|
City Council |
City Council Meeting Minutes
May 20, 2013
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm, and welcomed everyone. Voting and Seating Order: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe. Interim City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.
Mayor Roe noted that Councilmember Etten was not present, with a pre-excused absence due to his concert schedule at the school where he teaches.
Summarizing information from a Closed Executive Session held on Monday, May 13, 2013, immediately following the regular City Council meeting that evening, Mayor Roe advised that, as a culmination of discussions over a number of weeks and months between the City Council and City Manager Bill Malinen, Mr. Malinen had resigned as City Manager effective May 14, 2013. Subsequently, Mayor Roe advised that the City Council had appointed Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon to serve as Roseville Interim City Manager, and had taken formal action for that appointment at a Special Council Meeting held on Thursday May 16, 2013.
2. Approve Agenda
Mayor Roe noted the addition of an item for tonight’s agenda, as Consent Item 7.i entitled, “Approve a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed, Authorize Final Payment and Commence the One-Year Warranty Period on the 2012 Pavement Management Project (PMP);” provided as a bench handout with copies available for the public at the back of the Council Chambers.
Councilmember McGehee requested moving Item 14.e entitled, “Consider Adding a Regular meeting of the City Council on Monday, June 3, 2013,” to the Consent Agenda, Item 7.j.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, moving Business Item – Presentations/Discussions to item 14.e entitled, “Consider Adding a Regular meeting of the City Council on Monday, June 3, 2013,” to the Consent Agenda, Item 7.j.; and removing Agenda Items 9.a, b and c, as well as Item 14.a and c from tonight’s agenda to the June 3, 2013 as part of a larger discussion related to planning and zoning issues. Those items were respectively entitled, “Adopt an Ordinance Modifying Section 1011.07 Height Exemption in all Districts, to Include Industrial Silos, and Other Text Changes (9.a);” “Adopt an Ordinance Changing Chapter 1006 of the City Code to Eliminate the Size Limitation Unintentionally Applied to Motor Vehicles that may be Repaired in the Industrial Zoning District (9.b);” “Adopt an Ordinance Amending Section 1009.06 Zoning Changes of Zoning Ordinance to Clarify the Initiation Process for Zoning Map and/or Zoning Text Amendments (9.c);” “Discuss Limited Processing and Production in the Regional Business District (14.a);” and “Discuss Twin Lakes Zoning Code (14.c).”
As most of these items seemed to be of an internal nature, Councilmember McGehee asked that they be considered as part of an underlying policy discussion by the City Council on their role in land use issues; and to consider their intercession on some of those land use issues that were being continually delegated to the Planning staff for administrative action, and creating deliberate ambiguous decision-making in the hands of staff versus the City Council.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Interim City Manager Trudgeon confirmed that there should be time on the June 3, 2013, meeting agenda to accommodate these items.
If the concern was for a larger discussion, Councilmember Laliberte stated that she could support that; and asked that the June 3 meeting be reserved for discussion in work session format.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that a number of items had been deferred or tabled recently that would be coming forward at meetings in the near future; however, from staff’s perspective, including these items for discussion at the meeting should not prove problematic. Mr. Trudgeon clarified that the Twin Lakes Zoning Code discussion was intended as a multi-meeting discussion. Mr. Trudgeon noted that staff would like to get the process started, including open houses, for the potential of adding an additional Business District Zoning designation initiated in the near future that could facilitate an actual decision coming later in July of 2013, but of course would be at the direction of the City Council.
Councilmember McGehee agreed that the June 3 meeting should be more of a work session; and referenced a letter in the agenda packet from the City Attorney regarding a potential conflict between Community Business and Regional Business Zoning Districts.
Mayor Roe cautioned not to overload the June 3 meeting agenda.
Mr. Trudgeon noted that the Planning Department had other text amendments in process, eight of which would be coming before the Planning Commission at their June meeting, one of which was the infamous “garage door” design standard. Mr. Trudgeon noted that these proposed text amendments had been presented to the City Council in a preliminary form for general discussion purposes at their February and March of 2013 meetings; but advised that staff was open to additional discussion.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Mayor Roe advised that the Human Rights Commission and staff had removed Item 7.h from tonight’s agenda, entitled, “Direct Staff to Advertise Vacancy on the Human Rights Commission.”
Mayor Roe further noted that Business/Action Item 13.c entitled, “Community Development Department Request to Perform an Abatement for Unresolved Violation of City Code at 949 Brooks;” had been removed from tonight’s agenda due to resolution of the violation by the property owner.
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
3. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one appeared to speak at this time.
4. Council Communications, Reports and Announcements
Mayor Roe announced an upcoming family event sponsored by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Area Watershed District entitled “WaterFest,” a celebration of watershed awareness and clean lakes. Mayor Roe advised that this free event was scheduled for Saturday, June 1, 2013, from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., with additional information available on their website.
Mayor Roe advised that the last meeting regarding redevelopment of the property at Dale Street and the former Fire Station was scheduled for May 28, 2013, the meetings held at the King of Kings Lutheran Church on N Dale Street.
Mayor Roe announced a tribute concert for the Fallen Heroes Education Fund Benefit, was scheduled for June 23, 2013 at the Arden Hills North Heights Lutheran Church.
Councilmember Laliberte reported on her attendance at the most recent Community Dialogue, sponsored by the Roseville Human Rights Commission and funded through a grant from the Busch Foundation, with good discussions based on ideas generated from the first dialogue held earlier. Councilmember Laliberte thanked the Human Rights Commission for sponsoring this event, and expressed her interest in receiving their final report on the dialogues.
Councilmember Laliberte noted that Roseville citizen, Jim Bedzinski, had been awarded the 2013 BIG award as Big Brother of the Year by the Big Brothers/Big Sisters organization, from a field of four in the running for that recognition. On behalf of the community, Councilmember Laliberte offered congratulations to Mr. Bedzinski.
Mayor Roe reported that last Thursday, the Roseville Police Department had hosted the second annual Suburban Ramsey Council Memorial Service for area officers having given their lives in the line of duty. Mayor Roe reported that it was a very meaningful event.
Mayor Roe reported that earlier today, he had represented the City of Roseville and spoken briefly at the Slovenian Consulate, now located in Roseville, with Roseville resident and Slovenian Honor Consul Miro Medved as its leader to further promote Slovenia’s economy and culture. Mayor Roe noted that the event had been opened by the Good Pellas singing group from Roseville Area High School, who entertained the audience with several musical selections, including the National Anthems of Slovenia and the United States, and a Slovenian folk song. Mayor Roe noted that there was a considerably large community of Slovenians in Minnesota and Roseville, and expressed his pleasure in attending the event and being able to welcome them on behalf of the City of Roseville.
5. Recognitions, Donations, Communications
6. Approve Minutes
a. Approve Minutes of April 15, 2013 Meeting
Comments and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight’s meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council packet.
Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the minutes of the May 13, 2013, meeting as presented.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
There were no additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted. At the request of Mayor Roe, Interim City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.
a. Approve Payments
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
|
ACH Payments |
$106,855.45 |
|
69898 – 70007 |
420,617.97 |
|
Total |
$527,473.42 |
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
b. Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, for the following applicants:
|
Applicant/Location |
Type of License |
|
Greg Steiner at Steiner Naturopathy, LLC 2343 Rice Street, Suite 208 |
Massage Therapist |
|
Theresa Picha at Wellspring Massage 1315 Larpenteur Avenue |
Massage Therapist |
|
Steiner Naturopathy, LLC 2353 Rice Street, Suite 208 |
Massage Therapy Establishment |
|
Tobacco Tree, Inc.; 1734 Lexington Avenue N |
Cigarette / Tobacco Products |
|
Jade Inc. (Rosedale BP) 2441 N Fairview Avenue |
Cigarette / Tobacco Products |
|
Family Dollar Store; 1692 Lexington Avenue N |
Cigarette / Tobacco Products |
|
Hamline Liquors, Inc.; 2825 Hamline Avenue N |
Cigarette / Tobacco Products |
|
MGM Wine & Spirits; 1149 Larpenteur Avenue W |
Cigarette / Tobacco Products |
|
Kath Fuel Oil Service (Gas Plus 12) 1483 W County Road C |
Cigarette / Tobacco Products |
|
Jade Inc. (Rosedale BP) 2441 N Fairview Avenue |
Gasoline Station |
|
Dave’s Roseville Auto Care, Inc. 2171 N Hamline Avenue |
Gasoline Station |
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
c. Approve Sale of Surplus Items
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the trade-in/sale of surplus equipment as follows:
|
Department |
Item / Description |
|
Park Maintenance |
1991 Massey Ferguson Tractor-estimated $5,000+ re-sale |
|
Park Maintenance |
2003 Kromer Field Liner – estimated $5,000 re-sale |
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
d. Approve a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Change; Zoning Map Change, and Recombination Minor Subdivision at 986 Millwood Avenue, 2961 Chatsworth Street, 2967 Chatsworth Street, 2893 Chatsworth Street, and 2991 Chatsworth Street
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the proposed RECOMBINATION MINOR SUBDIVISION, pursuant to Title 10 (Zoning), of Roseville City Code.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11071 (Attachment F) entitled, “A Resolution amending the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map in Conjunction with the Minor Relocation of Parcel Boundaries Delineating Adjacent Residential and Park Property.”
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1437 (Attachment G) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Title 10 of the City Code Changing the Zoning Map Designation of Certain Real Property at 986 Millwood Avenue, 2961 Chatsworth Street, 2967 Chatsworth Street, 2983 Chatsworth Street, and 2991 Chatsworth Street from Park and Recreation (PR) to Low-Density Residential-1 (LDR-1) and Changing the Zoning Map Designation of Certain Real Property at Lake Josephine County Park from LDR-1 to PR.”
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
e. Consider Approving a Joint Powers Agreement for IT Services with the City of Hugo
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of a Joint Powers Agreement (Attachment A) between the City of Roseville and the City of Hugo for the purpose of the City of Roseville providing information technology support services to the City of Hugo.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
f. Consider Approving a Joint Powers Agreement for IT Services with the City of Circle Pines
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of a Joint Powers Agreement (Attachment A) between the City of Roseville and the City of Circle Pines for the purpose of the City of Roseville providing IP telephony support services to the City of Circle Pines.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
g. Approve Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Joint Powers Agreement: Funding Reimbursement for e-Charging Adapter Installation
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of an eCharging Adapter Installation Funding Reimbursement Joint Powers Agreement (Attachment A) between the City of Roseville and the State of MN, through its Commissioner of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, allowing the Roseville Police Department to initiate installation of the eCharging adapter with the understanding that all funding for installation and implementation will be reimbursed by the State of MN; and authorizing the Mayor and Interim City Manager to execute the necessary agreement(s).
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
h. Direct Staff to Advertise a Vacancy on the Human Rights Commission
Removed from tonight’s agenda as previously noted.
i. Approve a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed, Authorize Final Payment and Commence the One-Year Warranty Period on the 2012 Pavement Management Project
As previously noted, this item was added to the agenda, and information provided as a bench handout.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No11072 entitled “Resolution-Final Contract Acceptance – 2012 Pavement Management Project; accepting work completed; starting the one-year warranty; and authorizing final payment of $48,791.09.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
j. Consider Adding a Regular Meeting of the City Council on Monday, June 3, 2013
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, the addition of a regular City Council meeting on Monday, June 3, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. to be held in the C-TV Studios at 2670 Arthur Street ( north of County Road C and west of Fairview Avenue).
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
8. Consider Items Removed from Consent
9. General Ordinances for Adoption
a. Adopt an ordinance Modifying Section 1011.07 Height Exemption in all Districts, to include Industrial Silos and Other Text Changes
Removed from tonight’s agenda as previously noted.
b. Adopt an Ordinance Changing Chapter 1006 of the City Code to Eliminate the Size Limitation Unintentionally Applied to Motor Vehicles that may be Repaired in the Industrial Zoning District
Removed from tonight’s agenda as previously noted.
c. Adopt an Ordinance Amending Section 1009.06 Zoning Changes of Zoning Ordinance to Clarify the Initiation Process for Zoning Map and/or Zoning Text Amendments
Removed from tonight’s agenda as previously noted.
10. Presentations
a. Joint Meeting with Ethics Commission
Mayor Roe welcomed members of the Roseville Ethics Commission. The full Commission was present, and included: Chair Margot Fjelstad; Ben Lehman; Matt Becker; Nancy O’Brien; Anne Collopy.
Chair Fjelstad provided a recap of the annual 2013 Ethics Training, with former Mayor Klausing providing that training opportunity; and briefly discussed preliminary plans for the 2014 training.
Chair Fjelstad provided survey results of the most recent training, with comments indicating the sessions were far too long, and that the Commission needed to better connect the code with commissioner, councilmember or staff positions and roles. In planning for 2014 training, Chair Fjelstad advised that the feedback would be taken into account; and that efforts would be taken to provide speakers from various sources that would engage those attending and meet timing concerns. Chair Fjelstad advised that the 2013 training was available on DVD for new commission appointees or others interested.
Chair Fjelstad advised that the Commission intended to continue publishing their “Ethics Tips” as another way to keep ethics issues before people. Chair Fjelstad advised that individual commissioner tips were reviewed by the entire body prior to dissemination.
Regarding recommended code amendments, Chair Fjelstad advised that a subcommittee of the Commission had been working on some minor language revisions, and would be reviewed by the entire Commission at their next meeting, and then be presented to the City Council for formal review and approval. Chair Fjelstad noted that the revisions were related to the process based on experience with the group’s hearing of its first formal complaint brought in November of 2012, and concurrence with the City Attorney’s opinion and subsequent City Council approval. Chair Fjelstad noted that the process indicated more clarity was needed in the wording to avoid future confusion. Chair Fjelstad advised that the other proposed language revision was to Section 3 of the Code, creating a stronger statement regarding any perceived or actual influence in and outside the Request for Proposals process.
Chair Fjelstad advised that, other than the one formal complaint previously noted, no other formal or informal complaints had been received by the Commission since its last joint meeting with the City Council.
Councilmember McGehee and Laliberte thanked the Commission for their ongoing work; and expressed their appreciation of the “Ethics Tips.” Councilmember McGehee suggested that the Commission contact the League of Minnesota Cities for potential speakers at future training events.
Councilmember Laliberte welcomed Commissioner Becker to his new role on the Ethics Commission.
Mayor Roe also expressed appreciation for the Commission’s work on behalf of the City of Roseville; and his interest in the “Ethics Tips” as a great educational opportunity to illustrate how the code worked and how the various individuals worked within that code in their roles in the City’s government. Mayor Roe clarified that the Commission’s pursuit of new speakers for the training events in no way reflected on past speakers, but was only to provide a variety of options.
11. Public Hearings
12. Budget Items
a. Review 2013 – 2033 CIP
A bench handout was provided, providing for a larger print for Attachment C (Capital Improvement Plan 2014-2033), included in the agenda packet.
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 6:35 p.m. for technical adjustments, and reconvened at approximately 6:38 p.m.
With the assistance of Finance Director Chris Miller, Councilmember and CIP Subcommittee member McGehee presented an overview for the public of the rationale in previous actions of the City Council related to the City’s CIP program and infrastructure replacement program. Councilmember McGehee advised that the purpose of the presentation was to better educate the public on the issues, to encourage civic engagement in the process, and to aid the City council in development of policy matters; overall with the intent to serve the public as better fiduciary agents of those funds in the short- and long-term.
The presentation included how the annual budget was a balancing act for operating, CIP and reserve funds; with tonight’s focus on the CIP portion. Councilmember McGehee defined terms, provided a history of the CIP and sustainability efforts, with the first committee recommendations to alleviate the gap created over a number of budget cycles, first adopted by the City Council for the 2012/2013 budget.
Councilmember McGehee reviewed the $69 million in needed funds to correct and sustain the Pavement Management Program (PMP), the Park Improvement Program (PIP); new pathways; Information Technology needs; and the Cedarholm Golf Course. Councilmember McGehee reviewed improvements to the City’s CIP over the last two (2) years through difficult decision-making and public support for increased fees and taxes. Councilmember McGehee reviewed past funding, improvements made in current funding, and gaps remaining, with recommendations for additional funding in 2014 and repurposing bond funds in the future to avoid reverting to past practices and recreating the CIP problems being addressed today.
Councilmember McGehee reviewed sustainability specifics and recommendations, along with various choices available, for remaining CIP funds that were not yet sustainable, including pathway maintenance, PIP, PMP and the Cedarholm Golf Course. As she reviewed the choices to address these issues, Councilmember McGehee estimated that an additional $3 million annually would be required; and significantly impact households through increased property taxes and utility rates.
Finance Director Miller noted that the figures presented for 2014 factored in inflationary rates; reminding Councilmembers and the public that receipt of potential increased water rates from the Saint Paul Water Utility remained pending and an unknown factor.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Miller estimated the average median value home in Roseville to be $189,000 for a typical single-family home.
In reviewing the choices, Councilmember McGehee noted that they included: cutting expenses, raising fees, reducing levels of service, reducing assets, eliminating programs, raising taxes, seeking grants, or reallocating existing funds. Councilmember McGehee sought public engagement in making these choices.
Councilmember McGehee reviewed several assumptions in more detail, including continuing services and amenities at current levels and subsequent increase to the 2014 budget, noting that none of the choices were simple or without impact, but that everyone was in it together: the choices, solutions and responsibility.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Miller noted that the presentation itself was included in the public record materials for public reference, and not as a bench handout attached to the meeting minutes.
At the request of Mayor Roe for staff’s point of view, Mr. Miller noted that the materials provided in the meeting packet, as well as other reference materials provided more background information beyond the presentation; and advised that the City Council would be asked at a future meeting to formally adopt the CIP and funding strategies proposed, and therefore the sooner the better for whatever feedback they could provide to staff. Mr. Miller advised that this reference material included his April 22, 2013 memorandum providing an overview of the 2014 – 2033 CIP and funding recommendations (Attachment D).
At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Miller advised that he would provide an updated number to the City Council on remaining balance on the City Hall bond, the value of the retired bonds, and reallocation, based on a dollar number. Mr. Miller noted that those bonds had been refinanced from their current levy of $875,000, saving approximately $50,000 - $60,000 annually, dropping to $815,000 in 2015, and entirely paid off in 2019.
With confirmation by Mr. Miller, Mayor Roe noted the CIP Committee recommendation to repurpose much of the levy used to pay those bond costs for the Park Improvement Program once retired; and clarified that some components of the CIP had not been included in previous and thought-to-be sustainable recommendations, as pathway connections had not been fully addressed, along with the natural resource development and management, not part of last year’s funding packet. Mayor Roe advised that those smaller pieces provided for the $250,000 reference; creating a gap once those updated details had been realized and included.
To provide more context for the City Council, Mayor Roe noted that the problems for the Pavement Management Program fund were still not resolved, based on last year’s CIP Committee recommendations, after the first 3-4 years, at which time the fund took a significant dive. Mayor Roe advised that there had been some hope that the legislature would find a new way to finance roads, or that the City Council would have had a few more years to figure things out.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Public Works Director Duane Schwartz reviewed the status of pending legislation at the State Capitol for a Road Improvement District. Mayor Roe noted the possible reformulation of Local Government Aid (LGA) that would see the City of Roseville as a possible recipient of some funding. However, Mayor Roe noted the wise decision of a previous City Council that any LGA funds would not be used for operating costs, and seen as a windfall for application toward savings to reduce future taxes through their use for specific expenditures.
With the observation by Councilmember McGehee that the Sales Tax Exemption for Municipalities legislation may succeed, Mr. Miller clarified that all City expenditures were not property tax related, but about half could be affected.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller advised that staff was hoping to have an update on final legislation action by the June 10, 2013 City Council meeting, as their resources, the League of Minnesota Cities and Association of Metropolitan Cities provided summary materials to the City.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller advised that the 2014 water costs to the City from the Saint Paul Regional Water Authority had not yet been finalized, even though they had made an initial proposal based on a cost of service study performed by the Authority. Mr. Miller advised that staff had been meeting with the Authority staff representatives disputing some of those assumptions. However, Mr. Miller opined that staff had gone as far as it could, and anticipated having additional information on 2014 rates for the City Council later in June of this year.
13. Business Items (Action Items)
a. Approve Preliminary Plat of an Un-Addressed Residential parcel on Millwood Avenue between Victoria and Chatsworth Streets
City Planner Thomas Paschke displayed a map of the project parcel, and briefly summarized the request for preliminary plat approval as detailed in the RCA dated May 20, 2013.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Paschke advised that Outlots were not construed as corner lots, and that development couldn’t occur on them. Mr. Paschke advised that they were specifically created for storm water purposes and restricted anything on them; and took the place of a public drainage and utility easement. Mr. Paschke advised that staff would work with the City Attorney on the legalities of the Outlots and their recommended creation.
Councilmember Willmus expressed concern, if the determination was made that they were not buildable, that the City may create a double standard regarding the use of Outlots.
Mr. Paschke confirmed that their use would be restricted, and would not create a double-standard; as a home and storm water management could co-exist on the Outlots.
For tax purposes, Councilmember Willmus questioned how the parcels were handles; with Mr. Paschke deferring to the developer; anticipating that they intended to create an association to maintain the Outlots; separate from Lots 1 and 6 for tax purposes.
As a follow-up to Councilmember Willmus’ question, Mayor Roe observed that, since corner lots needed to be a minimum of 100’, if the Outlots were included in Lots 1 and 6, their size would exceed that requirement, and then an easement could be available.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee as to why there had been no meeting between the developer and neighbors, Mr. Paschke advised that such a meeting was not a requirement of existing City Code for this type for Preliminary Plat approval. Mr. Paschke advised that City Code only proscribed such a meeting for Conditional Uses, Rezoning, Interim Uses, and Comprehensive Plan Amendments; but that Minor Subdivisions, Subdivisions, and Variance applications did not have such a requirement.
Councilmember McGehee advised that neither she nor staff had been able to locate the 1997 hydrology study document referenced in written comments received from Mr. and Mrs. McElroy.
Mr. Paschke advised that staff had further researched that document this afternoon, and still could not locate any such document.
Since the neighbors had raised concerns on drainage in the neighborhood and specific to this proposed development, Councilmember McGehee opined that it was an important issue, and referenced the May 1 letter from David L. Morrill, P.E. included with the McElroy written comments raising issues suggesting that the drainage as proposed was substandard. Councilmember McGehee expressed her dismay that the developer had not made himself available to talk with the neighbors; and suggested that, if an open house was not required by code for a project like this, it may need to be considered in the future.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Public Works Director Duane Schwartz, provided staff’s response to the May 1, 2013 letter as referenced. Mr. Schwartz advised that, as part of the drainage review for the project, staff had not specifically looked through every item in detail at this point, but had been reviewing the plat and proposed drainage in accordance with City Code requirements and those of the Rice Creek Watershed District. Mr. Schwartz assured the City Council and the public that the project would meet the standard requirements for both of those agencies.
At the request of Mayor Roe on behalf of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Schwartz advised that the hydrology study referenced from 1997 had not been found by staff, even when locating the old planning file on Microfiche records when a plan had been submitted, but never pursued for a 12-unit townhome complex, that had been found to be inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan at that time. Had that project proceeded at that time, Mr. Schwartz advised that additional review or hydrologic studies may have been required.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Schwartz advised that, to his knowledge, no hydrologic studies had been done on this parcel; but that soil borings had been required, with results still pending from the developer to staff. Mr. Schwartz advised that staff had soil boring data on file for Millwood Avenue adjacent to the development.
Councilmember McGehee referenced tree preservation issues also raised from the neighbors, opining that additional information was needed on that.
Mr. Paschke advised that the City had a Tree Preservation Policy in place and that the project would need to meet those requirements.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee regarding whether or not the issues and questions received from neighbors had been addressed by staff, Mr. Paschke responded that they had not.
Nathan Fair, Hanson Builders, 13432 Hanson Blvd., Andover, MN, Applicant Representative with Landmark 6 of Roseville, LLC and Hanson Builders
Mr. Fair advised that they were still working with staff on a variety of issues for this Preliminary Plat, including working through the Tree Preservation Plan prepared for the project, and continuing to work on engineering aspects needed to accomplish City Ordinance and Watershed requirements for a drainage plan.
As a result of concerns expressed by neighbors at the Planning Commission’s Public Hearing, Mr. Fair advised that their engineers were working with the City’s engineering staff to add an additional pipe for water coming onto their property, but noted that those revisions were still pending. Mr. Fair expressed his firm’s excitement in coming to Roseville with a project; and offered their willingness to meet with the neighborhood, even though this was a fairly small infill project of six lots, they hadn’t felt it was necessary to hold an informational meeting. Mr. Fair clarified that he had met with some of the neighbors during the course of performing soil borings.
Councilmember Willmus sought additional information and a response from the developer on the proposed grade levels and fill questions raised by the public, as well as screening of vehicle headlights north of the proposed development. Councilmember Willmus also sought clarification of the actual grade, where it was proposed to be raised, home designs and floor plans.
Mr. Fair advised that the proposal was to raise the cul-de-sac for the purpose of creating lookout home designs, and matching grades with existing property lines. Mr. Fair clarified that there was no intent to haul extra fill onto the site, but simply raising the cul-de-sac grade to accommodate lookout home designs within this site approximately 2,000 feet long.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Fair explained lookout design of 4’ versus typical walkout designs of 8’, providing a window well at lookout level.
Further discussion ensued regarding the grading plan and its review, including the height at the center of the cul-de-sac at 921’ and the property due north at 923’ indicating the approximately raise; accommodation by the developer for including a swale within their property for a 6” deep swale near the property line on the east/west sides; and confirmation that the developer intended to clear cut the existing trees to accommodate that swale, allowable within the parameters of City Ordinance with elimination and/or replacement proscribed accordingly.
Councilmember McGehee opined that clear cutting hardly helped wildlife issues and/or screening of vehicle headlights for adjacent properties.
Mr. Fair advised that with proposed cul-de-sac grades beginning at 921’ and climbing to the north, and without knowing the basement floor height of existing homes on the north, they would be willing to plant on the easement area, if allowed to do so by the City; and would bring in considerable trees to address screening concerns and in accordance with City Code parameters.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Fair estimated the sale price of the homes from $650,000 - $750,000; and clarified that Landmark Development, a corporation owned by him and Mr. Hanson, would build the homes and sell them back to Mr. Hanson.
Public Comment
Additional written comment was received from Greg & Jody McElroy, 905 Millwood Avenue (1 dated May 1 and another dated May 16, 2013); Rod Petras, 982 Lydia Drive; and Paul & Debra Rossbach, 953 Millwood Avenue; included as bench handouts, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Mayor Roe noted that the City Council had received the meeting minutes of the Planning Commission and public comments of that Public Hearing, as well as written communications received to-date, either as part of the agenda packet or distributed as a bench handout tonight as noted. Mayor Roe reviewed protocol for public comment, and invited speakers to come forward at this time; reminding everyone that this was a Preliminary Plat application covering basic decision-making for lot conformity and other technical requirements; with subsequent approval required for Final Plat by the City Council after it was found to meet all City Code requirements and those of the Rice Creek Watershed District.
Jody McElroy, 905 Millwood Avenue
As a resident at this address for sixteen years, Ms. McElroy addressed the sudden stress they had experienced with this proposed development, only brought to their attention on April 25, 2013. While always understanding that the parcel would probably be developed, Ms. McElroy opined that this had come up too fast, and was too huge to fit in with the existing neighborhood aesthetics. With the rains over the last few days, Ms. McElroy opined that the drainage issues should be self-evident, and support their concerns. As practically life-long Roseville residents who’ve been part of the community long-term, Ms. McElroy opined that they wanted the neighborhood to stay as it is; and while there may be other projects that would work on the parcel, further opined that six new homes simply didn’t fit in. Ms. McElroy opined that it was important for the project to slow down, and for the City to listen to the neighbors and make sure the benefits outweighed the risks. While the City’s Tree Preservation Policy may apply to the lots, Ms. McElroy opined that it didn’t address adjacent residents and protection for existing trees on their lots. Ms. McElroy advised that for residents on the bluff on Lydia Avenue, and for themselves with two huge, Cottonwood trees, it was critical that their root structure needs would be addressed, and that the wooded part of their lot avoid any unnecessary risks from this project, should it move forward.
Paul Rossbach, 953 Millwood
Mr. Rossbach questioned who would own the proposed on-site ponding, and who would maintain it; and whether it would be owned by an association, the City with taxpayers paying for that maintenance, or the Watershed District. While he would personally gain three new neighbors, he questioned if trees would be planted so a woods could be seen again; and opined that this would not be possible if the parcel was clear cut; with only one tree being saved on the entire property from his research. Mr. Rossbach questioned if the City’s Forester had walked the parcel and signed off on the project. Mr. Rossbach opined that it seemed that everyone wanted to move forward with the project before the questions had been asked or answered; and further opined that if this project was approved, a lot of stipulations needed to be addressed, and that adjoining property owners should get something back. Mr. Rossbach opined that the developer was doing the project for profit, and if the conditions or stipulations weren’t put in writing, they would not occur and only be good intentions that were not enforceable and wouldn’t’ necessarily happen. Mr. Rossbach opined that there should be 6-8 trees for every lot along his property line; and while recognizing that there were a lot of scrub trees on the parcel, they were still trees, and the Forester needed to make sure the tree survey was accurate.
Derek Larson, 922 Millwood
Mr. Larson addressed the referenced 1997 hydrological study, clarifying that former City Councilmember Dean Maschka had attended meetings regarding the proposal at that time, and a hydrologist from the U of MN had spoken to the neighborhood during that time. Mr. Larson opined that, with modern technology, the data should be easily attainable to determine how much water travels in the clay pipes for each portion and to determine how much runoff would end up on their properties. Mr. Larson opined that there would definitely be a problem, whether addressed now or in the future, and expressed his wish that the project could be delayed until those numbers were available.
Steve Hasse, 932 Millwood
Mr. Hasse recognized a lot of discussion had been held about headlights directed at the properties on the north side, but not a lot about similar impacts to those properties on the south. Mr. Hasse advised that he had no interest in seeing them in his front windows; and based on his perspective of neighborhood aesthetics, he had no interest in facing the backyards of some of the lots; opining that they should be single-family homes facing the street, a more suitable aesthetic to their existing neighborhood. Regarding drainage, Mr. Hasse advised that he couldn’t even walk in his backyard tonight after several days of rain; and expressed hope that the drainage issues were being seriously considered. Mr. Hasse noted that some soil borings had been done in the past, with significant water hit at about 3 feet. Mr. Hasse also questioned what constituted soil boring and how it was done; opining that it should be significant soil borings, not just a shovel.
Follow-up to Public Comment/Further City Council Discussion
Regarding trees, Mayor Roe asked that staff address impacts of development to trees on adjacent lots, and what the City’s practice was to enforce those impacts for construction projects.
Mr. Paschke advised that, with this type of project, the situation was reviewed and a determination made whether protective fencing was required, all under the administration of the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance in order to project adjacent trees.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke advised that this policy had been in place during the development of the Josephine Woods project, with a review several times during the process, and especially during construction of the model homes, with him personally walking the site with three members of the development team, with trees marked as part of their plan and verified in the field as to where actual fencing would go. Mr. Paschke advised that such interaction and final approval of the tree preservation plan, with field modifications, would also take place with this development as with any development. Mayor Roe confirmed that staff made efforts to look at adjacent sites, not just the project site itself.
At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Paschke advised that he had not performed the field review before Preliminary Plat approval for the Josephine Woods project, and had not done so with this project to-date. Mr. Paschke noted that this was second version of the Preliminary Plat coming forward as revised further. Mr. Paschke advised that, the intent of the Preliminary Plat was for approval of the basic plan, with subsequent approvals addressed as part of building permit submittal and sign off; with his personal inspection on site to address whether things were being accomplished in accordance with the approved plan.
Councilmember Willmus questioned, as part of this Preliminary Plat approval process, if the City could mandate tree planting by the developer.
Mr. Paschke responded that, for screening and similar reasons, he was not aware that the City couldn’t condition approval on those types of things; and as discussed at the Planning Commission, and as the development continued to move forward, those conditions could be addressed on the parent parcel, and possibly for the adjacent properties.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke advised that the Final Tree Preservation would be part of the Final Plat approval, and didn’t require City Council approval, as per current City Code; with the Community Development Department, as past practice, reviewing and approving numerous tree preservation plans city-wide, whether in industrial, commercial or residential areas. Mr. Paschke clarified that there was nothing in existing Code that limited their removal of trees, simply requirements that they replace those trees removed based on certain requirements at a certain caliper diameter, and in cases such as this, where trees were necessarily removed as part of their grading plan.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke advised that an additional condition of Preliminary Plat approval could be a separate plan for more screening from adjacent properties.
Councilmember Willmus, with concurrence by Mayor Roe, opined that the Preliminary Plat was the time to add additional conditions.
Councilmember McGehee advised that, in her review at Josephine Woods this spring, she had observed several mature trees that had exposed roots or root damage, with many of those mature Oak trees not showing immediate evidence of damage. Councilmember McGehee advised that she would be reviewing the results of the existing tree preservation ordinance; and agreed with residents adjacent to this proposed project and their concerns about preserving mature trees on their lots. Councilmember McGehee opined that tree preservation was and should be an aesthetic consideration throughout the community, and should not simply be replacing a 60 inch bulk of 7-8 trees with 60 of 1 inch diameter.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke advised that, yes, he would be willing to walk the site with area residents, as long s he understood the purpose in doing so. Councilmember McGehee opined that the purpose would be to hear resident thoughts about those things that had been and continue to be their immediate environment and that of the whole community as valuable and significant. Mr. Paschke referred to the City’s existing tree preservation ordinance allowing him to protect those adjacent properties as much as possible from the development site.
Mr. Paschke advised that, going into the Josephine Woods project, there were trees that were known to be at risk; and further advised that staff and the developer intended to follow-up on those at-risk trees, in accordance with the developer’s tree preservation plan if they died.
Regarding involvement of the City Forester to review and approve the tree preservation plan, Mr. Paschke advised that those services had not been utilized to-date for determining which trees should be removed or those that shouldn’t be removed.
Mayor Roe suggested that a future consideration for revising the City Tree Preservation Policy, at a later date, may be a requirement to have that expertise available, and for consideration of the benefits of such expertise.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Fair responded to questions about storm water area ownership and maintenance. Mr. Fair advised that ongoing maintenance of landscaping and Outlots A and B would be based on a maintenance agreement negotiated between the City and the developer. Mr. Fair advised that, regarding Lot 6, the City of Roseville’s staff had asked the developer to create the Outlots versus a stormwater easement across those lots.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that, as part of a development agreement, maintenance of the storm water ponds would be addressed by the City at a later date; and costs of pond maintenance, as with a number of existing storm water ponds throughout and being maintained by the City, would be paid through the storm water fees paid by all Roseville residents.
At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Fair advised that the soil boring data from eight borings was currently being processed by their civil engineering contractor, and would be provided to City staff upon its completion.
Regarding the potential for storm water running off this property onto neighboring properties, Mayor Roe noted that requirements of the City and the Watershed District did not allow new developments to have any additional runoff onto adjacent properties, and final approvals for any project would need to meet those requirements and demonstrate they do so; with both the City and Watershed following up on those issues, ensuring that there would be no drainage off-site.
Councilmember Willmus requested additional information from the developer on curb appeal and aesthetics, especially for those properties on the south and their concerns with facing the garage side of the proposed homes.
Mr. Fair, as the developer, advised of their intent to landscape Outlots A and B to hide the homes, and noted the proposed location of the garages to the left or right as detailed in the Preliminary Utility Plans (sheet 2 of Attachment C) showing the house pads and existing residents seeing the sides of the homes. Mr. Fair advised that the intent was to utilize as much side yard as possible for prospective homeowners, by trying to create Outlot A and B as an amenity and transition from the new neighborhood into the old neighborhood, with significant landscaping planned.
In addressing headlights, Mayor Roe noted that anytime a new street abutted an existing street, the potential existed, but advised that there was not always a resolution that the City could require; confirmed by Mr. Paschke that nothing was provided in City Zoning ordinance that would address that issue.
At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Schwartz advised that plantings in drainage easements were typically not allowed; however, there had been some past practice on a case by case basis depending on the actual site, for the City to work with a developer on a planting plan. Mr. Schwartz noted that the Outlots would provide infiltration-type drainage basins, and any plantings would be preferred within those basins.
In addressing Councilmember Willmus’ concerns for screening headlights for homes north and south, Mr. Schwartz advised that each individual basis could be looked at; however, he noted that the concern would be that drainage not be blocked; and again would require review on a case by case basis. In response to Mayor Roe related to swales on easements or lots themselves, on the north and east sides specifically, Mr. Schwartz advised that the drainage plan would indicated some plantings would be on the swales and some not; and while the swales had been required by the City, they may be wider than the drainage easement itself
Discussion ensued regarding plantings for screening purposes in the City right-of-way without interrupting drainage patterns (south side of Millwood), while allowing for 10’ of snow storage behind the curb.
At the request of Mayor Roe as to whether, as part of approving the Preliminary Plat, and conditions applied, screening could be required on the boulevard on the south side of the street, and therefore attached to Plat approval or if that would be outside the actual Plat itself.
City Attorney Mark Gaughan advised that he could not give a definitive answer without further research; however, he opined that it didn’t sit right with him since it was not part of the plat itself, but would need to look into that further.
Councilmember McGehee referenced a previous plan submitted by Councilmember Willmus’ family for a development off Hamline Avenue; providing for a road parallel and dropping into longer lots. Since the Outlot in this case is so large, Councilmember McGehee questioned if it would allow a separate entrance with a fork and planting in the middle, therefore reducing vehicle headlight concerns at the front of homes and directing them between homes. At the clarification by Councilmember Willmus of her intent for a right in/right out design, Councilmember McGehee confirmed that intent; and her desire for additional understanding on what was available for screening all the way around the swales for abutting property owners.
Mr. Schwartz advised that it would be difficult to address screening if it took place outside the drainage easement on private property, or whether something would be acceptable within the location of the swale or at the edge of an easement. Mr. Schwartz advised that staff could work with the developer for those specific considerations. Regarding Councilmember McGehee’s suggestion for a right in/right out design, Mr. Schwartz responded that it would negatively direct all traffic through other neighborhoods, creating more concerns, in addition to being difficult to plow. Mr. Schwartz advised that it could be a possibility for the developer to consider; however, he was hesitant to comment about its possibility without further review of how possible it would actually be.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Schwartz confirmed the existing and anticipated vehicles per day (60), noting that it also entered into the equation as to whether it actually became an issue or not, and allowed things to be kept in better perspective.
Regarding Councilmember McGehee’s suggestion for a right in/right out, Councilmember Willmus noted that it might be more aesthetically appealing, but was unsure that it would actually solve anything other than to simply spread the headlight problem further.
Councilmember McGehee advised that she had realized that, after consultation with Councilmember Laliberte.
Mayor Roe referenced concerns raised with other recent developments (e.g. Chatsworth and Parker Streets), and questioned if those had actually become an issue or if there had been any additional concerns raised by residents after practical application and development.
Mr. Paschke advised that he was not aware of any concerns post-development; and cited another example on Iona and Dale Streets, where similar concerns had been raised.
Councilmember Willmus questioned whether the developer would be willing to forego taking further action, and consent to a waiver of the 60-day deadline to address some of these optional scenarios and work with neighbors on their resolution for all parties. Councilmember Willmus stated that it was not his intent to kill the development, but simply allow the neighborhood more time to look at mitigation efforts by the developer. Councilmember Willmus advised that his primary concern was with screening for headlights; since he was confident that the runoff concerns would be addressed. However, Councilmember Willmus stated that he would like the neighbors to have an opportunity to meet with the developer and work through the various issues.
Mayor Roe suggested that could be an option, or put conditions on the Preliminary Plat tonight. At the request of Mayor Roe as to his intended extension time, Councilmember Willmus suggested a 30-day extension; however, he opined that everything could be accomplished within two weeks.
Mr. Fair respectfully asked that the City Council vote on the Preliminary Plat tonight, and condition it accordingly. Mr. Fair stated that they wanted to be good neighbors, and offered to go on record that he would abide by City Council recommendations on the number of trees they wanted planted, and further expressed their willingness to plant the property lines with large Pine trees, but would need to plant some on the adjacent properties due to existing drainage concerns, and their development’s need for to maintain the swale and avoid flooding. If the residents were willing to work with him by allowing them access to their properties by 10-15’, Mr. Fair advised that everyone could benefit by the screening solutions and alleviate any concerns.
Councilmember McGehee expressed her preference that Mr. Fair meets with the neighbors; opining that maybe they didn’t want Pine trees, and if he was willing to negotiate with them and return with an agreement within two weeks, the situation could be avoided. Councilmember McGehee stated that she had no problem with the development itself as long as the headlight issues could be addressed on the cul-de-sac and corners; however, she was hesitant to approve the Plat without such a meeting with the neighbors.
From his perspective, Mayor Roe suggested applying conditions to the Preliminary Plat approval tonight, with assurances that the conditions had been met prior to Final Plat approval.
Further discussion on where the screening should be (east/west and north sides); if and how the tree preservation and review by the City Forest could be addressed that would allow neighboring property owners to approve a tree preservation plan on an adjacent private parcel.
Councilmember McGehee opined that the City’s existing Tree Preservation Policy was not worth the paper it was written on.
City Attorney Gaughan questioned if it was appropriate to condition this Preliminary Plat approval on the neighborhood signing off as a way to revise portions of the City’s existing Tree Preservation Ordinance.
Councilmember Laliberte suggested that it not be made a condition of the Plat, but ask the City’s Forester to coordinate a time to walk the property with neighbors to get input.
Mayor Roe opined that it made sense to involve the City’s Forester.
However, Mr. Trudgeon reminded Councilmembers that the City Forester was an employee of the City’s Parks & Recreation Department, and only worked part-time; and if this was a condition for Preliminary Plat approval, it would need to be coordinated with the Parks & Recreation Department to determine if it was possible based on the limited time and resources of the City Forester at this point.
Councilmember Laliberte noted a recent appointee with a forestry background to the Parks & Recreation Commission; with Mayor Roe responding that a volunteer couldn’t be required to take time or offer a formal opinion as part of Preliminary Plat approval.
Councilmember McGehee expressed her concern in applying conditions to a Preliminary Plat on the fly; and concurred with the suggestion of Councilmember Laliberte.
As done in the past, Mayor Roe suggested that the basics for conditions be outlined at this time, and approved at a subsequent time. However, Mayor Roe realized he was addressing findings of fact used for denial of applications, as confirmed by City Attorney Gaughan.
Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of language for a condition as outlined by Mayor Roe, for a plan to be developed for screening of vehicle headlights on the roadway from neighbors and property lines.
Laliberte moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the proposed Josephine Heights PRELIMINARY PLAT, based on comments and findings of Section 4-6, and recommendation of Section 7 of the RCA dated May 20, 2013; amended to include an additional condition as follows:
· The developer will provide a plan for screening vehicle headlights from neighbors on the east, west and north sides of the subject parcel; and for screening the east and west property lines.
Councilmember Willmus encouraged the developer to work with the neighbors on screening, opining that this was an issue that would become more prevalent in the future throughout Roseville. Councilmember Willmus expressed his appreciation that the developer had met the standard lot size requirements for this infill proposal; and appreciated the ongoing work of the developer with staff on drainage issues. Councilmember Willmus advised that he had the opportunity yesterday afternoon, with the mini-monsoon, to observe the area and runoff, and opined that there was work needed by the City on the south side of Millwood, and from those properties at a certain point draining to the north of the catch basin located in the proximity of 922 Millwood that needed a curb cut to get water being the curb line. Councilmember Willmus further opined that the City needed to re-evaluate the level of neighborhood input and developer meetings required, which were not currently available for this case. However, overall, Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the motion as conditioned.
Councilmember Laliberte expressed her appreciation to the Planning Commission for holding the Public Hearing at which a bulk of this material was covered as evidenced by their meeting minutes included in the agenda packet materials.
Councilmember McGehee spoke in opposition to the motion, referencing the comments of Councilmember Willmus, and her preference that the neighborhood be given credibility and involvement in advance of Preliminary Plat approval, and expressing her disappointment that the developer was not interested in extending the approval period.
Mayor Roe opined that it made sense to look at neighborhood meetings as part of the approval process for this type of application, and would prove a good topic for the June 3, 2013 meeting, along with the other land use issues scheduled.
Councilmember McGehee opined that the Tree Preservation Ordinance also needed further discussion.
In response to Councilmember McGehee’s comments, Councilmember Willmus opined that, if the City Council voted against this Preliminary Plat, the developer would be back without conditions, as there was nothing in the City’s existing code to stop it at this point, which served to enter into his decision-making. Going forward, Councilmember Willmus, concurred there were tools to consider for future applications, but reiterated that if he took a similar position to that of Councilmember McGehee, the neighbors would still be looking at this development without protective conditions.
Mayor Roe stated that the City Council had to consider applications before it under code currently in place; and noted similar concerns raised during past subdivision applications, opining that this was not new ground being covered with this approval; however, it raised issues that needed further review as part of the approval process.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; and Roe.
Nays: McGehee.
Motion Carried.
At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan confirmed that a super majority vote was not required for this approval.
Mayor Roe expressed the City Council’s appreciation of the neighbors’ attendance and comments; and further expressed appreciation for their feedback.
b. Authorize Presumptive Penalty for Szechuan Restaurant Alcohol Compliance Failure
Roseville Police Lt. Lorne Rosand briefly summarized the alcohol compliance failure of Szechuan Restaurant as detailed in the RCA dated May 20, 2013; and provided background and training information. For the benefit of new Councilmembers, Lt. Rosand displayed a sample driver’s license for someone under the age of twenty-one; and reviewed the process followed during compliance checks. Lt. Rosand recommended the mandatory minimum penalty of $1,000 fine and a one day suspension as set forth in Section 302.15 of Roseville City Code.
Owner of restaurant – Jesse H. Wong, Owner of Szechuan Restaurant
Ms. Wong expressed her sorrow in this failure, and assured Councilmembers that it wouldn’t happen again, as she had reinforced with her employees for checking identification.
Lt. Rosand confirmed that all training records were found in order and done on time.
Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, authorizing the Roseville Police Department to issue and administer the mandatory minimum penalty of $1,000 fine and a one day suspension, as set forth in Section 302.15 of Roseville City Code.
Councilmember Willmus thanked Ms. Wong for coming tonight; and appreciated her taking this matter seriously, in accordance with how serious the City Council took these matters and recent efforts to enforce that concern of sales to minors, and their firm stance.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
By consensus, Councilmembers decided that no break was needed at this point, and they would remain at the dais rather than moving to the work table.
c. Community Development Department Request to Perform an Abatement for Unresolved Violation of City Code at 949 Brooks
Removed from tonight’s agenda as previously noted.
14. Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
a. Discuss Limited Processing and Production in the Regional Business District
Removed from tonight’s agenda as previously noted.
b. Discuss Multi-Family Rental Housing Licensing
Two bench handouts were provided for this discussion consisting of a City map identifying multiple dwelling units city-wide (Attachment C) and a comparison listing of other metropolitan cities with licensing and rental registration programs (Attachment D),
HRA Housing Program Manager Jeanne Kelsey summarized the most current iteration outlining a multi-family rental housing licensing program for the City of Roseville, as previously discussed at a joint meeting of the City Council and HRA in May of this year.
With continual vetting by property owners through their membership in the Minnesota Multi-Family Housing Association, Ms. Kelsey advised that their general concern was the initial cost for third party inspection of 100% of their units. While it was a given that this initial cost would be burdensome, Ms. Kelsey, noted that its goal was to provide a base for future compliance and inspections; and advised that the HRA and staff continued to look at possible alternatives, with none being endorsed by the HRA at this time. Ms. Kelsey advised that the concern that there were few options to make it fair and equitable for all property owners unless inspections of 100% of the units was initially done. Ms. Kelsey advised that the estimated cost for all properties, if the City wished to absorb that cost, would be $138,250 for third-party inspections.
Lisa Peilen, Director of Municipal Affairs with the Minnesota Multi-Family Housing Association
Ms. Peilen reiterated her past appreciation for the HRA’s outreach to their association and property owners/members throughout this process. Ms. Peilen noted that this ordinance was modeled after that of the City of Brooklyn Center. Ms. Peilen advised that their membership supported the tiered system, rewarding good properties and providing incentive to improve properties, with resources then focused on the few poorly-managed properties. However, Ms. Peilen advised that few cities seek property owners to pay the inspection.
Ms. Kelsey advised that the projected licensing fee for property owners would be $100/property and $10/unit, with the intent that the fee would go directly to the City of Roseville for additional resources to administer the program by designated staff.
Ms. Peilen noted that only three other cities had an additional inspection fee above and beyond the license fee, with other cities providing the initial inspection and one follow-up inspection as part of the licensing fee itself.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Kelsey advised that following that practice, the City’s initial license fee would be higher compared with other communities, but once the property owner was classified at the high end (Type A), their subsequent fees would then be less than those other communities, and they would only pay inspection fees once every three years, with many communities requiring payment annually. Ms. Kelsey noted that this proposed tiered system was the only one staff was aware of, and based on a sample 230-unit property, as indicated. If the City brought everything in-house as other communities do, the cost would be much higher. As an example, the City of Coon Rapids passes on 100% of the cost of the program for in-house inspection staff and administering the program. The proposed eventual inspection schedule of once every three years provided a reasonable cost for property owners.
Ms. Peilen advised that it was atypical for a property owner to pay both a licensing fee and pay for your own third-party inspections, especially if you were categorized as a Type B or C property, and increased frequency for inspections. Ms. Peilen advised that the typical license fee covered one inspection and one follow-up inspection.
Ms. Kelsey clarified that the City fee covered one follow-up, and only charged if a second follow-up was required.
Mayor Roe suggested the possibility of not spelling out the inspections as part of the license fee to be more in line with other communities.
Ms. Kelsey clarified provided the rationale in separating out the cost based on actual costs for hiring a third-party inspector differentiating that cost and the associated fees, for the benefit of the property owner and the City in administering the program. As noted by Ms. Peilen, there were three cities already doing it that way, with 100% of the cost absorbed by the property owner and absorbing the licensing fees. Ms. Kelsey noted that other communities had internal staff to cover inspections, ultimately with the same costs after the initial inspection of 100% of the units and now hiring new staff, with a break-even cost comparison at this point.
Councilmember Willmus thanked Ms. Kelsey for including City Council meeting minutes from the last discussion with the HRA, and asked that the HRA meeting minutes also be provided to the City Council for benefit of their discussion as well.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Councilmember/HRA Member Willmus summarized those discussions, and property owners expressing concern with the fees as addressed by Ms. Peilen and Ms. Kelsey. Councilmember Willmus noted that he raised the option to continue exploring different types of licenses and fee structures based on that license type, seeking further exploration.
If the initial fee was handled upfront by the HRA, Councilmember McGehee questioned if there was a way to distribute that cost to property owners as part of the fee or through another option over time in order to recoup that initial cost by the HRA. Councilmember McGehee opined that it seemed to be important to obtain that initial inspection to set the base line; and spoke in support of the rest of the recommendations. However, as a rental property owner herself, Councilmember McGehee shared the concerns of the initial impact of this program, and questioned if some type of accommodation, similar to that for unpaid utility bills and/or abatements, could be used for the City to absorb those upfront costs for the property owner.
Councilmember Willmus noted his suggestion to the HRA for a fee structure based on classification of properties from Type A through Type D.
Mayor Roe questioned how that classification could be achieved without the initial inspection. Mayor Roe referenced Councilmember McGehee’s comment about certifying unpaid inspection fees on property taxes; however, he encouraged considering options for the City to be more proactive. One option presented by Mayor Roe included implementing it over a three year phase in where only a third of the units were inspected annually, and by the end of the three year period, they would all be classified, like a probationary classification until that inspection schedule was completed in its entirety.
Ms. Kelsey responded by noting that if the City did annual licensing, the fees for property owners would be equitable, but if only inspected every three years, their status would remain an unknown until after that three year period was achieved.
Mayor Roe suggested further consideration of a way to accomplish that.
At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Trudgeon clarified that the HRA’s Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP) only provide for external inspections, not internal inspections; and advised that the same staff performing that program would not be qualified to perform internal inspections.
Ms. Peilen expressed appreciation that the City Council was willing to explore the issue, and reiterated the willingness of their membership in continuing to work with the City to negate this huge upfront cost for property owners.
Mayor Roe questioned if it made sense for a three year process, and after the first round of inspections, determine a probationary rate and mitigate costs as well, unless such an effort would provide too much complexity.
Mr. Trudgeon observed that this had provided for good discussion, and was similar to that held at the HRA level, and recognized that the initial inspections were critical to establish a base, while also being cognizant of their expense. While it appeared that the City Council was asking for alternatives or solutions for funding, Mr. Trudgeon noted that it could be argued that as a City the goal was to make sure it had the best quality housing, and could accomplish that by infusing dollars from the HRA and/or City. However, recognizing that funding was limited, Mr. Trudgeon noted that this may not be viable, but he was hearing that the desire was to keep exploring options, and would prove helpful direction to staff and the HRA moving forward, in attempting to find a solution other than 100% and continue working with the association. Mr. Trudgeon noted that he was not hearing that this was not a good basis from which to start, just that a funding mechanism was critical to make the whole thing work. Absent the financing aspect, Mr. Trudgeon suggested that the process could continue to move while those considerations were fine-tuned; advising that the program was anticipated for implementation in 2015, not 2014, to facilitate getting things in order from an administrative and budget perspective, and working out schedules with property owner s for initial inspections.
Ms. Kelsey noted that property owners had also asked that the schedule recognize their budget cycles, advising that if drafting of an ordinance was initiated, property owners would still be included in the process, with anticipated adoption before year-end 2013, allowing an entire year (2014) to put the framework together, and allow property owners to work this cost into their budgets and allow the City time to find third-party inspectors and seek authorization for inspections. At the last HRA meeting, Ms. Kelsey advised that staff was authorized to move forward with drafting an ordinance and working out the details, while continue seeking additional comment from all parties, including property owners.
Councilmember Laliberte questioned what type of program could be put in place for self-reporting or tenant reporting directly to the City with assurances there would be no reprisals and no fear of eviction.
Ms. Kelsey advised that such a program was already in place, and served as the only way to get into a unit if the inspector was called out and thought follow-up of code violations was merited. However, Ms. Kelsey clarified that, at this time, no third-party could make a complaint on behalf of a tenant (e.g. School District or Social Worker) to intervene on their behalf or allow for an investigation. This program would allow for that third-party intervention and provide authority for the City to call out a unit or building for inspection; and expand the code violation mechanism now in place.
At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Ms. Kelsey briefly reviewed the proposed outreach efforts to tenants and property owners, making them aware of the new ordinance, their rights as tenants, and also including alerting third parties of those provisions once in place. Ms. Kelsey assured Councilmembers and the public that staff would meet with representatives of various ethnic communities to ensure those provisions were available to them in their language.
Councilmember McGehee questioned if there were other communities that spread out their inspection over more than one year, and if so, how it worked for units as well as common areas.
Ms. Kelsey responded that the basis of the proposed program was not the failure of one unit, but based on a point system that may or may not be related to property owners, and allowing for a percentage of violations over the entire number of units inspected in determining the grad, while getting a better understanding of the property without every unit necessarily meeting inspection standards.
Mayor Roe opined that, from a personal perspective, he was more interested in a self-funded program, not necessarily a subsidy from the City for the initial inspections, but a possible phasing in to mitigate those costs for property owners.
Councilmember Laliberte concurred, opining that she would like the program to be self-funded, and would prefer that the initial inspection be for 100% of the units, but negotiable on how payments could be phased in or spread out, whichever option was chosen, unless it became too cumbersome to phase inspections.
Mayor Roe stated that if payments were spread over time, the upfront cost would not be covered, and the City may have to subsidize and incur those upfront costs.
Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmember Laliberte’s comment that it would be nice to have all inspections done; but suggested that the problem with a self-funded program was that it would raise tenant rates as property owners passed on those costs.
Councilmember Willmus opined that the presentation provided an excellent framework, but reiterated his preference to explore options to get it started, and to have additional discussions with property owners, and listen to their options for implementing a schedule. Councilmember Willmus opined that he appreciated their involvement in the process and consideration in working with the City. Councilmember Willmus opined that it was beneficial to listen more and see how other communities had implemented similar programs to see if there was something else to be learned.
Ms. Peilen reiterated her appreciation in working with the City to find a vial resolution; and thanked staff and the City for the excellent process being followed to-
Mayor Roe recognized Councilmember McGehee’s concerns with increasing rents; however, he also recognized the need to find a way to implement the program.
Councilmember McGehee recognized that, no matter what option was found, it was necessary to realize that there were people in the Roseville community living in substandard housing, and the City needed to ensure that people had safe housing conditions.
Ms. Peilen agreed with those comments, and noted that their membership stood for quality rental housing; but admitted that how to get there to meet City standards without becoming too cumbersome for property owners was the problem.
At the request of Ms. Kelsey for direction, Mayor Roe, with Council consensus, directed staff to start the ordinance drafting process.
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 9:04 pm and reconvened at approximately 9:10 pm.
c. Discuss Twin Lakes Zoning Code
Removed from tonight’s agenda as previously noted.
d. Discuss City Manager Search Process
Mayor Roe noted that initial discussions on the City Manager search process had begun at the Special City Council meeting held Thursday, May 16, 2013; and sought continued discussion tonight in developing criteria among Councilmembers and staff, and addressing the timing of the process; and whether or not a third party consultant was desired.
Human Resources Manager Eldona Bacon
Ms. Bacon had provided several documents from the 2006 City Manager search at the Special Council meeting to provide discussion points.
Those materials included a profile/questionnaire that Councilmember Etten had previously suggested as a starting point for individual Councilmembers to further develop for a list of desirable qualifications for a City Manager.
In his review of the bullet points on the hiring process in those 2006 materials, Councilmember Willmus opined that it was important to him for a candidate to have a proven track record of civic engagement, with a willingness to engage in collaborative decision-making processes in running the organization. Councilmember Willmus expressed his interest in vetting internal candidates; and suggested a timeframe, if not final selection, narrowed within ninety days, depending on whether a local or regional search was considered.
Ms. Bacon opined that this would prove a difficult timeline to meet, and suggested that the City Council may not be ultimately happy with that process or its results; and suggested a minimum of six months for a regional search. At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bacon advised that a minimum timeline for a regional search should be six months, and was dependent on the amount of community involvement desired in the search process, time allowed for psychiatric testing, application period of two weeks, and setting up interview panels and accommodating candidate schedules for interviewing. Ms. Bacon advised that initial community involvement in the process would indicate a longer period needed.
Mayor Roe suggested a decision point would be how and when to engage the community in the process, and if input from the community was desired for the criteria lists beyond the input of Councilmembers and Department Heads; noting that such an effort would take some time to facilitate, including a process and how to accomplish it. From his perspective, Mayor Roe advised that it was important to develop criteria for the ideal candidate, equally important to the City and applicants.
Councilmember McGehee opined that the criteria should include that the candidate have a basic level of understanding of Minnesota regulations and, as stated by Councilmember Willmus, a general confidence or proven track record available through demonstrable information.
Councilmember Laliberte apologized for not having her list of criteria with her; but expressed her interest as a top priority in someone with an interest in being internal and on-site versus off-site representing the City at various organizations.
Councilmember Willmus concurred, suggesting more of a leader, with Councilmembers Laliberte and McGehee clarifying it even further as an internal leader.
As to process itself, Mayor Roe sought reaction to the timeframe outlined by Ms. Bacon, and how to involve the community in developing criteria, or only in the interview process itself; noting that this would drive the timing and process.
Ms. Bacon suggested, referencing the 2006 process, use of the profile survey (Survey Monkey) and invited people to participate, advising that it could be done again and include whomever the City Council wished and in a uniform manner; and also was more easily read and manipulated for the advertising process.
Mayor Roe concurred with its uniformity, while still allowing an opportunity to volunteer additional items beyond that standard list.
Councilmember Willmus noted the need for the City Council to be comfortable going forward with whatever individual was ultimately selected; and that paramount to that, it could be helpful to bring in Commission Chairs for their perspective. In his continuing review of the City Manager position, Councilmember Willmus advised that he kept coming back to the fact that this was the one employee for whom the City Council was ultimately responsible. With that in mind, Councilmember Willmus questioned how valid the broad approach had been in the past, and may have resulted in fits that were not so good for the City Council, leading him to look at a smaller pool of those initially evaluation and weighing candidates.
Councilmember Laliberte concurred that a smaller pool of input would be easier to manage; and suggested links for Commission Chairs could be different than other links even though there addressed the same questions, but segregated the various groups.
Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmember Willmus as well, that this was the City Council’s employee, and while a broad constituency of the community through Survey Monkey would be nice, she noted that at least 50% of the community was not on line. Councilmember McGehee opined that a smaller pool was preferable; noting that staff’s input was very important as a leader was considered for staff, with everyone cognizant already of the need for civic engagement and the public/consumer aspect of the City and its departments.
At the request for clarification by Councilmember Laliberte, Councilmember McGehee suggested staff include Department Heads.
Mayor Roe suggested as a facilitator and not as an advocate for any position, that he was hearing the majority desire for the City Council and Department Heads to develop the criteria, without engaging the public for that portion.
Councilmembers Willmus and McGehee concurred that this provided an accurate presentation of discussion so far.
Councilmember Laliberte noted that there was a small portion of the public very engaged, involved, and vocal; however, she was not sure if they were representative of the entire community, while Commission Chairs were more involved with internal staff and the City Manager, and had live experience from which to comment on, both from a past perspective, and in pursuit of their ideal experience; and opined that they provided a relevant group from which to seek input, and perhaps should extend beyond the Chairs to other commissioners.
Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of keeping it to Commission Chairs, as they were elected by their respective commissions to serve in that capacity representing the body.
Councilmember Laliberte allowed that this would also enable better time management; opining that she wanted the six month timeframe to be the outside window.
Councilmember Willmus concurred, that it should be the maximum outside window.
As a homework assignment, and with consensus of Councilmembers, Mayor Roe concluded that individual City Councilmembers, Department Heads, and Commission Chairs develop their criteria lists, to be brought forward for further discussion and consolidation around the table, providing for better discussion among all parties.
At the conclusion of that exercise, Mayor Roe suggested the next step in the process would be to have the City’s list serve provide comment on that ultimate list to ensure nothing was missed.
Councilmembers Laliberte and McGehee spoke in support of that idea.
Ms. Bacon questioned if the intent of the City Council was to not involve the Administrative staff at all in the process.
Mayor Roe admitted that was overlooked; and after some discussion and with Councilmembers McGehee and Laliberte in consensus, it was decided to seek their input in writing.
Councilmember Willmus opined that, while he sought input from the Human Resources perspective, and from Finance Director Miller, he wasn’t sure if he was seeking input from everyone working directly under the City Manager, and thought some distinctions were needed.
Mayor Roe opined that he preferred input from direct reports of the City Manager.
In consideration of ongoing discussions about reorganization, Councilmember Laliberte noted that today’s direct reports may not be tomorrow’s direct reports.
Councilmember McGehee suggested submission before June 3rd of a written list of criteria for dissemination to everyone.
Mayor Roe suggested that information may not be available by then, and that another Special meeting may be required.
Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of a Special meeting, opining it would be beneficial.
Mayor Roe suggested that, before June 3rd, staff poll City Councilmembers for optional dates, even a Saturday morning if necessary, to determine workable dates.
Ms. Bacon advised that she would be out of town the weekend after Memorial Day, but would be available otherwise.
Ms. Bacon requested whether the intent was for a uniform document with everyone supplying the same types of information (e.g. education level) or a more free form.
Mayor Roe expressed preference for free form, and suggested one of the exercises at the Special meeting would be to consolidate those elements and reach consensus.
Councilmember Willmus suggested that it may be interesting to have a standardized portion for education and experience, followed by a free form portion.
The 2006 questionnaire was used as an example, with the top ten and then free form.
At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, it was determined that the City Council had yet to decide on a national, regional or local search; with Councilmember Laliberte opining that a determination would be helpful o define search parameters.
Councilmember Willmus, in retaining his 90-day window, advised that he was assuming a local/regional search at the most.
Ms. Bacon noted that the City used neo.gov for all application processes, and that it was a national program with anyone wishing to apply able to access that program. Ms. Bacon suggested that additional criteria (e.g. living within the five state region or experience with the State of MN government), but as far as posting the position it would be posted on applicant tracking.
Further discussion ensued regarding additional postings with the LMC, IMPA, ICMA or other agencies, typically used with City Manager searches, with no definitive decision at this point.
Councilmember Laliberte noted that, by stipulating that the City would not pay relocation fees, it may eliminate interest as well; but advised that she would be looking for the City to control the entire process; with concurrence of Councilmember Willmus.
Mayor Roe noted that the general compensation listing may also reduce the applicant pool.
Discussion on the profile itself ensued, with determination that the 2006 profile model would be the basic format, with the top ten ranked or prioritized in order of importance, and remainder of the free form included, with a checklist of ten criteria for management style, also ranked in order of priority.
Mayor Roe confirmed that the profile should be completed by individual Councilmembers, Department Heads Commission Chairs, with direct reports to the City Manager segregated.
Further discussion included when the profile would be put on Survey Monkey and potential response time; timing concerns; scheduling of the Special meeting after June 3rd; necessary time for selection of a Search Firm and development of an RAP and bid turnaround with an estimated cost of $10,000 for their partial involvement in the process (e.g. scenario playing; local psychologist review; extensive background and reference checks; and presentation of top five final candidates to the City Council); with some local search companies available that were not in the mix in 2006, and possibly providing a more reasonable price other than a national search would require.
Ms. Bacon offered her willingness to assist in the process, and her natural involvement through access to neo.gov, while appreciating assistance from an outside consultant for a portion of the process and for their expertise. Ms. Bacon reminded Councilmembers that her time was also considerably involved right now in implementing the HRIS program.
Councilmember Laliberte suggested implementation of a Council subcommittee, and volunteered to serve.
Mayor Roe thanked Councilmember Laliberte for her willingness, and suggested that Councilmember Etten also be involved, since he and Councilmember Willmus had serve on the City Manager Evaluation subcommittee; and could provide synergy if either was interested.
Councilmember Laliberte opined that she would like to see Councilmember Etten continue working on the budget subcommittee.
Councilmember McGehee opined that she would like to see a mix of old and newer Councilmembers on the subcommittee.
Mayor Roe asked that Councilmember Willmus, if he was willing, serve with Councilmember Laliberte on the subcommittee; and by consensus they were appointed to serve.
At the request of Ms. Bacon, consensus of the body was for her to provide a draft RFP for review of the City Council at their next meeting, using the 2006 document as a model.
15. City Manager Future Agenda Review
Interim City Manager Trudgeon reviewed upcoming agendas, and additions of those items deferred from tonight’s agenda.
Mayor Roe suggested moving the website design to the June 10th meeting; and removal of the Human Rights Commission interviews from June 17th.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that the School District’s deadline for the former Owasso School site was coming up; and may require a Closed Executive Session on June 17th.
16. Councilmember Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Councilmember Laliberte advised that she and Mayor Roe had been working with the previous City Manager on reorganization of communications aspects at City Hall, and advised that the criteria was ready to move forward, suggesting that it be considered for the June 10th agenda.
Mayor Roe concurred, pending discussions with the Interim City Manager before
then.
Councilmember Willmus asked that consideration of the recycling function, with input from the PWETC, be considered for the June 3rd meeting.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that the June 3rd meeting was intended as a work session format, unless necessary business items were required for inclusion by staff.
Further discussion included CTV facilitating broadcast of the meeting on June 3rd at their studio; desire for a City Council free flow work session to facilitate brainstorming by Councilmember Laliberte, with Mayor Roe suggesting that sounded similar to its Strategic Planning meeting, and could be worked into future schedules, to allow completion of and focus on those items already in the works from the current work plan, the interim status for the City at this time, and future new administration in place.
17. Adjourn
Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:04 pm.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.