: rezoning from LDR-1 to LDR-2; a preliminary plat application creating seven lots from the existing two; and vacating an existing storm sewer and drainage easement to establish a new one for development overall.

 

Related to the Tree Preservation Ordinance, Mr. Lloyd noted that many of the trees slotted for removal to facilitate the relocated drainage easement were of Cottonwood and/or Boxelder species, and therefore not required for replacement from the City's perspective. Mr. Lloyd displayed the preliminary plat, and proposed realignment of the drainage easement versus the existing site in order to incorporate infiltration ponding. Mr. Lloyd noted that the City's engineering staffs' analysis and review with the applicant was nearing finalization.

 

Councilmember Willmus expressed his interest in assuring that LDR-2 allow restricting development of duplexes or townhomes if rezoned.  Setting this particular plat aside, and at the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Lloyd advised that the City could not legally require that rezoning be conditioned if a use was permitted or permitted as a conditional use.  Councilmember Willmus asked staff to speak to if and how the property could be developed without rezoning, as addressed in Section 4.2 of the staff report.

 

Mr. Lloyd displayed a sketch he'd made of a potential layout based on dimensions
and how those lots would look based on their distinct widths and depths.  Mr.
Lloyd opined that it would be possible to achieve the layout, but wouldn't
represent similarities to other lots in the areas; with the drainage also
becoming more problematic with LDR-1 zoning versus LDR-2 and drainage relocated
as proposed.

 

Councilmember Willmus concurred with staff's analysis of the layout.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that it appeared that drainage seemed to be sufficient and along the lot line in its current location in the LDR-1 version.

 

Mr. Lloyd reviewed the existing and proposed easement; noting that it was his understanding from City engineers, that the current location was not ideally located to effectively address stormwater from the streets, which was preferred in this area to capture some of it with the proposed relocation.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that she was unwilling to move to LDR-2 zoning simply because there was inadequate restraint; and questioned how long it would take to add a tool to accommodate this development if zoning remained LDR-1.

 

Based on the time for notice, Public Hearing and Councilmember schedules, Mr. Lloyd estimated a minimum of two months.

 

Mayor Roe questioned if it was possible to approve a preliminary plat and meet dimensions for LDR-1 zoning without rezoning to LDR-2.

 

City Manager Trudgeon recommended that not be considered; noting that the preliminary plat needed review and/or revision based on engineering specifications; and he would suggest that the developer provide their input if that was the case.  If the City Council wasn't supportive of rezoning, Mr.
Trudgeon suggested the item be tabled.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan advised that under City Code, the City had 60 days to review a preliminary plat, with that review having the ability to be extended for an additional sixty days by mutual agreement of the applicant and City.

 

Mayor Roe, in addressing the applicant related to timing and location of the easement, asked if it was possible to relocate the easement location using lot lines as suggested in Mr. Lloyd's sketch; and whether it could work.

 

Applicant Representative, Grant Johnson, with J. W. Moore, Inc.

Mr. Johnson advised that their engineer would need to speak to the drainage easement location.  Mr. Johnson advised that the main reason for requesting LDR-2 zoning was to meet current neighborhood characteristics and address and improve drainage in the area.

 

Mr. Johnson advised that closing on the property was scheduled for next week, and in order to extend the City's review period, he would need to see if the parties were willing to extend the Purchase Agreement.

 

Councilmember McGehee expressed appreciation for the work done by the applicant in platting; and was personally sorry that the City didn't have an existing tool to make this work for the applicant more quickly.  However, Councilmember McGehee stated that she couldn't agree to LDR-2, and suggested staff should have polled the City Council before the application got this far.  Councilmember McGehee questioned Mr. Johnson on what would happen if the original platting could be made to work and the process was expedited for the property to remain LDR-1.

 

Mr. Johnson expressed the applicant's willingness to apply covenants or deed
restrictions stating that no duplexes or townhomes could be built on the
parcels, only single-family homes.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Attorney Gaughan advised that deed restrictions would run with the land; however, he noted that he was not certain the City could condition approval on that restriction.

 

If the City Council decided to table action tonight, Mayor Roe advised that they would need confirmation on that by the City Attorney.

 

Councilmember Willmus expressed concern that if a majority of property owners got together, they could void a covenant; and while deed restrictions carried more weight, it may become more troublesome.  Councilmember Willmus opined that he found this discussion regarding rezoning issues, while having this plat in front of the body, troubling as well; and suggested that the City Council look at it in the context of rezoning with all that entails and whether they were comfortable in doing so.  Drawing from his personal conclusions, Councilmember Willmus state that he was not happy doing so; and if the City Council were to take action on this tonight, he would need to vote in opposition.  If that  was the majority rule, Councilmember Willmus noted that the applicant could return with a planned unit development (PUD) process, which he could support as that provided an available tool that would protect the City from the potential of having two-family attached or detached homes.

 

City Planner Thomas Paschke opined that, when talking about tools, the recently updated Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code provided that available tool in the revisions and allowances made.  Mr. Paschke further opined that, absent having LDR-2 zoning, the PUD did nothing, as LDR-2 zoning would need to be eliminated and a PUD process created, but predicated on something allowing the City Council to do so, for a unique development design.

 

Mayor Roe recognize that tools were available, but he was unsure LDR-2 was actually in the toolbox; and in his review of the Subdivision Code and lot standards, he didn't see how the City Council could approve this application; and expressed serious concerns in doing so.

 

Mr. Lloyd noted that lot sizes could also be addressed similarly in commercial districts, where the Zoning Code didn't address lot size standards other than single-family lot sizes.

 

Mayor Roe read the "Statement of Purpose" from Section 1004.09 of the Zoning Code; opining that this application didn't meet the definition of LDR-2; further
opining that he could approve LDR-1 and would be willing to do so in the most
expeditious way possible for the developers to proceed.

 

McGehee moved TABLING action tonight; with Mayor Roe asking that she withdraw her motion for the moment to allow more discussion, at which time she did so.

 

City Attorney Gaughan clarified that, if the intent was to table action, that the decision for extending the review period needed mutual agreement by the applicant and City Council.

 

Mr. Johnson stated that he was not sure of his ability to extend the Purchase Agreement without first consulting with other parties to the agreement.  Mr. Johnson noted that, when this route was taken, it was to avoid any new road or infrastructure for this almost four acre parcel, which could accommodate sixteen lots, but they had chosen not to do so to keep with the current neighborhood's character.

 

Mayor Roe Recognized that aspect; and asked Mr. Johnson's preference for committing
to an extension or having the City Council take action at this time, which may
result in denial.

 

Mr. Johnson agreed to the 60-day review extension.

 

City Attorney Gaughan asked that any action include a specific date to ensure a more perfect record for the City.

 

Councilmember Willmus suggested action be taken when a full City Council was available, recognizing that Mayor Roe would be unable to attend the May 5, 2014 meeting, and suggested the extension be done to the May 12, 2014 meeting; which was mutually agreed upon by the body and Mr. Johnson.

 

At the request of Mr. Johnson, Mayor Roe clarified that the extension would be for consideration of the plat as presented or it would require the applicant to start the process over again with a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission level; and suggested that the applicant choose what they were willing to do.

 

Jason Hohn, Applicant Representative with Bald Eagle Builders

Mr. Hohn asked, if a deed restriction could be accomplished, would the City Council look at the plat as currently designed.

 

Mayor Roe advised that he was unable to answer that question at this time, as there was no motion or vote on the table; but based on discussion, he anticipated that it may be a consideration.

 

City Attorney Gaughan clarified that he was not stating that a conditioned approval could not be done, but he was skeptical that it could be; and would be part of staff's discussions with the applicant in the interim.

 

Councilmember Laliberte suggested that some of those answers be made available by staff and the City Attorney by May 5, even if the vote was delayed until May 12, but City Manager Trudgeon suggested keeping the discussion and actions together to avoid any confusion.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan clarified that the vote would not require a super majority; and supported City Manager Trudgeon's advice to keep the full discussion and potential action until May 12, 2014.

 

Councilmember Etten expressed his willingness to proceed with a deed restriction. He noted that matching existing lots actually only applied to three lots on the east side of the development; and he was unsure if there was a need to restrict the size of the new lots at this time, or what would be gained by doing so. 

 

Councilmember McGehee concurred with the comments of Councilmember Etten and encouraged the applicant to see if they could work with LDR-1 zoning, opining that it wouldn't require too much change on their part if the Purchase Agreement could be extended.

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, TABLING action on this item until the May 12, 2014 City Council meeting for consideration of the plat and rezoning at that time.

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; Willmus; Etten; and Roe

Nays: None.

 

Councilmember Etten expressed his concern with the City's current Tree Preservation Ordinance, and identification of substandard trees.  Councilmember Etten opined that mature and significant trees were important to a neighborhood, and should be preserved; further opining that the current tree ordinance was not working for him.

 

Councilmember McGehee concurred with the comments of Councilmember Etten, opining that the current tree ordinance appeared to her and had proven to be uniformly useless since it was put into effect.

 

City Manager Trudgeon advised that it could be reviewed, noting that some standards had been attempted across the way, with Cottonwood trees typically excluded from calculations.

 

14.         Presentations

 

15.         Public Hearings

 

16.         Budget Items

 

17.         Business Items (Action Items)

 

a.            Request by J. W. Moore, Inc., holder of Purchase Agreement for the Residential Property at 297-311 County Road B, for Approval of a Rezoning from LDR-1 to LDR-2, and a Preliminary Plat creating Seven (7) Residential Lots

Mayor Roe noted that, at this point given previous action to table, this item was moot.

 

b.            Request by Roseville Housing and Redevelopment Authority (RHHA) and the Greater metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC) for Approval of a Preliminary Plat of 657, 661, 667, and 675 Cope Avenue, and 2325 and 2335 Dale Street in Preparation for Redevelopment

City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized this request, as detailed in the RCA dated April 21, 2014 and related attachments.

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of the PRELIMINARY PLAT of Fire House Addition; based on the comments and findings of Section 4 - 6 and recommendation of Section 7 of the RCA dated April 21, 2014.

 

Councilmember McGehee expressed her pleasure with this entire process and flexibility allowed in this development.

 

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; Willmus; Etten; and Roe

Nays: None.

 

18.         Business Items - Presentations/Discussions

 

19.         City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Trudgeon reviewed upcoming agenda items; and specifically noted the May 22, 2014 Special meeting set aside for a Budget Work Session. 

 

20.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Trudgeon advised that initial discussions on planned unit developments related to LDR-1 were proposed at the upcoming joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff would provide feedback on those issues brought forward during public comment at their earliest convenience; along with feedback on the tree ordinance.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Trudgeon anticipated discussion of the Best Value Process for the Park Renewal Program at the May 12, 2014 meeting.  Councilmember Etten suggested that consideration be given to not further delaying award of the contract to allow construction timeframes to be met during the 2014 construction season.

 

Discussion ensued regarding the potential scheduling of an additional meeting, depending on staff and individual Councilmember schedules to address outstanding issues in a timely manner.

 

21.         Adjourn

Etten moved, Laliberte seconded adjournment of the meeting at approximately 7:53 p.m.

 

                                         Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte; McGehee; Willmus; Etten; and Roe

Nays: None.