View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
April 21, 2014
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order:
McGehee; Willmus; Etten; Laliberte; and Roe. City Manager Pat Trudgeon and City
Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.
made the following statement:
"The civil suit
filed last week against four Roseville Police Officers, and the video from the
incident that was released as a result of that filing, have prompted serious
and important questions that must be answered.
will come in part through the legal process, and in part from the internal
investigation that has been begun, as well as through other discussions and
dialogues that folks will likely be having in the coming weeks and months as a
community. What we learn through those processes will guide our future
We in the City of Roseville have expressed that we aspire to be both "Safe and
Law-Abiding" as well as "Welcoming and Inclusive." Often those two aspirations
can intersect, and must be appropriately balanced in all the City does, but
certainly in the day to day work of our Police Department.
We rightly have
high expectations for the performance of our police, who are constantly asked
to make judgments that relate to their own safety and the safety of the
public. When it has been determined that we have fallen short of those high
standards, appropriate consequences must follow, and lessons learned must be
I believe that I
speak for everyone in our City government when I say that we are committed to a
fair and thorough review of this incident, and that it is completed in a timely
manner, so that our community can receive the answers we deserve.
Although, as I
said, we are committed to the process being completed in a timely manner, that
process is subject to the schedule of the civil litigation activities, and
involves determinations about what information is considered public, and when
information may be made public, so the City will not be able to provide further
details at this time."
2. Approve Agenda
Laliberte seconded approval of the agenda as presented.
McGehee; Willmus; Etten; and Roe
3. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
Ron Bowen, Representative of Prairie Restorations, Princeton, MN
(with five other locations around the state)
stated that his had been one of the firms requested to bid through a Request
for Proposals (RFP) process on a project for the City of Roseville to manage
its natural resources. Mr. Bowen advised hat his concern was that the City may
not get good value from the apparent selected contractor, Stantec, a Roseville
firm. While often competing with this firm, Mr. Bowen advised that they
typically were involved in general consultant work, while his firm was the contractors
for projects. Mr. Bowen opined that the selected firm didn't have the
wherewithal to do the work requested by the City; and expressed concern that
they had even been allowed to bid; and further opined that he found the entire
process subject to criticism and review. Further, Mr. Bowen stated that the
bid results and information, all public information, had not been made
available to the public or other contractors, making them unable to know the
scores and the bidding process followed. Even though repeated attempts have
been made to obtain the data, Mr. Bowen stated that it had been denied. Mr.
Bowen also expressed his frustration in the notice or lack thereof of the
information meeting held following the process and concern that their firm had
not been invited to attend. Mr. Bowen recognized that the City Council
retained up to two weeks to accept the contract; and if they do so, Mr. Bowen
opined that it would be an unfortunate decision by the City Council in awarding
a bid to a firm not sufficiently qualified to do this substantial job.
thanked Mr. Bowen for his comments; and asked that City Manager Trudgeon and
Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke follow-up with him tonight to get
his contact and other pertinent information.
Tim Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane
provided a history of the lane built in front of his home 10-15 years ago, at
which time the City apparently found a number of driveways that didn't meet code at that time, and required variances. Mr. Callaghan opined that he had seen this same occurrence throughout Roseville a lot; and then four weeks ago, when the University of Northwestern presented their plan to add lights and rebuild their athletic field stadium, including rebuilding their sound system, they were not required to have a variance, with the excuse that they were "grandfathered in." Mr. Callaghan alleged that the City was therefore illegally treating one party differently than another, and had made a mistake. However, Mr. Callaghan stated that he was willing to go with that, since none of the City's zoning regulations any longer applied to him anymore, as his property was also "grandfathered in." Mr. Callaghan advised that he intended to restart his well, and would not pursue a permitting process, as he was "grandfathered in;" and if the City disagreed with him, they could talk to him elsewhere. Mr. Callaghan reiterated that the City had made a significant mistake to grandfather someone (e.g. University of Northwestern) who was totally rebuilding something, while a neighbor of his with a disabled child had to go through considerable permitting and other processes to comply to modify their home to accommodate that disability. Mr. Callaghan expressed his concerns with the Public Hearing held at the Planning Commission, where the noise issue was not discussed, but a decision made beforehand by City staff.
Mr. Callaghan asked the City Council if they had voided ordinances for half the City; or why they didn't treat everyone the same, or whether zoning ordinances didn't apply to the entire City, and suggested the City Council check with the City Attorney.
Native Landscapes, Inc., 8740 77th St NE Monticello, MN
reiterated the comments made by Mr. Bowen tonight; with their firm also asked
to participate in this charade called Parks and Recreation improvements. Mr.
Schaeffer stated that he also had a lot of concerns in how the process was
conducted; and expressed his interest in making sure the Roseville City Council
and residents knew what was going on. When the project was originally
announced, and his firm was asked to bid, Mr. Schaeffer stated that his initial
thought was that there would be no point in bidding, as Stantec was a
Roseville firm, and would be awarded the bid. However, when he saw what all
was involved in the project, Mr. Schaeffer opined that it became clear to him
that Stantec was not as qualified as his firm or other contractors to do the
job. Mr. Schaeffer advised that two other prominent and qualified restoration
contractors had bowed out of the process. Mr. Schaeffer noted that the RFP
process had been very costly for his firm, spending between $5,000 and $10,000;
but pursued it thinking it would be a fair and reasonable process; with Stantec
ultimately not stacking up with what his firm had to offer for those services.
Mr. Schaeffer further stated that he had not been communicated with, even
though leaving messages with staff, he didn't get return phone calls, which he
opined was indicative of what was occurring with the entire process.
reiterated his comment that staff would follow-up as previously stated.
Communications, Reports, and Announcements
Roe acknowledged that notification had been received that the Roseville Area
High School had been named as a finalist in the Environmental Education
category for its involvement in the Youth Environmental Activists Minnesota
(YEA!MN) project, Environmental Activism in Minnesota; a program connecting
youth in the metropolitan area with finding solutions to encourage behavior
change related to the environment. For those interested in supporting youth in
these efforts, Mayor Roe advised that an awards ceremony was scheduled for May
22, 2014 at 5:30 p.m. at the Roseville Area High School. R.S.V.P.'s are
required by April 12, and more information available by calling
Danny Schurter at 612/337-3388, Ext. 137.
announced an upcoming ECFE sale at Parkview Center School on April 26, 2014,
with additional information available at Scottbecker.com; and the book sale
sponsored by Friends of the Library, to be held at the Roseville branch '
Ramsey County Library from April 23 through 27, with additional information
available from Director Sue Gehrz at firstname.lastname@example.org
or by calling 651/486-2213.
announcements by Mayor Roe included announcing a Human Rights Commission
vacancy for a partial term, with the application deadline April 25,
and applications available by calling 651/792-7001 or online at
Laliberte thanked the Human Rights Commission and City staff for their work on
the recent Naturalization Ceremony, with fifty-four new citizens from
twenty-seven different countries being naturalized.
Mayor Roe echoed
those thanks, and specifically acknowledged City Clerk Kari Collins for
performing the National Anthem at the event.
Willmus suggested Ms. Collins be invited to at least annually sing the Anthem
at a Council meeting; and echoed Councilmember Laliberte's comments that it had
been a very impressive event, and looked forward to repeating it.
McGehee thanked speakers for coming forward, as a part of community engagement
efforts, and suggested a response be given to those speakers and their issues
rather than simply sitting at the dais with hands folded. Councilmember
McGehee opined that the City had not done a good job with environmental efforts
in the past, and thanked those contractors speaking at tonight's meeting,
opining that the situation may not have otherwise been brought to the City
Council's attention. Furthermore, Councilmember McGehee thanked Mr. Callaghan
for again coming forward to speak, and anticipated comments from the City
Attorney about his situation. Councilmember McGehee recognized the difficulty
in people coming forward to make public statements before the City Council, and
suggested more was needed from the City Council than a simple nod of their
heads. Regarding the statement read at the beginning of the meeting by Mayor
Roe, while seeing nothing she didn't support in the statement, Councilmember
McGehee expressed her distress over the weekend in hearing about the situation;
and expressed her hope that quick action allowed release of as much information
Trudgeon announced that he had just heard today that Roseville's 2014 Human
Rights Essay first place winner Elijah Sailer-Haugland had been named first
place winner at the State level. Mr. Trudgeon advised that he would have
additional information available in the near future.
Donations and Communications
Proclaim May Asian Pacific American Heritage Month
Roe read a proclamation declaring May 2014 as Asian American Pacific Islander
Heritage Month, celebrating and recognizing the accomplishments and
contributions of Asian Americans Pacific Islanders, and inclusion of all people
in building a better future for its citizens.
moved, Etten seconded, proclaiming May 2014 as Asian American Pacific Islander
Heritage Month in the City of Roseville.
Laliberte; McGehee; Willmus; Etten; and Roe
Proclaim National Police Week and Peace Officer's Memorial Day
Roe read a proclamation declaring May 15, 2014 as Police Officers' Memorial
Day, and May 11- 17, 2014 as National Police Week; calling all citizens to join
in commemorating law enforcement officers, past and present, for their faithful
and loyal dedicated service to their communities in preserving the rights and
security of all citizens; and honoring law enforcement officers who have made
the ultimate sacrifice in service to their community or have become disabled in
the performance of duty, and recognizing and respecting the survivors of those
moved, Laliberte seconded, proclaiming May 15, 2014 as Police Officers'
Memorial Day, and May 11-17, 2014 as National Police Week in the City of
Roe asked staff that information be provided to the public on the location of
the 2014 memorial ceremony, noting that the City of Roseville had hosted the
ceremony last year.
6. Approve Minutes
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.
Minutes of April 14, 2014 Meeting
Willmus seconded, approval of Meeting Minutes of April 14, 2014 as amended.
Page 6, Line 38 (Laliberte)
error: delete the word "only"
Page 22, Line 14 (Roe)
meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
7. Consent Agenda
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being
considered under the Consent Agenda.
Willmus seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
73373 - 73429
Award 2014 Pavement Management Contract
Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11143 (Attachment B) entitled,
"Resolution Awarding Bids for 2014 Pavement Management Project;" awarding bid
to Valley Paving, Inc. in amount not to exceed $2,281,585.89; and authorizing
the Mayor and City Manager to execute documents.
Authorize Purchase Agreement for Property Located at 2959 Hamline
McGehee sought clarification that the motion allowed for review of the title on
the property, and did not commit the City to subsequent purchase.
Roe confirmed that the City would be required to pay $5,000 in earnest money
while performing due diligence; and could extend the offer for a certain period
with additional funds if so indicated.
moved, Willmus seconded, approval of a Purchase Agreement (Attachment C)
authorizing the City to purchase the property located at 2959 Hamline Avenue in
Roseville, MN from Independent School District No. 612, in an amount not to
exceed $415,000; and authorize them Mayor and City Manager to execute the
Purchase Agreement on behalf of the City, setting forth the terms and
conditions of the sale.
Adopt a Resolution Approving the Vacation of a Pathway Easement
Vacation/Relocation at 1045 Larpenteur Avenue
the Request for Council Action provided several options, Mayor Roe clarified
that the motion on the Consent Agenda would be to adopt the resolution.
moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11144 (Attachment E)
entitled, "A Resolution Vacating a Pathway Easement at 1045 Larpenteur Avenue."
Approve Annual Variance Board Appointments
Willmus seconded, ratification of the selection of Roseville Planning
Commissioners Michael Boguszewski, Shannon Cunningham, Bob Murphy, and Jim
Daire (alternate) as Planning Commissioners appointed to serve as the Variance
Board from May 7, 2014 to April 1, 2015.
Consider Items Removed from Consent
General Ordinances for Adoption
A Request by the Community Development Department to Amend
Roseville's City Code to Prohibit the Long-term Storage of Trailers, Boats on
Trailers, and Large RVs on Public Streets
Coordinator Don Munson summarized the request to amend City Code to prohibit
the long-term storage of trailers, boats on trailers, and large recreational vehicles
(RVs) on public streets, as detailed in the RCA dated April 21, 2014; and
based on previous discussions at the City Council level.
clarified that the proposed amendment sought to address long-term storage, as
noted on Attachment A, while still allowing temporary parking of those items
for a maximum of four days in each and any calendar month. Mr. Munson noted
that parking of these units in driveways was still permitted at this time; as
well as extended parking of smaller units and/or vehicles on streets if
permitted. Mr. Munson clarified that enforcement was proposed to be done
reactively after a public complaint was received by the Community Development,
Police and/or Public Works Departments; but not proactively. Mr. Munson anticipated
owners would comply to avoid impound charges and other administrative fees for
violations of this section of the City's Nuisance Code.
Etten thanked staff for bringing this forward; and specific to line 15 of the
RCA, sought clarification of the actual amount of time allowed, whether 4 days,
5 days, or a week.
advised that, if staff observed and confirmed the violation, they would
continue the process, but the process would halt once the offending unit was
gone, with no specific action then taken.
Etten observed that this appears to be largely complaint-driven, with Mr.
Munson confirming that it would be basically complaints of the public, or
Police or Public Works Departments based on safety issues.
At the request
of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Munson confirmed that former public complaints
heard about not knowing whom to direct their calls to have been addressed in
this proposed process.
At the request
of Councilmember Etten as to how to verify the length of parking to initiate
the process, Mr. Munson advised that the time would be structured for City
staff, with two hours or more constituting one day, verified by photo evidence
as staff confirmed the problem unit, also reviewing the adjacent neighborhood
to ensure the unit had not simply been relocated in the same vicinity. Mr.
Munson noted that this would require more staff inspections than a typical
nuisance case, but expressed his confidence that staff would be able to verify
At the request
of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Munson advised that this portion of code related to
the size and type of vehicle would be consistent with other areas of code
specific to dual axles or tires.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Munson advised that the City's entire public
nuisance section is enforced reactively, with staff not typically looking for
violations other than when performing the Neighborhood or Business Enhancement
Program (NEP or BEP) inspections, but using a complaint-driven or reactive
McGehee questioned the timing of the process with 4 day limits and the two-week
notice prior to City Council action, and how that would work effectively and
avoid creating a loophole in the system.
responded that, while the first violation could take up to two weeks for City
Council action, depending on how those meetings were scheduled, the offending
unit would be posted so the neighbors and owner knew it was being addressed, at
which time they were given four days beyond that notice and posting for action
at the next City Council meeting. Mr. Munson advised that if the City Council
authorized impounding, and the unit showed up as in violation after that,
Council action would include staff having the authority to impound the unit
right away at that point to avoid any attempts to extend the violation all
Laliberte expressed her concern that there were inconsistencies in several
areas of the proposed language, but thanked staff for bringing this forward as
a result of previous discussions. Councilmember Laliberte expressed further
concern in creating an ordinance to address the behavior of only a few; and
sought additional dialogue to address some remaining limitations with units in
driveways that may not be remedied by this proposed language, creating the need
for expanding current restrictions. Without addressing units parked in
driveways, Councilmember Laliberte expressed her hesitation in moving forward.
Willmus expressed similar concerns as those expressed by Councilmember
Laliberte; however, he supported this proposed language, anticipating that the
approach would be done more incrementally. However, since this is a blanket
action covering the entire community, Councilmember Willmus expressed concerns
about lakefront properties and other special circumstances that code
addressed. In the near future, Councilmember Willmus asked that this aspect be
addressed. Councilmember Willmus opined that this tool could certainly help
solve many issues citywide; and offered his support moving forward. While
recognizing that this was not where the discussion stopped, Councilmember
Willmus opined that the discussion should continue with respect to driveways
and unique situations and/or lakefront properties.
expressed his concern in how to verify the prohibition on parking more than 4
days in a given month. At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Munson reviewed a
scenario for addressing a complaint and the timing of the reactive process and
how short- versus long-term storage was defined by staff. Mr. Munson advised
that staff would be looking to neighbors to keep them informed, but they didn't take the word of the complainant alone, with staff verifying specific issues.
discussion continues as requested by Councilmembers Laliberte and Willmus,
Mayor Roe also requested that it include how the visibility triangle language
in Code could also be used to address and enforce public nuisance concerns.
735 Heinel Drive
As someone who
has spent the last fourteen years reviewing, writing, adopting and enforcing
state rules similar to the proposed ordinance, Mr. Kelsey stated that he had
learned a lot during that time. Mr. Kelsey cautioned that it was easy to get
more restrictive and overreact, opining that there were times when government
should move slowly, suggesting this instance may be one of those times. Mr.
Kelsey expressed appreciation for the comments about driveways, opining that by
today's standards, a 20' boat was not considered large; and it was nice to have
some flexibility, especially with recreational vehicles parked on cul-de-sacs.
stated that another thing he had learned from rules was that there were people
on both sides of the spectrum, and if the intent was to keep people happy and
to approach the problem methodically, as a resident, he would prefer that other
portions of the discussion be held before action taken. Mr. Kelsey stated
that, while he wasn't happy with having more rules and regulations, but he wouldn't object to the proposed language moving forward as proposed by staff.
Seebow, 657 Heinel Drive
expressed similar concerns as expressed by Councilmembers Laliberte and Etten,
in creating blanket ordinances for only a few violators. Mr. Seebow opined
that Mayor Roe's suggestion for a review of the visibility triangle would be
better versus this overarching ordinance; and questioned how many neighbors
needed to complain. Mr. Seebow opined that there was a lot of ambiguity with
this proposal at this current time, and asked for more consideration and
exploration versus taking action at this time.
Karlan, 693 Heinel
advised that one concern of his was singling out one class of vehicle without a
particular validated study on which class of vehicle was more of a nuisance
than others. Mr. Karlan opined that he didn't see a difference in a passenger vehicle being parked on the street every night and a boat/trailer that doesn't move frequently. When defining nuisance, Mr. Karlan opined that the City
opened itself up to more litigation if singling out one vehicle from others;
and suggested that the proposed language not remain arbitrary. Mr. Karlan opined that it was unreasonable to prevent people from parking on a street for a reasonable amount of time; and suggested one class of user should not be singled out from another. Mr. Kaplan advised that he owned an RV and didn't typically keep it in front of his property, but as a physician, he didn't always get it out as soon as he planned, depending on his unpredictable schedule. Mr. Kaplan opined that his neighbors were not complaining, and recognized that the City needed to plow streets; however, he reiterated that the proposed language should have non-arbitrary distinctions with clear vehicle classes provided.
thanked speakers for their comments; and advised the City Council of their
options for this item: adoption, tabling, or rejecting the proposal.
opined that the ordinance didn't imply one type of recreational vehicle user over another; but took it to apply to people having trailers, with ATVs, water skis, lawn care equipment, or enclosed work trailers, and not only affecting boats. Councilmember McGehee recognized that everyone on Heinel Drive probably had a boat, and assured speakers that boat owners were not singled out. Councilmember McGehee advised that she continued to hear numerous complaints about RV parking on City streets, with some used for storage, and some actually
larger than the homes they're parked in front of. Councilmember McGehee stated that she didn't share the feeling that this was in any way a blanket restriction or addressing one particular RV user; while agreeing that more discussion was needed regarding driveways and trailers, and making accommodations in some situations. Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of staff's proposal and the reactive nature and safeguards built in and flexibility allowed for staff to address unique circumstances.
suggested one technical change to Attachment A, in Section 2, Item b, to
specify "this item", rather than "Item #5."
moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1466 (Attachment A) entitled,
"An Ordinance Amending Roseville City Code, Section 407.02.M of Title 4, Health
and Sanitation;" adding Item #5 to Section 407, making the long-term storage of
trailers, boats on trailers, and large recreational vehicles on public streets,
a public nuisance and prohibited; as amended to revise language of
Section 2, Item b to read as follows:
for a public hearing, before City Council, shall be a minimum of 10 days for
violations of this item."
Willmus concurred with the comments of Councilmember McGehee; opining that this
addresses the most frequent complaints heard; while allowing for additional
discussion to continue; and therefore, inF that context, he spoke in support of
Etten, while supporting the motion as it directly addressed things from
previous discussions, asked that staff bring forward in the near future other
items discussed, including an administrative process to make reasonable
accommodations for those with side yards not allowing them to access the rear yards
for storing units. Councilmember Etten, in his review of adjacent community
ordinances, noted that both Arden Hills or Shoreview simply banned overnight
parking of anything, making the City of Roseville much more lenient than its
neighbors across the lake, while remaining respectful of its citizens and
addressing more city-wide nuisances.
Laliberte opined that the proposed language was written in way that does allow
neighborhoods to go on as they are if no problems exist; however, she remained
troubled that the full discussion was not taking place at this time.
Councilmember Laliberte expressed her interest in addressing sight lines,
driveways and other issues at the same time this proposed language is
considered. Not that she didn't support this proposal and recognizing it as a
good start in solving problems for particular residents using streets for
storage and creating safety concerns, a pattern in some places, but
Councilmember Laliberte opined that without subsequent changes being addressed
also, she was not ready to support only this portion of it.
Roe, assuming specifics and reasons for leniency were still needed, with those
options available when an issue came before the City Council for action, he
opined that this allowed the City Council to stay on top of any additional
discussions, while looking at the maximum and specific number of items
occurring on a given property. Mayor Roe recognized that there were many
aspects of the existing Nuisance Code that needed refreshing, he spoke in
support of this revision, and anticipating further and ongoing discussion as
the larger issues were reviewed.
Willmus; Etten; and Roe
it was determined that no Ordinance Summary was necessary.
Adopt an Ordinance amending the Definition of Community Mixed Use
in Chapter 4, Land Use of the Comprehensive Plan and the Statement of Purpose
in Section 1005.07.A of the Zoning Ordinance
Thomas Paschke summarized the request as detailed in the RCA dated April 21,
Trudgeon noted that, since this was proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, it
required a super majority vote of the Council.
moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11145 (Attachment B)
entitled, "A Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Definition of Community
Mixed-Use (CMU) in Chapter 4, Land Use (PROJ0030) of the Comprehensive Plan."
Roe, speaking in support of the motion, noted that it was consistent with City
Council discussions held over the last few months.
Call (Super Majority)
moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1467 (Attachment C) entitled,
"An Ordinance Amending Title 10, Zoning Ordinance of the Roseville City Code;"
amending the "CMU Statement of Purpose."
Request by J. W. Moore, Inc., holder of Purchase Agreement for the
Residential Property at 297-311 County Road B, for Approval of a Rezoning from
LDR-1 to LDR-2, and a Preliminary Plat creating Seven (7) Residential Lots
Planner Bryan Lloyd summarized this request as detailed in the RCA dated April
21, 2014, and related attachments. Mr. Lloyd noted that the request had three
elements: rezoning from LDR-1 to LDR-2; a preliminary plat application creating
seven lots from the existing two; and vacating an existing storm sewer and
drainage easement to establish a new one for development overall.
to the Tree Preservation Ordinance, Mr. Lloyd noted that many of the trees
slotted for removal to facilitate the relocated drainage easement were of
Cottonwood and/or Boxelder species, and therefore not required for replacement
from the City's perspective. Mr. Lloyd displayed the preliminary plat, and
proposed realignment of the drainage easement versus the existing site in order
to incorporate infiltration ponding. Mr. Lloyd noted that the City's
engineering staffs' analysis and review with the applicant was nearing
Willmus expressed his interest in assuring that LDR-2 allow restricting
development of duplexes or townhomes if rezoned. Setting this particular plat
aside, and at the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Lloyd advised that the
City could not legally require that rezoning be conditioned if a use was
permitted or permitted as a conditional use. Councilmember Willmus asked staff
to speak to if and how the property could be developed without rezoning, as
addressed in Section 4.2 of the staff report.
Lloyd displayed a sketch he'd made of a potential layout based on dimensions
and how those lots would look based on their distinct widths and depths. Mr.
Lloyd opined that it would be possible to achieve the layout, but wouldn't
represent similarities to other lots in the areas; with the drainage also
becoming more problematic with LDR-1 zoning versus LDR-2 and drainage relocated
Willmus concurred with staff's analysis of the layout.
McGehee opined that it appeared that drainage seemed to be sufficient and along
the lot line in its current location in the LDR-1 version.
Lloyd reviewed the existing and proposed easement; noting that it was his
understanding from City engineers, that the current location was not ideally
located to effectively address stormwater from the streets, which was preferred
in this area to capture some of it with the proposed relocation.
McGehee opined that she was unwilling to move to LDR-2 zoning simply because
there was inadequate restraint; and questioned how long it would take to add a
tool to accommodate this development if zoning remained LDR-1.
on the time for notice, Public Hearing and Councilmember schedules, Mr. Lloyd
estimated a minimum of two months.
Roe questioned if it was possible to approve a preliminary plat and meet
dimensions for LDR-1 zoning without rezoning to LDR-2.
Manager Trudgeon recommended that not be considered; noting that the
preliminary plat needed review and/or revision based on engineering
specifications; and he would suggest that the developer provide their input if
that was the case. If the City Council wasn't supportive of rezoning, Mr.
Trudgeon suggested the item be tabled.
the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan advised that under City Code,
the City had 60 days to review a preliminary plat, with that review having the
ability to be extended for an additional sixty days by mutual agreement of the
applicant and City.
Roe, in addressing the applicant related to timing and location of the
easement, asked if it was possible to relocate the easement location using lot
lines as suggested in Mr. Lloyd's sketch; and whether it could work.
Representative, Grant Johnson, with J. W. Moore, Inc.
Johnson advised that their engineer would need to speak to the drainage
easement location. Mr. Johnson advised that the main reason for requesting
LDR-2 zoning was to meet current neighborhood characteristics and address and
improve drainage in the area.
Johnson advised that closing on the property was scheduled for next week, and
in order to extend the City's review period, he would need to see if the
parties were willing to extend the Purchase Agreement.
McGehee expressed appreciation for the work done by the applicant in platting;
and was personally sorry that the City didn't have an existing tool to make
this work for the applicant more quickly. However, Councilmember McGehee
stated that she couldn't agree to LDR-2, and suggested staff should have polled the City Council before the application got this far. Councilmember McGehee questioned Mr. Johnson on what would happen if the original platting could be made to work and the process was expedited for the property to remain LDR-1.
Johnson expressed the applicant's willingness to apply covenants or deed
restrictions stating that no duplexes or townhomes could be built on the
parcels, only single-family homes.
the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Attorney Gaughan advised that deed
restrictions would run with the land; however, he noted that he was not certain
the City could condition approval on that restriction.
the City Council decided to table action tonight, Mayor Roe advised that they
would need confirmation on that by the City Attorney.
Willmus expressed concern that if a majority of property owners got together,
they could void a covenant; and while deed restrictions carried more weight, it
may become more troublesome. Councilmember Willmus opined that he found this
discussion regarding rezoning issues, while having this plat in front of the
body, troubling as well; and suggested that the City Council look at it in the
context of rezoning with all that entails and whether they were comfortable in
doing so. Drawing from his personal conclusions, Councilmember Willmus state
that he was not happy doing so; and if the City Council were to take action on
this tonight, he would need to vote in opposition. If that was the majority
rule, Councilmember Willmus noted that the applicant could return with a
planned unit development (PUD) process, which he could support as that provided
an available tool that would protect the City from the potential of having
two-family attached or detached homes.
Planner Thomas Paschke opined that, when talking about tools, the recently
updated Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code provided that available tool in the
revisions and allowances made. Mr. Paschke further opined that, absent having
LDR-2 zoning, the PUD did nothing, as LDR-2 zoning would need to be eliminated
and a PUD process created, but predicated on something allowing the City
Council to do so, for a unique development design.
Roe recognize that tools were available, but he was unsure LDR-2 was actually
in the toolbox; and in his review of the Subdivision Code and lot standards, he
didn't see how the City Council could approve this application; and expressed
serious concerns in doing so.
Lloyd noted that lot sizes could also be addressed similarly in commercial
districts, where the Zoning Code didn't address lot size standards other than
single-family lot sizes.
Roe read the "Statement of Purpose" from Section 1004.09 of the Zoning Code;
opining that this application didn't meet the definition of LDR-2; further
opining that he could approve LDR-1 and would be willing to do so in the most
expeditious way possible for the developers to proceed.
moved TABLING action tonight; with Mayor Roe asking that she withdraw her
motion for the moment to allow more discussion, at which time she did so.
Attorney Gaughan clarified that, if the intent was to table action, that the
decision for extending the review period needed mutual agreement by the
applicant and City Council.
Johnson stated that he was not sure of his ability to extend the Purchase
Agreement without first consulting with other parties to the agreement. Mr.
Johnson noted that, when this route was taken, it was to avoid any new road or
infrastructure for this almost four acre parcel, which could accommodate
sixteen lots, but they had chosen not to do so to keep with the current
Roe Recognized that aspect; and asked Mr. Johnson's preference for committing
to an extension or having the City Council take action at this time, which may
result in denial.
Johnson agreed to the 60-day review extension.
Attorney Gaughan asked that any action include a specific date to ensure a more
perfect record for the City.
Willmus suggested action be taken when a full City Council was available,
recognizing that Mayor Roe would be unable to attend the May 5, 2014 meeting,
and suggested the extension be done to the May 12, 2014 meeting; which was
mutually agreed upon by the body and Mr. Johnson.
the request of Mr. Johnson, Mayor Roe clarified that the extension would be for
consideration of the plat as presented or it would require the applicant to
start the process over again with a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission
level; and suggested that the applicant choose what they were willing to do.
Hohn, Applicant Representative with Bald Eagle Builders
Hohn asked, if a deed restriction could be accomplished, would the City Council
look at the plat as currently designed.
Roe advised that he was unable to answer that question at this time, as there
was no motion or vote on the table; but based on discussion, he anticipated
that it may be a consideration.
Attorney Gaughan clarified that he was not stating that a conditioned approval
could not be done, but he was skeptical that it could be; and would be part of
staff's discussions with the applicant in the interim.
Laliberte suggested that some of those answers be made available by staff and
the City Attorney by May 5, even if the vote was delayed until May
12, but City Manager Trudgeon suggested keeping the discussion and
actions together to avoid any confusion.
the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan clarified that the vote would
not require a super majority; and supported City Manager Trudgeon's advice to
keep the full discussion and potential action until May 12, 2014.
Etten expressed his willingness to proceed with a deed restriction. He noted
that matching existing lots actually only applied to three lots on the east
side of the development; and he was unsure if there was a need to restrict the
size of the new lots at this time, or what would be gained by doing so.
McGehee concurred with the comments of Councilmember Etten and encouraged the
applicant to see if they could work with LDR-1 zoning, opining that it wouldn't
require too much change on their part if the Purchase Agreement could be
moved, Etten seconded, TABLING action on this item until the May 12, 2014 City
Council meeting for consideration of the plat and rezoning at that time.
Etten expressed his concern with the City's current Tree Preservation
Ordinance, and identification of substandard trees. Councilmember Etten opined
that mature and significant trees were important to a neighborhood, and should
be preserved; further opining that the current tree ordinance was not working
McGehee concurred with the comments of Councilmember Etten, opining that the
current tree ordinance appeared to her and had proven to be uniformly useless
since it was put into effect.
Manager Trudgeon advised that it could be reviewed, noting that some standards
had been attempted across the way, with Cottonwood trees typically excluded
Business Items (Action Items)
Request by J. W. Moore, Inc., holder of Purchase Agreement for
the Residential Property at 297-311 County Road B, for Approval of a Rezoning
from LDR-1 to LDR-2, and a Preliminary Plat creating Seven (7) Residential Lots
Mayor Roe noted
that, at this point given previous action to table, this item was moot.
Request by Roseville Housing and Redevelopment Authority (RHHA)
and the Greater metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC) for Approval of a
Preliminary Plat of 657, 661, 667, and 675 Cope Avenue, and 2325 and 2335 Dale
Street in Preparation for Redevelopment
Thomas Paschke summarized this request, as detailed in the RCA dated April 21,
2014 and related attachments.
Etten seconded, approval of the PRELIMINARY PLAT of Fire House Addition; based
on the comments and findings of Section 4 - 6 and recommendation of Section 7
of the RCA dated April 21, 2014.
McGehee expressed her pleasure with this entire process and flexibility allowed
in this development.
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Trudgeon reviewed upcoming agenda items; and specifically noted the May 22,
2014 Special meeting set aside for a Budget Work Session.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Trudgeon advised that initial discussions on
planned unit developments related to LDR-1 were proposed at the upcoming joint
meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff would provide
feedback on those issues brought forward during public comment at their
earliest convenience; along with feedback on the tree ordinance.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Trudgeon anticipated discussion of the Best Value
Process for the Park Renewal Program at the May 12, 2014 meeting.
Councilmember Etten suggested that consideration be given to not further
delaying award of the contract to allow construction timeframes to be met
during the 2014 construction season.
Discussion ensued regarding the potential scheduling of an
additional meeting, depending on staff and individual Councilmember schedules
to address outstanding issues in a timely manner.
Laliberte seconded adjournment of the meeting at approximately 7:53 p.m.