City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

June 8, 2015

 

1.         Roll Call

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

 

Acting Mayor Etten advised that Mayor Roe would be arriving later this evening following his role hosting the Northeast Youth & Family Services Mayor's Challenge at Keller Golf Course.

 

2.         Pledge of Allegiance

 

3.         Approve Agenda

 

Councilmember Willmus requested removal of Item 8.h from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.

 

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded adding Business Discussion Item 15.c to discuss a potential budget insert in the next issue of the City News.

 

McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded approval of the agenda as amended.

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, and Etten.

Nays: None.

 

4.         Public Comment

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

 

a.            Donna Peterson, 2436 Haskell Street

Ms. Peterson stated that she found it unfortunate that the Roseville City Council had chosen to skip over the topic of organized trash collection, especially in light of the purchase by Ramsey County of the resource recovery unit and future plans for that facility, whether or not its purchase necessitated organized trash collection as a future consideration.  Ms. Peterson opined that missing parts of the issue remained not yet well-discussed, including energy use and pollution form garbage collection.  Ms. Peterson noted that she had observed six different haulers on her street along last week, and perhaps they had traveled along it even more than once.  Ms. Peterson referenced air pollution from diesel fueled trucks and carbon fuel emitted; her personal research of such emissions compared with regular passenger vehicles; and further referenced recent newspaper articles regarding carbon fuel emissions, which she had found sobering from her perspective.  Ms. Peterson further referenced efforts and models provided by the League of Minnesota Cities for cities moving forward; and the recent improved rating for the City of Roseville in the GreenCities Program. 

 

Ms. Peterson referenced studies performed by the League of Women Voters (LWV) and their subsequent recommendation to the City Council supporting organized collection.

 

Under those circumstances, Ms. Peterson questioned why the City of Roseville was not interested in smart energy use in garbage collection and pursuing an organized trash collection program.  Ms. Peterson asked the City Council to reconsider their earlier decision.

 

Mindy Greiling, 2495 Marion Street

Ms. Greiling asked the City Council to consider their recent vote to not pursue a public hearing on organized trash collection, and that decision made without the benefit of public input, and fast-tracking a decision rather than giving it consideration at a future meeting as an action item, following public notice, as had been requested by Councilmember McGehee.

 

As a retired twenty-year member of the Minnesota Legislature, Ms. Greiling questioned the procedure used by the City Council to omit proper public notice and receipt of public input, opining that had she followed such procedure in her committee work for the legislature she would have been ashamed and opined that the City Council should also be ashamed of such a practice.  In her personal discussions with Mayor Roe regarding this matter, Ms. Greiling noted that Mayor Roe had responded to her concerns by stating that the City Council had followed their established rules in making that decision.  If that is the case, Ms. Greiling opined that the City Council should adopt new rules; and the current rules should apply only to non-controversial items or those not of interest to the public versus those of substantive nature and having considerable public interest.  Ms. Greiling opined that it was arrogant on the part of the City Council to have taken that action.

 

Ms. Greiling referenced campaign efforts of elected officials on the City Council as well as their recruitment of citizens to serve on various advisory commissions for the City; and asked how such action as taken by the City Council honored those advisory commission members, such as on the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC), who had studied this issue along with their staff liaisons for over one and one-half years and then after recommending unanimously that the City Council adopt organized collection, show such a lack of respect for them in following that recommendation. 

 

Ms. Greiling noted the delay immediately following their recommendation due to the City Council's intent for seeking further public input from a community survey following a previous public hearing, which she found to be simply an excuse not to take action at that time.  Ms. Greiling opined that she found the survey question extremely slanted, and of such an unusual nature that many respondents were not aware of what they were actually being asked.  Ms. Greiling suggested that the City Council hold a public hearing to educate the public on this issue; at which time the Mayor and two Councilmembers opposed to organized collection could also state their case to the public, while allowing the proponents for organized collection, Councilmembers Etten and McGehee, to also state their case with the public present and both sides of the issue clearly aired.

 

Ms. Greiling advised that she represented the Village of St. Anthony who had just started the organized collection process recently following adoption of new legislation authored by Senator Marty, and subsequent to her original bill that had been unable to get a hearing in the past, but then passed almost unanimously based on the common sense presented from various studies. 

 

Ms. Greiling begged the City Council to reconsider their decision and provide a public process and exhibit similar leadership as the City of Bloomington was currently doing, to address both sides of the issue thoroughly.  Ms. Greiling referenced her personal discussions with former PWETC Chairperson Mr. Jan Vanderwall, who had provided his rationale for the PWETC's recommendation at that time; and his opinion that it provided residents an opportunity to obtain a fair price for trash collection, since current pricing was not advertised and varied considerably among haulers as well as customers using one hauler.

 

Ms. Greiling asked the City Council to hold a public hearing on this issue.

 

Roger Toogood, 601 Terrace Court

Mr. Toogood noted the considerable time he'd spent with this trash collection issue, as well as the efforts of the Roseville Citizens League Board in 2010, and the information al meetings they had held with citizens, trash haulers, and representatives of the industry specific to this issue.  Mr. Toogood noted that this involved a significant number of meetings, public testimony and subsequent unanimous recommendation by the Board to pursue organized trash collection. 

 

Mr. Toogood noted that, at that time, Mayor Klausing recommended referring the issue to the PWETC for further study, again involving many meetings and public testimony at that level, and their ultimate unanimous recommendation supporting organized trash collection as well.  Mr. Toogood noted his considerable surprise to observe the recent newspaper headline indicating that the City Council was not going to pursue it; and based on the history of this issue, expressed his personal disappointment and shock in that decision.

 

Mr. Toogood recognized the City Council's rationale in delaying their decision immediately following the PWETC recommendation, due to political ramifications, and the City Council's statement that the issue had been put on the back burner for a time. 

 

In the process of receiving public input, Mr. Toogood noted the forum held by the Roseville Citizens League Board, with 125-150 members of the community attending, as well as other City officials and representatives of trash haulers.  Mr. Toogood also noted subsequent public hearings held in 2013 by the City Council and their decision to delay action until results of the community survey had been received.  Mr. Toogood displayed a copy of the actual survey question and responses, as provided in the previously referenced newspaper article.  Mr. Toogood opined that the question was worded very inadequately and provides insufficient information for adequate responses, and opined that it could even be considered on the edge of stupidity.

 

Mr. Toogood referenced and provided to the bench several pieces of new information he had researched, including a pricing list from Republic Services for residents in the City of Maplewood and their organized trash collection service, with prices ranging from $7.02 to $13.62 depending on container size; and subsequent information showing the high satisfaction level of residents related to cost, efficiency and service.  Mr. Toogood advised that this disproved any statements that new information is available, as now it is based on the experiences in implementing organized collection in other metropolitan communities.

 

Mr. Toogood provided his personal discussions with a Maplewood resident, formerly very vocally opposed to organized collection, and his changed mindset after implementation and positive comments about the program, expressing his embarrassment about his former negativity without being fully knowledgeable about the outcome.

 

Mr. Toogood asked that the City bring this issue back for discussion.

 

Bob Murray, 1433 Roselawn Avenue

Mr. Murray admitted that he was still trying to understand the entire trash collection issue; however, he stated his satisfaction with the current system.  Mr. Murray defended the wording of the community survey question, opining that it was well stated as an open-ended question, typical of surveys, and he didn't find it slanted in any way.  Mr. Murray opined that it was a good survey question.  Mr. Murray further stated that he didn't understand the hypothetical comments about CO2, since too little was actually more detrimental to the environment.

 

As a military veteran, Mr. Murray stated that he had served to ensure a continued freedom of choice, and he confirmed his belief in the free market system allowing for choice versus government being in charge.  Mr. Murray referenced the importance of veterans versus garbage collection; and opined that throwing out insinuations without accurate documentation was not a good thing, and was Hitler-like.  Mr. Murray reiterated that he found the survey question clear and simple; and his support of free enterprise without lowing individual principles and ethics.  Mr. Murray further opined that while everyone had a right to disagree, he found the survey question not slanted or biased.

 

Mr. Murray expressed his thanks for the action of the City Council, and for having the freedom to speak out, whether speakers are in agreement or not.  However, Mr. Murray questioned why the same issues continued to be rehashed versus moving on to other issues more important to the community.

 

Mr. Murray offered a question for the League of Women Voters, an organization he had found to be great in the past when it was more educational versus political, and Ms. Greiling why they didn't continued their education efforts, and efforts to get people out to vote, versus becoming  political entity and perhaps losing their tax exempt status.

 

Greg Ryan, 2800 Hills Court S

As a business owner since 1984, Mr. Ryan admitted he'd come into this discussion late.  However, based on a business perspective, Mr. Ryan noted when someone encroaches on his business decision-making ability, which would occur if the City Council again reconsidered this issue it could have ramifications on other services.  Mr. Ryan questioned why not limit the size of trucks used by plumbers in residential areas as well; or limiting hair salons of in-home services.  Mr. Ryan opined that any such action would encroach on his decision making or choices.  If companies were consolidated in one area, Mr. Ryan opined that naturally it would reduce costs and guarantee a customer base, which appeared to be what the previous speakers before Mr. Murray were trying to impose.  However, Mr. Ryan noted that had a negative impact on his decision-making and imposed on his ability and liberties. 

 

Mr. Ryan admitted he had not received a survey and had not participated; however, then government continued to take chunks of the pie and removed his choices, how much more should he take before moving from the community as a result of 'mission creep,' or the choking effect from his government. 

 

While he could choose to move away from Roseville, Mr. Ryan stated his appreciation for the community, even while concerned with a small City Council of five elected officials having the ability to tell him to abide by their rules versus his freedom to hire a service privately, and encroaching on his rights.  Mr. Ryan also expressed his interest in being able to choose his own recycling service provider versus having a fee applied to his utility bill.  Mr. Ryan opined that the City of Roseville was becoming restrictive like big cities, applying a noose hold on its citizens. 

Mayor Roe arrived at approximately 6:33 p.m., and Acting Mayor Etten turned over the gavel to him for the remainder of the meeting.

 

John Kysylyczyn, 3083 Victoria Street

From his perspective, Mr. Kysylyczyn pointed out several erroneous statements during tonight's public comment, based on his experience in working with and research he performed for various communities, specifically on trash hauling and recycling issues.

 

Regarding fuel consumption, Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that the reason Minnesota experienced progressive industries compared to other states was due to the competition available, including that of trash haulers.  Mr. Kysylyczyn stated the reason for trash haulers moving to the use of compressed natural gas fuel was based on market-place competition; and if that incentive was removed, there would be no reason for them to move toward new technology.

 

Based on his recollection, Mr. Kysylyczyn indicated that a public hearing had been held by the City Council, and therefore, the claim that decisions were made in the darkness of night were inaccurate and would not be supported by the public record for those decisions.

 

Specific to the citizen survey, Mr. Kysylyczyn noted the similarity of the Roseville survey question to that asked in other communities (e.g. Cities of Shoreview and Fridley).  While the outcome may be surprising or disappointing to some, Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that the results from other communities had also been similar, with the citizen majority stating their preference to retain their choice of haulers.  If the question had been terribly worded or slanted, Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that the results would have been different.

 

Regarding the current process undertaken by the City of Bloomington, Mr. Kysylyczyn referenced comments by one of their Councilmembers, indicating the expenditure of $350,000 in tax money to consultants to guide them to move toward a single trash hauler.  Even though their original goals had been to encourage more recycling and less trash, improve safety, and experience less road repair, Mr. Kysylyczyn noted the comments of this Councilmember who considered the pursuit of these efforts to have been a complete failure based on staff reports, without accomplishing any of those original goals, including research results for the City of Bloomington over the last fifteen years.

 

Mr. Kysylyczyn referenced his research with garbage collection from Hennepin County regarding emissions, safety and roadway maintenance.  Mr. Kysylyczyn noted that the author of that document was Carl Kiel, a previous employee of the City of Roseville before moving to the private sector, and now the Public Works Director for the City of Bloomington.

 

Mayor Roe thanked the public for their comments, and apologized for being tardy for tonight's meeting, thanking Acting Mayor Etten for serving in his place. 

 

5.         Council Communications, Reports, and Announcements

Mayor Roe announced the deadline this week for a vacancy on the Civic Engagement Commission; and June dates for City of Roseville/Ramsey County hazardous household waste collection located on Ken Street in Roseville, off Larpenteur Avenue and Dale Street, with additional information available from Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson at 651/792-7049.

 

Councilmember McGehee provided a brief explanation of the blue lights on stop lights in Ramsey County and their purpose to alert law enforcement of vehicles running red lights.

 

6.         Recognitions, Donations and Communications

 

a.            Introduce New Police Officers Haivy Vang and Matt Sisterman

Rich Mathwig introduced the City's two newest police officers and provided a brief biography of each officer.

 

Officer Haivy Vang thanked the Roseville Police Department and City Council for giving him the opportunity to be employed by Roseville, noting the comments he'd received about and how well-spoken of the department was among other agencies.  Officer Vang noted this created high expectations for him in filling his position, and expressed his intent to try to be the best officer he could be for the good of the department and community, hoping that over the next few months his actions would support those efforts and show he belonged here.

 

Officer Matt Sisterman thanked Mayor Roe, Councilmembers, the City Administration and Police Chief Mathwig for this opportunity.  Given his long background with military security and as a Police Reserve Officer on the Roseville Police Department, Officer Sisterman stated that he would strive to take that experience and training to become the best sworn officer he could be.

 

On behalf of the community and City Council, Mayor Roe welcomed Officers Vang and Sisterman to the community.

 

b.            Accept Golf Cart Donation from Roseville Police Foundation

Police Chief Mathwig noted the golf cart parked in front of City Hall, given its arrival earlier today, and intended to be used by and further expand the efforts of the Park Patrol, including interesting new volunteer opportunities.

 

Representatives of the Roseville Police Foundation Board, Julie Wearn, Mike Bilski, and Dick Houck were present for this presentation, with financing for the donated vehicle arranged by the Foundation, and its value estimated at $11,000. 

 

Mr. Bilski thanked Club Car, distributor of the Transport 4 vehicle for their reduction of 20% off the original list price; and expressed the Foundation's willingness to continue working with the Police Department in assisting with expenses above and beyond annual budget constraints.  Mr. Bilski thanked members of the Foundation for their generous donations to-date.

 

Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, recognition of and acceptance of the donation from the Roseville Police Foundation of a 2015 Cub Cadet Transporter (golf cart) for use by the Roseville Park Patrol, at an approximate value of $8,000.

 

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

On behalf of the community, City Council, and staff, Mayor Roe thanked the firm of Club Car, and the Foundation for this generous donation, and expressed the community's interest in working with them in the future.

 

7.         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.            Approve May 11, 2015 Regular Council Meeting Minutes

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the May 11, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes as presented, with reiteration of corrections previously addressed on page 9, line 44, and page 32, line 29 as noted.

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.

Abstentions: Laliberte.

Nays: None.

 

b.            Approve May 27, 2015 Special Council Meeting Minutes

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of May 27, 2015 Special Meeting Minutes as presented.

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Etten and Roe.

Abstention: Willmus.

Nays: None.

 

c.            Approve June 1, 2015 Special Council Meeting Minutes

Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, approval of June 1, 2015 Special Meeting Minutes as amended.

 

Corrections:

·         Page 2, Line 27 (Roe)

Delete "other"

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

8.         Approve Consent Agenda

There were no additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted.  At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, dated June 8, 2015.

 

a.            Approve Payments

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

 

ACH Payments	$1,238,251.98
77400 - 77666	864.104.57
TOTAL	$2,102,356.55

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

b.            Approve New Applications for Business and Other Licenses

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of new applications for business and other licenses as noted.

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

c.            Approve 2015 Business and Other License Renewals

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval/renewal of business and other licenses for terms as noted.

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

d.            Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of $5,000

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services, and where applicable, trade-in/sale of surplus equipment as noted in the RCA and Attachment A entitled, '2015 Capital Improvement Plan Summary,' updated May 31, 2015.

                                   

                        Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

e.            Receive Grant Application Update

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the update by staff of grant applications and awards to-date.

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

f.             Approve a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed, Authorize Final Payment, and Commence the One-Year Warranty Period on the 2014 Sanitary Sewer Lining Project

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11222 (Attachment A) entitled, 'Final Contract Acceptance - 2014 Sanitary Sewer Lining Project;' authorizing payment of the final contract amount not to exceed $41,397.90 to Insituform Technologies USA, LLC; and authorizing the one-year warranty period.

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

g.            Request by the Community Development Department for Approval of an Amendment to the Joint Cooperation Agreement with Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the Allocation of Funding for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership Act  (HOME) Programs

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11223 (Attachment A) entitled, Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG Urban County Requalification process with the Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the City of Roseville.

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

i.             Certify Unpaid Utility and Other Charges to Property Taxes

          Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11224 (Attached) entitled, 'Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Levy Unpaid Water, Sewer and Other City Charges for Payable 2015 or Beyond.'

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

j.             Approve Roseville Firefighters' Relief Association Bylaw Ratification

Councilmember McGehee noted the list included with Attachment A indicating that the current Mayor, City Manager and Finance Director were declining any compensation reimbursement.  However, Councilmember McGehee questioned whether or not this should be made part of future by-law provisions with compensation for City officials not an option.

 

Mayor Roe noted any revisions would need to go through the Relief Association process; however, stated that the City Council could pass a motion to that affect if it so desired.

 

Fire Relief Association Chair David Breen

Relief Association Chair Breen noted that the attached schedule as referenced stated that those officials declined compensation, if language was revised, it would need to be based on bylaw language as well and applicable revisions to that document.  If that was the desire of the City Council, Mr. Breen advised that the revised language and bylaws would need to go before the Board for adoption, and then return to the City Council for that additional change.  However, Mr. Breen noted that revisions were addressed at each annual meeting of the Association, after which they were submitted to the City Council for their ratification, allowing their final approval of the document.

 

With concurrence by Mr. Breen, City Manager Trudgeon clarified that there would be no ability for City staff to take any compensation until and unless subsequent changes were made to the document.  Mr. Trudgeon and Mr. Breen both stated that there were unaware of any language revisions proposed for the January 2016 annual meeting of the Relief Association.

 

Councilmember Laliberte expressed her comfort in approving the document as presented tonight; however, she did agree with the direction indicated by Councilmember McGehee to for future iterations to avoid any potential compensation attempts or confusion.

 

Mayor Roe opined this may be more of a City Council policy versus that of the Relief Association, whether city representatives can or cannot be compensated.  If such a motion were to be made tonight, Mayor Roe recommended that it be done outside the realm of the proposed motion ratifying this document.

 

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval by the City Council approving Restated Bylaws of the Roseville Firefighter's Relief Association (Attachment A) dated January 2015.

                       

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

k.            Approve 'No Parking' Resolution for Cleveland Avenue

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11225 (Attached) entitled, 'Resolution Prohibiting Parking on Both Sides of Cleveland Avenue from County Road C N to County Road D.'

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

9.            Consider Items Removed from Consent

 

h.            Approve Purchase of a New Medical Response Vehicle

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon deferred to Chief O'Neill and Battalion Chiefs Greg Peterson and David Brosnahan to respond to questions related to this item.

 

Councilmember Willmus noted the difference in numbers carried forward from the long-term capital improvement program (CIP) and those documented in the RCA, and potential differences in potential savings.

 

Chief O'Neill clarified that the savings indicated in the RCA had been based on the proposed 2016 budget as submitted to City Manager Trudgeon but yet to be submitted to the City Council.  In order to further clarify the savings based on the approved 2015 budget, Chief O'Neill advised that the projected savings would be $254,000; with savings in the 2016 budget projected at $326,548.

 

Councilmember Willmus asked for experience of other urban versus rural community fire departments using similar vehicles, their longevity and how often they were replaced; and how that compared with replacement schedules for the current Suburban vehicles used by the department.

 

Battalion Chief David Brosnahan

Chief Brosnahan responded that research involved several other metropolitan communities using similar type vehicles; and change out of their chassis within 8-10 years, and change out of the body every 16-20 years.  Chief Brosnahan noted the anticipated useful life of this type of vehicle in excess of 100,000 miles ; with the current Suburbans serving between 70,000 to 90,000 miles.

 

In response to Councilmember Etten, Chief Brosnahan advised that in order to get longer life from these units, it was anticipated that they would be worked into the normal fleet allowing more trade-off time and reducing wear and tear for those vehicles considered first-out for responses. 

 

At the request of Councilmember Etten, Chief O'Neill advised that the intent was to apply the trade-in cost for one vehicle this year to the cost of the new vehicle, and switch those first-out vehicles to further increase their lifespan.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Chief O'Neill advised that the current Suburban units were traded in every 3-4 years; but further clarified that those ¾ ton units were no longer available.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Chief Brosnahan addressed the higher structural integrity of these units, allowing a longer lifespan for this particular chassis since it was better built, and offered better warranty options further increasing their longevity and less maintenance required.

 

Based strictly on mileage, Chief O'Neill admitted that the mileage of the chassis would well exceed 100,000; however, this was an unknown at this time as this type of unit was yet untried for the department.  Chief O'Neill expressed hope that their functionality could be maintained long-term.  However, given their higher rate of use and abuse in responding to an average of 4,000 emergency calls annually, even though not at a necessarily high number of miles, there was a significant increase in stops and starts for the vehicle compared to a typical personal vehicle.

 

Chief Brosnahan also noted the additional weight added from additional equipment, increasing the wear and tear, which had become very evident in the uptick for maintenance in first-out vehicles such as the ¾ ton Suburban.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Chief Brosnahan advised that the City of St. Louis Park was running this same unit for the 8 and 16 year lifespan before change-out.  While the Lake Johanna Volunteer Fire Department was also now using this type of unit, Chief Brosnahan advised that they had just changed over recently and did not have sufficient experience beyond initial indications of the advantages of this type of unit.

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, authorization for the purchase by State Bid and Rosenbauer Minnesota LLC for the purchase of a new medical response vehicle in the amount of $80,000; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the purchasing agreement.

 

Councilmember Willmus expressed appreciation for the department's research with other departments; however, he expressed his personal hesitation in the projected longevity of these units based on the coming Roseville demographic and anticipated future increase in calls.  Councilmember Willmus questioned whether or not trying to get eight years form an emergency vehicle was the best plan going forward, nor the path to pursue unless the units provided 100% confidence in their performance ability.  Councilmember Willmus likened this type of unit with those used for heavy construction and the increase and frequency of maintenance when they reach 100,000 and above.

 

Councilmember McGehee addressed the concerns of Councilmember Willmus as to whether his concerns were based on too high of expectations of the units, or what he was suggesting as an alternative based on his experience with operating a larger vehicle.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated his concern with the projected longevity of this type of unit, and suggested looking more closely at other departments using this type of vehicle and related maintenance, especially when lives depend on the operation of this vehicle, and extra concerns he had when the units reach in excess of 100,000 miles. 

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Chief Brosnahan reiterated the department's intent to rotate the vehicles as the chassis were changed out and mileage and maintenance issues increase, moving another vehicle into the role for first-out.

 

Mayor Roe asked if the department had a 'Plan B' in case this unit required replacement more often than anticipated, especially based on the higher cost of these units versus the current vehicle of choice, the Suburban.

 

Chief O'Neill noted that, while the department currently utilizes three Suburbans, the ¾ ton was no longer available moving forward, prompting the department to review other options.  Chief O'Neill advised that research had indicated this vehicle would serve well, and provide another desired outcome in compartments for storage of potentially contaminated gear after its use outside passenger areas, secure tool storage capabilities, and a larger vehicle to carry more rescue equipment.  Chief O'Neill advised that this recommended unit was a direct result of staff thinking 'out-of-the-box' to see what was available, and subsequent consideration of  using this unit.  Chief O'Neill admitted that this option was a risk and an experiment as an unknown for Roseville as stated by Councilmember Willmus.  However, Chief O'Neill noted that another option would be to revert back to a vehicle similar to the Surburban that would be less expensive, but spoke in support of trying this unit that had proven successful with other departments and basing this recommendation on their experience.  . 

 

At the request of Councilmember Etten, Chief Brosnahan advised that St. Louis Park, Stillwater, and St. Anthony Fire Departments had used this type of unit in excess of ten years; with Lake Johanna Volunteer Fire Department for much less time, and on a similar plan as that of Roseville. 

 

At the request of Councilmember Etten, Chief Brosnahan advised that the estimated projected range for replacement of the chassis is $55,000 to $65,000.

 

Councilmember Etten noted that this unit would increase the initial upfront cost to $80,000 versus the $70,000 cost for the Suburban unit and replacement every 3-4 years, representing a potential savings in 3-4 years with the chassis.

 

Councilmember McGehee referenced staff's presentation indicating that this unit is similar to the vehicles used by the Parks & Recreation and Public Works Departments, allowing the City's maintenance department some familiarity with it and the possibility that some repairs could be handled in-house and save on maintenance costs.

 

Councilmember Willmus requested additional information from other departments as to longevity and their experiences with this unit, unless one of the current Suburban units is in urgent need of replacement in the next week.

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Etten and Roe.

Nays: Willmus.

Motion carried.

 

10.         General Ordinances for Adoption

 

a.            Consider Amending City Code, Chapter 302 Liquor Control to Allow for Off- and On-Sale Microdistellery Sales and to Allow for Sunday Sales of Growlers

City Manager Trudgeon briefly summarized this request, noting it was a first draft, and intended for City Council to move forward at a future meeting unless it was their preference was to enact revised language at tonight's meeting.  Mr. Trudgeon deferred to City Attorney Mark Gaughan for further detail and the purpose of these recommended revisions.

 

City Attorney Gaughan advised that, with recent legislative changes, two additional license categories had been incorporated.  Mr. Gaughan noted that one of those categories for off-sale distilled spirits at microdistilleries allowed one bottle per customer per day in accordance with revised State Law.  Mr. Gaughan also noted that revised language adds a category for cocktail rooms, like a taproom license at small breweries, for alcohol sold and consumed on premises.  Mr. Gaughan further noted the added draft language related to Sunday growler sales at taprooms in accordance with new legislation adopted for municipalities during the last legislative session. 

 

Since one of the attributes of the City's current liquor ordinance is its attempt to mirror state law where and when possible, Mr. Gaughan stated his uncertainty in how expansive the municipal ordinance should be, therefore he incorporated everything in revised language.  However, Mr. Gaughan noted the rapid pace and significant changes currently occurring with state liquor laws, it may be helpful for efficiencies sake to continue referencing State Statute sections and reflect those changes for efficiency's sake, and only call out those areas in which the municipality may not concur.  Mr. Gaughan stated the need for the City of Roseville to become more diligent in an annual review of local ordinances and agreed with the statement by City Manager Trudgeon that it was intended that this draft be hacked up and only serve as a starting point for City Council discussions.

 

Mayor Roe requested City Attorney Gaughan to update legislative changes reflected in Section F of the document, and Item 1 related to off-sale breweries and statutory changes referenced beyond those indicated in this draft and without another draft available at the bench.

 

City Attorney Gaughan responded that the taproom and growler sales were both addressed statutorily and actually given their own special sections during the most recent legislative session; and therefore re-referenced in the municipal ordinance.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan confirmed that statutory language provided more detailed information than intentionally made available in the municipal ordinance; and therefore the municipal code only explicitly referenced those state laws for those particular license categories.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney further confirmed that state legislation also provided a change for sales, referenced as the Bloody Mary Law, and therefore the municipal ordinance was not amended.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned if the time outlined in the draft ordinance, Section 302.13.G from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. was amenable to the City or needed reconsideration concurrent with bar hour operations in the City of Roseville. 

 

In response, City Attorney Gaughan advised that the reference was intended to address growler sales on Sundays for those hours, and not intended to be analogous to off-sale hours.  Mr. Gaughan advised that he had simply made those Sunday sale hours similar to other retail hours of operation in Roseville.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that most general retail sales in Roseville started much later than 8:00 a.m.; and questioned how closely to regulate liquor sales with those other businesses with proximity to residential areas or churches.

 

Mayor Roe noted that on-sale taproom hours start at 8:00 a.m. through 1:00 a.m. daily. 

 

City Attorney Gaughan advised that, if that was the City Council's direction, it would be consistent with on-sale taproom licenses.

 

Councilmember Willmus expressed his preference to reference State Statute as in the past without imposing any greater limits at this point.

 

Councilmember Etten expressed his support of the proposed changes identified by City Attorney Gaughan.  However, Councilmember Etten questioned language including 'at' in Section 302.13 in the revised language in that clause, with respect to off-sale brewery sales on Sunday.

 

City Attorney advised that there would be no impact either way if the word 'at' remained or was stricken from revised language.

 

Mayor Roe concurred with City Attorney Gaughan, opining that the heading off-sale brewery did not preclude language specific to the off-sale category itself.

 

On a related note, Mayor Roe referenced Section 301.11 for outdoor patio sales outside a structure and specific to the sale of intoxicating malt liquor; with original intentions to include that requirement for taproom and off-sale brewery categories.

 

City Attorney Gaughan advised that the vernacular of Section 302.02.B included all intoxicating drinks, including breweries and would encompass malt liquor as well as 3.2 beer or any liquor from his understanding.

 

Mayor Roe advised that while in agreement in general, he was not ready to enact this ordinance at this point.

 

No one appeared to offer public comment on this issue.

 

McGehee moved to accept the ordinance as drafted and presented.

 

Mayor Roe noted the pending references needing revision as previously noted.

 

City Attorney Gaughan suggested his office make the further revisions as noted, and present it on the Consent Agenda at the next meeting, as well as an Ordinance Summary for publication, creating a fully edited document for the official record.

 

Mayor Roe noted the ordinance reference to license fees in the adopted fee schedule; however, he noted those actual license fees had yet to be incorporated into the existing fee schedule, and suggested it also mirror comparable tap room and brewery category fees.

 

Without objection, City Attorney Gaughan was directed to provide a revised draft and summary for the next City Council meeting.

 

11.         Presentations

 

12.         Public Hearings

 

13.         Budget Items

 

14.         Business Items (Action Items)

 

a.            Request by Premium Real Estate Solutions, LLC for Approval of a Preliminary Plat at 311 County Road B

Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly summarized this requested Preliminary Plat approval as detailed in the RCA dated June 8, 2015, following unanimous recommendation with conditions by the Planning Commission at their May 2015 meeting, with that information included in packet materials.    Since that Commission meeting, Mr. Lloyd noted that the applicant had been working with the City's Public Works/Engineering staff to revise the stormwater management plan to take advantage of its intended location for the new homes, as well as addressing broader long-term stormwater issues farther west of the project site.   Mr. Lloyd advised that staff concurred with the recommendations of the Planning Commission for approval as conditioned.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned the conclusion of the applicant's work with neighbors regarding the windmill currently on the development site, as well as an update on the tree inventory.

 

Specific to the windmill, Mr. Lloyd advised that developer had diligently sought resolution to remove and relocate the windmill with interest expressed by the Roseville Historical Society, Minnesota State Fair, University of Minnesota, and neighbors to the south, all having expressed interest conceptually, but none able or willing to pay for its removal and relocation that would require a crane or specialized moving equipment.

 

Councilmember McGehee expressed her personal interest in seeing a more concerted effort to resolve moving and relocating the windmill, suggesting it could possibly serve as an amenity on the development's outlot/green space for the neighborhood.  Councilmember McGehee requested staff bring proposed costs for moving the windmill.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that such a request would need to receive the support of the full City Council.

 

Regarding the tree inventory, Councilmember McGehee expressed her concerns with it, and requested future inventories provide much more specificity, as to the specific type of species (e.g. American or Chinese Elm or Silver or other type of Maple).  Given the multiple varieties of some tree species, Councilmember McGehee their type is actually somewhat significant with some not found as undesirable as others, and their removal not supported.  

 

Mr. Lloyd clarified that the only time the actual type of tree species staff could include in their calculations was in determining whether they were classified as a good tree or a bad tree on the listed species used.  However, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff tended to err on the side of caution and on the more conservative side; with the more important matter from their perspective identifying the location of the trees and their size, and in relation to building footprints, and impacts to grading and/or drainage of a site.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Lloyd advised that S & S Tree Service, approved third party consultant for the City in reviewing tree plans had not been involved at this time as the revised site plan had only been made available late last week, and their firm was not yet officially on board with signed contracts.  However, Mr. Lloyd advised that when appropriate, their firm would be performing the review as the process progressed.

 

Councilmember McGehee addressed specific trees listed in the inventory, questioning the need for their removal; with Councilmember Willmus clarifying that the referenced sizes addressed diameter at breast height, not how tall a tree was.

 

Mr. Lloyd concurred, clarifying that the only exception to that statement would be for Cedar trees that were actually identified by height.

 

Since there were only four Cedar trees currently on the entire site, and in the interest of diversity, and given the lack of Oak trees and inability to identify the type of Maple trees on site, Councilmember McGehee suggested the need to further review with the goal of revising the proposed list of tree removals.

Regarding the location of the proposed building pad shown on the grading plan for Lot 1, Block 1, Councilmember Willmus noted its location abutted the proposed easement area, and suggested working with the developer to shift the building pad further to the north to avoid any future issues with a structure on the edge of the easement.  Councilmember Willmus advised that he didn't intend to hold up the plat due to that concern; however, for the long-term comfort of future homeowners and possible use of heavy equipment for the City to access the easement, it may be prudent address that issue.

 

Mr. Lloyd noted the intent of the developer was to provide a comfortable distance between the home, sloping topography and highway noise.

 

Specific to the windmill issue, if arrangements can be made between parties to facilitate its removal and relocation, Councilmember Willmus was willing to do so; however, again expressed his intent not to hold up plat approval for resolution.

 

Given the significant grade change currently on the site, and filling as part of this proposed plat, Councilmember Etten asked if staff had any concerns for homes to be constructed or for the existing neighborhood that slanted this way; and questioned if drainage flow could be handled if those building pads were raised up more.

 

Mr. Lloyd advised that drainage would rely on pipe infrastructure and street drains, and deferred to Public Works Director/Engineer Mark Culver for comment.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver advised that the City's Engineering staff had reviewed this preliminary plat and continued to work with the developer on final grading details, as well as requirements of the watershed district.  Mr. Culver advised that all parties were confident that the proposed grading plan would handle drainage and route it where needed.  Mr. Culver noted that staff would continue to work closely with the developer for any modifications indicated for stormwater best management practices (BMP's) in that area; however, he expressed confidence that the proposed plan would help the overall drainage for the area, to the east in particular as well as water to the west arriving in a more reasonable fashion.

 

Being a fan of trees, Councilmember Etten supported Councilmember McGehee's request for more specificity in the future.  Councilmember Etten noted the location of a Cedar tree sitting right in the middle of where one home is to be constructed, and questioned if it would be possible to relocate that structure to allow them to be preserved.  Whether or not the City chose to change its tree preservation ordinance in the future, Councilmember Etten opined it would be advantageous to keep the type of particular tree species at a higher and more diverse level.

 

Regarding the drainage and utility easement between Lots 1 and 2, Councilmember Willmus asked City Attorney Gaughan whether reference was needed in the plat to address the need for the City's access to the outlot as well as any other future uses found necessary.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan responded that the plat didn't need to reference it, but it was important that it was specifically addressed in the easement document itself.

 

Councilmember Willmus concurred, as long as it was made very clear.

 

Councilmember McGehee reiterated the need to focus on the diversity of vegetation not only size.

 

Mayor Roe noted that that was a key focus of the City's tree ordinance, that any removal needed to be replaced with diverse species.

 

The applicant was present, but offered no comments beyond staff's presentation.

 

There was no public comment offered on this issue.

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of the proposed PRELIMINARY PLAT of Farrington Estates at 311 County Road B, based on the findings and recommendations, and conditions of the Planning Commission and the details of the RCA dated June 8, 2016.

 

Councilmember Laliberte thanked the Planning Commission and staff for addressing the multiple issues involved.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Lloyd clarified that the building pads are not part of plat approval, only approval of lot lines and any easements, as reflected in the City's Preliminary Plat ordinance language.

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

b.            Request by Cities Edge Architects for Approval of an Amended Common Interest Community Plat at 2715 Long Lake Road

City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly summarized this request providing a new description of Unit 6 for the addition of a small swimming pool, as detailed in the RCA dated June 8, 2015; and supported unanimously by the Planning Commission with one condition.

 

Councilmember Willmus questioned if this was considered a replat or subdivision.

 

Mr. Paschke responded that it was shifting lot lines, and would be more indicative of a recombination or subdivision.

 

Councilmember Willmus asked if there was any ramification regarding the park dedication.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan advised that, while no new lots were being created, it was questionable from his perspective whether new ordinance language addressing one acre minimum lot size was triggered.  However, as with any subdivision, it was necessary to show there was a need created to trigger a park dedication, and given the uniqueness of this request, he found that provision questionable at best. 

 

Mr. Paschke advised that this request was presented to the Parks & Recreation Commission at their meeting last week, and they requested a park dedication, which would ultimately need to be addressed by the City Attorney before a final plat comes before the City Council for approval.

 

The applicant was present but had no comment beyond staff's presentation; and no public comment was provided on this issue.

 

For clarification purposes, Mayor Roe noted this was a Preliminary, not Final, Plat approval.

 

McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of the proposed changes to Unit 6 of Rosedale Corporate Plaza Condominium AMENDED PRELIMINARY CIC PLAT; based on the comments, findings and conditions as detailed in the RCA dated June 8, 2015.

 

Since this is some of the last green space available in that area, Councilmember Etten spoke in support of considering a park dedication fee with the intent to look at City Code based on that rationale in this case.

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:03 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:11 p.m.  Given concerns with time constraints and the number of audience members present who may wish to comment on the Twin Lakes discussion, without objection, Mayor Roe amended the agenda to address Item 15.b prior to Item 15.a

 

15.         Business Items - Presentations/Discussions

 

b.            Discuss Twin Lakes next Steps: Land Use Definitions and Building Height

Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd provided an updated Table of Revised Uses listed by intensity, and a map indicating revised Subareas, representing previous discussions (Attachment A).  As detailed in the RCA, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff attempted to incorporate public input, but based on their review of archived meeting tapes or meeting minutes, found the information unclear as related to 24-hour uses, whether retail or other uses (e.g. medical).  Therefore, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff was seeking direction on 24-hour uses to clarify whether that intent was for no 24-hour uses of any kind permitted in Subarea A, and some uses permitted in Subareas B and C depending on the type of use (e.g. retail or medical).  Mr. Lloyd referenced the neighborhood petition specific to 24-hour uses indicating their opposition; however, again Mr. Lloyd expressed confusion as to whether that intent was specific to all uses or only specifically related to 24-hour retail uses.

 

Mr. Lloyd advised that another needed part of tonight's discussion included terms and uses addressed with previous discussions, and the need for definitions proceeding further conversations (e.g. fast food uses).  Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had separated categories to provide focused discussions, and suggested if the purpose of a fast food use category was to regulate any and all drive-throughs or if it only applied to fast food uses.  As detailed in the RCA, Mr. Lloyd noted staff's inclusion of the current context and definitions for all drive-throughs. 

 

Mr. Lloyd noted that another part of that definition discussion involved big box retail, with staff including a listing of various types of big-box retail stores and their square footage using Ramsey County data.  Mr. Lloyd noted that the most obvious break for store size was around the 100,000 square foot mark, and suggested the City Council provide direction to staff as to whether or not they concurred with that size division point.

 

In conclusion, Mr. Lloyd asked for the City Council's direction to staff on height regulations across the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area and whether they should apply across the entire area or be regulated differently depending on their location and proximity to adjacent uses.  Mr.. Lloyd referenced the neighborhood petition desiring a maximum height of two stories, and concentration of density and intensity closer to County Road C and Cleveland Avenue and other major thoroughfares.

 

Mayor Roe asked Mr. Lloyd to restate building height discussions relative to their proximity and distance from other uses.

 

Mr. Lloyd responded that in November of 2014, the neighborhood petition included building heights within LDR (single- and two-family properties), and a greater density within more commercial margins of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.

 

In order to facilitate and focus tonight's discussion, Mayor Roe suggested four separate categories, and further suggested providing an opportunity for public comment following each category.  Mayor Roe suggested the four areas be: 1) Table of Uses/Subarea Map; 2) 24-hour Uses: 3) Land Use Definitions Individually; and 4) Height Issue.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Lloyd and Councilmember Willmus clarified the area represented by 1,000' and approximate story height of 15' per story, with a 95' tall building somewhat over six stories high.

 

Table of Uses/Subarea Map

Mayor Roe opined, with general agreement by colleagues, that for the most part staff had accurately captured previous discussions regarding Subarea locations and Permitted (P) or Non-Permitted (NP), and Permitted Conditional Uses (CU). 

 

Councilmember Etten noted his comfort with the boundaries now indicated; however, he noted his concern with the need for an additional or fourth Subarea to address current areas abutting twin homes within Subarea A, and considerations on the east side of Langton Lake and the north side of Terrace Drive.

 

Mayor Roe noted that Subarea A had not been firmly settled during the previous discussion; however, he found the subarea map and table of uses to accurately reflect how that discussion was left.  Mayor Roe sought public comment as to whether their perception was in agreement with that of the City Council and reflected that discussion accurately.  Mayor Roe noted that, obviously future discussion would be needed to further address specific uses desired by the public.

 

No one from the audience responded at this time.

 

Specific to limited production/processing, Councilmember Laliberte noted the limited hours, while they were listed across the board as P; and questioned at what point conditions were indicated.

Mayor Roe noted that current code provided certain design standards and addressed extended hours of operation, and they would apply to this area as well.

 

Mr. Lloyd agreed with Mayor Roe's comments, noting that certain requirements must be met where the use is a P, with current code providing applicant standards for P uses.  While noise is one of those factors, as pointed out by Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Lloyd noted current code addressed requirements on several different levels, including nuisance requirements, noise limits and hours, and extended hours of operation to minimize or limit noise with nighttime uses and deliveries.  Mr. Lloyd advised that part of the definition for limited production/processing was a general guideline that another tenant would now be aware of those operations.

 

Regarding Councilmember Etten's concerns about Subarea A, Councilmember Willmus expressed curiosity as to his colleagues' interest in possibly creating a fourth Subarea.  Councilmember Willmus stated his preference to maintain what had been designated for P and NP uses in Subarea A; but he had some concerns with the area east of Langton Lake and if creation of a new designation in that additional Subarea would provide a greater comfort level for the City Council and community.

 

Mayor Roe suggested holding that type of discussion until after staff is given feedback and the public is heard regarding the four areas for focus as identified earlier and whether or not the RCA and attachments clearly reflected and were an accurate outcome of those previous discussions going forward.

 

In response to Councilmember Willmus, Councilmember McGehee stated that from her perspective, the only P use she would strike from Subarea A would be office/showroom based on previous discussions regarding height.

 

If a fourth Subarea was to be created, Councilmember Etten opined that height would be one of those issues.  Councilmember Etten expressed his agreement with Councilmember Willmus, opining that he didn't want to withhold the discussion for the potential creation of a fourth Subarea for too long.  If such a Subarea (e.g. Subarea D) was to be created, east of Langton Lake, Councilmember Etten noted that height would be part of that, and since the use was based on proximity to the existing residential neighborhood.  However, Councilmember Etten noted that a housing use could pop up tomorrow that may not show the same respect for housing in the potential Subarea D.

 

Mayor Roe suggested having the height discussion and then circling back to that issue as previously suggested.

 

24-hour Uses

Mayor Roe noted the need to direct whether or not to permit 24-hour uses in the entire Twin Lakes area or whether existing code language related to extended hours of operation would adequately address those P or NP uses.

 

Mr. Lloyd further indicated the need for direction on whether 24-hour retail uses would be treated differently than other P uses, such as medical.

 

Retail versus Other Uses

Councilmember Etten spoke in support of separating 24-hour retail from other 24-hour uses.

 

Mayor Roe noted this would indicate the potential to not allow 24-hour retail, but to do so for other 24-hour uses.

 

Councilmember Willmus clarified that his personal consideration would involve what particular subarea was being considered.

Mayor Roe sought clarification from Councilmember Willmus as to whether he was indicating he may consider 24-hour retail and other uses in all subareas; with Councilmember Willmus responding affirmatively.

 

Councilmember McGehee advised that she concurred with the comment of Councilmember Etten; and was not generally in favor of 24-hour uses in this area, but would be willing to make some limited distinction between retail and other uses, such as an urgent care center, since a possible future hospital seemed to no longer be in the picture.  Councilmember McGehee noted the current medical center use at the corner of County Road C and Fairview that could at some point become an urgent care use.  Councilmember McGehee opined that for her whether to P or NP 24-hour uses depended on their particular subarea and category.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that a 24-hour gas station was considered retail.  Therefore, Councilmember Laliberte agreed with the need to separate 24-hour retail and other 24-hour uses; clarifying that she had less issues in Subarea B versus moving further toward neighborhoods where she became concerned with more issues.

 

Councilmember Willmus concurred with those comments.

 

Mayor Roe sought to determine if that indicated any 24-hour uses would be P in Subarea B, but not necessarily in Subareas A and C. 

 

Councilmember Laliberte confirmed her agreement with that interpretation, at least at this stage of the discussions. 

 

Councilmember Laliberte noted that the southern section of Subarea B (behind Byerly's) was just across County Road C residential, and suggested that be part of the consideration as well.

 

Mayor Roe asked colleagues if existing language adequately addressed other restrictions with 24-hour operations, or whether they needed further enhancement for all extended hours across the City.  Mayor Roe suggested it appeared the Council seemed most concerned with 24-hour retail uses based on concerns with customers coming and going 24 hours per day; but sought clarification as to whether those concerns also involved deliveries; or whether limited production uses with three shifts of employees coming and going, including during the evening, required additional discussion.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated her concern was more with customers coming and going and requiring additional demand for public safety services in that area versus shift workers remaining for the duration of their shift which would differ from ongoing traffic with 24-hour retail uses.  Councilmember McGehee noted the existing Grumpy's and Bent Brewstillery conforming to similar hours; and opined that it seemed sufficient time to get business done without extending those hours.

 

Mayor Roe reiterated his question as to whether or not it seemed that the primary issue was customers coming and going (e.g.. 24-hour gas station retail use) as opposed to an urgent care use with people also coming and going at all hours; and with no apparent concern in restricting deliveries.

 

Without objection, Mayor Roe concluded this was the consensus.

 

24-hour Operations Specific to Certain Areas

Mayor Roe indicated the next area of focus was whether those uses were NP in certain areas or not.

 

For preliminary discussion only and specific to Subarea A, Councilmember Willmus noted retail uses like gas stations and their proximity to areas such as the James Addition neighborhood south of County Road C provided one distinction for him versus Subarea A, since those uses didn't directly abut residential properties.  Therefore, for Subarea B, Councilmember Willmus stated he may consider more intensive uses along County Road C.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe as to whether he would consider 24-hour uses for Subarea B, Councilmember Willmus stated that it was possible if a P use, but he would leave any potential 24-hour retail use as CU.

 

To prompt further discussion, Mr. Lloyd referenced the Table of Uses in the RCA.

 

Mayor Roe questioned his colleagues as to whether 24-hour retail was wrong in Subarea C.

 

Councilmember Laliberte noted that level of detail had not been considered at this point, only whether Subarea C is CU or NP at all.

 

Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of NP in Subarea C and P with CU for Subarea B; while only halfheartedly supporting it particularly directly across from the James Addition to her concerns and frequent complaints related to headlights.

 

Councilmember Etten sought clarification of the definition for something 24-hour versus something open until 1:00 a.m.; or how to define and address the intent if a use was open until 5:00 a.m. and only closed for two hours before reopening.

 

City Attorney Gaughan responded that a 24-hour use was just that, open 24-hours, with no 1:00 a.m. closing time; and clarified that hours of operation were clearly addressed in existing City Code.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated her support to limiting hours of operation.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that such specificity was not necessary at this point, provided the Council concurred that it remain consistent with other areas according to code.

 

At the request of Mr. Lloyd and without objection, Mayor Roe clarified that Subarea C was NP.

 

Councilmember Willmus questioned whether, in all Subareas, including Subarea C, consideration had been given to imposing limits on those types of 24-hour uses for anything outside retail, including distribution operations.

 

Mayor Roe questioned if they were governed by current extended hours of operation in code.

 

Mr. Lloyd responded that they were, including addressing district-wide operations; with extended hours applying to anything outside single- or two-family districts, and including the overnight movement of goods from a distribution facility.

 

Mayor Roe confirmed with Mr. Lloyd that current code provided restrictions on loading operations between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. unless completely enclosed and within a roofed structure, with the exterior doors closed.

 

Councilmember Willmus questioned whether McGough Construction, located in Subarea C, was considered a 24-hour operation.

 

Community Development Director Paul Bilotta responded that McGough didn't fall under current code requirements for restrictions within 300' from residential parcels.  Mr. Bilotta noted other variables within Subarea C that would also address Byerly's operation across from the James Addition, since they did not directly abut residential properties, while other restrictions applied to adjacent parcels in the immediate area of residential zoning.  Mr. Bilotta noted that, north of this area with the townhome use, they were intended for transitional, and whenever indicated there should be some type of residential user to buffer other residential; with code addressing that in other areas.

 

Without objection, Mayor Roe noted, the consensus was to keep P with CU in Subarea C as indicated in the latest iteration of the Table of Uses in order to not allow exception uses.

 

Mr. Lloyd summarized his understanding that the City Council did not support any 24-hour retail uses in Subareas A, B, or C.

 

Mayor Roe clarified the consensus was that they could be considered as P with CU in all three Subareas.

 

Councilmember Laliberte asked her colleagues why not NP in Subarea A and whether that was due to existing uses along Cleveland Avenue.

 

Councilmember Etten responded that many uses were less intensive in a different way than retail, and not affecting people and other uses in the same way as retail, thus the designation of P with CU in all Subareas.

 

Public Comment

Lisa McCormick

Regarding the issue of 24-hour uses, Ms. McCormick stated she was leaning toward NP in Subarea A.  Ms. McCormick questioned whether there may need to be an additional Subarea defined as part of Subarea A immediately adjacent to the residential area.  Ms. McCormick noted her preference for NP in Subarea C also, noting on the map entrants into the north section of Subarea C had to access via Twin Lakes parkway or Terrace Drive.  Even with the brewstillery use, which she supported, Ms. McCormick noted that she had observed more traffic noise, whether it was due to the noise bouncing off the pond or for whatever reason.  Ms. McCormick advised that it was not an issue at this time, but if it was to continue all night with a 24-hour use, it could easily become an issue.  Ms. McCormick opined that another issue distinguishing the James Addition was the 24-hour traffic along County Road C; and opined that continuous noise was not as noticeable as abrupt noises.

 

Regarding truck companies and deliveries in Subareas B or C, Ms. McCormick asked if there had been consideration given to doors opening and closing, and asked whether there were any current 24-hour operations in that area.

 

Mr. Bilotta responded that Sela Trucking was a 24-hour operation, as well as Wal-Mart and proposed hotels in development; and opined there may be some 24-hour operations in the northwest corner of Subarea A as well.

 

Ms. McCormick reiterated her preference for NP, but understood the rationale for P with CU; and stated she could support CU throughout this area to allow the City Council more control to review individual situations, and by using that leverage, it wouldn't serve to set up adversarial situations versus enforcement alone for complaint-driven issues among neighbors, creating the potential for future problems.  Ms. McCormick further opined that she didn't see so much of an issue north of Terrace Drive since that entre strip, rezoned in 2009/2010 was rezoned HDR and had been sold and purchased since that change; therefore she had no issue in changing it and opined it would probably only serve to increase their property value if the City Council changed that use.  However, Ms. McCormick again noted the vulnerability of that entrance into the neighborhood and the need to protect it as much as possible.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Ms. McCormick clarified that she didn't make any distinction between 24-hour retail or 24-hour other uses; opining that she preferred not allowing any P uses in that strip and potentially in Subarea C.

 

LacyKapaun - 1840 County Road C-2

Ms. Kapaun stated that she really would not like to see any 24-hour retail use in Subarea A; and could agree with 24-hour retail in Subarea C with restrictions, noting some 24-hour uses may work there.  Ms. Kapaun noted existing noise problems off Fairview Avenue, opining that adding to it could create a real problem for her; and asked that the City Council take that into consideration.

 

Councilmember Willmus, reviewing some of the public comments expressed, opined that they may indirectly support the creation of a fourth subarea.  Councilmember Willmus noted he could see 24-hour non-retail as a CU in areas of Subarea A west of Langton Lake, but not necessarily east of Langton Lake.

 

For those using the park, Councilmember McGehee  stated she could support that, without distinction; but keeping 24-hour use of any kind all out of Subarea A.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that it is not now permitted for 24-hour retail; and only as  P use with CU as a potential for a 24-hour non-retail use.

 

Councilmember McGehee clarified that she was voting for no 24-hour use of any kind.

 

As stated by Councilmember Laliberte, Councilmember Etten spoke in support of making uses much more restrictive, even with them all currently considered P; but in consideration of zoning for potential residential, making all 24-hour retail uses NP and all other 24-hour uses only P with CU.  Councilmember Etten opined that this would provide more protection for residential parcels, while still allowing areas to redevelop.

 

Pending definitions for Subarea A, Mayor Roe sought consensus on 24-hour non-retail uses in Subarea A.

 

Councilmember Laliberte stated she could support 24-hour non-retail uses as P in Subarea A, but stated her preference would be for NP.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated that he didn't disagree with 24-hour non-retail use as P west of Langton Lake, but his issue was eastof Langton Lake, thus his advocacy for a fourth Subarea D/

 

Mayor Roe noted the need may be to look at 24-hour non retail as NP versus P with CU.

 

Councilmember Laliberte noted previous discussion for Subarea B involved creating a border along County Road C and Cleveland Avenue; and recalled discussion about the subarea extending all along Cleveland Avenue.

 

Mayor Roe agreed with that recollection about extending it along Cleveland Avenue; however, he noted subsequent consensus that it was not preferable due to the stormwater pond serving as a possible amenity for single-family or twin homes in that area, and while it remained an issue, the topic had become problematic during those initial discussions.

 

Land Use Definitions Individually

 

Fast Food Restaurants/Drive-throughs (RCA, Page 3, Lines 83 - 19)

From a staff perspective, Mr. Lloyd opined that it didn't seem like much more discussion was necessary other than that definitions were needed.  Mr. Lloyd suggested that at the conclusion of the last discussion, his understanding was that restaurants of any type, whether fast food, casual or others, were considered NP if they had a drive-through.  Mr. Lloyd opined that if that was the City Council's intent, there was less importance in drawing a distinction between fast food and regular restaurants under land use regulations.  If the City Council had not intended that interpretation, Mr. Lloyd advised that then more work was needed at their discretion.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Lloyd clarified that pharmacies, banks and other uses including a drive-through would fall within the standard approval process for P with CU, with the Table of Uses continuing to say NP as noted by Mayor Roe.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that this would provide fast food restaurants with drive-throughs as NP anywhere within the area, but would permit consideration of drive-throughs for other uses.

Public Comment

Lisa McCormick

Ms. McCormick noted the provision under Section f that required a buffer between property lines of ten feet, questioning if this included any property line or if specific to residential uses; and opined that a 10' buffer didn't seem sufficient from her perspective.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that this was intended more as a visual versus sound buffer, since code already addressed other requirements to protect adjacent properties (e.g. loudspeaker volumes, etc.)

 

Limited Production/Processing and Limited Warehousing/Distribution (RCA, Page 3, Lines 120 - 138)

As Councilmembers seemed supportive of this concept at the last discussion, Mr. Lloyd noted that existing definitions for each area provided standards and restrictions for noise and compatibility with other tenants in multi-tenant buildings with this type of use.  Mr. Lloyd noted it did not establish noise thresholds or specific metrics to identify and enforce problems, and suggested if the City Council felt it was important to further restrict those standards across the Twin Lakes area or specific Subareas, they identify them for staff to make a recommendation on what those metrics and standards should be.

 

Mayor Roe opined that current provisions seemed to be fairly close, and sought Council input as to whether additional standards were needed.

 

Councilmember Laliberte sought clarification for standards for standalone buildings versus multi-tenant buildings or complexes.

 

Mr. Lloyd responded that the same attributes would apply with the description being made in the definition that a use cannot disrupt other tenants in a multi-tenant building, which would preclude their application for a standalone structure with other uses on adjacent properties.

 

Without objection, Mayor Roe concluded that current provisions and definitions were sufficient.

Public Comment

Lisa McCormick

Ms. McCormick maintained her previous reasoning, preferring that any warehousing type use be P only with CU.  Ms. McCormick opined that this provided more control and while not eliminating a potential use, it allowed the City Council to act on individual applications and issues.

 

Mayor Roe noted that it was listed as a P use on the Table of Uses.

 

Councilmember Laliberte opined that it might depend on whether or not a new and additional Subarea D was created at which time it could be dealt with, and at which time she would support CU in that portion of Subarea A.

 

Councilmember Willmus agreed with CU as well for Subarea A, again focusing his concerns on the east side of Langton Lake.

 

Mayor Roe spoke in support of CU for limited production/processing in Subarea A; but expressed his personal willingness to accept P with CU in all subareas.

 

Big Box Retail

Mayor Roe noted staff's suggestion for the delineation at 100,000 square feet; noting that currently big box retail is NP in Subareas B and C, and P with CU in Subarea B.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated that she would prefer a limit of 80,000 square feet; however, as long as it remained NP in Subareas A and C, and P with CU in Subarea B, she could agree even though she preferred a smaller distinction delineated in square footage.

 

With past discussions also recognizing the 100,000 square foot distinction, Councilmember Willmus stated he could be comfortable with that as long as it allowed P with CU in Subarea B, he was amenable to NP in Subareas A and C.

 

Councilmember Laliberte concurred; stated that her only hesitation was in Subarea B and her rationale to keep P with CU based on her concern about their potential location near already troubled intersections versus issues with size.

 

Councilmember Willmus noted the protection for P with CU; which Councilmember Laliberte offered to support.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that this applied to stand alone buildings, not strip centers with big box retail as an anchor, which were more easily measured versus a multi-tenant strip mall scenario.

 

Mayor Roe suggested staff review the square footage of anchor stores at Rosedale.

Public comment

Lisa McCormick

Ms. McCormick displayed her research on examples of building sizes for big box providing a rough estimate and gleaned from Ramsey County data some time ago, and advised that she had provided that list to Community Development Director Bilotta as well.

 

City Planner Paschke clarified that the data provided by Ms. McCormick provided only the footprint square footage and that the gross square footage (GSF) would be much larger.

 

Mayor Roe noted that this was the discussion point for big box formats is the footprint versus total floor area with multiple story uses.

 

Councilmember Laliberte questioned if that needed to be made clearer.

 

Mr. Lloyd noted that clarification need as the defining process moved forward, and whether or not it addressed total floor area.

 

Mayor Roe noted that would also address the number of customers shopping there and traffic; opining that it should not be limited to the footprint only but involve the GNP.

 

Mr. Lloyd noted there were variables depending on whether standalone or multi-tenant uses.

 

Mayor Roe suggested giving separate consideration for strip centers and other categories in the Table of Uses and applicable regulations.

 

Mr. Lloyd clarified that there was no distinction so far; however, he noted that there were no regulations differentiating between those retail uses, or whether single tenant or several smaller tenants.

 

Public Comment

Lisa McCormick

As previously stated, Ms. McCormick expressed her preference for something smaller, suggesting 75,000 square feet and larger buildings based on her list for building footprints.  While it may seem large now, Ms. McCormick noted this would potentially double that number, creating concerns with traffic issues.  Ms. McCormick stated that she definitely preferred less square footage as the distinction, but definitely only P with CU.

 

Councilmember McGehee suggested not to include only the footprint only, citing the example of Maplewood Menards store listed at 191,000 square feet, but unsure of the actual footprint of the two-story Menards in St. Paul, and adjacent outside lumber yards and how they were calculated as part of the whole.

 

Councilmember Willmus suggested defining it as 100,000 GSF, and specifically call out and address to uses in strip centers.

 

Mayor Roe suggested looking at that for future discussion, for single tenants over 100,000 GSF in large strip centers.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Lloyd clarified references to GSF with measurements used by taking outside box measurements and multiplying square footage from that.

 

Mayor Roe noted the staff (Exhibit B) presented by staff did not take multiple stories into account.

 

Councilmember Willmus noted that his suggestion to use GSF for the calculations would do so; to which Mr. Lloyd concurred.

 

Since the current square footage chart provided by staff provided footprint square footage only, Mayor Roe suggested further review in the future to ensure everyone understood that this was not addressing strip centers, and that may need to be addressed at a later point.

 

Building Height Issues (RCA, Pages 4-5, Lines 167 - 178)

Mayor Roe suggested a 35' maximum height within 300 feet of LDR or Park/Open Space.  Outside that limit, Mayor  Roe further opined that it made sense to allow a maximum height of 65' for multi-family (MDR) or RB-1 and 2 and HDR-2, regardless of which district.  Mayor Roe sought Council discussion, basing his personal criteria on his rationale and research on existing multi-family uses and their distance from and adjacent to single-family residential based on Ramsey County GIS mapping data, that a lot of existing multi-family in Roseville were 100' to 240' from the nearest single-family home.  Mayor Roe noted this is why he chose 300' from that property line to be more restrictive without becoming excessive.

 

As a place to start discussions, Councilmember McGehee stated she had no problem.  However, Councilmember McGehee sought to strike HDR-2 at a maximum height of 95' and putting some limits in CB as Mayor Roe addressed in his initial comments.

 

Mayor Roe noted the existing Rosedale Tower exceeding that maximum height.

 

Councilmember Laliberte supported height restrictions for housing, opining that those preferring urban dwelling at greater heights lived in Downtown St. Paul or Minneapolis.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that restriction within 300' of the Park District, noting the interesting geometry at the intersection between Subareas A and C and Langton Lake Park, forming a rectangle for the stormwater pond, but not considered a park.

 

Councilmember Willmus sought clarified as to whether the measurement was from the edge of the property line or from the physical structure on the property.

 

Mr. Lloyd responded that zoning code read that a proposed building has to stand a particular distance from other properties in use as single-family or other uses, not at the edge of a particular property boundary.

 

 

Mr. Bilotta noted the intent was to provide a step up between uses, keeping taller buildings farther away from the property line.

 

Mayor Roe noted that could be 35' maximum height from the setback but not immediately adjacent.

 

Councilmember Etten noted HDR-1 was currently zoned at 65' maximum height in the northern area of the illustrious Subarea A.

 

Mayor Roe opined all could agree that current provision is not appropriate.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, attempts were made to identify heights on current structures (e.g. Applewood Point, Cherrywood Point) and ranges within those structures depending on topography.

 

Councilmember Etten opined that he might look at it differently; whether to zone by area and look at 45' maximum height for Subarea A by homes and most areas bordering parks, while other areas (e.g. RB or O/BP) he may look at a conditioned maximum height of 65'.  Councilmember Etten used the example of potential future expansion of the Semantec building in Subarea A, and how the City would respond and not zone them out of that Subarea.

 

Mayor Roe sought clarification from Councilmember Etten as to whether his intent was for lower height restrictions throughout Subarea A or just east of Langton Lake.

 

Councilmember Etten responded his intent was for the area east of Langton Lake, or whether buffered areas on the Lake.

 

With Mayor Roe's idea of a 300' height restriction, he noted Symantec would still be considered along the Lake even though farther away.

 

Councilmember Etten responded that whether away from the park boundary or not, it still was a big area.

 

Mayor Roe asked Councilmember Etten if there were potentially different distances for different restrictions in other areas to consider.

 

Councilmember Etten responded that it was reasonable to consider a 100' buffer along the lake; but he found 300' too large and taking up a lot of space.

 

Mayor Roe noted the distance from Cleveland to Prior Avenue as 1,250'.

 

Councilmember Etten opined that this would involve a lot of things on the west side of Langton Lake.

 

Mayor Roe opined it was impractical to allowbuildings higher than 35' in a very narrow strip on the west side of Langton Lake or north of Terrace Drive.

 

Councilmember Laliberte stated her gravitation toward Councilmember Willmus' suggestion for an additional subarea.

 

Mayor Roe suggested a hybrid between additional subareas.

 

Councilmember Etten supported a 100' buffer from the park boundary.

 

Mr. Lloyd noted the distance between the Park and roundabout was only a little over 500'; with Mayor Roe concluding that the suggestion for a 300' buffer became impractical.

 

Councilmember McGehee noted the continuing heavy-duty lobbying for the area north of Terrace Drive, opining that this caused her to have difficulty drawing a significant distinction between the remainder of Subarea A, with the northern portion having the amenity of Langton Lake and the Park and actually adjacent to a residential area on the north what needed restrictions, and a park on the east that has gotten considerable focus.

 

Mayor Roe noted there was a park to the north as well.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated she had a hard time understanding why Subarea A is not just that, and expressed her willingness to give a 250' buffer for the lower portion of Subarea A in the midsection, with everything else remaining the same in Subarea A.

 

By using the referenced examples of Applewood and Cherrywood Point, both in Subarea A, Councilmember Willmus opined that those buildings could not be replicated using Councilmember McGehee's rationale.

 

Councilmember McGehee clarified she was talking 50' maximum height; with Councilmember Willmus clarifying the Mayor's original proposal was for a 35' maximum height within 300'.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that would make the maximum height 35' or less; and that he had stated LDR, not residential, noting the United properties were not in the LDR District.

 

Councilmember McGehee restated her position that she was attempting to hold back height and intensity around Langton Lake and residential uses as her preference; while remaining open to not so vigorously enforcing the lower half of Subarea A.  However, Councilmember McGehee stated her strong concern about the remaining portion of Subarea A and need for height and intensity restrictions.  If the intent was for corporate headquarters, not residential, Councilmember McGehee stated that she was not opposed to P with CU for that use.

 

Mayor Roe suggested the other alternative would be for PUD as well as P with CU.

 

Councilmember McGehee clarified that she did not want a blanket P only by height and footprint square footage.

 

Mayor Roe suggested all of Subarea A could be a maximum height of 35' and someone could seek a higher height through the CU or PUD process.

 

Councilmember McGehee agreed with that suggestion, opining that this would ensure the City Council was listening to and responding to residents and protection the Lake and Park.

 

Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was not in favor of anything extremely tall east of Langton Lake; pointing out a neighbor comment about such height allowing those residents to peer down into a neighboring yard.  Since there was nothing other than single-family uses in the other area of Subarea A, Councilmember Laliberte opined this should create no problem.  At this point, Councilmember Laliberte stated she was not opposed to something similar in height as Cherrywood in areas west of Langton Lake.

 

Councilmember Willmus agreed with Councilmembers Laliberte and Etten in that regard; noting the distinction between the subarea east and south of Langton Lake.

 

Councilmember Etten questioned if he and Councilmember Laliberte were on the same page, and how Councilmember Willmus was considering his agreement, clarifying that his intent for a buffer for the Park was different than what she was agreeable to, with no buffer.

Councilmember Laliberte stated she would consider a small buffer; however, she also considered a three-story townhome or rowhome that could provide move-up housing adjacent to the Lake.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that the proposed maximum height was 35', not 45'.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated she could support no more than 35' maximum height.  Having spent a lot of time on Langton Lake and in conversations with neighbors in that area, Councilmember McGehee noted there was not much of a vegetative buffer now, with no large trees, and people didn't like the heavily-used trail being so narrow at that point, with a road now being constructed in addition further removing what people valued most in that particular park, the natural area.  Councilmember McGehee stated her opposition to any other movements to remove that even further by having tall buildings peering down into it and the buffer to the south.

 

Mayor Roe sought to bring the intent of Councilmembers Laliberte and Willmus into agreement by suggesting the westerly parts of Subarea A, except the strip along the Park as noted by Councilmember Etten, could exceed the maximum height of 35' and potentially as high as 65'.

 

Councilmember Laliberte questioned 65', but agreed it needed to be more than 35'.

 

Mayor Roe noted current height restrictions in other districts except HDR-2 indicate a 65' maximum.

 

Councilmember Laliberte responded that this was only one example, and also identified Cherrywood Point as another example.

 

Mayor Roe suggested a strip wide enough to allow townhomes and rowhomes along Langton Lake, and taller uses further away.

 

Councilmember Etten suggested a buffer strip 100' from the Lake, with a maximum height of 35'.

 

Mayor Roe concurred, opining 100' was more workable than his original 300' suggestion.

 

Using another example, Councilmember Etten noted Villa Park in the east corner had an adjacent building that was at least four storied high and directly adjacent to Villa Park boundaries, already setting a precedent.

 

Councilmember Willmus suggested determining if there was consensus for a 100' strip away from the park for maximum height not to exceed 35'; and then reverting to RBD or O/BP height restrictions at that point.

 

Mr. Bilotta opined that 100' would provide a good buffer for the lake and park.

 

Councilmember Laliberte sought to clarify if the intent was to allow a buffer pertaining to other uses beyond residential (e.g. clinic, office, corporate headquarters); with the consensus being that this was indeed the intent.

 

Councilmember Etten clarified that, at this point, there was no additional separate of Subarea A.

 

Mayor Roe confirmed that, noting that there was no difference between current and future uses, with the 100' strip applied to Subarea A east of Langton Lake, leaving 200' for greater heights if applicable.

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, and without objection, creation of a fourth Subarea D was the council direction to staff.

 

Mayor Roe declared no motion was needed.

 

Public Comment

Lisa McCormick

Specific to maximum heights, Ms. McCormick opined that the City Council seemed to be flip flopping from earlier discussions for zoning for now, not the future.  If the intent was for a 35' maximum height on the west side, Ms. McCormick agreed.  However, Ms. McCormick noted height was a significant issue coming from public comments, neighborhood surveys, and the subsequent petition seeking no more than two stories within 1,000'.  In reviewing this, Ms. McCormick opined 1,000 would extend down into the middle of Subarea C; and when considering Villa Park, the distinction was that it had different topography for that PUD and was not as amenable in this area and the unique character of the neighborhood.  Ms. McCormick referenced the Fairview Avenue entrance into the neighborhood with anchors of two-story buildings along Fairview Avenue and County Road C, then higher going north.  Ms. McCormick spoke in support of 750' o4 1,000' form single-family residential; and in alignment with the petition and survey comments.

 

Mayor Roe noted the petition for the 1000 foot height limitation, but observed that the Council had made the determination that such a limitation was not justified.

 

Ms. McCormick also asked that the 100' buffer within LDR be increased to 300'.

 

Councilmembers agreed that tonight's discussion and staff direction was a start for next steps, which Mayor Roe asked staff to identify.

 

Mr. Bilotta advised that staff would return to the City Council with a revised Table of Uses and Subarea map showing a new Subarea D; and felt there was enough direction to craft actual text to fit into ordinance format, ensuring the text applied back to the map accurately.  Mr. Bilotta anticipated it may be ready for the June 22, 2015 meeting at least to confirm the Subarea D portion, and then further determine strategies and next steps.

 

a.            Discuss Draft Policy Priority Planning Document

Due to time constraints, Mayor Roe opened this item up for public comment of those in tonight's audience wishing to address it.

 

Public Comment

Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane

Mr. Grefenberg referenced an e-mail from Scot Becker dated June 8, 2015 and asked that the City Council carefully review and consider it.

 

Speaking for himself, Mr. Grefenberg expressed concern that the City Council established the Community Engagement Commission (CEC), and had reviewed their priorities in December and added to their charge, but now was moving toward the strategic initiatives developed by staff rather than allowing the CEC to have time to review and comment on the priorities outlined by the City Council in their strategic planning exercise.  Mr. Grefenberg questioned who and what was driving this document, the City Council of their staff.

 

Mr. Grefenberg stated that community outreach was not the same as civic engagement, but a part that follows it.

 

If the City Council was not interested in the CEC's participation and assistance, Mr. Grefenberg strongly urged them to stop wasting time if they had no intention of listening to the CEC, creating a situation where civic engagement meant nothing.  Mr. Grefenberg asked that, if that was the case, the City Council stop using the term 'civic engagement' as an empty means to show how progressive or transparent they were.

 

 

Rita Mix, 3207, Old Highway 8,

Ms. Mix referenced a letter sent to the City Council earlier this week from the Old Highway 8 neighborhood and their association being established.  Ms. Mix highlighted issues brought forward in that letter, and goals to involve the HRA and City Council to include their subject properties in their strategic plans going forward.  Ms. Mix advised that she had made a similar presentation to the HRA at a previous meeting, and they seemed interested in this property as a potential development project. 

 

Ms. Mix noted the controversy surrounding this property for some time, and previous proposals that would have been detrimental to the properties and adjacent townhomes, but would have been allowed under past and current code.  Ms. Mix advised it was the neighborhood association's intent to prevent such occurrences in the future; and thus were requesting that it be placed within the parameters of the strategic plan.  Ms. Mix asked that part of that consideration be reducing density on the two available properties, initially designated single-family land use; and both having abatement issues.  Ms. Mix noted most developers have approached the properties seeking to develop them with as much density as possible, negatively impacting adjacent properties and wetland areas, creating flowing hazards as well as additional traffic for this already-congested five-corner intersection.  Ms. Mix opined it would be much better for the neighborhood if the density was reduced to MDR, and if any higher density was considered the community and neighborhood be involved in any future plan or use of those two parcels.

 

Brian Buck, 3609 33^rd Avenue N.E., St. Anthony Village

Ms. Buck concurred with the comments of Ms. Mix and asked that the City consider the written comments referenced.  A the owner of a home near the five-intersection triangle, Mr. Buck noted the importance to him in future strategic plans of the HRA and City Council and future use of these parcels.  Mr. Buck opined this was a broader community issue, not just one affecting the neighborhood, and those concerns remained relevant and had been frequently reinforced over the years as high density development proposals had come forward and fortunately failed for one reason or another.

 

Motion to Extend Curfew

At approximately 10:03 p.m., Laliberte moved, Etten seconded extending the meeting curfew to address any public comment from those present related to the Draft Policy Priority Planning Document (Item 15.a); and the additional Item 15.c relating to including budget information in the next edition of the City newsletter.

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.

Nays: None.

Lisa McCormick

Ms. McCormick noted that during her last public comment on this PPP issue, she had identified a mistake on the value proposition and wondered how that translated throughout the document.  Ms. McCormick expressed her concern that the strategic initiatives developed by staff don't accurately reflect what she observed during attendance at or viewing tapes of the Retreat or through reading through City Council objectives at that time.

 

As an example, Ms. McCormick referenced page 8 of the document (concepts) and concerns raised that it lacked definition and was not cohesive or consistent in the understanding of terms.  Ms. McCormick opined that she had actually heard more about engagement at that point when listening to the meeting, whether community or civic, and suggested that it had been the facilitator that had actually coined it more governance than culture.

 

In comparing that with the highest priorities identified in Appendix 5 for the SWOT analysis, Ms. McCormick opined that a majority of those were not included in strategic initiatives.  Ms. McCormick stated that she had expected consistency for staff and City Council priorities; and wondered if that lack of definition was the intent or City Council vision but not accurately carried through in the initiatives.  Ms. McCormick opined that with culture, where was the accountability, and it should have been addressed since it goes to the heart of the matter alluded to in a lot of the initiatives.

Ms. McCormick also sought more cost analysis performed, as addressed in LMC models, since she saw the City Council as fiscal, social capital and environmental stewards of taxpayer resources.  Since the City Council apparently based their priorities on public input, community surveys, the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning, and other documents, Ms. McCormick referenced the ongoing comments during the 2015 budget process from taxpayers talking about the strain of taxes, and potential of being taxed out of their homes.  Ms. McCormick noted the information provided by Finance Director Miller in his presentations and identifying that the reinvestment period for Roseville would involve the next decade.  Ms. McCormick opined that was a missing piece in the strategic planning process; further opining that there were many better initiatives than those staff had developed.  As elected leaders of the community, Ms. McCormick opined something more was needed to spur everyone to be better.  As an extension of Roseville resident, Ms. McCormick opined that the City Council and staff needed to represent and listen to its constituents in their stewardship role.

 

Ms. McCormick stated she wanted the City to be the best they could be; and while appreciating the process, thought things had gone aright; even though when observing the City Council interaction during the Retreat, found the most inspiration at the final summation and statements on the desire to be great across the board and build community with community. 

 

c.            New Agenda Item - Budget Information/Insert for City Newsletter

Councilmember McGehee requested an tear-out insert in the upcoming July 2015 newsletter.  Councilmember McGehee suggested basing it on the broader budget priorities as listed on the website, with an area for citizens to comment and provide their priorities; as well as providing contact information for them to call, write or e-mail comments to appropriate parties at City Hall.  In her preliminary discussions with Communications Manager Garry Bowman, Councilmember McGehee stated there was still time to get this included, and recommended it be made part of the budget process now at the beginning for transparency efforts. 

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that since the newsletter reached all residents, it would provide a budget snapshot for them to respond to and become involved, allowing more transparency, information sharing, and getting more citizen input.

 

Mayor Roe questioned why there would be any objection to that, and suggested including information on the 2016 budget calendar as well. 

 

City Manager Trudgeon advised that, while not yet having reviewed the mock-up, there was a budget article included already.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the deadline was this Thursday, and if a tear-out as suggested conceptually by Councilmember McGehee, noted there would be a cost associated with it.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that the insert could be funded from the Communications budget; but he could provide no estimate at this time; and asked for clarification of the City Council to narrow down the information most useful for them with this additional budget process.

 

Mayor Roe opined it sounded like simply a general feedback form from the public.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that it would provide notice to residents and provide a chance for them to contact City Hall and list their priorities.  Councilmember McGehee suggested using the 2015 listing from the website by department, and duplicate a column for 2016 allowing the public to rank those same priorities for funding, as well as an area for comments.

 

While supporting the idea and potential information provided, Councilmember Laliberte questioned the accuracy or how to track it to avoid multiple submissions by the same people. 

 

With additional questions on the actual format under discussion, City Manager Trudgeon displayed the actual website area for further discussion.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated he would find it problematic to use any submissions as survey; but while putting the information out was not a bad idea, he noted a future newsletter edition coming out closer to setting the preliminary levy, suggesting that could provide a better opportunity to solicit that information.

 

Councilmember McGehee clarified that it was not her intent to use the information as a survey tool, but simply part of the educational process and to receive information from residents wishing to comment.  Councilmember McGehee was not supportive of using a later edition, since it would come out only three days before setting the preliminary levy and therefore, would provide no time to absorb the feedback in any meaningful way.

 

Mayor Roe opined that it made sense to include the 2015 broader information from the website and contact information, as well as the budget calendar of steps in the process; and encouraging residents to contact the City Council at the general e-mail address.

 

Discussion ensued regarding the format of the insert for ease of submission.

 

City Manager Trudgeon noted it would be less expensive to include it on an available page for cut out versus a tear-out.

 

After further discussion, without objection staff was directed to proceed with a comment form in the body of the budget item providing 2015 budget categories and average homeowner monthly costs, with comments and feedback requested, but not ranking for 2016.

d.            City Manager Future Agenda Review

 

e.            Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

 

f.             Adjourn

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:22 p.m.

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.

Nays: None.