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.
Recess
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.
Corrections:
§ 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
|
$638,433.66
|
|
85464 – 85614
|
655,484.77
|
|
TOTAL
|
$1,293,918.13
|
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.