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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

March 28, 2016


1.       Roll Call

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


2.         Pledge of Allegiance


3.         Approve Agenda

Councilmember Etten requested removal of Item 8.g and Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Item 8.f from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.


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


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee 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 & City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements


Mayor Roe announced a vacancy on the Finance Commission for a mid-term appointment through March 31, 2017, and reviewed the application process and anticipated appointment by April 18, 2016.


Mayor Roe announced upcoming "Ask the Experts" seminars on various topics of interest to homeowners, scheduled during April at the Ramsey County Library " Roseville Branch, sponsored in part by the Library and City of Roseville.


Councilmember Laliberte provided an update to the City Council and public on the first meeting of the Cedarholm Golf Course Task Force.  Councilmember Laliberte reported that the first meeting involved introduction of a good, large and diverse group, scheduling and calendaring of meetings.  Councilmember Laliberte advised that information would be posted on the city's website for citizens to follow along with this group of volunteer decision-makers tasked with making a recommendation to the City Council on the existing and future clubhouse situation.


Councilmember Laliberte asked staff to provide announcement information at the next few City Council meetings related to the April 16, 2016 CHAT (Community Health Awareness Team - successor to the Block Nurse Program) event scheduled to be held at Centennial Methodist Church in Roseville.  Councilmember Laliberte advised that this event would include a panel discussion on health care directive; and specifics for future meetings.


City Manager Trudgeon provided an update on the deer population, and recognized receipt of emails from citizens to staff.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that Ramsey County had recently completed their flyover to estimate a preliminary deer population and their general locale.  Mr. Trudgeon reported that, similar to last year, the deer herds appeared to be centralized in the north and northeast portion of Roseville.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that the next steps would be for Ramsey County to meet with cities in Ramsey County sometime in April to consider options, at which time Roseville staff will provide more detailed information to the City Council and public.


City Manager Trudgeon confirmed that the meeting would be held by Ramsey County with city staff from various communities; and noted many of the cities in Ramsey County already had well-established deer management programs in place, and staff intended that their first involvement after enacting the Wildlife Management Ordinance and Plan would be a learning experience for them.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff would bring back that information and perhaps schedule a future presentation to the City Council on those findings and suggested options.


6.         Recognitions, Donations and Communications


a.            Proclaim Arbor Day

Mayor Roe read a proclamation proclaiming April 29, 2016 as Arbor Day in the City of Roseville, encouraging citizens to nurture and protect trees to help positively impact the environment.


Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, proclaiming April 29, 2016 as Arbor Day in the City of Roseville.


                        Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee 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 March 14, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the March 14, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended.



Page 7, Line 30 (Laliberte)

·         Typographical correction: Correct to read "Roseville County" to "Ramsey County"

·         Page 12, Line 2 (Laliberte)

Typographical correction: Correct to read: "Councilmember Etten's thoughts about having that information available; advising that [staff] [he]"

·         Page 21, Line 37 (Roe)

Typographical correction: Remove parentheses from "in parks"

·         Page 24, Line 41 (Roe)

Typographical correction: Add "and" before Chelsea Holub

·         Page 29, Line 27 (McGehee)

Typographical correction: change "paid" to "paying"

·         Page 29, Line 35 (Roe)

Typographical correction: Remove "back-ups"

·         Page 31, Line 13 (Roe)

Typographical correction: Revise to read "ownership [before] [for] the [main] [lateral] for the sanitary sewer;"

·         Page 32, Line 17 (Roe)

Remove "Mayor Roe" from this sentence

·         Page 33, Line 6 (McGehee)

Correct to read: "[form] [from] the view given during [inspecting] [the inspection of] mains,"


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


8.            Approve Consent Agenda

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager 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 March 28, 2016.


a.            Approve Payments

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


ACH Payments


80775 - 80933





                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits

Councilmember Laliberte noted several applicants had checked the box "yes" in having had previous licenses that had been revoked, suspended or not renewed.  Councilmember Laliberte sought to make sure staff had not overlooked these responses and background investigations had been thorough for all applicants. Councilmember Laliberte also noted fees having been revised and reduced in several instances.


Finance Director Miller responded that, for license fees, staff's remarks indicated prorating of the fees to reflect a different calendar cycle and payment for the number of months a license is in effect.


While not having personally reviewed the business license applications, Finance Director Miller advised that city staff and Roseville Police had done criminal background checks, and licenses would not be issued unless each application was completely vetted and met all city code requirements.


Councilmember Laliberte admitted her discomfort in approving business licenses without having that information documented with the applications.


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


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


c.            Approve General Purchases in Excess of $5,000

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as noted in the RCA dated March 28, 2016, and Attachment A entitled, "2016 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," dated February 29, 2016.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


d.            Approve July 4th Fireworks Display Agreement

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of an Agreement with Pyrotechnic Display, Inc. (Attached); and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the documents for the firm's performance of the 2016 fireworks display.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


e.            Consider Donation of Property Located at 0 North McCarrons Boulevard

Councilmember Laliberte suggested a future public recognition of the McCarron Family for their donation of this 1.17 acre parcel adjacent to Villa Park, and perhaps a marker on the property acknowledging the family's donation.  Councilmember Laliberte asked staff if they had an estimated value of the property and/or future work for restoring this natural area.


City Manager Trudgeon reported that this is a work-in-progress, and there had been talk of a bench on the parcel to acknowledge the McCarron family donation; but advised staff would report back to the City Council when a recommendation is finalized.


Councilmember McGehee also thanked the McCarron family as well and applauded the city's intent to keep this as a natural area, noting that it serves as part of the watershed for Lake McCarron.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. (Attachment D) entitled, "A Resolution Accepting a Gift of Real Property located in Roseville, Minnesota;" and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the necessary documents to secure the property's acquisition.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


h.            Approval to Renew Minnesota Criminal Justice Data Communications Network Subscriber Agreement and Court Data Service Subscriber Amendment

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the renewal of the Minnesota Criminal Justice Data Communications Subscriber Agreement (Attachment A); and approval of the Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment to the CJDN Subscriber Agreement (Attachment B); authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the documents.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


9.         Consider Items Removed from Consent


f.             Authorize Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Property Access Agreement to Villa Park

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA and related attachments of today's date.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that this was part of a larger statewide effort, at no cost to the city, and supported and recommended by staff.


Councilmember McGehee stated her rationale in emphasizing this item was to request that staff provide timely periodic reports on how this system is working, since the city currently didn't have any experience with this type of installation.  Since this is a device being used heavily as part of the city's overall storm water management best management practices (BMP) program, Councilmember McGehee suggested updates on how effective it was proving to be.


City Manager Trudgeon noted that actually two situations were occurring: MPCA monitoring of pathogens and bacteria, and the Capitol Region Watershed District monitoring for the infiltration system itself.  Mr. Trudgeon agreed that this provided a great opportunity to expand the knowledge of the city and staff related to this type of BMP.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of an MPCA Property Access Agreement (Attachment A) at Upper Villa Park Property and their installation of a monitoring well, with staff authorized to work with the MPCA on final placement of the monitoring well to avoid any use conflicts; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the agreement.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


g.            Order Feasibility Report for the Owasso Private Drive Storm Water Project

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA and related attachments of today's date.  For cost-sharing purposes, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the proposal was for benefitting residents to be assessed 25% of the actual cost for this improvement.  Mr. Trudgeon clarified that this request is seeking authorization for ordering the feasibility report as a first step, and not authorizing the improvement itself.


Councilmember Etten asked the estimated cost for replacement of the road surface only on this private road.


City Engineer Jesse Freihammer estimated the cost of surface pavers would be $110,000, but noted the underlayment worked as a system with the pavers as well.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Freihammer advised that the city currently maintains this road (e.g. snow plowing), and this paver system would require additional long-term maintenance by the city for periodically vacuum sweeping of the pavers.


Councilmember Etten questioned the city paying a large portion of this private road improvement and long-term maintenance as well.  While recognizing the goal of the city to address water quality and the need for maintenance to do so, Councilmember Etten opined that there was a fine line in taking such action; and further opined that this was over and above the city's responsibility in using public funds to pay for part of the construction of and long-term maintenance of a private road.


Mayor Roe asked if this roadway was intended to have curb and gutter installed, or if it would drain off the sides.


Mr. Freihammer advised that, while the road doesn't need curb and gutter since it didn't function as a normal road and water would drain through the pavers, residents had been considering asking for installation of curbs on one side of the road as a buffer.  Mr. Freihammer noted that this would be one of the items identified as part of the feasibility study.


Mayor Roe asked staff's estimated cost for an asphalt road.


Mr. Freihammer advised that he didn't have that information available offhand; but also noted there would be complications in meeting stormwater needs and designing a system at that location.


Specific to the paving itself, Mayor Roe supported looking at the options through a feasibility report. However Mayor Roe agreed with Councilmember Etten in questioning at what point the city was providing a nice road compared to the current gravel option when that road is basically used as a private road.  Mayor Roe suggested, similar to the city paying for asphalt equivalent costs when patches are required to concrete roads, that funding mechanisms consider that the neighborhood pay for the equivalent of an asphalt road and then further negotiate maintenance options and costs going forward.


Councilmember Willmus asked if at any time discussions had occurred about the city taking over right-of-way aligning with the private drive.


Mr. Freihammer advised those discussions had not occurred based on his knowledge.  Mr. Freihammer noted that several years ago, the affected residents had sought and received a permanent easement versus a lease from the railroad; and noted that the city also had utility easements running through that area.


Councilmember Willmus questioned if the adjoining property owners to the easement had requested that the city take over that private roadway.


Mr. Freihammer stated that he believed those neighbors had asked the city to take on the road as a city road; but noted there were too many issues required to bring it up to city street standards.


Regarding maintenance (snow plowing), City Manager Trudgeon noted that there were city utilities (e.g. fire hydrant) at the end of the private road supporting the city's long-standing practice to provide snow maintenance to make those utilities accessible.


Councilmember Etten noted that, for the most part, the city would be paying a significant amount of the cost for construction and maintenance of this private road, even though.  Councilmember Etten opined that there should be a more significant cost-sharing by residents adjacent to this private road to address the improvements as well as long-term maintenance and future replacement.  At a minimum, Councilmember Etten suggested an upfront contribution by the residents to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to address those future needs, or other options to facilitate them.  Councilmember Etten reiterated his concern in the city having significant costs for the private road and future maintenance of it.


Councilmember Willmus noted numerous locations within Roseville with private drives; and as addressed by Councilmember Etten's concerns, questioned if the city was setting a precedent with this private drive.


Councilmember Etten also asked for information of other situations citywide with city utilities at the end of private drives; and how the line is drawn in each of those situations.


Mayor Roe recognized these were all valid questions needing to be addressed as part of the feasibility study.


Councilmember McGehee referenced the technical nature of this, as tied to the previous Item f on another lake with stormwater runoff supposedly with more filtering, but remaining an unknown at this time.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in learning how the city and watershed districts can embed something, if the decision was made to move forward with this request, to determine what contaminants were actually entering the lake(s).  Since there is no other system currently like this in Roseville, and from her perspective it seemed the intent was to address runoff currently sheeting off the surface and not infiltrating before reaching the lake, Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in learning if the goal was being reached with efforts such as this and the previous request.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11310 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Ordering Preparation of a Feasibility Report for Owasso Private Drive Storm Water Project;"


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


10.        General Ordinances for Adoption


a.            Adopt an Ordinance Creating Planned Unit Development (PUD) Standards within the City Code

City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed past action of the City Council in hiring the firm of Sambatek to complete PUD standards for the city; and discussions to-date at Planning Commission and City Council levels.  Mr. Paschke noted the Planning Commission's public hearing held on March 2, 2016 leading to tonight's updated presentation to the City Council since their last review of the document on December 7, 2015.  Attachments were provided as detailed in the RCA of this date. 


Ben Gozola, Sambatek

Prior to his presentation, Mr. Gozola referenced the various attachments, as well as an additional marked up copy of new Chapter 1023: Planned Unit Developments, provided as a bench handout and made part of the staff report.


Mr. Gozola reviewed the history of the process, the project understanding by his firm, and overarching goals of the PUD ordinance. 


In referencing Attachment B during his presentation, Mr. Gozola noted this is a clean copy of the proposed language allowing for easy reading of the ordinance, and including comments explaining specific provisions being proposed in addition to items for further consideration by the City Council.  Mr. Gozola noted that the City Attorney had reviewed the document as well; and reviewed those areas receiving major and minor changes since the document was last before the City Council, moving section to section of Chapter 1023, and referencing the comment section of the marked-up ordinance.


Bench Handout

·         Page 13, Line 318 (McGehee)

Councilmember McGehee noted the need to correct language using PUD as a possessive noun, duly noted by Mr. Gozola.


·         Page 9, Line 260 (McGehee)

Councilmember McGehee agreed that the term "true north" was too technical and use of "north arrow" by the consultant was preferable.


Attachment C

·         Page 4, Line 106-108 (Willmus)

Specific to density, Councilmember Willmus asked if that would be phrased differently for residential and commercial developments.


At the request of Mr. Gozola, staff confirmed that there was no standard commercial floor ratio, and this was unique to residential density.


Mayor Roe suggested stating "residential" density accordingly, duly noted by Mr. Gozola.


·         Termination (Willmus)

Councilmember Willmus suggested the ordinance include a termination clause, with his preference being termination at 12-months post-approval of the final PUD document.


·         Page 9, Lines 249-250 (Willmus)

Councilmember Willmus suggested similar language for Concept and Final PUD Plan submittals, allowing items flagged and/or waived or if different than those initially submitted between those stages.


Mr. Gozola referenced language on Page 8, lines 224-225 related to PUD Sketch Plans, suggesting that language be inserted as noted by Mayor Roe on Page 12, Item c between lines 370-371 and paralleling that other language.


·         PUD Qualifications (Willmus)

Councilmember Willmus questioned PUD qualifications related specifically to multi-party ownership, such as situations with silent partners.  Councilmember Willmus noted the specificity of this proposed language identifying "all persons or entities with ownership interests," and questioned if the proposed language precluded Limited Liability situations having silent partners.


City Attorney Gaughan opined that he didn't believe it would preclude that situation, noting that typically non-silent partners would possess authority to act on behalf of the entity as a whole.  Mr. Gaughan opined that he was not aware of a situation where any partnership contingent within an entity of such size and authority would allow partners to act without the knowledge or authority of all partners.  Mr. Gaughan further clarified that this could be part of the legally written consent, and part of that consent would be affirmation of purported owners.


·         Traffic Studies (Laliberte)

Councilmember Laliberte noted the city typically requesting traffic studies, but if mitigation solutions were subsequently required as a result of that study (e.g. parking structures) questioned if that would that be appropriate based on Mr. Gozola's familiarity with other PUD models.


Mr. Gozola responded that such a study would be a submittal requirement at the Concept Stage, and if deemed necessary by the city, then the study would be requested outlining what would be needed for subsequent approval by the city, and conditions placed on PUD approval as such.


·         Second Notice Elimination (Laliberte)

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte as to when notice of the process would occur, Mr. Gozola reviewed the steps, (Page 6, line 151) with the first step being the initial developer open house required (Chapter 1102.01) and the process to be followed for those meetings.  As part of that process, Mr. Gozola clarified that notices of upcoming developer open houses and City Council review dates as indicated by staff would already have been sent out as part of that first step.  Mr. Gozola noted that the question became whether that same review was needed for the City Council portion.


Councilmember Laliberte agreed with that process as long as the open house and City Council dates were included in that notice and not skipped over to allow constituents to be aware of City Council actions.


Mayor Roe noted that the second open house, which was also noticed, would be another opportunity for connecting with surrounding residents.


·         Termination (Laliberte)

Councilmember Laliberte agreed with Councilmember Willmus that something specific was needed; and agreed with a twelve-month duration if nothing happened, the developer/applicant would need to start the process over again.


Councilmembers Etten and McGehee agreed with the addition or a termination clause.


Mayor Roe noted that, if no action occurred during that 12-month period, approval became moot, but agreed with adding that language to the termination clause.  However, Mayor Roe suggested language for twelve-months, or as per any other City Council approved timeframe, allowing greater flexibility.


Councilmembers Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and McGehee agreed with Mayor Roe's suggestion, as long as the termination didn't remain open-ended.


While current staff and council members were aware of the intent now, Councilmember Willmus noted the need to address future personnel to ensure something didn't fall between the cracks due to it not being memorialized within the PUD ordinance.


Mr. Paschke stated staff's openness to including such language, but suggested an option be included should a developer choose to extend the period before or prior to the PUD becoming a moot point and seeking an extension of a reasonable period along with their reasons for not yet having begun the project.  Mr. Paschke noted that this would require the developer to seek City Council approval to extend the PUD with language addressing that extension accordingly.


Councilmember Willmus agreed with the proposal, but asked to see the actual language itself.  Councilmember Willmus noted building permit language for subsequent construction.  If actively engaged in implementing it, Councilmember Willmus opined that was a different situation than final approval having been granted and then the developer goes away and the city doesn't hear from them for a year.


Mayor Roe noted that, without objection, the City Council was interested in language to address this issue.


Bench Handout

·         Page 12, "2.i PUD Final Plan Submittal Requirements," Lines 358 - 362 (City Attorney Gaughan)

City Attorney Gaughan noted that provision related to an operating and maintenance plan for common areas provided on page 13; and suggested it be struck out of this section on page 12.  Mr. Gaughan noted it originally came from a new provisions and referenced a Development Agreement, but noted that a Development Agreement is not required at the Final Plan submitted making the reference inappropriate.


Since that was not a mandate, and at the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan suggested striking the first sentence from Item 2.i, and the remainder remain as written.


Without objection, Mayor Roe noted the City Council's agreement with this revision.


·         Page 3, PUD Qualifications, Section 1023.05 (lines 68 - 70) (Etten)

Councilmember Etten asked how and why this needed sorting out and how it was unique, suggesting it was applicable to enhanced developments no matter their size.


Mr. Gozola noted this same discussion occurred with the City Council in December of 2015, with the conclusion being that while PUD's were typically set for two acres, some flexibility was preferred so as not to eliminate some projects that the city may want.  Mr. Gozola noted that it would be harder to achieve some of the goals outlined in the ordinance to qualify under a PUD as those properties decrease in size.  But, Mr. Gozola stated the intent was for the city to state to a developer that if they could show us they could achieve a desired project on a smaller parcel, the City Council would consider it.


Mayor Roe, with concurrence by City Attorney Gaughan, agreed this would retain the City Council's discretion for each project.


·         Page 12, Lines 377 - 381 Voting Majorities (Etten)

Councilmember Etten sought clarification as to whether this vote required for approval was a simple or super majority vote.


Mr. Paschke stated it would be a simple majority vote.


Councilmember Willmus questioned if that was always applicable, should a PUD be considered a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.


Mr. Paschke, with confirmation by City Attorney Gaughan, responded "no."


Mayor Roe noted that the PUD had to meet the underlying zoning.  However, he noted some votes required a simple majority vote of the full City Council versus a simple majority vote of the quorum present and sought clarification of which applied.


City Attorney Gaughan clarified it would be a simple majority vote as required for a zoning amendment, unlike the super-majority necessary for "up zoning, and thus the existing Comprehensive Plan designation."  At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Gaughan opined that he didn't suspect it would not require a majority of the full body for a PUD, but offered to verify that information.


·         Page 15, Section 1023.11P: PUD Cancellation (Etten)

Councilmember Etten again sought clarification as to the percentage vote required to create a cancellation, with Mr. Paschke and Mayor Roe agreeing that a simple majority would suffice.


Mayor Roe requested that Mr. Gozola and staff return with a document reflecting tonight's discussion and revisions for final review and approval.


Councilmember Willmus asked that only one copy of the document be included in the next agenda packet to avoid confusion.


Councilmember McGehee thanked Mr. Paschke and Mr. Gozola for getting this PUD ordinance done, opining that on her part it had been long-awaited and much appreciated.


With agreement by his colleagues, Mayor Roe stated this document was much better than the city's previous ordinance.


b.            Consider Amendments to Roseville City Code Chapter 201, Advisory Commissions; Chapter 205, Human Rights Commission; and Chapter 207 Ethics Commission

City Manager Trudgeon briefly summarized the RCA and Attachment B consisting of a draft ordinance highlighting proposed amendments to City Ordinance, Chapter 201 related to the city's advisory commissions.  Mr. Trudgeon sought feedback from Councilmembers as to staff's proposed changes based on previous discussions and actions.


Councilmember Etten expressed his appreciation for the majority of the changes.


Section 201.06: Organization (Etten)

Councilmember Etten suggested moving the contents of Item H (lines 34-25) into Item A related to election of officers at the first meeting or change language in line 14 to include "appointment of an Ethics Commission representative (per Chapter 207 as reference)."


Councilmember Laliberte agreed that was a great fix.


Mayor Roe suggested the same could be accomplished by striking Item H up to the word "appoint" with the remaining language moved to Item A, immediately after "elect a chair and vice-chair, [and a member to serve on the Ethics Commission] from among its appointed members for a term of one-year."


City Manager Trudgeon duly noted Mayor Roe's suggestion; without objection.


Special Meetings

Councilmember Willmus questioned the need to include language related to special meetings for all advisory commissions, while recognizing the necessity for the Planning Commission for certain land use items and their timing.  Councilmember Willmus questioned what had previously been in individual advisory commission language.


City Manager advised that it varied, with some not mentioned and others having a separate chapter, some in-depth about operations and others not addressing it; and resulting in an inconsistent standard.  While it is critical for the Planning Commission to hold a special meeting as needed, Mr. Trudgeon suggested the revised language allowing all advisory commissions to hold a special meeting.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that he didn't know if and when it may come up, but noted as an example the current language that prevented the Ethics Commission from calling a special meeting under current code.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that lines 39 - 40 (page 1) allowed commissions to amend their regular meeting schedules.


Mayor Roe clarified that current language requires a majority vote of the advisory commission at a regular meeting, but didn't allow a special meeting being called between regular meetings, noting that the revised language provided them with a mechanism to do so.


Section 205.02 (page 2, lines 57-58): Scope, Duties and Function (Laliberte)

Specific to the Human Rights Commission (HRC), Councilmember Laliberte expressed appreciation for their suggestions, making their scope much better and more relevant than it had been.  However, Councilmember Laliberte stated she was struggling with the purpose language stating "to encourage full participation in and uphold the Minnesota Human Rights Act" Councilmember Laliberte suggested a transition word may be missing.


Mayor Roe agreed, suggesting that "the affairs of this community and uphold the Minnesota Human Rights Act."


Without objection, Councilmembers agreed with Mayor Roe's suggested language, duly noted by City Manager Trudgeon.


Mayor Roe asked that City Manager Trudgeon double-check that revision with the HRC Chair.


Section 207.01 (page 3, line 98): Establishment and Membership (Roe)

Mayor Roe noted a grammatical correction, revising "all" to "each" and changing "commissions" to singular case when referencing appointment of Ethics Commission representatives, duly noted by City Manager Trudgeon.


Without objection, Mayor Roe requested that staff return with final revisions for review and consideration by the City Council.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte specific to the Ethics Commission, City Manager Trudgeon reported that the Commission had met a few days after the last City Council discussion while that feedback was still fresh.  However, due to current code language, Mr. Trudgeon advised that a subsequent special meeting could not be scheduled.  In an email to current Ethics Commissioners, Mr. Trudgeon advised that he asked them to share any comments with him going forward that he would subsequently share with the City Council.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that he had heard nothing to-date, but was aware sitting commissioners fully supported the City Council's rationale and didn't feel any personal rejection or animosity, recognizing that the proposed changes made sense.


11.        Presentations


a.            Receive Presentation from Northeast Youth and Family Services (NYFS)

Mayor Roe welcomed Jerry Hromatka, President and CEO of NYFS.


A copy of Mr. Hromatka's presentation was included as part of the agenda packet materials for tonight's meeting; and he highlighted some of those items.


Mr. Hromatka noted the partner relations with fifteen "municipalities" not just cities; and advised that initially the program had been a partnership of ten, and was now up that 15 after the recent merger.


Discussion between Mr. Hromatka and council members included academic and therapeutic support in area school buildings; day treatment for mental health issues being of a more intensive nature and during the class day lasting from six months to one year; transitioning clients back into the community as they lean to manage their illness and return to their classroom or a less-restrictive learning environment.


Mr. Hromatka noted that NYFS will be celebrating their 40th anniversary this year, with a Leadership Lunch scheduled in May of 2016; and the annual NYFS Board of Directors' initiative for the Mayors Challenge Golf Tournament at Keller Golf Course scheduled June 13, 2016, serving as a fundraiser above and beyond grants and contracts used to fund NYFS programs.


Councilmember McGehee personally thanked Mr. Hromatka for this annual presentation, and recognized his commitment to the community and the work he did.


While Mr. Hromatka served as the face of the NYFS organization, Mayor Roe recognized the many people making it work.  On a personal note, Mayor Roe again highlighted the Mayors Challenge Golf Tournament, and offered various ways to participate, including sponsorship.


Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Hromatka for his attendance and presentation.


12.        Public Hearings and Action Consideration


a.            Public Hearing to Approve/Deny an On-Sale Wine and On-Sale 3.2% Liquor License for New Bohemia-Roseville LLC, d/b/a New Bohemia Wurst & Bier Haus, a new restaurant located at 2730 Snelling Avenue N

Finance Director Chris Miller briefly summarized the request for this new restaurant in Roseville.


Mayor Roe noted that no representatives of the restaurant were in attendance to speak.


Mayor Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 7:55 p.m., with no one appearing for or against.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of New Bohemia - Roseville LLC's request for an On-Sale Wine License and an On-Sale 3.2% Liquor License located at 2730 Snelling Avenue N; contingent on successful completion of background checks.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


13.        Budget Items


a.            Receive 2015 Budget to Actual Results for Selected Funds

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Finance Director Miller provided two bench handouts, showing cash reserve level comparison information for key operating and capital funds for years 2014 and 2015.


Finance Director Chris Miller clarified that the 2015 budget to actual results for selected funds as detailed in the RCA remained preliminary and had not been fully audited at this point. Mr. Miller clarified that the anticipated General Fund surplus had yet to be realized and instead noted a current operating deficit of $311,000+.  Mr. Miller noted that this was in part due to December tax collections of approximately $400,000 less than expected due to a number of properties filing tax petitions contesting their assessed market valuations.  Until those outcomes are settled, Mr. Miller advised that Ramsey County would withhold funds, and anticipated the petitions should be finalized later in 2016, but recognized some may extend into 2017.  Mr. Miller advised that similar tax petitions had been filed in 2015 and since resolved.  Mr. Miller noted that the current properties represented several office buildings and hotels in the Twin Lakes area, and warehouses on the west side of Roseville.  Once the petitions move through the tax courts, Mr. Miller advised the funds should be received by the city, but he was unable to project how much until later this year or early in 2017.  While staff often anticipates some petitions, Mr. Miller noted that the magnitude this year had proven remarkable based on the city's past experience.


At the request of Mayor Roe for clarification of the viewing audience, Finance Director Miller displayed the graphs for the four funds: General, Parks & Recreation, License Center and Communications, and provided specifics of each.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Finance Director Miller noted the significant jump of $300,000 in Community Development Department reserves was due to a huge jump in permit activity levels between 2014 and 2015.


Councilmember Willmus sought clarification on structural changes made to the Water Fund.


Finance Director Miller noted that this fund had always been in a tenuous position as the city struggled to meet infrastructure needs for the Water Fund without also building up that fund's cash reserves.  Given the excess reserves in the Stormwater Fund, Mr. Miller noted last year that the City Council authorized a $2.5 million transfer from the Stormwater Fund to the Water Fund.  As a result, Mr. Miller referenced favorable and positive comments from several bond agencies as they recognize the proactive steps taken by the city to strengthen its financial situation and provide some tax relief.  Mr. Miller congratulated the City Council for taking those steps, noting that people were noticing.


While recognizing that the City Council authorized some new positions in the License Center this year, Councilmember Laliberte asked Finance Director Miller for his projections for 2016 revenue versus that of 2015.


Finance Director Miller responded that it was too early in the process to make such a projection, with some of that additional staffing just coming on board and only three months into 2016.  However, Mr. Miller opined that 2016 was on a pace to beat last year's mark, even with that additional staffing.  Also, Mr. Miller noted that new staffing models had yet had a chance to capitalize those new positions by soliciting new auto dealer and/or passport business.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Finance Director Miller advised that he and City Manager Trudgeon had been discussing the number of new positions and restructuring within the organization and suggested a report or update to the City Council after six months underway.


City Manager Trudgeon concurred with that timeframe.


Mayor Roe noted the additional tax relief realized from License Center revenue in the past, and expressed his hope that business levels would further add to those revenues.


b.            Approve Amendments to the 2015 Budget

As detailed in the RCA, Finance Director Miller noted only one requested budget amendment, noting this was an annual procedural step to demonstrate compliance from the authorized budget to actual budget.  Mr. Miller advised that the City Council had already authorized the expenditure, but his was simply formally documenting that authorization.


Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of a year-end amendment to the 2015 Roseville City Budget as detailed in the RCA dated March 28, 2016.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:14 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:21 p.m.


14.        Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Request for Approval of REZONING a Portion of Property along Dale Street from Low Density Residential-1 (LDR-1) District to Low Density Residential-2 (LDR-2) District; and PRELIMINARY PLAT of 5.82 acres in 17 Lots

A revised Preliminary Plat dated March 28, 2016 was provided as a bench handout, and made part of the staff report.  Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd summarized this request as detailed in the RCA involving a rezoning request for a portion of properties along Dale Street from LDR-2 to LDR-2, and approval of a preliminary plat of 5.82 acres into seventeen lots. 


Mr. Lloyd noted that with submission of the preliminary plat as presented tonight, the original request for outlots was no longer necessary to facilitate lot boundaries, based on the most recent updated survey.  Mr. Lloyd referenced remaining conditions recommended by staff and outlined in the RCA. 


Mr. Lloyd noted that the proposal is for 32' wide streets with parking on both sides as supported by staff.  However, Mr. Lloyd advised that the developer is interested in limiting that width to 28' with parking along one side if the City Council is supportive.  Mr. Lloyd noted that the developer is proposing the reduced width of the street to facilitate traffic calming.  However, Mr. Lloyd noted that nearby residents expressed concern in transition from a 32' to 28' wide street; and in recognition of their apprehension, the Planning Commission had recommended 32' wide streets.  Mr. Lloyd advised that the developer is fine with either width, but clarified that the City's Public Works and Planning Departments could support the 28' wide substandard street, leaving that final decision at the discretion of the City Council.


Mr. Lloyd advised that earlier today, an email discussion had occurred related to the Tree Preservation Plan associated with this particular request.  Mr. Lloyd reported that due to his initial misunderstanding of that request and the application, and the dates when the current Tree Preservation Ordinance too effect, he had incorrectly assumed all materials would be based on that new version.  However, Mr. Lloyd noted that astute members of the City Council noted that not all calculations or information accompanied the Tree Preservation Plan, and he had incorrectly identified that the new ordinance was governing this application, when instead, the old ordinance was governing and those requirements would be put in place.  As a result, Mr. Lloyd recommended an additional condition (F) be placed on the approval, requiring approved tree preservation plans, grading plans, and other documentation required by code as a condition of approval of the final plat.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Lloyd clarified that his understanding of this applicant was that they were in the land development business, and then turned over actual construction of the homes to builders rather than looking at each lot for specificities of the home's footprint and driveway construction.  Mr. Lloyd noted that the developer and planning staff had made the best guess about how the development may occur; in addressing construction limits and tree removals/damages as part of the actual construction process.  If the removals and/or damage exceeded those limits, Mr. Lloyd advised that a supplemental tree preservation plan would need to be submitted.


Regarding rezoning of Lots 7 - 12 to LDR-2, Councilmember Willmus asked what steps were involved for individuals potentially acquiring one of those parcels and instead of constructing a one-family detached home, to construct a two-family detached of attached dwelling, since either were permitted uses in LDR-2 districts.


Mr. Lloyd responded that while both are permitted uses in LDR-2 zones, the proposed size of the lots between 6,000 to 7,000 square feet in area would not facilitate anything other than a single-family detached home, since a two-family unit on a single parcel required 4,800 square feet per unit.


Mayor Roe noted that such a use would require replatting of a lot; with Mr. Lloyd confirming that situation.


Councilmember Willmus asked that the applicant provide information regarding their intent for protective covenants and what those covenants might look like regarding the physical structure or style of home a potential builder or lot purchaser could construct.


Councilmember McGehee requested that Mr. Lloyd or the applicant explain in more detail the nature of the issue(s) with transition from a 32' to a 28' wide street.  Councilmember McGehee noted that her street was an example of such a transition and she found no noticeable transition, opining that the curve in this case would provide a nice traffic calming approach, especially with this new through street coming off Dale Street.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that she had a hard time understanding the angst of the neighbors with such a transition in width.


Mr. Lloyd responded that neighbors apparently found the change in width to be generally disorienting, noting that the proposal for a 28' wide street had been supported initially by the City's Public Works Department in their report to the Planning Commission and recommended condition with parking allowed on the south side and width transition occurring on the north side.


Councilmember McGehee noted that traffic is always a problem raised by neighbors, and recognized that the developer had tried to address that through the reduced width and traffic calming efforts.  Councilmember McGehee also noted this would reduce impervious surface; and reiterated her inability to see a problem with it.


Councilmember Willmus referenced his viewing of the Planning Commission meeting and the number of residents speaking to the width, noting the concern was one of transition and also stacking all parking on one side of the roadway.  From his perspective, Councilmember Willmus opined that he found a wider road to be better, and expressed his preference in hindsight that it had been followed with the Mueller Development.  While the road will carry some level of traffic, Councilmember Willmus further opined that, from a traffic perspective, he'd prefer a wider roadway and noted the number of speakers at the Planning Commission meeting having concerns with that transition.


In RCA Exhibit A (page 5, line 162), Councilmember Etten referenced City Code, Section 1103.04 related to drainage and utility easements and their 12' width.  Councilmember Etten noted that this plat shows 10' and questioned why that width had not been corrected since the Planning Commission meeting.


Mr. Lloyd responded that it had been revised in the intermediate version of the plat related to outlots; but opined it may not have been caught in this latest preliminary plat presented tonight.  However, Mr. Lloyd noted that it is addressed in Condition A and continued standing language that the plat shall meet all subdivision code requirements for easements, etc.


Councilmember Etten clarified that the condition would demand that the final plat provide a 12' utility easement, with Mr. Lloyd confirming that width at 12'.


On that same RCA Exhibit A (page 7, lines 231 - 245), Councilmember Etten noted concerns about ponding and drainage in the overall stormwater management plan; and asked if any updates were available on those concerns.


Mr. Lloyd deferred that question to Public Works staff or the applicant, reporting that he had not been involved in those conversations and how the plans were advancing in meeting some or all of those concerns.


Councilmember Etten referenced Lots 4 and 5 on the north edge of lots abutting Wheaton Avenue, noting that it appeared that several trees on the east side of the proposed drainage pond would be unable to survive, even though they were shown as remaining in the applicant's tree preservation plan as submitted.  Councilmember Etten questioned how much elevation change (e.g. 3') would be involved and how the trees could possibly survive.


Mr. Lloyd advised that he would make a note for the City's Arborist to review that area.


Mayor Roe sought clarification on the next steps for this process, assuming this request is approved.  Mayor Roe noted that the final plat had not yet been submitted and would be a separate approval process from this preliminary approval.  Under those circumstances, Mayor Roe asked staff if the new tree preservation ordinance would apply to the final plat.


Mr. Lloyd advised that the old city code specified that a preliminary plat would not be approved without a tree preservation plan, and assuming the tree preservation plan and preliminary plat develop in tandem and meet requirements for approval, he interpreted that this version of the tree preservation plan as part of the preliminary plat would remain the approved plan and not a new tree preservation plan accompanying the final plat.


City Attorney Gaughan concurred with Mr. Lloyd that the actual tree preservation plan submitted with the preliminary plat would remain throughout the final plat approval process.


Mayor Roe noted that the property lines relative to a roadway were the subject of an upcoming text amendment and subdivision code amendment coming before the Planning Commission next month.  Mayor Roe noted that the lot lines included in this preliminary plat didn't meet the letter of current city code requiring that lot lines be perpendicular or radial to the road.  Mayor Roe recognized that this had been addressed in the draft Planning Commission meeting minutes, but asked staff how the City Council dealt with that situation and approve a plat not meeting lot requirements for LDR-2 districts under the current subdivision code, and with that code not currently allowing non-radial sidelines.


Mr. Lloyd read actual text from that section of current city code related to lot standards and its specificity.  However, Mr. Lloyd noted that that code also provide no definition of "street line" and in this case could therefore either apply to the right-of-way or the curved line of Wheaton Avenue, or more even more broadly from one end to the other end of the east/west street.  Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had reviewed both scenarios for the Planning Commission, and suggested if the City Council was most comfortable with the street line interpretation, they could approve the application with the straight line right-of-way and all lost could still continue to meet minimum size requirements and that interpretation would not compromise the ability of the plat's approval.  On the other side, if interpreted more broadly with the east/west street line connection, Mr. Lloyd noted that all lots would be perpendicular to that in contrast to the street that is in the actual curve from one direction to another versus the gently undulating line of Wheaton Avenue.  Mr. Lloyd opined that either choice was reasonable and defensible.


Regarding the size of LDR-2 lots as proposed, Mr. Lloyd read the subdivision code standard requiring 85' wide and 110' deep lots, totaling a minimum of 11,000 square feet in area.  Mr. Lloyd advised that staff's position, since the new zoning code had been adopted in 2010 for a variety of reasons, was that while this single-family detached dwelling lot size applied to LDR-1, due to that new zoning code as adopted, LDR-2 detached developments with homes smaller than standard, as well as in medium density residential (MDR) districts, were appropriate for smaller lots than indicated in the subdivision code.  As an example, Mr. Lloyd noted that the City Council had approved a similar situation for Garden Station (former Fire Station site) for smaller than standards but still conforming to MDR lot sizes for that type of development.  Mr. Lloyd referenced RCA Exhibit 1, staff's report to the Planning Commission March 2, 2016, where considerable time was spent discussing any apparent conflict, but staff still advocating and supporting the LDR-2 part of the plat and its conformity to city requirements for single-family lots even though it appeared to conflict with the subdivision code.


Mayor Roe sought clarification that the street line definition and zoning code application for lot sizes were included in the request for applicable text amendments coming before the Planning Commission.


Mr. Lloyd confirmed that, noting two minor amendments were anticipated: side lot lines and street lines.  Mr. Lloyd advised that both would deal with eliminating existing conflicts between single-family detached lot sizes and substandard lots allowing that.


Councilmember Etten requested additional discussion and clarification of the old tree preservation plan as part of preliminary plat approval.


Mr. Lloyd noted that the trouble had always been that the final approved tree preservation plan couldn't be finalized until after final plat approval, and stormwater grading and other components had been sufficiently addressed.  Mr. Lloyd advised that the best staff could do was include a recommended condition of approval to ensure that staff and the developer continue to update the tree preservation plan to meet any of those changes with engineering plan.


Councilmember Etten questioned if there had ever been a final tree preservation plan as part of preliminary plat approval.


Mr. Lloyd responded that, while the tree preservation plan may appear final, it would change with grading on the site.  Mr. Lloyd noted that the tree preservation plan basically conforms to the former ordinance's requirements in accordance with findings of the City's Arborist and reasonable accounted for trees under those calculations.  Depending on whether the City Council approves a straight or curving street, Mr. Lloyd noted that would also affect the tree plan and requested rezoning and lot density along Dale Street.  Mr. Lloyd opined that the plan as presented is as reasonable as can be accomplished for this type of project.


Given Mr. Lloyd's initial misunderstanding and the significant difference between the old and new tree preservation plans, in terms of the final outcome, Councilmember McGehee questioned if the new plan would have significantly changed the number or size of trees required to be preserved.


Mr. Lloyd responded that the level of detail submitted under the provisions of the new tree preservation plan would have provided a more detailed inventory and more refined breakdown of trees accounted for versus dismissing some of the trees not required for preservation due to their species.  Therefore, Mr. Lloyd opined the new plan may have indicated replacement obligations would be higher with the new version of the ordinance, based on the consultant's review of various examples between the old and new ordinances as presented prior to its adoption.


Councilmember McGehee asked if it was possible to add a condition of this preliminary plat approval that it conform to the new tree preservation plan.


At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan clarified that this request is not simply a preliminary plat application, but also a rezoning request.  Specific to rezoning requests, Mr. Gaughan advised that the city retained a wide latitude and broader leverage for approval, much wider than that of preliminary plat approval if the applicant conforms to those regulations.


Mayor Roe noted, with confirmation by City Attorney Gaughan, that this leverage was limited to those lots along Dale Street, under the specifics of the rezoning request.


City Attorney Gaughan advised that the City Council could make the argument that this preliminary plat violates current zoning as presented, and could be denied based on that finding.  However, City Attorney Gaughan clarified that the City Council's basis for denial of the application would be nonconformance with zoning code.  With Councilmember McGehee's request that a condition of approval be the applicant's conformity with the city's new tree preservation ordinance, City Attorney Gaughan responded that this would be a more appropriate topic for agreement between the parties.  City Attorney Gaughan cautioned that the City Council also needed to be cognizant of the 60-day approval schedule in enumerating their findings, pending any extension of that approval schedule.


At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan further clarified that if the City Council chose to deny approval of the preliminary plat as presented, it would be based on the finding that Lots 7 through 12 did not conform to the city's present zoning code.  Mayor Roe noted that this provided rationale for the developer to apply for rezoning at this time in conjunction with the preliminary plat to remove that inconformity.


Applicant Representative(s)

Peter Knaeble, Golden Valley Land CO. and Matt Pavek, Land Development Partner; both Civil Engineers specializing in infill land development


Mr. Knaeble provided a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consisting of an updated aerial view of the proposed Wheaton Woods; and an architectural rendering of a sample single-family home for the smaller lots along Dale Street.


Peter Knaeble

Mr. Knaeble provided a brief review and background of their firm's expertise in other challenging development infill projects in first-ring suburbs in the metropolitan area, mostly in the western suburbs.  Mr. Knaeble noted this would be their first development project in Roseville, and expressed their excitement in addressing this unique site.  Mr. Knaeble noted their work with staff for a number of months, and meetings to-date with neighbors, and their attempts to address some of the concerns expressed by neighbors during those initial meetings as the proposed development evolved.


Regarding Councilmember Willmus' request for clarification of their role in this project, Mr. Knaeble advised that their firm was a land development company; and while they didn't do the actual construction themselves, but designed the project with the expertise of their development and engineering staff, they did hire contractors.  Mr. Knaeble advised that those contractors would then be responsible to submit final home plans to the city to obtain a building, while the Golden Valley team would oversee that construction, and then sell finished lots to those contractors.  With the seventeen proposed lots, Mr. Knaeble advised that they had been talking with two local builders, both having had Parade of Home models in adjacent communities in the recent past. 


Based on information from customers, Mr. Knaeble noted their firm had received positive interest in a project such as this in Roseville, with several potential customers having been interested in smaller lots, similar to those on Dale Street, for a number of reasons including their affordability.  Mr. Knaeble anticipated future homes on those smaller lots being marketed in the range of $350,000 to $400,000; while the larger lots on Wheaton Avenue will be valued at $600,000 or higher.  Mr. Knaeble noted that it was increasingly difficult to find this type of housing in Roseville as well as other metropolitan cities, creating some of that positive response to-date.  Mr. Knaeble noted that his firm would retain architectural approval for the project and contractors.  Mr. Knaeble advised that their firm didn't typically record covenants with their projects, but addressed housing styles and sizes as part of their plan review process. 


While recognizing that rezoning of Lots 7 through 12 to LDR-2 allows for twin homes, Mr. Knaeble stated his firm's select interest in single-family detached homes on those lots.  As had been stated at the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Knaeble noted his firm's willingness to adhere to any additional restriction or condition placed by the City Council to ensure that understanding.


Regarding the question of 32' versus 28' wide streets, Mr. Knaeble advised that, when looking at this project and existing platted rights-of-way from the cul-de-sac to Dale Street, they thought that by shrinking the street width it would provide traffic calming for Wheaton Avenue.  Mr. Knaeble noted that many communities in which they worked were reducing city street width standards from 28' to 32'.  Mr. Knaeble recognized the neighbors' points of view with the remainder of the neighborhood built to 32' wide streets and not wanting anything significantly different.  However, Mr. Knaeble spoke in support of the benefits of the 28' width slowing traffic as well as reducing impervious surfaces.  Based on their considerable amount of work with various metropolitan watershed districts, Mr. Knaeble noted the advocacy of those watershed districts in encouraging any opportunities to reduce impervious surfaces.  Mr. Knaeble stated that he didn't expect the transition in width to be a problem once built, noting that it would result in 2' to 4' on one side of the road and typically stretched out on the curved portion, not readily visible compared to a straight shot.  However, Mr. Knaeble stated his firm's willingness to agree with the decision of the City Council and their discretion as to width, reiterating his preference for a 28' wide roadway extension on Wheaton Avenue.


Specific to the 12' versus 10' easement, Mr. Knaeble admitted that was his error in quickly getting revisions for the latest version of the preliminary plat as presented tonight and as a result of county surveyor clarifications eliminating the need for the small outlots.  Mr. Knaeble advised that he would correct that to 12' on the final plat.


Regarding city code requirements that lot lines be perpendicular to the roadway, Mr. Knaeble advised that they had initially looked at radial lot lines, but questioned if the city would be interested in a lot being configured accordingly.  While with a larger subdivision it may make sense, Mr. Knaeble opined that with a smaller subdivision such as this it didn't make much sense.  Mr. Knaeble advised that their infill developments also plat lots opposite each other; and opined that adhering to that particular code requirement would not be appropriate nor would the city like the way it looked.  While recognizing that the design may not meet the strict interpretation of current code, Mr. Knaeble advised that their firm tries not to ask for variances for their projects, and opined that the current city code is not as clear as it could or should be for a project such as this.


Regarding tonight's discussion related to the subdivision code for LDR-2 districts, Mr. Knaeble advised that he couldn't address that and their relationship to each other.


Mr. Knaeble advised that when meeting with neighbors and hearing their concerns, admittedly something he and his firm had not thought about, drainage issues had been one of those concerns.  Mr. Knaeble noted one of the neighbors next door to their project's proposed Lot 1, Block 2 experienced standing water in this landlocked area every spring before the grand thawed, creating a significant drainage issue.  Therefore, to help alleviate that and as part of their development project, Mr. Knaeble proposed that a rain garden be installed to provide positive drainage to solve that concern, as well as addressing retention of the natural habitat area expressed as another concern for neighbors.  Mr. Knaeble noted that another major concern of residents was connection from the street, with Wheaton Avenue currently dead ended or served with a cul-de-sac as the right-of-way was currently platted, Mr. Knaeble noted that it was their firm's understanding that the city's intent was to eventually connect it, while recognizing that a lot of neighbors were under the impression it would not and actually preferred a dead end on Wheaton Avenue. 


Specific to the tree issue, Mr. Knaeble suggested a proposal to the city, similar to that his firm had done on other projects.  Mr. Knaeble advised that normally they would perform custom grading for the eleven larger lots, including addressing interim grade limits and rain garden infiltration in all areas beyond the strip where homes will be constructed.  While assuming trees will be removed as part of the home's construction, Mr. Knaeble advised that they left that up to the builders; but frequently found that the pads they laid out actually proved larger than the typical homes coming in.  By doing this process, Mr. Knaeble noted that if the builders build the homes, they'll typically design them around existing trees, an amenity in marketing the homes and properties.  While the tree preservation plan submitted by his firm shows the ultimate grading limit and calculates tree removal based on that limit, Mr. Knaeble noted that it was fairly conservative and anticipated fewer trees may be removed versus more.  By providing this more intense tree preservation plan, Mr. Knaeble noted that it served to eliminate any unexpected surprises during the engineering process.


Councilmember Willmus sought clarification as to whether Mr. Knaeble's firm designed the building pads and ran utilities or not.


Mr. Knaeble responded that their firm didn't do the design and ran utilities 10' in beyond the right-of-way (easement line).


Regarding the new tree preservation ordinance, Councilmember Willmus noted its language excluded single-family lots.  Councilmember Willmus asked what had served as the trigger regarding tree placemen ton smaller lots if not doing building pads and selling them to builders.  In other words, Councilmember Willmus sought clarification as to any obligation on the part of the builder pulling the building permit for a home under the new ordinance.


Mr. Lloyd advised that he had stopped consulting code provisions under the new ordinance since the old code would apply to this application.  However, Mr. Lloyd estimated that if lots developed under the old tree preservation plan they could be in compliance, but if under the new code a new home may exceed the new preservation plan by as much as 50%.  Mr. Lloyd noted that the tree preservation plan developed for the plat was triggered by the plat, and all lots would need to conform to the tree preservation plan and extends to any homes with a new accounting needing to be done at that point under the preservation plan attached to the plat itself.


Councilmember Willmus noted that some new homes may not see a permit pulled for 6 months to a year, and in some cases perhaps not even for ten years.  Councilmember Willmus asked if, in those vacant lot cases, if those homes would remain under the old tree preservation plan.


Mr. Lloyd responded that the tree preservation plan, as approved with the preliminary plat, was effective for two years.


Councilmember McGehee asked Mr. Knaeble if they could include a more consistent tree preservation plan with their various covenants for these lots. 


Mr. Knaeble offered to study that as an option; reiterating that their grading plan shows the anticipated limit and tree removal and/or replacement calculations, but expected the limit to be smaller than anticipated.  If for any reason the limits proved larger than anticipated, Mr. Knaeble agreed that it made sense and seemed fair from his perspective to meet those stricter requirements if additional trees are involved.


Mayor Roe noted that this remained voluntary on the part of the developer, since there was no trigger guaranteed from the city's perspective or required.


Councilmember Willmus noted if a Developer's Agreement was involved, the majority of the improvements would occur under the majority owner.


Councilmember McGehee asked City Attorney Gaughan if he saw an appropriate mechanism whereby the city could take advantage of its new tree preservation plan for development of these lots.


Subsequent to further discussion, City Attorney Gaughan reiterated the only recourse would be for the City Council to memorialize findings to deny the rezoning application.  Mr. Gaughan clarified that the city had a code in place setting forth regulations for subdivision approval; and if the applicant is consistent with those regulations as stated in current city code, the plat could move forward, as conditioned.  Mr. Gaughan advised that a voluntary agreement could not be used as part of the approval.


Mr. Knaeble noted that the two builders he referenced are both currently working on designs for potential customers, and in displaying one of those house style examples as previously noted, he noted it indicated they're working on two-story homes of approximately 2,000 square feet to fit on these smaller lots.  Mr. Knaeble noted that this represented a relatively modest home and as with any smaller home with a variety of architectural design, any larger existing trees would serve as an asset.


Regarding the question of which standards apply under which tree preservation plan, Mr. Knaeble advised that his firm would be comfortable with an additional condition as part of the plat approval such as if they exceeded grading limits, those additional trees would be subject to the new ordinance provisions.


Councilmember Etten reviewed those trees identified on the lot (477 in number) and those meant to be preserved (approximately 30 in number) and asked Mr. Knaeble if this was part of his grading plan, and sought clarification of what Mr. Knaeble anticipated would remain after site preparation was completed.


Mr. Knaeble responded that, after all homes were constructed, he anticipated Councilmember Etten's estimation of trees removed or lost would be relatively accurate.  Mr. Knaeble stated that the resulting 477 trees were identified as "significant" based on the city's current tree ordinance.  As noted and within grading limits, trees removed for rain gardens, ponds, and building sites would be counted as removed as part of the calculations.


Mayor Roe noted that those trees outside the ultimate construction limits were not counted as being removed or requiring mitigation, and as noted by Mr. Knaeble, only a handful of existing trees qualified for that.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee for clarification purposes, Mr. Knaeble sought to identify the areas inside or outside the grading limits, basically leaving a strip on both sides of Wheaton Avenue.


As noted earlier regarding plans meeting neighborhood concerns related to stormwater management and drainage, especially for Lots 8 through 10, Councilmember Etten opined that rezoning those lots to LDR-2 would only serve to exacerbate the potential water problem, especially if a retaining wall is installed.  Councilmember Etten admitted he was concerned with the developer being able to comply with stormwater requirements, especially along Dale Street and those proposed lots.


Mr. Knaeble advised that his firm was continuing to firm up those plans and final design of the lots.  Among those plans, Mr. Knaeble reported that an additional catch basin is intended on Dale Street at Wheaton Avenue based on concerns provided in staff's report for any additional water coming down Wheaton Avenue and escaping newly-installed infiltration ponds and before it gets to Dale Street.


Councilmember Etten noted the elevation along Dale Street from those lots to the streets versus north to Wheaton Avenue, and asked specifically how drainage issues for Lots 8, 9 and 10, currently landlocked, would be addressed with these plans.


Mayor Roe noted this involved addressing the Wheaton Avenue runoff in particular.


Mr. Knaeble noted existing drainage from Dale Street with its steep north/south grade.  Mr. Knaeble advised that the intent was with the new catch basin added in addition to those two to three already along Dale Street, and Wheaton Avenue drainage, any runoff coming from their lots would be addressed.


Councilmember Etten noted that a retaining wall was proposed for Lots 8 through 10 and asked how the additional catch basin would facilitate that blocked drainage.


Mr. Knaeble advised their plan anticipated a worst case scenario, but depending on house styles and plans, there may be no need to install retaining walls.  Mr. Knaeble advised that he didn't see anything currently blocking those existing drainage areas; but reiterated things would be worked out as part of the final design process.


Councilmember Etten stated his interest in receiving a response from the Public Works Department before those plans went too far to see if there was any problem from their perspective.


City Engineer Jesse Freihammer

City Engineer Freihammer advised that the intent of the conditions applied (RCA page 2, lines 21 - 29) were to address any drainage requirements.  Mr. Freihammer noted one option, if additional mitigation was indicated, would be to require the developer to add a pipe or outlot if drainage is held back from or in front of a retaining wall.  Mr. Freihammer noted that these requirements would all be worked out as the Public Improvement Contract (PIC) was developed.


At the request of Councilmember Etten in addressing additional runoff from these homes into the street, Mr. Freihammer advised that any additional runoff or flow from Lots 7 through 12 would be addressed through the additional catch basins.  Mr. Freihammer noted that considerable flow was already running down Dale Street; and opined that the change in flow is not that significant.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, and final width determination, Mr. Knaeble advised that they were not intending to construct a sidewalk along Wheaton Avenue.  At the further request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Freihammer clarified that with a 28' wide roadway and parking on one side at approximately 7', it would provide two 10.5' lanes.


With parking allowed on Wheaton Avenue, Councilmember Willmus asked where residents were intended to safely walk in this apparently heavily-used neighborhood connecting directly through to Dale Street.


Mr. Freihammer admitted they would still have to walk on the roadway, even though it could be argued that the smaller width would serve to reduce traffic.


Mayor Roe noted it could also be argued that a 32' wide road with 9' drive lanes and parking on both sides may provide even less room for pedestrians to walk safely.


Councilmember Willmus expressed concern with the curvature of the road and the city's ability to maintain and plow it to its full width in winter, noting similar situations where the snow doesn't get plowed curb to curb.  With a considerable number of active walkers in the community, Councilmember Willmus noted his concern with the safety aspect.  Based on that concern, Councilmember Willmus expressed his willingness to support a 28' roadway if a sidewalk was constructed on the western edge of the development carrying over to Dale Street, otherwise he stated he would support a 32' road width.


Mayor Roe offered an opportunity for the public to speak on this issue, with no one appearing for or against.


Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1496 (RCA Exhibit C) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Title 10 of the City Code, Changing the Zoning Designation of Certain Real Property;" rezoning Ramsey County PIN 02-29-23-44-0065 from LDR-1 to LDR-2.


Councilmember Etten stated his opposition to the motion, opining that he didn't agree with the RCA that these homes fit that neighborhood other than possibly on the full-width, larger lots.  As brought up in previously-expressed neighbor comments, Councilmember Etten stated his concern with stormwater drainage as more density is added in that area especially with existing drainage issues; and questioned if or how they could be fully addressed.


As the maker of the motion, Councilmember Willmus stated his support of the motion.  While recognizing the concerns of Councilmember Etten, Councilmember Willmus also noted the strong demand for this style and type of single-family structure as proposed along Dale Street.  Although the yards are smaller, Councilmember Willmus opined that the homes would fit and based his support on that.


Councilmember Laliberte also agreed that this concept supports the variety of housing stock being sought in the community.  With multi-family housing across Dale Street, Councilmember Laliberte stated that she didn't find this proposed development to be out-of-character with the neighborhood.


Councilmember McGehee noted a development may come in that is worse than this; and while it may not be her first choice, opined that the applicant had made every effort from her perspective to alleviate some of the existing drainage issues.  Overall, Councilmember McGehee stated she found it fitting with the adjacent neighborhood, and agreed that this type of housing stock on smaller lots was strongly desired in Roseville, and served to provide an alternative for new homes being constructed in the community.


Mayor Roe spoke in support of the rezoning, even though it had involved considerable deliberation on his part and after reviewing the Planning Commission's discussion, and references to the Farrington Estates proposals of the past and how this proposed development related to the surrounding area.  Mayor Roe stated that he had ultimately come to the conclusion that, with its location on the edge of the existing neighborhood on the north and west, he could support the increased density and upzoning.  Mayor Roe noted this was more amenable on his part when clarifying that any duplexes or townhomes in the LDR-2 zoning district would still require platting on their own, making him much more comfortable in making this zoning amendment permanent.


                        Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, McGehee and Roe. 

Nays: Etten.

Motion carried.


Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of the proposed Wheaton Woods revised/updated PRELIMINARY PLAT (Bench Handout dated March 28, 2016) of Ramsey County PIN's 02-29-23-44-0065, -0066, and -0067; based on the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, public input, City Council deliberation, and content of the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated March 28, 2016, and conditions detailed in lines 60-74, page 3 of that RCA; amended as follows:

·         Additional Condition F: "Final plat approval shall not be issued without approval of a tree preservation plan accounting for any changes to grading, utility or stormwater plans not yet anticipated by the Community Development Department.


Without objection, Mayor Roe confirmed that this approval understood a road width for the Wheaton Avenue extension of 32'.


                        Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: Etten and McGehee.

Motion carried.


Without objection due to time constraints, Mayor Roe deferred action on Agenda Items 14.c and 15.a to a future time; with tonight's meeting concluding with Agenda Items 14.b and 15.b.


b.            Finalize Community Survey Discussion and Survey Budget

As part of the RCA, Communications Manager Garry Bowman presented proposed final community survey questions based on previous City Council direction and costs based on sample sizes.  At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Bowman confirmed that no additional questions had been added to the feedback most recently received from the City Council.


Mayor Roe asked Councilmembers to first focus discussion on the sample size and budget. 


Councilmembers Etten and McGehee supported staff's recommendation for 400 samples with their specific margin of error; with agreement by Councilmember Laliberte with that sample size to maintain consistency with the previous survey.


Without objection, Mayor Roe noted support for the 400 sample size in accordance with staff's original proposal at a projected cost of $18,500.


In reviewing the draft survey questions provided by staff as Attachment A to the RCA, Mayor Roe asked if individual Councilmembers found anything that didn't align with their expectations.


While not having been at the last City Council meeting, Councilmember Laliberte thanked Mayor Roe for bringing up the possibility of including a question on organized trash collection in this year's survey.  While recognizing that the Council majority did not support that inclusion, Councilmember Laliberte asked once more to provide tracking trends and potential changes in community feedback.  Councilmember Laliberte questioned why tracking that trend would differ in any way from tracking trends for the community center.  Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of keeping the organized trash collection question in this year's survey, but expressed her willingness to accept Council consensus.


Recognizing recent email requests she had received, Councilmember McGehee suggested adding a question about the annual Home & Garden Fair, recently discontinued.  Since some members of the community felt this was a community event that built community spirit, but also recognizing that it was a big expense and inconvenience for staff, Councilmember McGehee suggested asking for feedback on whether or not respondents attended past fairs, letting them know if had been discontinued, and whether they had ideas for something to take its place.  Councilmember McGehee suggested this would provide the City Council with information as to whether or not the community missed it and therefore, whether they should consider reinstating it.


Councilmember Etten noted that discussion, and opportunity for public input, had already been held by the former Roseville Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) with comparative information from other communities provided by staff as well as specific costs for Roseville with staff and/or a consultant undertaking the annual event, and options for less frequent or revised formatting.  Councilmember Etten stated that the determination had been that it was not a great use of staff time and resources.  Given the cost, Councilmember Etten opined he didn't see anything changing anytime soon; and therefore he personally found no reason to ask the question.


Councilmember Laliberte agreed that the HRA had sufficiently studied that issue and had made a viable determination.  While some feedback may be good, Councilmember Laliberte suggested it as a topic at some point for Speak Up! Roseville.


Mayor Roe noted the seminars now being held to replace the annual Home & Garden Fair, since workshops seemed to be a popular part of that annual event.  Mayor Roe stated he was not supportive of a survey question related to the event, which he feared may raise some expectations that it was going to be reinstated.  Mayor Roe opined that there would be no change in the decision unless significant outcry was received from the community.


Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the 2016 residential survey draft as presented (Attachment A) for a 400-resident community survey; and authorizing the City Manager to finalize a contract with The Morris Leatherman Company.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


c.            Recycling Request for Proposals (RFP)

Due to time constraints, this item was deferred to a future agenda.


15.        Business Items - Presentations/Discussions


a.            Twin Lakes Parkway East Collector Project - Authorization to Proceed with Final Design

Due to time constraints, this item was deferred to a future agenda.


b.            Park & Recreation Renewal Program Update and Nearing Closeouts

Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke provided a Park Renewal Program (PMP) and related financial updates, outlined as part of the RCA and attachments.  Information also included a park building usage synopsis by staff.  Mr. Brokke provided a general overview of the PMP and its focus on the existing park system and the timeframe initially set between 2012 and 2016, with a $19 million budget paid through General Obligation Bonds approved by the City Council.


Mr. Brokke's presentation reviewed major project areas, various maps showing the breadth of the citywide program, and identification of the six park buildings replaced along with facility upgrades at other locations.  Among those improvements, Mr. Brokke noted replacement or updates at fourteen playgrounds planned, with ten replaced to-date using "Community Build" programs that served to establish a stewardship network and involved a significant number of volunteers involved with those playground upgrades.  Mr. Brokke also noted natural resource restoration efforts using volunteer networks and grant funds received to-date specifically for those efforts.  Mr. Brokke reviewed some of the other miscellaneous projects completed at ballfields, lighting and other improvements at the ice rink, disc golf and tennis court refurbishment, irrigation improvements, sidewalk extensions, replacement of the boardwalk at Harriet Alexander Nature Center (HANC), and lighting improvements at parks and along trails.  Mr. Brokke provided project results and budget expenditures to-date; and a review of various project awards, current expenditures and an itemized list of areas of overages or under-spending per project.


Motion to Extend Curfew

At 10:00 p.m., Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, extending the curfew to complete this item and Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings.


            Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. 

Nays: Willmus.

Motion carried.


Mr. Brokke continued his review of various projects, and property acquisition as part of the PMP.  Mr. Brokke also addressed specific costs for administration of the PMP for planning and management of the various projects; and costs for litigation and bonding as part of the PMP.  Mr. Brokke advised that the total spent to-date for the PMP was $16,692,999 as of February 22, 2016 from that initial allocation of $19 million.  Mr. Brokke reviewed funds committed but not yet spent totaling $1,667,647 to cover additional sidewalks and pathways, well monitoring of Autumn Grove Park South over the next four years, and development of a park in SW Roseville.  Mr. Brokke noted that this brought commitments up to $18,360,535; leaving uncommitted and unspent funds of $639,464 from the overall PMP.


Mr. Brokke provided an itemized list of remaining items unfunded, suggesting the City Council consider future authorization for some or all of those projects, totaling $204,000.  Among those projects, Mr. Brokke described them as follows: site lighting, downspouts, landscape items, moving Autumn Grove playground, improvements to Autumn Grove South, HANC improvements (windows/railings/display replacement), site furnishings, Legion Field scoreboard, electronic doors, and additional skating center improvements.


Mr. Brokke provided a pictorial review of new park facilities and their amenities, and events utilizing the buildings.


Mr. Brokke thanked City Manager Trudgeon, Mayor Roe, Councilmembers Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and McGehee, members of the Parks & Recreation Commission, the community of Roseville, and City staff from all departments for their invaluable assistance over the years in facilitating this PMP.  Mr. Brokke also recognized the PMP Management Team from the Parks & Recreation Department, including Jill, Brad and Sean as well as the entire department.


Mr. Brokke concluded his presentation by noted the success of the PMP was being evidenced by the many in the community and surrounding area using the facilities.


Mayor Roe emphasized and echoed Mr. Brokke's comment about the incredible involvement and support from the community.


Mayor noted future decision points for the City Council to ponder related to the options listed by Mr. Brokke totaling $204,000, and preference to receive that authorization on some projects yet this spring.


Councilmember McGehee asked Mr. Brokke to provide a copy of his presentation for the City Council, duly noted by Mayor Roe and City Manager Trudgeon.


Public Comment


Executive Director Julie Wearn, Roseville Visitors Association (RVA)

On the heels of Mr. Brokke's PMP presentation, Ms. Wearn asked that, as part of the RVA's strategic planning and community relations, the City Council consider signage in the area of Langton Park for visitors to Roseville. 


Ms. Wearn displayed pictures of the two access areas to Langton Lake from Cleveland Avenue and current round-about way to access the area.  Ms. Wearn noted there were nine hotels in that area serving significant visitors during the year, and all within blocks of a 1.6 mile radius of Langton Lake Park yearly.


Ms. Wearn reviewed why access to the park was important, allowing visitors the ability to find it, and offering an easily accessed and safe route to do so.  Ms. Wearn referenced various studies and provided statistical data on the importance of these healthy options for visitors.


Ms. Wearn respectfully asked the City Council to think about this area and address signage using part of the allocated PMP dollars remaining.


For the benefit of Mr. Brokke and Ms. Wearn, Councilmember McGehee asked that, in addition to the requested signage, they work toward a decent pathway that could be easily found and accessed by people, especially where new development comes in.


Ms. Wearn advised that she was working with Ms. Kelsey and the Community Development Department as new development comes in, as well as with Ramsey County Commissioner Mary Jo McGuire since Cleveland Avenue was a road under Ramsey County jurisdiction.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of additional project categories totalling $204,000 as presented and detailed in the RCA dated March 28, 2016.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


16.                        City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Trudgeon distributed a preview of upcoming agenda items.


17.        Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

Councilmember Laliberte requested in future business license approvals, staff provide more detailed information of internal and/or Police Department reviews, with a minimum one-page assurance from staff that those reviews had been completed and addressing any inconsistencies.


Councilmember Laliberte requested an updated organizational chart and pay structure for the Community Development and Administration Departments, before and after, the most recent staffing shifts.  Councilmember Laliberte opined that she felt she had lost track of things in the process.


At the request of City Manager Trudgeon, Councilmember Laliberte stated she was open to either having that organizational chart sent to the City Council or as a future City Council agenda items.  Mayor Roe suggested that the organizational plan update be provided to the City Council for now.


Having missed the construction presentation by MnDOT at last week's Council Meeting, Councilmember Laliberte expressed her ongoing concerns and rerouting traffic off Lexington Avenue.  Councilmember Laliberte reiterated those past concerns she had with local traffic choosing Hamline Avenue or Dale Street as alternate routes, and her concerns with southbound traffic on the north end of the library at the turning lane and repercussions to traffic flow, causing traffic to back up over the Hamline Avenue bridge.  Councilmember Laliberte suggested another discussion with Ramsey County to seek a resolution; and asked that staff and the City Council pay particular attention to that pressure point, especially with 2016 construction projects.


Councilmember McGehee requested an update from the Public Works Department on a projected schedule for recertifying citywide stormwater BMP's such as raingardens, especially public best management practices (BMPs) for which the city is responsible.


As an addendum to Councilmember McGehee's request, Mayor Roe asked that an itemization of ongoing expenses for public (e.g. city) BMP's be provided.  Mayor Roe noted that the city would be responsible for any failed certifications and costs for their restoration, creating an ongoing capital improvement program (CIP) expense.  Mayor Roe advised that he had previously spoken to Public Works Director Culver about that needed information, along with a plan from staff for how and when that inventory and recertification would be accomplished.


18.        Adjourn

Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:24 p.m.

          Roll Call

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

Nays: None.