View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

City Council


City Council Meeting Minutes

August 24, 2015


1.      Roll Call

Mayor Roe 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.


2.       Pledge of Allegiance


3.       Approve Agenda

Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Items d, g and i from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


4.      Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.  No one appeared to speak. 


5.      Council Communications, Reports, and Announcements

Mayor Roe announced that Roseville "Choosing Civility" training for the community sponsored by the
Roseville Human Rights Commission, for participants to learn ways to sharpen
their civility skills and explore belief systems; learn how to strengthen
communication skills, and reinforce team work and individual responsibility. 
The training is scheduled for Saturday, September 19 from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00
p.m., and a light lunch will be provided at the Roseville Library, 2180 Hamline
Ave N, Roseville, with spots available for 60 registrants and RSVP registration
with the library available at Contact the Roseville Human Rights Commission at 651-792-7023 or if you have questions.


Mayor Roe announced ongoing classes through the City's Roseville University providing opportunities to learn how local government works and to obtain details of behind-the-scenes operations.  Mayor Roe advised that September classes would feature the Fire Department with courses in operations 101, emergency management, and a fire 101 offering a broader perspective of the Fire Department, with classes on September 22, 23, 24 and 29, 2015 from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m.  Mayor Roe noted that the classes are free, but sign-up is available by contacting City Clerk Kari Collins at 651/792-7023 or via e-mail to; as well as on the City's website, including showing other course offerings.


6.         Recognitions, Donations and Communications


a.            Proclaim September 25, 2015 Golden Kiwanis Peanut Day

Mayor Roe invited representatives of the North Suburban Golden K Kiwanis Club, headquartered in Roseville, to share about their organization in general and this specific fundraiser.  Representatives reported on the purpose of this annual fundraiser, with funds going to the area food shelf and other programs to help community youth educationally and spiritually.


Mayor Roe read the Proclamation declaring September 25, 2015 as Golden K Kiwanis Peanut Day in Roseville.


Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, proclaiming September 25, 2015 as Roseville Golden K Kiwanis Peanut Day as a day set aside in Roseville for distribution of peanuts as a fundraising effort to support the many and varied community youth programs of the Golden K Kiwanis Club.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


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 July 20, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes

Mayor Roe noted that Councilmember McGehee had several corrections yet to be reviewed on pages 20-21, but did not have them available at tonight's meeting.


McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, TABLING action on the July 20, 2015 meeting minutes until the next regular business meeting.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


8.            Approve Consent Agenda

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 August 24, 2015.


a.            Approve Payments

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


ACH Payments


78520 - 78697





                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Approve Business Licenses and Permits

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of renewals of business and other licenses and permits for terms as noted.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


c.            Certify Unpaid Utility and Other Charges to the Property Tax Rolls

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11242 (Attachment) 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.


e.            Approve Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for I-35W at Cleveland Avenue Interchange Project

Councilmember McGehee asked if any further discussion had been held about the Cleveland Avenue crosswalk in this segment. 


City Manager Trudgeon advised that the City had formally requested that Ramsey County provide their rationale for denial of a crosswalk as had been requested by the neighborhood.


Public Works Director Marc Culver reported on a conversation late this afternoon with Ramsey County staff, advising that they were going to perform a pedestrian count crosswalk study at that intersection.  However, Mr. Culver noted that, whether marked or unmarked, the State of Minnesota was lacking in good education and/or enforcement of intersections; with concerns in the industry that pedestrians have an over-reliance of marked crosswalks anticipating vehicles will yield the right-of-way and when marked providing a false sense of security for pedestrians.


Councilmember McGehee advised that she had spoken with representatives of the school district and their concerns were related to getting children across the street to the bus stop; and she suggested other off-street options.


Mr. Culver stated that he would further review and discuss the situation; however, from his observations, it was safest for students to wait on one side until the school bus crossing arm was out, as violations of that were enforceable when reported by school bus drivers.


Councilmember McGehee opined that was an excellent suggestion and sounded like a safer choice for students, and suggested that information be shared by City staff with the school district and neighbors.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11243 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Awarding Bid for Project P-14-81 - I-35W at Cleveland Avenue Interchange Reconstruction Project;" awarding the bid to Forest Lake Contracting, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $1,598,448.00.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


f.             Approve Licenses for Multi-family Rental Dwellings with Five or More Units

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of multi-family rental dwelling licenses of five or more units as listed and detailed in the RCA and related attachments dated August 24, 2015.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


h.            Approve Resolution Requesting Speed Study on Cleveland Avenue

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11244_ (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Requesting Ramsey County to Request a Speed Study on Cleveland Avenue from Larpenteur Avenue to County Road B;" to be done by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT).


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


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

Willmus moved, Etten 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 July
31, 2015.


                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


9.            Consider Items Removed from Consent


d.            Adopt a Resolution Approving the Use of  New Voting System

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed this request as detailed in the RCA and related attachments, dated August 24, 2015.


Since the City had chosen to contract election oversight to Ramsey County, Councilmember McGehee asked if projected cost savings were still holding given the cost of these new machines; and also asked if the new machines would be required if the City was not part of Ramsey County's operations.  Councilmember McGehee noted that there still seemed to be considerable staff time involved with elections.


City Manager Trudgeon responded that with new federal and state laws, requirements to update the current machines would be inevitable, especially given the age of the existing machines.  Mr. Trudgeon clarified that the cost of elections was determined by the number of voters and annually reviewed, but given the historically large voter turnout in Roseville, he saw no indication that costs would be lessening.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, City Manager Trudgeon advised that the upcoming school board election would involve a number of Roseville precincts and the new voting machine system should be up and operating by then.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11245 (Attachment) entitled, "A Resolution Adopting the Use of New Voting System."


Councilmember Laliberte asked staff to review municipal costs as they related specifically to school board elections, with that request duly noted by City Manager Trudgeon for future reporting to the City Council.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that there had been some talk in the past about moving school board elections to even years to correspond with municipal, state and federal elections, thus her question regarding actual costs to the city for school board elections.


As part of that information to be provided by staff, Mayor Roe asked that include if the city received any reimbursement for those costs from the schooldistrict.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


g.            Resolution Approving TH36 at Lexington Avenue Bridge Project Cooperative Construction Agreement

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed this request as detailed in the RCA and related attachments, dated August 24, 2015.


Councilmember Willmus asked staff for how traffic volumes were anticipated to be handled during the detour for this project; and how that impacted County Road B-2, school start times, and dismissal times for the high school.


Public Works Director Culver advised that after Councilmember Willmus had previously brought up those concerns, staff consulted with MnDOT staff specifically on those issues; with a subsequent rerouting of the detour to County Road C and Snelling rather than using County Road B-2.


Mayor Roe sought clarification that Roseville did not currently have any pathway on the east side of Lexington Avenue, with only the segment under the bridge as part of this project proposed for now based on MnDOT's requirements that one be located on both sides, and asked if that was a correct presumption on his part.


Public Works Director Culver responded that this was not actually the situation, but this proposed sidewalk segment under the bridge had come about through staff working with MnDOT based on the community's strong demand for additional pedestrian facilities on the east side.  Mr. Culver advised that there actually worn paths currently in that area, indicating frequent use; therefore staff took advantage of this reconstruction project opportunity to provide a more cost-effective way to address that need and in a more timely way with less inconvenience to the motoring traffic for its installation.  Mr. Culver noted that subsequent to that segment, the City still needed future conversations to determine how to address the north and south sides of that, which were part of the larger pathway priority picture.  Mr. Culver noted that taking advantage of this construction project was similar to past practice in installing segments wherever and whenever possible at the lowest possible cost even without immediate benefit of connecting to a larger system.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Public Works Director Culver clarified the location of this segment and how it related to future segments and how far to extend those connections in the future.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11246 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Approving MnDOT Cooperative Construction Agreement No. 06980;"
approving TH36 at Lexington Avenue Bridge Project Cooperative Construction
Agreement (Attachment B).


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


i.             Request for Renewed Approval of the Existing Temporary Classroom Structure to Remain on the Property at 2131 Fairview Avenue as an Interim Use for an Additional Two Years, through 2018

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed this request as detailed in the RCA and related attachments, dated August 24, 2015.  Mr. Trudgeon noted a revised resolution was made available as a bench handout that was more reflective of the Planning Commission's additional Condition B and providing more direct language about the applicant providing information to the Community Development Department sufficient information regarding their sewer access charge (SAC) obligations before expiration of the Interim Use on August 31, 2016.


Councilmember McGehee sought assurances that the comprehensive stormwater management of that area would not be interfered with moving forward.


Public Works Director Culver advised that the intent of this and the City's work with the landscape architect for Corpus Christi Church and the watershed district was to expand the proposed stormwater system for more benefit to the broader area.  Mr. Culver advised that the proposed temporary structure and plans would not interfere with anything existing, but during construction staff would continue to review current stormwater devices and outlets to make sure they were properly maintained and any improvements possible would be incorporated to address past complaints and issues. 


Since there would be no impacts to playgrounds or academic programs over the next few years, Councilmember McGehee opined this was a good agreement.


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11247 (RCA Exhibit C as revised) entitled, "A Resolution Approving a Temporary Classroom Facility as an INTERIM USE at 2131 Fairview Avenue (PF-13-010)."


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


10.         General Ordinances for Adoption


11.         Presentations


a.            I-35W North Corridor Project Presentation

Public Works Director Marc Culver introduced MnDOT Project Manager Jerome Adams (Contact Information: or 651/234-7611), with a copy of this study linked to the MnDOT website in addition to other links provided in Attachment A.  Mr. Culver noted that MnDOT Area Engineer Mark Lindeberg was also present for any questions that may require his expertise.


MnDOT Project Manager Jerome Adams

Mr. Adams' presentation was specific to the I-35W North Corridor Preliminary Design Project from TH 36 to Lexington Avenue in Blaine to the intersection with Lexington.


Mr. Adams reviewed the intent to add a MNPass lane in each direction as an alternate to four general purpose lanes that would be cost-prohibitive due to social aspects, bridge replacements along the corridor, interchange requirements, stormwater management issues, and additional property acquisition to move ramps further out.  Mr. Adams noted the long-term advantages of $120 to $180 million for the MnPass lane versus the projected $2.5 billion for the general purpose lanes that would serve to alleviate problems and made the most sense.  Mr. Adams noted noise walls along the corridor would also be evaluated, with an anticipated 2019 construction timeframe, even though that would be subject to fulfilling the current funding shortfall.


Councilmember Etten noted that this proposal seemed to indicate a policy that used buses for future transit improvements versus light rail options for this corridor.


Mr. Adams responded affirmatively, especially based on previous planning studies of bus rapid transit (BRT) versus light rail transit (LRT) in the median  and determination made that this would not be the best method in this corridor due the not enough density in neighborhoods for riders to conveniently walk to a nearby transit hub.


Councilmember Etten asked for additional comments regarding past presentations about adding a temporary lane north between County Road E-2 and I-694.


Mr. Adams advised that this project would consider that option, with the MNPass lane considered as the base project, with other spot enhancements, including auxiliary lanes in certain segments.  Mr. Adams noted that the additional lane had been removed from the current County Road E-2 project as it was not seen as a benefit now, but he was it as more beneficial with this project.  Mr. Adams clarified that he could not promise it would be built, but assured that it would be looked at to determine if that enhancement would improve that entire area.


Councilmember Etten spoke in support of that option, opining it would make a big difference not only to Roseville residents, but for the transportation in the broader region.


In that same presentation referenced by Councilmember Etten, Councilmember McGehee noted improvements to the sound wall had been discussed at the entrance into Roseville on the split with highway 36 and I-35E; and asked if that would be reviewed as part of this project as well.


Since the sound wall referenced by Councilmember McGehee was in the TH-36 area south of County Road C, Mr. Adams clarified that this project's limits were at County Road C but not further south, and therefore those sound walls would not be part of this project.  However, Mr. Adams noted that he expected they may be considered as part of a future project dealing with lanes interchanging with Highway 280 and TH 36 and the sound wall immediately adjacent to that section.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Adams confirmed that MnDOT is evaluating a future potential MNPass project on eastbound only TH 36 due to its lack of complication to facilitate from TH 36 leaving I-35W east to I-35E.  Mr. Adams advised that the project was in the very preliminary scoping process at this time, meaning it had no funding identified or any had construction date, but was definitely something being looked at.  Mr. Adams clarified that the intent was to stay out of the common areas (e.g. TH 36 and Highway 280) as there was nothing identified or reworking in this area; but the long-range goal was to get a MNPass system all the way into Downtown Minneapolis and onto TH 36 through using baby steps if necessary.  If that segment could be started, Mr. Adams opined that it would put subsequent pressure on the TH 36 interchange to accomplish the entire segment, since performing the physical work often prompted that scenario. 


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Adams agreed to send a copy of his power point presentation to staff for dissemination to the City Council.


Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Adams for tonight's presentation.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:02 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 7:05 p.m.

b.            Joint Meeting with Community Engagement Commission (CEC)

Mayor Roe welcomed the full commission and turned it over to CEC Chair Scot Becker for introduction of commissioners present: Chair Becker, Theresa Gardella, Gary Grefenberg, Michelle Manke, Jonathan Miller, Sherry Sanders, Ebony Adedayo.


Staff Liaison and Communications Manager Garry Bowman was also present in the audience.


As detailed in the RCA, Chair Becker reviewed 2015 priority projects of the CEC and accomplishments to-date with individual commissioners addressing various areas as noted in lines 6 - 16 of the RCA; and publically expressed his personal appreciation of individual commissioners for their ongoing efforts and dedication.  Chair Becker highlighted the Definitions of Community and Civic Engagement - Attachment C as a recommendation to the City Council for future formal adoption moving forward and posting on the City's website, even as it was recognized that it would continue as a working document.


In addressing the CEC assisting and encouraging formation of neighborhood associations, Commissioner Sanders noted the passionate discourse to-date, with the task force continuing discussions before presentation of recommendations to the City Council.


Commissioner Gardella noted the evolution of learning events created for community engagement from originally thought of as conferences to a series of learning events or listening/learning events and target groups in line with the City Council's strategic initiative, and ongoing work with staff and advisory commissions as this priority continued to evolve.


Commissioner Manke noted the considerable efforts of this joint task force and members of the Planning Commission and staff in notice to those marginalized at this time in their awareness of development or zoning issues impacting them.  Commissioner Manke noted the proactive efforts of staff in developing apartment/condo, 1-4 unit rental property, and commercial space databases to provide a tool for property tenants/renters to provide feedback to the City.  Once these databases were up and running, Commissioner Manke advised that they would be adding commercial and industrial tenants given significant growth of late; and providing geographical notification based on certain triggers.  Commissioner Manke opined this task force consisting of two CEC and two Planning Commissioners, in addition to Community Development Director Bilotta and City Planner Thomas Paschke, had worked together very well.


Commissioner Grefenberg echoed the support received from and appreciation for staff's efforts.  Commissioner Grefenberg added that additional discussion had been held related to notices about making zoning notices more understandable and less legalese in language; in addition to involving renters in decision-making and civic affairs, a critical step not always achieved in the past. 


Chair Becker referenced Attachment A and recommendations of the joint task force on zoning notification as detailed in their meeting notes dated June 18, 2015.


Chair Becker reported on the resumption of Roseville U educational programming for residents after a one-year hiatus and feedback being evaluated on what does or does not work, and commended staff for their initiatives in getting this opportunity back on track. Chair Becker encouraged individual City Councilmembers to provide their feedback as well as suggestions over the next few months to help define what next year's program would look like.


Regarding the proposed online civic engagement module to be integrated into the City's website, Chair Becker noted this was the next item on tonight's City Council agenda, and was nearing deployment at the discretion of and formal action by the City Council.


Commissioner Grefenberg summarized the RCA, lines 14 - 16 identified as "Additional Priorities," stated his preference to not identify them as "additional," but
ongoing efforts, since the CEC remained focused on the six initial priorities. 
Commissioner Grefenberg reviewed Attachment B listing those six priorities and
detailing work to-date on each, dated August 6, 2015 and drafted by
Commissioner Grefenberg.


In conclusion, Chair Becker sought guidance from the City Council on future priorities to inform work going into 2016 and beyond.


Regarding evaluation of Roseville U, Councilmember Willmus highlighted the recent decision by the Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to discontinue the annual Living Smarter Home & Garden Fair in its current format, opting for a series of speakers and workshops.  As part of this evaluation process, Councilmember Willmus asked the CEC to provide feedback regarding the potential of reverting back to previous City Campus open houses, including involvement by and greater exposure for advisory commissions.


Regarding the welcome packet, Councilmember Willmus further noted that the HRA had been looking into revitalizing that as well, and spoke in support of the CEC's role overlapping that of the HRA cooperatively in evaluating that valuable tool.


Councilmember Laliberte suggested a pairing of the CEC and HRA to work on the welcome packet and potential format for open houses so as not to duplicate efforts.  Councilmember Laliberte thanked the task force for their work and staff for building the databases.  Regarding the preference to make notices less legalistic, Councilmember Laliberte cautioned that some may require that legal language and asked that they keep that in mind, while perhaps including more summary language as well for the general public's easier and better understanding.


Councilmember McGehee echoed the comments regarding notification, and expressed her appreciation for that work to-date.  Specific to Attachment B, page 12, Item f, Councilmember McGehee questioned the viability of staff advising advisory commissions on City Council agenda items falling under their purview.  Councilmember McGehee noted the short timing for packet delivery and review, not allowing much time for advisory commission receipt, review and comment prior to a Council meeting.  Councilmember McGehee suggested getting advisory commissioners on the city server list for an agenda and meeting packet to determine areas of interest.


Councilmember Laliberte suggested it may be sufficient if staff liaisons to advisory commissions send an alert when they're aware of something on agenda that the commission should be aware of, perhaps on the Thursday before a City Council meeting when packets are made available and distributed.


Councilmember Etten concurred with Councilmember Laliberte's suggestion regarding staff liaisons alerting advisory commissions of pending discussion items of the City Council.  Councilmember Etten stated he was an advocate for reducing legalese in notices, and while recognizing some parts were required, it still may not provide a clear understanding for residents to know what is actually happening, suggesting the need to continuing to make the process more accessible, and opining that he found pictures to be very instructive.  Councilmember Etten spoke in support of reaching out to renters or those leasing commercial space, citing an anecdotal example.  Councilmember Etten stated that he was intrigued by listening/leaning groups and supporting under-represented groups in different ways than attempted in past practice, allowing opportunities to learn more about each other and find ways to help those groups be included in the communities in which they live.


Mayor Roe referenced one of the major topics the City Council originally looked at during discussions regarding creation of the CEC was ways and methods for community engagement.  Mayor Roe noted a recent League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) educational workshop attended by him and Councilmember Laliberte that talked about the different types of engagement processes.  Mayor Roe suggested the CEC consider which are useful in which situation (e.g. SE Roseville) and identify stakeholders and proposed aspects of engagement needed.  Specific to SE Roseville, Mayor Roe recognized that many things are already in the works, but moving forward, he wanted to be sure the CEC was clear that they had the City Council's guidance to review current processes and methods and provide feedback and how resources were being or could be allocated accordingly.


Councilmember McGehee, regarding the definitions identified by Commissioner Gardella, asked that it be explained to renters and/or under-represented groups as well as the entire community to advise them how they can effectively engage with their local government or how to response or seek additional information or a clearer understanding if and when they received a public notice, not just how to meet their neighbors.  Councilmember McGehee opined that this should include how the process worked, how local government is structured, and how to make speakers more comfortable expressing themselves to the City Council or make a statement or point, even if that involved mock scenarios in public speaking, which she considered a huge part of civic engagement in removing those barriers.


Councilmember Laliberte opined that, no matter the steps taken, there would remain hesitation or lack of involvement from some, and sought additional feedback from the CEC on how best to address that.  Councilmember Laliberte agreed with Mayor Roe in looking at the points of contact with the community during a process to identify which stage a project was at and what tools to use for particular stages for community engagement.  Councilmember Laliberte expressed her interest in the CEC being involved in the SE Roseville process, even though the work was underway, but perhaps in compiling the bits and pieces to make sure the overall picture was available given the number of components in this large project.  Councilmember Laliberte clarified that she was not intending that the CEC own the SE Roseville initiative, but just to ensure all touch points and stakeholders were addressed and familiar to all.


Mayor Roe concurred with that suggestion.  Mayor Roe suggested that since the SE Roseville project was so all-encompassing, his intent with previous comments was for the CEC to provide ideas not for a generic set of tools that would be relevant to all situations, but for a process and specific tools for a particular target - tools, timing and process - that would be beneficial to all involved and moving forward.  Mayor Roe noted that this may even involve, specifically with the SE Roseville initiative already in process, a review in hindsight of missing pieces or something that stands out that would involve stakeholders in the future, perhaps using this as a case study in progress.


Mayor Roe noted the City's Comprehensive Plan update due in 2017 as a major initiative that would benefit from suggestions of the CEC before getting into the process.  Mayor Roe suggested this may include whether or not to update the community vision before then or how that informed the Comprehensive Plan update.  Mayor Roe noted the need to be prepared for those steps now before getting into the Comprehensive Plan process itself.


City Council consensus was that the CEC focus on SE Roseville and Community Visioning/Comprehensive Plan update processes for feedback to the City Council at their earliest convenience.


As a separate item, Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of the idea of the proposed listening/learning events, but at this point didn't know how to or how not to support them, since the Human Rights Commission (HRC) was also in flux with that initiative and she didn't want the efforts of the CEC and HRC duplicated until the City Council had more time to consider the role of the HRC going forward.


Mayor Roe clarified from his perspective that the CEC's role would involve more how to engage people.


Commissioner Gardella opined that, based on staff and City Council feedback, it seemed the reason for gathering people would be to determine what if any barriers existed for their participation and to provide better access to their local government or how they felt about their community, their quality of life, and what they desired for their children in the community.  Commissioner Gardella noted, depending on the direction desired by the City Council in serving that purpose, it could be designed in numerous ways, but a determination was needed on the best ways to perform them.  Commissioner Gardella proposed going beyond the three pilot listening/learning events if successful, but pursuing an ongoing method to hear from the community about different topics and develop a process for that.


While recognizing that the sky was the limit, Councilmember Laliberte reiterated her concern that she needed a better understanding of the HRC's role before directing the CEC to move forward on it.


Mayor Roe suggested there may be a role for the HRC or other parts of the city in various topics, but the first 1-3 sessions could determine what the city wanted to focus on.


Councilmember McGehee opined that her interpretation of the role of the CEC was to focus on civic engagement and barriers to residents being involved in speaking at or attending meetings, or understanding their rights as a citizen.  Councilmember McGehee suggested listening sessions involving how residents liked their community, how they felt about diversity in the community - all of which may belong to different advisory commissions - but involving the overall process of listening/learning that would eventually become available to all advisory commissions related to their specific topics of interest and targeted to commissions specifically.


With Commissioner Gardella mentioning education, Mayor Roe suggested sharing ideas and seeking feedback from the school district as apartner.


Recognizing that an interdepartmental group was working with the Karen community and representatives from neighborhood associations, Commissioner Grefenberg personally thanked City Clerk Kari Collins and City Manager Patrick Trudgeon for their work on those efforts.  However, as referenced in the December 8, 2014 joint meeting of the CEC and City Council, Commissioner Grefenberg clarified the 2015 work plan priority items and charge to the CEC.  In response to that, Commissioner Grefenberg presented a summary of that charge via a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, stating that the intent was to continue working on those six priority items as listed.


Mayor Roe clarified that it was not the City's intent to create associations, but instead to facilitate, foster or advise that process when neighbors expressed an interest in doing so.


Councilmember McGehee opined that neighborhoods typically coalesced around and reacted to issues impacting neighborhoods, not socially driven action.  While noting there were different issues that touched different people and how they worked through those issues with the City, Councilmember McGehee expressed hope that a procedure could be developed by the CEC for such an interest group might involve itself with the City.  Councilmember McGehee opined that this concept was of much more importance to her than formation of a unit.


Councilmember Willmus referenced past examples of reactive groups coming together which to him didn't serve to diminish the goal of helping associations and proactive gatherings.  Councilmember Willmus stated it would be his desire or vision to help establish associations to be more proactive and get neighbors together even without the benefit of any hot button issues, but to minimize reactive forces in the future.

Councilmember Etten expressed his wholehearted agreement with that comment.


Mayor Roe opined that neither objective was ultimately that far away from each other.


Councilmember McGehee concurred, but clarified her intent was that the City not facilitate creation of a formal, non-profit legal status for groups.


Mayor Roe stated formal legally created groups didn't appear to be what the only approach the CEC was attempting to facilitate.


Chair Becker concurred that he didn't see an effort such as that receiving much support if any from the CEC.


Mayor Roe thanked the CEC for their work to-date and attendance tonight with their informative update.



Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:52 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 7:53 p.m.

c.            Discussion of Civic Engagement Module Police & Procedures

Communications Manager Garry Bowman provided a draft policy and procedure manual (Attachment A) for "Speakup, Roseville!" as requested in previous discussions, and as
detailed in the RCA dated August 24, 2015.  Mr. Bowman noted this request was
prompted specifically by a request of Councilmember Laliberte to take a more
in-depth look at the module before full launching and integration with the
City's website.  Mr. Bowman highlighted several items specifically, including
Section VI (Management of Civic Engagement Module), Section VII (Use), Section
VIII (Posting of Topics) and Section XIV (Moderating Public Comments) as having
addressed a majority of the concerns previously expressed.


Mr. Bowman suggested that there be no survey component immediately until the site matures; and if chosen in the future, it receive City Council blessing prior to initiation, and be clearly identified as information versus scientific in nature.


Councilmember Laliberte clarified that it was not her purpose to delay or stall launching, but noted her concerns that further conversation was needed as to the specifics of how the module would work in reality before launching rather than making up the rules along the way.  Toward those efforts and in light of her concerns, Councilmember Laliberte advised that she met last week with Mr. Bowman and City Manager Trudgeon, with some of the results of those discussions incorporated into this draft, for which she thanked staff.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Bowman responded that the CEC had not yet weighed into this draft document as they had met the week prior to its formulation; but noted it incorporated things taken from previous subcommittee meetings even though without benefit of their thoughts and feedback about the actual document itself.  Mr. Bowman reviewed some of the items addressed via the actual page, those items still needing to be addressed or provided with a better description between forums, ideas and discussion pages or tabs; and clear identification of whether it is the city or residents initiating the pages and upfront expectations as to whether or not a response is intended, and clarification of when a follow-up will occur.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that moderation questions were addressed sufficiently in the policy guidelines for those signing up on the site; but also noted the seven-page list of privacy issues and conditions of use from Granicus needed to be linked to City of Roseville terms.


Councilmember Laliberte reiterated her suggestion that a quick instructional video be developed or a generic one from Granicus be made available; or consideration of an open house to inform first-time users how it works.  Councilmember Laliberte questioned how the city intended to promote the site or drive residents to it.  Councilmember Laliberte further questioned how the success or lack thereof of the site would be measured, beyond the dashboard reports to see the analytics behind the scenes; opining the importance of plugging topics into respective commissions for review on a regular basis.


Councilmember Willmus asked if Councilmember Laliberte felt her questions had been addressed sufficiently in this draft document.


Councilmember Laliberte responded that not sufficiently in the pilot live site, with work still needed to address those clarifications and addressing the intent of the page and when and if to expect follow-up responses.


Before going live, Councilmember Willmus expressed his preference to have the entire CEC look at the policy document and the site to see if there were other things needing to be addressed and determine if there was anything missed.  Councilmember Willmus also asked that consistency be maintained throughout the process with things as basic as the City's logo and brand that was not currently evident at the top of the web page; opining that the City and staff needed to seek that consistency in everything put out.  While understanding the language issues on the opening page and that from Granicus and need to clean that up further, Councilmember Willmus agreed with   Councilmember Laliberte's comments that the CEC should review it before coming back to the City Council for formal action, and after the City logo is revised.


Mr. Bowman clarified that the intent was to start with discussions, forum and ideas, but not meetings or surveys at this point.


Councilmember Laliberte opined that the meeting component was one of the easiest things to do, whether by posting the same agenda packets on the other website or accomplished another way in another place as done with other Granicus websites she'd observed.


Mr. Bowman responded that, from his observations of other city samples using Granicus, the meeting site didn't get much traction, indicating that component was not highly valued.


If that was an easy component to accomplish, Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of including the meeting portion, but also analytics available to determine interest levels.  Councilmember McGehee agreed with comments of her colleagues so far during this discussion, especially the need for additional clarification about the idea page for participants to say what they think, and those sections that assured a response if and when applicable.  Councilmember McGehee expressed less concern in the same brand or logo being used than in the more important issue to use different colors or identification to indicate which particular component you were in and what to expect if asking a specific question and a timeframe to receive a response.  Councilmember McGehee suggested a visual identification may be most useful in this case.


Councilmember McGehee expressed some confusion related to data retention as to what would be available for future reference, opining that this then became dangerously close to "Snap Chat" or other means of transitory correspondence that wasn't retained,
causing her concern if posting on a city-related topic.


Mr. Bowman clarified that on the discussions component, once closed, you could still access discussions after thefact.


Councilmember McGehee asked that, on the home page, the language be changed to "the City reserves the right at "its" sole discretion" rather than "our" sole discretion.


Mayor Roe agreed there were a number of grammatical items he had for staff to follow-up on that he would provide off-line.


While not seeing the need to edit comments, Councilmember McGehee did express interest in a way to immediately remove particularly offensive or derogatory comments, whether short-term or not.


Mr. Bowman concurred with that preference.


Mayor Roe questioned if the desire was to embargo comments for a period of time or until their review.


Councilmember McGehee opined she didn't see an initial problem as she didn't see an outpouring of such comments initially, but did foresee some caution needed editorially at the front end after launching the site to be sure there were no obviously issues.


Mr. Bowman stated he didn't think that was possible the way things were set up with Granicus or the ability to moderate every comment before it went live; since the site was set up so that residents could have a discussion without the city involved.


At the request of Mayor Roe, and based on the history of Granicus sites, Mr. Bowman advised that those types of concerns were not seen often, and with the City of Edina example had not been seen.  However, since monitoring multiple accounts could become problematic, and this was an official city site not a standalone site that may be less official, Mr. Bowman recognized that personal attacks or offensive comments were always a possibility while not frequently found.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Bowman noted that if something was flagged as potentially inappropriate, it immediately came off line until reviewed by staff for its editorial content and would not be live or in the public domain until that review occurred.


Councilmember Laliberte advised that she had the opportunity to participate in an online webinar for Granicus and they repeated the comments of Mr. Bowman, and since this site was slated for going live on September 1, 2015, while not wishing to delay it further, she did ask for the CEC or the subcommittee review before launching if the City Council majority was not opposed to additional short delay.


Councilmember Willmus agreed that the CEC take a cursory review, along with addressing those issues he'd raised with branding and the City logo, in addition to grammatical points raised.  Councilmember Willmus opined that this was not ready to go live yet.


Mayor Roe opined that he was hearing no objection from the City Council in making sure the CEC had one last look before taking the site live; and agreed with Councilmembers Laliberte and McGehee that visual identification of different pages was needed to better understand each beyond the language on each.  Mayor Roe suggested that may be something the CEC could provide feedback on as part of their review.


Mr. Bowman responded that this is part of the issue with the cookie-cutter designed by Granicus, advising that he had been attempting to address that initial language with them for some time, but their response to him that he could not edit that language.  Mr. Bowman advised that the option was to remove the language, but noted this then removed other important information in the grey boxes making him question if he'd need to rebuild it in some other format, which may not be a bad thing is the City could provide better insights, but with that yet to be resolved.


Mayor Roe suggested more explanatory information on the City's website may be appropriate, with Mr. Bowman suggesting that may also be the most appropriate site for the instructional video as well.


Mayor Roe suggested that creation of an instructional video may also be of interest by C-TV.


Councilmember McGehee suggested getting rid of the grey boxes to design the City's own color-coding.


Mayor Roe suggested staff determine what is technically possible; with Mr. Bowman advising he would check into that further.


City Manager Trudgeon clarified the City Council's direction to staff was that this policy and issue return to the CEC for feedback, that remaining issues be resolved or addressed at a minimum, with the City Council wanting to see the final product before launching.


Mayor Roe noted no objection and confirmed this directive.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:20 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:25 p.m.


12.         Public Hearings


d.            Public Hearing to Consider Amending TIF Districts 10 and 12, Approval of a Development Agreement, and Approval of a Final Plat of the Development Property at 2325 - 2335 Dale Street and 657-675 Cope Avenue into 18 Medium Density Residential Lots

Mayor Roe introduced this project and various steps requiring formal City Council action, with Community Development Director Paul Bilotta briefly reviewing the various components as outlined in the RCA dated August 24, 2015.


Mayor Roe opened the public hearing at approximately 8:26 p.m. for the purpose of considering an amendment to Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Districts 10 and 12 for the Development Property at 2325 - 2335 Dale Street and 657 - 675 Cope Avenue into 18 Medium Density Residential Lots.


Mayor Roe closed the public hearing at approximately 8:27 p.m., with no one appearing for or against.


12.         Budget Items


13.         Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Consider Amending TIF Districts 10 and 12, Approval of a Development Agreement, and Approval of a Final Plat of the Development Property at 2325 - 2335 Dale Street and 657 - 675 Cope Avenue into 18 Medium density Residential Lots

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11248 (RCA Exhibit A, B, C and D) entitled, "Resolution Approving the Modification to the Development Program for Development District No. 1 and Approving the Modifications to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing District Nos. 10 and 12."

                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Mr. Bilotta referenced a revised Purchase and Redevelopment Contract by and between the City of Roseville and Dale Street Station, LLC dated August 1, 2015 and as drafted by the City's TIF Consultant Briggs and Morgan (RCA Exhibit F) provided as a bench handout providing additional refinements and a more realistic timeframe based on latest developments.


Mayor Roe sought public comment on the Redevelopment Contract agreement. No one appeared for public comment on this component.


Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11249 (RCA Exhibit E) entitled, "Resolution Approving a Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with the Dale Street Station, LLC by the City of Roseville;" for redevelopment of the project
area and performance of the actions necessary to meet the City's obligations
identified in the executed purchase and redevelopment contract (RCA Exhibit F as revised).


Councilmember Laliberte expressed her appreciation of the two changes made in the revised contract, opining they represented a much more realistic picture for the project.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Mr. Bilotta addressed the proposed final plat as displayed on screen.


Mayor Roe sought public comment on the proposed Final Plat with no one appearing to speak to this component.

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No.11250 (RCA Exhibit I) entitled, "A Resolution Approving the FINAL PLAT of Garden Station (PF15-011); of the property at 2325 - 2335 Dale Street and 657 ? 675 Cope Avenue, based on the public record and conformity of the proposed Final Plat with the approved Preliminary Plat (RCA Exhibits G and H), and the content of the RCA as conditioned."


Councilmember Laliberte personally thanked the City's HRA for their work initially done on this project and neighborhood process that provided an end product that everyone felt good about and moving the City and its residents to this point today.


Councilmember McGehee seconded those comments; expressing her support for the Outlot design; opining this was the best design and most consistent with desires of the neighbors.


Mayor Roe echoed thanks to the HRA for their significant work on this project, and expressed his personal disappointment in the demise of the original project proposed, even though he understood the financial implications and other unknowns involved with that demise and reasons for it, he still found it to be a unique and interesting project for Roseville.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Review of Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Levy Request for 2015

HRA Executive Director Jeanne Kelsey; HRA Vice Chair Vicki Lee; and Subgroup Finance Committee members Jason Etten and William Masche were present; along with HRA Member Dan Wall in the audience.  The remaining member of the subcommittee, former Chair Maschka, was not present.


Ms. Kelsey noted that a revised RCA dated August 24, 2015 was provided as a bench handout with minor corrections including the year corrected from 2015 to 2016, and annual estimated tax impact for residential home values (heading on lines 20-21) of the RCA corrected from an estimated 7.6% decrease to a 9.9% decrease.


Ms. Kelsey referenced the attachments to the RCA providing budget detail and account balances related to specific programs administered by the HRA.


Mayor Roe expressed appreciation for the format of the budget this year, opining it was much easier to read.  Mayor Roe advised that no formal action was required on this request, in accordance with statutory deadlines for action, until mid-September.  Mayor Roe opined that this 2016 budget request seemed pretty straightforward from his perspective.


HRA Finance Subcommittee Member Masche reported that the attempt was to present a preliminary budget eliminating programs or initiatives that were outdated or no longer performing, and match this budget to the recently-updated HRA Strategic Plan to implement it with dollars needed to take action on those initiatives included in that Plan. Member Masche recognized that the Plan was aggressive and included many initiatives identified by the HRA as a whole and attempted to listen carefully to City Council discussion and input regarding the future role and work of the HRA.  Member Masche expressed the HRA's interest in moving forward in a cooperative, collaborative experience with the City Council over the next year in trying to accomplish some of these goals in year one of the four year Plan.


Mayor Roe noted the request of Councilmember Laliberte for interaction with representatives of the HRA.


Councilmember Laliberte recognized the attendance of HRA Member Wall in the audience noting he had not voted with the HRA majority in supporting this document, seeking his response.


Member Wall indicated from the audience that he had no comment.


Mayor Roe reiterated that this preliminary levy request would come before the City Council for formal action in September.


As touched on by the HRA several years ago, Councilmember Willmus noted the current HRA model that provided many functions, including discussion at that time involving port authority, HRA and Economic Development Authority (EDA) models.  Councilmember Willmus opined that, the more he considered it, the more he wanted to pursue looking into the EDA model, since it afforded the ability to continue performing as an HRA, but also broadened and allowed it to reach out in a different way to the business community beyond the current business retention efforts of the HRA.  Councilmember Willmus opined that the EDA would certainly be an extension of that and could facilitate economic development beyond what was possible under the HRA model.  Councilmember Willmus asked if staff could research this further and bring it back to the City Council for their full discussion.


Councilmember Laliberte expressed her interest in learning more about the commercial properties and industrial areas based on her understanding that there may be some limitations to the current HRA model and their abilities.  While admitting she didn't know much about EDA models, Councilmember Laliberte expressed interest in further education about it.


Councilmember Laliberte expressed her interest in learning about the broad models, process and availability, noting her consistent support of businesses and providing head of household jobs, and recruitment efforts for businesses that could serve the community as strong employers for those efforts.


Councilmember Etten expressed concern in losing the HRA's ability to focus on housing, noting the ongoing needs for diverse housing in the community; questioning how the City Council would have time to focus on some of those efforts while accomplishing what was already on their plate.  Councilmember Etten stated that he was always open to learning more, but questioned how the City Council could accomplish its own work and focus on these other details as well.


Mayor Roe recognized previous comments as all being valid points to consider.  From his personal perspective, Mayor Roe stated that he was intrigued with the EDA side-by-side with the HRA, or an EDA with HRA powers.  Mayor Roe noted that the potential make-up of an EDA Board hadn't yet been discussed, and there was valuable expertise among community members that would be important to include as part of the process if it went forward.  Mayor Roe stated he was open to having those conversations, and if a change was indicated as a result of this broader discussion, further stated that he did not want to lose the important housing component going forward.  However, given the historic interest of the City Council to focus on economic development and strategic priority of the City Council going back for some time in making sure the right set of tools was available and approaching this discussion that way, Mayor Roe opined that it made sense to look at the possibility at this juncture.  Mayor Roe agreed that there were concerns if the City Council served as the EDA, especially related to efficiencies, but opined it was up to the City Council to study it and make a determination if this was the direction it wanted to go at this time.


Councilmember Etten recognized that a lot of EDA's are made up of City Councils, but emphasized the community experience brought to the HRA board and general community knowledge; asking that discussions include that as a key part of future consideration.


In a side by side comparison of the different ways to populate an EDA Board, Councilmember Willmus noted many variables including it being comprised of the City Council serving in the role of an EDA, some populated by volunteers or a combination; and noted a number of things to consider and review as part of this future exploration, including thoughts from staff about the what, where and when of that potential.


Regarding deadlines in terms of the budget, Mayor Roe asked staff how to fit this discussion into that timeline.


City Manager Trudgeon advised that there was a tremendous amount of information and resources already available, with the HRA having talked about this several years ago.  Mr. Trudgeon suggested, with the three-week break in Council meetings at this point, staff could prepare information for the September 14, 2015 meeting if so directed for comparison and an outline of next steps if that was the City Council's potential way to go.


Mayor Roe noted the importance of gathering information related to each function, and including experiences and pros and cons of an EDA, and researching EDA's in other communities, in addition to staff's input on preferable options as well.


Councilmember McGehee questioned, if during the September 14th discussion, it was determined to establish an EDA based on that information presented, what was the next step or would a public hearing be required and what all would be involved.


If the decision was to change to anything beyond the current HRA model, City Manager Trudgeon noted that State Statutes would identify the process, including public hearing requirements, dissolution of the HRA, transfer of assets and other steps in a transition.


Councilmember McGehee opined that given budgetary timing constraints, it may be prudent to schedule a public hearing now so if a decision was made on September 14 to create a new EDA or pursue a different structure, the hearing would already be scheduled.


Mayor Roe advised that statutory requirements for a not-to-exceed HRA levy would not imply such a strict deadline and could be changed moving forward.  However, Mayor Roe expressed his discomfort in scheduling a public hearing on September 14th for something yet unknown; further recognizing that hearing deadline notice requirements may differ, and suggested waiting until September 14th when more information and a potential council consensus was available.


City Attorney Gaughan advised that there were particular public hearing notice requirements identified for potential dissolution of an HRA, with 10 days advance notice required and 2 weeks' notice required for establishment of an EDA.  However, Mr. Gaughan advised that provisions were in State law regarding transfer of assets or projects from one body to another, and even if not commensurate, HRA funds would revert back to the City of Roseville, allowing for some flexibility even with the awkward timing involved in the 2016 budget process.


Councilmember Willmus reiterated his request to gather additional information and hold that discussion before getting too far ahead of things.


Without objection, Mayor Roe directed staff accordingly as per discussions.  Mayor Roe stated that it was important to note that this was in no way intended as any criticism of anyone serving on the HRA and the work they'd done, including many tremendous accomplishments, going back to their rental registration and licensing, and code enforcement focus.  Mayor Roe reiterated that this was not a reaction on his part to the HRA, but just an attempt to make sure the best tools for the City of Roseville were put forward.  If a different model was decided on in the near future, Mayor Roe expressed his hope that a way could be found to keep the HRA engaged and part of the process.  Mayor Roe stated his intent to make sure that was on the table upfront and this discussion was not in any way a bad reflection on the current HRA board members.


Councilmember Laliberte suggested others on the City Council were more knowledgeable about EDA's than she was and therefore would be looking for information on EDA and HRA models, whether combined or standalone, and City Councils serving as EDA's.


Mayor Roe stated his interest was in obtaining pros and cons of each approach, in addition to other information requested, but was not sure a staff recommendation was needed other than for their input.


Mayor Roe again thanked the HRA for their budget work, and noted there may be interesting days moving forward.


c.            Request for Approval of a Preliminary Plat at 2668 - 2688 Lexington Avenue (southeast corner of Lexington Avenue and Woodhill Drive, excluding the County Cycles Property)

City Planner Thomas Paschke provided a brief summary of this request as detailed in the RCA dated August 24, 2015.  Mr. Paschke noted that the developer intended to take the existing three lots it owned and make them into two lots; with Lot 2 defined as the city-owned parcel at 2668 Lexington Avenue.  Mr. Paschke noted the additional of conditions h and g by the Planning Commission to those recommended by staff.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke reviewed the grading and drainage plan as displayed and proposed location of parking stalls and primary drop-off on the site.


Councilmember McGehee opined that it seemed drainage and tree preservation would be better-served if the building was located and oriented elsewhere on the site that appeared barren.  Councilmember McGehee questioned if the watershed district had yet approved this preliminary plat.


Mr. Paschke advised that both the City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District had been in consultation with the developer, and advised the rationale in placing the structures on site was due to previous fill on the site that was not conducive to building construction, but adequate for a parking lot to avoid substantial cost in removing that fill.  Mr. Paschke further noted that the City's zoning ordinance and design standards required placement of the building front and setback facing Lexington Avenue as the primary street.


While offering to yield the final decision to Community Development Director Bilotta, Councilmember McGehee wondered why the developer would want the building facing the parking lot across the street when it could face another way with a much better view, questioning what precluded them from that option to face Woodhill rather than Lexington Avenue and facing directly into the fire station.


Community Development Director Bilotta concurred that the building would face the fire station at that location; however, he noted a key determination was which was considered the main street.  Mr. Bilotta advised that representatives of United, the developer, felt that Lexington Avenue was their key entrance point for this assisted living facility based on visibility and access points critical to the development; even beyond the issue with previous fill on the lot being the largest driver.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus related to Condition D and vacating the existing sewer easement, Mr. Bilotta confirmed that the easement did not have sewer lines currently within that area, and the intent was to relocate sewer lines for this project with establishment of a new easement area; with the developer bearing the full cost to do so.


Specific to the site plan orientation, from his perspective, Councilmember Willmus stated he had no issue with the developer's choice, noting it would continue to run along with vacant parcels yet to be redeveloped.


Mayor Roe confirmed that there appeared to be a north/south sewer line on the existing survey.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke advised that there was no pathway or sidewalk on the east side of Lexington.  Councilmember McGehee suggested that should be considered as part of this project at least down to County Road C.


Applicant Representative Mark Nelson, United Properties

While having no formal presentation, Mr. Nelson responded to several questions and comments of the City Council at this time.


Regarding siting of the buildings, Mr. Nelson confirmed staff's comment about the debris and fill found on the eastern portion of the site.  Mr. Nelson noted that the reason there were no trees growing there was due to the poor soils, concrete and asphalt fill and other materials buried there.  In addition, per City Code, Mr. Nelson noted that if Lexington Avenue was identified as the primary access point since it was the most visible, it allowed surface parking off Woodhill Drive.  However, if Woodhill was chosen for the front door, Mr. Nelson advised that then the main surface parking area would be along Lexington Avenue, opining that would not prove aesthetically pleasing for the development or the community.  Mr. Nelson opined that the developer thought this orientation provided the nicest view of the buildings along Lexington Avenue.


Mr. Nelson displayed a colored site map different and more detailed than those in the agenda packet that highlighted the areas not to be disturbed where tree preservation would occur.  Overall, Mr. Nelson advised that the developer would be replacing a large number of existing trees not only in number but in caliper inches.


Regarding stormwater concerns, Mr. Nelson advised that on the east side of the development, storm water management included retention and infiltration areas before runoff reached the wetland to the south.  While the developer had already received preliminary approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District, Mr. Nelson advised that revised plans had been submitted as well seeking their updated approval prior to finalization of plans.


Mr. Nelson stated that the developer accepted and agreed with, and would comply with all conditions applied to approval from staff and the Planning Commission.


Councilmember McGehee thanked Mr. Nelson for displaying the more detailed site plan providing a much clearer picture of the development site.  Being familiar with other United Properties projects in the community and elsewhere in the metropolitan area, Councilmember McGehee opined that they did typically provided a nice end product.


Mayor Roe asked for public comment on this preliminary plat consideration. No one appeared for public comment on this issue.


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approving the proposed PRELIMINARY PLAT for Cherrywood Pointe at Lexington, dated August 3, 2015 and generally comprising the property at 2668 - 2688 Lexington Avenue based on the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and the content of the RCA dated August 24, 2015 and as conditioned.


Councilmember Laliberte thanked staff for including notes from the Planning Commission meeting, opining she found it very helpful in her decision-making.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


d.            Determine Fence Screening and Landscaping Requirements for Vogel Sheetmetal Interim Use, 2830 Fairview Avenue

City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the chronology of actions and submittals to-date for the initial Interim Use (IU) permit for Vogel Sheetmetal, also known as Vogel Mechanical, located at 2830 Fairview Avenue; and as detailed in the RCA dated August 24, 2015. 


Mr. Paschke advised that the outstanding issue remained for compliance by Vogel with the condition for IU ultimately revised by the City Council from the original condition applied by the Planning Commission and further defining it as: "The applicant shall install opaque fencing of 6' to 8' in height, coniferous plantings, and, landscaping along the northern edge of the property;" and "Doors shall be closed during periods of operation."


Mr. Paschke reviewed meetings held to-date with the Vogels, neighbors and staff to resolve ongoing issues in complying with the condition and meeting expectations of the adjacent neighbors.  Details of these meetings and negotiations are outlined in the RCA.  As noted in lines 54 - 61 of the RCA, Mr. Paschke advised that on August 11, 2015 the Vogel's submitted their new proposal (Option 2, Attachment D) to comply while addressing requirements of the utility easements, and staying out of those respective Xcel Energy and CenturyLink easements along their northern property line. 


Subsequent to that submittal, Mr. Paschke noted that that option was rejected by the neighborhood and on August 12, they submitted their own alternative plan (Attachment E) with their belief that the Vogels can install the fence on the property line without severing underground cable or violating Xcel's overhead easement.


Mr. Paschke advised that staff had requested both parties or their legal counsel to be present at tonight's meeting; and is seeking clarity from the City Council regarding their IU condition of June 23, 2014 and direction for staff to work with the Vogels on a provision that meets this confirmed requirement to finally resolve this situation.


Councilmember McGehee had several questions of staff, with staff responding accordingly and addressing plan submittal timing and site plans displayed and their creators; comparisons of submittals from the applicant and the neighborhood, and staff's rendition for a potential resolution of their interpretation of the City Council's intent with their condition; fence locations and heights as well as their beginning and end; and the status of and intent for the existing fence in disrepair and poorly maintained as currently evidenced.


Further clarification was requested by Mayor Roe and Councilmembers Willmus and Laliberte specific to clarifying the location of the property; what is left of the existing fence; actual location and width of the easement area as it relates to the property lines and existing fence; intent of the applicant to retain the existing fence and install a secondary wooden fence at a height of 6' in front and 8' for the remainder to the other end of the Vogel property; and defining changes between the City Council's June of 2014 condition applied by the City Council and the situation today that would prohibit the Vogels from complying and locating the fence in that location, with staff confirming there was nothing preventing that compliance to his knowledge.


Further discussion ensued regarding unconfirmed requirements of Xcel Energy and CenturyLink easements for over ground and/or underground utilities that would preclude installation of a fence; or whether hardships could be addressed for future access by hand digging versus machine excavation as necessary; and the intent of Vogel for maintenance of the existing fence.


Applicant Representative, Dan Wall, Esq.

As legal counsel for Vogel Mechanical, Mr. Wall provided written comments to staff earlier today via e-mail dated August 24, 2015, and presented as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof..


As outlined in his written comments, Mr. Wall noted his client was unaware of the existence of easements already in place; but questioned the City Council demanding that the applicant go to the expense of $30,000 to $40,000 installing a fence over a utility easement that may later be removed or destroyed if and when access is required.  Mr. Wall stated his intent to perform further due diligence and research in searching the title for the origin or potential existence of other easements on this property before an application is submitted to the City's Building Department for installation of the fence. 


Mr. Wall referenced meetings of himself, Mr. Bilotta and Mr. Paschke, and the fence contractor that they thought responded to neighborhood concerns and located the fence 20' back in addition to plantings to shield the parking lot from neighbor's decks to the north and provided for a visual extension of their backyards as well, and further softening the area.  Mr. Wall clarified that it is not the intent of the Vogels to obstruct anything, simply to realistically address neighborhood concerns while complying with the City's IU conditions and meeting requirements of the utility easements on their property.  Mr. Wall admitted that, when the IU was applied for and subsequently granted, the existing of the utility easements had been an unknown.


When they became available, Councilmember Willmus requested a copy from Mr. Wall of the actual easements and also for the actual language; opining that there were fences installed in easements all over the community.


Mr. Wall responded that he would comply with that request; however, he suggested Councilmember Willmus consult with the City Attorney on whether or not the City Council could require a fence to be installed on an easement whether or not Xcel Energy was insistent regarding its location or not.


Councilmember Willmus further opined that the actual language of the easement could make a difference in what would be placed within that easement.


Mr. Wall advised that the easement language would be included in the fence permit application when the process evolved to that point.  Once the easements were defined, Mr. Wall noted that the project could proceed without further delay avoiding further disruption from a small pocket of the neighborhood to the north of the Vogel parcel. 


With Mr. Wall's request that the City Council take immediate action to vote up or down the Vogels' permit application for the fence installation, Mayor Roe clarified that this was a staff action based on the City Council's direction, at least under normal circumstances.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Wall advised that the Vogels were willing to go back 20' from the existing fence for installation of the new fence, which was of no consequence to the applicant.


Regarding Councilmember McGehee's request about maintenance of that area, Mr. Wall advised that it was Vogel property so they needed to maintain it.  However, Mr. Wall noted that at issue was the neighbors' objection to a greenway allowing dog walkers or lawn mowing; opining that was an unrealistic objection and part of living in an urban environment.  Mr. Wall offered the Vogels' willingness to apply for a building permit to install a fence to comply with the easements or back 20' staff, however, recommended by staff.  From his point of view, Mr. Wall opined that the option of 20' back provided the neighbors with the best alternative.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Wall advised there was no reason to extend the fence along the entire northern property line when the original intent and request of the neighborhood was to screen the parking area.  However, when the actual permit application is submitted, Mr. Wall advised that they would rely on staff's discretion as to their approval or denial based on the City Council's direction regarding the utility easement issue.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Wall advised that he anticipated a timeframe to confirm the easements and their specific language would be approximately two weeks.  Based on the land record in the process survey recently completed by the Vogels, Mr. Wall advised that it shows that some neighbors on the north may actually be encroaching with a fence post of structure (shed) on the Vogel parcel.  Once the land title information has been provided, Mr. Wall advised that more refined information would be available to clarify the situation.  Mr. Wall noted that the easement shows up on a prior deed but not on the Vogel deed they received when purchasing the property.  Mr. Wall reiterated that the applicant had no intention of installing a fence on top of a utility easement protecting underground power lines.  Mr. Wall noted that the easement was intended for the protection of the neighbors and for their benefit.


Lisa McCormick, Terrace Drive North Neighborhood Representative (legal representative)

In response to Mr. Wall's comments, Ms. McCormick sought to clarify a few facts regarding the initial Vogel IU request before the Planning Commission in June of 2014; and addressing some misrepresentations or minor inaccuracies she found in staff's RCA.  Ms. McCormick stated that the original request was not just to screen the parking lot, but as recorded in the Planning Commission minutes, the neighbors' request was for a barrier between the commercial and residential uses, not simply to screen the parking lot.  With parallel conversations at that time about the potential rezoning of this area for community mixed use (CMU), Ms. McCormick noted neighborhood concerns for potential increased density or intensity of adjacent uses, thus prompting this additional barrier; and subsequent responses by the Planning Commission and City Council with relevant conditions applied.


Ms. McCormick noted that the Vogels signed the IU agreement, as conditions, and between then and now sufficient time should have been available for them to research this situation.  As referenced by the Vogels' legal counsel, Ms. McCormick noted a misquote specific to apparent neighbor objections about lawn mowing or dog walking in the easement area, clarifying that the author of that e-mail was Community Development Director Bilotta, not the neighbors or their representatives.


Ms. McCormick noted the increasing animosity between the neighbors and Vogels throughout this process, which seemed to indicate a tall fence may be a good, ultimate solution and prove most beneficial for the neighborhood.  Ms. McCormick noted concerns of the neighbors with the opening behind their lawns; but clarified that any fence or fence posts or other structures did not belong to the neighboring properties, but had been place - and never maintained - by former Vogel parcel and building owner Aramark.  With the Vogels indicating the existing fence could or would be removed, Ms. McCormick advised that this prompted the neighbors' rejection based on potential trespass issues and in response to Vogel concerns about neighbors potentially encroaching onto their property.  Ms. McCormick noted the fence is shown on the property line, and in her personal observation of the site, she found stakes indicating that the existing fence had actually been constructed on neighbor properties.


Ms. McCormick opined that the point about easements was being missed, since a fence currently exists, the Vogel parcel would benefit from that fence since Xcel had installed a new transformer feeding off those underground utility lines within the easement area to facilitate their business needs.  Ms. McCormick noted there had been no interruption from any parties while Xcel Energy was digging the trench to construct those transformers. 


While appreciating easement concerns, Ms. McCormick noted that the applicant had not provided any documentation to support their concerns.  In her work with an Xcel designer for another municipal client, Ms. McCormick asked for an Xcel contact who confirmed for her that this utility easement was only 10' in width; and referred her to materials online (e.g. Xcel Energy guidelines, general policies and procedures, tree maintenance near power lines supported by diagrams, distances for plantings, and brochure outlining plantings for safety near electrical service distribution versus transmission lines), as displayed for the City Council and public audience, indicating another inaccuracy alluded to in the RCA.


Since the existing fence has been in existence for at least thirty years, Ms. McCormick stated that she would like to see proof that they can't comply with the condition as applied.  However, Ms. McCormick noted that it was up to the City Council to decide if Vogel was required to abide by those conditions before operations; further noting the expiration of provisional occupancy as of August 15, 2015, yet without compliance.


Ms. McCormick referenced and read a portion of the neighborhood petition originally submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the applicant's request, seeking 100% opaque fencing for the entire length of the northern parcel boundary as part of any conditions applied for IU approval; and for the purpose of providing a barrier and visual screening for immediate neighbors related to light and noise, and at no time requested only for the purpose of screening just the parking lot.


At the request of and referencing the currently displayed landscaping diagram, Ms. McCormick clarified that the neighborhood proposal was seeking replacement of the existing fence versus previous consideration and discussion of a sleeve to convert the existing fence posts for board on board fencing.  While not having heard whether or not that option remains viable, Ms. McCormick stated that in her own independent consultation with a fencing contractor, if the Vogels' contractor didn't think that was possible, she had been advised that there where augers to accomplish that task.


Councilmember McGehee sought confirmation as to neighborhood agreement if the fence was moved 10' to 15' closer to the Vogel property with their maintenance of trees from boundary to boundary.


Without further consultation with neighbors, Ms. McCormick advised that she was unable to respond.  However, Ms. McCormick noted that the Vogels had made it clear that they do not want trespassing on their property, causing her to think that proposed solution may be problematic for the Vogels' lawn care of that property.


In response to Ms. McCormick's statement, Councilmember McGehee opined that would be the Vogels' problem based on assurances from their representative tonight that they would maintain the area.


If the Vogels shifted the fence to the south and installed plantings on the north side of the fence, Councilmember Willmus asked Ms. McCormick if that would provide a potential solution, if it was determined that vegetation could be installed on the utility easement versus a fence.


Ms. McCormick questioned what would happen under that proposal with the space between, depending on what was determined sufficient for the utility company if they only needed 10' or 15' easement; and whether or not the existing fence would remain or be removed.  Ms. McCormick opined that she'd expect the neighbors would want some barrier on the property line, but reiterated that the existing fence had not been maintained for years.  If the Vogels agreed to do maintenance and clean it up from their side, Ms. McCormick stated that she would still need to consult with the neighbors to confirm their agreement with that proposal.


Mr. Wall clarified that this last proposal would benefit the neighbors not the Vogels, with the fence on the south and plantings on the north, since most of the growth is on the neighbors' side, not the Vogel side.  If the growth was on the Vogel side, Mr. Wall advised that it would have been addressed already.


Ms. McCormick responded that she and/or the neighbors could walk the property to confirm that statement by Mr. Wall, but had been told not to trespass on Vogel property.


Councilmember Laliberte questioned the topography of the properties along the boundary lines if the fence was located 10' further to the south and closer to the Vogel building and whether this would impact views if the fence was higher in one place than the other.


Mr. Wall responded that it would not; and Mayor Roe responded that only the sight line may be impacted.


Regarding his original proposal for the fence shifting to the south and plantings on the north side and what it would look like, Councilmember Willmus asked if there wasn't some compromise for both parties, and leaving the existing fence in place.


Mr. Wall confirmed that this was the Vogels' proposal for resolving this issue.


At the request of Councilmember Etten as to how that differed substantially from the Vogels' proposal #1 or #2, Councilmember Willmus advised that the only difference would basically be the fence would not be continuous.


Councilmember Laliberte referenced the latest rendition of the diagram most recently created by Mr. Paschke, stating her preference the fence not on the line and continuous from the east to west property lines, with the only reduction in height to 6' on the east edge and the remainder at 8' in height.


Mayor Roe noted the 6' height was based on City Code and that location closer in proximity to the street.


Public Comment

Kathleen Erickson, 1790 Centennial Drive

Ms. Erickson provided written comment to staff via e-mail dated August 21, 2015 regarding this agenda item, presented as a bench handout, and attached hereto and made a part hereof.


Ms. Erickson referenced her written comments as noted above and history of this IU and proposals related to conditions applied to its approval. 


Ms. Erickson provided a photo of the Vogel property being mowed immediately adjacent to the existing chain link fence and to her residential property and deck as an example of why the neighbors were insistent in the need for the opaque fencing.  In the picture, Ms. Erickson noted the person on a riding mower with protective headgear unable to hear their requests to vary mowing times, or in some way respond to their concerns about disrupting meals or family gatherings on the deck.  Ms. Erickson addressed visual issues, with the photo taken from their kitchen table that very evening and immediately adjacent to their deck creating additional issues with fumes and noise.  Ms. Erickson noted a recent family gathering that had to be moved indoors from the deck due to fumes and noise.


Ms. Erickson reiterated Ms. McCormick's comments that the fence had been installed by Aramark at least thirty years ago.  Ms. Erickson also noted the unknown with the Vogels as to traffic generated and their operations and what all that entails, opining it may prove worse than the Aramark operation.  Ms. Erickson noted their observations of the Xcel work on the line for the Vogel operation.


Ms. Erickson stated that it had been sixteen months since Vogels agreed to the conditions, and while the neighbors had tried not to complain, there kept waiting for resolution.


Ms. Erickson noted a recent situation where she observed from her property that there were two men out behind their property looking through the fence; and when she asked them what they were doing, they responded that they were performing a survey for Vogels to determine their property line, at which time she requested their business card for verification.  When pursuing the conversation, Ms. Erickson stated their response was that whoever installed the existing fence did a good job as it was almost right on the property line.


Ms. Erickson repeated that neither she nor the neighbors were trying to be mean or cause trouble for the Vogels, but they just wanted to have their privacy and have the Vogels take responsibility for their own property and provide a differential between residential and commercial properties, as was the neighborhood's understanding.


Councilmember Willmus asked the City Attorney to opine regarding legalities of locating a fence within an easement area.


City Attorney Gaughan advised that a review of each specific easement agreement would be critical in defining requirements.  However, Mr. Gaughan clarified that the question before the City Council for direction to staff and interested parties was strictly related to whether or not a 6' to 8' opaque fence and plantings - as conditioned - should be installed at the northern edge of the property line if the easement language prohibits fence construction there, or installation at the northern edge of the easement point as the second option.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, City Attorney Gaughan agreed with the applicant's legal counsel that two weeks seemed a reasonable amount of time to obtain and verify easements.


Councilmember Willmus suggested having this item return for formal action by the September 14, 2015 regular City Council meeting.


Mayor Roe suggested, since the City Council condition was already memorialized, the only direction needed to staff was to clarify that the fence must be built on the property line or northern most point not encumbered by a utility easement.


City Attorney Gaughan confirmed Mayor Roe's comments, including installation of coniferous plantings as part of that condition as well.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, clarification and direction to staff that the City Council's Interim Use condition of June 23, 2014, as referenced in the RCA dated August 24, 2015, that the opaque fencing of 6' to 8' in height, coniferous plantings, and landscaping will be installed along the northern property line in its entirety, unless easement agreement(s) preclude a fence from being installed at that point; and if so the installation will occur at the northernmost point allowed and tied into the eastern property line at that point.


At approximately 10:00 p.m., Etten moved, Willmus seconded, extension of the curfew to finish this discussion, to hear the presentation and update related to the draft tree preservation ordinance amendments (Item 15.a), and to address any Councilmember initiated items for future meetings (Item 17).

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Willmus moved an amendment that if the easement requires fencing move to the south of the northerly property line, and if plantings are allowed on the easement in accordance with easement language, and if neighbors agree to it, plantings be located on the north side of the fence.  Willmus further clarified the point, with agreement by the makers of the motion, that the plantings be placed on the northern edge of the fence, subject to easement requirements.


The makers of the original motion agreed with that amendment, allowing for three possibilities to resolve this issue.


Ms. McCormick noted that the original Planning Commission record indicated coniferous and over-story canopy trees.


Mayor Roe clarified, with confirmation by City Attorney Gaughan, that the language of the Interim Use as conditioned was the official record, not discussion at the Planning Commission meeting and was not under consideration be changed at this point.


Councilmember Laliberte expressed concern with plantings on the northern side if the fence was moved to make room, this brought up the grey area again between one location or another.


Mayor Roe noted that the safeguards were in place for the neighborhood's approval of tree placement.


Based on his reading of the Interim Use, City Attorney Gaughan advised that it struck him that the Vogels would be in compliance if they installed the fence on the northern most edge of the property - or subject to easement restrictions.  While placement of the line of trees could be subject to a discussion between the Vogels and neighbors, City Attorney Gaughan advised he didn't think it was appropriate to have that included in the directive to staff that installation was subject to neighbor approval as it would not be consistent with the original condition.


With Mayor Roe expressing confusion as to how to word the motion to provide for that discussion with neighbors regarding location of plantings, City Attorney Gaughan reiterated that discussion with neighbors was not nor should it be part of the Interim Use.


Mayor Roe noted that whether the plantings were all north or all south of the fence should not make a difference to the Vogels.


Regarding the existing fence and lack of maintenance, Councilmember Laliberte sought to confirm who was responsible for that maintenance.


Mayor Roe clarified that the maintenance of the existing fence continued to be the responsibility of the existing owner; ant they could take it down or leave it at their discretion, since it was their property.


Specific to the purpose of the trees, Community Development Director Bilotta noted that while the neighbors may view this as a second barrier, staff's interpretation of that purpose would be more aesthetic to break up the fence, and was intended as one tree per 50 linear feet to achieve that aesthetic perspective.  Mr. Bilotta sought confirmation and agreement with that perspective from the City Council allowing staff to work out the details.


According to Mr. Paschke's drawing, Councilmember McGehee opined that it seemed to provide even distribution and an aesthetic second barrier without creating a solid windbreak.  Councilmember McGehee noted her recollection of a noise attenuation stated at some point, with Mayor Roe clarifying that it may have been requested, but had not been included as a condition of IU approval.


Councilmember Willmus agreed that noise had been referenced by a member of the Planning Commission, but not included in the IU; or as confirmed by Mayor Roe that it was part of their discussion, but not a recommendation to the City Council.


Councilmember Etten agreed with the aesthetic purpose, allowing staff to make a determination on the exact number of trees.


Mayor Roe advised Mr. Bilotta that the City Council agreed with staff's perception regarding an aesthetic purpose for tree plantings.


Motion Restated as Amended

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, clarification and direction to staff that the City Council's Interim Use condition of June 23, 2014, as referenced in the RCA dated August 24, 2015, that the opaque fencing of 6' to 8' in height, coniferous plantings, and landscaping will be installed along the northern property line in its entirety, unless easement agreement(s) preclude a fence from being installed at that point; and if so the fence installation will occur at the northernmost point allowed and tied into the eastern property line,in which case, if plantings are allowed on the easement in accordance with easement language , and if neighbors agree to it, plantings will all be located on the north side of the fence.


                                                Roll Call (As Amended)

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

Nays: None.


14.         Business Items - Presentations/Discussions


a.              Consultant Check-Back Regarding Draft Tree Preservation Ordinance Amendments

Tree consultants Ben Gozola from Sambatek, and Mark Rehder from S & S Tree Service were present for this update of a DRAFT Tree Preservation Ordinance dated August 24, 2015.


Mr. Gozola summarized work done since last meeting with and direction provided by the City Council, resulting in this latest draft and seeking additional direction based on this update, clarifying that it remained a work-in-progress.


Mr. Gozola went over each section as Councilmembers provided their feedback as applicable.


Section G. Tree Preservation Plan Set Requested - Matrix, (Page 5),  Subd. D.i.1

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Gozola confirmed that the difference in determining final diameter and caliper inches was addressed in definitions.


Section H. Tree Preservation Simplified Plan Set (Page 7)

Mayor Roe suggested that the simplified plan set show setbacks and landmarks to quantify where they were located, or include a simple drawing to the effect. 


Mr. Gozola responded that specifications were intended as part of the policy to handout; and enforcement would include someone on staff verifying tree protection fencing was in the proper location.


Mayor Roe suggested as part of the "trees in lieu of" portion, that it be addressed via policy rather than in the ordinance to determine that direction.


Mr. Gozola noted some things yet to be addressed included, but were not limited to, rate replacement numbers allowed, removals allowed, and equivalencies.


For the benefit of staff and his Council colleagues, Councilmember Willmus requested review of the triggers or development of a special set of regulations pertaining to minor lot subdivisions in an attempt to avoid larger lot splits for smaller lots to minimize impacts.  Councilmember Willmus noted that, while it may be initially expensive to put together, he had seen it done successfully in other communities.


Mayor Roe suggested that may be part of minor subdivision platting discussions.


City Planner Paschke advised that it was actually part of the Building Permit process, allowing property owners to split a lot for a minor subdivision of up to three lots at a time, at which time the Building Permit required the builder to provide that survey and tree protection documentation.


Councilmember Willmus opined that his concern was that a developer or property owner could impact the valuation of a lot by going that route.


As it now stated in existing policy and as proposed, Mr. Paschke advised that the builder was required one way or another to provide a tree restoration or preservation plan.


Councilmember Willmus referenced current minor lot subdivision requirements in low density residential (LDR) Districts.


Mayor Roe clarified that they were not required if exempted in minor subdivisions, but required by the Building Permit for at least 50% of the structure which should address any new construction; but not an issue created by the subdivision itself.


Councilmember Willmus reiterated that he still wanted to look at it.


To that point, Councilmember Etten referenced situations where people may divide properties and remove trees before actually proposing a development to skirt the tree preservation issue.


Since the current tree preservation ordinance was enacted, Mr. Paschke advised that he was not aware of any such situations with trees cut down or complaints to that effect.  Mr. Paschke opined that most people are conscious of regulations and any property owner doing minor code provisions similar to those being proposed and seemed amenable to them, mostly affecting smaller developers building on vacant lots of split lots. 


Under the proposed ordinance, Mayor Roe sought comment from Mr. Gozola on how to avoid the potential concern raised by Councilmember Etten about someone taking out trees in anticipation of a replatting application.


Mr. Gozola responded that one of the main ways cities addressed that concern was in requiring permits to cut down trees, but recognized that the City of Roseville wished to avoid that and therefore had not proposed such a provision.


Councilmember Etten stated that he was fine in exempting minor lot splits as he didn't consider that to be a potential major issue; but his concern was in demolition for new construction and heavy impacts with clear cutting on adjacent properties.


Councilmember McGehee expressed her concern in looking more closely at impact zones around roots, questioning whether that should be exempt related to minor subdivisions.


Councilmember Etten noted the proposed provision for a tree inventory of trees along property lines that may be impacted but not on the subject property.


Councilmember McGehee suggested she discuss her additional concerns offline as she had numerous issues that she didn't see addressed in this draft, some of which included habitat, clustering, techniques for boulevard trees.  However, Councilmember McGehee expressed appreciation for providing that decisions would be made by registered foresters or certified arborists as addressed in the beginning of the document, but preferred consistency in qualifications throughout the ordinance for those specifications.


Mr. Gozola advised that the language had been drafted to provide for potential vacationing or unavailability of the forester, at which time someone else can be assigned that role provide they had the same qualifications.


Councilmember McGehee questioned the difference in protecting roots through a drip line versus measuring the diameter at breast height of a tree, suggesting a simple calculation for residents was preferred.  Councilmember McGehee clarified that she wasn't so much concerned in cost savings for developers, but for residents without access to or understanding a CADD system, the ordinance needed to provide an easy-to-use system that worked for all trees.


Mr. Gozola provided rationale for choosing the "root protection zone" language as it was actually easier to measure in the CADD system without having to assess each and every tree for the drip line based on a particular species.  Mr. Gozola advised that this provided for an average methodology and provided overall cost savings for applicants-whether residents or developers, since they would both need to hire a survey done to locate trees.


Councilmember McGehee further addressed her appreciation of including pruning based on timing if not allowing for wound dressing.


Councilmember McGehee opined that it appeared that this draft exempted a lot of areas for ponding, rights-of-ways, and other areas that may need included; and asked if Mr. Gozola was aware of any other communities that may have addressed that concern.  Councilmember McGehee noted problems in potential cutting of trees during the height of nesting that may be in the way, but endangering individual wildlife habitats.


With few exceptions, Mr. Gozola opined that most cities would consider such a requirement to be onerous for residents in general.


Sambatek Memorandum, Section I. Allowable Tree Removal,  (page 4)

Councilmember Etten expressed concern in tree removal process versus results, suggesting it may be just the opposite of what he intended.  Councilmember Etten clarified that he was addressing developments clear cutting parcels with little tree return, dramatically affecting neighborhoods and ecosystems; and represented his reaction to several developments where this had happened within the last few years, where significant growth trees were gone and sticks planted.  Councilmember Etten noted this was a very important purpose aspect for him in the ordinance.


General Observations

Councilmember Etten expressed appreciation for a number of the pieces included in this draft, including the numbering systems to determine a clear way forward.


Section G. Tree Preservation Plan Set Requested - Matrix, (Page 5),  Subd. D.i.4

Councilmember Etten noted the actual size for deciduous trees and coniferous trees and their respective diameter breast heights (DBH), which varied with each of those types.  While the draft ordinance provided a window on page 3 for coniferous trees, Councilmember Etten questioned why the target had been established in that range and how to make the conversion for coniferous and deciduous trees.


Mr. Gozola noted that the numbers are a best guess starting point at this time, and the different ranges shown on page 3 were subjective at best.


Mr. Rehder agreed, noting that future tweaking of the matrix would address those numbers.


Councilmember Etten stated his interest in considering a range of deciduous and lower DBH numbers due to tree growth as referenced in the summary table on page 6, essentially preserving more trees and counting more types of trees as part of those considerations that he'd find important; while addressing rights-of-way that may include more trees.


Councilmember Etten opined that the example provided was interesting, but in his review of previous developments, it would seem that requiring no trees where the existing ordinance may have required more plantings seemed more appropriate, while this again seemed to move in the opposite direction.  Councilmember Etten reiterated his overall concern that this draft may actually preserve fewer trees, and he didn't want to create something moving in the opposite direction.


Mr. Rehder opined that wasn't the situation, with the proposed numbers supporting more trees.  Mr. Rehder opined that the point of looking at a property and working backward, addressing the value of existing trees and fitting them into a matrix to arrive at a suitable number was a  more realistic approach, and in the case of the cash in lieu of option, not as much of a burden.


Councilmember Etten thanked Mr. Gozola and Mr. Rehder for the good information provided that showed how the new calculations would have affected past developments.


Section J. Replacement Tree specifications, Item 2 (page 8)

Councilmember Etten asked if a tree preservation plan was presented, after which a totally different development with grading plan, was developed that impacted trees differently, how this section would apply unless the same plan came back with the same type of qualifier.


Mr. Gozola agreed that clarifying language was needed in that section.


Councilmember Etten stated that he was comfortable with the process to use 1.25" per DBH for clarity and providing an electronic process for a certified person to accomplish.


General Comments

Overall, Councilmember Etten thanked Mr. Gozola and Mr. Rehder for their work to-date on this draft.


Mayor Roe suggested setting minimum radii of a circle and referencing the drip line as well to provide more flexibility.


Mr. Rehder agreed that there should be a minimum referenced.


Councilmember McGehee stated she was not much in favor about cutting down all trees on a parcel and planting them elsewhere in the community, and questioned if that was becoming a common practice.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her preference that some of the new tools for development providing for grouping of clumping plantings on a site would be of more help.  Councilmember McGehee stated that she envisioned such an option creating a sea of asphalt, and a developer deciding there was no good place to plant trees, so they'd choose to do so off-site.  While the concept of distributing trees around the City is a nice idea, and understanding difficulties in some commercial areas, Councilmember McGehee opined that if adjustments were made to accommodate planting on site, she found it difficult to believe that reasonable accommodations could not be made on site.


Mayor Roe clarified that the intent was not to state categorically that all planting on site may be inconvenient, but instead allowing that if one or two trees couldn't be accommodated on site, their relocation off-site may be allowed.  Mayor Roe further noted that clumping trees is permissible - either currently or proposed.


Councilmember McGehee opined that her rationale in discussing some of her ongoing concerns was to avoid giving someone an option not to comply, but providing that an outside forester making the observation and stating what can or cannot be done.


Mayor Roe clarified that there were no differing opinions on that concern, and there were three options provided in the draft ordinance addressing it.


Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Gozola and Mr. Rehder for their work to-date, opining with some additional tweaking, it was a very good document.


b.              Policy Priority Planning Document Discussion

Deferred to a future agenda.


15.            City Manager Future Agenda Review


16.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

Councilmember Laliberte advised that she had several phone calls over the last few weekends from residents complaining about drones flying over their properties during the night and asked that a future meeting agenda provide for discussion of this issue.  Councilmember Laliberte asked that City staff check with neighboring public safety staff, particularly in Ramsey County and/or the Village of St. Anthony, about any ideas they might have to address this issue before it became more prevalent.  Councilmember McGehee reported on instance where the drone had actually hit the side of a home.


Councilmember McGehee advised that she'd even had requests from residents that the City Council consider a drone ordinance; and asked that this be part of the broader discussion requested by Councilmember Laliberte.


Councilmember Laliberte also asked for an update from staff on the neighborhood self-organizing kits for trash collection at a future meeting.


Given the continued deferment due to lack of time on meeting agendas for discussion of the Policy Priority Planning document, Councilmember Laliberte asked that a special meeting be scheduled for the sole purpose of finalizing that document.


Mayor Roe agreed with Councilmember Laliberte's suggestion for a special meeting to address the Policy Priority Planning document.


17.         Adjourn

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:58 p.m.


                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.