City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

August 22, 2016

 

1.       Roll Call

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

 

2.       Pledge of Allegiance

 

3.       Approve Agenda

City Manager Trudgeon requested removal of Item 8.j from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.

 

Councilmember Laliberte requested removal of Item 8.b from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.

 

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

 

                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

4.       Public Comment

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

 

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

Mayor Roe announced several upcoming community activities and events for the benefit of the listening audience.

 

Councilmember Laliberte provided a brief update on the community input opportunity held last week with the Cedarholm Golf Course Task Force; with the report being prepared Parks & Recreation Commission meeting in early September and subsequently for presentation to the City Council.

 

Mayor Roe provided an update on revitalization efforts in the Rice Street/Larpenteur Avenue area, and as a follow-up to the recent community meeting held, representatives of the three cities (Maplewood, St. Paul and Roseville) met to organize that raw feedback into areas of similar interest for formal presentation to the wider communities; and subsequent follow-up with businesses tentatively scheduled for September 21, 2016 by the St. Paul Chamber of Commerce.

 

In addition, while there was discussion about having a second meeting with the Karen community, Mayor Roe advised that the Karen Organization of Minnesota (KOM) felt they had reached a point of fatigue in providing so much input, and had suggested alternative methods for the KOM to lead future input efforts. 

 

City Manager Trudgeon announced the next monthly Roseville Business Council meeting scheduled at Affinity Credit Union, hosted in part by the City of Roseville, St. Paul Chamber of Commerce and Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce.  Mr. Trudgeon noted the topic of this morning meeting would be hearing from the Superintendents of School Districts 621 and 623.  Mr. Trudgeon suggested this was a good opportunity to network, and clarified that no R.S.V.P. was needed.

 

6.         Recognitions, Donations and Communications

 

a.            MRPA Award for Roseville Natural Resources Program

Assistant Parks & Recreation Director Jill Anfang provided a brief review of the Roseville Parks Stewardship Network volunteer initiative, and recognized Roseville Parks Superintendent Jeff Evenson, Stantec Consulting representatives, and Roseville Volunteer Coordinator Kelly OBrien.  Ms. Anfang Jill announced that Mr. Evenson was moving on to employment with the City of Maple Grove, thanking him for his efforts for Roseville, and wishing him well.  Ms. Anfang introduced MRPA representative Mr. Chris Fleck (City of Woodbury Recreation Specialist).

 

MRPA Representative Mr. Chris Fleck

Mr. Fleck briefly summarized the work of the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association (MRPA) and presented their 2015 Award of Excellence in the Volunteer Initiatives category for Roseville's Stewardship Network.

 

Mr. Evenson thanked the City Council for their support over the years, and noted how rewarding it had been to see the interest in the Park Renewal Program and expressed his enjoyment in being part of the effort.

 

Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Evenson for his leadership in the effort.

 

Councilmember Willmus thanked the MRPA for this recognition, noting what an awesome investment volunteers made to the community; and thanked Mr. Evenson for his hands-on approach over the last few years in the Park Renewal Program.

 

On behalf of the community and City Council, Mayor Roe accepted the award from Ms. Fleck.  Mayor Roe recognized Mr. Evenson's key role in the Park Renewal Program as providing the calm hand at the helm, and thanked him for those efforts from the beginning of the Park Master Plan process, and the excellent job he had done for the community. Mayor Roe noted Mr. Evenson's service would remain as his legacy in the City of Roseville.

 

b.            Service Enterprise Certification

Mayor Roe recognized Volunteer Coordinator Kelly O'Brien and welcomed Sarah Westland representing Service Enterprise Points of Light program.

 

Ms. Westland reviewed the volunteer initiative program and best management practices sought for effective volunteer engagement in a community.  Ms. Westland noted that nationally, more than 500 organizations in over twenty states participated in the program, with only approximately 200 meeting the standards for certification.  Ms. Westland expressed her pleasure in announcing that the City of Roseville was the first municipal to achieve certification as a service enterprise.  Ms. Westland recognized the fantastic hard work of Roseville staff working toward this certification over the last twelve months.  As lead coach for the City of Roseville, Ms. Westland thanked staff for their leadership and for recognizing the value of developing a strong volunteer infrastructure.

 

Ms. Westland presented the Certificate of Recognition to Mayor Roe.

 

On behalf of the community and City Council, Mayor Roe accepted the award and thanked Ms. O'Brien for her efforts and that of all city staff for their intensive efforts.  Mayor Roe noted the benefit of that work toward volunteer
programs going forward.

 

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 August 15, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the August 15, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended.

 

Corrections:

Councilmember McGehee submitted changes via email that were confirmed as a bench handout and incorporated changes to pages 1, 7, 12, 16, 21, 22, and 23 into the revisions.

·         Page 13, Lin 37 (Roe)

Correct "PMP Endowment" to "Park Renewal Fund"

 

                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

8.            Approve Consent Agenda

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for Council Action (RCA) dated August 22, 2016 and related attachments.

 

a.            Approve Payments

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

 

ACH Payments	$1,519,784.92
82552-82694	922,663.42
TOTAL	$2,442,448.34

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

           

c.            Multi-Agency law Enforcement Agreement - Minnesota Internet Crimes against Children Task Force

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11347 (Attachment A) entitled, "City of Roseville Participation in the Minnesota Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program (MICAC);" renewing the multi-agency law enforcement joint powers agreement, SWIFT Contract No. 110314(Attachment B) with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, thereby allowing participation in MICAC; and authorizing the mayor and city manager to execute the document.

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

d.            Acceptance of the Roseville Area High School Police Liaison Officer Agreement for the 2016-2017 School Year

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, authorizing renewal of the 2016-2017 Roseville Area School Police Liaison Officer Agreement (Attachment A); and authorizing the mayor and city manager to execute the document.

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

e.            Request to Authorize the Police Chief to Enter into a Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11351 (Attachment A) entitled, "A Resolution Authorizing Chief of Police to Sign Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies and Request Form for Minnesota Government Access (MGA) Login Account."

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

f.             Request for Approval for an Agreement between the City of Roseville, and the Roseville Volunteer Fire Department Auxiliary

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, City Manager Trudgeon clarified that the auxiliary participants at the event that day were permitted to wear standard firefighter uniforms at this unofficial event.

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, authorizing the mayor and city manager to enter into an agreement (Attachment A) between the City of Roseville and the Roseville Volunteer Fire Department Auxiliary for the purpose of conducting a Booya Fund Raiser Event.

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

g.            Approve Wheeler Street Closure and Proceed with Feasibility Report

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon reviewed the RCA detail showing the "next steps" in this process.

 

Councilmembers McGehee and Laliberte commended city staff for their communication and notification efforts as evidenced by recent comments heard from residents.

 

 Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No.11352 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Ordering Preparation of Feasibility Report for Wheeler Street Closure Project;" approving permanent closure of Wheeler Street at County Road D.

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

h.            Authorize Filling of Vacancy on Finance Commission

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, declaring a vacancy on the Finance Commission, directing staff to advertise for applications to serve, and setting a deadline for applications by September 21, 2016; with interviews scheduled September 26 and subsequent appointment at the October 10, 2016 City Council meeting.

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

i.       Consider Renewing the IT Shared Service Agreement with the City of Circle Pines

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of an Information Technology Shared Service Agreement (Attachment A) between the Cities of Circle Pins and Roseville for the purposes of sharing the City's IP Telephony System and other support services.

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

9.         Consider Items Removed from Consent

 

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

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA dated August 22, 2016 and related attachments.

 

Noting the network security services for Information Technology (IT) were budgeted items, Councilmember Laliberte expressed concern with ongoing relationship with partner cities felt and how they felt about this expenditure from their perspective.

 

Finance Director Chris Miller advised that all partners had been invited to discuss this enhanced network security protection service, and the consensus was that it was an appropriate and urgent priority measure to take at this time.  Mr. Miller advised that while twelve different agencies were represented at a meeting on this expenditure, those unable to meet were contacted personally by IT Manager Terre Heiser to seek their input and inform them of the need for enhanced security measures. 

 

Finance Director Miller advised that operational savings for the City of Roseville would offset its initial costs, requiring not budget adjustment.  Mr. Miller advised that the partner agencies would be having similar discussions to address this added, non-budgeted expenditure.

 

Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as noted in the RCA dated August 22, 2016, and Attachment A entitled, "2016 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," updated July 31, 2016.

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

j.             Approve Quit Claim Deed and Encroachment Easement for 2785 Fairview Avenue

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA dated August 22, 2016 and related attachments.  Mr. Trudgeon noted the additional resolution approving the Quit Claim Deed as provided in a bench handout, formally memorializing the action.

 

McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11348 (Bench Handout) entitled, "Resolution Approving Quit Claim Deed to Hagen Ventures, LLC to Cure Title Defect," at 2785 Fairview Avenue."

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No.11348 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Approving Encroachment Agreement at 2785 Fairview Avenue."

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

10.        General Ordinances for Adoption

 

a.            Request to Amend City Code, Chapter 1004 (Residential Districts) to Revise Regulations Pertaining to Building Footprints and Paved Surfaces on Parcels in Low Density Residential (LDR) Zoning Districts (PROJ0017)

City Planner Bryan Lloyd summarized the request as detailed in the RCA of this date; and noted a bench handout incorporated into the RCA providing an extract of City Council meeting minutes of May 23, 2016. 

 

Councilmember Willmus asked if the Planning Commission (PC) and Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC) were provided copies of those May 23, 2016 meeting minutes.

 

While unable to speak to whether or not they were provided to the PWETC, the Mr. Lloyd responded that he was not aware they had been provided to the PC.

 

Noting those meeting minutes referenced the City Council's discussion of, 35% and 40% coverage of parcels in LDR-2 designations, Councilmember Etten asked if there was any reason staff had not presented that lesser percentage to the PC rather than only the 40%.

 

Mr. Lloyd advised that staff's rationale had concluded from City Council discussions, that coverage up to 40% was acceptable, but anything beyond that was in question.  However, if the City Council prefers not to go as high as 40%, Mr. Lloyd noted any smaller percentage verified suitable by hydrology report standards would suffice.

 

As noted in the RCA, Mayor Roe referenced existing LDR-2 parcels averaging 38% based on a study by Public Works/Engineering staff; and asked how many of those sites were currently in the community.

 

Mr. Lloyd responded that approximately 200 sites were zoned LDR-2, many distributed in small groups, and many as a result of Planned Unit Developments (PUD).  However, with the rezoning adoption in 2010, Mr. Lloyd noted that density was rezoned to LDR-2, creating additional lot designations in that category.

 

Councilmember McGehee referenced Section 3 (RCE Exhibit B, page 2) a limit of 70% improvement area, including other structures like decks, pergolas, pools, etc.   Councilmember McGehee stated she took issue with that, whether or not this language was in the existing code, opining that coverage percentage was too high.  Further, Councilmember McGehee stated that, according to her research with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), they considered decks and/or pergolas impervious versus pervious surfaces, and suggested that city code should do so as well.  Councilmember McGehee noted many of those decks and pergolas may sit on heavily compacted soils, concrete or other impervious surfaces, and therefore for all intents and purposes not allowing for any drainage.

 

Mr. Lloyd confirmed that existing city code, while limiting the types of things that may be constructed on a parcel, decks were not considered impervious.  Mr. Lloyd noted changes over the years in how city staff addresses structures on a parcel, especially with new technologies for installation and materials; as well as how those structures are initially installed and maintained over time ensuring they remain permeable as intended.  Mr. Lloyd noted this ongoing maintenance was addressed via re-inspections and recertification and other means in addressing them as with other best management practices (BMPs).

 

Assistant Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer, advised that ongoing monitoring of permeable applications and their design was part of the city's Residential Storm Water Permits (ReSWP) process.  Mr. Freihammer noted each system is designed differently, and staff followed and relied on criteria in their specific design specifications that addressed allotted drainage.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Freihammer clarified that when staff calculates permeable surface square footages, calculations were based on performance.  Mayor Roe noted if someone was using a permeable surface (e.g. pavers), and not getting up to the limit of 30% or 40%, no analysis was done by staff since the maximum threshold was not reached. Conversely, other pervious portions of the property that were up to the improvement limit of 50% to 70% could be removed to address that excess impervious coverage for the overall site.  However, Mayor Roe clarified, with confirmation by Mr. Freihammer, that staff would not perform that analysis unless a property owner was attempting to exceed those lower limits addressed in city code.

 

In referencing the same section as Councilmember McGehee (specifically line 52) and agreeing some may be more impervious than suggested, Councilmember Etten asked how 70% was arrived at for LDR-2 and 50% in LDR-1 designated areas.

 

Mr. Lloyd stated he could not recall the 2010 conversations that prompted that percentage specific to that provision, other than recognizing that LDR-2 parcels on smaller lots allow for the expectation of greater development levels on more compact properties.

 

Mayor Roe offered an opportunity for public comment, with no one appearing to speak for or against.

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, revising proposed language in RCA Exhibit B, Section 3, Item C, line 52 from 70% to 50% to make it consistent with LDR-1 designated parcels.

 

Mayor Roe consulted City Attorney Mark Gaughan on whether such a language change was within the process for ordinance zoning change adoptions, or whether it needed to go through the Planning Commission public hearing process again.  Mayor Roe noted the City Council was changing a different technical requirement of city code beyond that recommended at the Planning Commission level and previous public hearing opportunity.

 

City Attorney Gaughan stated the only obligation was that ordinance changes initially go through the Planning Commission and public vetting process; but clarified the proposed percentage change was not required to go through that process again, and advised that the City Council was within their authority to amend the proposed ordinance language in Exhibit B further at this time.  Mr. Gaughan further stated that the City Council was operating out of due diligence, and while it could send this revised text amendment back to the Planning Commission if it felt it was a different topic than previously proposed before the Commission, it also had the discretion to do so.

 

Mayor Roe suggested amending the motion on the table to direct staff to take this proposed revised text amendment back to the Planning Commission.

 

Makers of the motion agreed with the amendment; and the motion is restated as follows:

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, [directing staff to return to the Planning Commission and process for consideration of} revising proposed language in RCA Exhibit B, Section 3, Item C, line 52 from 70% to 50% to make it consistent with LDR-1 designated parcels.

 

Councilmember Etten stated he was clearly concerned that 70% was an extreme percentage in LDR-2 areas; and supported a cap of 50% improvement coverage for both LDR-1 and LDR-2 designated parcels. Councilmember Etten further stated he had no problem delaying action on this to ensure the city was covered legally by moving this amendment revision back to the Planning Commission process.

 

Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of sending this particular aspect back to the Planning Commission, opining it was technically different than their original discussion regarding impervious surfaces; and supported the motion to amend.  Councilmember Willmus noted he also had additional comments specific to impervious surface ratios. 

 

Councilmember Laliberte agreed this was the right process to follow.

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated he found staff's rationale for the proposed adoption of an ordinance at 40% impervious coverage rather than the initially discussed 50% based on a handful of properties exceeding the 30% at 38% to be troubling and advised he could not make that nexus.  Councilmember Willmus stated he would not support going to the 40%, and stuck by his comments and the City Council discussion evidenced in the May 23, 2016 meeting minutes, continuing to advocate for the 35% ratio.  Therefore, Councilmember Willmus stated he would seek to amend draft ordinance language of Exhibit B to reflect that discussion, striking the proposed 40% and replacing those references to no greater than 35%. 

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, amending draft language in RCA Exhibit B, page 2, Section 3, lin3 69 to limit impervious surfaces to 35% versus 40% of the parcel area for all other parcels.

 

Councilmember Etten stated his agreement with Councilmember Willmus, noting he preferred the previous 30%, but 35% represented as high as he was willing to go give the city's numerous storm water management control issues.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated her preference for setting caps for impervious surfaces allowed and not exceeded based on who the city engineer happened to be and that interpretation and analysis.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that city triggered review and analysis only occurs if a parcel exceeds the established cap, requiring further review and approval for any excess and mitigation to address it accordingly.  Mayor Roe further clarified this motion was not to approve the ordinance, but to amend draft language currently before the City Council, and any subsequent language amendments may follow as separate motions before a final motion to adopt the ordinance.

 

Councilmember Laliberte noted on reading the May 2016 City Council meeting minutes, as reflected, she was uncomfortable with the proposal, and was much more comfortable with the 35% proposal.  Even though some properties may exceed that percentage, Councilmember Laliberte stated that didn't rationalize moving the percentage over 35% to accommodate those parcels.

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

Councilmember McGehee suggested a motion to limit the extent the City Engineer was authorized to approve various impervious surface amounts; suggesting if it exceeded 10% of the adopted cap set by the City Council, any approvals needed to come before the Council for consideration and action.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that, if a parcel designated LDR-1 exceeded 30% impervious coverage limits, the only possible way an improvement would be approved was with mitigation approved by the City Engineer, with 50% improvement area as the absolute maximum applicable per city code. 

 

Councilmember McGehee stated her preference to see no more than 60% total impervious coverage; and opined she was not happy with this open-ended mitigation variable.

 

Mayor Roe questioned the downside of mitigating excessive impervious surfaces.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined, in some instances, a heavily-paved site violated her idea of green space, which was her overall concern.  With the advent of permeable pavers, Councilmember McGehee opined there could no longer be a limit to "hard"
surfaces.

 

Mayor Roe noted there were already limits on LDR-1 in addition to the proposed 50% limit for LDR-2 parcels in accordance with the previous motion that is to go before the Planning Commission.

 

Councilmember Etten referenced line 51 in the RCA related to variance applications; suggesting that may be confusing the issue compared with ordnance language that provided more clarity.  Councilmember Etten asked if there was a limit to variances; with Mayor Roe noting demonstrated hardship criteria in accordance with State Statute that addressed variance requests and their subsequent approval or denial.

 

City Manager Trudgeon noted the RCA allowed for any exceeding of code standards requiring the variance application and process, opining it created nothing unique with this proposed ordinance either.  Mr. Trudgeon noted any variance was considered on a case by case basis; with City Attorney Gaughan concurring that a hardship needed to be clearly demonstrated.

 

Mayor Roe further noted that a variance application didn't guarantee approval, with safeguards in place to address the process.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated her hope that, when this returns to the Planning Commission, they have a discussion on decks and DNR definitions.

 

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, that decks and their definition as pervious or impervious surfaces be considered based on the understructure materials.

 

Mayor Roe suggested this may be more of a technical issue, and not require a change to zoning ordinance text, but simply how they're reviewed or applied.

 

City Manager Trudgeon suggested including a definition of impervious surfaces beyond the primary building footprints, to include and address decks, pergolas, etc.

 

Senior Planner Lloyd noted various surface applications under decks (e.g. cement or plastic) that may be used as an alternative to landscape fabrics that would typically allow some water to permeate.  Therefore, Mr. Lloyd expressed staff's curiosity as to the City Council's intent for staff to review those applications, if impervious plastic was used under mulch materials.

 

Mayor Roe agreed that was a good question for consideration, and asked how staff would be aware of that distinction.

 

Discussion ensued regarding types of materials and assessment of their permeability; whether pools are part of this discussion and emotion with staff's previous determination that they were considered impervious surfaces and may contain covers that made them more impermeable; and status of principle and accessory structures accordingly.

 

Since this discussion and motion appeared to be more related to the definition of a deck and not the specific language of lines 51-53 of the RCA, Councilmember Laliberte stated her support of further discussion and investigation of this topic.

 

After further discussion, and with agreement by the makers of the motion, Mayor Roe clarified the motion on the table, restated as follows for clarity:

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, directing staff to investigate the code classification of decks specific to their consideration as pervious or impervious surfaces based on the understructure materials.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and McGehee. 

Nays: Roe.

Motion carried.

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1508 (RCA Exhibit B) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Improvement Area Regulations of Chapter 1004 (Residential Districts) of Roseville City Code, Title 10 "Zoning Code"; amending draft ordinance language to limit maximum impervious area at 35% coverage for LDR-2 designated parcels per the previously passed motion.

 

Councilmembers Willmus and Etten agreed this motion reflected the City Council's May 23, 2016 discussion and intended impervious surface coverage moving forward from today.  Councilmember Willmus qualified that the footprint discussion would be returning to the Planning Commission for review before subsequent City Council action.

 

Councilmember McGehee asked the makers of the motion if they would include revisiting definitions as a friendly amendment to their motion.

 

Councilmembers Willmus and Etten clarified that the previous motion directed staff accordingly, and required no further changes to ordinance amendments at this time.

 

Mayor Roe stated his support for this motion, and it serving to remove specific language related to ReSWP and twenty-year age limits on parcels; allowing any property exceeding the maximum improvement area at 35% to be considered.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan confirmed that properties already exceeding that maximum improvement area would qualify as pre-existing, non-conforming uses; but could not expand that non-conformity any further and retain that legal, non-conforming status.

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No.1508 (RCA Exhibit C) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Improvement Area Regulations of Chapter 1004 (Residential Districts) of Roseville City Code, Title 10 "Zoning Code".

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

11.        Presentations

 

a.            Receive Presentation and Report from The Advocates for Human Rights and Lake McCarrons Neighborhood Association regarding Community Conversations held within SE Roseville

Mayor Roe welcomed Sherry Sanders, Chair of Lake McCarrons Neighborhood Association, who in turn introduced Madeline Lohman, representative with The Advocates for Human Rights.  Community Engagement Commission (CEC) Vice Chair Theresa Gardella was also present at the table.  CEC Chair Scot Becker and Human Rights Commission (HRC) Chair Wayne Groff were present in the audience in support of this initiative.

 

Ms. Sanders and Ms. Lohman summarized highlights and recommendations found in the formal report.  Ms. Lohman noted that, while such communication efforts are an ongoing effort of her organization, this was the first time a neighborhood association had served as a lead partner, and thanked them for doing so.  Ms. Lohman thanked the City Council, city staff and the Karen community for their wonderful participation, stating she was pleased with the attendance, outcome, and continuation of efforts to keep communication open and the Karen population involved in the city and community businesses.

 

CEC Vice Chair Gardella noted the CEC's interest in this communication effort and listening sessions, was in testing out this model as a tool to engage the community, and how effective listening sessions could be.  In that context, Ms. Gardella opined the model had proven very successful, and applauded the leadership of Ms. Sanders and Ms. Lohman; and on behalf of the CEC and from her personally, expressed her appreciation for what they were doing on behalf of the Roseville community.

 

Ms. Sanders thanked Roseville Police Chief Rick Mathwig and Police Community Relations Specialist Corey Yunke, along with the Karen Organization of Minnesota (KOM) for their help in implementing the listening sessions and additional efforts.

 

Mayor Roe noted several interesting points in the report; and addressed things already implemented or in process by the City Council or regional transit agency specific to recommendations included in the report.  Mayor Roe noted some things were specific to property owners or landlords, while other things could be facilitated by members of the community.  Toward that end, Mayor Roe noted that this report was not a document showing only what city government could do, but areas where others in the community could also have an impact.  Mayor Roe noted the most recent discussion of transit needs and issues in this immediate area with the city's Metropolitan Council representative. 

 

As previously noted this evening, Mayor Roe addressed follow-up discussions and feedback already happening from the initial Larpenteur Avenue/Rice Street community input meetings, and interaction with the KOM.  Mayor Roe opined this report will feed into that information as well.  On behalf of the City Council and city staff, Mayor Roe noted they would continue to advocate for these recommendations as applicable and as outlined in the report.

 

Councilmember McGehee also noted the need to advocate for safe crossing of children in this area who will be attending the Community School of Excellence to be constructed on the former Linders Greenhouse site.

 

Mayor Roe concurred, stating that as part of that discussion, suggestions would be made that the school site be available to the immediate area for classes and athletic fields, as part of the continuing efforts to connect.   In the most recent discussions he had with representatives from the City of St. Paul, Mayor Roe noted they assured him that the developer of this site was expressing interest in and supportive of those efforts.

 

Councilmember Laliberte thanked everyone involved in the process and all the work involved; opining the report provided good information.  Councilmember Laliberte noted the obvious things directed at the municipality, but expressed hope that recommendations could be made available to others with an opportunity to implement them.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon noted the report would be linked on the City's website, through the SE Roseville section of the website.

 

Councilmember Etten thanked the partners for the invitation to the listening sessions, and how informative he had found them in learning different ways to talk to and inform people, and allowing established neighbors to learn more about the Karen culture.  Councilmember Etten stated his favorite time was at the smaller tables while eating and talking one-on-one with people, creating a wonderful time for human interaction.  Councilmember Etten noted his appreciation for the KOM identifying youth leaders from the Karen community; and expressed hope that this would serve to break some barriers as the Police Department sought their ideas and thoughts in comparison to their past experience with government and law enforcement.  Councilmember Etten noted how having a face of who's who in the community by these types of meetings and interaction would hopefully provide a better comfort level and break down even more barriers in those communication efforts.

 

Councilmember McGehee agreed with her colleagues; and thanked Galilee Lutheran Church for offering their facility for this effort; and opined she found it a great program and enjoyed attending and seeing the result.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the report clearly crystallized all that was learned in the sessions.

 

Mayor Roe thanked the presenters for their report and for attending tonight's meeting to present it.

 

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:48 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 7:49 p.m.

b.            Community Engagement Commission Joint Meeting with the City Council

Mayor Roe welcomed CEC Chair Scot Becker; Vice Chair Theresa Gardella; and Commissioners Amber Sattler, Peter Sparby and Erik Tomlinson.

 

Chair Becker briefly reviewed 2016 priority projects as detailed in the RCA and attachments; and noted questions for the City Council by the CEC as part of tonight's discussion and joint meeting.  Individual commissioners provided brief updates on their assigned priority project as follows, with an introduction by Chair Becker of each priority.

 

CEC Priority Project Updates

Assist in the formulation of the 2017 Comprehensive Plan Update Process (Commissioners Tomlinson/Sparby) Commissioner Sparby thanked the City Council and staff for this joint meeting opportunity with the CEC.

 

In efforts to assist in formulating the Comprehensive Plan Update, Commissioner Sparby noted the request for proposals (RFP) had already been sent out; and advised that the CEC was finalizing a list of criteria to help provide specific guidance for the City Council in interpreting RFP responses and capture ideas to better engage the community in the Comprehensive Plan update.  Commissioner Sparby noted the goal of this one-page report was to help the City Council visualize the community engagement spectrum and specific criteria in their review.

 

Commissioner Tomlinson noted a variety of tools were available on the Metropolitan Council's website that addressed the public engagement plan, mostly consisting of principles versus strategies.  Commissioner Tomlinson stated he had also attended a Metropolitan Council training session last week that expounded on a number of those tools and included a public engagement planning worksheet that he thought would be useful beyond just the Comprehensive Plan update.  Commissioner Tomlinson advised that the CEC would continue reviewing available tools for other activities in addition to developing the evaluation tool for the Comprehensive Plan RFP.

 

Recommend ways to expand city learning and engagement opportunities (Commissioners Manke/Sattler/Holub) As Commissioners Manke and Holub were unable to attend tonight's meeting, Chair Becker provided a brief update. 

 

Chair Becker noted the discussion had primarily focused on the Rosefest Parade and the CEC's involvement with the event.  Chair Becker thanked Mayor Roe for coming to the CEC's rescue to assist in their parade efforts.  Chair Becker admitted the CEC had mixed feelings about the value of continuing a presence in the parade, opining that commissioners felt there was more value with the one-on-one engagement through the Party in the Park event.  Chair Becker sought City Council feedback on whether the Rosefest Parade presence should be augmented with other advisory commissioners and/or city council representation.  Chair Becker thanked Councilmember Etten for his presence at the CEC booth on the Party in the Park.

 

As part of the Party in the Park event, with the launch of the "Speak Up! Roseville's website last fall, Chair Becker noted the CEC conducted a straw poll vote using four ideas from the website. Chair Becker advised that the largest vote getter, and promises by the CEC that they'd bring it to the City Council's attention and without CEC advocacy, was resident desire for a community center (with a pool). 

 

Chair Becker also noted this working group's continued research of sample "Welcome Packets" from other cities as they considered a recommendation as to whether or not it should be rejuvenated, and in hard copy or online, or both. 

 

In conclusion, related to community engagement in this specific context, Chair Becker noted consideration was also being reviewed for a possible citywide open house, or any other ideas the City Council directs.

 

Form strategies for outreach to under-represented groups (Commissioners Gardella/Sattler)

With this specific priority area, and with a number of new commissioners on board, Commissioner Gardella noted the need to make sure everyone was on the same page with this area.  One of the first steps reported by Commissioner Gardella was to articulate a purpose statement and a definition of "under-represented groups" in the community and who exactly belonged in that category besides already identified groups (e.g. renters, business tenants, and immigrant populations).  While this prompted considerable discussion at the CEC level, Commissioner Gardella asked that the City Council also provide their feedback on who should be included in that definition.

 

As the other work groups had already identified, Commissioner Gardella noted part of the process was to compile resources, tools and tactics to provide as part of future recommendations to the City Council.  Commissioner Gardella noted how fortunate it was with the tremendous amount of information available from other groups and organizations in a variety of contexts, while deciding what is more appropriate and when/where those resources should be implemented.

 

Commissioner Gardella noted how this priority was also feeding into the efforts of the Comprehensive Plan Update work group and vise versa.

 

Specific to this priority, Commissioner Gardella also sought feedback from the City Council on periodic townhall style meetings of that body or annual or bi-annual listening sessions in the broader community and outside the City Hall Council Chambers with general or specific topics.

 

Advocate for select items form 2014 CEC recommended policies and strategies (Chair Becker)

Chair Becker noted part of the role of the CEC was to act as stewards of the 2014 Community Engagement Task Force report and advocate as applicable for select items of their recommendations. Chair Becker reported on those addressed to-date, and changes already implemented or in process (e.g. zoning notification pilot program and meeting minute availability and context).  Chair Becker advised that he continued to work with City Manager Trudgeon on those efforts.

 

Regarding a townhall meeting outside City Council Chambers, Chair Becker encouraged feedback and suggestions for implementation, and involvement of and expansion of advisory commission meetings as well.

 

General Comments

Chair Becker advised that Volunteer Coordinator Kelly O'Brien had met with the CEC on one occasion already and another check-in was planned in the near future as previously directed by the City Council.

 

"I Am Roseville" Community Photography Project

Commissioner Sparby opined that this was the most exciting thing the CEC was currently working on, and opined it closely aligned with the CEC function and duties as provided by the City Council.  Commissioner Sparby reviewed the proposal for a photo project bringing together community members and stakeholders to foster local engagement and identity as detailed in Attachment B.  Commissioner Sparby sought City Council feedback as to their interest in pursuing this project.

 

City Council Feedback/Response to CEC Questions/Discussion and Direction

 

CEC Components of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan

Without objection, Mayor Roe spoke in support of the CEC providing criteria for the City Council's review of the RFPs.

 

Councilmember Etten suggested his only caveat would be to define what criteria is already part of the RFP itself and where the CEC's criteria best fit.  While he wanted the CEC's input on the RFP, Councilmember Etten clarified that involved the community engagement component and how that worked and CEC ideas for consultants in the evaluation and subsequent interview process.

 

How to Unify Advisory Commissions and City Council members during Rosefest

Mayor Roe opined it was a great idea to be more engaged in the Party in the Park than the Rosefest Parade.  However, if the CEC and advisory commissions were to be involved in the parade, Mayor Roe suggested their placement be at the beginning versus at the end to provide a more consistent message of their involvement with the city.  Mayor Roe agreed that more connection was needed with advisory commissions, whether that involved their engagement in the community or through kiosks at various events for various departments and areas of interest that a resident may observe and want to engage with, similar to past highlighting done at the annual Home & Garden Fair.  Mayor Roe also suggested further thought on how to get a broader commission engagement through the Party in the Park event.

 

Councilmember Etten agreed, noting many existing events such as the July 4^th and Night to Unit and Family Night activities, as well as Nature Center events, provided a way to incorporate that involvement.  However, Councilmember Etten cautioned that many people didn't necessarily attend those events to discuss city business, but only for the entertainment opportunity.  Therefore, Councilmember Etten suggested a citywide open house may be a more viable venue, since many people had different expectations of various events.

 

Councilmember Laliberte, based on her attendance at the Party in the Park event, agreed it provided a great opportunity for one on one conversations, but as noted by Councilmember Etten, not all of that wide mix of people were interested in city business.  Councilmember Laliberte also noted that many attending were not actually Roseville residents, but appreciative of the amenities offered by the city, including its parks and community events.  Therefore, Councilmember Laliberte asked the CEC to also step back and reconsider Roseville U in its former and potential formats.

 

Councilmember Willmus suggested the CEC annually review the option for their participation in the Rosefest parade as their option; but agreed they needed to be closer to the front.

 

How to Define "Under-represented Communities"

Councilmember McGehee noted this was an interesting topic to her, given the older demographic of the community, whether living independently or in assisted living, but still an under-represented group at least in terms of their civic engagement.  However, Councilmember McGehee she would also include handicapped residents, those with mental illness, dementia or other categories.  While there are some efforts already underway in the community (e.g. CHAT) to make a more friendly and inclusive community, Councilmember McGehee suggested the CEC speak to various organizations throughout the community to better inform their definition.

 

Councilmember Etten noted the residents seen at community programs or events that were not typically seen at City Council meetings; and suggested looking at the demographic breakdown of those events to see what is missing.  Councilmember Etten opined it was fair to say there were senior facilities in the community that needed to positively connect with their municipal government and community as a whole.

 

Mayor Roe agreed that seniors and shut-ins were groups to look at; and agreed with Councilmember Etten that those observed at Council meetings didn't necessarily represent the broader community.  By engaging residents earlier in processes, Mayor Roe suggested would serve to passively recruit them for further involvement in various roles down the road.  Mayor Roe opined that the better the city did in upfront involvement, the easier it would be to interest people in more formal involvement in the city and its government.

 

Feedback on the "I Am Roseville" Community Photo Idea

Councilmember Willmus stated "I love that idea;" and expressed his interest in seeing how the CEC ran with it.  Councilmember Willmus offered his encouragement for the CEC to explore the idea; but clarified that the City of Roseville no longer had a chamber of commerce, but noted there were certainly other chambers and groups to work with.

 

Councilmember Laliberte expressed her interest in the idea as well, even though the City Council typically steers the CEC away from projects, stating it was therefore a good question for the CEC to bring forward.  In the future, Councilmember Laliberte suggested some thought should be given to the CEC's annual pursuit of one interesting idea toward community engagement.  Being familiar with the Lake Street USA project referenced, as well as the I Am St. Paul campaign Councilmember that she suggested they also look into as another resource, Councilmember Laliberte noted the need in marketing to make sure photo release forms are processed for any images used.

 

Councilmember Etten expressed concern about the "I Am Roseville" versus "WE Are Roseville" component encouraging community discussion versus competition.  However, Councilmember stated he loved the concept of "WE Are Roseville."  As the CEC moves forward in detailing logistics, costs and labor needed, especially labor to connect with businesses outside city locations, and the fair amount of work involved in framing and preparing the pictures, Councilmember Etten opined it would be interesting to see how it all worked out.  Councilmember Etten suggested it may serve as a connecting point for businesses in the community highlighting their operations by hosting "WE Are Roseville" photos and promoting that through the city's electronic media or other methods to draw people into those businesses.  If that happened, Councilmember Etten opined they may be willing to host the photos, like a "find the photos in Roseville" endeavor.

 

Councilmember McGehee admitted she was less excited about this idea, but agreed with Councilmember Etten that she preferred the "WE Are Roseville" identity. Councilmember McGehee noted examples of residents shown participating together (e.g. Report from Lake McCarrons/Advocates for Human Rights), but from her perspective, opined that "I Am Roseville" was too over the top for her.  By focusing on the "WE Are Roseville" idea, Councilmember McGehee opined it showed more about the community versus individuals in the community and what people are doing and how they were helping each other. 

 

Mayor Roe noted the considerable work done by the Roseville Visitors Association (RVA) with community photography, and suggested the RVA would be an excellent partner for the CEC in this project.  However, Mayor Roe stated he wasn't sure he wanted the CEC to do this as a project, but if they as individuals could facilitate the RVA and perhaps local businesses (e.g. craft stores providing photo framing for display), that would be more the role he envisioned.  Mayor Roe expressed concern with the CEC taking it on as a project, especially his lack of support in the CEC soliciting sponsorships, opining he would see that as a conflict with their advisory role to the City Council.  If there was a way the CEC could suggest the project be made to work separate from the commission itself, Mayor Roe offered his support of the concept itself.

 

Open House/Townhall Meeting for Community Engagement

Councilmember Willmus stated he was intrigued by the townhall meeting concept.  Councilmember Willmus stated that if the city pursued this idea, whether at a park building or other location, logistically it be broadcast and taped for later viewing, as he expects whenever the City Council meets as a body.

 

Councilmember McGehee concurred, noting the number of residents who view city meetings on television.  Councilmember McGehee also noted the need to ensure any location was ADA compliant for those wishing to attend.

 

Councilmember Etten stated he was also intrigued with the idea of moving the City Council meeting out of the Council Chambers to a location closer to neighborhoods, agreeing they needed to be accessible and video-taped.  Councilmember Etten also expressed his interest in the City Council having a more approachable seating arrangement versus being at the dais; along with less talk by the City Council and more listening.  Councilmember Etten suggested questions or something to draw residents in to that location and allowing for interesting community discussions.

 

Mayor Roe referenced the annual townhall meetings by the City of New Brighton, expressing interest in a format along those lines usually with general broad topics; and suggested CEC review of one or more of those meetings on that city's website.  Mayor Roe referenced past Roseville City Council's doing their business meetings out in the community but within a different venue more accessible to neighborhoods.  Mayor Roe noted whether the meeting models involved separate tables with microphones, or a format such as that used by the City of New Brighton, the goal was to find a way to get people engaged.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated it would be more useful to have an annual meeting that wasn't a business meeting run like a typical City Council meeting.  Councilmember McGehee opined this would provide an opportunity for people to speak on any topic and have a real dialogue that isn't typically available in this setting.  Councilmember McGehee suggested waiting to schedule more than once per year, since according to the recent community survey, 80% of Roseville residents think the City Council and staff are doing things well, and therefore they may not actually show up at a townhall meeting.

 

Councilmember Laliberte stated she really liked the idea of a townhall meeting or whatever format worked best.  Since the City Council asked the CEC to look into the process, Councilmember Laliberte expressed her appreciation that the CEC came back with suggestions.  Whether or not the meeting should be geared toward specific topics or normal business, Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of a more open dialogue versus a regular City Council meeting format.  Councilmember Laliberte agreed the more formal meetings at City Hall could be more intimidating; and with a more conversational, off-site locale and format, without the City Council being upfront and others in the audience she would be find a better option rather than the perceived "us" versus "them" picture.  Councilmember Laliberte stated she was very supportive of a round robin or other informal venture.

 

Councilmember Laliberte stated her preference for a citywide open house where people could attend because they wanted to know more versus the city imposing their own topics on them.

 

Mayor Roe asked the CEC to determine which venue made the most sense.

 

Ways to Expand City Learning/Engagement Opportunities, General Comments/Direction for Future CEC Priorities, and Emerging City Council Priorities to Inform the Work of the CEC

Councilmember Willmus agreed with the comments expressed by Councilmembers Etten and Laliberte about the open house and welcome packets. 

 

Councilmember Willmus asked the CEC to continue exploring the Roseville U and open house concepts, expressing his interest in hearing the recommendations of the CEC.  Councilmember Willmus stated he saw some real advantages for an open house with all city departments congregated in one location.

 

Welcome Packets

Councilmember Laliberte opined that the city was well overdue for a revamped "welcome packet" without an excessive cost.  Whether this is simply through a section on the city's website available for residents to print out the information they want or by whatever means. 

 

Councilmember Etten referenced how much he enjoyed and appreciated receiving the welcome packet as an informational resource when first moving into Roseville.  While the city could move away from that more expensive format, Councilmember Etten opined he liked the idea of something physical arriving at your door, even if it only contained information linking him to broader resources.  Councilmember Etten suggested a format less detailed than before, but still physically greeting him at the door to direct new residents to the city's website.

 

Councilmember Laliberte agreed with the combined approach, suggesting it could be as simple as a postcard mailing directing residents to the city website; but left that up to the CEC for their recommendation.

 

Councilmember Willmus opined the welcome packet needed revamped whether it was only electronic in format or also available in hard copy; stating he was looking to the CEC for their recommendation.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated her preference for the welcome packet on the city website, and including business coupons if their control was feasible; but allowing businesses an opportunity to link to the packet on the website.

 

"Speak Up! Roseville" Website

Councilmember Willmus stated he found the website incredibly cumbersome, especially accessing it and moving around from a mobile device.  Councilmember Willmus asked if there were practical things that could be addressed, suggesting the site may see much more activity than it currently does. Councilmember Willmus noted the difficulty in moving from topic to topic, and opening other windows to view responses.

 

Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Willmus.

 

Councilmember Laliberte stated her frustration was not so much with the mobile functionality, but with the timing of topics and responses.  Councilmember Laliberte stated she was very interested in an assessment and review of topics, and knowing the information that was shared and direction given, also available for individuals to look at.  Also, since this is a new tool for the city, Councilmember Laliberte asked if there was a difference in how a question was asked that prompted different responses.  Councilmember Laliberte opined this was a great opportunity to learn more about how the city used this tool, and how residents want to use it.  Councilmember Laliberte stated she was fully supportive of the CEC working with staff on making it the best tool possible by determining if there were limitations to topics, their timing, how often they should turnover, and the right amount of time for a topic to remain on the site.

 

Mayor Roe agreed it would be good to have the CEC's feedback and evaluation of what really worked, and what could be done differently and suggested that may be a good topic to seek user feedback.  Mayor Roe suggested another issue in timing of topics was if and when they were related to an upcoming City Council decision and how best to coordinate timing to ensure that feedback was fed back into the public testimony process in a timely way.

 

Community Engagement Infrastructure

While not a front burner priority, Mayor Roe expressed interest in the CEC's review of existing City community engagement efforts and how it fits into the broader spectrum over last year and in the interest of educational opportunities.  Mayor Roe suggested that the CEC take several areas each year for review, filling out an inventory list of what was actually being done toward community engagement, and providing that - and the CEC recommendation related to that particular area - to the City Council.  Mayor Roe opined it was important to acknowledge the things already being done toward this goal as well as making sure they were still relevant.  Mayor Roe opined he clearly saw this as a role for the CEC.

 

Councilmember McGehee referenced her analysis of the recent community survey data and links to neighborhoods and Roseville as a base more than family, friends and churches.  Councilmember McGehee reviewed some of the highlights, and provided a bench handout of her analysis, attached hereto and made a part hereof, entitled "A Few Facts About Roseville Residents and Neighborhoods."

 

On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Roe thanked CEC commissioners for their attendance and feedback, and the work done to-date.

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:24 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:32 p.m.

 

c.            Volunteer Program Update

Volunteer Coordinator Kelly O'Brien reiterated the city's pride in being the first municipal recipient of the Service Enterprise Award.  Ms. O'Brien's presentation including a review of highlights of the award and the process itself, involving key elements and best practices involved.  Ms. O'Brien opined this would bring Roseville's volunteer engagement to the next level throughout all levels and areas of the organization, including identifying new tools and strategies for creating a culture of volunteerism.

 

Ms. O'Brien noted some of the impacts already being seen with recognition of the city by outside entities; and reviewed some of the areas where the volunteer program continued to grow involving not only Roseville residents and businesses, but also area and statewide volunteer involvement as the community-at-large recognized the work being done in the city. 

 

Ms. O'Brien cited several examples of how coordination of volunteers allowed for a partnering culture and identified local programs to serve special needs and achieve community involvement.  Ms. O'Brien recognized the volunteers involved in local Playground Builds from outside the community, and involvement of area college students in scheduling volunteer time with the city as well as serving as a way to recognize and welcome new students into the community who later serve as ambassadors for Roseville.

 

Ms. O'Brien noted that with development of the volunteer database, this fall she would continue to work on a survey of volunteers, with the assistance of a volunteer retired engineer with that expertise, as this tool was used to track and access applicable volunteer data.  Ms. O'Brien noted the assistance with that volunteer survey by another volunteer with a PhD in program evaluation.

 

Ms. O'Brien noted numbers available in tracking volunteers via database didn't capture the entire picture, but still provided an enviable picture of the volunteer hours recorded in the city that took on duties that would otherwise require staff time and effort.  On the other side, Ms. O'Brien noted increases in staff time to train and supervise volunteers, depending on the project and their experience; as well as in expressing appreciation to those volunteers and encouraging their perseverance.

 

Ms. O'Brien spoke in support of a Volunteer Coordinator position as the central point to establish a user-friendly way for people to engage rather than being bounced from one department to another; and allowing a match of skills to needs. 

 

Ms. O'Brien alerted the City Council to the future need for increased training of staff and volunteers to support those successful partnerships.  As far as impacts to staff, Ms. O'Brien opined that if staff was going to continue taking on and supporting volunteers, it had an impact on their ability to support that effort and complete their daily tasks as well.  Ms. O'Brien also noted the recognition component of volunteers; and while great things were being accomplished, not all were motivated by the same thing requiring staff to think outside the box to use and encouraging this amazing talent pool, and sharing those successes with the community and City Council. 

 

Ms. O'Brien opined that the city had an incredible value in its volunteers and huge resources in those volunteers waiting to engage in ways that made the most sense to them.ee

 

Mayor Roe thanked Ms. O'Brian for the good information, opining it was a sign that the city was on the right track with its volunteer efforts.  Mayor Roe also recognized the ongoing monitoring from staff's perspective of things needing to be addressed form a staffing and organizational point of view.

 

12.        Public Hearings and Action Consideration

 

a.            Public Hearing to Approve/Deny an On-Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License for Lucky's 13 Pub - Roseville, located at 2480 Fairview Avenue N

Finance Director Chris Miller briefly reviewed this request, recommending approval as detailed in the RCA.  Mr. Miller noted two representatives of this firm located in the former Old Country Buffet.

 

Owner Linda Young

Ms. Young expressed excitement about their new location in Roseville after looking at numerous properties, with this property becoming available and providing a good fit.  Ms. Young advised that they were not a chain, but family owned and operated, with four other locations in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, and one location in Fargo, ND.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Ms. Young advised that some of their other locations are open until 2:00 a.m., but noted it varied with each jurisdiction and their code restrictions.  Ms. Young noted dramatic changes in the business over the years, opining people weren't staying out as late as they used to, but it depended on the city.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Young advised that they would serve a full menu up until 11:00 p.m., with appetizers from that point to 1:00 a.m., with food served until closing time.  Councilmember Willmus noted the on-sale liquor ordinance in Roseville tied to the revenue component of 60% food service. 

Ms. Young responded that she was very familiar with that and assured that they did more food than liquor business.

 

Mayor Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 8:50p.m. for the purpose of receiving public input on the above-referenced liquor license applications; with no one appearing for or against.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Finance Director Miller advised he could not recall without a more detailed review the number of 2:00 a.m. liquor licenses.  Mr. Miller clarified the applicant wasn't necessarily suggesting they stay open until 2:00 p.m., but just seeking to reserve the right to do so.

 

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of Lucky's 13 Pub - Roseville's request for an On-Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License and Outside Sales and Consumption Endorsement; and 2 AM Liquor License, located at 2480 Fairview Avenue N, for the term of November 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Young assured the City Council they were very diligent with their server/manager training and with the requirements of the city; and thanked the City Council for their approval.

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

b.            Public Hearing to Approve/Deny a Renewal of a 2 AM Liquor License for M. T. Rest. (Roseville), Inc., d/b/a Joe Senser's Sports Grill and Bar located at 2350 Cleveland Avenue

Finance Director Chris Miller briefly reviewed this request, recommending approval as detailed in the RCA.  Mr. Miller noted this was not a change, simply a formal re-endorsement for the city to coincide with the State licensing cycle, and resulted in no enforcement gap.

 

Mayor Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 8:53 p.m. for the purpose of receiving public input on the above-referenced liquor license renewal; with no one appearing for or against.

 

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of M. T. Rests. (Roseville) Inc's. request for a 2 AM Liquor License renewal located at 2350 Cleveland Avenue, for the term of a term a year from now.

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

13.        Budget Items

 

a.            Hearing to Solicit Public Comment on the 2017 Budget and Tax Levy

Finance Director Chris Miller referenced the RCA and summary form provided for the 2017 budget and tax levy as Attachment A. Mr. Miller advised that staff had no presentation, but was available to respond to questions; with the intent of this public hearing to solicit public comment for consideration as the budget process proceeds.  Mr. Miller noted four meetings on the budget had been held to-date before tonight's public hearing; with information also provide to residents in a detailed city newsletter article and budget comment cards, as well as online, also seeking public input.

 

Mayor Roe reviewed the city's 2016 budget and proposed 2017 budget by comparison with essentially no change from 2016 to 2017 using revised numbers; and current levy increase projected at a net of 5.5% based on current assumptions and available data.

 

Finance Director Miller noted Capital Improvement Program (CIP) adjustments since presentation of the City Manager-recommended budget deferring some items and reducing the initial projections; as well as use of existing reserves toward the levy that further reduced the projected budget and levy for 2017.

 

Mayor Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 8:57 p.m. for the purpose of receiving public input on the 2017 budget and tax levy; with no one appearing for or against.

 

Mayor Roe reviewed the 2017 budget calendar, noting this was not the last opportunity for public comment; and outlined "next steps" in the process prior to final adoption of the budget in December.

 

14.        Business Items (Action Items)

 

a.            Public Right-of-Way ADA Transition Plan

Assistant Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer presented a City of Roseville Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan for facilities within the public right-of-way, as required by the ADA, and as detailed in the RCA and Attachment A.

 

As noted in the plan (Attachment A), Mr. Freihammer reviewed its purpose to provide a framework for cit inspection, inventorying and upgrading public facilities in city rights-of-way to make them compliance with ADA laws.  Mr. Freihammer noted the major infrastructure components of the transition plan involved pedestrian curb ramps, trails and sidewalks citywide.  Mr. Freihammer sought feedback from the City Council on the draft plan.

 

Councilmember McGehee requested changing "grievance" procedure (Attachment A, page 2) to "request" procedure to make language more user-friendly.

 

Mayor Roe agreed that the suggested language would be less adversarial.

 

Mr. Freihammer advised that staff used Department of Justice language, but agreed to review the legalities of changing the language as requested.

 

In that same "grievance procedure" section of Attachment A, Councilmember McGehee noted response for a citizen complaint was thirty days; but she suggested a one-week response acknowledging the compliant at a minimum.  Councilmember McGehee also requested a quarterly report from staff on the number of requests received. Councilmember McGehee noted the need to take into account facilities with walkers, scooters or wheel chairs and major hurdles to accessibility due to sidewalk slope as an example. 

 

Mayor Roe agreed with revised language for a response from staff acknowledging complaints within a week, with staff having thirty days to then respond to the specific request.

 

In the "policy" section of the attachment, and at the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Freihammer noted the reference to the city's "five year" capital improvement plan (CIP), and agreed to strike that and refer to it as the city's CIP.

 

Given her experience in dealing with Minnesota Department of Health required language in her career, Councilmember Laliberte asked staff to make sure this grievance "procedure" could be changed and remain compliant with ADA laws.

 

From his recollection, Mr. Freihammer noted at least one other city that had used a different term.

 

Councilmember Etten expressed appreciation that this important plan was being implemented.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Manager Trudgeon confirmed the appeal process to the City Council if a complainant felt no equitable resolution had been reached between them and staff (Grievance Procedure Section of Plan, page 2).

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Freihammer clarified that other ADA issues are currently under review by staff, and will be addressed separately from this plan.

 

Without objection, at the suggestion of Councilmember Willmus, Mayor Roe directed staff to make revised language changes after confirming their compliance, and bring the plan back at a future meeting under the Consent Agenda.

 

b.            Community Development Department Request for Approval of a Resolution Authorizing Abatement Action for Unresolved Violations of Minnesota State Building Code and City Code, 2814 Cleveland Avenue N

Interim Community Development Director Kari Collins, Fire Chief Tim O'Neil and Codes Coordinator/Building Official David Englund were present for this request as detailed in the RCA and attachments.

 

Interim Community Development Director Collins provided a brief overview of the request for abatement action, advising other staff was available to provide additional information and respond to any questions of the City Council.  Ms. Collins noted the abatement request was prompted by and focused on the severity of life safety issues found by staff in this building.

 

Fire Chief Tim O'Neill explained that staff had taken on a pro-active inspection program after a fire on this site over the winter months, at which time two trailers had burned and firefighters had a difficult time accessing them on the site, prompting further safety inspections by the city.  Upon conducting that inspection, with authorization given by the property and business owners, Chief O'Neill noted forty different code violations, and numerous additional violations under those broader categories.  At that time, Chief O'Neill advised that the owners were given a timeline to bring the property into compliance, with the focus on life safety issues as a priority (e.g. egress/ingress exits for employees or visitors to the site, addressing other emergency situations, and reactivation of the building's sprinkler system).  Chief O'Neill advised that staff had been working with Mr. Dorso and his representatives since then, but the violations remained undone to-date, even though the owner was apparently working toward compliance.  Chief O'Neill advised that once these major life safety issues had been addressed, it was staff's intent to then address and work with the owners toward compliance for the remaining thirty-nine unresolved city and building code violations.

 

Given the current condition of the building, Chief O'Neill advised that a technical audit was required for assessment under the State of Minnesota Fire Code, with that report received late last Friday afternoon (August 19, 2016) and under review by city staff.  Chief O'Neill noted staff had only had time for a summary review of the assessment at this point; and advised they would make a determination within the next few weeks as various departments determine whether or not it addressed the immediate life safety concerns.

 

As evidenced in attachments to the RCA, Chief O'Neill noted the staff time invested to-date in site visits, conversations, and correspondence with Mr. Dorso and his representatives.

 

Codes Coordinator/Building Official David Englund noted most code violations involved mechanical and plumbing systems, mirroring those of the Fire Department, with the electrical system found in a complete state of disrepair.  Mr. Englund referenced ceiling tiles with apparent water damage, impacting the fire code aspect and sprinkler system reactivation.  Mr. Englund stated it was staff's preference that life safety items could have been addressed before the July 28, 2016 deadline, but that was not accomplished, causing staff to pursue moving forward to the City Council with this request to initiate the abatement action and rescind the building's Certificate of Occupancy.  Mr. Englund repeated Fire Chief O'Neill's comment of the imperative nature to correct the building's life safety hazards immediately, then allowing the property owner additional and reasonable time to make the remaining corrections in the building.

 

Mayor Roe reviewed the actions being requested by staff as part of the abatement action as outlined as orders in the draft resolution (Attachment Z, lines 234 - 240), and in accordance with various sections of local property codes as detailed.  Mayor Roe noted this involved placarding the structure as condemned; vacating the premises, suspension of the Certificate of Occupancy, and disconnection of utilities.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Englund reviewed city code language for the intent of placarding the building, condemning the facility in accordance with legal readings of city code.  Mayor Roe noted such action would typically signal to most people that the building was targeted for demolition; with Mr. Englund clarifying that, in this instance, it indicated the building needed to be brought into code compliance.

 

Chief O'Neill noted the potential and hazards to employees on site, and the community itself, if a significant structural fire should occur due to these outstanding code violations.  Chief O'Neill specifically requested that the building be posted as unsafe, warning employees and visitors to the site that they cannot occupy the building.

 

City Attorney Gaughan concurred, noting this essentially provided public notice of the hazards.

 

Discussion ensued as to the type of business currently occupying the facility (truck repair) and number of employees (unknown to staff);  status of the electrical system as evidenced by photographs attached to the RCA (Attachments T - Y) and additional fire hazards and additional repairs needed to the fire sprinkler system as part of those electrical issues and further impacted by a break-in to the building and stolen copper piping, with noncompliant adjustments made through use of temporary lines and extension cords.

 

Mayor Roe recognized representatives of the property owner at this time.

 

John Paul Martin, Martin & Squires, PA, Attorney for Dorso Building Company, LLC

Mr. Martin introduced other representatives of Mr. Dorso in the audience, including owner of Dorso Building Company, Mr. Dorso; Bill Supina, property tenant who had also worked hard to correct a lot of the issues summarized by city staff; and Rolph Sullivan and Reed Robinson of WJR Architects, whose role was to bring the building into compliance.  Mr. Martin advised all were available to the City Council for questions.

 

Mr. Martin stated, as representative of the Dorso Building Company and Mr. Dorso, he would offer a different view of the property status than given by staff.  Mr. Martin advised that representatives had been working with the Fire Department since early June of 2016 to address life safety concerns, opining those original concerns were different from those provided by Chief O'Neill, and involved three categories: the sprinkler system, fire exits and alarms; with the extent of the corrections involving fire exit work, plumbing and electrical. 

 

As noted by Chief O'Neil, Mr. Martin agreed that some of those issues was dependent on expert opinion as to the best course of action.  Mr. Martin recognized that upon hiring that expert for their advice as to what needed done, a number of problems were addressed in that analysis and report of inspection; with his client agreeing to submit the report to the city once received, at which time Chief O'Neill stated the city would review the report and determine what they agreed with or didn't agree with as long as minimum requirements were met, allowing additional time to correct the problems at that time.

 

Mr. Martin advised that as soon as contractors were available, without waiting for completion of the report, his client, and tenant as applicable, began working on the alarm and sprinkler system.  Mr. Martin admitted the sprinkler system involved a complicated electrical component, only exacerbated by the copper thieves and their additional demolition of the system.  However, Mr. Martin noted that Mr. Dorso ordered its repair, and changed the alarm company and system as well as work on the sprinkler system that could be done.  Needless to say, Mr. Martin noted his client had spent thousands of dollars for that process alone.

 

Mr. Martin opined that this first meeting with city staff was unusual from his perspective, noting they had asked to meet with the Fire Department, and to his and his client's surprise, no fewer than 6 - 7 representatives from the city showed up.  Mr. Martin further opined that he and his client thought they were meeting with the Fire Department to address life safety issues, but one of the other city representatives was Mr. Englund.  Having nothing to hide, Mr. Martin advised that they authorized Mr. Englund's inspection of the building, at which time he spent 3-4 hours going through it, even though he agreed with Chief O'Neill that an expert analysis was needed.  Shortly after Mr. Englund's inspection, Mr. Martin noted receipt of an exhaustive list of violations, not necessarily site specific, and provide several examples from that compiled list.

 

Mr. Martin advised that with an apparent process laid out to hire experts, lay out a plan, and have the city respond to that plan, neither he nor his client were too concerned at that time with the other noncompliance issues.  Mr. Martin opined that their understanding was that everyone was on the same page and that the city would honor what was initially laid out as life safety code violations.  Mr. Martin noted those experts and architects were then retained, as represented here tonight.

 

Mr. Martin addressed numerous references made by staff tonight about problems with plumbing, electrical and mechanical systems, also showing up on various reports and contained in materials presented to the City Council.  However, Mr. Martin clarified that there is no problem with the mechanical, and alleged that it simply sounded better to include it in the list of noncompliant issues.  Mr. Martin advised that, when Mr. Englund was asked what was wrong with the mechanical system, he had responded that he meant the system is operations.  Mr. Martin clarified that the heat was operational, that the building didn't have air conditioning, yet this mechanical system issue continued to appear in all references to the building's condition.  While recognizing that the building had issues, Mr. Martin questioned why this overstatement of facts was appropriate.

 

Mr. Martin noted Mr. Dorso had difficulty locating and hiring an expert contractor to complete the work.  While the expert's report was subsequently submitted to staff by the deadline of July 28, 2016, Mr. Martin questioned if it had been included in tonight's meeting materials for the City Council.  Therefore, Mr. Martin provided the report as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.

 

Referencing that expert report and Mr. Englund's list of noncompliance issues, Mr. Martin represented to the City Council that no references were made to the electrical or mechanical systems of the building.  Mr. Martin opined that on August 3, 2016, Mr. Englund sent correspondence addressing the lack of sprinkler system and hydro-static testing that had to be witnessed by the Fire Department.  Mr. Englund advised that the system had been tested, but his client was not aware it needed to be witnessed by the Fire Department' with that test scheduled later this week (Thursday, August 25, 2016).  In that latest correspondence with Mr. Englund, Mr. Martin noted he disagreed with measurements and existence of some fire exits, which agreed with the report presented as a bench handout. 

 

Admitting that there were plumbing issues on the site, Mr. Martin opined there were no remaining mechanical or electrical issues.  Mr. Martin stated he found it interesting that, with those plumbing issues on site, they would be difficult to correct at this time, since as of last Friday, August 19, 2016, someone from the city had removed the water meter, even while work was underway on the plumbing issues in the building.

 

Mr. Martin advised that he and his client had attempted to encourage the City's Building Department to meet with the experts hired by Mr. Dorso, as requested by the city, and cooperatively review noncompliance issues, with no response from the city to-date to meet with representatives of WJR Architects, allowing the remainder of those issues to bring the building into compliance.

 

With the water meter being pulled from the building by the city negating plumbing corrections being completed; and the Fire Department wanting to schedule the sprinkler hydrostatic test yet this week, Mr. Martin stated his difficulty in understanding that contrast.  Mr. Martin further noted the toilets couldn't be hooked up on site without water, making it impossible for his client to comply, and not moving the ball forward for anyone.

 

Mr. Martin provided photographic evidence as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, disputing those photos included in the staff report, opining they overstated the current situation and questioning staff motivation other than to shut down this business, kick out the tenant, and throw 5-6 employees out of work.  Mr. Martin compared his photos with those of staff, opining that staff's report and photos were misleading at best compared with corrections made to-date by the property owner and/or tenant. Mr. Martin challenged the City Council to consider staff's overstatement of the situation indicating a lack of cooperation by Mr. Dorso. 

 

Specific to photo attachment W and his comparison photo, Mr. Martin noted this area of the building showing damaged ceiling panels had not been occupied for a long time; but because of the requirement to replace the panels, his client had complied, advising they had been replaced for some time; but no follow-up had been provided to the City's Building Department due to his client's perception of their lack of cooperation.  Had this material provided to the City Council been submitted to him and his client in advance of tonight's meeting, Mr. Martin advised that he could have saved the Building Department the embarrassment of giving the City Council an impression that their photos were what the building currently looked like. 

 

Regarding what his client would like to see happen, Mr. Martin asked that they'd like the city's promises to be kept; and for staff to complete their review of the code analysis provided by their expert analysis as submitted; and then for staff to meet with his client and those experts to explain and work out differences; at which point his client could complete the work to bring the building into compliance within a reasonable time.  Mr. Martin applauded the apparent willingness of the Fire Department all along in working out the issues in a cooperative way.  However, Mr. Martin questioned the Building Code Enforcement staff's apparent lack of willingness to garner that same cooperation.

 

Mr. Martin asked the City Council to order the Building Code Enforcement Officer to work WITH rather than AGAINST the property owner in bringing the building into compliance.  Mr. Martin noted the work done to-date, in part by the tenant, to clean up the building, resolve storage issues, and other compliance issues.  Mr. Martin stated that Mr. Dorso stands ready, willing and able to complete required corrections, as soon as he and his representatives were made aware of what those corrections were.

 

As his concluding bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, Mr. Martin provided the most recent correspondence on the issue, showing Walrath Electric had been engaged to stand by and finish any remaining electrical work.  Mr. Martin noted Mr. Englund had met with that contractor, opining that was the only contractor he had met with specific to this building, and reiterated that code review would drive the mechanical repairs.  Mr. Martin reviewed what he termed discrepancies in the correspondence by Mr. Englund related to resolving electrical issues and dependence on what part of the building would be occupied.  Mr. Martin stated he and his client wanted to get things back on track; however, he further stated that they needed help from the City and City Council to make sure that process was followed.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus specific to Photo Attachment T, Mr. Martin advised that the panels had not been resolved at this time, thus the reason to bring in an electrical contractor, who had visited the site several times already, but not completing the work until the city defines what they're ordering done, to make economical sense to complete the work.

 

Councilmember Willmus asked Mr. Martin if permits had been pulled to perform the electrical work and other things shown in Mr. Martin's photographic evidence as having been completed.  Mr. Martin responded the work was repairing existing wiring; and nothing remained live other than evidenced in Attachment T.

 

In the most recent correspondence distributed by Mr. Martin as his final bench handout, Councilmember McGehee noted reference in the fourth paragraph of the removal of the water meter.  However, Councilmember McGehee stated she found it noteworthy that everyone was unaware that the sprinkler system was served by a separate connection not running through the meter that was removed. 

 

Mr. Martin responded that the sprinkler system was a separate connection not dependent on the domestic water supply, and coming from the street.  At the further request of Councilmember McGehee as to how this water was not part of the domestic water supply, Mr. Martin stated anything serving toilets or wash basins was separate from the sprinkler system connection, with water only being used in case of an event.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated, with Mr. Martin and his client's apparent serious issues with the City Building Inspector, she still found it appalling that there is a building in this community in this condition that someone would attempt to rent and ask them to work in.  While expressing appreciation that an inspection was done, Councilmember McGehee noted mildew and other issues in the building, whether previous conditions or now repaired, and expressed her extreme disappointment to realize people are working in this community in a facility such as this.

 

Mayor Roe offered an opportunity for public comment at this time.

 

Public Comment

Bill Supina, Building Tenant

Mr. Supina opined there was an important piece of information missing from this discussion: that nobody from the City's Building Code or Fire Department had inspected the building for the last ten years.  Had the building been inspected annually, Mr. Supina opined there may have been 2-3 items to fix versus the current list.  As a tenant of the building, Mr. Supina offered his willingness to comply.

 

When Chief O'Neill left after his first visit to the building, Mr. Supina advised that he and his staff had brought multiple issues into compliance by 6:00 p.m. that evening.  Mr. Supina stated that was how he ran his business and affairs; but noted he was unable to change the fact that the building was old.  However, since resolution of these issues affected him and his family, Mr. Supina stated he would do everything needed to remain as a tenant in the building.  Mr. Supina reiterated the importance that the city hadn't done their job over the last ten years, and therefore asked for their help and cooperation rather than killing them.

 

Councilmember McGehee asked Mr. Supina if all these repairs fell on him as a tenant and nothing on the landlord.

 

Mr. Supina responded that he found Mr. Dorso to be very friendly and realized he would like to sell the property by finding a buyer and moving his company as a tenant to another location, all cooperatively achievable.  Mr. Supina opined that with the new WalMart and other redevelopment in the area, everyone would like the trucking industry to go somewhere else.  Mr. Supina noted his father had built this business in 1955, and he had taken over in the 1970's.  While it may be time for the business to move and change, Mr. Supina asked that it be accomplished by working together.

 

Carol Erickson, Applewood Point, Langton Lake (formerly a resident of Mildred Drive)

Ms. Erickson noted she and neighbors in this area had worked for over forty years to save and clean up Langton Lake and the area, resulting in redevelopment at Twin Lakes.  Ms. Erickson opined that this building had been in disrepair for years, including parking truck trailers at the corner of Cleveland Avenue and County Road C-2, a continuing city code violation for years; and opined most of those trailers seemed in poor shape. 

 

Ms. Erickson encouraged the City Council to do something to help that area finally get cleaned up completely.  Ms. Erickson stated it was embarrassing for those living in that vicinity, including when friends or family came down Cleveland Avenue to visit and observe how bad that corner looked.

 

Tony Dorso, Property Owner

Mr. Dorso expressed appreciation for the previous speaker's comments, and reviewed his recollection of the property and area history.  Mr. Dorso further reviewed his original sale of the property as part of the Twin Lakes Master Developer process; and subsequent eviction of his tenant at that time who was paid to move out, with the developer buying out the lease and paying moving expenses for the tenant.  However, Mr. Dorso further recognized the resulting litigation between that developer and a previous City Council apparently not following the procedures for development in Twin Lakes, and ultimate court action overturning that development process.

 

Mr. Dorso noted that resulted in his owning a building that anyone in their right mind knows is going to be redeveloped in time; and while he had sold the building multiple times, each sale attempt ended with the city in some way failing to help him finalize the sale. 

 

Mr. Dorso stated he had spent the entire summer working on the building and attempting to bring it into compliance; but opined he could not do so until he knew what was needed and for everyone to work together to get it done, how and why.  Mr. Dorso stated he was open to discuss any issues.

 

Referencing Mr. Martin's comments, Mr. Dorso questioned why staff had tainted and overstated issues and problems, while he had identified contractors and was attempting to work efficiently and cost-effectively to bring a building into compliance that will ultimately be torn down.  Mr. Dorso stated he had met with the city last year and told them he would pay to have the building torn down.  However, Mr. Dorso advised he had also told the city he didn't want to lose his current tenant whose lease helped pay the $150,000 annual property taxes for the property.  When offering to sell the property to the city, Mr. Dorso stated the city had told him they had no money to buy it; and at that point he offered it to the city on a Contract for Deed for $1 down and the city allowed to pay him when they sold it.

Mr. Dorso opined that he felt he had time and effort into this, and hired new contractors unfamiliar with the layout of the building, since some of the contractors he'd used in the past were no longer in business.  As a resident of Wisconsin, Mr. Doro advised that he was required to drive over here 2-3 times a week to address these problems.  Mr. Dorso further stated he didn't appreciate this meeting where absolutely not one word was said by staff to this City Council of the efforts, money and progress made by him to-date, painting an unfair picture.  Mr. Dorso noted there had been no update on progress made since starting corrections in June of 2016.  Mr. Dorso noted he had immediately went to work on life safety issues first, with the sprinkler system back up and functional in a week and hydrostatically tested before realizing the Fire Department had to witness the test, scheduled later this week as stated by Mr. Martin.  Mr. Dorso expressed confidence that the sprinkler would pass the test, but noted the additional $1,000 to prove that to the Fire Department. 

 

As noted by his tenant, Mr. Dorso noted ten years of accumulation of things in the building during that time; and stated the difficulty in finding decent, viable tenants to move into the building when they were aware it was soon to be redeveloped.

 

Mr. Dorso stated he wanted to sell the building, and had tried to do so for ten years; and while working with the city to accomplish that multiple times, something always happened so the deal fell apart (e.g. tax increment funding criteria not met).  Mr. Dorso stated he didn't know what they wanted him to do, and opined he was doing everything he could to bring the building into compliance.  However, Mr. Dorso asked if there was a hidden agenda here; but thanked the City Council for listening.

 

At 10:00 p.m., Etten moved, McGehee seconded, extending the meeting curfew for completion of this item.

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

Robert Murphy, 1996 Langton Lake Drive (two blocks north of subject property)

For full disclosure, Mr. Murphy is a Planning Commissioner for the City of Roseville, and serves as the Chair of the Variance Board.  However, Mr. Murphy clarified he was speaking solely as a Roseville resident, similarly to his neighbor, Ms. Erickson.

 

Mr. Murphy spoke in support of abatement action; and thanked staff for their diligence in fighting the fire during winter conditions last winter, and with difficulty in reaching the trailers from their available accesses at Mount Ridge Road and Cleveland Avenue.

 

Regarding the issues raised, specifically those life safety issues referenced by Community Development and Fire Department staff and apparently not being addressed in a timely fashion, Mr. Murphy opined these not only applied to employees on site and their customers, but also to area residents, and any firefighter coming in the door in an emergency.  Mr. Murphy stated the building must meet state and city codes for the safety of these individuals.

 

While packet materials referenced the tenant in this building, Mr. Murphy noted that Attachment P showed another building on the property to the north, and questioned if an additional tenant was also impacted in that ancillary structure by the hazards outlined for this building.

 

As a resident of Roseville, Mr. Murphy requested that the entire property be addressed, including all structures and trailer storage on site; and that it be brought into compliance specifically for life safety issues at a minimum.

 

At the request Mayor Roe, staff returned to the table to respond to public comments and address questions of the City Council.

 

Councilmember Etten asked if there was an alternative water system other than the metered line; seeking an explanation of how the sprinkler system was working.

 

Mr. Englund responded that the fire sprinkler line was separate, with no meter to identify it.

 

Specific to Councilmember Etten as to how to test the system, Mr. O'Neill admitted part of staff's confusion at their first inspection was that the sprinkler system was found in a closed position, with the Public Works Department showing no movement on the meter in five years.  As explained by Mr. Dorso, there was a separate connection from the street that was completely unmetered, with Mr. O'Neill making a assumption that meant there were no check valves either.

 

Councilmember Etten asked if the city had a normal commercial inspection schedule, similar to that currently used for multi-family units.

 

Mr. O'Neill responded that according to past practice, the city had a "reactive" inspection program, and did not typically inspect commercial properties other than when triggered by a permit.  However, starting in 2016, Mr. O'Neill advised that the city had begun a "proactive" inspection program to inspect all buildings in the city over the next five years, including commercial, retail and the current multi-family inspection schedule.  Mr. O'Neill advised that the plan was for all buildings within the city to be inspected within that timeframe.

 

Mr. O'Neill stated that Mr. Dorso was correct that some progress was being made in resolving some of the life safety issues.  However, Mr. O'Neill further stated that, based on what staff observed that day, they could have condemned the building on the spot and emptied it of occupants at that time, including all workers, customers and anyone in the building.  While the property owner, his representatives and tenant seemed to indicate the city should have somehow told them fire code requirements, Mr. O'Neill clarified that was the express responsibility of a building owner; and if they required help, the city was available to assist and advise them, but as business owners and/or tenants, they had an obligation to be aware of fire codes.  Mr. O'Neill further clarified that, while staff had tried to work with Mr. Dorso and his representatives, and would continue to do so, based on the violations observed that day, staff could have immediately shut the building down, opining that many fire departments around the metropolitan area and in the country would have done just that if that had observed similar conditions and issues.

 

Councilmember Etten asked if staff had been back to the site since that inspection.

 

Mr. O'Neill responded that staff had visited the site three different times. 

 

While the property owner and his attorney seemed surprised how the City Building Department had become involved, Mr. O'Neill stated that state statute required the Fire Department to notify the Building Official of code violations and to work together to resolve those violations.  Mr. O'Neill advised that immediately after the initial inspection by the Fire Department, he had alerted the City's Building Official, and involved them in the process addressing it as a team concept. 

 

Specific to the statement made by Mr. Supina as a building tenant, Mr. O'Neill agreed they had made progress in cleaning out building access points; however, he also noted numerous violations that remained yet to be resolved.

 

Mr. O'Neill noted that back on July 7, 2016, the property owner had contacted staff to show they were making progress and that the sprinkler system was open and operating.  However, Mr. O'Neill stated there was an apparent difference of opinion as to whether it was operational or not, and until it could be verified, it remained out of compliance, and depending on the tenant locations related to the remainder of the building, and how much of the building was in use and protected.  Mr. O'Neill stated that was the intent of the meeting scheduled later this week with the sprinkler contractor to confirm compliance in person, and not via the mail or through an email, but face to face to avoid any further confusion or delay in the process.  Mr. O'Neill advised that on the day of his last visit, the sprinkler system contractors and other property representatives were not on site.

 

Councilmember Etten asked if the Certificate of Occupancy required all areas of the building to be in compliance, or if certain areas of the building could be shut off if not used.

 

Mr. Englund responded that it was dependent on how much of the building was removed from its current state, and based on certain requirements accordingly.  Mr. Englund noted there were variables concerning the fire protection system from one area of the building to another; and whether compliance could be achieved through locked doors, redesign or retyping the entire building based on what areas were or were not used.

 

Ms. Collins further responded that it had been mentioned at one point regarding lack of sanitary plumbing facilities, that they just wouldn't use that portion of the building.  However, Ms. Collins noted that whenever tenants and employees were using the building, appropriate sanitation was needed on site; and at a bare minimum that needed to be brought up to code.

 

Based on his recollection, Councilmember Etten opined the semi trailers stored outside were and remained a long-standing code violation.

 

Ms. Collins concurred they were definitely a part of the code violations; with trailers stored on unpaved surfaces, a remaining mystery in this NE quadrant.  Ms. Collins reported that there were actually trees growing up through some of the trailers.  However, while that code violation was also on the list specific to stacking of trailers and how they were lined up along Cleveland Avenue, Ms. Collins reiterated that staff's main focus tonight with this abatement action request was to immediately address life safety concerns.

 

Councilmember McGehee asked if the water was now turned off to the building.

 

Mr. Englund clarified that the water had been off since 2011; and most recently the meter had been removed as a safeguard to protect the municipal water supply system from any potential backflow at this site.

 

Seeking a compromise position, with the tenant and his employees continuing to work in the building, and if the sprinkler system is found to meet requirements when tested and witnessed later this week, Councilmember McGehee asked what other life safety issues would also need addressed yet this week.

 

Mr. O'Neill responded that certification of the sprinkler system could not be finalized on Thursday, August 25, 2016 when it was tested and witnessed, with a technological analysis required and the exit analysis provided late Friday, August 19, 2016, still being reviewed by staff.  Mr. O'Neill advised that, the next step to bring the building into compliance specific to life safety concerns, would be determining if occupants could exit the building in case of an emergency, with staff allowing several weeks for their review of those exits, their location, and if brining them up to code.  Mr. O'Neill noted this may be significant, and require some to be permanently shut or blocked; and to ensure proper emergency lighting or emergency exit options had all been addressed.

 

Councilmember McGehee asked if staff was aware of a compromise to ensure life safety issues had been addressed to provide a safe environment for employees and visitors, while allowing time necessary to make remaining changes or sell the building, versus forcing the tenant to immediate close their operations in this building and find a short-term solution for life safety issues but not requiring upgrading of the entire building if only a small portion of it was being used.

 

Mr. O'Neill stated, without having had the chance to fully review their proposal, from the building perspective and fire separations, an area could not be defined as "operational" or "storage" without meeting certain criteria.  Mr. O'Neill noted other concerns with the building having been vacant, and then this or additional tenants moved in and into conditions that may be allowed for how the building is currently used versus how it may be used if and when future tenants moved in.  Mr. O'Neill stated he didn't like to make exceptions, as the city may not be made aware of those future tenants.

 

Ms. Collins concurred, noting the current use (storage and repair) was a land use that still required people having ingress and egress for the building, even if a certain portion of the building was vacated.

 

Mr. O'Neill reiterated that staff had been and continued to try to be accommodating; again noting the city could have closed the building down the first day versus this notification process.  If no workers are employed in the building, Mr. O'Neill advised the issues went away, but as long as there were tenants inside, they and the city needed to comply with fire code.

 

Based on the requested action tonight, Mayor Roe asked when the four identified action steps were implemented, in light of the meeting later this week specific to the sprinkler system test; and what had to be satisfied subsequent to that test for these proposed conditions to be removed.  Mayor Roe clarified that he was seeking staff's anticipated timing or most optimistic timing to turn things around, if the building was posted tomorrow and whether this was a several week, six month or longer process from staff's perspective to get to resolution and renewed Certificate of Occupancy and utility connection.  Mayor Roe further clarified that was assuring satisfactory compliance for the city and staff's expectation that all would go well and allow occupancy again based on city and fire code requirements.

 

Ms. Collins responded that one of the reasons for the abatement process was to hopefully expedite code compliance.  Ms. Collins stated that simply providing pieces of information every few weeks to attempt to satisfy staff while real life safety concerns remained unchecked, didn't suffice, when those protections were put in place for everyone's protection.  To reinstate occupancy, Ms. Collins advised, would require appropriate sanitation for employees, the sprinkler system to be operational throughout the building, and all plans and corrective actions addressed or a timeline provided to bring remaining items up to code.  Ms. Collins further clarified that this confirmation would not be addressed by the property owner saying they had hired a contractor, but that the items were checked off on the list to reinstate occupancy. 

 

Ms. Collins stated that staff was open to working with the property owner to find solutions, but further stated the way things had worked to-date with this long and drawn out process, she would require that contractors were actually secured by the property owner and not simply contacted; and that the main structural elements of code violations were immediately addressed and more so than staff had received up to this point.

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No.11349 (Attachment Z) entitled, "Resolution Approving Abatement Action at 2814 Cleveland Avenue N;" authorizing abatement action at 2814 Cleveland Avenue N through the order to vacate, condemn the building, and suspend the Certificate of Occupancy, and disconnect
utilities from the property.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated that the City Council was fully aware of the full context of the issues occurring in this building, and stated that he found the situation with the electrical system to be quite alarming.  From his personal perspective, Councilmember Willmus opined this was a necessary action to take so the city didn't end up dealing with a death on the premises.  While unable to speak for Mr. Dorso and what had happened with the property and any past actions of previous City Councils, Councilmember Willmus clarified that if Mr. Dorso made the decision to house tenants in his properties, he had an obligation to make sure those buildings were compliant with code, noting therein lay his concern.  Now knowing that they know about this facility, Councilmember Willmus opined the city would be remiss if it did anything other than what was laid out by staff in the RCA and didn't take action to correct this situation.

 

Councilmember Etten seconded the comments of Councilmember Willmus.  Councilmember Etten also spoke to the years of deterioration and noncompliance with code in a variety of issues (e.g. exterior trailer storage and Fire Department lack of access to the site and buildings).  While these violations have been known to the property owner, Councilmember Etten noted nothing had been done by Mr. Dorso to correct those violations.  Councilmember Etten further spoke to the photographic evidence provided by Mr. Martin, as Mr. Dorso's attorney used to dispute similar evidence provided by staff, yet clearly showing other noncompliance issues included in the list (e.g. open stairway with no safety railing) and showing additional safety violations.  Now three months since the initial inspection, Councilmember Etten opined it was time to correct those safety violations and urged the property owner to do, agreeing the city had an obligation to make sure the property owner upheld his obligations.

 

Councilmember McGehee agreed with the comments of her colleagues.  While not harboring a desire to throw anyone out of work, Councilmember McGehee opined that she found this found this an appalling situation with no correction to these life safety issues.  Councilmember McGehee urged the owner and city staff to come up with a quick compromise to avoid putting people out of work or putting the business out of business.  However, she also noted that, if you're dead because of one of these life safety issues, it didn't matter.

 

Councilmember Laliberte also agreed with the comments of her colleagues.  Councilmember Laliberte noted it was easy to take pictures to counteract other photos; however, she also noted those pictures signified a bigger issue with this facility.  Councilmember Laliberte stated she was unable to address past City Council actions or decisions, and recognized Mr. Dorso was attempting to sell the property, having grown up in a trucking family, she was not looking to push this use out of the city or to put people out of their jobs.  However, Councilmember Laliberte opined people could not be working in conditions like these.

 

Mayor Roe noted that one of the challenges with attempting a compromise in this situation was that what was happening today may not necessarily be what happens down the road with another or additional tenants.  Therefore, Mayor Roe stated the City could only deal with what they anticipate could happen on site, Mayor Roe opined that it would irresponsible for the City to establish a solution today with a blind eye toward what could happen tomorrow with other possible uses, requiring that the City set ground rules for the future.  Mayor Roe further opined that included how the building was used or occupied by tenants on the property; and if the entire building was not going to be used, a strict standard be applied to separate and delineate those areas.  Mayor Roe recognized that the cost may not be attractive to accomplish that, and stated he was sympathetic to the property owner striving to receive some income from the property by housing tenants.  However, while Mayor Roe agreed to some extent that it wasn't the owner's fault that the previous development program fell through with the assistance plan in place to relocate those tenants, this situation was entirely in the control of the business owner.  Mayor Roe further stated that he understood attempts to sell the property and city assistance for those sales had not been approved; but clarified that the situation under consideration tonight was with existing violations and their threat to the tenants of this facility.  If the abatement process serves to put an end to the process set in motion in June of 2016, Mayor Roe opined that was the step to take today, similar to other code enforcement violation processes.  Mayor Roe recognized that this action doesn't mean the conversations won't continue; and expressed his hope that either the building could be brought into compliance to reinstate occupancy or some other resolution happens.  However, Mayor Roe opined that the City could not allow something in between those two options to resolve this issue.

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

15.        Business Items - Presentations/Discussions

 

16.        City Manager Future Agenda Review

 

17.        Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

 

18.        Adjourn Meeting

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:32 p.m.

                                   

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.