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

City Council


City Council Meeting Minutes

July 11, 2016


1.       Roll Call

Mayor Roe called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m., declaring a quorum of three members present.  Voting and Seating Order: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.  City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.  Councilmember Etten arrived at approximately 6:07 p.m. and Councilmember Willmus arrived at approximately 6:18 p.m.


2.         Pledge of Allegiance


3.         Approve Agenda

As a point of personal privilege, Mayor read a statement related to recent events in Falcon Heights, MN, and the States of Louisiana and Texas, offering condolences to victims, their families, and the respective communities involved.  Mayor Roe recognized the community support evident after these events and the challenges represented and opportunities for construction discussion to find solution.  Mayor Roe encouraged positive versus diverse dialogue; and expressed personal honor and support of law enforcement personnel.  Mayor Roe asked that all parties inclusively dedicate themselves to finding a solution until the hard work is done in solving such diverse issues.


Councilmember Etten arrived at this time and requested removal of Item 8.e from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.


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


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe. 

Nays: None.


4.         Public Comment

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


a.            Rita Mills, Representing the Roseville Area League of Women Voters (LWV)

Ms. Mills stated that the LWV shared the same thoughts as those expressed by Mayor Roe.


Ms. Mills read a prepared statement related to the recently-completed LWV's final report on their year-long study of police services provided in Roseville, Maplewood, Little Canada, Falcon Heights and Lauderdale.  Ms. Mills reported that the report involved data collected and interviews of Police Chiefs and the Ramsey County Sheriff.  Ms. Mills publically thanked Roseville Police Chief Rick Mathwig for his help and feedback, and willingness to be interviewed as well as serving on the panel.  As conclusions were arrived at, Ms. Mills noted a subsequent meeting with Ramsey County Attorney john Choi was held focusing on domestic violence as well as with the Executive Director of the Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) on training efforts.  Ms. Mills advised that a consensus of the LWV was achieved in April of 2016 based on findings of this comprehensive report and represented the position of the LWV.  Ms. Mills shared the position statements from the report.


Ms. Mills advised that this report had been electronically distributed to the City Council several weeks ago, and noted print copies and electronic copies were also available for the public through the LWV website, as well as viewing the panel discussions held in developing the study at or on Facebook at


Mayor Roe thanked the LWV for the report and the study that went into its preparation.


b.            Carolyn Cushing, Roseville resident and Member of the LWV

On a personal note, Ms. Cushing reviewed her vast service to the community and area in donating time in the community and area as a resident since 1963, as well as serving as the past President of the LWV.  Ms. Cushing noted she had always been proud of living in Roseville and proud of its government, thus her service on various committees with and for Roseville and for Ramsey County.  Ms. Cushing expressed her personal distress that the LWV had been removed from the agenda to present their study; and to-date, the lack of questions received from the City Council.  Ms. Cushing stated this was very different treatment from what the LWV had received from other communities in which they were involved, and   and expressed her disappointment and lack of being aware of this ever having happened before.   Ms. Cushing noted that the LWV had always been recognized high-level and pertinent work on various issues.  Ms. Cushing noted Mayor Roe's comments tonight seeking construction conversation; and opined it seemed to her that if anyone could do that, it was the LWV. 


Ms. Cushing also offered hard copies of the final report available to anyone making a request.


Mayor Roe clarified that the LWV had not been removed from tonight's agenda; but having requested time on the agenda, given meeting time constraints, the broader point and purpose had been achieved in bringing the study forward for public awareness.


5.         Council and City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements

Mayor Roe announced the upcoming natural resources restoration at Central Park's Bennett Lake.


Councilmember Willmus arrived at this time.


City Manager Trudgeon announced a new topic on future community development on Speak Up! Roseville, seeking feedback from the community on how businesses and Roseville should be developed in the future.  Mr. Trudgeon encouraged citizens to provide their input; as well as bring forward any other ideas for conversation going forward.


Councilmember Laliberte thanked volunteers for their efforts during the week of Rosefest and Party in the Park.  Councilmember Laliberte specifically recognized the efforts of the City's Community Engagement Commission in rallying other advisory commissioners to attend the Day in the Park event in their roles representing the city, and encouraging their involvement.  Councilmember Laliberte opined it was a great day with many enjoyable family festivities.


6.         Recognitions, Donations and Communications


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 June 20, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the June 20, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended.



·         Page 7, Lines 37 - 40 (McGehee)

Correct to read: "As part of this process, Councilmember McGehee asked if the intent was to ultimately [make] [correct] a problem [go away] versus " [institutionalizing the current practice] every winter due to the"

·         Page 23, Lines 31 - 32 (Roe)

Correct to read: "Mayor Roe clarified that the Metropolitan Council was not [suggesting special] [projecting specific] traffic levels, but their traffic model system"

·         Page 28, Lines 19-20 (McGehee)

Correct to read: "side, Councilmember McGehee opined [that was] the best that [staff and the City Council] could [be accomplished] [accomplish].


                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, 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 July 11, 2016.


a.            Approve Payments

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


ACH Payments


81877 = 82145





                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Approval of 2016-2017 Business and Other License Renewals

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of annual business and other license renewals as detailed, dependent on successful background checks.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


c.            Approve Business & Other Licenses

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of business and other licenses and permits for terms as noted, dependent on successful background checks.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


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

Councilmember McGehee asked if, in addition to golf carts, the Park Patrol Service used bicycles. 


Mayor Roe noted the considerable number of those volunteers who were elderly.


Police Chief Rick Mathwig confirmed that the majority of the Park Patrol were senior volunteers; but advised one member used their own bike, and some walked, but others used the golf carts.  Chief Mathwig advised that the department was option to any method available for this volunteer patrol.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as noted in the RCA dated July 11, 2016, and Attachment A entitled, "2016 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," dated June 30, 2016.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


f.             Approve a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed, Authorize Final Payment, and Commence One-Year Warranty Period on the St. Croix Lift Station Project

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adopted Resolution No. 11334 (Attachment A) entitled, "Final Contract Acceptance - St. Croix Lift Station;" accepting work completed, starting the one-year warranty period, and authorizing final payment in the amount of $64,618.98.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


9.         Consider Items Removed from Consent


e.            Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan Update

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA and related attachments, dated July 11, 2016.


Councilmember Etten advised that he had spoken with staff about this item earlier today, but wanted to bring up one component of this proposed plan update.  Councilmember Etten expressed his interest in a specific area addressing ponds, lakes and water quality within those area water bodies, whether shared or within the confines of Roseville.  Councilmember Etten noted his intent was to ensure the City of Roseville was doing its part in working cooperatively with area watershed districts in addressing those issues.


Councilmember McGehee seconded that interest; noting her observations with Langton Lake and the condition of the lake compared to that of the last eight years in which she'd been involved in taking samples.


Councilmember McGehee sought additional comment from staff on the enormous disparity between bids when the evaluation criteria and process appeared to be similar in all categories.


Assistant Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer responded that the scope of work for those engineering services was intentionally left open-ended to allow bidders to propose ideas, improvements and additions to the city's Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan (CSWMP), originally adopted in in 1990 and subsequently updated in 2003 and 2013 respectively.  Mr. Freihammer noted that some firms were not as familiar with the community as others and would need to perform additional work to get up-to-speed; while S.E.H. had worked with the city in the past and was more familiar with Roseville, resulting in different scope for the proposed work.


Given the additional scope added tonight as initially requested by Councilmember Etten to obtain environmental feedback on area water bodies, Councilmember McGehee asked if this would change that criteria and bids.


Mr. Freihammer advised that anything related to water quality would automatically be addressed in the updated CSWMP, and that update would involve cooperatively working with all area watershed districts as that was part of the original scoping item required as part of the CSWMP.


Councilmember McGehee asked if Mr. Freihammer could highlight any other value-added aspects of the recommended proposal.


Mr. Freihammer stated he had nothing specific other than the intent to consult with the City's Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC) as well as to receive public input during the update process.  Since the city's current CWSMP isn't that old, Mr. Freihammer opined that may have played into the dollar amount received from S.E.H. for their proposal.


Councilmember McGehee opined that the city tended to use the same companies on a frequent basis for their contract consultancy work.


Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, approval to award an engineering services contract (Attachment A) to S.E.H., Inc. for engineering services for the Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan Update, in an amount not to exceed $45,500.

                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


10.        General Ordinances for Adoption


a.            City Council Discussion and Approval of the Tree Replacement Policy and Amendments to Roseville Zoning Code, Sections 1011.04.J.8.a and b - Replacement Tree Locations (PROJ0017, Amendment 27)

City Planner Thomas Paschke and Interim Community Development Director Kari Collins were available for this presentation.


City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly reviewed the request for ordinance adoption and policy approval as detailed in the RCA of today's date.


Ordinance (Attachment C)

Mr. Paschke noted the three options available for the City Council's consideration, as outlined in lines 57 - 67 of the RCCA.


Councilmember McGehee questioned rationale in the 400' replacement for trees off-site of a development rather than a larger area.


Mr. Paschke noted the intent was to ensure the second tier of residential lots adjacent to a development project still received the most benefit for replacement if not available on-site.


Using the Applewood Point project currently underway as an example, Councilmember McGehee noted a considerable number of residents farther away than 400' would be impacted.  Therefore, Councilmember McGehee stated she say no particular value in limiting the area to 400' particularly if moving beyond that for public sites; and opined public and private sites should be considered no differently.


Mr. Paschke clarified that one of the goals of the Replacement Fund was to provide immediate relief to properties directly adjacent to a development site, with the shorter that distance the better.  If unable to achieve that goal, Mr. Paschke then noted the flexibility for plantings further away, but still within the general vicinity versus the broader community; and allowing the city to achieve the biggest bang for the buck in finding positive results from a development project if not tree replacement is not feasible on the actual site itself. 


In using the Applewood Point development as an example, Mr. Paschke questioned the benefits to adjacent property owners to the development project if replacement trees were planted across the street, or by going further than 1,000' feet from the site.  Mr. Paschke noted this would not address any screening for those adjacent properties, the essence of the city's landscaping and screening requirements. 


While staff may be viewing the parameters of the ordinance from a screening or landscaping point of view, Councilmember McGehee clarified that was not her intent when originally bringing the idea up.


Interim Community Development Director Kari Collins clarified that the 400' was a recommendation of the Planning Commission as reflected in the draft ordinance, and intended by them as a buffer if needed and still able to capture tree replacement within the outskirts of a development site.


Councilmember McGehee stated she found a significant difference between 400' and 1,000'.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Ms. Collins confirmed that the 400' included the road, and could involve 3-4 homes before moving out of that 400' zone.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Paschke advised that city staff and property owners would work with developers in addressing safety and sight lines in accordance with city code and sight line triangle parameters.


Ms. Collins further noted that any tree replacement plans had to be reviewed by the City's arborist.


Tree Replacement Fund Policy (Draft Resolution - Attachment D)

Specific to the policy, Mr. Paschke briefly reviewed policy points as outlined in the RCA.  Mr. Paschke noted the policy and ordinance had been presented to and vetted by the PWETC and Parks & Recreation Commissions for their input.  Mr. Paschke advised that good feedback had been provided by both advisory commissions, and incorporated into these most recent documents for City Council consideration. 


Also, Mr. Paschke noted the revised Attachment D provided as a bench handout tonight was a result of additional feedback from Mayor Roe and Councilmember Etten since the distribution of the meeting packet; allowing for additional clarification of the policy.


Mr. Paschke reviewed some of the revisions as noted in the policy as a result of initial City Council discussions, feedback from the PWETC and Park & Recreation Commission, as well as comments of Mayor Roe and Councilmember Etten as previously noted.  Mr. Paschke reminded all that this proposed ordinance amendment and policy were the preliminary step for directing staff to develop a plan for expending those dollars; and expressed staff's hope that this would result in achieving the city's goals.


Further clarifying the distance issue, Ms. Collins noted the intent of the ½ mile was to achieve additional tree coverage within that area if it couldn't be met closer to the development area or on the site itself.  Ms. Collins noted a variety of options were available with flexibility to add those replacement trees in pockets throughout the community where needed due to prior removals for whatever reason, including disease, even though outside the development area.


In recognizing the point made by Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe also questioned if the intent of the policy was strictly to deal with screening or results of a particular development; or if the intent was to replace trees lost due to development and replacement elsewhere.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of a ½ mile distance in both the policy and ordinance.


Councilmember Etten thanked staff for working with the City Council to make adjustments to better clarify wording in both documents.


In Attachment D, page 2, Item c (line 46), Councilmember Etten asked for a definition of "difficulty," opining the current language appeared too broad to him as it related to the 'expenditure radius."  Councilmember Etten suggested revised language that wasn't as vague, such as: "Consideration shall be given to broadening the expenditure radius if [difficulty is encountered] [it is difficult to find tree locations] within the ½ mile radius."


Also, on the same page, Item D (lines 48 - 51), Councilmember Etten addressed staff time involved, should multiple neighbors need to meet with staff around a development site to address types or sizes of trees.  Councilmember Etten questioned if it was more appropriate to have development contractors responsible for the time-consuming work with the neighborhoods, making that part of their bid.  Councilmember Etten stated his concern was the amount of staff time involved.


In accordance with the proposed policy and city receipt of funds, Mr. Paschke clarified that there would need to be some staff time, with the obvious staff being from the Planning Division.  Mr. Paschke noted this would be subsequent to contractor involvement once the city accepted those funds and the city's responsibility going forward at that point as recipient of the funds for their expenditure.  Mr. Paschke noted the only other option would be for the city to hire a tree consultant to take over that responsibility, but questioned how that would be funded.


Councilmember Etten referenced the specific note for "landscape contractors" to bid on a final plan for replacement (line 49) and how that involved the previous discussion.


Ms. Collins clarified that initially the burden was on the developer to initiate a dialogue with adjacent neighbors, but as the fee was paid by the developer to the city, the Planning Division would need to be tasked to find sites and subsequently approach property owners.  Ms. Collins noted each situation would need impact determination on a case by case basis as it related to staff capacity.  Ms. Collins noted that if the tree replacement involved public improvement projects underway, it wouldn't tax staff too much, but agreed there would be some cases that may involve considerable staff time.  Ms. Collins advised that staff would monitor their time and make recommendations to the City Council as the policy developed and any changes that were needed in the process or fees.

Within that area, Councilmember Etten noted Items 2 and 3 (lines 39 - 45) addressing public versus private properties, and questioned if those both involved the ½ mile radius.


Mayor Roe clarified that line 43 addressed that for public or private properties.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Paschke confirmed that the policy would dictate the dollar amounts and how those funds were expended.


Ms. Collins noted if stump removal was involved to replace existing trees that would also diminish the portion those dollars available for trees on a given site.


On Attachment D Item D (line 48), Councilmember Laliberte noted here concern with the term "ALL" individuals involved, and how that was defined.


Mr. Paschke clarified it would involve property owners within ½ mile of the development site and staff working with them.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Collins clarified that in rental situations, staff would work with property owners versus tenants for tree replacement locations.


Mayor Roe brought forward several technical corrections for the draft documents that were subsequently incorporated into the revised language. 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1503 (Attachment C) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Title 10, Zoning Ordinance of Roseville City Code;" amended as follows:

·         Section 2, Item J.a, line 16)

Correct to read: "property within [400] feet [1,000] [to] [of] the subject development site"


Councilmember Etten stated his concern was not screening as much as to remedy the environmental loss of trees (e.g. natural habitat, shade, and/or environmental controls), with less concern about screening other than as part of the development process and city code requirements.  While recognizing the intent to keep those replacements closer to the development site, Councilmember Etten opined that 1,000' would still make that possible.


Mayor Roe stated that one advantage he found under this part of the policy was that tree replacement was part of the development versus the city having to fund that replacement cost and expend staff resources to do so.


Councilmember McGehee seconded the comments of Councilmember Etten and Mayor Roe; and expressed her appreciation of the amendments made.

                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Mayor Roe apologized for neglecting to offer a chance for public comment and offered an opportunity for public comment on this ordinance and policy, with no one appearing to speak.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11335 (revised Attachment D) entitled, "A Resolution Establishing a Policy Regarding Tree Replacement Options Addressed in Section 1011.05.J8.A and B of Roseville Zoning Code (PROJ0017, Amendment 27); amended as follows:

·         Item 3, Line 43

Correct to read: "private [property] within ½ mile"

·         Item c, Line 46-47

Correct to read: "Consideration shall be given to broadening the expenditure radius if [difficulty is encountered] [it is difficult to find tree locations] within the ½ mile radius."

·         Item d, Lines 48 - 51

Correct to read: "The Planning Division will work with [all individuals] [property owners involved] in the off-site tree planting component"  "These bids will be reviewed-will be a component of the Council's approval process."


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Mayor Roe thanked staff and advisory commissions for their work on these documents.


b.            Private Hydrant & Sump Pump Ordinance Amendments

City Engineer Jesse Freihammer was available for this presentation, as detailed in the RCA for recommended ordinance updates.  Mr. Freihammer provided updates and modifications made by staff since the last discussion with City Council, including additional information since that time.


Sump Pump Ordinance - Section 802 (Sewer Use and Regulations)

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Freihammer clarified that staff was suggesting no fee for appeal, and that a 30-day timeframe for the initial staff ruling on a waiver seemed reasonable from staff's perspective, while allowing some flexibility for more complicated situations (e.g. survey work) or additional staff time that may be required to resolve specific situations.


Councilmember McGehee noted for those homes identified as having sump pump discharges into the sanitary sewer system, "reasonable time" may mean a long wait especially if requiring services of a firm with an existing waiting list.  Councilmember McGehee opined it may not be unusual for a homeowner to experience an 8-9 month waiting period to resolve an issue, especially with Minnesota's seasonable weather.  Councilmember McGehee questioned collection of fees from property owners in relationship to the time required to resolve a situation, and the intent of  and/or timing of a waiver in those cases once they notified by the city of the problem. Councilmember McGehee stated she was not comfortable with the property owner having to pay a fee throughout that entire time period when they were making efforts to get the work done.


Mayor Roe clarified his understanding of the language related to waivers to not discharge into the sanitary sewer system.


Mr. Freihammer advised that the intent with this language was that a property owner would be charged a one-time $50 fee if found in violation of the ordinance, and once the situation had been fixed, there was no more waiver in effect and no longer any surcharge fee applied.


Councilmember McGehee questioned if that was clear in the current language.  Councilmember McGehee stated it was her impression that if found in violation and having applied for a waiver and making payment of $50, if the ground was frozen, the property owner was out of luck.  Councilmember McGehee stated it was her concern that this ordinance be reasonable and used to incent residents to make the required changes.


Mayor Roe noted that not all changes to discontinue discharging into the sanitary sewer system required exterior work.


Public Works Director Marc Culver noted this discussion brought up good points.  However, Mr. Culver noted that each case would be handled individually; and clarified the difference in the "fee" and the "surcharge," noting they were two distinct things.  As noted by Mr. Freihammer, Mr. Culver advised that the waiver was established at $50 and intended on a temporary basis only for those situations involving a safety hazard or some other hardship if the sump pump discharge was routed outside the building. 


Specific to the surcharge, Mr. Culver advised that was to address how the city enforced its existing ordinance to prevent discharge into the sanitary sewer system.  Mr. Culver advised that the city was aware of those properties currently discharging into the sanitary sewer system; and as existing city code clearly states, that is a violation.  However, Mr. Culver admitted the city didn't have a current recourse available to enforce those violations.  Under the modified ordinance language, Mr. Culver advised that once a property owner is notified by the city that they're in violation, a variable timeframe would be established depending on each situation and whether the resolution would be easy or more extensive. If the property owner still didn't respond to the city's initial notice, at that point the city would apply the surcharge and allow them to explain why they continued to be noncompliant.  Mr. Culver advised that the intent was to enforce action for those properties appearing to ignore the notice of noncompliance and resolve the issue.


Councilmember McGehee thanked Mr. Culver for that explanation to clarify the fees.


Regarding the temporary waiver, Councilmember McGehee asked if the city had a definite timeline for those situations where property owners were required to run water due to lack of depth of water lines.  Councilmember McGehee stated her concern was that temporary fixes don't serve as a permanent solution.


Mr. Culver advised that staff would continue to monitor those properties with freeze problems depending on the frost depths annually since they varied from year to year. Mr. Culver noted timeframes would not be that date-specific that it would impact those properties.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Freihammer advised the intent was that those properties apply annually for a waiver since staff was unaware of their ground water situations that could change and may only be temporary.  At the further request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Freihammer confirmed that if a property owner paid a waiver they would not be paying a surcharge.


Mr. Culver further clarified that the first time a waiver was applied for if a property owner was discharging to the front of their home, the waiver may apply this year, but once other options were identified to redirect that sump pump flow, waivers would no longer be granted in most cases.


Councilmember McGehee opined that seemed to be institutionalizing something that should be corrected; further opining she couldn't imagine any situations that could not be corrected and water routed accordingly, whether underground or via another option.  Councilmember McGehee stated her preference would be to use the waiver to assist residents with an appropriate amount of time to get the problem permanently fixed, but not to seek an annual waiver. 


Mr. Culver advised that if staff determines a situation is not correctable, which may be possible in limited cases where the back yard grading isn't conducive to correct it, it may be necessary to direct the sump pump flow to the front yard.  However, in the majority of situations where a solution can be found, Mr. Culver advised that if the property owner continues to seek an annual waiver, the city could deny those waivers and require the situation be resolved or the property be subject to the ongoing surcharge.


Councilmember McGehee expressed her hope that, going forward, staff would pay careful attention to new construction projects and development (e.g. new subdivisions) and ensure similar water issues are not repeated.


Councilmember Etten agreed with that point; opining that he wanted the waiver used only to allow residents time to resolve the current situation as soon as humanly possible, with few exceptions.  As noted in the remaining ordinance language, Councilmember Etten noted the intent to keep that water on each property.


Mayor Roe noted a technical correction to Attachment C, line 174 to read as follows: "property [for] which the sump pump serves."


Private hydrants - Section 801 (Municipal Water System)

Referencing Attachment F, Councilmember Etten asked if staff found the proposed hydrant inspection fee by city staff sufficient.  Councilmember Etten noted private contractor fees were significantly higher.


Mr. Freihammer responded that staff felt it was reasonable especially since many were located within a small area.  Mr. Freihammer confirmed that many private contractor fees were higher, but in comparing fees with other communities (e.g. Apple Valley), they were comparable, between $50 and $75.  Since these fees will be part of the city's annually fee schedule review, Mr. Freihammer advised that staff would continue to evaluate them moving forward.


Councilmember Etten expressed concerns with staff performing these inspections and potential loss of staff time in doing so; stating he didn't want to expend too much staff time in providing this great hourly rate compared to private contractors.


As an example with smaller townhome developments, Mr. Freihammer noted staff's intent to balance having those private hydrants inspected to ensure they're working without it becoming a hardship for those property owners and thereby forcing them not to have the inspections done.  Mr. Freihammer noted staff was considering hiring additional labor as part of its seasonal crew used for flushing hydrants to accomplish the task.  Mr. Freihammer advised that the city's preference was to have city staff make the inspections by making it more financially feasible for those developments versus hiring a private contractor to perform the inspections.


Mayor Roe offered an opportunity for public comment on this ordinance and policy, with no one appearing to speak.


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1504 (Attachment A) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Title 8, Chapter 801, Municipal Water System."


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Etten moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1504 (Attachment B) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Title 8, Chapter 801, Municipal Water System."


                        Roll Call (Super Majority)

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

Nays: None.


Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1505 (Attachment C) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Title 8, Chapter 802, Sewer Use and Regulations;" amended as follows:

·         Page 5, Line 174

Correct to read as follows: "property [for] which the sump pump serves?"

                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1505 (Attachment D) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Title 8, Chapter 802, Sewer Use and Regulations."


                        Roll Call (Super Majority)

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

Nays: None.


Mayor Roe thanked staff and advisory commissions for their work on these documents.


11.        Presentations


a.            Accept the 2016 Community Survey and Analysis by William Morris and Peter Leatherman

Communications Manager Garry Bowman introduced Peter Leatherman from Morris Leatherman Company, welcomed by Mayor Roe.


Noting there were forty-six charts included in the City Council meeting packet materials, Mr. Leatherman advised for time expediency, he would summarize the information.  Mr. Leatherman encouraged Councilmembers to ask for additional information during the presentation.  Mr. Leatherman reviewed the methodology used (page 8) for the survey; and reported the enthusiasm found in this most recent survey when compared with the 2014 survey.  Mr. Leatherman stated this was an impressive enthusiastic move for the community in the last two years, and should be deemed as a significantly positive indicator.


Mayor Roe noted the position the city was in two years ago specific to the Park Renewal Program, and suggested that may be part of the shift as those initial community concerns and awareness of tax and fee changes in that and in addressing other infrastructure improvements, may reflect the "new normal" as residents adjusted accordingly.


Mr. Leatherman agreed that may be a possibility.  Specific to the Park Renewal Program, Mr. Leatherman noted the survey indicated a high level of awareness and use of those facilities by the community, as seen in the park and recreation ratings.  While the facilities were highly used, Mr. Leatherman noted the city's ratings for maintenance appeared to also be highly regarded.


Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Leatherman for performing the community survey and for synthesizing the report for tonight's meeting.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:55 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:02 p.m.

b.            Planning Commission Joint Meeting

Mayor Roe welcomed Planning Commissioners present at tonight's meeting: Chair Michael Boguszewski and Commissioners James Bull, Chuck Gitzen, Julie Kimble, and Robert Murphy (Variance Board Chair).  Vice Chair Shannon Cunningham and Commissioner James Daire were unable to attend tonight's meeting.


Chair Boguszewski looked to individual commissioners for an introduction and to provide their years of experience on the Commission.


Chair Boguszewski referred to and expounded on the Commission's accomplishments since the last joint meeting.


Discussion Items with the City Council as Identified by Staff

Drop Homes

Mayor Roe noted this item may have been prompted by recent legislation mandating cities to approve drop homes unless opting out of doing so.  Mayor Roe suggested the question is whether or not the city wants to opt out or not.


Councilmember McGehee shared her personal thoughts on drop homes, using the recent media coverage of the Village of St. Anthony's mobile home park.  Councilmember McGehee stated there was no reason individuals could not have some flexibility for their properties in creating those long-term stable communities as found with other housing stock options.  Councilmember McGehee stated she was interested in the drop home option as an alternative to typical high-rise or low-rise as Roseville standards, and providing a sense of ownership versus rental properties.


Councilmember Willmus stated he was not familiar with the drop home legislation, but expressed interest in reviewing it and how it compared to or aligned with the city's accessory unit language recently modified.


Mayor Roe noted the legislation related more to temporary housing styles.


Councilmember Etten expressed appreciation for that clarification; and expressed his interest in the Planning Commission initially reviewing the legislation and its requirements and how it may or may not fit with what the city already had in place.   Councilmember Etten noted the urgency of the Commission's initial review and recommendation to the City Council in light of the need for a decision by the city to opt out or not by September 1, 2016.


In his initial review of the legislation, Commissioner Murphy opined there appeared to be a choice for the city to adopt it in whole with few changes or reject it completely.  Commissioner Murphy sought Council thoughts as to whether it may be prudent for the city to reject it completely, and then adopt if after being able to fine tune it using a majority of the proposed legislation and minor local changes specific for Roseville.  If that was of interest to the City Council, Commissioner Murphy noted this would allow a more thorough review by the Commission and City Council to meet the deadlines, and not just adopt the legislation in a wholesale manner without further review.


Mayor Roe noted the City Council would not be opposed to considering that suggestion, and opined it was certainly within the realm of possible outcomes.


Chair Boguszewski noted that for future direction to city staff to provide the Commission with the currently underlying city ordinance, and a copy of the legislation, for a future Commission agenda and discussion with the goal of making a recommendation to the City Council in the near future. 


In taking Councilmember McGehee's comments to heart, Chair Boguszewski related his experience in moving to Roseville from Chicago, IL and failure of housing in Chicago at that time other than the option for high-rise condos that provided no community building or pride for those residents in their dwelling and/or location.  Chair Boguszewski opined that pride of ownership was a key driver in making housing work and its ultimate maintenance and community-building. 


To Commissioner Murphy's point, Chair Boguszewski agreed with the option to reject the legislation as written, but return with a Roseville-specific ordinance revision, it would provide a good solution.


Regarding the small home concept, Mayor Roe questioned if some of the city's existing zoning code may not address that already (e.g. Planned Unit Developments or Low Density Residential-2 on smaller lots).  Mayor Roe opined there may be possibilities within the existing city code for short-term housing options; and agreed with the initial option to opt out due to the September 1, 2016 timeframe and allowing for a more permanent, thoughtful solution.


Having spent time residing in trailer homes and parks, Councilmember McGehee noted she was familiar with their culture; and while often having a bad reputation, that didn't need to be the case.  Councilmember McGehee noted she was unsure whether this type of home would fit on existing city lot sizes without a PUD in place; but asked that the Commission carefully consider the city's accessory dwelling code, which she found to be quite good, and whether it couldn't be used for this type of housing option.


Commissioner Gitzen noted the obvious interest of the City Council in the Commission's broader review beyond the legislative mandate or opt out; to review other topics and what was already in city code.


Level of Commission Involvement in Small Area Planning Projects (e.g. SE Roseville)

From his perspective, Mayor Roe suggested the stage of the process may premature to consider involvement.  However, Mayor Roe stated he thought there was a role for the commission in the future, but it had yet to be defined.


Councilmember Laliberte agreed with the comments of Mayor Roe.


At the annual joint meeting last year, Chair Boguszewski noted it had been brought up that the Commission be more proactive and brainstorm issues beyond just being a review body for land use applications.  Chair Boguszewski opined he thought the current Commission and their particular skill set was very strong at this time, and given those levels of expertise, he thought the Commission would be more than eager to help the City Council with those tasks.  With concurrence of that interest by his colleagues, Chair Boguszewski suggested a joint working session in the future to assist with those efforts.


Comprehensive Plan Update

Chair Boguszewski noted the numerous questions at the last Commission meeting, especially involving the scope of the process and whether or not it was intended as an update or improvement/upgrade on the current plan or if it was intended to be opened up and widespread with new ideas and concepts to be considered.  Whichever one is right or wrong, and dependent on the City Council's direction and level of cost/time involved, Chair Boguszewski stated the Commission would support their direction.


Since the last Commission discussion, Mayor Roe noted the City Council's more recent discussion for the plan update and its scope; and suggested that discussion may inform the Commission accordingly and their future role.


Councilmember Willmus stated he thought the current plan was a good guiding document, and from his perspective, he wasn't looking to start from scratch.  Councilmember Willmus advised he was leaning more toward updating the technical aspects for most chapters to allow the plan to continue serving the city well in the coming years.


Councilmember McGehee stated she thought the current plan was quite good, but didn't think it precluded new topics or ideas being introduced, without requiring that the entire plan be opened up simply to add those new items.  Councilmember McGehee agreed technical changes were needed in some cases; using her continued interest in revising the definition between Regional and Community Business designation.  However, Councilmember McGehee stated she was open to any suggestions for new ideas or items; but agreed that as a group the consensus was that there was little interest in starting from scratch.  While recognizing the current plan is ten years old, and not perfect, Councilmember McGehee it is relevant yet; and could easily incorporate some additional ideas.


Suggested Work Plan for the Upcoming Year

Regarding the four suggested work plan items as outlined by staff, Chair Boguszewski advised the Commission had not yet considered them, but would discuss them at a future meeting.


Mayor Roe invited the Commission to provide input in the future on recent City Council discussions related to High (HDR) and Medium Density (MDR) zoning designation and areas throughout the community.


Councilmember Etten agreed, noting staff could provide the Commission with those relevant City Council detailed discussions and the specific areas being reviewed related to HDR versus MDR designation and any initial conclusions already determined up to this point and other areas for moving forward.  Specific to the level of comprehensive plan changes based on cost considerations, Councilmember Etten opined it was important for the Commission to be aware of the City Council's direction before putting too much work into the process.


Specific to the HDR/MDR discussion, Councilmember Willmus noted a considerable amount of this discussion had been initially undertaken by former Community Development Director Paul Bilotta prior to his departure; and suggested the Commission review those materials and his presentation.  Councilmember Willmus stated opined it was good information for the Commission's review and should set in place the City Council discussion to-date regarding balancing HDR and MDR community-wide.


Regarding the comprehensive plan update process itself, Mayor Roe indicated one area of discussion for the City Council had been the public involvement in that update; and a check-in with the previous community visioning of Roseville to determine if those goals and objectives were still relevant.  Mayor Roe noted the need to review those community aspirations with the community to make sure they remained in line, or if there were additions or changes needed.  Mayor Roe noted this should be a significant part of the public process for staff as directed by the City Council; and serve to point in the right direction in reviewing the existing plan and any new topics that haven't yet come up or ideas from the public that hadn't been considered.


Commissioner Bull noted some of the initial information provided by staff that raised concerns with the Commission prompting significant conversations involved quality of life issues that were suggested as goals for the new comprehensive plan, without the Commission being aware of where those ideas had come from (e.g. having fresh food in the vicinity of senior living, community health initiatives, etc.).  Commissioner Bull stated the Commission saw that as well as the apparent exclusion of several departments (e.g. Parks and Recreation Department relying on their Parks Master Plan work to-date without further update).  As a result, Commissioner Bull advised the Commission questioned how this comprehensive plan could be comprehensive by excluding various components from the update.  Therefore, Commissioner Bull opined the Commission needed guidance on how that worked.  Commissioner Bull further questioned how the short RFP process time and vendor selection could work without the Commission knowing the scope for the update; and concerns with having a contract in place and potential changes of the scope that could impact costs for the update.


Mayor Roe assured the Commission that the timeline had since been changed based on the most recent City Council discussions.  Also, while some of the topics mentioned had been suggested by third parties as a consideration in updating comprehensive plans, Mayor Roe noted they were not mandates, but offered as suggestions for communities choosing to include them.  Mayor Roe opined many of those ideas may come into the process that way, but overall the intent was that the update be informed through public input on past aspirations.  Mayor Roe further assured the Commission that the City Council didn't consider any of those ideas as mandates, but potential areas of interest identified by other planning organizers or activists.


Basking the glow of tonight's community survey results, Chair Boguszewski asked Councilmembers if the Commission was serving them and the city well.


Mayor Roe stated there was a very good working relationship with this Commission, and thanked them especially for their review and recommendations for the tree preservation and PUD ordinances, opining it represented excellent work.  Mayor Roe also recognized the Commission's thought process used with staff on numerous text amendments (e.g. subdivision ordinance) and expressed appreciation for their recommendations and the input received from residents at the Planning Commission level. 


Chair Boguszewski noted several issues over the last year that had received one recommendation from the Commission, but the City Council had chosen a different direction.  However, from his perspective Chair Boguszewski noted that was a good thing, as the Commission had certain parameters for their review, and sometimes didn't have the additional information later brought forward to the City Council, as well as being able to consider things form a broader perspective.


Councilmember Etten agreed that the Commission was confined in their task for land use considerations, while the City Council had a different task to supplement that initial review.  However, Councilmember Etten thanked the Commission for their depth and breadth of their review of land use cases and code provisions obvious from their meeting minutes; and the questioned they asked that helped the City Council to understand the broader picture.


Councilmember Willmus also expressed his appreciation for the level of discussion by the Commission and the decision-making that went into their recommendations to the City Council.  Through that discussion and deliberation, while the roles of the Commission and City Council may vary with separate and distinct roles in that decision-making process, Councilmember Willmus opined that the Commission was right on track in their role and advice they provided.


Councilmember McGhee seconded the comments of her colleagues; and thanked the Commission for the numerous ordinance changes they'd undertaken over the last 12-18 months.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her appreciation that the City Council didn't always take every recommendation of the Commission as the rule of law; and suggested the Commission also feel free to advise the City Council when they took action that the Commission disagreed with.  Councilmember McGehee agreed that many of the issues considered by both bodies had provided for additional facts on which the City Council could base their deliberations and decisions.   Councilmember McGehee stated the Commission was doing a great job.


Councilmember Laliberte noted things had been well stated by her colleagues; and this had provided a good discussion of the issues and areas for both bodies.  With the complete meeting minutes provided by the Commission, Councilmember Laliberte noted their discussion frequently triggered areas for further review or answered similar questions she had.  Councilmember Laliberte stated her appreciation of the Commission's work whether or not the City Council was in agreement with their recommendations or not.  Councilmember Laliberte stated she was very comfortable and pleased with the work of the Commission; and she considered it a great commission and appreciated the working relationship between the two bodies.


From his personal perspective, Chair Boguszewski noted the commissioners were citizen volunteers, and while not knowing individual council members personally, he found this City Council collectively to be doing a good job, which was obviously reflected in the community survey results.  In addition, based on his formal personal interactions and involvement with the group, Chair Boguszewski opined that each and every one of the current council members has the heart interest of the city as their driving force.  While each may have different viewpoints and interests, Chair Boguszewski opined that he saw no personal advance or political future considerations in the City Council's decision-making; and thanked them for setting that example.  Chair Boguszewski stated it had made it a real pleasure and privilege for him to serve on the Planning Commission.


Mayor Roe thanked the Commission for their work and the process they followed in providing recommendations; and expressed the City Council's appreciation for their work and time spent researching and reviewing many difficult land use cases and city code topics beyond just meeting attendance.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:36 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:37 p.m.


12.        Public Hearings and Action Consideration

As an introduction to the next three action items, Mayor Roe reviewed the differences in minor subdivisions compared with more significant subdivisions and zoning changes with hearings held at the Planning Commission level versus these heard at the City Council level for subdivisions of three or fewer lots.


a.            Request for Approval of a Minor Subdivision at 2201 Acorn Road into Two Parcels (PF16-018)

Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly summarized this request for the subdivision of an existing property into three parcels, to create two additional parcels.  Noting the Public Works Department review of the application, Mr. Lloyd advised that they had required additional stormwater easement width to help mitigate stormwater issues that had been observed in this area in the past.  However, Mr. Lloyd noted that while the lot lines may vary, the minimum lot sizes per city code were still met, and each still provided for large lots in character with surrounding properties.


Mr. Lloyd advised that staff supports the request as presented and meeting city code requirements, with the additional stormwater easement width for mitigation of stormwater issues.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Lloyd advised that Mr. Mueller was not a party to this application; and clarified that the property was under contract for purchase as per the application.   While Mr. Mueller may still have an ownership stake in the property, Mr. Lloyd advised that he was not involved per se in the application itself.


City Attorney Gaughan deferred to staff's comments; and advised that with a contract for ownership in play, staff would process this application as per past practice for any subdivision ownership application.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Lloyd clarified that the subdivision application process at this point didn't provide the formal or final stormwater plan.


Assistant Public Works Director Freihammer, in agreement with Mr. Lloyd, advised that the formal grading plan was not part of this subdivision request.  However, being aware of drainage issues with this parcel and in the area, Mr. Freihammer advised that it had prompted staff to require additional stormwater easement area for drainage mitigation of existing runoff.  Mr. Freihammer noted that staff would monitor future grading of the lots and directing that grade for drainage toward Acorn Road; but also advised he anticipated there would be some that would move toward the rear of the properties; thus the required additional easement area to mitigate it.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Freihammer confirmed that city staff would work with the developer on that additional easement in the back part of the parcel(s); and that the city would most likely assume most of that additional mitigation in the future as a city project.


Councilmember Etten questioned how this differed than previous applications with the developer responsible to achieve mitigation goals.


Mr. Freihammer advised that in this case, there was no public infrastructure being installed as part of plat requirements and therefore no stormwater mitigation requirements as part of this subdivision application process.


Mayor Roe clarified, with confirmation by Mr. Freihammer, that there were no additional requirements beyond those already in place by the applicable watershed district and existing city stormwater management ordinance, all part of any subsequent building permit that needed to meet all those requirements even though all of those requirements were not yet known at the point in the application process.


Councilmember Etten asked if staff anticipated working with a developer in conjunction with housing construction on the parcels, or if the reserve setback was intended for future mitigation.


Mr. Freihammer responded that would depend on how quickly the developer moved, and whether that development occurred as a mass project or individually per lot and individual lot grading.  Mr. Freihammer advised that would inform whether it made more sense to do the mitigation all at once or as a stand-alone improvement project.


Mayor Roe reviewed the protocol for public hearings and opened the public hearing at approximately 8:46 p.m.


Public Comment

An email dated July 7, 2018 from Paul Romanowski, 2195 Acorn Road, was provided as part of the record, attached hereto and made a part hereof.


Steve McLoon, 1920 Gluek Lane

As a general comment and in context of the next three action items, Mr. McLoon asked that the City Council consider preservation of neighborhoods.  While not knowing this neighborhood well, Mr. McLoon opined that this application, as well as the next two applications for subdivision, did not fit the nature of their neighborhoods, nor did they support the reasons residents originally located in Roseville in these specific neighborhoods.


Evan Thomas, Property Owner at 2177 County Road B West

As of today, Mr. Thomas stated he had owned his property for forty-two years.  Mr. Thomas opined that any increase in impervious surface on the subject property at 2201 Acorn Road would increase runoff to adjacent lots.  Mr. Thomas further opined that this and numerous previous configurations over the last few years for this parcel would all result in the same reality.  However, given those previous proposed plats, Mr. Thomas noted that they at least had some built-in mitigation to address existing and future drainage issues; while this version appeared to have abandoned any mitigation of or concern by the city for any and all development on the lot and various runoff considerations; and any concept of how much water actually needed to be retained on these proposed lots seemingly abandoned.  Mr. Thomas noted that the present drainage situation was already problematic, especially on the southwest corner of the subject lot, and had been evident in May of this year after a significant rainfall event.  Mr. Thomas provided photographic evidence of his lots, and referenced other lots as outlined in Attachment A to the staff report, and how runoff is channeled along the southern border of 2196 Marion Road due west of the southern edge of the 2201 property.  Mr. Thomas provided a photo of the storm drain that was higher than upstream ponding, even though initially designed to pick up runoff from that southern border.  Mr. Thomas opined that any additional impervious area is placed on the 2201 Acorn Road parcel, it will negatively impact the use of neighboring properties.  Mr. Thomas further opined that a previous plat and plan for runoff containment in a 4-lot configuration seemed to provide the most adequate plan so far; but reiterated this latest plan seemed to abandon any formal control measures for these three proposed lots.


Councilmember Willmus clarified with Mr. Thomas that he preferred the previously approved plat with three lots and a private drive out to Acorn Road.


Mr. Thomas stated he thought that was at least marginally adequate compared to this latest version.  While this may generate less runoff than that previous plan, Mr. Thomas advised there wasn't enough detail provided to judge the impact on surrounding properties if three separate and individual lots are approved with no particular plan in place to deal with additional runoff.


Paul Romanowski, 2195 Acorn Road

(Written comments received as part of the record).

As a resident immediately adjacent to this parcel, Mr. Romanowski reiterated his previously expressed concerns with runoff from this site; opining more construction will only increase the situation, already a serious concern.  Mr. Romanowski stated his understanding of the difficulty in analyzing future runoff issues, but asked that it be seriously considered, as addressed in his written comments.  Further, Mr. Romanowski stated his difficulty in understanding the tree preservation system, noting there were currently a tremendous amount of nice trees in the area; and expressed concern that during construction they would all be destroyed, and questioned if they would be replaced with smaller trees that would take years to preserve and grow.  Mr. Romanowski stated that if Councilmembers had lived in their area as long as current residents had, they'd also enjoy the natural area, and pedestrian amenities; and stated the preference was to keep things the way they were now, but any changes should be seriously considered and those concerns expressed by residents before voting on changing the neighborhood.


Applicant Representative, Richard Kotoski, 2570 Grotto Avenue, Roseville

Mr. Kotoski clarified that he had not been involved with any of the previous subdivision applications, he noted he was very aware of existing drainage issues.  Mr. Kotoski stated he would comply with the wider easements as mandated by staff to address any future broader area mitigation efforts deemed necessary.


Specific to tree preservation efforts, Mr. Kotoski advised that the last thing he wanted to do was remove trees; and noted the plan was to carefully preserve the site as much as possible, with the intent to remove very few trees. 


Due to the size of the proposed lots, Mr. Kotoski opined that the character of the neighborhood would involve little change and most likely remain the same as adjacent lots.


Mayor Roe closed the public hearing at approximately 8:59 p.m.



Councilmember Laliberte asked Mr. Kotoski if he yet knew the placement for proposed homes on these three lots.


While still pending finalization, Mr. Kotoski advised that the structure placement would meet Roseville city code minimum setback requirements, and anticipated they would be located approximately central on each lot.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Kotoski further confirmed that the structures would be individual, custom-built, single-family homes.


Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of a MINOR SUBDIVISION of the property at 2201 Acorn Road into three parcels; based on the comments and findings of the RCA dated today's date, input received during public hearing, and subject to conditions as detailed in the RCA, page 4, lines 74 - 89; emphasizing condition d (lines 86 - 89)  that prior plat approval for Oak Acres Plat, preliminary approved on February 8, 2016, will be rescinded prior to signed subdivision documents being released for recording with Ramsey County; and recognizing the broader easement width as noted by the Public Works Department.


Councilmember Willmus opined that with this proposal with two additional homes being added to the existing Mueller home, and elimination of the large private roadway in the middle of the parcel as previously presented, this concept will have a less intensive or massive impact on existing tree coverage as well as the neighborhood.  Therefore, Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the proposal.


Councilmember McGehee specifically addressed the comments raised by Mr. McLoon tonight; stating she had long been a supporter of this parcel and any subdivision limited to two lots.  However, due to current city code, Councilmember McGehee stated the proposal currently before the City Council was not something that could be objected to; and barring that, every effort had been made to provide for sufficient easements to address runoff issues, as recognized by the city and this applicant.  Councilmember McGehee noted that it had been clearly documented and recognized that this area had an existing problem with runoff.  Councilmember McGehee noted this drainage issue was not the city's sole jurisdiction, and any development would need to meet state mandates; but opined she found this latest iteration an improvement from previous proposals.  As noted by Councilmember Willmus specific to tree preservation, Councilmember McGehee agreed that this proposal provide a potential improvement in terms of runoff and to allow custom-built homes to blend into the neighborhood.  While she still wished there were only two homes total proposed, Councilmember McGehee stated she saw no legal recourse for the City Council to do anything other than approve this application.


Councilmember Laliberte expressed her agreement with the comments of her colleagues, also opining this plan was better than those previously presented, and noted her appreciation that the private road and increased impervious surface had been reduced.  Councilmember Laliberte also expressed appreciation that the middle lot drainage had been addressed; and with increased easement width, she anticipated better mitigation potential if problems did arise.



Councilmember Etten also concurred with the comments of his colleagues, opining this presented an improvement to the overall situation, as well as significantly reducing the amount of grading that had previously been proposed.  With this proposal falling under the city's newly-revised tree preservation policy, requiring more tree replacement on the subject property, Councilmember Etten opined it would serve to benefit the entire community.  Councilmember Etten thanked the Public Works Department for pursuing the wider easement to address future mitigation; and recognized the concerns of Mr. Romanowski.  Councilmember Etten did note that there was a group of trees in the middle of the easement area that in the future may require removal by the city, but asked consideration by staff for any possible mitigation now in the development process that could preclude that necessity to cut down trees.


Mayor Roe clarified the location of this subject property directly west of Cleveland Avenue and north of County Road B, considerably distant from the next two Gluek Lane subdivision request and not part of those considerations in any way.  Specific to the question of neighborhood character, Mayor Roe noted this had been a concern voiced since the original proposal had been made in 2007, at which time the city had also discussed at some length whether or not the city should revise city code to accommodate different lot sizes in this area and throughout the remainder of the community.  At that time, Mayor Roe clarified that the conclusion had been to maintain current lot standards for minimum width, depth and square footage citywide.  Mayor Roe noted that conclusion set the city's standards and requirements for a minimum depth, width and square footage.  Mayor Roe noted that this area is definitely unique but having evolved over time, several surrounding properties had also subdivided prior to this request, creating the Marion Road and County Road B neighborhoods, and changing that neighborhood character accordingly.  Mayor Roe shared the neighborhood interest in preserving current tree cover, and expressed appreciation that the City Council now had in place a revised ordinance to enforce that to significantly impact this and surrounding properties.  Mayor Roe further noted there were stormwater requirements in place, not only in city code, but also through the Rice Creek Watershed District and other jurisdictions including the State of Minnesota that any project would need to meet for approval.  Under those circumstances and realities, Mayor Roe spoke in support of this application.


Councilmember McGehee noted the city's current visioning and comprehensive plan tacit acknowledgement for preservation of neighborhood character, but opined there was not enforcement mechanism and without that it was difficult to defend the position.  As a result of the 2007 proposal as referenced by Mayor Roe, Councilmember McGehee clarified there was no action taken on small or large lot area; and expressed her interest in undertaking such action especially in this part of the community.  Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of doing so in the near future, based on the community interest frequently expressed in preserving neighborhoods.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Request for Approval of a Minor Subdivision at 1926 Gluek Lane into Two Parcels (PF16-014)

Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly summarized this request for subdivision of an existing parcel into two parcels, creating one new parcel for future development for a single-family, detached home, as detailed in the RCA and related attachments presented.  Mr. Lloyd noted the actual alignment of the new property line remained pending more detailed survey data, but clarified that the homeowner was interested in tying the setback from the existing pavement edge to the current garage, and any configuration would retain the intent to meet minimum rear property lines for width, depth and square footage.  Mr. Lloyd asked that the City Council's review evaluate the general property boundary alignment for conformity with the recently-adopted code amendment for flexibility with lot irregularities.


Addressing the written comment from area property owners (RCA Exhibit D), Mr. Lloyd addressed those highlighted stormwater drainage issues compared with platted areas running throughout the neighborhood, and impacts found from stormwater generated by developments further south (Roselawn Avenue) moving north and surcharges north in several locations of easement/infrastructure areas.  Mr. Lloyd noted the written comments were not opposed to either Gluek Lane subdivision application, but just wanted to make sure their concerns were brought forward as either project went through design/permitting phases of construction.


Mr. Lloyd advised that staff recommended approval, subject to those conditions as outlined in the RCA.


With support and questions related to the larger stormwater management for this area from several Councilmembers, Mayor Roe asked the city's engineering staff to address the various issues form the Public Works perspective for drainage in this area and impacts this and the next proposal may create.


Assistant Public Works Director and City Engineer Jesse Freihammer

Regarding both proposals on Gluek Lane, Mr. Freihammer noted there were already significant stormwater issues in that neighborhood; and further advised that the city had been slowly addressing the problem through various projects in recent years, including the stormwater drainage infrastructure improvements at Corpus Christi Church as part of that mitigation.  Mr. Freihammer stated these were small incremental steps to eliminate the overall problem; and clarified there was a need to withhold a considerable larger amount of drainage upstream of this area, especially during large rain events, such as that experienced last week that caused flooding in the area. 


Not as much with this proposal as the upcoming one, Mr. Freihammer noted both grading and building plans would impact the floodway; but clarified that the next subdivision proposal tonight would most likely have a more significant impact than this application.  Mr. Freihammer noted staff's review and approval of those grading plans, as well as that of other jurisdictional regulating agencies, in addressing how current flooding issues are mitigated would serve to address concerns to prevent exacerbating flooding elsewhere or making it worse than currently found.  Mr. Freihammer clarified that the problem areas from the negative upstream stormwater impacts were seen with large rainfall events; and as evidenced in the dramatic pictures presented by some residents.  However, Mr. Freihammer reiterated that most of the problems were coming from runoff from the south and backing into the stormwater management system rather than from those yards on Gluek developing that much water.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Freihammer advised that the majority of the stormwater system is the city's responsibility rather than that of the Metropolitan Council, negating the potential of any assistance or cost-sharing on their part in alleviating the broader situation.  Mr. Freihammer advised that a small portion was under Ramsey County's jurisdiction, but the majority was under the city's jurisdiction.


Mayor Roe asked if there had been any discussion about having additional dedicated easements on this proposal on the easterly property line or elsewhere to address that stormwater.


Mr. Freihammer advised that other than traditional easements, at this point additional easements wouldn't gain anything significant without a huge easement to mitigate the issues.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Freihammer confirmed that the homes in this area were built around the edges, with the entire middle area of the lots basically serving as a wetland.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the more those lots were divided up and more impervious surface constructed around the edges, the more water would run off into the wetland, further opining the wetland already appeared beyond capacity during large rain events.  Mr. Freihammer clarified that the city's underground stormwater pipe system was under capacity, causing the runoff to surcharge into the wetland during large rain events; but agreed in concept with Councilmember McGehee that the more put into the system, the worse the problem became.


Mayor Roe noted the applicant was present in the audience and available to stand for questions, but sought to make no additional comment beyond staff's report.


Mayor Roe opened the public hearing at approximately 9:22 p.m.


Public Comment

Joint written comment was included (RCA Exhibit D) dated Jun3 28, 2016 from Carl & Charity Willis, 1885 Gluek Lane and Jim & Jan House at 1896 Gluek Lane specific to this request and the next application; both expressing concern for and seeking a clear understanding of stormwater drainage impacts.


Jim King, 1861 Gluek Lane

Mr. King addressed the standing water in the wetland due to last Tuesday's significant rainfall.  However, Mr. King took issue with the statement made by Councilmember McGehee, while agreeing any more hard surface will allow more rainwater into the area, but disagreed that adding the proposed concrete driveway would make any difference considering the broader square mile of drainage coming into the wetland from the south.  Mr. King also took issue with the perception that the proposal, while agreeing it would add more runoff, but not significantly compared to the broader problems already in the area, and noted the problem was with the existing stormwater system being inadequate to address the larger area draining into it.


Steve McLoon, 1920 Gluek Lane

Mayor Roe agreed to hear comment from Mr. McLoon on both proposals on Gluek Lane.


Mr. McLoon stated he had so many objections to these proposals, especially in light of last week's major rain event, making the road impassible at several locations for a considerable amount of time, and stormwater rising almost to the level of his storage shed.  Mr. McLoon stated he had researched the definition of a federal wetland area, and opined this body of water certainly qualified, and further opined the wetland area in the back was only the tip of the iceberg.  If adding another 1,000 square feet of roof alone multiplied by two, Mr. McLoon opined would not be inconsequential.  Mr. McLoon asked to see a hydrologist's report or have stormwater drainage issues addressed through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for drainage and tree removal that would be lost with either development and the benefit of their leaf canopies.  Mr. McLoon noted he and his wife had initially moved to this area from a short distance away due to the amount of tree cover and lack of traffic; and opined that every home constructed would reduce trees and increase traffic.  If the rationale of the property owners was based on economics, Mr. McLoon suggested they simply sell their entire property as is and relocate to a property suiting their needs better.  As examples, Mr. McLoon opined the recently-constructed home at 1931 Gluek Lane didn't fit the neighborhood at all; and even though his property would support five homes if subdivided, it would also not belong in this neighborhood.


Jim House, 1895 Gluek Lane

(Written comments received as part of the record).

Bordering both properties being considered for subdivision tonight, and as a senior member of the neighborhood for over forty years and one of the last original lots as developed for this plat, Mr. House noted there had been other property splits through the years, including subdivision of his lot at one point.  Mr. House addressed the easement, culvert and catch basins located in several places, but noted the issue isn't sufficiently addressed through vertical appearance of displayed maps, but rather on a topographical map showing depth and ability to accommodate water in a holding area.  Mr. House noted the location of his home was on a fairly high lot, and based on studies when his lot was subdivided, the neighbor property was already running two sump pumps in their full basement; and since then other developments had tried to address drainage issues, since the original stormwater system was built (in the late 1950's).


As noted in their written comments, Mr. House advised that they had no objection to the proposed subdivisions, but agreed that some of the points raised by Dr. McLoon were relevant; but more importantly this area was designed around a low area to accommodate water and deal with the flow from the Ramsey County watershed area.  Mr. House opined that additional fill would need to be accommodated by additional excavation or water holding capacity, even with a small rain and street flooding experience, if no accommodation was made for that larger square mile drainage need, it would be problematic.  Mr. House further opined that anything built would create the need for major excavation of peat and major fill to elevate homes so there were not dramatically below the water level.  Therefore, Mr. House further opined that design and building recommendations would need to be complex and in turn costly to address that issue.  Mr. House agreed that the size and character of neighborhood lots were important, but not if accommodated appropriately; and if that was the case, he would have no major objections to having a few more neighbors.


Joel Cheney, 2172 Acorn Road

Speaking in general, Mr. Cheney noted he had no specific comments to either subdivision proposal being considered tonight.  In moving to Roseville from White Bear Lake in 2002, Mr. Cheney noted he had not considered property in other suburbs such as Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center or Crystal, instead preferring the character found in this Roseville neighborhood with large treed lots, windy roads, proximity to both downtowns, and other amenities making Roseville immensely attractive to his family.  Mr. Cheney stated that combination of charm and efficiency and convenience was immensely attractive to him.  However, the direction the city seemed to be taking with this type of subdivision in the community seemed to be moving toward big box stores, smaller lots, broader tax base, and trees resistant to disease, opining that it was turning Roseville into another community like Brooklyn Center, and he didn't like that trend.  Mr. Cheney urged the City Council to look at the broader picture and other suburbs preserving larger lots sizes and their character.  While not trying to appear selfish, Mr. Cheney noted there were benefits to Roseville from preserving these types of amenities and asked that they consider that perspective.


Lisa Koland, Applicant and Property Owner at 1926 Gluek Lane

In response to public comments, Ms. Koland addressed several issues.  In the staff report, Ms. Koland highlighted lines 88 - 104 specifically addressing some of those raised concerns as part of staff's review.  Ms. Koland noted the new parcel would be subject to city codes standards, including grading, stormwater management and tree preservation.  Specific to drainage, Ms. Koland referenced line 98 addressing that drainage in some detail.  As noted, Ms. Koland referenced the flooding resulting from the larger system and not residential development itself.  At the time their project pulls a grading permit, Ms. Koland noted there would be significant review to ensure compliance with code.


Ms. Koland assured her neighbors that their intent was to continue living alongside the divefided parcel, and therefore it was also important that there was no flooding issue.  Specific to their property as it currently stands, Ms. Koland noted they experienced no catastrophic flooding from rainwater, and it seemed to be centered in another area of Gluek Lane.


While their neighbor Mr. McLoon stated the area proposed for subdivision and development was completely tree filled, Ms. Koland clarified that it was not, and those trees proposed for removal were Cottonwood trees, with the remainder of the parcel formerly holding a large garden space, no longer in place.


From her personal perspective, Ms. Koland agreed their neighborhood was well treed and very enjoyable, and therefore looked forward to letting someone else utilize this portion of their parcel to also enjoy the neighborhood.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, and with the assistance of Mr. Lloyd, it was clarified by Ms. Koland that the actual measurements and potential location of the home was not yet determined until a formal survey was completed.  However, Mr. Lloyd addressed proposed subdivision property lines based on city code requirements using the displayed map.


David Knutson, 1854 Gluek Lane

When his parents had moved to this property thirty years ago, Mr. Knutson noted it served as an oasis in the middle of a busy suburb.  To now further distribute lot sizes and make them smaller, Mr. Knutson opined completely changed the character of the neighborhood, as the lots continue to be chopped up.  Mr. Knutson opined this area was designed with a drainage pond, and not for high density housing.  While his parents had now moved into Eagle Crest, Mr. Knutson noted how livid his father had been when hearing about this proposal; and his first response had been to question what legal recourse was available to prevent more subdivisions from happening.  Mr. Knutson suggested property owners move somewhere with smaller lots if that was their preference.


Brad Koland, Applicant and Property Owner at 1926 Gluek Lane

Specific to the comments about high density housing, Mr. Koland clarified that this subdivision request represented two lots of just over a half acre and the other just under half an acre respectively, and therefore the high density term was not an appropriate description; when one acre lots are quite common in this area.


Mayor Roe closed the public hearing at approximately 9:46 p.m.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Public Works Director Marc Culver advised that a hydrologist had not been consulted as part of this proposal; with Mayor Roe further clarifying that there was no requirement indicated as part of the city's subdivision ordinance.


Councilmember McGehee opined it should only be common sense in this type of situation.


Mayor Roe noted there had also not been any trigger for an EIS; and while there was always the possibility that one or both of those two items could be required, he noted it was not typically part of subdivision consideration and certainly not automatic.


McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, DENIAL of a MINOR SUBDIVISION of the property at 1926 Gluek Lane into two parcels; based on the following findings:

§  Runoff and drainage issues in this area are extreme to say the least without more information being known about the proposed subdivision and impacts to current drainage issues; and

§  City Code is not being met as recently amended for lots no smaller than 85' in width, making one of the proposed parcels actually an unbuildable lot, as well as not in keeping with existing and adjacent lot sizes within the character of this neighborhood.


Councilmember Willmus asked staff if the angle of the proposed lot line as it intersected with Gluek Lane created a grey area.  Councilmember Willmus noted he had long been a proponent of perpendicular lot lines with the roadway.


Mr. Lloyd stated he didn't think there was any grey area as lot lines were currently proposed.  As with the previous application on Acorn Road, Mr. Lloyd noted city code allowed some flexibility by the City Council in the size and shape of lots and their suitability for single-family residential development.  While the code prefers nice, rectangular lots easier to understand with property boundaries, Mr. Lloyd noted other subdivision approvals with anomalies; and with these lot lines parallel to existing side property lines, they are allowed even if not within the strict confines of code, as noted in the RCA.


Councilmember Etten stated he would not support this motion to deny, even though he understood the concerns of the neighborhood.  Councilmember Etten noted both developments considered so far tonight had existing water drainage issues, and both had been on the city's radar for some time and efforts were being made to address them.  Councilmember Etten referenced bids that had come in too high several years ago that would have gone a considerable way to mitigate those issues and subsequent rejection of the bids and a project accordingly.  However, Councilmember Etten questioned how the city could hold individual homeowners responsible for additional and minor stormwater drainage due to the city's inadequate system.  Also since these lots will be double the typical standard size in Roseville for single-family residential lots, Councilmember Etten stated he could not support the motion to deny based on that finding either.


Based on the findings as articulated, and staff's review as noted by Senior Planner Lloyd, Mayor Roe stated he could not support the motion to deny either.  Mayor Roe noted the lot conforms with conventional requirements for lot width and area, and stated he was satisfied that the applicant had made the effort to meet requirements of lot lines as recently updated by city code, noting that a lot line parallel to the northerly lot line would also work and could be considered as an option depending on the final survey data.  However, as it currently stands, Mayor Roe opined the proposal met minimum requirements for lot lines and setbacks.  Mayor Roe further stated that he didn't feel building a home on this site, with any new property or development requirements in place, would constitute a major negative impact to the existing drainage problem; and therefore he didn't find this proposal created an issue in that regard.


Based on the comments made by Senior Planner Lloyd indicating the lot would be suitable on which to build a home, Councilmember McGehee opined that the dimensional width of the lot did not conform to city standards; and she was aware of the City Council having turned down previous and similar applications elsewhere in the city for that same reason.  In addition to her prior comments, and the comments made subsequent to her motion, Councilmember McGehee opined how people valued their neighborhoods served as a real benefit to the community, as indicated on the recently community survey, and as commented on by the public tonight.  Councilmember McGehee suggested that it seemed when people needed more money one solution was their attempt to divide their lots according to some standard of the city's grid system, and then change the character of a neighborhood for everyone else.  Councilmember McGehee stated she personally didn't think that was a valid reason to split lots, and based on calls she had received from other citizens, felt her position was upheld by others.  Councilmember McGehee noted there had been some reference by property owners of an understanding when people built their homes or purchased property in this area, there would be no splitting of lots; but noted this apparently hadn't been documented.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that Roseville's plan for uniform infill lots that seemed to be underway was short-sighted and wrong.  Councilmember McGehee noted the massive water problems already existing that the city didn't have finances nor sufficient easements or access to solve. 


Councilmember Willmus stated he would not speak to a property owner's motivation to subdivide their parcels, noting they had the ability to do so to a point.  However, Councilmember Willmus opined that point was that any subdivision not be injurious or harmful to other adjacent properties.  Based on staff's comments about that drainage, Councilmember Willmus stated he could not say added impervious surface would not harm those adjacent property owners, and therefore he would side with the findings as proposed, and support the motion for denial.


Mayor Roe stated he maybe could be persuaded to support denial based on drainage, but not the finding on whether the parcel meets the city's buildable lot requirements; or parameters for neighborhood character, since there were not standards for such character addressed in subdivision or zoning code.  As previously stated, therefore, Mayor Roe advised he could not support denial based on the stated findings.


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus and Laliberte.

Nays: Etten and Roe. 

Motion carried.


Mayor Roe announced the findings would be presented at the next Council meeting for formal adoption.


Motion to Extend Meeting Curfew

At 10:00 p.m., McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, extension of City Council curfew to complete Item 12.c.


Councilmember Etten noted there were a number of community members in the audience who had been waiting for some time for the City Council to address Item 14.a; and proposed that item be considered as well. 


Councilmember Laliberte concurred.


The makers of the motion agreed with that friendly amendment; amending their motion to include agenda items 12.c and 14.a as part of the meeting curfew extension.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


c.            Request for Approval of a Minor Subdivision at 1861 Gluek Lane into Two Parcels (PF16-016)

Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly reviewed this request for subdivision, as detailed in the RCA and related attachments; and noted similar drainage concerns.  Mr. Lloyd referenced written comments as noted with the previous application and photographic evidence provided from neighbors to the south of this site.  Mr. Lloyd advised that staff supports approval of this subdivision application.


Councilmember Laliberte referenced comments from City Engineer Freihammer that he had more concerns with this property than the previous application and sought clarification.


Assistant Public Works Director and City Engineer Jesse Freihammer

Mr. Freihammer concurred, noting that in the other project, there was minimal area along the length of the lot while this lot held for a larger impact of the floodway area, making the biggest difference in the two applications.


Applicant Arlene Menke, 1861 Gluek Lane

Contrary to past comments, Ms. Menke clarified that their intent as property owners seeking to subdivide their parcel was not to make a killing on selling a portion of it.  Ms. Menke advised that their practical reason was to build a new home for their use and for one-level, aging-in-place living rather than their current multi-level home they were finding it difficult to navigate (e.g. stairs).  Ms. Menke advised that they had looked at homes in other areas of the community, but their rationale in asking for the subdivision is based on their love for the neighborhood.  Ms. Menke advised that they intended to preserve as many trees as possible; and recognized and were aware of grading issues and some development of the property below street level.  However, as noted before, Ms. Menke reiterated that this drainage issues was clearly not their personal need to resolve, but up to the city to do so; and assured the City Council that they didn't do anything nor did they plan to do anything to make that drainage situation worse.  Ms. Menke noted their part in helping to maintain the area as wetland.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Ms. Menke confirmed their intent to build their new home on the southern portion of the parcel.


Mayor Roe thanked Ms. Menke for her comments, and opened the public hearing at approximately 10:07 p.m.


Public Comment

As noted with the last application, joint written comment was included (RCA Exhibit D) dated Jun3 28, 2016 from Carl & Charity Willis, 1885 Gluek Lane and Jim & Jan House at 1896 Gluek Lane specific to this request and the next application; both expressing concern for and seeking a clear understanding of stormwater drainage impacts.


Steve McLoon, 1920 Gluek Lane

Mr. McLoon reiterated previous comments, and areas under water last week based on the displayed map.  If a home is built at this proposed location, Mr. McLoon asked where that stormwater would go. 


Jim House, 1895 Gluek Lane

(Written comments received as part of the record).

Being the property immediately adjacent, Mr. House reiterated his concerns and those of his neighbor.  As part of those concerns, Mr. House provided photos he had taken within 3-4 months of moving into the property and comparison photos in 2011 when the entire area was flooded, including the street.  Mr. House utilized a Ramsey County aerial map to see the evolution of development in this area and area storm ditch and easement areas shown.  If the intent is to fill in a portion of the site below the road for another home, Mr. House opined there was the need to mitigate that stormwater drainage elsewhere.


Mr. House addressed another concern was already dangerous corner at Gluek Lane and the roadway circle, and safety concerns to pedestrians and bicycles, that would only increase with more development.  Mr. House proposed additional mitigation (e.g. tree removal) to improve sight lines in that area.


Mayor Roe closed the public hearing at approximately 10:10 p.m.,


Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, DENIAL of a MINOR SUBDIVISION of property at 1861 Gluek Lane into two parcels; based on the following findings:

·         Subdividing this lot and adding impervious coverage with a new home will prove injurious to adjacent and area properties due to negative impacts with increased drainage needs.


Councilmember Willmus stated he had no problem with the proposed configuration of the lot or changes to the character of the neighborhood beyond the finding as stated; and therefore could not support approval of the proposed subdivision.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, City Engineer Freihammer advised, without benefit of a complete grading plan at this stage of the process, and identification of any area or fill in the flood area, he could not adequately address the impacts to drainage.  However, Mr. Freihammer advised that there would be some mitigation required (e.g. a storage area), and as with the city's requirement for any grading plan, that would dictate the location of the proposed home and how those impacts would be mitigated for the most benefit.


Since the proposed subdivision still met city code for holding water on site, Councilmember Etten asked if Mr. Freihammer found any real concern as stated by neighbors given existing flooding issues.


Mr. Freihammer reiterated that would depend on the location of the house and how the lot was graded; but advised there were options available for the property owner.


Councilmember Laliberte stated she did not question a property owner's right to subdivide their property, nor the desire to stay within the Roseville community and their current neighborhood, nor the need to obtain the type of housing stock they were looking for. However, Councilmember Laliberte expressed concern in the additional fill required with another home foundation at a higher spot creating additional runoff along that easement area.  Councilmember Laliberte questioned if that had the potential to create considerable issues for other property owners in the area; and since the city isn't yet in a position to resolve or mitigate existing issues, she would need to support denial of the subdivision request.


Mayor Roe stated his support for denial as well, opining if this were a flat property, it was well within city standards for approval, but this subdivision would unfortunately create more drainage issues.


Mayor Roe noted denial findings would be presented at the next City Council meeting, for formal adoption according to that specific language.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


13.        Budget Items


14.        Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Receive Feasibility Report and Order Public Hearing for South Lake Owasso Private Drive Storm Sewer Improvements

Assistant Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer briefly summarized this request as detailed in the RCA and related attachments.  Mr. Freihammer presented staff's analysis of the proposal for these seven property owners seeking this improvement; and reviewed assessment methodology and outlined financing for the project.


Given direct drainage of this area into Lake Owasso, Mr. Freihammer advised it was high on the priority list for Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District and therefore this best management practice (BMP) project would qualify for some grant funding from them, and therefore further reduce the city's cost. 


Mr. Freihammer specifically addressed City Council questions since their last discussion as part of the benefit appraisal study and maximum assessment rate for those eight parcels and related cost breakdown based on the feasibility study until actual costs are known if and when bid (Attachment B).


Mayor Roe clarified that tonight's action is only to receive the feasibility report and schedule a public hearing for August 8, 2016.  At the public hearing, Mayor Roe noted specific plans would be reviewed at that time, and as part of the process, the decision made whether or not to proceed with the project at that time, or subsequent to the public hearing.


Councilmember Etten opined this was an important project, understood well by the neighbors, and addressed private versus public roads and cost sharing accordingly.  However, Councilmember Etten asked staff to address the rationale for considering the project and any precedents for private road projects such as this.  Also, Councilmember Etten noted the goal to reduce phosphorus currently going into Lake Owasso as part of this project;  and asked the source of that drainage right now.


City of Roseville Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson

Mr. Johnson advised that the phosphorus source is a combination of overland runoff from yards, the adjacent railroad rights-of-way, atmospheric and sediment tracking from cars, and other sources in this area. While there wouldn't be a considerable reduction in phosphorus loading as a result of this improvement, Mr. Johnson noted even an estimated reduction of pounds annually could be considered a forward step.


Councilmember Etten asked staff to define how this project would help the water quality of Lake Owasso and benefit the community.


While Lake Owasso is currently meeting state standards for water quality, Mr. Johnson noted it was considered a water body at risk.  Therefore, Mr. Johnson advised that if improvements were not implemented to further mitigate those contaminants, and assist in rate control with larger rainfalls and that volume moving directly into the lake with no infiltration treatment beforehand, Lake Owasso's water quality would continue to deteriorate.  By allowing runoff to filtrate through the properties while pulling out more phosphorus and sediment into piping that could be monitored more frequently, Mr. Johnson noted this would continue to improve overall water quality.


Councilmember Etten stated his support for the project and potential water quality improvements as well as benefits to the private property owners in reducing runoff and pooling on their yards through this proposed drainage system.


Mayor Roe opened the meeting for public comment specific to whether a public hearing should be held for this project.


Public Comment

Written comment was provided for the record from Kristi & Jeremy Green, 313 South Owasso Boulevard W.


Bruce Torgerson, 337 South Owasso

Mr. Torgerson reviewed the history of this neighborhood, noting that a solution to the problem had been sought for years by users of Lake Owasso.  Mr. Torgerson noted the majority of the issue is the Class 5 dirt road easement owned by the railroad that continued to produce that runoff.  However, Mr. Torgerson opined all users would benefit from this stormwater project; and while having worked with staff over the last few years, the price kept increasing.  Mr. Torgerson expressed the interest in making this a win-win project for the watershed district, Ramsey County, and the entire Roseville community, as well as all users of Lake Owasso; but noted the aging demographic of these private property owners and asked that while supporting the project, the costs be kept down as much as humanly possible.


Daniel Peterson, 345 S Owasso

Mr. Peterson spoke specifically to tree preservation; based on the two choices most impacting his property in solving this drainage issue.  Mr. Peterson referenced comments of the surveyor and asked for consideration by the City Council on the best solution since his property was being used to route water to Lake Owasso; but also his preference for the least impactful to his property.


Mr. Freihammer addressed the proposed alignment and existing location on the east side of Mr. Peterson's property and locate of the city's vacated easement and other option needing another easement to be obtained if the west side was used.


Mr. Peterson admitted there were engineering challenges depending on the easement location; requiring further consultation.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Peterson expressed his preference for an easement on the east side of his property.


Kristi Green, 313 S Owasso Blvd. (end of road)

(Written comments received as part of the record).

As stated in written comments, Ms. Green asked for the City Council's consideration in moving forward with this project.


Mike Bennett, 349 S Owasso

Speaking on behalf of his girlfriend's mother, owner of the property, Mr. Bennett noted the location of an existing culvert draining directly into the lake.  However, Mr. Bennett questioned if it was currently plugged since it no longer drained, and created trouble for their property with water backing up and flooding their driveway and garage, creating a problem.  Mr. Bennett noted if the city was able to use that culvert, even though a heavily treed  area, those trees consisted mostly of weeds and buckthorn or other species that needed to be thinned or cleared.


Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Bennett for the information and advised staff would investigate accordingly.


Dave Rustad, 329 S Owasso

Mr. Rustad stated he was in favor of the project and thanked the City Council for considering it, and staff for bringing things to this stage in the process.  Mr. Rustad provided photographic testimony of problematic drainage from his culvert and functionality as it impacted property to the west.  Even though the City's Public Works Department grades the area annually and it helped some, Mr. Rustad noted it remained problematic.


Mayor Roe closed public comment at approximately 10:40 p.m.


Discussion among staff and Councilmembers included winter maintenance and plowing of this private road by the city due to its nature and location of utilities at its end; ongoing maintenance going forward continuing by the city in accordance with a maintenance agreement with the watershed district as a stormwater management device; and importance of sweeping to keep the device open and function as an ongoing city maintenance responsibility.


Further discussion included life span of the paving system estimated at 25-30 years, and replacement and/or maintenance as part of the city's annual capital improvement program going forward; design of the block system allowing more flexibility; vacuum sweeping for maintaining the roadway system; and improbability of receiving any cost participation from the railroad even though their runoff contributes significantly to the issue for Lake Owasso.

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of Resolution No. 11336 (Attachment A) entitled, "Receiving the Feasibility Report for Owasso Private Drive Stormwater Improvements and Ordering Public Hearing for Improvement;" scheduled for August 8, 2016 at 6:00 p.m.


Related to comments about special assessments, Mayor Roe referred residents to the Ramsey County deferral program for those qualifying due to financial hardship as an option for their assessments that would be activated at the time of the home's sale. 


Mayor Roe further pointed out that, after grants and property assessments the remaining $187,000 cost for improvements would come from the City's Stormwater Fund, funded by Roseville citizens, and served as a significant contribution citywide.  Mayor Roe further clarified that this action was to order the public hearing on the improvement for August 8, 2016, at which time the City Council would consider whether to proceed with the project.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Approval of Planned Unit Development (PUD) Fees Necessary to Implement and Process the Recently Adopted PUD Ordinance (PROJ0017, Amendment 26)


c.            Recycling Services Proposal


15.        Business Items - Presentations/Discussions


16.                        City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Trudgeon provided a preview of upcoming agenda items.


17.        Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings


18.        Adjourn Meeting

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:47 p.m.

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.