View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
May 14, 2012
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 for May: Pust; Willmus; McGehee;
Johnson; and Roe). City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present. Mayor Roe
advised that Councilmember Willmus was excused from tonight’s meeting, due to a
2. Approve Agenda
removal from tonight’s agenda of Agenda Item 9.a entitled, “Amend Rental
Registration Ordinance.” Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Consent
Item 7.g entitled, “Approve Strategic Directives” for discussion.
McGehee moved, Pust
seconded, approval of the agenda was approved as amended.
Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.
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.
Council Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Report
Mayor Roe announced,
for the public’s information, that the Wal-mart proposal was scheduled for next
Monday’s business agenda.
Recognitions, Donations, Communications
Proclaim May as Older Americans Month
Mayor Roe read
a proclamation honoring older adults and the professionals, family members and
volunteers who care for them.
Pust moved, McGehee
seconded, proclaiming May as Older American Month in the City of Roseville.
Ayes: Pust; McGehee;
Johnson; and Roe.
6. Approve Minutes
Approve Minutes of April 23, 2012 Meeting
Johnson moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of the minutes of the April 23, 2012 meeting as amended.
Page 1, Line 38 (Roe)
of appointment for Mr. Vandervegt ending March 31, 2015.
Page 2, Line 22 (Roe)
Roll Call indicating all “Ayes 5/0.”
Ayes: Pust; McGehee; Johnson;
Approve Consent Agenda
There were no additional
changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted. At the request of Mayor
Roe, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered
under the Consent Agenda.
Johnson moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
66057 – 66228
Approve Business and Other Licenses
Johnson moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of license applications for the following applicants:
Type of License
Red Clover Clinic, Inc.; 2233 N
Hamline Avenue, Suite 301
JC Penney Corp., Inc.
Jenna Tomlinson at Massage Envy
Roseville, Suite 120; 2480
Anita Teigen at Red Clover
Clinic; 2233 N Hamline Avenue, Suite 301
Croix Oil Company; 2151 N Dale
Croix Oil Company, 2151 N Dale
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding
Johnson moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for
services presented in detail on the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated
April 23, 2012.
6 traffic counters
Water meter radio equipment
McCaren Design Inc.
City Hall Campus lawn and plant care
Award Bid for Josephine Lift Station
Johnson moved, McGehee
seconded, award of contract to Minger Construction, Inc. of Chanhassen, MN for
reconstruction of the Josephine Sanitary Sewer Lift Station in an amount not to
Certify Unpaid Utility and Other Charges to the Property Tax
resolution, with Attachment B (List of affected properties) was provided as a bench
Johnson moved, McGehee
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10983 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution
Directing the County Auditor to Levy Unpaid Water, Sewer and Other City Charges
for Payable 2013 or beyond.”
Approve a Resolution Awarding Bid for 2012 Sealcoat Contract
Johnson moved, McGehee
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10979 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution
Awarding Bids for 2012 Sealcoat Program;” to Pearson Brothers, Inc. in an
amount not to exceed $185,584.
Approve a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed, Authorize
Final Payment, and Commence the One Year Warranty Period on the Rosewood
Wetland and Midland Hills Road Drainage Improvements
Johnson moved, McGehee
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10980 (Attachment A) entitled, “Final
Contract Acceptance – Rosewood Wetland and Midland Hills Road Drainage Improvements;”
accepting the completed work, initiating the one-year warranty, and authorizing
final payment that includes two (2) project change orders due to unforeseen
circumstances in the field.
Designate Municipal Representatives to Roseville Firefighter
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen advised that in the future, this designation
would be included with other organizational business at the City Council’s
first meeting held annually in January.
Johnson moved, McGehee
seconded, adoption of Resolution No.10981 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution
Designating the Mayor and City Manager as Municipal Representatives to the
Firefighter relief Association.”
Consider Items Removed from Consent
Approve Strategic Directives
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this item, as detailed in
the Request for Council Action dated May 14, 2012.
offered several suggestions subsequent to her review of the draft provided by
staff. Councilmember McGehee recognized the desire for a lead department for
each directive; however, she stressed the importance of encouraging department
cooperation and responsibility for various items, indicated below.
Directive 1 – Welcoming, Inclusive and Respectful (page 1)
McGehee suggested that the second goal to implement a stakeholders group be
assigned equally to both the Fire and Police Department, since they both had
extensive outreach into the community.
Directive 2 – Safe and Law-Abiding (page 1)
McGehee requested including the Finance Department in this since they were
involved in firefighter pay and benefit packages.
Directive 3 – Long-Term Goal, fostering redevelopment (page 2)
McGehee suggested that this work be in partnership with the Roseville Visitor’s
Association (RVA) in selling Roseville as a destination and to participate in
that economic development goal, since they already had numerous marketing
Directive 4 – Long-Term Goal, stabilizing property tax rates (page 2)
McGehee opined that this should include all departments.
Directive 5 – Environment (page 3)
McGehee opined that this wasn’t just the Public Works Department, but all
departments, including the Community Development, Parks & Recreation and
Directive 6 – Healthy Community, Long-Term Goal, Partnerships and Connections
McGehee suggested all departments should be involved.
Directive 7 – Well-Connected, Short-term Goal #3 (page 4)
McGehee again noted the need for shared responsibility among departments for
improving existing paths and trails, as well as the build out of others.
McGehee suggested the addition of sustainability of storm water, drinking water
and sanitary sewer infrastructure in this section or wherever applicable.
Directive 8 – Engaged Community and Volunteers (page 4)
McGehee expressed concern in the type of communication efforts currently being
used and the need to improve those communication efforts in a style requested
by and meaningful to citizens, including the current list-serve.
McGehee noted that the Parks and Recreation Department already had a volunteer
incentive program, given their large contingent of volunteers. However,
Councilmember McGehee said she thought the City Council had budgeted this past
year for the express purpose of supporting a volunteer management program, as
part of the bond funding.
Mayor Roe, as
well as City Manager Malinen, did not recall discussions in that manner, noting
that it was not part of the current budget, or bond funds to their knowledge,
should be discussed moving forward. Mayor Roe did acknowledge that it had been
discussed, but was not budgeted for in the current budget.
Directive 8 – Organizational Mission, Short-term Goal 4, Employee Compensation
Structure (page 5)
McGehee suggested striking “united” and “even” from this item. Councilmember
McGehee questioned the intent of the long-term succession leadership training
Malinen advised that this was intended for all departments as part of the Human
Goal V, page 3 (continued)
suggested language regarding the tiered water and sewer rate structure for
residential and commercial users be revised to “explore” only, not “implement,”
since he recalled that implementation required additional City Council
discussion. Councilmember McGehee said it was also her recollection that the
Council agreed to explore tiered water rates, but that the Council did not
agree to implement the system.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen clarified staff’s intent that each of the
directives would include multiple lead departments. As this draft was reviewed
by all Department Heads, it was their understanding that while one department
would take the lead, ongoing collaboration and cooperation would be presumed,
as always, in putting programming together, but that one department would take
the responsibility to further it. City Manager Malinen advised that the intent
was more for internal designation, since ultimately these directives will drive
individual department strategic plans, with seven (7) departments developing
the next level of strategies and avoiding similar or repetitive strategies.
While recognizing Councilmember McGehee’s concerns, Mr. Malinen opined that he
would prefer to leave one department as the lead, while recognizing that all
departments are involved and collaborating to some extent.
Johnson agreed with staff’s philosophy for a lead department, opining that
otherwise it would be a convoluted process without apparent or recognizable
leadership. Councilmember Johnson agreed with Councilmember McGehee that all
strategies impacted all departments; however, from staff’s perspective, someone
needed to take the lead. Toward that effort, Councilmember Johnson asked that
Councilmember McGehee review the items to ensure proper leadership was in
McGehee, from that perspective, concurred that it appeared that leadership was
in place; however, she wanted it to be very clear that if one department was
not taking responsibility to forward a directive, other departments could
McGehee noted that several entries already contained two lead departments.
suggested to City Manager Malinen that staff add an additional category listing
other participating departments, while continuing to designate the lead
Councilmember McGehee’s suggestion (page 4) regarding sustainability of the
City’s infrastructure (e.g. sewer system), Mayor Roe noted that the CIP Task
Force had included that as a work plan item for 2011, with the first of two
rate changes part of that process and recognizing the importance of maintaining
the stability of the City’s infrastructure system. Mayor Roe noted that new
items would continue to be added moving forward.
McGehee noted that, even with the long-term CIP, the City was still
experiencing multiple sewer back-ups annually; and expressed her concern that
the public remain aware of the ongoing maintenance challenges faced by the City
and its fifty (50) year-old infrastructure and required funds to repair,
improve, or replace it.
Mayor Roe noted
that the CIP attempted to address those ongoing concerns; and hoped to see
fewer issues as maintenance issues were addressed. Mayor Roe noted that
Councilmember McGehee’s concerns fell under the need for “improved communication
with residents” strategy.
“communications,” Mayor Roe suggested the addition of “e-communications” as an
additional category, one that would include the City’s list-serve); and
suggested removal of “meaningful” from that statement.
McGehee suggested replacing “meaningful” with “useful” or a similar word,
opining that the City had a lot of different types of communication, but they
may not always serve the needs or goals desired.
suggested that it fell under the category of “improved,” making additional
wording repetitive and unnecessary.
employee compensation, Councilmember Johnson advised that he was fine with
removing the word “united.”
At the request
of Mayor Roe regarding “implementation” of a tiered rate structure,
Councilmembers concurred that this had not been agreed upon, and Mayor Roe
suggested that “implement” be removed or “possibly” implement be substituted.
Mayor Roe noted
an additional typographical error on page 4, short-term item 3 correcting
McGehee moved, Pust
seconded, approval of strategic directives, as amended.
General Ordinances for Adoption
Joint Meeting with Planning Commission
welcomed Commissioners and asked that they introduce themselves. All Planning
Commissioners present: Chair Daniel Boerigter; Vice Chair John Gisselquist;
and Commissioners Jeff Lester; Peter Strohmeier; Michael Boguszewski; Jim
Olson; and Shannon Cunningham.
and Planning staff had prepared a memorandum listing their activities and
accomplishments; intended work plan for the coming year; and several questions
or concerns for discussion with the City Council; all detailed in the staff
report dated May 14, 2012 and included in meeting materials.
Planning Commission concerns over the last seven years with the Twin lakes
Redevelopment Area, Mayor Roe noted that the Comprehensive Plan update and new
Zoning Code were recent documents; and questioned areas of particular
strategies or implementation devices of particular concern.
Gisselquist advised that, while this discussion may be premature until the City
Council heard and deliberated the Wal-mart proposal at next week’s meeting, the
Planning Commission struggled with the controversy of such types of development
and/or redevelopment, since they were guided by the documents referenced and at
the Commission’s disposal. Commissioner Gisselquist noted that a concern of
the Commission was that the Twin Lakes Study was older than the Comprehensive
Plan itself, and questioned if it remained viable or had become obsolete or
needed changing based on current circumstances, including the economy.
Commissioner Gisselquist questioned if the Commission should “wait and see” the
outcome of the Wal-mart discussion and City Council decision, or if further
refinement of documents required more flexibility for the future of the Twin
Lakes Redevelopment Area in today’s reality.
noted that the Commission was questioning if there was a need, at some point in
the near future, for the City Council to become more pro-active in developing
the area since it didn’t seem to be happening, and hadn’t happened over the
last thirty (30) years, suggesting that more may be needed than the “wait and
see” approach of determining if proposed developments fit in that redevelopment
area; or whether the City needed to spend money to foster additional
development. Chair Boerigter noted that, to-date, nothing beyond Wal-mart had gotten
this far at Twin Lakes; and questioned if the City needed to be more
aggressive; or if not, how the Planning Commission could serve to help
accomplish development in the Twin Lakes area through recommendations on land
use and zoning issues.
Strohmeier noted that his had been the only dissenting vote on the Commission
in approving the Wal-mart Plat proposal; in addition to his difficulty in
supporting past votes on the Twin Lakes Regulating Map. From his perspective,
Commissioner Strohmeier advised that the type of urban design with buildings at
lines and minimal setbacks, had been unfamiliar to him, and he opined that they
attempted to make the area more restrictive, and not allowing for the original
Twin Lakes Study Plan buffers and protection of open space, while still
Johnson asked Commissioner Strohmeier his specific concerns and opposition to
the Wal-mart proposal.
Strohmeier advised that, as a local government, it should be governed by the
City’s Comprehensive Plan, its Zoning Code, and City Code, as well as any other
singular district plans attached to the Comprehensive Plan. In his research,
Commissioner Strohmeier opined that he was concerned about things listed in the
Comprehensive Plan, including sustainable living wage jobs and quality of life;
and the Planning Commission’s use of its discretion on over-arching goals.
Commissioner Strohmeier noted that he respected the viewpoint of the Commission
At the request
of Mayor Roe, remaining Commissioners declined to comment on their personal positions
in supporting the Wal-mart proposal.
briefly reviewed the history of the Twin Lakes area, and the City’s past active
development role in seeking a Master Development process in 2005 for an overall
plan for the entire area to follow the City’s objective, as well as the demise
and ineffectiveness of that role.
Johnson concurred, noting the significant cost to the City; and asked
Commissioners for their thoughts on that previous process, timing of the
current process, and if and/or how to take advantage of the current economic
McGehee noted that, when first looking at the allocation plan and regulating
map, she had suggested further review and had asked the Planning Department if
they had brought together landowners from that area to seek their input and
ideas as potential developers, and what they would like to see develop, knowing
what the City preferred. Councilmember McGehee opined that those preferences
included other housing options, additional green space, alternate (Class A)
office space, and a corporate campus of some type. Councilmember McGehee
suggested that they be consulted now for their input as a group, since they had
a vested interest in what developed or didn’t develop there, which had been
made clear in their lawsuit about infrastructure allocation fees.
Boguszewski opined that, in his few discussions with owners, they were
basically desperate to sell their properties; and he personally questioned if
there were any ideas there. Regarding Class A office space as an example,
Commissioner Boguszewski noted that, despite efforts of the City to reach out
and offer enticements to companies, there may be no private business interested
in Class A office space on that site. Commissioner Boguszewski advised that
there may be some things that the City simply couldn’t overcome, whether due to
the interstate and/or rail line in the immediate vicinity serving as detriments
versus enhancing development, even if the City was to offer tax incentives.
Commissioner Boguszewski opined that he disagreed that Wal-mart was a detriment
to citizens, even though his research had shown that in some instances it could
be, he noted a similar number of developments where it had been a positive
influence. From his perspective, Commissioner Boguszewski opined that the
Comprehensive Plan was not clear, and while many visions had been articulated
in many different ways over the years, the regulating map provided yet another
way to facilitate development of this area. However, absent any real idea or
business while deliberating the regulating map and plan, Commissioner
Boguszewski opined that he felt the design standards were forced, and creating
very little that could be found against the Wal-mart proposal. Even if the
parameters were clear, Commissioner Boguszewski opined that there would
apparently remain strong controversy in the community.
Councilmember Pust apologized, noting
that she needed to leave the meeting for a short time to distribute
scholarships at the Roseville Area High School, leaving at approximately 6:58
opined that the Twin Lakes Study was an historical document, and if review of the
Vista 2000 document was done, it would be found that people in general didn’t
support any additional retail in Roseville; instead preferring head of
household jobs, and Class A office space. Councilmember McGehee advised that
these statements went as far back as the late 1990’s, including housing stock
gaps needing to be addressed that included high-end housing and loft-type
designed housing. Councilmember McGehee opined that the location of Twin Lakes
with respect to the Minneapolis corridor and as a tight, inner-ring suburb,
positioned as a perfect place for accommodating that needed housing.
Councilmember McGehee further opined that, if the Planning Commission felt that
vision was not clear enough, additional input could be sought. Councilmember McGehee
opined that she was not opposed to the City taking a more aggressive role and
offering tax incentives; however, she had voted against the regulating map as
it was too rigid and didn’t achieve the right direction that could be
accomplished through Planned Unit Development with new urbanism. Councilmember
McGehee agreed that the City had been quiet in any development/redevelopment
role, even though there had been substantial discussion over the last thirty
(30) years. Based on her personal discussions with private developers in
Roseville and in other communities, Councilmember McGehee opined that it was
not an impossibility to get Community, Mixed Use retail businesses with housing
if the City wanted it.
Mayor Roe, in
considering the role of the City, opined that the question was when to pull the
trigger, noting that the Master Developer option of the past didn’t happen,
which could have been due to the economy. Mayor Roe questioned if it made
sense to return to a similar process now, whether through involvement with
existing property owners or interested citizens, noting the significant number
of models available; but expressing concern in how to determine when was the
from his perspective, and countering Councilmember McGehee’s comments, opined
that in a room full of Roseville residents, there would be drastically
different takes on what the Roseville business community should look like.
Councilmember Johnson opined that the previous events and lack of super-majority
vote in 2001 on the Twin Lakes Redevelopment, as well as subsequent lawsuits
filed by a vocal minority of disgruntled citizens had halted any progress in
the Twin Lakes area. As a result, Councilmember Johnson further opined that
there were now nine (9) property owners in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area
who didn’t trust the City or Roseville citizens, undermining their sense of
comfort and confidence in moving forward. From their perspective, Councilmember
Johnson opined that the last thing he’d listen to was an organized plan from
the City or City staff after what they’d been through. Instead, Councilmember
Johnson opined that in their shoes, he’d make any deal he could that met the
City’s Zoning and City Codes. Councilmember Johnson stated that he was as
frustrated as the land owners; noting the additional stress of the economic
downturn. Councilmember Johnson questioned how the City could approach the
landowners with a marketing proposal to move forward that would overcome their
sense of insecurity. Councilmember Johnson sought input from Planning Commissioners.
noted that there is one (1) landowner with a proposal – Wal-mart – and when you
ask the property owners what they want, this is one response; having nothing to
do with marketing, simply dollars. If a Class A office complex or loft-type
housing was desired, Chair Boerigter suggested that it would take more than
marketing flyers to reach that goal, it would require “putting your money where
your mouth is;” not just touting it and marketing it as a great spot. Chair
Boerigter disagreed that it was clear what everyone wanted; and that the
Regulating Map was simply the most current document available, along with
referencing the other studies and documents. Chair Boerigter noted that it
wasn’t that long ago that the regulating map was discussed and approved,
representing the City’s vision of what should be developed in Twin Lakes; recognizing
that not everyone would probably agree with it.
Mayor Roe noted
that the City’s vision included a combination of the Twin Lakes Regulating Map,
definition of Community Mixed Use and other documents.
Boguszewski concurred, noting that the Regulating Map served as a useful,
meaningful communication issue.
Mayor Roe noted
that the Twin Lakes area of the City came with a lot of history, and that
history may not be accurate from all perspectives, whether property owners,
residents, City Council, or others. However, Mayor Roe noted communication
being directed to him from residents questioning why the City Council didn’t
approve the Costco proposal. Mayor Roe noted that the City Council DID approve
it, but it didn’t come to fruition due to other issues.
Johnson noted that the Comprehensive Plan stakeholder committee approved that
concept or concept for the Twin Lakes area as well in their majority reports;
and acknowledged receipt of the minority report as well. Councilmember Johnson
opined that any development considered by the City related raised community
concerns and questions, a totally legitimate part of the process. However,
Councilmember Johnson opined that a determination was needed on how to move
forward, noting previous discussion tonight on long-term goals of fostering
development in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment area, and whether that needed to be
moved to a short-term goal, with serious discussions among the Planning Commission
and City Council, staff and other stakeholders, for a more detailed framework,
as well as funding options or incentives while recognizing the limited
resources of the City and past history of not spending more money after bad.
Councilmember Johnson opined that it made sense to have that discussion
considering that the development economy was not going exceptionally well at
Gisselquist opined that the Twin Lakes issue was not going to be solved;
however, he expressed appreciation for tonight’s debate and his understanding
that the confusion was not only his. Vice Chair Gisselquist recognized the
anguish of business owners in that area, and the implications for them and
their heirs. From his perspective in considering the lack of clarity for the
Regulating Map and the history of past documents and studies, Vice Chair Gisselquist
stated that he remained unsure of the City’s advocacy or role in developing the
area; however, he saw business as usual unless the City chose to do something
Johnson opined that one successful development in the area may foster others;
and then the Regulating Map would guide additional development, and anticipated
a burst of development subsequent to the first one.
Boguszewski concurred with Councilmember Johnson.
noting the historical trend in other areas, opined that it made sense to look
at strategies and what the City was willing to do as a community to move
forward, whether financially, organizationally, or with more concrete
guidelines. Referencing the comments of Vice Chair Gisselquist, Mayor Roe
concurred that, given the age of the Twin Lakes Study in 2001 (or 1999 at its
inception), it may be prudent to review it and update it, to ensure its
objectives and the location of and rationale for development are sufficiently
McGehee opined that she was open to suggestions; and had previously asked
Community Development Director Trudgeon to come forward with figures for
purchase of some parcels in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. Councilmember
McGehee concurred with Councilmember Johnson for the need to initiate
something; however, she cautioned that if the City started with the wrong
thing, it may prove detrimental to the City. If talking about tax increment
financing (TIF) or other investment of public monies, Councilmember McGehee
opined that there was a need to provide leadership and a basis for a good tax
base return to residents of Roseville, and goes beyond “break even” or does not
become a drain on the community. Councilmember McGehee opined that she was not
opposed to TIF as long as it provided an economic return for citizens.
Boguszewski opined that the Planning Commission was in agreement, as long as
there was a net gain for the City.
noted, in a recent legislative study, that single-family homes were actually a
net loss to a community based on their actual value. In the future, Mayor Roe
suggested that a more detailed discussion be pursued among Commissioners, the
City Council and staff specific to Twin Lakes issues and ideas.
Community / City cap on Off-Sale Liquor Licenses
potential developers, Commissioner Boguszewski noted the limitations of liquor
licenses of interest to some developers.
advised that he had been approached personally by property owners and
developers regarding the limits of off-sale licensing; and their suggestions
that the City consider limiting licenses on a city-wide versus regional
business area, such as in the Rosedale area. Mayor Roe noted past discussions
and neighborhood concerns, negative impacts to neighborhoods and schools, and
the need to remain aware of those legitimate concerns. However, Mayor Roe
opined that it may make sense to consider additional licensing in more intense
commercial areas, and offered his willingness to consider such an option.
Johnson noted the current cap of ten (10) off-sale licenses in the City; and
while understanding the popularity of that model, referenced his knowledge of
one (1) license holder who kept sporadic business hours, and didn’t seem to
maintain any legitimate efforts in keeping normal shop hours, but instead
appeared to be simply sitting on one of the licenses.
At the request
of Councilmember Johnson, City Attorney Mark Gaughan advised that the City
could add regulations as to hours and other stipulations could be tied to
applications, as long as they were regulated across the board for all off-sale
liquor stores and not discriminatory to one business.
among Commissioners and Councilmembers related to this issue included the unintended
consequence in cost to get into the market place and number of available
licenses; lack of clarity in the original rationale in defining the maximum
licenses available; respect for and protection of small business owners; lack
of desire to become known as the retail liquor center for the northern suburbs;
impacts to some retailers interested in developing in Roseville but stymied due
to the lack of off-sale licenses available; and state statutes that apply to
City practices and codes for issuing off-sale licenses.
Johnson sought statistical information from other communities based on their
maximum number of licenses per capita compared with that of Roseville.
Councilmember Johnson opined that the maximum cap may have been established at
the time the City vacated involvement in a municipal liquor store.
questioned how Roseville’s current population compared with that when this
maximum number of licenses was established and if there was a statistical
formula in use.
At the suggestion
of Councilmember McGehee to restrict licenses to specific businesses to be
located in specific regional business areas, City Attorney Gaughan advised that
this was not legal, since it would be inappropriate for the City to hold a
license for a particular entity, opening the City up to litigation from other
businesses. City Attorney Gaughan advised that the City needed a maximum
number of licenses, but could not attached any names to that number.
Johnson volunteered to personally research licenses in other communities per
capita, and return to the City Council with the results of that research.
Councilmember Johnson opined that it bore further review, especially given
economic changes and restraints realized by some businesses now compared to
when the limit was first established.
Mayor Roe noted
that, if the rationale was to protect small business owners, there was no such
restriction on the number of book stores or other retailers in the community.
Mayor Roe opined that he didn’t want to make the limit based on business
protection, but based on the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Johnson noted that there was no limit to on-sale establishments.
Malinen noted the need to be cognizant of liquor stores operating immediately
beyond the boundaries of Roseville (e.g. Saint Anthony Village and the City of
Little Canada) who share boundaries with the City of Roseville, with stores located
just on the other side of the street, making the regional marketplace larger
than the ten (10) licenses in Roseville.
noted the need to consider the City’s demographics and unique retail
environment and location compared with population as well as it determined a
maximum number of licenses. Given the amount of retail in Roseville, Chair
Boerigter opined that Roseville may not compare to other bedroom communities.
Chair Boerigter noted that the City also retained great discretion in issuing
licenses, and could do so based on location and could be restrictive in handing
them out rather than specifically designating who could qualify for one.
Johnson concurred, suggesting that he was considering daytime versus nighttime
population as well in that market.
opined that there was a need to clearly establish that criteria, and not base
award of licenses on a political or arbitrary basis.
Johnson opined that all of these issues were good points to consider.
thanked Councilmember Johnson for volunteering to do further research, based on
demographics and comparables to Roseville; and suggested the regional area
immediately surrounding the Mall of America may provide interesting statistics
thanked Commissioners for their attendance; and for the very productive
Consider Minor Subdivision at 1938 Gluek Lane
Thomas Paschke briefly reviewed this request for creation of one (1) additional
residential parcel, as detailed in the RCA dated May 14, 2012.
included removal of the existing storage shed as a condition of approval;
establishment of the property line by the property owner, and its location not
quite perpendicular as addressed by City Code; publish notice provided in
accordance with State Statute and City Code; tree preservation monitored by
staff and in compliance with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance; and correction
in Section 5.4 when referencing a 50’ easement for a pond, that this was an
error carried over from a previous case and not applicable to this request.
representative of the property owner was present but had no additional comment.
opened and closed the Public Hearing at 7:37 p.m.; with no one appearing for or
Minor Subdivision at 1937 Gluek Lane
McGehee seconded, approval of the proposed MINOR SUBDIVISION at 1937 Gluek
Lane based on the input received during the public hearing and the comments and
findings of Sections 4-5 and the recommendation of Section 7 of the staff
report dated May 14, 2012, dated May 14, 2012; amended to delete references to
a pond in Section 5.4 of the RCA, not applicable to this property.
recognizing that the property line was not perpendicular to the road
right-of-way as preferred based on previous City Council discussions, Mayor Roe
noted that the line was substantially perpendicular, even though he would have
preferred it to meet the letter of the law, he would support the motion.
At the request
of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Paschke advised that staff had reached a conclusion
similar to that of Mayor Roe, that the line was substantially in compliant and
was consistent with other lot lines in the neighborhood, bordering a very broad
curve in the roadway. At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Paschke
advised that the line would be substantially radial to the curve and met code
McGehee stated that she had no issue with whether the lot line was
perpendicular or not; opining that the subdivision made for two reasonable lots;
and her only concern was that the shed needed to be moved.
McGehee also raised the issue of the tree preservation of the willow as stated
in the materials. Mr. Paschke stated that he was responsible for the
protection of the identified tree. Councilmember McGehee noted that the trees,
specifically oaks, in the Pulte Homes division did not have their roots adequately
protected and will die. Mayor Roe ruled Councilmember McGehee’s comments off
topic and ended the discussion.
Consider Extending Working Hours for the 2012 Pavement Management
Debra Bloom briefly summarized the request for a variance in working hours for
2012 PMP work, as detailed in the RCA dated May 14, 2012. While not a part of
the original contract, Ms. Bloom advised that staff was supportive of the
request to minimize disruption to area business and to achieve a good end
product. Ms. Bloom noted that affected businesses and residents had been
legally noticed by mail, along with published notice in accordance with State
Statute and City Code.
Pust recognized the need to balance efficiencies and quality of the work
product; as well as the need to treat all the same. Since she had yet to see
one of these variances not approved, Councilmember Pust questioned if staff
could not screen them at the staff level, or recommend changes to the City’s
advised that, if this was in a residential area, staff would not have brought
it forward. However, since it was not strictly in a bedroom neighborhood and
was in an area of a majority of business, Ms. Bloom opined that the request was
reasonable. Ms. Bloom advised that she fielded a considerable number of
complaints from residents with contractors starting before 7:00 a.m., and
advised that she used this Code section for enforcement repeatedly, reminding
contractors that they couldn’t work before or after those time parameters
without a variance. Ms. Bloom advised that this allowed for gentle nudging
from staff to those contractors; and noted the repeated efforts of the Police Department
in ensuring compliance with and enforcement of the ordinance.
McGehee asked if there had been any feedback from residents in the southern
section of the PMP area, Ms. Bloom responded that none had been heard to-date.
included preferences of the contractor to achieve efficiencies and how and when
to mobilize equipment; staff’s notification one or more times to those affected
property owners with specific dates and times to minimize their disruption and
inconvenience; and probable milling during daylight and/or early evening hours
and working around the dinner rush, with staff estimating approximately four
(4) hours to mill the section of roadway.
At the request
of Mayor Roe regarding any more restrictions that may be needed, Ms. Bloom
acknowledged that when trucks were running in front of a residence, it would
always be disruptive; however, she didn’t recommend any other restrictions,
asking that the City Council not be too proscriptive and allow staff some
flexibility to address specific issues from a common sense perspective as the
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bloom accepted the suggestion that the motion include
language specific to minimize disruption on the West Snelling Service Drive.
opened the Public Hearing at 7:49 p.m.; with no one appearing for or against
Extending Working Hours for the 2012 Pavement Management Project
McGehee seconded, approval of the VARIANCE to extend working hours for the 2012
Pavement Management Project (PMP); amended to strongly suggest that the
contractor be advised by staff to keep distraction at a minimum for residents
along the West Snelling Service Drive.
Consider Byerly’s On-Site Liquor License
Director Chris Miller briefly summarized the request, as detailed in the RCA
dated May 14, 2012; noting that staff recommended approval of the request.
General Manager, Byerly’s representative was present; and his only comment was
that the purpose of the request was for their pursuit of running a catering
operation from the Roseville store, with no selling intended from the store.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller confirmed that he was unaware of any liquor license
violations in the past from this applicant.
opened and closed the Public Hearing at 7:53 p.m.; with no one appearing for or
Byerly’s On-Site Liquor License
McGehee seconded, approval of Byerly’s Inc. application request for On-Sale and
Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License located at 1600 W County Road C.
Business Items (Action Items)
Adopt a Comprehensive Performance Management Program
Director Chris Miller briefly reviewed this latest draft of a Comprehensive
Performance Management Program, as detailed in the RCA dated May 14, 2012.
At the request
of Mayor Roe and for the benefit of the public, Mr. Miller displayed and
briefly reviewed the history and background of this effort consisting of seven
(7) basic principles of performance management with an emphasis on continual
and consistent improvement across the board. At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr.
Miller also reviewed the biennial calendars, starting with the 2013 calendar as
year one of the process in the upcoming biennial budget process (pages 5 and 6
of Attachment A to the report). Mr. Miller noted that the odd numbered years,
serving as year 1 in 2013, provided the ability to annually examine trends and
any necessary adjustments that were indicated, as well as statutory
requirements to be implemented.
At the request
of Mayor Roe for the 2012 (year 2) calendar for strategic planning, Mr. Miller
addressed rationale in its location in year 2 as it is tied to the CIP and
long-term vision (page 8) setting a role in budget priorities for the next year
and ensuring funding requirements were in place to meet certain goals, or if
not practical or feasible, reprioritize or defer specific goals as applicable.
Malinen noted that this also allowed, in a biennial budget process, one year devoted
to strategic planning (year 2) versus budget planning done in the first year.
McGehee stated that she was very happy with the document, and thanked staff for
their nice condensation of long form presentations. Councilmember McGehee suggested
that under “Survey and Community Visioning Process” (page 4), additional forums
for community input be included to receive citizen stakeholder comments.
advised that this list was not intended to be all inclusive of every available
option to gather citizen participation in an annual cycle, and noted that there
were many planning processes not listed and outside the realm of this biennial
process. Mr. Miller advised that the intent of this document was to provide
for a broader, visioning process for resource allocation, but not directly
linked to budget allocation.
McGehee inquired how the City could measure their areas of focus; Mr. Miller
responded that this would be a Council decision to make, with staff providing
McGehee opined that the Cobalt Survey process did not seem to provide the
performance measurement capabilities desired to allow citizens to provide
adequate input to their elected officials regarding goal achievement. She
opined that she would prefer a survey instrument that was more local so that
the Council would be able to see how Roseville did relative to other metro
clarified that the intent of this document was simply on a conceptual level,
and was not intended to identify a level or dictate a type of survey.
McGehee opined that the devil was in the details; and while this was a very
good plan, the City Council would need to be cognizant of those details moving
Johnson moved, Pust seconded, adoption
of Resolution No. 10982 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Adopting the
2012-2013 Performance Management Program;” amended to include under “Budget
and Program Priorities” (page 10) language indicating that the “addition or
removal of programs should be considered prior to the City Council’s ranking
Mayor Roe and Councilmembers
expressed appreciation to Mr. Miller for his work; with Mr. Miller in turn
recognizing City Manager Malinen and Department Heads for their participation
and efforts as well.
Award Contracts for Fire Station Construction Contract for Bid
Fire Chief Tim
O’Neill presented bids received for site/earth work, utilities, building
foundation, and paving, as detailed in the RCA dated May 14, 2012.
McGehee questioned the need for contingencies, opining that the City had
sufficient reserves, whether or not additional litigation occurred. At the
request of Mayor Roe as to why she didn’t support the contingency,
Councilmember McGehee opined that a fire station was going to be built anyway,
and rather than delaying potential work on the foundation, it could go forward
quicker without that contingency.
spoke in support of the contingency as proposed by staff.
Pust advised that she would not agree to enter into any contract with the
potential of any type of appeal possible, and no matter its outcome.
Councilmember Pust opined that the recommendation of staff represented the
responsible way to proceed when u sing public monies.
McGehee moved, Johnson
seconded, authorizing award of contracts for Bid Package #1 as listed below
contingent upon no further appeals related to the issuing of the bonds and meeting
bond underwriter’s requirements:
Cast-In-Place Contract Foundations
Thompson Construction of
Frattalone Companies, Inc.
Midwest Asphalt Corporation
Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
Discuss Sign Ordinance Amendments
Thomas Paschke reviewed this latest draft for proposed amendments to the City’s
Sign Regulations, previously developed in 2006/2007; and as detailed in the RCA
dated May 14, 2012.
A copy of Mayor
Roe’s e-mail to staff with responses to the proposed regulations, dated May 14,
2012, was provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part
Pust noted the lack of page numbers on the document and staff duly noted that
future iterations would include page AND line numbers.
included elimination and/or relocation of some language in different chapters
or areas; some signs now covered under the City’s general zoning ordinance and
not specifically enforced under these proposed sign regulations; existing signs
continuing as legal, non-conforming until an improvement is applied for; input
from sign companies working within the community; exempted signs within
rights-of-way and falling under other jurisdictional regulations, but not the
City’s jurisdiction; definitions for “projecting sign” and “normal wind pressure;”
and whether the City Council wanted to have a broader discussion on signs they
may want to regulate differently than currently done.
discussion included political sign provisions in the City’s Sign Regulations
mirroring that of State Statute as reviewed by the City Attorney; definition
and types of temporary signs; applicable fees adopted annually under separate
resolution; and additional provisions providing staff more enforcement capability
than currently available on a case by case basis.
Councilmember Johnson left the
meeting at this time, approximately 8:51 pm
discussion included number of events covered under one permit and programmed
annually versus needing additional permits if dates have yet to be determined; size
of security signs;
requested to include language under General Provisions (Item c.8) under
“Prohibited Signs” stating prohibitions “ONLY” in residential districts.
At the request
of Mayor Roe regarding Section 1010.04 “Maintenance and Removal of Signs,”
Section e.2, City Attorney Gaughan clarified that the general appeal process
would apply as with other sections of code.
Mayor Roe asked
that additional references to the appeal process (e.g. Section 1010.11 Master
Sign Plans, Item e.4) be consistent throughout the document and included in the
thanked Councilmembers for their feedback and suggestions.
As included in
his e-mail comments, Mayor Roe opined that this updated code was more user
friendly for the public and developers, as well as for staff’s enforcement;
noting this was especially evident in the dynamic sign sections.
discussion included the intensity of signs and from where that brightness was
Receive Status Update on Nextdoor.com
Malinen provided a brief update on the community building website,
ww.nextdoor.com, as detailed in the RCA dated May 14, 2012. Mr. Malinen
provided additional updates since the report was prepared, with over 500
residents signed up as of Friday; and expressed his excitement about this additional
ability to communicate with citizens electronically, whether on a larger scale
or in specific areas, and consistent with Imagine Roseville 2025 goals
for active neighbors and a sense of community.
Pust suggested staff providing Councilmembers with a “talking point” when they
were asked for information by citizens.
Malinen advised that there was a link on the City website, and while staff had
previously provided that information to Councilmembers, he would see that it
was done again.
Pust further suggested a “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)” section on the City
website for the public as well as the link.
McGehee opined that, from her contact with a number of residents not thrilled
with this effort, she was personally not pleased with its implementation, as
she expressed on several occasions, further opining that it did not foster
neighborhoods, and wasn’t much different than Face Book or a chat line. Councilmember
McGehee opined that, if people didn’t want it, they shouldn’t use it. Councilmember
McGehee opined that the City’s involvement should have been minimal, since it
was part of a thesis project for a student at Bethel University, and cautioned
the City from supporting a private corporation that would ultimately be
maintained through advertising. Councilmember McGehee opined that this was not
something sought by the citizens of Roseville or understood by many, and
therefore, the City shouldn’t be in the position of doing this. Councilmember
McGehee opined that this is not how to build community, and that neighborhood
had asked to be recognized as neighborhoods, not drawn out in a grid section on
a map with fifteen (15) different units.
agreed with Councilmember McGehee‘s first comment, that “if people don’t want
it, they don’t need to use it.” Councilmember Pust opined that it was her
understanding that a neighborhood could be defined by a neighborhood, since it
only took ten (10) neighbors to form a neighborhood. Councilmember Pust opined
that the fact that the City provided fifteen (15) areas, based on the Park
Master Plan constellation concept made no difference to her personal
neighborhood’s definition; but she noted that within with nestdoor.com concept,
there was great flexibility. Councilmember Pust clarified that this was a
private effort, and not under the direct control of the City.
Malinen advised that the use of the fifteen (15) park constellations proved of
benefit to the City for those wanting to receive notice from the City, and
advised that it had been used on a limited basis to-date. Mr. Malinen advised
that it provided yet another communication tool for the City; and the original
intent in providing the constellations was to ensure everyone was covered,
since time was of the essence. Mr. Malinen noted that there was the ability to
create neighborhood groups within those constellations and on a smaller basis;
and noted that the process and effort was continually evolving and hopefully
McGehee spoke to the concept of organizing individual neighborhoods; and also
spoke to her interpretation of misconceptions provided by Mr. Malinen about the
Malinen disputed those perceptions; noting that it was part of staff’s attempt
to follow-up on something initiated with the Imagine Roseville 2025 community
visioning process six (6) years ago, and simply represented another
discussion included limited number of transmissions and misconceptions about
the number and type of postings from the City itself; and its availability
and/or interest of segments of the population for this type of communication.
At this point,
Councilmember McGehee stated that she had one additional question. However,
Councilmember Pust moved to end the discussion. Mayor Roe informed
Councilmember McGehee that Councilmember Pust’s motion terminated any further
discussion, seconded the motion, and called for a vote.
Ayes: Pust; and Roe.
14. City Manager Future
Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items.
anticipated that the Wal-mart discussion would take a considerable amount of
time for the May 23, 2012 meeting, and suggested that any items (e.g. sign
ordinance) be deferred to a future agenda to facilitate that discussion.
Items for Future Meetings
Pust moved, Roe seconded,
adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:23 pm.
Ayes: Pust; McGehee; and Roe.