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


City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

May 22, 2017


1.            Roll Call

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


2.         Pledge of Allegiance


3.         Approve Agenda

City Manager Trudgeon reported that city code violations at 2657 Western Avenue had been resolved, and therefore removed from tonight’s agenda.


Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Item 9.f from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.


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


                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


4.         Public Comment


5.         Recognitions, Donations and Communications


6.            Items Removed from Consent Agenda


f.             Receive Authorization to Accept Minnesota department of Commerce Grant Funds – Auto Theft Prevention Through Enhanced Crime Analysis

City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this request as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated today’s date.


Councilmember McGehee noted that, in the second paragraph of the RCA, there were not Roseville-specific statistics such as those included for other entities and generalizations based on that information.  Councilmember McGehee questioned if there were statistics of Roseville car thefts that could be made available.


Chief Mathwig responded that as noted in lines 18-20 of the RCA, valuations were included for Roseville.

Councilmember McGehee clarified that she was interested in percentages of auto theft in Roseville compared to other crimes, not specifically the valuation of those auto thefts; and beyond the information gleaned from FBI statistics.


Chief Mathwig offered to provide that Roseville-specific information to the City Council at a later date based on the distribution map, and also showing concentrations in specific areas over the last 4-5 years.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of grand funding from the State of Minnesota, as detailed in the Grant Contract (Attachment A); and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document; allowing the City of Roseville to accept funding and proceed with employing enhanced auto theft analysis techniques in accordance with the specified tasks and line-item budget as approved by the State of Minnesota.


Mayor Roe asked if this grant application had been brought to the City Council previously for approval or if it had been provided in the periodic grant update provided by staff.


City Manager Trudgeon apologized and confirmed that it had not been approved previously, and also noted the delay in bringing the quarterly grant update to the City Council.


Mayor Roe reminded staff to review city policy on the procedure whenever matching funds were required with formal City Council approval prior to submission of an application; with City Manager Trudgeon duly noting that reminder.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


1.            Business Items


a.            Convene as Board of Adjustments & Appeals

Review of the Administrative Deviation Application at 694 Sextant Avenue, the findings supporting its approval, and the appeal to determine whether the approval was properly granted or whether the approval should be reversed (PF17-005)


Roseville City staff was represented by Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd

As detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated May 22, 2017, Mr. Lloyd briefly summarized the administrative deviation that had been conditionally approved.  At the request of Chair Roe and for the benefit of the viewing public, Mr. Lloyd provided that summary information and related attachments to the staff report.


City Manager Trudgeon noted that adjacent neighbors had been contacted by staff and welcomed to attend the initial administrative hearing before staff, but was unsure if any had attended.


Mr. Lloyd advised that the neighbor appealing the administrative ruling had been unable to attend the hearing, but had received information from staff before and the results of the hearing, resulting in tonight’s appeal.


At the request of Chair Roe, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that the existing and proposed front elevations were available during staff’s review; along with the outline of the original garage and proposed roof lines.


Member Willmus stated his understanding of the proposed roof style over the addition was made in an effort to accommodate the neighbor to the east; but asked staff if any discussion had been held with the proposed project to match roof lines on both ends of the house versus gable style on one end and hip style on the other, opining that those choices seemed to create an oddball situation.


Mr. Lloyd reported that staff would typically expect similar styles, but that the application had come to staff in this way from the homeowner when applying for the deviation with builders included in the conversation with directly adjacent neighbors and their concern about shade on their garden in the side yard,  Therefore, in deference to that neighbor’s concern, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had accepted the proposed roof style as a viable option that matched the neighboring house as well, with the nearest other roof of the hip style even though it didn’t match the gable style roof on the other end of the subject home.


Member Willmus asked if there were any similar roofs in the neighborhood that had two different roof styles, with Mr. Lloyd reported that he was not aware of any.


Chair Roe invited the Appealing Party to present their case at this time.


Appealing Party, Ray Werner, 688 W Sexton Avenue

Mr. Werner stated that his biggest problem is shading his garden area, and also the closer proximity of the addition to his home, impacting an existing garden and creating potential drainage issues.  While realizing the neighbor has a right to do so, Mr. Werner stated his opposition with this occurring after having lived there for over forty-four years and now all of a sudden a new neighbor of only 4-5 years desires a double garage even though he knew the limited garage space when originally purchasing the home. With the assistance of staff, Mr. Werner presented pictures of the existing space and property lines; reiterating that he was not happy with the proposed change, including his ability to sell his home in the future with this addition resembling a barracks being so close to his property line.


Property Owner, Case Meyerding, 694 Sextant Avenue N

Mr. Meyerding stated that he was willing to abide by the decision of the City Council and made himself available for questions. 


Member Etten referenced the concern regarding drainage, and the unique situation evidenced by the black tube running along the side of the driveway, asking Mr. Meyerding to address plans to mitigate increased impervious surfaces impacting that drainage.


Mike Tischler, Tiny Estate Builders, 40980 Guthrie Avenue, North Branch, MN

Member Etten asked if the proposed new hard surface fell within city guidelines and below square footage requirements to mitigate additional drainage needs.


Mr. Tischler stated that the proposed impervious surface would create no additional runoff on the side of the house than was currently occurring and going down the hill; with gutters and downspouts provided on both ends of the home on the front.


Member McGehee asked if those computations included the deck as an impervious surface; and the distance between the end of the garage and property line.


Mr. Tischler responded and described the deck in the aerial photo intended for removal in its entirety to make way for the new addition; with the distance between the garage end and property line at 10’; with the owner seeking 7’ of that space to accommodate a two-stall garage.  Mr. Tischler advised that the homeowner had originally applied for a garage with a full 5’ setback to make the garage more functional as a 2-stall garage than its current 1-stall configuration.


Member Willmus stated that he had posed to staff that a roofline with a gable at one end and hip at the other was simply not aesthetically pleasing; suggesting there must be a solution if the applicant was to obtain a deviation and have the administrative ruling stand.


Mr. Tischler advised that there had been no additional discussion to do so on the west end, but noted that his original plan had been for a gable style roof on both ends prior to making the adjustment in an attempt to appease the neighbor with the hip style roof addressing that neighbor’s vegetable garden by allowing for more light to reach it.


Chair Roe clarified that the Board’s role was to support or not support the staff deviation; with the inability to apply any conditions in doing so; with confirmation provided by City Attorney Gaughan.


Board Deliberation

Chair Roe noted the decision before the Board was whether or not staff’s granting of the deviation was appropriate; and if so to provide findings for either determination.


Member Willmus stated that his determination was made on whether the property could be put to reasonable use but for this change; and stated that his response was yes, it could be with the property owner coming forward with a solution that would work for them without impacting the setback.  Therefore, Member Willmus stated that he would be inclined to see the applicant go that route without seeking an administrative deviation; causing him to support the appellant and deny this deviation.


Member McGehee agreed with Member Willmus along those same “but for” lines, and not only based on aesthetics, but by staying back within the 5’ setback requirement it would be more functional for adjacent neighbors and their plantings, with the pattern of sharing readily obvious.  Especially with drainage considerations, Member McGehee opined that the 5’ setback was close enough; and could support the original plan submitted by the applicant to retain that distance.


Pending that, Chair Roe clarified with Mr. Tischler that the garage plan was for the entire front/back depth for that additional area, or a full tuck under garage, with the upstairs continuing that full depth to accommodate a master bedroom suite.


Member Willmus moved, Member McGehee seconded, SUPPORTING THE APPEAL and OVERTURNING THE ADMINISTRATIVE DEVIATION; based on the following findings:

§  The addition can be reasonably advanced without a deviation as demonstrated by the homeowner’s original plan;

§  Preservation of appropriate setback standards are an area of concern to the city based on its most recent discussions with the subdivision code text rewrite and seeking to allow 10’ clearance between structures, or 5’ for each adjoining property; and

§  An administrative deviation would materially affect the appellant’s property with additional shading of their vegetable garden


Member Etten noted the sensibility of these findings in the bigger picture; but questioned if staff’s original broaching of the deviation was to address the functionality of the garage’s dimensions to serve as a two- stall garage, while improving the property’s value.


Chair Roe noted that this was a difficult decision, but spoke in support of the motion due to the depth of the garage relative to its width that would serve to facilitate the functionality.


Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus and Roe.

Nays: Etten.

Motion carried


City Attorney Gaughan advised that he would work with staff on the memorialization of these findings and provide written notice to all parties.


Chair Roe reconvened the remaining business under the role of the City Council.


b.            Report on the Status of the Comprehensive Plan Update Process (PROJ-0037

Senior Planner Lloyd reintroduced consultant Erin Purdu to provide an update on the process to-date. 


Ms. Purdu recognized the efforts of her colleague Lydia Major in attending most of the community engagement efforts to-date.  Ms. Purdu provided a brief presentation, referencing the materials provided as attachments to the RCA, resulting in themes already being identified from many different areas and groups.


Mr. Lloyd advised that three “meetings in a box” kits were immediately available for anyone interested in hosting such an event, along with instructions for doing so.


Mayor Roe noted the ease of using the kits by neighborhood groups, local businesses or community organizations, and encouraged those interested to investigate their use.


Ms. Purdu reviewed upcoming community engagement opportunities yet to come.


Councilmember Etten expressed his appreciation that the consultants were doing an overall fantastic job in reaching people in different areas and through different ways; and referenced the value of the “meetings in a box” done with the Parks Master Plan process.  However, Councilmember Etten noted that Parks & Recreation Director Brokke had gone to various groups to initiate those efforts, and suggested staff or the consultant may need to invite themselves to various groups to perform that option as well.  Councilmember Etten suggested the need to be intentional to go to people rather than hoping they’d find the process on their own; and suggested those groups be contacted to reserve a ½ hour slot on a future agenda to do so. 


Also, as the SE Roseville connections are made, Councilmember Etten suggested that KOM interpreters or Police Department staff be used to assist in those efforts during the upcoming walk-arounds.


Ms. Purdu confirmed that they, as consultants, had talked to staff about having translator services available.


At the other end of the spectrum, Councilmember McGehee stated that since this was supposed to be a technical update, and with the 2014 and 2016 community surveys being revalidated by these initial engagement opportunities, the results were coming across almost identical to the 2030 comprehensive plan update.  Councilmember McGehee stated that she didn’t see any different goals being put forward other than the connectivity that everyone was aware had moved up in priority.  Councilmember McGehee stated that she had a problem with statistics with demographics provided through Survey Monkey, opining that the results were completely skewed.  Also, Councilmember McGehee opined that the intercept boards had been placed more for people coming into the city for a function, but not serving the interests of Roseville residents and businesses well; and including a lack of input yes from the senior citizen demographic. 


With thirteen geographic districts to consider, and as part of Phase II, Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in alerting that demographic to what the comprehensive plan involves and how it impacts them, particularly fundamental zoning impacts within a geographic area beforehand rather than after-the fact.  Councilmember McGehee opined that concerted meetings for those neighborhoods that may be seeing such a future land use change should be held in the near future to receive their feedback and realize potential impacts to them and their properties. Begetting those people involved now rather than when a zoning or land use change is finalized, Councilmember McGehee opined that it would allow their input as part of the decision-making process.


Councilmember McGehee questioned what was involved in the “other” category in the numerous bar graphs; with Ms. Purdu reviewing that category from the online survey, and distilled information available, offering to provide it at this time rather than later in the process.


Councilmember Laliberte stated that her impression of the work to-date was great; and also stated her interest in receiving the more detailed “other” categories and comments at this time.  While recognizing that this comprehensive plan update is Roseville-specific, Councilmember Laliberte noted that it was not unique to Roseville and planning efforts included the city and others using the community, with their advice and perceptions also a necessary part of the picture.  However, Councilmember Laliberte questioned how the consultants were able to parse out that information – whether from Roseville residents and/or businesses, and that of a broader focus (e.g. ECFE families, and Future Cities students).  Councilmember Laliberte also questioned the closing date for the online survey.


Specific to the online survey, Ms. Purdu responded that the online survey was still open but the number of responses had plateaued, suggesting that it may be taken down soon.


Councilmember Laliberte proposed that the online survey be left up, but perhaps remind people of its existence.


Mayor Roe agreed that the lack of responses may be due to a lack of follow-up advertising.


On the walkabouts, Councilmember Laliberte noted the identification of some areas and topics, and asked how each would function (e.g. pre-determined questions) or how each agenda would be established.


Ms. Purdu advised that some conversations starters in each area would be used depending on their specific demographics and physical characterizes, with a rough list of questions to initiate discussions, and the idea for people to inform about their neighborhood for the city’s relevancy in the future; and allowing for flexibility depending on what was important to them and who showed up.  Ms. Purdu and staff provided post card examples created by the consultants and distributed by staff, with walking maps available at the start of the events with starter questions to get people thinking.  Ms. Purdu also noted that walking routes were flexible if people wanted to show something not on the prescribed route.


Recognizing that typically 80% of the information will come from 20% of the population, Councilmember Laliberte asked how staff would avoid specific interest groups from trying to skew feedback and results.


Ms. Purdu responded that there was no formal process involved, but reviewed several ways they could verify participation through sign-in sheets from in-person activities; and other techniques with the online surveys; with the only unknowns coming through the intercept boards.


Councilmember Willmus concurred with the comments of his colleagues so far, and agreed with the request for more detail from the “other” category as well.  Councilmember Willmus also strongly agreed with Councilmember Etten’s suggestion for staff to facilitate “meetings in a box” efforts.


City Manager Trudgeon duly noted those comments.


Councilmember Willmus also agreed with the comments and suggestions by Councilmembers McGehee and Laliberte to parse data for review and to pay attention to the Roseville-specific nature of the comprehensive plan update going forward.


Specific to the “other” category, Mayor Roe noted that similar to the city’s budget it covered many things, but also suggested keeping in focus those items with broader support as long as they were vetted and it was ensured that the pump wasn’t being primed by repeated comments of community activists in gathering that information.  Mayor Roe expressed appreciation for the way the walkabouts were being publicized, and the coordination efforts with the SE Roseville efforts at Rice Street and Larpenteur Avenue.


Specific to walkabouts, Councilmember McGehee asked if there was a starting point for those wishing to provide feedback but unable to perform the walkabout.  Ms. Purdu confirmed that starting locations were indicated on all post card and maps.


Ms. Purdu reviewed next steps for the Planning Commission and staff, with the most immediate effort now in drafting a future land use map with them to prompt additional community feedback.  Ms. Purdu advised that additional time would be spent on evaluating districts themselves, how they’re currently described and the densities behind them; along with identifying key redevelopment parcels (e.g. Har Mar Mall site).


Councilmember Willmus asked that this update remain cognizant of the amount of property currently guided for high density residential (HDR) designation and review prior designations as to their continued appropriateness.


Mayor Roe agreed, suggesting the consultants and staff review past City Council meeting minutes for those extensive discussions and interest in focusing on several areas of opportunities and other areas of ongoing concerns not currently proposed to change in the near future and to help inform the process.


Councilmember McGehee reiterated her concern that those immediately impacted by changes in zoning designation needed to provide their feedback and not leave it up to the City Council and Planning Commission.  Councilmember McGehee also asked for a review of the current definition between Regional and Community Business districts, as addressed by the City Attorney in a previous opinion and needing to be revised.


Ms. Purdu advised that that last issue was currently being reviewed in-house by staff and her consulting team.


Councilmember Laliberte echoed the comments of her colleagues, noting the many conversations held about the amount of HDR and need for more variations in housing types in Roseville to avoid residents moving to other communities offering those preferred options, even though residents didn’t want to leave Roseville, but didn’t have a choice at this point.


Specific to localized meetings and discussions, Mayor Roe agreed with Councilmember McGehee’s point to seek feedback from residents in areas of potential conflict specifically where changes are proposed - before it gets to the Planning Commission or City Council for final consideration of the 2040 comprehensive plan update.


In conclusion, Ms. Purdu reviewed the decision-making rubric initially discussed at the beginning of the process, using the outline of the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning document’s goals and strategies.  Ms. Purdu advised that the review was to review the questions and determine which remained measurable and useful for the City Council, staff, advisory commissions, by providing a snapshot and currently under review by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Purdu advised that those goals and those of the 2030 comprehensive plan update would be reviewed and modified as appropriate, with additional information from community engagement efforts to-date to form the basis of the introduction chapter of the 2040 plan and then revisited in more detail in individual chapters of the plan.


In terms of format, Councilmember McGehee opined that she found the 2030 plan as laid out with goals and policies, with plenty of detail to measure how to reach those goals, to be specific and readable.


c.            Consider 1681 Rice Street Non-Residential Stormwater Impact Fee Appeal

As detailed in the RCA, Public Works Director Marc Culver reviewed the background and objectives of this recently-adopted policy; and the difference in initial developer expectations and reality of the new policy as the per footage fees were addressed, and resulting in the appeal from the property owner.


Discussion ensued between staff and council members on soil borings done to-date and removal of former underground fuel tanks; construction already begun on site and lack of interest in any infiltration device due to potentially contaminated soils.


Property Owner, Nabeel Abu Feddah and Representative Samir Mayyaleh (Roseville resident)

Mr. Mayyaleh provided information on the amount of soil testing and boring samples to-date; number of truckloads of dirt removed; and costs paid by the property owner of this site, a community eyesore for twenty years.  Mr. Mayyaleh addressed these additional unanticipated expenses, when they were expecting $15/cubic foot of required stormwater mitigation costs, and then to be informed about the $22.50 revised fee.  On behalf of the property owner, Mr. Mayyaleh respectfully requested that the city leave it at the initial price.


Discussion ensued between the property owner and his representative and council members including the land, demolition and permit costs paid to-date; assessment of the cost of stormwater impact fees no matter which fee is used given other out-of-pocket expenses above and beyond the construction loan; timeline of the project finish hopefully by the end of the summer of 2017; potential tenants to lease the facility beyond the Laundromat on one end; and anticipated improvements to the site as a strip mall from that originally proposed as another gas station.


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, APPROVAL of the appeal for a reduction of the non-residential stormwater mitigation fee to an amount of $25,605 as originally estimated.


Based on staff comments, Councilmember Etten spoke in support of the motion.


Given the assurance from staff that this preliminary fee at $15/cubic foot had not been quoted to any other party, Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of the motion.


Mayor Roe spoke in support of the motion, but for future situations, clarified that this is a one-time exception for this one specific project.  Mayor Roe reviewed past City Council discussions and firm clarity that it had been determined when implementing the policy that the initially proposed $15 fee was too low.  Mayor Roe recognized that this property owner had been caught in the middle of the process; but reiterated that any other projects coming forward would be at the $22.50 per cubic foot fee to ensure that the city’s stormwater system could be maintained going forward. 


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, APPROVAL of the payment of the non-residential stormwater mitigation fee via special assessment over a period of ten years at an annual interest rate of 5%, with the condition of the property owner entering into an Assessment Agreement as drafted by the City and approved by the City Council.

                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Mr. Culver confirmed that staff had not quoted any other property owners the $15 fee, and noted that this was a rare circumstance with no mitigation possible on the site.  Mr. Culver advised that staff would include waivers for all future projects that quotes would be based on the annual adoption of the city’s fee schedule.


d.            Approve Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan Draft

As detailed in the RCA and attachments, Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson reviewed the water management plan draft as presented, seeking City Council approval or revisions.


As part of Mr. Johnson’s presentation, he reviewed public input on the plan; major plan updates since the 2013 plan was adopted; an implementation plan; and best management practice (BMP) planning and maintenance; and next steps for agency review upon approval of this draft tonight.  Mr. Johnson also reviewed public requests for updates to the regional surface water management plan outside internal staff review; and how those issues could be built into annual pavement management program (PMP) projects.


Of the total $28 million included as projects in the implementation plan, Mr. Johnson reviewed those worst-case issues resulting in approximately $11.5 million, mostly involving installation of underground systems due to lack of above-ground space at those sites.  As an example, Mr. Johnson reviewed pond maintenance options and related cost analyses to address downstream water in a particular area as well.


Mr. Johnson advised that any comments/feedback tonight would be included in the plan before it was sent out for the 450day agency review (three watershed districts, Ramsey County, and the Metropolitan Council) at which time a final plan will be brought forward to the City Council for approval.


Councilmember McGehee reviewed her discussions of earlier today with the Public Works Department related to demonstration by the city of its stewardship of approximately 30% publicly-owned rights-of-way and other land in the community; cost-effectiveness of those maintenance efforts; and education of the public related to good stewardship, including involving the school districts in those efforts.  Councilmember McGehee suggested recruiting Roseville residents to assist with those efforts; and noted the numerous drainage issues in the community that the city needed to take responsibility for rather than delegating efforts to watershed districts that may have different requirements than what would serve those interests best.


Referencing page 20 of the plan, Mayor Roe asked the amount of staffing required if Roseville was to undertake serving as the local government unit (LGU); with Mr. Johnson advising that he’d only done three projects during his tenure.  However, Mr. Johnson further reported that the city had incorporated some of the watershed district language into this plan to further align them, with the one-acre rule kicking in for review by the watershed district and/or city as applicable.


Public Works Director Culver clarified that the city delegated only its LGU rights for wetlands only, since the Wetland Conservation Act deals primarily with mitigation issues, allowing the city to be more restrictive in some efforts.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the draft 2017 Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan; allowing staff to submit the plan for agency review.


Councilmember Laliberte expressed appreciation to staff for updating the plan; and recognizing the efforts on local drainage issues and positive impacts for the community.


Councilmember McGehee opined this was a great report, especially with the stronger language and links to the school districts for education efforts.


Mayor Roe echoed appreciation to staff; and expressed thanks for the larger quadrant maps identifying issues in more detail.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


e.            Consider a Community Development Department Request to Perform an Abatement for Unresolved City Code Violations at 1890 Huron Avenue

Codes Coordinator Dave Englund summarized this request and provided updated photos of the code violations as of today for this owner-occupied, single-family home at 1890 Huron Avenue, with the property owner of record shown as Linda Bangert.  Mr. Englund reviewed current violations, originating from a resident complaint, including accumulation of debris (407.02.D); a shed in disrepair (407.02.J, K.2); and outside storage of household items (407.03.H). Mr. Englund estimated that the cost of abatement, encompassing repair of doors and broken/missing windows on the shed and removal/disposal of debris and items stored outside at approximately $1,000.00.


Mr. Englund reported that throughout correspondence efforts with the property owner and posting of the site, the property owner had not responded until this morning, when a voice mail was left stating that some corrections had been taken.  Mr. Englund provided updated photos as of late today, with the homeowner requesting additional time to make repairs.  However, Mr. Englund also noted that this property in the past had several other abatement requests before the City Council; and therefore proposed that an abatement be authorized with a potential date of July 1, 2017 to allow the property owner to make corrections before then.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, directing Community Development staff to abate the public nuisance at 1890 Huron Avenue by hiring a general contractor to remove and dispose of the outside storage of items and repair the shed doors and repair/replace shed windows as necessary as referenced at this hearing if not completed by the property owner by July 1, 2017, and asking that staff speak to the property owner as to removal of the shed structure and for staff to assist in that effort if deemed appropriate; directing staff to bill the property owner for actual and administrative costs; with the property owner billed for actual and administrative costs; and if those charges are not paid, staff will recover costs as specified in City Code, Section 407.07B.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


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

f.             Consider a Community Development Department Request to Perform an Abatement for Unresolved City Code Violations at 2657 Western Avenue

As previously noted, this item was resolved by the property owner and removed from tonight’s agenda.


g.            Consider a Community Development Department Request for Approval of Proposed Roseville City Code Ordinance Text Amendments, Chapter 407 (Nuisances)

Codes Coordinator Dave Englund briefly reviewed the revisions based on previous City Council discussion, as detailed in the RCA and Attachment A, incorporating suggested changes to-date, with no subsequent resident feedback received.


Councilmember Etten thanked staff for the revisions; pointing out one minor typographical error on page 2, line 56, retaining the word “or.”


Specific to page 2, lines 71-72, Councilmember McGehee asked if that language caused the city any concern with First Amendment rights.


City Attorney Gaughan advised that the language of the proposed ordinance mirrored that of the state law definition of “public nuisance,” and therefore was an appropriate provision in city code.  Whether or not it applied in any potential violation of First Amendment rights, City Attorney Gaughan clarified that those issues were always decided on a case-by-case basis; and therefore, he had no concerns since Constitutional Rights would trump any governmental regulation.


Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. ___ (Attachment A, as amended) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Title 4, Chapter 407 (Nuisances).”


Mayor Roe thanked staff for their diligent work and follow-through for these revisions, and for involving the public throughout the process.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. ___ (Attachment B) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Title 4, Chapter 407 (Nuisances).


                                                Roll Call (Super Majority)

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

Nays: None.


a.            Consider the PRELIMINARY PLAT for Java Capital Partners for Property addressed at 2038 and 2045 Twin Lakes Parkway (PF18-006)

City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly summarized this request as detailed in the RCA. 


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke confirmed that this was the area involving the proposed Denny’s Restaurant site.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of the PRELIMINARY PLAT for Cleveland Club Second Addition; based on the comments and findings as presented in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated May 22, 2017.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Approve FINAL PLAT for Java Capital Partners for Property addressed at 2038 and 2045 Twin Lakes Parkway (PF18-006)

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. ___ (Attachment B) entitled, “A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Cleveland Club Second Addition.”

                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


c.            Appoint Planning Commission Member

A tally update was provided as a bench handout.


Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, appointment of Sharon Brown to the Planning Commission for a term ending March 31, 2018.


Councilmember Willmus apologized for his lateness in watching the interviews before submitting his choices and after talking by phone with Ms. Brown.  Councilmember Willmus noted the many well-qualified candidates, and encouraged them to apply for future vacancies.


Councilmembers Laliberte agreed with Councilmember Willmus’ comments.


Councilmember Etten concurred with his colleagues, and also recognized the insights expressed by Jumi Kassim during the interview process; and encouraged application for future vacancies to the Planning Commission or other advisory commissions.


Mayor Roe concurred on the candidates based on his review.


Councilmember McGehee also spoke to the qualities of Candidate Ayers-Johnson, and as a young person, his recognition of community nodes and creative approach, along with other candidates as well.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


d.            Discuss Options for Recording Secretary Services for City Meetings

Assistant City Manager Rebecca Olson reviewed potential options for recording secretarial services as detailed in the RCA; and in lieu of the upcoming retirement of current Recording Secretary Sheila Stowell, seeking direction of the City Council going forward.


Specific to the City Council and Planning Commission with action items on the floor, Councilmember Willmus opined that it was nice to have someone serving in-person as a recording secretary for potential formulation of motions on the floor to ensure they are current and properly recorded at the time of the vote rather than after-the-fact.  Therefore, Councilmember Willmus stated his preference for someone sitting at the dais for those meetings.  However, for advisory commissions, Councilmember Willmus noted that TOSS had worked well in the past, causing him no concerns in undertaking other advisory meetings.


For clarification purposes sought by Mayor Roe, Councilmember Willmus confirmed that he would like to see someone serving the Planning Commission as soon as possible and certainly before year-end 2017.


Councilmember McGehee stated that she was willing to go ahead with TOSS for all commissions, including the Planning Commission; as long as the City staff was absolutely clear on any and all motions made.  Councilmember McGehee noted the availability of Community Development Department staff available at those Commission meetings to oversee formal actions and avoid major confusion, as well as the availability of the web cast for reference if and when needed. 


Councilmember Laliberte stated her interest in having someone serve in-person for City Council and Planning Commission meetings to retain the ability to confirm and clarify formal actions.


City Manager Trudgeon clarified that Ms. Stowell would continue to serve the REDA through the end of 2017.


Councilmember Etten agreed with Councilmember Willmus, especially with the work of the City Council, REDA, and Planning Commission, that someone should be available in-person.  If staff members are available from the Community Development Department to monitor the Planning Commission meetings, Councilmember Etten agreed with having TOSS serve, even though he would prefer someone to serve in-person.  However, Councilmember Etten stated his concern that City Manager Trudgeon not be tasked with worrying about the minor meeting details rather than being an active participant in City Council discussions at a meeting. However, Councilmember Etten opined that staff could work things out over the next six months, but expressed his interest in pursuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a broader search for in-person services in 2018.


Mayor Roe echoed Councilmember Etten’s comments.  Mayor Roe noted that as the Chair of each meeting, he tried to make sure he paused to restate the motion; and looked to the Planning Commission Chair and Community Development Department staff to be diligent in doing so as well.  Mayor Roe stated that he would be comfortable using TOSS for the remainder of 2017 as stated in the RCA, but reviewing all options for 2018 and beyond.


Councilmember Willmus stated that he’d like the changeover to be ready by the time Ms. Stowell stepped away; with his colleagues echoing that objective.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with TimeSaver Off-site Secretarial Services (TOSS) to provide recording secretary services for the Planning Commission, Special Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan Update, Variance Board, Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission, and Ethics Commission, beginning June 1, 2017 through the end of 2017.


Councilmember McGehee stated her interest in receiving feedback from staff to see how it went with the Planning Commission to assess whether in-person recording secretary services are needed.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


8.            Approve Minutes


a.         Approve City Council Minutes – May 8

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of the May 8, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended.



§  Page 5, Lines 1-5 (Roe)

Do not strike the motion, but instead, correct to read: “McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, delaying action on this planning effort pending a meeting to gauge interest in a park at this location, 2132 Cleveland Avenue.”

§  Page 8, Line 25 (Roe)

Do not delete the word “…involve…”


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


a.            Approve Economic Development Authority (REDA) Minutes –May 8

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the May 8, 2017 REDA Meeting Minutes as presented.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


9.            Approve Consent Agenda

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly highlighted those items being considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments dated May 22, 2017.


a.            Approve Payments

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


ACH Payments


85464 – 85614





Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Approve Business & Other Licenses

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of 2017 Business and Other Licenses as detailed in the RCA of today’s date.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


c.            Consider Approval/Denial of Four Massage Therapist Licenses and One Massage Establishment License

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of four Massage Therapist Licenses and one Massage Establishment License as detailed in the RCA of today’s date.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Manager Trudgeon advised that at the direction of the City Council and after consultation with the City Attorney, staff was providing un-redacted copies of massage therapist licenses only to the City Council under separate cover and subsequently returning the information to him.   Mr. Trudgeon agreed that the City Council had a right to see the information, but emphasized the need to keep it secure. 


Mayor Roe noted that it was appropriate for council members to opt out of receiving the redacted copies.


Councilmember McGehee stated that she was amenable to opt out; noting her only concern was with the general propriety in deviating from standard procedures by singling out this license type only.  Councilmember McGehee opined that here was nothing the City Council could do with the un-redacted information (e.g. background checks); and if there was dissatisfaction with the current background check process, the City Council should ask the Police Department for additional information accordingly, and to discontinue this inequitable practice.


Councilmember Willmus referenced information available to the City Council with other types of licenses (e.g. fireworks) where a full name, address and other information is included should a council member wish to contact an applicant personally.  Councilmember Willmus noted that this was not the same information previously made available for massage therapist licenses.


Mayor Roe noted that the City Council received un-redacted copies of advisory commission applications under separate cover that was also not provided as public information.


Councilmember McGehee noted, however, that the information included in the packet went beyond phone numbers; and suggested if Councilmember Willmus’ interest in this additional information had arisen from his unwillingness to vote on them without a more substantial background check, opined that it was more appropriate for the Police Department to perform that background check rather than individual council members.


Mayor Roe noted that a process was now in place for review of massage therapist license applicants, with the option for individual council members to opt in or out at their preference, but without restricting that information if desired.


Councilmember Laliberte stated her continued interest in the state taking on this process; and suggested that whatever the city could do to stress that to its legislative delegation and other legislators should be done.


Mayor Roe suggested councilmembers volunteer to serve on Metro Cities and League of MN Cities policy committees related to this issue. Councilmember Laliberte noted that Metro Cities and League of Minnesota Cities policy committees did address the issue, acknowledging that they would support such a legislative effort, but not going so far as to put any effort into it.  Mayor Roe suggested this issue could be discussed at a later date by the City Council and prior to the next legislative session


Councilmember Laliberte noted the upcoming recap with legislators at the next Roseville Business Council meeting, suggesting it would be an opportune time to bring up the issue, duly noted by City Manager.


In the absence of immediate legislative action by the state, Councilmember McGehee suggested it may be worth having Chief Mathwig advise the City Council on what was involved with current background check procedures, and if a more involved process was indicated if this continued to be an area of concern for the City of Roseville.


Councilmember Willmus asked why the massage therapist licenses couldn’t be approved by staff and not come before the City Council; with Mayor Roe noting if licenses were approved by staff, city code would need to be changed accordingly.


Mayor Roe noted that the City of Maplewood currently approves premise licenses but not individual licenses; and while the process could be delegated to staff, he understood why previous City Councils felt this should be a formal action by the City Council due to potential issues associated with them.


Councilmember Willmus opined that if there was great trepidation among individual Councilmembers approving such licenses, then it should be done administratively.


As previously noted, Mayor Roe asked that staff bring this item before the City Council as a future agenda item within the next few months.


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

At the request of Mayor Roe, Public Works Director Culver confirmed that the signage throughout the city included street signs.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as noted in the RCA and Attachment A entitled, “2017 Summary of Scheduled CIP Items,” updated April 30, 2017.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


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

Councilmember Laliberte noted blank pages on listed attachments to the resolution; with City Manager advising that he would follow-up with staff to ensure nothing was missing and if so would bring that additional information back to the City Council’s attention.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. ___ (Attachment A, as amended to correct payable date) entitled, “Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Levy Unpaid Water, Sewer and Other City Charges for payable 2017 and Beyond.”

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


10.      Council & City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements


11.        Councilmember Initiated Future Agenda Items and Future Agenda Review

Councilmember Laliberte clarified, with confirmation from City Manager Trudgeon, that the start time for the June 5, 2017 REDA and City Council meetings were 6:00 p.m.


Councilmember McGehee requested a future discussion of trapping of animals.


12.        Adjourn

Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:03 p.m.