City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

March 27, 2017


1.            Roll Call

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


2.         Pledge of Allegiance


3.         Approve Agenda

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


                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


4.         Public Comment


5.         Recognitions, Donations and Communications


a.            Arbor Day Proclamation

Mayor Roe read a proclamation proclaiming April 28, 2017 as Arbor Day in the City of Roseville, encouraging citizens to nurture and protect trees to help positively impact the environment.


Etten moved, McGehee seconded, proclaiming April 28, 2017 as Arbor Day in the City of Roseville.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            New Police Officer Introduction

Police Chief Rick Mathwig introduced Roseville’s newest police officer: Dan Ehnstrom to the Mayor, City Council and community; and provided a brief biography for Officer Ehnstrom.


Officer Ehnstrom provided brief remarks.


On behalf of the community and City Council, Mayor Roe welcomed Officer Ehnstrom.


7.            Items Removed from Consent Agenda


8.            Business Items


a.            Consider Application for Repurchase of 1319 Larpenteur Avenue (d/b/a “Al‘s Billiards”)

Community Development Director Kari Collins summarized this request as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA).


Councilmember Laliberte noted a change several years ago city code language as to the proximity of gaming (e.g. amusement devices and billiards) uses to adjacent residential properties.


After a brief discussion, and with no objection, Mayor Roe suspended consideration of this item until later in tonight’s meeting to allow staff to further research that information and check city code.


b.            Community Development Department Requests Discussion of Proposed Text Amendments of Roseville City Code, Chapter 407 (Nuisances)

As detailed in the RCA and attachments, Codes Coordinator Dave Englund noted a number of minor proposed text amendments, as well as additional language as presented.  Mr. Englund clarified that the intent tonight was for discussion, with the clean document presented at a future meeting for formal action; intending to have it enacted prior to this season’s Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP) review, anticipated to start June 1, 2017.  Mr. Englund noted that the public could then be informed of revisions to city code from past iterations.


While meeting materials included a redlined copy of Chapter 407-Nuisances (Attachment A) and a clean copy (Attachment B), Mr. Englund noted that a bench handout of those attachments, reformatted to provide page and line numbers for easier access had been provided.


Attachment A

Section 401.01 Definitions

Farm Animals (Lines 26-27)

Councilmember Willmus suggested the need to define “farm animals” and use consistent terminology for all animals to avoid potential disputes in differentiating them with pets.


Mayor Roe suggested looking to other city code language, as well as that used in other communities to determine if there was a common definition used to distinguish those animals kept for agricultural purposes instead of as pets and in addressing their related effects on the public enjoyment of a neighborhood accordingly. 


Along those lines, Councilmember McGehee noted that some pygmy goats were considered pets, and therefore staff needed to ensure those animals considered actual pets rather than farm animals were addressed for an urban environment.


Councilmember Etten noted that some people chose to keep goats, not necessarily pygmy goats, as pets as well.


Graffiti (Lines 33-37)

Councilmember McGehee suggested the need to distinguish graffiti from murals done on buildings and/or fences.


Mayor Roe agreed with the need to distinguish between nuisance graffiti and artistic creativity.


Mr. Englund suggested further distinguishing graffiti as “unauthorized defacing.”


Councilmember Etten suggested moving references to “graffiti” and yard cover to a location earlier in the larger heading (page 3, Lines288 – 295) related to public health and safety, as well as “parking” and “storage.”


Mayor Roe noted that vehicles in parking and storage had been moved to the different section affecting public comfort or repose (page 3, Line 87).


Comfort or Repose (Page 3)

Councilmember McGehee sought clarification of noxious weeds and tall grasses and who determined the differences (e.g. prairie grass landscaping at City Hall).


Mayor Roe noted reference to the differences contained in another area of city code.


Councilmember Willmus had a similar question related to ornamental grasses that may not be natural or native landscaping and asked where in code that was defined.


Mayor Roe asked that staff make reference to where that definition is located and make sure language addresses and clarifies “nuisance.”


Councilmember Etten noted that the definitions that had been in use to-date had been working fine and clarified that staff was not being asked to change those items or definitions, but simply to clarify their location and identify their location.


At the same time, Councilmember Willmus opined that there were some areas he’d like to see cleaned up if this ordinance was going through this extensive of a review.


Mayor Roe noted that the point was that the language needed to be explicit about what is and what is not allowable, and where it was defined.


Councilmember Laliberte agreed with the need for clarity (e.g. ornamental versus nuisance) and addressing differing opinions of them.


Item I: Building Maintenance and Appearance (Page 4, Lines 162-169)

Councilmember McGehee suggested clarifying what “not limited to” meant related to Chapter 906 and fences or other structures as it related to other areas of city code.


Section 407.02

Mr. Englund clarified that most of the strike-outs in this section had been relocated to other sections of this code and made consistent with other areas of city code as part of the update.  Mr. Englund advised that the main additions in this section (e.g. setbacks and 4-day storage language) addressed unscreened street-facing side yards not considered in previous code language.


As noted by Mayor Roe of relocated language to this section from Section 407.03, Mr. Englund noted some additional modifications consistent with other areas of code, and staff’s authorization to decipher and interpret code accordingly.


Based on an example in his neighborhood, Councilmember Etten asked for clarification as to whether or not that the language regarding a commercial vehicle parked in a residential area included private driveways; with Mr. Englund confirming that it could include a large commercial vehicle stored in the driveway; and Mayor Roe noting that the code addresses parking for more than two hours unless meeting one of the exceptions  as outlined.


Specific to graffiti, Councilmember Etten suggested moving that to the first section of “Comfort or Repose” to avoid losing it in parking and other related items; with Mayor Roe concurring with the change in that placement.


Section 407.03 (Nuisances Affecting Public Health and Safety (Lines 297…)

Mr. Englund noted a number of items moved from Section 407.02 to this section and vice versa, with the addition of more descriptive wording.  Mr. Englund also noted several areas added specific to holes, excavations and traffic visibility.


Mayor Roe stated his appreciation of the added Item R (Traffic Visibility) and its potential consideration as a nuisance, with many complaints received in the past related to plantings too close to a corner to make traffic movements safe, and this ability to enforce them as a nuisance.  Even if it may be referenced elsewhere in city code, Mayor Roe opined that it made sense to include it in this ordinance as well.


Item E: Dangerous Buildings (Page 7, Lines 310-313)

Councilmember Etten noted the need to address grammar and location of commas in this section for clarity insertion of the appropriate clause, either “and are…” or “or are…” in line 4 related to damaged buildings.


Mayor Roe agreed with the placement of commas (line 310) and re-insertion of the “or” originally stricken at the end of line 311.


Item T: Peddling and Soliciting (Line 368…)

Councilmember Laliberte noted that most of this section had to do with door-to-door selling of products.  However, since she had seen more peddling on streets and corners of late, Councilmember Laliberte asked how stationary solicitation situations could be addressed.


Mr. Englund advised that those situations were handled by the Police Department; and if any changes were made to this section, suggested moving Item T in its entirety under the Police regulations (chapter 5) (lines 368 – 390).


Discussion ensued regarding peddling and/or panhandling; and responsible enforcement parties.


City Attorney Gaughan clarified that “panhandling” had its own definition and came under significant constitutional oversight.  Typically, a police department enforced it under its own set of regulations, not specific to this nuisance section of code; and Mr. Gaughan clarified that this nuisance ordinance dealt specifically with door-to-door peddling and solicitation only.


Section 407.04: Vehicles Constituting a Public Nuisance (Page 9, Lines 391…)

Mr. Englund noted that this section had been moved in its entirety from another section.


Mayor Roe noted the reference to “license plates” and revisions to “current registration” revising language under current practices.


Sections 407.05 – 407.08

407.07: City Abatement of Public Nuisances

Mr. Englund asked for City Council approval of clarified service notices, stating staff’s preference to add “in person” notification in addition to other options and based on current practice.  Mr. Englund reviewed the current process used by staff in attempting to create dialogue through that personal contact to hear the issues and perspectives from the property owner or occupant in attempting to find a resolution.  Mr. Englund advised that notices would also be mailed by First Class mail; with any follow-up for abatements still sent by Certified Mail and posted on site as well to ensure the actual property was noticed.


Councilmember McGehee admitted that this may have clarified her initial question and problems she had in current language related to serving notice by “any” of the following methods.  Councilmember McGehee stated that she didn’t consider simply posting a notice on premises to be sufficient to ensure the appropriate person would receive the notice. 


Mayor Roe noted language revisions to “by the following methods” that included in-person, some type of mailing and posting included all three being addressed and not restricted to a certain form of mailing depending on the situation.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Englund clarified that when notices are mailed, if a non-owner-occupied property, notices were mailed to the property owner of record as well as the occupant on site.


Councilmember McGehee questioned the 30-day time limitation, noting that historically there had been considerable negotiations between the Community Development Department and the offending party before an issue reached the City Council, and often taking a considerable time period to resolve.  With this language, Councilmember McGehee asked if that flexibility for staff to resolve an issue remained in seeking a more humanitarian approach.


Mr. Englund clarified that this language addressed the worst case scenarios and retained the thirty-day window for staff to make contact with a property owner seeking resolution, and stated that he saw no changes from the current process used.


Mayor Roe concurred, recognizing the two-step process after other attempts to get resolution, with this ordinance, with “and” indicating that only after initial steps were taken without resolution, would “next steps” be undertaken, initiating the referenced 30-day clock at that point.


Section 401.10: Public Nuisance Variance (Pages 12-13, Lines 504…)

Mr. Englund specifically addressed this section and written variances (lines 504-539) for parking and storage and staff compliance and administrative approval of variances. 


Discussion included the process including approval of neighbors within 150’ of the site in question; right of appeal before the City Council in their role of Board of Adjustments and Appeal for administrative denials; clarification by City Attorney Gaughan that such a variance should apply with a time condition and not continue in perpetuity with a property, preferably attached to a specific vehicle for which a property owner was seeking a variance; and upon expiration of a particular timeframe and at its renewal, re-notification of all property owners within that 150’ foot adjacency.


However, Mayor Roe noted the need to clarify that during the timeframe a variance was in effect, its approval could not be rescinded, and that process needed to be clear for neighbors in that their approval of a variance was for the duration of the variance period as long as applicable conditions had been met, including location of the vehicle.


Mr. Englund advised that staff had yet to think through all of those ramifications at this point.


If this route was continued in this section of the nuisance code, Councilmember Willmus suggested that it be done under the pretense that a variance is granted in an effort to ultimately obtain code compliance, and therefore only consider a 30-60 day window for that variance, and not three years unless there was a hardship situation where a longer time was needed.  Councilmember Willmus stated that he certainly didn’t want to create a situation where every time there is a neighborhood dispute over where a boat or vehicle is parked, that an appeal or public hearing is sought before the City Council.  Therefore, Councilmember Willmus suggested there be some pretense in seeking compliance with code and an applicable tight timeframe.


In creating a variance process for one section of code, Councilmember Laliberte asked if that option applied to other sections of code as well.


City Attorney Gaughan clarified that the option would only apply to the specific portion of code referenced storage as subject to a variance.


However, Mayor Roe noted that a future City Council could expand the variance option to another area of code or eliminate it entirely at their discretion.


In reference to Councilmember Willmus’ thoughts for the 30-60-day compliance, Councilmember Etten asked for an applicable example from staff’s perspective; or if there were some situations where a timeframe for compliance would not serve.


Mr. Englund noted a two-axle trailer previously used for commercial purposes but now used by the owner for recreational purposes; and no location other than their driveway that was available for storage.  While he could see some situations where the 30-60 day allowance may be applicable to obtain a parking place outside of the city or inside a structure, Mr. Englund noted other situations that due to topography issues, a property owner would be unable to locate a vehicle at another location on their property and need a longer term variance provision.


Councilmember Willmus stated that was his concern for a situation where the issue would never go away.


If so, Mr. Englund suggested simply stating upfront that such a use was not permitted, as currently done, but recognized topography issues that may apply in a specific neighborhood.


Mayor Roe noted that there could be situations where someone wanted to store something for the entire summer, and if neighbors didn’t object, could receive an annual 30-60 day variance.  Under that circumstance, Mayor Roe noted that the variance wouldn’t be ongoing, but under the 30-60 day timeframe renewed or applied for on an annual basis.


Given that some residents will seek an ongoing variance, and using an example in his neighborhood, Councilmember Etten noted the need for the City Council to decide how to accommodate such a situation, or require the vehicle be parked at a storage unit.


If this portion of code was put into effect, Mayor Roe noted the need to consider language to avoid neighborhood wars.


Councilmember Willmus suggested that, as with other areas of code stipulating a certain percentage of property owners rather than the proposed 150’ provision, it wouldn’t require unanimous approval of adjacent property owners.


Mayor Roe concurred that similar language to that referenced in the animal licensing code for neighborhood approval of a certain number of dogs at one property may be applicable to this area as well.


Councilmember McGehee stated that she wasn’t that supportive of moving away from the unanimous adjacent property owner approval on this item.  Councilmember McGehee reviewed examples of Roseville residents who have trailers used for work, but unable to store them other than renting off-site public storage. 


Mayor Roe stated that he was concerned with anything less than unanimity of adjacent neighbors for this type of variance, opining it made more sense since it directly impacted those neighbors.  However, Mayor Roe agreed that there was a need to address how situations, considerations or neighbors may change over the course of time.


Councilmember Willmus suggested if this was pursued, to seek unanimity of adjoining properties versus those within 150’, opining that would be too excessive.


Councilmember Etten clarified that in most cases, the 150’ involved several properties; with Councilmember Willmus agreeing it would impact two and in some cases three adjacent properties; with Mayor Roe suggesting that 100’ and adjacent may be more appropriate.


After further discussion, without objection, Mayor Roe summarized that unanimous approval should be sought for something that impacted the health, safety and welfare of the public long-term.


Engagement Strategy

Mayor Roe offered an opportunity for public comment at this time, with no one appearing.


Given the extensive changes proposed for this ordinance, and with this proposed Nuisance Code revision not having been heard by any advisory commissions to-date, Mayor Roe asked about the intended process to seek public feedback on these important changes, and sought ideas for an engagement strategy to receive public input and publication of the City Council’s consideration of these revisions once they become more refined after tonight’s discussion and prior to their enactment.


Councilmember McGehee opined that residents watch City Council meetings carefully, and suggested before this comes back to the City Council, staff put something on the city’s website directing people to review proposed changes and respond with their feedback.


Councilmember Laliberte suggested that the Communications Manager be tasked with submitting something for the Roseville Review and/or, especially since timing to send a draft to advisory commissions seems incompatible with staff’s timeline.


Councilmember Willmus agreed with the need to seek feedback, not just on the minor tweaks, but especially with the proposed variance process.


Mayor Roe agreed that changes should be highlighted, even if they seemed to be minor, as well as the variance process as proposed.


Mr. Englund duly noted those requests; and sought Council preference for whether to return with this item for discussion or formal action at its next iteration.


Without objection, Mayor Roe directed staff to return with a revised draft for the May 2017 City Council Work Session, followed by formal action at a subsequent meeting, prior to the June 1, 2017 start of this year’s NEP.


a.            Consider Application for Repurchase of 1319 Larpenteur Avenue (d/b/a “Al‘s Billiards”)

Returning to this temporarily suspended item, Mayor Roe recognized Community Development Director Collins for her additional research on this issue. 


Ms. Collins reported that adoption of the original city code related to amusement devices was done in 1994, with Al’s Billiards in operation before that time.  Ms. Collins noted that the most recent text amendments to code were made in 2014 specific to this issue, and included removal of the distancing requirement and language revised in Chapter 303.04 restricting locations of game rooms and amusement devices to commercial districts.  Since this was a pre-existing use, Ms. Collins stated that the property was not subject to that restriction, and since it is located in a Commercial Business zoning designation, a billiards facility would fit that permitted use definition. 


Since the business had been in operation before 1964, Ms. Collins sought an opinion from the City Attorney, noting that the property went in to tax forfeiture in August of 2016, and whether that started the clock as a non-conforming use under the one-year rule and a conditional use was required to operate a billiards facility.  However, without various utility reports available tonight to confirm when the business was actually discontinued, Ms. Collins asked how to best confirm occupancy during that time.


City Attorney Gaughan responded that if there was over a year of absence from that particular use, the legality of its non-conformity would cease and they would be required to meet current code requirements accordingly.


Councilmember Willmus opined that, if Ramsey County was the actual property owner, it suggested to him a hard break in the ownership and legal, non-conforming use.


Mayor Roe clarified that the business ceased on September 20, 2016 and therefore, had not reached the one year for non-conformity yet.


City Attorney Gaughan noted that was assuming that was the actual date the legal, non-conforming use ceased.


Since it was located in a Commercial Business District and no negative feedback was presented from the adjacent property owners or Police Department, Councilmember McGehee stated she failed to see how the city could not approve the request at this time.


Mayor Roe questioned if there was a relevant point to be made based on the timing for this legal, non-conforming use.


City Attorney Gaughan concurred; and also asked that the City Council keep in mind that they were not being asked to approve the use, but simply repurchase of the forfeited property by the property owner.  Mr. Gaughan advised that it would be up to the property owner and his personal responsibility that future use complied with city code.  Mr. Gaughan reiterated that it was important for the City Council to recognize that their action tonight is not representing that a billiard use would be conforming, simply that repurchase of the parcel by the property owner from Ramsey County was acceptable to the City Council.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11403 (Attachment B) entitled, “Resolution Approving Alvah J. Welsh to Repurchase 1319 Larpenteur from Ramsey County.”


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


c.            Consider the Community Development Department Request for Approval of Proposed Text Amendments of Roseville City Code, Chapter 901 (Building Code, including Section 901.01 (Adoption of Code) which includes Adoption of Chapter 1306, Subp.2; and Chapter 901.11 (Deposit for Protection of Concrete Curbs) to Ensure Cleaning of Streets and to Ensure Compliance with Building Code

As detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA), Codes Coordinator Dave Englund reviewed proposed revisions and additions (Section C) to Chapter 901.11 of city code and adoption of State Statute 1306.


City Code Chapter 901.11

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Englund clarified that similar to the abatement process, deposit money would be utilized first.  At the further request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Englund confirmed that if a property under construction, reconstruction or remodel without having cleared a final inspection it would not receive a Certificate of Occupancy.


While Councilmember Willmus opined this seemed redundant, Mr. Englund clarified that is actually was not, but simply intended to be more explicit as it applied to city code and state building codes.


State Statute 1306

Specific to the optional chapter for consideration (lines 18-30) of the RCA, Mr. Englund deferred to Fire Chief Tim O’Neill and staff to review the specifics.


Chief O’Neill stated that he had asked the Community Development Department to include this portion of code as part of fire prevention gaps he considered evident in city code at this time, but allowed to municipalities under State Statute 1306.  Chief O’Neill opined that, if approved by the City Council, it would address those current gaps related to non-sprinklered buildings in Roseville.  Chief O’Neill advised that this was something that had been under discussion by staff over the last year considering occupancies that came their way and would tighten city code by providing more enforcement and compliance tools that could be used.


Mayor Roe addressed the two options provided in State Statute 1306, subparagraph 2 or 3, and sought clarification as to which was more restrictive, and why the Fire Department was recommending adoption of subparagraph 2 (Attachment C).


Chief O’Neill advised that the second option encompassed new and existing, while the other only referenced “new” buildings.  With frequent occupancy changes, Chief O’Neill noted that didn’t usually require an upgrade of systems, and therefore, the Department was attempting to capture that to be fully encompassing for existing structures based on changes or certain criteria.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Chief O’Neill addressed the types of properties and building classifications this would apply to, excluding residential properties.  At the further request of Councilmember Willmus, Chief O’Neill confirmed that changes of occupancy type in one suite of a multi-tenant office/showroom use would trigger sprinklering the entire building.


While agreeing with this change for commercial/industrial properties, Councilmember McGehee sought additional provisions for multi-family housing as well, noting the number of such residential buildings in Roseville currently without a sprinkler system.  Councilmember McGehee asked if there was some way to trigger compliance based on a certain dollar amount for a remodel or some other trigger requiring installation of a sprinkler system.


Mayor Roe asked if there was a separate section of State Statute 1306 referencing residential or multi-family uses in general that the city could adopt.


Mr. Englund advised that new construction was typically addressed specifically for sprinkler requirements, but residential occupancies were not addressed for remodels.


Mayor Roe asked staff for additional information on studies of other metropolitan cities and whether they had chosen to adopt subparagraph 2 or 3 of State Statute 1306.  Mayor Roe noted the attachment in the packet with similar information on other cities and their requirements for residential properties undergoing a certain amount of change or changes not specifically fire-related to help inform the City Council in their decision-making related to the question of sprinkling requirements for residential buildings.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Chief O’Neill advised that staff had not held conversations to-date with property owners about the implications of these revisions.  Councilmember Willmus also asked how this would affect Rosedale Center and/or Har Mar Mall and tenant changes in their facilities.


Chief O’Neill clarified that both of those facilities were already fully sprinkled, and therefore not applicable.  Further, Chief O’Neill clarified that when referencing a change of occupancy in this case, it was the occupancy type and was not necessarily triggered if a strip mall had similar uses.

Councilmember Willmus stated that his primary concern in Roseville, given the substantial square footage for office/showroom uses and their frequent changes, was in not having conversations with those property owners and how this could impact their tenants.  Councilmember Willmus stated that he wanted to have that conversation on the front end, opining this could be incredibly expensive for existing businesses.


Mayor Roe clarified that occupancy type was not referring to city code types, but those categories under State Fire Code.  However, Mayor Roe agreed that more outreach with the business community was needed prior to enacting, creating a similar engagement question as with the previous item on tonight’s agenda; suggesting a way to do so as part of this process as well.


For a new building, Councilmember Willmus noted that he had no issue; but to change and impact to existing business models was of concern to him.


Councilmember McGehee clarified that new buildings of this type were now required to have sprinkler systems.  However, since the city was essentially built out, Councilmember McGehee opined that the issue was more germane to remodels to bring existing buildings up to code and make them as safe as possible.


Councilmember Laliberte stated that she had some concerns in considering adopting this tonight without further outreach being done, especially since this didn’t appear to have any time constraints involved.  In her personal review of building types, Councilmember Laliberte asked that staff include that information for the benefit of the public and City Council at its next iteration in order to connect business types by Fire Code under State Statute.


Councilmember Etten stated that he also had some concern with the cost to businesses, but also supported protecting those working or living in the community, even if more expensive to do so versus property owners choosing not to upgrade their buildings and falling further behind in public safety.  In his review of neighboring cities as shown in staff’s report (Attachment D), Councilmember Etten noted the number already having adopted this portion of State Statute 1306; opining Roseville should not be an exception.  Councilmember Etten suggested the city may want to consider a program or some way to help defray costs for such safety upgrades.  In general, Councilmember Etten stated that he was supportive of this recommendation.


Councilmember Willmus stated he was not opposed to pursuing this recommendation, but wanted business owners to be fully aware of it on the front end.


Mayor Roe suggested it may simply be a matter of education.  Mayor Roe noted the City Council’s request for more outreach with commercial property owners in Roseville for their feedback prior to adoption.


Councilmember McGehee stated that she saw this as a two-step process, and moved approval of the first step tonight.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. (Attachment A) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Section 901.01, Adoption of Code and 901.11, Deposit for Protection of Concrete Curbs, to Ensure Cleaning of Streets and to Ensure Compliance with Building Code;” amended to exclude all references to Section 901.01 (Fire Code),


Councilmember Willmus spoke against the motion, opining that a clean copy of a proposed ordinance needed to be presented at a later date.


Mayor Roe spoke against the motion, in consideration of outstanding questions still remaining on several issues as discussed.


Under those circumstances, Councilmember McGehee withdrew her motion.


Without objection, Mayor Roe so directed staff to bring back these proposed ordinance changes in accordance with the council discussion, including soliciting feedback on impacts.


d.            Receive Update on Rice Street/Larpenteur Avenue Multi-Jurisdictional Visioning Plan

Community Development Director Kari Collins introduced John Slack, Lead Consultant with Perkins+Will, for a presentation on the Rice Street/Larpenteur Avenue Multi-Jurisdictional Visioning Plan.



Mr. Slack provided a brief update on efforts of the group to-date and presentation entitled, “Rice Street-Larpenteur Avenue Gateway Vision Plan;” introducing additional team members working on the project: Jay Demma, Mike Lamb, Ben Sporer, Lydia Major and others involved in the process based on their areas of expertise.


Mr. Slack reviewed his firm’s initial response to the Request for Proposals (RFP) and identified the approach to this planning process and understanding by its stakeholders.  Mr. Slack advised that the group would be engaging stakeholders throughout the process; use multiple outreach strategies to guide community engagement; balance business and residential needs; recognize community character and sense of place; identify a sustainable approach and community health approach; and confirm and address goals of the community engagement plan.  Mr. Slack noted that the list of stakeholder groups identified at this time included the Gateway Area Planning Committee (GPC) consisting of city staff and elected officials from each jurisdiction and Ramsey County; a Community Advisory Group (CAG) consisting of eighteen community stakeholders selected by the respective municipalities, including a Planning Commissioner from each municipality, and an application deadline of April 14, 2017 for members of the public wishing to serve.  Among other stakeholder groups, Mr. Slack noted that they included neighborhood and business associations, school districts, and public service organizations, including underserved resident populations.


Mr. Slack displayed an evolving proposed schedule, including vision and master plan alternatives, redevelopment catalyst sites and potential implementation, and documentation and approval; all incorporated into four phases.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Collins advised that location for the CAG meetings had yet to be confirmed, with the first meeting anticipated for April 20, 2017; but confirmed that those meetings would be open to the public for observation purposes.  Councilmember Willmus advised that he was not suggesting a formal public hearing, but wanted those interested to be able to observe the discussion and have some knowledge base when the opportunity for public comment and allowing for better informed community engagement.


As part of the application to serve on the CAG, Mr. Slack advised that rules and responsibilities for applicants were provided to ensure they were aware of and able to understand their role in this process.


Mr. Slack duly noted the suggestion by Councilmember Willmus.


Councilmember Laliberte concurred with Councilmember Willmus, noting that this also allowed those who may apply to serve on the CAG but not end up being appointed, still to have some observation of the process.  Councilmember Laliberte also asked that in the future, when appointing city representatives to serve (e.g. GAP), transparency be considered as part of the process.


Mayor Roe suggested the meetings also be made available, or summary notes of the discussion topics, be made available on the specific Rice/Larpenteur and/or city web pages as applicable. Specific to the transparency in city representation, Mayor Roe noted that it simply evolved from those interested parties involved in the initial stakeholder group, basically through the Mayors and councilmembers of each municipality and staff representatives initially involved.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that this process started a long time back with the St. Paul Chamber of Commerce’s sponsorship of the Smart Growth seminars when more city representatives were involved, but then had tightened up through time.


As a practical consideration, Mayor Roe noted that all Councilmembers from each municipality could not participate without creating quorum issues; and clarified the intent to keep the process agile and moving forward.


Councilmember Laliberte stated her understanding of that intent and the evolution of the organic process, but opined that the conversation should have been held as well.


Councilmember Willmus suggested, at a minimum with the GPC, that representatives provide the full City Council with frequent updates throughout the process; duly noted by Ms. Collins.

Mayor Roe agreed, noting that this had been part of his rationale in asking for this update at tonight’s City Council meeting; expressing his hope that his peers in other municipalities would be following in that same vein.


Since Ramsey County was involved in the initial Smart Growth seminars, Councilmember Laliberte asked what their role was at this time in the process.


Mayor Roe advised that Ramsey County continued to be part of the GPC and were represented by either a commissioner and/or staff at the meetings. 


Mr. Slack also noted Ramsey County’s current planning and traffic process in reviewing traffic along Rice Street, occurring on a dual track with this revisioning process.  Mr. Slack offered his time to come back for updates to the City Council at any point in the process.  With key critical deadlines identified for each of the four phases, Mr. Slack advised that he could definitely provide updates at those points at a minimum.


Councilmember Laliberte thanked Mr. Slack for tonight’s update, stating the importance of this area of commerce and residential to Roseville for some time now.  Councilmember Laliberte noted that the city had been prepared to take steps on its own even if the collaboration of other cities and Ramsey County had not occurred; stating the City of Roseville’s firm commitment to this area.


Mayor Roe expressed hope that the same commitment was shared by all participants.


8.            Approve Minutes

Comments and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight’s meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council packet.


a.            Approve City Council Minutes – March 13, 2017

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the March 13, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended.



§  Page 7, Lines 24 – 26 (Roe)

Strike this added motion vote as it is redundant to the roll call vote previously shown on page 5, lines 29-32

§  Page 21, Lines 23 – 27 (Roe)

§  Page 20, Lines 5-8 (Roe)

As per past practice, Mayor Roe suggested replacing lines 5-8 on page 20 (Consent Item 9.g) with this first content statement made by Councilmember McGehee

§  Page 21, Lines 27-33 and Line 15

Similarly, Mayor Roe suggested moving lines 27-33 (remaining two sentences) immediately before the motion and roll call vote on page 21, at line 15 (Consent Item 9.g)

§  Page 21, Line 38 (Laliberte)

Replace “recent work” with “efforts”


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


9.            Approve Consent Agenda

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly highlighted those items being considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments dated March 27, 2017.


a.            Approve Payments

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

ACH Payments


84861 – 85025





                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Consideration to Approve/Deny One Temporary Gambling Permit, One Temporary On-Sale Liquor License; two Massage Therapist Licenses; One Gas Station License; and One Tobacco License

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of business and other licenses and permits for terms as noted, pending successful background checks as applicable.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


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

Specific to the optical network equipment, Councilmember Laliberte sought clarification as to whether this was solely a Roseville expense or would be shared by the consortium.


City Manager Trudgeon advised that he would research that and report back to the City Council.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as noted in the RCA and Attachment A entitled, “2017 Summary of Scheduled CIP Items,” updated February 28, 2017.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of trade in/sale of surplus equipment as noted in the RCA.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


          d.         Approve Entering Into an Agreement for the Transportation Plan Update

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of entering into a Professional Services Agreement (Attachment A) with WSB & Associates for Transportation Plan and Pathway Master Plan Updates.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


            e.         Approve Resolution Awarding Bid – Dale Street Parking Lot Improvements

Councilmember McGehee stated her interest in improvements to the swale at this parking lot, suggesting tall grasses and/or a tree rather than simply a dip of mowed grass.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11404 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Awarding Bids for Project 17-03 – Dale Street Parking Lot Improvement Project;” awarding the project to Hardrives, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $253,587.87.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


            f.         Approve Contract for Janitorial Services

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approving a two-year contract for city janitorial services (Attachment A) with Linn Building Maintenance for the period of April 2017 through April 2019, in the amount of $8,289 per month.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


g.            Approve Resolution Authorizing the Revocation and Designation of Municipal State Aid Roads

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11405 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Approving the Revocation and Designation of Municipal State Aid (MSA) Roads as presented.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


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


11.        Councilmember Initiated Future Agenda Items and Future Agenda Review

In light of tonight’s nuisance code discussion, Councilmember Willmus stated his interest in a broader discussion to consider city code text amendments to allow goats and pot belly pigs in the city to complement allowances for chickens and geese.  Councilmember Willmus asked that this discussion occur within the next sixty days, preferably at a work session.


Mayor Roe also noted additional information requested tonight related to sprinklering of residential building.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, City Manager Trudgeon advised that he would report back on the date for the Naturalization Ceremony.


Mayor Roe reported that the agenda and timing for the third Imagine Roseville community meeting related to immigration was in process.


12.        Adjourn

Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:05 p.m.


            Roll Call

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

            Nays: None.