City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

June 28, 2010

                                                                                       

1.         Roll Call

Mayor Klausing called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed everyone.  (Voting and Seating Order for June: Johnson, Ihlan, Pust, Roe; and Klausing).  City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present for the Closed Executive Session.

 

CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION

            Discuss Ryan Twin Lakes Limited Pending Litigation

Mayor Klausing announced that the City Council would be going into Closed Executive Session.

 

City Attorney Mark Gaughan reviewed the purpose of the Closed Executive Session related to attorney/client privilege and confidential discussion related to pending litigation by Ryan Twin Lakes Limited, in accordance with Minnesota Statute 13D.05, subd. 3.3.

 

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, recessing the meeting into Closed Executive Session, at 6:02 pm, related to attorney/client privilege and confidential discussion by the City Council, staff and legal counsel, in accordance with Minnesota Statute 13D.05, subd. 3.3, specific to pending litigation by Ryan Twin lakes Limited.

 

Mayor Klausing, for public information, advised that this closed session was to ensure negotiations and strategy that would provide for the best interest of its citizens.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

Recess

Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at approximately 6:02 pm and reconvened in Executive Session at approximately 6:04 pm.

 

Recess

Mayor Klausing recessed the Executive Session at approximately 6:25 pm and reconvened at approximately 6:33 pm in Regular Session.  City Attorney Caroline Bell Beckman was present for the remainder of the meeting.

 

Mayor Klausing advised that an action item would be on the agenda at the next regular business meeting of the City Council, as a result of tonight’s Closed Executive Session.

 

2.            Approve Agenda

Councilmember Ihlan requested removal of Consent Item 7.g entitled, “Adopt a Resolution Approving the Request by Clearwire, LLC for a Telecommunication Tower Facility as a Conditional Use at 2489 Rice Street (PF10-010).”  By consensus, the agenda was approved as amended.

                                               

3.         Public Comment

Mayor Klausing called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.  No one spoke.

 

4.            Council Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Report

Mayor Klausing, on behalf of the City Council, staff and community, extended condolences to the family of Mary Ann Hess, who passed away on June 19, 2010.  Mayor Klausing noted the many areas of civic activity of the Hess family, with both Roger who predeceased Mrs. Hess, and was a former City Councilmember and community supporter; as well as Mary Ann for her volunteer work and delightful notes of encouragement and support for subsequent City Councilmembers.  Mayor Klausing acknowledged, as a telling legacy to Roger and Mary Ann, the family’s request that memorials be given in their memory for Roseville Parks.  Mayor Klausing thanked the family for their generosity and consistent community support.

 

Councilmember Pust thanked staff and the many volunteers who helped with the Rosefest Parade and other activities ongoing, for another successful and safe annual community celebration.

 

5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications

 

a.            Resolution expressing Sympathy and Condolences to Family, Friends and Colleagues of Maplewood Police Sergeant Joe Bergeron

Mayor Klausing, on behalf of the City Council, staff and citizens of Roseville, read the resolution and offered recognition of the work of the late Maplewood Police Sergeant Joe Bergeron, and again expressed sympathy and condolences to family, friends, and colleagues of Maplewood Police Sergeant Joe Bergeron.

 

Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10821 entitled, “A Resolution of the Roseville City Council, expressing sympathy and condolences to family, friends, and colleagues of Maplewood Police Sergeant Joe Bergeron, who was killed in the line of duty.”

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

 

6.         Approve Minutes

 

a.            Approve Minutes of June 14, 2010 Regular Meeting

Johnson moved, Roe seconded, approval of the minutes of the June 14, 2010 Regular meeting as presented.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

 

7.            Approve Consent Agenda

There were no additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted.  At the request of Mayor Klausing, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.

 

a.            Approve Payments

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.         

 

ACH Payments	$261,841.08
58753-58946	724,271.37
Total	$986,112.45

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

 

b.            Approve Business Licenses

          Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one year, for applicants as follows:

 

Business / Address	Type of License
NAD, Inc., d/b/a Adam’s Food-n-Fuel 2815 Rice Street	Cigarette / Tobacco Products
Tower Glen Liquor; 2216-R West County Road D	Cigarette / Tobacco Products
Walgreens #13685; 2635 Rice Street	Cigarette / Tobacco Products
NAD, Inc., d/b/a Adam’s Food-n-Fuel 2815 Rice Street	Gasoline Station
Jennifer Koubsky @ Mind, Body & Soul Wellness Center; 1740 Lexington Avenue	Massage Therapist
Vonnie Hoschette @ VMH Therapies 3101 Old Highway 8, Suite 202	Massage Therapist
Justina Person @ Serene Body Therapy 1629 West County Road C	Massage Therapist
VMH Therapies; 3101 Old Highway 8, Suite 202	Massage Therapy Establishment
Juut Salonspa; 1641 County Road C	Massage Therapy Establishment

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

 

c.            Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding $5,000

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approval of general purchases and/or contracts as follows:

Department	Vendor	Item/Description	Amount
Utilities	Frontier Precision	Handheld GPS Device	$   9,819.23
IT	CDW Government	MacAfee License Renewals	25,810.31

 

 

 

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

 

d.            Accept GLBTNSFF Livable Communities Demonstration Account Grant

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, acceptance of $125.00 from the Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender North Suburban Friends and Folk (GLBTNSFF) to the City of Roseville’s Human Rights Commission (HRC) to support the October 2010 Community Forum organized by the HRC.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

 

e.            Accept Donation of a Golf Cart from Private Citizens

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, acceptance of the donation from two Citizen Park Patrol members of a $2,000 down payment, and the remaining difference between the proceeds of the sale of the old golf cart and the price of a new (2003 model) gas-powered, four passenger, E-Z-GO golf cart for use by the Roseville Police Department’s Citizens Park Patrol.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

 

f.             Accept Livable Communities Demonstration Account Grant for Sienna Green – Phase II

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approval of a Grant Agreement between the City of Roseville and the Metropolitan Council in the amount of $202,100 in Livable Community Demonstration Account (LCDA) funds, Grant No. SG009-079 for Sienna Green Phase II, as detailed in “Attachment A” to the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated June 28, 2010.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

 

h.    Receive Energy Use Update

Mayor Klausing commended staff on the energy use update, and expressed his personal appreciation for the work of staff in achieving those savings, under the coordination of Public Works Director Duane Schwartz.

 

Councilmember Roe noted that this report did not include the Skating Center, and requested that staff provide an update on that as well.

 

     Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, acceptance of the periodic update of the internal City staff committee, Roseville Energy and Action Team (REACT) on the City’s energy consumption.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

 

i.     Adopt a Resolution Awarding Bids for the Rice Street Interchange Project

     Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10822 entitled, “Resolution Awarding Bids for Rice Street Interchange Project;” to Lunda Construction of Rosemount, MN in an amount not to exceed $16,590,088.00 (City Project M-09-11), concurring with Ramsey County’s award of this project to the low bidder, with the project to be managed by Ramsey County, and the City’s final cost participation based on actual project costs.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

 

j.             Adopt a Resolution Awarding Bid for Rosewood Neighborhood Drainage Improvements

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10823 entitled, “Resolution Awarding Bids for Rosewood Neighborhood Drainage Improvements,” to Urban Companies in an amount not to exceed $42,391.25; and engaging WSB and Associates, Inc for construction services in an amount not to exceed $5,000.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

 

k.    Approve an Agreement of Cost-Sharing with the City of Little Canada

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, an agreement between the Cities of Roseville and Little Canada for cost-sharing for electrical line burial in conjunction with the Rice Street Corridor project; as detailed in “Attachment” to the RCA dated June 28, 2010.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

 

8.            Consider Items Removed from Consent

 

a.            Adopt a Resolution Approving the Request by Clearwire, LLC for a Telecommunication Tower Facility as a Conditional Use at 2489 Rice Street (PF10-010) (Former Consent Item 7.g)

At the request of Mayor Klausing, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated June 28, 2010.

 

Councilmember Ihlan noted the comments at the Planning Commission level and to staff in opposition to this request, particularly noting the opposition of those residents living across Rice Street in Little Canada, who expressed concern about any detrimental impacts to the market value, and potential interference with radio and other reception at the trailer park across the street.  Councilmember Ihlan requested that staff address any information that would address those concerns; as well as noting her removal of this item in case there was anyone in the audience who wished to make additional comment.

 

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon advised that the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) regulated bands for operation to avoid interference.  Mr. Trudgeon further noted that, to-date in staff’s research on any impacts of telecommunication towers and property values, that research had provided no concrete peer or scientific analyses to make a determination of value impacts, either negative or positive.

 

Councilmember Ihlan noted previous policy level discussions of the City Council on sighting towers on public or park property, and noted that other communities were adopting ordinances addressing location of towers, and encouraged the City Council to do so as well.  Councilmember Ihlan advised that she would vote in opposition to the proposed motion, in support of the concerns of those Little Canada residents who had expressed concern.

 

Mayor Klausing looked to the audience for any comment, of which there was none.

 

Roe moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No.10824 entitled, “A Resolution Approving the Installation of a Telecommunication Monopole Facility on the Commercial Property at 2489 – 2499 Rice Street as a Conditional use in Accordance with Roseville City Code, Section 1014.01 (PF10-010);” allowing for the construction of a 125-foot telecommunication tower.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.

 

9.            General Ordinances for adoption

 

10.         Presentations

 

b.         2010 Rental Registration Report

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon presented an update to the City Council on the status of its rental registration program for single-family homes, individual condos and townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, and quads and sought additional direction from the City Council related to any modifications of the program.

 

Mr. Trudgeon noted that this was the third year for the registration program; and reviewed some of the more unanticipated data collected, including more condominium rentals versus single-family homes in the community, with 2% of the total single-family housing stock consisting of rentals, based on those rentals registered to-date.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff was continually updating the data, and providing ongoing outreach, as indicated by that data.  Mr. Trudgeon reviewed a map of rental properties and types city-wide, noting no substantive conglomerations. 

 

Mr. Trudgeon noted that the typical single-family rental consisted of older, smaller, and lower value homes, with similar land allotments, but fewer improvements for buildings (i.e., lack of exterior maintenance observed) in those single-family homes as well as smaller multi-family units.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that current data would indicate that 12% of the city’s total condominium stock was rented out, with 15% of those (57) having code compliance issues compared to 7% of single-family, owner-occupied homes.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff continued to make neighborhoods aware of the Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP) during their walk-by inspections in respective neighborhoods, which appeared to be providing positive results and awareness by the community of the program itself and their interest in complying.  Mr. Trudgeon suggested that the remaining 2/3 of registered rentals be incorporated into the NEP during the normal course of work without any additional staff hours, to ensure compliance of yard and exterior aesthetics, with staff determining if a rental NEP program is indicated in the future and subsequent recommendation to the HRA and City Council.

 

Mr. Trudgeon provided a modeling of anticipated future rentals, or single-family homes that may be more susceptible to or having a higher probability for rental, with most along major arterial routes, and based on staff assumptions.

 

Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff recommends continuation of rental registration; however, they did not recommend going to rental licensing for interior inspections at this time, with concurrence of those recommendations by the HRA.  Mr. Trudgeon further advised that, staff was recommending an annual NEP for the entire community, in addition to how to address larger density properties, some of which currently presented problems.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that the HRA and the City’s Police and Community Development staff would be bringing forward to the City Council in the near future, a problem property ordinance for those properties creating excessive demand on city services and resources, and to ensure some basic livability standards and protections, while also providing resources for tenants as well as owners/managers.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that this may require some additional funding, but staff was providing no informed opinion at this time on that additional resource need.  Mr. Trudgeon requested that the City Council discuss and consider the possible creation of regulations governing the rental of apartment buildings.

 

Discussion among Councilmembers and staff included the positive conversations of staff during the NEP inspection process; word-of-mouth information alerting staff to potential single-family rentals for further follow-up; noting the potential rental areas along major arterials through the community, and their visibility and need for code compliance for visitors as well as residents to keep the image of Roseville a positive one; and future land use designation for some of those areas as single-family areas transitioned from owner-occupied to rental to future land uses as those areas redeveloped.

 

12.      Business Items (Action Items)

 

            b.         Authorize City Abatement for Violations of City Code at 391 Highway 36

Permit Coordinator Munson reviewed the request for abatement as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated June 28, 2010; providing a visual update on the property as of today of this single-family, detached home.  Mr. Munson advised that the current owner is Marshall J. Shaw, recently deceased.

 

Mr. Munson summarized the proposed abatement, consisting of an inoperable vehicle in the driveway; deteriorated garage in need of repair and paint; and junk, debris, and household items in open storage around the house and garage; estimated a total abatement cost of approximately $11,000.00.

 

Mr. Munson noted that Ms. Angel Bursch and Ms. Judy Reynolds, representing Bayshore Realty were in attendance at tonight’s meeting and had advised that they also represented the management company who had recently purchased the property at auction, and that staff had  been advised that the property was currently in a five week redemption period.  Mr. Munson advised that Ms. Bursch advised that the bank proposed to cut and remove brush on the property; however, they had no intent to remove any junk or debris, or repair/repaint the garage until that redemption period expired.  Mr. Munson advised that, as with past practice, staff would work with the bank to resolve these compliance issues, and recommend amendment to their proposed requested action. 

 

Ms. Bursch

Ms. Bursch concurred with Mr. Munson, advising that she had talked to the bank, as well as their attorney, who recommended that no substantive work be completed until after the redemption period and the will is finalized

 

Mr. Munson recommended allowing the bank/management firm two weeks before the City took action to remove the junk and debris from the lot, and seven weeks before structural repairs were taken on by the City.  Mr. Munson advised that, having this pending action authorized by the City Council often provided sufficient incentive for action on the part of the new owners.  Mr. Munson noted that Mr. Bursch had advised him that she would alert the bank to tonight’s discussion and subsequent action. 

 

Discussion among Councilmembers and staff included not delaying removal of the junk and debris any longer than two weeks; and application of fees to property taxes for assessment if not paid by the bank and applied to the sales price.

 

Staff recommended that the Community Development Department be authorized to abate the unresolved City Code violations at 391 Highway 36 by impounding the junk vehicle immediately; removing junk and debris and brush if the bank didn’t complete that work within two weeks; and repair and repaint the garage if not completed within seven weeks.  Mr. Munson advised that this would ensure, for the benefit of the neighbors and the entire community, that the work would be completed yet this summer without further delay.

 

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, directing staff to abate the above-referenced public nuisance violations at 391 Highway 36 if conditions still exist after two  weeks by hiring contractors to remove outside junk and debris; remove dead brush; and impound the inoperable vehicle; and further directing staff, if remaining conditions exist after seven weeks to hiring general contractors to paint and repair the garage; with the estimated cost for total abatement approximately $11,000.00; and further directing that the property owner of record be billed for all actual and administrative costs; and if those charges remain unpaid, staff is to recover costs as specified in Minnesota Statute, Section 407.07B; with costs to be reported to the City Council following the abatement.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

 

a.            Joint Meeting with Public Works, Environment and Transportation (PWET) Commission

PWET Commission members present included Chair Jim DeBenedet; and Commissioners Joan Felice; Steve Gjerdingen; Duane Stenlund.  Member Jan Vanderwall was unable to attend but sent his regrets.

 

Chair DeBenedet reviewed projects they’d reviewed or accomplishments over the last year, including the Rice Street and Highway 36 Interchange Design; Illicit Discharge Ordinance; Annual Storm Water Report and Public Meeting; Annual Recycling Report; and Study of Organized Waste Collection.

 

PWET Commissioners sought clarity from the City Council on their charge to the Commission for pending projects and/or issues, including Inflow/Infiltration; MS4 Storm Water Permit Requirements; Water Quality Improvements; Complete Streets/Low Impact Development; Pathways and Trails; Improving Transit Options for Roseville; Conservation Water Rate Effectiveness; and Land Use/Development Review.

 

Mayor Klausing thanked Commissioners for their great work, admitting his original skepticism in the need for this advisory commission; however, he recognized the valuable asset they had become and the complex issues they’d tackled for the community.  Mayor Klausing expressed his hesitation in involving the Commission in the land use review process, questioning if the process itself would become too fragmented; and sought clarification from members as to their rationale for involvement and topics of interest to the PWET Commission.

 

Chair DeBenedet advised that the main area of concern for the Commission was related to stormwater management issues, with several of its members having interest in and experience with those issues; and an area having significant city-wide and regional issues for land development but not fully realized by the general public and/or those on the Planning Commission or Community Development areas.  Chair DeBenedet suggested that the PWET Commission could provide additional input for staff in support of alternate and emerging technologies in this field.

 

Further discussion included the PWET’s role in providing leadership and expertise for both residential and/or commercial development or redevelopment, such as complete streets and low impact development through leadership design and making communities livable through management and maintenance of those aesthetic infrastructure aspects, both amenities and liabilities of that development (e.g., pervious pavement and associated costs for installation and long-term maintenance to determine cost-effectiveness).

 

Councilmember Roe noted that it made sense to have the PWET Commission work with the Planning Commission and staff to determine that their role in land use review should be, whether they were to serve in an educational capacity to other advisory commissions to provide information or review of specific applications.  Councilmember Roe suggested that the advisory groups have a joint discussion among them, and make a recommendation to the City Council for further consideration.  

 

Councilmember Roe expanded on the appropriate roles of advisory commissions versus or complementing that of staff and the need for the City Council to understand and be made aware of the process before it reached them. Councilmember Roe encouraged volunteer commissions to bring their ideas forward, through staff, in order for them to find their way through the process.

 

Additional discussion included technical levels of review by the PWET Commission beyond current review; impacts of industrial stormwater plans and impacts to municipal stormwater plans.

 

Councilmember Ihlan expressed her full support of the role of the PWET Commission in reviewing land use issues.  Councilmember Ihlan questioned how the PWET Commission discerned their role in environmental issues (e.g., the role of trees in air and water quality),noting that the City currently lacked a tree ordinance requiring preservation and significant replacement of those lost to development.

 

Member Stenlund noted discussions among the PWET Commissioners about the use of urban trees for water treatment; and expressed his personal note of concern in recognizing the MN climate and snow storage needs.  Mr. Stenlund opined that it would not prove difficult to put together substantial guidance for a tree ordinance if so directed.

 

Chair DeBenedet advised that his interpretation of the PWET Commission’s role in land use development and review would be of a broad advisory capacity through making recommendation to the City Council on policy development issues and whether applications were complying with established policies.  Chair DeBenedet advised that this would provide another set of eyes, beyond the Planning Commission and staff, with the intent not to duplicate staff review, but to have a voice specifically for stormwater and other environmental issues and Complete Streets and pathways.  Chair DeBenedet noted, in his past role on the Planning Commission, that Commission had made recommendation to the City Council that County Road C-2 not go through between Hamline and Lexington, and in hindsight, he opined that this was a mistake from a city-wide transportation perspective, and that advice should have been different to allow better functionality.

 

Mayor Klausing noted the need to develop educational procedures to avoid inadvertent damage by heavy equipment used by contractors in damage to tree roots, as part of a tree preservation, maintenance, and replacement ordinance in order to produce the results being sought.

 

Mayor Klausing expressed his interest in making sure staff functions remain staff functions, with the City Attorney providing legal advice; while ensuring that advisory commissions provide expertise and real-world experience at the citizen advisory level.

 

Councilmember Johnson expressed his personal appreciation for the PWET members as he reviewed their monthly meeting minutes, and his appreciation for Public Works Director Schwartz’s leadership of the group, as well as the members’ passion and desire to take on a larger role.  Councilmember Johnson noted the work of the Commission on the Twin Lakes stormwater recycling for Phase I, and expressed the need for more innovations in the future.  Councilmember Johnson questioned how the upcoming Fairview Pathway project addressed the Complete Streets concept in meeting transportation needs.

 

Member Stenlund opined that the Fairview project was an example of the work of the members, noting that it addressed snow storage, traffic calming, a sense of place, safety for pedestrians and bicycles, connectivity to other communities; and overall provided a unique blend in making Roseville a livable community.

 

Chair DeBenedet opined that the City of Roseville was making more significant strides than some other metropolitan suburbs.

 

Additional concerns of the PWET Commission included additional street sweeping and adequate funding of maintenance and rehabilitation to preserve infrastructure investments.

 

Discussion included maintenance of street systems and limits of traditional street sweeping methods with new stormwater methods and goals in improving water quality through best management practices in keeping roads clear of debris and pollutants; potential cost-sharing with other communities for a street vacuuming system based on other capital needs of the City; how to retain existing green space; pervious surface treatments and specific ground soil composition and frost impacts; and the Commission’s desire to advocate for adequate funding of maintenance and rehabilitation to preserve infrastructure investment for city taxpayers; and to provide adequate service at the lowest cost.

 

Councilmember Pust noted that the PWET Commission’s input on recycling, as a crucial example, was indicative of the depth of knowledge and background the members provided and was of immeasurable worth to the City Council’s decision-making process.  Specific to recycling, Councilmember Pust sought an update from the Commission related to the existing system and how to improve it from a cost benefit to citizens and as an investment in the environment.

 

Chair DeBenedet advised that they were currently assisting staff in reviewing the recycling program in light of community values and input provided by citizens; and a review of whether the goal of providing that service and providing it in an efficient manner were being met.  Chair DeBenedet advised that Recycling Coordinator Tim Pratt had attended their last meeting and it was anticipated that a Request for Proposals (RFP) was forthcoming from the City Manager’s office.

 

Member Stenlund noted that the recycling issue was still evolving, with additional consideration being given to the role the City of Roseville should play (e.g., generating a market through purchase of recycled end product goods).

 

In response to the Commission’s request for the City Council’s charge to the PWET commission included providing additional consideration and discussion of recycling issues; development of a tree preservation ordinance; design elements toward maintenance; and the current tree inventory process and available technologies and recommendations for the most cost-effective and best environmental stewardship options.

 

Councilmember Pust opined that the PWET Commission needed to meet with the Planning and Parks & Recreation Commissions jointly for cross-discussions on areas of mutual interest.

 

Mayor Klausing thanked the Commission for their continuing work and expertise. 

 

Member Stenlund expressed the Commission’s appreciation for City staff.

 

11.         Public Hearings

 

a.            Conduct a Public Hearing for a Minor Subdivision Creating Two Additional Residential Parcels at 2218 Highway 36

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon reviewed the request for a MINOR SUBDIVISION at the corner of Marion Street and Highway 36 Service Drive, as detailed in the RCA dated June 28, 2010.

 

Discussion among Councilmembers and staff included setback requirements for each lot to be in compliance; removal of a portion of a paved turning area; staff’s administrative review of any non compliance issues and/or conditions prior to recording of the plat at Ramsey County and no building permits issued for any of the subdivided lots until they are in compliance.

 

Mayor Klausing opened and closed the Public Hearing at 8:04 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment on the proposed Minor Subdivision Creating Two Additional Residential Parcels at 2218 Highway 36.

 

Public Comment

Written comments in opposition, provided as a bench handout and were received from Paul A. Lefebvre and Carolyn D. Silflow, 2230 Marion Road; and staff’s notice of the opposition of Dr. Hogankamp was also referenced.

 

Charlie Disney, 2265 Marion Road (across street; purchased Bob Brother’s house)

Mr. Disney reviewed the history of the development of this property, former and current property owners; and current lot sizes and uses.  Mr. Disney noted that he’d lived in the neighborhood for a long time and had invested substantial money in his home; and questioned why the City wanted to change the distinct and unique nature of this neighborhood, when it had already been impacted by previous construction of a cul-de-sac.  Mr. Disney questioned how much density the City was seeking; and whether they’d given consideration to liability and fire hazard issues, in addition to diminishing home values.  Mr. Disney opined that the one-way out access would create a crisis should a serious accident occur.  Mr. Disney questioned the need to change the whole neighborhood, and what would prevent apartments on those lots in the future.  Mr. Disney questioned the City Council’s rationale and whether they had any concern for existing wildlife and expressed concern in the potential for drastic change in this neighborhood.  Mr. Disney opined that he had no desire to live in an inner-city neighborhood or have “bad people” living next door to him.

 

Mayor Klausing, in response to Mr. Disney, clarified that this request was not a City Council proposal and that they were not suggesting anything, but was simply considering the request for a Minor Subdivision to divide one lot into three lots; with that consideration taken under the guidance of existing City ordinance.

 

Mr. Disney spoke in strong opposition to this proposed subdivision, based on his concern for future development and his desire to keep vacant lot area.

 

Ms. Ruth and Mr. Chris Blumstar, 2250 Marion (adjacent to property to be developed on third southern lot)

Ms. Blumstar advised that their property was currently for sale due to it being a split entry home and their need to provide housing and care for Mr. Blumstar’s elderly mother, and their inability to remodel the home to fit those needs.  Ms. Blumstar expressed concern in the proposed subdivision negatively impacting their ability to sell their house due to changes in the neighborhood related to existing wildlife and green space.  Ms. Blumstar opined that the neighborhood was pleasant as it currently existed.  Prompted by Mr. Disney, Ms. Blumstar expressed further concern with noise from construction activities with the proposed rehabilitation of the existing home on one of those lots; and opined that it was daunting to have the property subdivided and further opined that she was intimidated by what was happening and the potential impacts to their property.  Ms. Blumstar expressed their interest in remaining in Roseville, and specifically in this neighborhood, but expressed concern that other suitable homes to fit their needs were not available in that neighborhood; and questioned impacts of proposed rezoning of the entire community and whether that would impact their low density.

 

Mr. Chris Blumstar

Mr. Blumstar opined that it was ironic that the City Council had previously discussed a tree preservation ordinance, with the potential removal of a substantial number of mature Oak trees between properties with this proposal; and opined that whether they sold their home or not, their property value would diminish.  Mr. Blumstar questioned when the City Council said “no” to development and looked at requests from a responsible viewpoint.

 

Mr. Disney

Mr. Disney advised that he would be very cognizant of individual votes on this matter; noting that this action concerned their future and impacted their neighborhood.

 

Marilyn Silvas, 2233 Laurie Road W, corner lot

Ms. Silvas noted her previous concern when Highway 280 was closed, and the potential impacts to their housing area with approximately 300 families between Cleveland Avenue and Highway 280, and the availability of only one exit.  Ms. Silvas opined that she thought there was a hazard at that time, and now with the potential for allowing more people or future apartments, that additional density was worrisome.  Ms. Silvas spoke in opposition to the request, opining there should not be more density and that green space should be preserved; and offered her consensus with the majority of Mr. Disney’s comments.

 

Mayor Klausing closed the Public Hearing at 8:28 p.m.

 

Mayor Klausing addressed his concerns in language of City Code, Section 1004 related to platting variations and subdivisions and the five different types of subdivisions and processes to follow, both with and without a public hearing at the Planning Commission level and/or through administrative review by staff with recommendation directly to the City Council, such as this request.  Mayor Klausing questioned the “unnecessary hardship” portion of the language as it relates to this request.

 

City Attorney Caroline Bell Beckman addressed statutory requirements relative to  the five exceptions delegated to the City’s Planning Department by the City Council, consistent with the City Council’s authority, and with other communities.  On an unrelated note, Ms. Bell Beckman suggested that the City Council may want to review the ordinance in the future to provide more clarity.

 

Discussion ensued on the ordinance language and its intent and purposes; interpretation of the process in this case; and whether to go back through a more formal process to the Planning Commission.

 

Mr. Trudgeon advised that, since City Council action in 1995, it was the practice to determine hardship based on those five (5) criteria), and questioned how staff could come up with a standard on an individual case-by-case basis for that analysis. 

 

Applicant, Wayne Groff, new owner at 2218 W County Road 36

Mr. Groff clarified that it was his intent to live on the property; and that he was not purchasing it for redevelopment of higher density housing as suggested by citizens earlier this evening.  Mr. Groff advised that he had worked with staff in good faith to meet the requirements of City Code and state law.  Mr. Groff noted that his immediate intent was to live in the existing home, once remodeled to replace the existing flat roof for easier maintenance, for 2-3 years; and that he would eventually like to build a home on the corner lot; and finally another on the last lot in approximately 6-8 years that would be handicapped accessible and serve as his retirement home.  Mr. Groff assured the City Council and neighbors that it was not his intent to deteriorate the neighborhood; and noted that an easement had been recorded with the deed on the property for the area proposed for removal of a portion of the driveway. 

 

Mr. Groff advised that it was his intent to hire contractors to complete the remodel of the existing home by September 15, 2010, depending on their work schedules; and based on his landscape architecture background, he was attempting to maintain existing trees, with the exception of a diseased Birch tree, invasive Buckthorn, and Ash trees of concern.

 

In conclusion, Mr. Groff thanked the City Council for their consideration of his request. 

 

Councilmember Johnson deferred to the advice of the attorney at the bench if they felt there was a need to look at the ordinance language.

 

Councilmember Pust noted the ordinance language as passed and read over the last fourteen years; and current case law providing the need for further consideration and sending the request through the Planning Commission process, even though she opined that the end result would not change.

 

Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the more formal platting process and review of preliminary and final plats.

 

Additional discussion included the 60-day land use review period and time constraints with the first portion set to expire August 3, 2010 unless extended; potential amendment of ordinance; determination of unnecessary hardships; the five types of subdivisions and related criteria; and possible review by the Planning Commission at their August 2010 meeting.

 

City Attorney Bell Beckman suggested, rather than having the applicant initiate the process again at additional cost to them, that the City Council direct staff to come back with an ordinance amendment reflecting intent and then to reconsider that application at that time.   

 

Mr. Trudgeon advised that the 60-day review period could be extended another 60 days allowing for action in September or October of 2010.

 

Councilmember Ihlan questioned the City Council’s rationale in delaying this action without a discussion on the merits of the proposal or reasons for denial.  Councilmember Ihlan expressed her frustration in another example of not protecting large lots in this neighborhood as she had originally raised in 2007.  Councilmember Ihlan noted, that at that time, she had proposed a moratorium on Minor Subdivisions based on her concerns that there was no existing oversight to preserve large lots in some neighborhoods; and her subsequent proposal for a sliding scale for lot sizes in some instances that was eventually “shot down” by the Council majority. Councilmember Ihlan opined that this was a unique neighborhood; and also noted that the proposed changes to zoning code further reduced minimum lot area from 11,300 to 9,500 square feet and increased impervious lot coverage.  Councilmember Ihlan advised that, no matter when the issue came up for a vote, she would vote to deny it.

 

Mayor Klausing, in reading the code, asked Councilmember Ihlan to provide the basis for such denial.

 

Councilmember Ihlan advised that the public had brought forward through their verbal and written comment, four sets of concern that could be addressed under the power of the City Council to deny based on the health, safety, welfare and general good order to the community clause of the overall subdivision language in Section 1101.01.  Councilmember Ihlan advised that those concerns consisted of: neighborhood character; environmental – loss of trees and green space (even though private property); threat of diminished property value or difficult sales; and only one major access.

 

Mayor Klausing advised that his intent in providing for a more formal review and Public Hearing process at the Planning Commission level would be for the purpose of a more transparent process; and that consideration be given to tabling this proposal until the application was verified based on statutory provisions.

 

Marilyn Silvas

Ms. Silvas clarified that the cul-de-sac was one mile long from Cleveland Avenue to Highway 280, with Midland Hills Golf Course abutting more than half of that length, and having a 10’ cyclone fence and no access available to leave for those 300 families. 

 

Councilmember Roe questioned if, based on his review of the language of Section 1101.04, the City Council was being overly cautious based on how the processes were defined; however, he expressed his support for clarifying the language if so desired by the majority.  Councilmember Roe noted, as it related to following statutory guidance, City Councilmember Ihlan made a good point related to consideration of the overall health, safety and welfare in reviewing any application.  Councilmember Roe, spoke in support of a motion to table action to clarify the ordinance.

 

12.         Business Items (Action Items)

 

a.            Approve Request for a Minor Subdivision Creating Two Additional Residential Parcels at 2218 Highway 36

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, tabling action on the proposed MINOR SUBDIVISION at 2218 Highway 36.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

 

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, authorizing staff to provide written notice to the applicant of the City’s extension of the 60-day review period.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

 

Mayor Klausing directed staff and the City Attorney to reconsider ordinance language.

 

Councilmember Johnson requested that previous traffic impacts in that area also be provided as background information to the City Council and public.

 

Mayor Klausing, for clarification purposes, noted that 7-8 years ago, the City Council held a discussion on traffic issues, with considerable division in the neighborhood and no further action taken by the City of MnDOT.  However, as a result of the I-35W Bridge collapse, Mayor Klausing noted that MnDOT unilaterally closed access at that time.

 

c.       Authorize City Abatement for Violations of City Code at 2544 Fairview Avenue

Permit Coordinator Munson reviewed the request for abatement as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated June 28, 2010; providing a visual update on the property as of today of this single-family, detached home.  Mr. Munson advised that the current owners are Kristopher Domeier and Heather Fick; but that the home is currently in foreclosure.

 

Mr. Munson summarized the proposed abatement, consisting of building maintenance; junk and debris in open storage on the property; a junk vehicle in the driveway; and the deck and garage in disrepair; estimating that a total abatement cost of approximately $14,500.00.  Mr. Munson advised that normal procedure had been followed, with the property posted for thirty (30) days, multiple notices mailed, all receiving no response from the property owner; and he further noted that the property owner was not present at tonight’s meeting.

 

Staff recommended that the Community Development Department be authorized to abate the unresolved City Code violations at 2544 Fairview Avenue.

 

At the request of Councilmember Ihlan, Mr. Munson noted that upon authorization by the City Council to abate the property, staff would research and involve the bank, at an additional cost of $75, in the process.

 

Pust moved, Roe seconded, directing staff to abate the above-referenced public nuisance violation at 2544 Fairview Avenue by hiring general contractors to repair and repaint deteriorated portions of the building and garage; replace rotted deck boards; remove junk and debris; and impound the vehicle; as detailed in Request for Council Action dated June 28, 2010, at an estimated cost of approximately $14,500.00; and further directing that the property owner be billed for all actual and administrative costs; and if those charges remain unpaid, staff is to recover costs as specified in Minnesota Statute, Section 407.07B; with costs to be reported to the City Council following the abatement.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Pust; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

 

13.         Business Items – Presentations/Discussions

 

14.         City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen distributed upcoming agenda items.

 

Discussion included upcoming budget prioritization exercises for tax-supported and non-tax-supported areas; solicitation of public input on the budget, with a Public Hearing tentatively scheduled on July 26, 2010; and potential use of electronic survey tools to glean public feedback, as well as feedback from participants in Roseville University.

 

15.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

Mayor Klausing noted the need to add the Minor Subdivision ordinance language as discussed earlier this evening; as well as political sign placement discussions.

 

16.         Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:20 pm.