View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
May 15, 2017
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 5:30 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: Willmus,
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. City Manager Trudgeon was present with
Councilmember Willmus arriving at approximately 5:42
p.m.; and City Attorney Mark Gaughan present for the business portion of the
2. Pledge of
3. Approve Agenda
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the agenda as presented.
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
4. Public Comment
Donations and Communications
Items Removed from Consent Agenda
Interview Commission Applicants – Planning Commission (1 Vacancy)
conducted interviews of those applicants in attendance: Larry Ragland, Joseph
Ayers-Johnson and Jumi Kassim; with regular business items taken in the interim
between candidates as time allowed.
Review Ramsey County’s 2018 Assessed Market Value Report
detailed in the staff report, Finance Director Chris Miller provided updated
information, noting that over the last eight months, there had been a 5.13%
increase in Roseville’s overall market value (tax base). Mr. Miller also noted
median-valued, single-family homes were projected to increase 4.3% in value as
Roe noted that as the city’s overall tax base grew as a whole, it translated to
a broader way to divide the city levy, when median property values are growing
at a rate less than that overall tax base, creating less of an impact to those
median properties’ taxes. However, Mayor Roe cautioned that individual
properties could experience changes in property tax depending on their specific
circumstances and beyond those generalities for 13,000 plus parcels making up
that picture in Roseville.
McGehee noted that the city has little control in that differential between
residential and commercial properties.
Director Miller responded that over the last 30-40 years, the housing and
commercial/retail markets had reacted differently and with the shifts both
ways, they tended to even out over time.
this year, Mayor Roe noted that the shift tended toward the commercial property
the benefit of the public, Mayor Roe noted that this report was available on
the Ramsey County Assessor’s website.
the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Miller advised that historically the
city hadn’t provided a link on the city’s website to this information, but
offered to consider doing so.
Approve Consent Agenda
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly highlighted those items being
considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for
Council Action (RCA) and related attachments dated May
Approve Youth Commissioner to Human Rights, Inclusion and
Engagement Commission (HRIEC)
Etten seconded, appointment of Elizabeth Hansel to serve as a Youth
Commissioner to the HRIEC until the expiration of her term on July
Willmus noted that, from time to time, conversations were held regarding youth
commissioners serving on them and whether there was a need for cursory
background checks for adults serving on those commissions with them.
Councilmember Willmus noted this service frequently involved service in
settings and situations outside the control reviews of the city that could have
potential issues when putting minors in contact with adults.
Manager Trudgeon noted that this was an excellent point and well taken, since there
are currently no background checks being done, even though this was a standard
practice for other organizations with youth commissioners (e.g. athletic
organizations), and opined that it should be done in the city as well. Mr.
Trudgeon advised that he and City Attorney Gaughan would consult on a draft
polity and changes to forms as applicable for commissions working with youth to
provide for background checks of those adults. Mr. Trudgeon opined that the
city needed to take this seriously, and assured the City Council that staff was
fully supportive of doing so.
Willmus specified that he was looking for any flags germane to an adult’s work
with youth, not speeding tickets. Etc.
Etten spoke in support of this as a great idea.
Laliberte spoke in support of this appointment, but noted when this group meets
later this week they will discuss posting of youth vacancies for the next
school year. Under those circumstances, Councilmember Laliberte asked if the
City Council wanted to pause that process to put this policy in place.
Roe noted that other youth commissioners were already serving; and would be
implemented for those coming on at a later date.
Roe advised that he had reached out to the other Human Rights Youth
Commissioner, Gabe Cedarberg, for similar appointment to this commission, but
had received no response and took that to mean he wasn’t interested in serving
in that capacity until the end of his HRC term on July 31 since he was moving
on to post-secondary education opportunities.
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Resolution Opposing Small Cell Legislation for the Use of Public
Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11419 (Attachment A) entitled,
“Regulation Opposing the Proposed Legislation Regarding Unregulated Access to
Public Rights-of-Way for Installation of Small Cell Wireless Equipment and
Antenna Systems;” directing staff to forward the resolution to local
representatives and the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) to add the City of
Roseville’s support to this opposition.
Laliberte sought the plan of action to communicate this resolution of
opposition to legislators.
this legislation remained a moving target, City Manager Trudgeon advised that
the intent was to alert committee chairs and the Governor’s office. Since
there were a number of cities passing similar resolutions, Mr. Trudgeon opined
that it shouldn’t be a surprise when they also hear Roseville’s voice of
Business Items (continued)
Receive 2018 – 2037 Capital improvement Plan (CIP)
Director Chris Miller reviewed the 2918 budget process timeline, including
tonight’s scheduled presentation of the 2918-2037 CIP update.
McGehee thanked staff for preparing this information, opining that tonight’s
packet was the best yet received, especially the individual department detail,
making the budget process much more transparent.
Director Miller thanked Councilmember McGehee for recognizing that extra effort
as staff continues to be more responsive to the needs of the public, City
Council, working in conjunction with the Finance Commission’s advisory
support. Mr. Miller noted that the goal was to provide sufficient information
for good decision-making, and asked for additional feedback and comments to
continue making the process better.
Director Miller provided a brief overview of the details contained in the Request
for Council Action (RCA) of today’s date and attachments, including highlighted
areas needing the City Council’s attention, both property tax supported and
fee-supported funds. Mr. Miller focused on five specific areas as follows:
§ CIP summary (page 2, line
37) and available funds to cover those capital needs based on current funding
(page 3, lines 44 – 51);
§ Analysis of
tax-supported asset replacement funds highlighting three funds and their status
requiring more discussion (page 3, line 54 – page 5, line 20);
§ Analysis of
fee-supported asset replacement funds highlighting four funds and their status
requiring more discussion (page 6, line 123 – 143 for communications, sanitary
sewer, storm sewer and golf course);
§ Funding strategies
(page 7-8, line 144 – page 8, line 199); and
§ Property tax impacts (page
9, line 207 – page 10, line 220).
Willmus requested additional information of dollar deficit in addition to
percentage projections for 5, 10 and 20 years out. Finance Director Miller
noted that the 2018 – 2019 plans laid that information out for City Council
consideration in addressing those deficits, but would also be coming back with
additional information as requested, for City Council attention.
Strategies and Impacts
Director Miller noted the four staff recommendations (line 166 – 196) based on
the more detailed information and going forward.
terms of the $160,000 tax levy increase recommendation, Councilmember McGehee asked
about the type of impact that would create. Finance Director Miller advised
that such a small increase could be absorbed without much notice by homeowners,
even though it would increase the levy and be in conjunction with other levy
needs also coming before the City Council for consideration.
Roe noted that such an increase would represent approximately a 1% increase
from the current levy, and possibly even less when combined with other
looking at potential funding sources and keeping healthy fund balances beyond
the policy target of each, Councilmember Willmus sought further discussion by
Finance Director Miller related to potential strategies to reallocate dollars
from one fund to another.
Director Miller noted that this was a possibility at the City Council’s
discretion for any repurposing or reallocating of funds, but cautioned that
there were trade-offs in taking that step. Mr. Miller noted that, at least for
the 5, 10 and 20 year CIP, it would look more problematic, but on a conceptual
level, agreed with Councilmember Willmus’ potential strategy.
another perspective, Mayor Roe asked for additional information from staff by
running projections from various funds if current balance funds were
reallocated in 2018, and whether or not those funds would remain healthy for
the 20 year long-term picture or whether reallocation in 2018 would end up with
the funds looking better from that same long-term view; or how viable such
reallocation was in solving issues in the short- and long-terms.
Willmus opined that by carrying it over for five years, it could potentially
put a dent in the long-term picture.
Director Miller expressed appreciation for this discussion early-on in the
process; but also asked the City Council to provide staff with any long-term
levy targets moving forward to inform staff as they prepare their recommended
Willmus stated that, as staff carried forward additional analyses and the
bigger picture was known as to reallocation of funds in dollar format would
look, then he would consider himself in a better position to provide a target
Roe noted that all available funding didn’t need to be reallocated in 2018.
Director Miller clarified that staff was looking for City Council feedback on
any or all of the four funding recommendations for implementation going
forward, with built-in assumptions and inflationary impacts. However, if they
were approved, Mr. Miller noted that they did represent a future City Council
decision with tax levy increases and therefore, making them unable to provide
as much property tax relief as they may prefer and creating difficult decisions
for the City Council over the next few years.
Tax Impact (page 9, line 207 – page 10, line )
the conclusion of his presentation, Finance Director Miller advised that
Department Heads were available in the audience to respond to more detailed
questions of information needs of the City Council, with tonight’s presentation
designed to provide more information for the five-year CIP term. Mr. Miller
asked that the City Council seek answers to any immediate questions or policy
direction to staff at this point in the budget and CIP process.
City Council Discussion
to levy thoughts, Councilmember McGehee reiterated her past preference against
a flat utility fee across the board. Councilmember McGehee opined that it
would make it more fair, and further opined that the current utility rate
structure did not provide an equitable situation for meeting CIP needs and was
onerous to some residents less able to pay current and projected increased
Director Miller clarified that Councilmember McGehee was advocating for a shift
cost from base fees to usage fees.
Willmus expressed appreciation for the manner in which this year’s CIP
information was packaged – both short-and long term views, as previously
requested by Councilmember McGehee when suggesting a 5-year CIP view.
Etten also expressed appreciation for the information provided and the work of
departments in preparing it, providing residents and the City Council with a
better understanding. However, Councilmember Etten noted that particularly the
item by item descriptions by department were not always consistent and easy to
follow from one department to the other (e.g. vehicle replacement) and asked
that staff provide that more in-depth information by department and fleshed out
McGehee agreed with Councilmember Etten’s suggestion, noting that it created a
huge learning curve in deciphering the information and in being able to ask
Roe referenced the various graphs provided by staff incorporating those revised
funding solutions as staff recommended, and spoke to the General Facilities
Replacement Fund specifically (page 8). Mayor Roe noted problem years (e.g.
2023, 2031 and 2032) with replacement of rooftop HVAC units; asking that the
particular facilities be provided as part of the detail for additional
information. Mayor Roe asked that staff provide that detail via a follow-up
memorandum not currently provided in this report. Further, Mayor Roe noted
that in 2023, the graph runs negative again, and asked for additional
information on what created that, whether it was condition-related or whether
staff could address how analyses and impacts would determine whether
replacement to a different year would impact the CIP, especially with
replacement of rooftop HVAC units in 2023.
the Parks Improvement Fund graph (page 9), with proposed changes, Mayor Roe
noted that it still looked better, with the exception of larger peaks in 2019
(courts, gyms and playgrounds) and in 2023 (Lexington Park restrooms and
Central Park Lexington marquee sign). Once again, Mayor Roe asked that staff
look closer at those two specific years and peaks, and if they could recommend
things that could be done to help that situation.
Roe noted that there may be other situations for staff to address as well, but
those two had come to his attention.
the 2020 end date for the levy for City Hall and Public Works bonds, Mayor Roe
asked Finance Director Miller to clarify the remaining amount; with Mr. Miller
responding that the refinanced amount remaining was approximately $765,000. As
an exercise if that entire amount was applied in 2020, Mayor Roe asked what
that did to that particular graph.
2018 Project/Initiative Summary Narratives (Attachment A)
Roe Mayor Roe asked about the fuel tank replacement (page 30) and suggested
further analysis by staff not on the expenditure itself, but at the yard,
efficiencies of the operation in light of the recent space study; and whether
if replacement of those tanks in the same location was the best solution or
whether consideration of relocating them would help with site efficiencies.
to the sanitary sewer vehicle – 1-ton flat bed crane used for equipment and
pump replacement as needed (page 48), Mayor Roe asked staff for further
analysis on the frequency of use and whether or not it made sense to rent
versus buying the equipment.
Works Director Marc Culver responded that staff would further analyze this
equipment, especially since it isn’t used every day; however, Mr. Culver also
noted that it wasn’t something staff could access and rent when needed for an
emergency situation at 3:00 a.m., but instead served as a $40,000 insurance
policy for the city.
response to the fuel tank, since this report was prepared, Mr. Culver advised
that staff had assessed the fuel tank for corrosion or other issues, and had
determined that they will push off its replacement for a few more years in the
CIP than as currently projected. At this time, Mr. Culver advised that staff
was still considering replacement, with the pumps and island remaining. While
the tanks are underground, Mr. Culver advised that their locations could be
reviewed, but with the pumps and overhead canopy not scheduled as part of that
replacement, relocating the tanks may not provide any cost-savings overall.
McGehee asked about the booster station rehabilitation (page 46), some of which
is not included in the CIP. Councilmember McGehee stated that she was a
proponent of finding out project details to determine whether or not doing part
of a job to make it look nice, but not supporting the full project now to avoid
additional costs if the job isn’t done right or completed correctly the first
time, might result in additional costs at a later time.
Culver reported that, based on the current consultant contract as approved, it
included phasing of projects, but offered to further analyze any cost savings
as suggested. Mr. Culver advised that his primary concern was with the aging
back-up generator that may require more extensive updating, which would then
determine phasing and staging accordingly to make sense of the project. Mr.
Culver reported that the city would be spending the majority of the money in the
next two years, because it was vital to do so, emphasizing the importance of
the booster station in the delivery of water to the city.
McGehee noted a number of items at the new Fire Station (e.g. new chairs and
kitchen countertop) and questioned why replacement was required so soon or if
they were inexpensive to begin with or not being cared for properly.
Manager Trudgeon responded that this was a live and learn situation and
confirmed that the original items were not of the highest quality when
installed. Mr. Trudgeon noted that, while this building was used 24/7 and took
considerable wear and tear, the items and materials chosen should have provided
more longevity for the amount of use they had experienced. However, Mr.
Trudgeon advised that he had looked at the items and agreed that they were in
need of replacement.
McGehee noted that she had numerous questions on new expenditures shown for the
Fire Station gym as well, and while understanding that they were necessary for
training and exercise purposes, questioned these expenditures compared to the
same type of area used by the Police Department. Councilmember McGehee also
questioned if the two departments could share one gym.
Manager Trudgeon again confirmed that these items were critical for the
performance and long-term health of firefighters, having the room and equipment
available to them 24/7 allowed training at any time of the day or night as
their schedules allowed and as they were available. At the request of
Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Trudgeon recognized the need for durable item given
its extensive use in the Fire Station to avoid frequent replacement.
all the items detailed in lines 40-50, Mayor Roe noted that only one
represented ongoing operating cost, and that was the image trend integration
equipment that added an additional $1,500 annually to operating costs. Mayor
Roe thanked staff for including that good information and that level of detail.
not having reviewed too much of the more detailed information at this point,
Councilmember Laliberte asked that staff look at equipment not used on a
regular basis to determine if other opportunities were available to share with
other entities or through public/private partnerships that could still be at
the ready and possible for cost-sharing.
Manager Trudgeon concurred, and clarified that staff performed those cost-share
opportunities as much as possible, but often the necessary equipment may not be
available for immediate use if and when needed. However, Mr. Trudgeon agreed
to keep that suggestion in mind.
per his previous discussions with City Manager Trudgeon, Mayor Roe noted his
appreciation of the plus/minus comparison information for 2018, noting that
this also shifted things in later years for the 20-year CIP picture as well.
Therefore, Mayor Roe asked staff to prepare a 1-2 page summary of major changes
resulting over that long-term picture as decisions are made to shift capital
items, especially those larger ticket items beyond the 5 year picture.
noted by Finance Director Miller, City Manager Trudgeon asked the City Council
for any additional guidance, particularly staff’s funding recommendations, as
the budget process moves forward and whether or not those four items were
within the City Council’s comfort parameters or if individual council members
had different thoughts.
McGehee stated her comfort level with staff’s recommendations.
this stage, Councilmember Laliberte stated her comfort with the
recommendations. However, with recommendation #4 (OVAL improvements),
Councilmember Laliberte noted the dependence on legislative representation; and
suggested staff update and begin telling the facility’s regional draw rather
than relying on past presentations and information.
Roe agreed that staff should prepare to start that process as soon as possible,
especially for the city’s legislative delegation.
terms of resilience, Councilmember McGehee agreed that regional support from
the legislature was necessary to avoid big changes to the facility and its
operations without that support.
Manager Trudgeon advised that both he and Parks & Recreation Director
Lonnie Brokke had already initiated informal discussions with state
representatives, and had participated in webinars about the legislative process
itself. Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff was looking harder at the equipment
and its useful life in order to create narratives for additional
conversations. Mr. Trudgeon noted the need to gear up for the right timing
cycle for bonding years with that narrative and why the OVAL was important to
the region. As the process moves forward, Mr. Trudgeon noted that it would
involve a group effort, including involvement of the City Council.
Laliberte echoed Mayor Roe’s comments; noting the need to start sooner rather
Consider License Center Proposed Lease Terms and Expansion Option
detailed in the RCA, Finance Director Miller provided a brief summary and City
Council decisions to discontinue efforts to secure a new site to address
License Center space needs as well as those of other city functions. Mr.
Miller noted that License Center staff was also present to answer any
noted in the RCA, Mr. Miller reported on negotiations with the current landlord
for a long-term lease resulting in the culmination of those discussions as outlined
for a 5 year lease (page 1) and subsequent negotiations with two options
available (page 2) for existing space and for an approximately 1,600 square
foot addition (Option 2). Mr. Miller noted the increased lease amount,
reflective of new market realities based on similar properties owned by the
Director Miller reviewed financial impacts for the city for both options, as
well as referencing recent tours of the License Center by council members to
observe impacts for the passport and license functions and their separation as
mandated. Mr. Miller noted the frequent long lines experienced by customers,
many of whom chose to leave and go elsewhere representing a negative customer
service experience that they would remember, as well as a loss of revenue for
this city function. Mr. Miller asked that the City Council authorize staff to
explore the additional space option to return customer service levels back to
where they used to be and to serve customers more effectively and further expand
the City Council chose to retain the existing space or to allow for expansion,
Mr. Miller noted the outdated and no-longer-functional aspects of numerous
capital items as outlined on page 2, lines 45-58. Mr. Miller also addressed
increased business volumes and revenues even with limited space and amenities.
However, Mr. Miller noted the longevity and commitment of staff at the License
Center who were ultimately responsible for continuing to make this a
revenue-positive function of the city and take advantage of opportunities. Mr.
Miller sought the City Council’s guidance on the lease option to pursue and
their support for expanding the space and/or undertaking capital improvements.
Willmus referenced a presentation by License Center staff last year providing a
breakdown of revenue for corporate customers (auto dealers) versus walk-in
customers; and asked if that picture had changed at all.
Director Miller advised that the two areas continued to strengthen and with
additional space, the city would be positioned to grow even more, both with
passports and auto dealer work. However, Mr. Miller advised that staff was
currently limited in their ability to recruit any new auto dealers without
additional space and staffing, even though those corporate customers were the
money-makers compared to everyday walk-in traffic.
Willmus asked Mr. Miller to address how he envisioned allocating the proposed
$250,000 investment of the License Center.
this point, Mr. Miller advised that if the City Council authorized expanding
the space, the first priority would be the passport service counter in order to
address privacy and accommodate more than two customers at once. With an L-shaped
counter, Mr. Miller stated that he saw that service capacity double to 4-5
customers at once. Of next highest priority, Mr. Miller advised that would
involve finding a way for dedicated staff to serve auto dealers that would
allow more auto dealers to be served when customer service was improved.
the motor vehicle side, Mr. Miller advised that customer service privacy is not
being addressed at this time, either at the customer service counter or for the
flow of customers. Specific to service counters, Mr. Miller noted the need to
better segregate those services requiring more time from those shorter
transactions (e.g. license tabs versus drivers license renewals) to avoid choke
points due to the current actually physical layout. While expansion and/or
redefining the space could be done on parallel tracks, Mr. Miller also noted
the need to remain mindful of customer disruptions so as not to lose any more
Willmus asked where things were at with potential relocation of the existing
tenant in the space identified for expansion.
Mr. Miller reported that the tenant in that space was aware of the city’s
interest in the space as it evolved during acquisition discussions. While the
existing tenant had rights even with a month to month lease, Mr. Miller advised
that he was not prepared at this point to define the city’s exposure without
further discussion with City Manager Trudgeon and the city’s real estate
Manager Trudgeon advised that he and Finance Director Miller had spoken with the
landlord and everyone was aware that once the lease was set to be executed, it
would effectuate changes, including improvements for the lease space that would
require city participation as well as legal obligations for the city. While
that cost remains only a guess at this point, Mr. Trudgeon advised that he
would expect more refined information and dollars as part of identified capital
costs moving forward.
a follow-up to an earlier comment made by Finance Director Miller,
Councilmember Laliberte sought clarification about if and when additional staff
had been added to address projected auto dealer business growth.
Director Miller clarified that additional staff and auto dealer services had
been added, but that growth had a ceiling, creating the current dilemma that
there was no space available to add another body or work station to handle any
additional workload or to bring in more revenue. Mr. Miller further clarified
that the physical space limitations involved that additional work station, as
typically auto dealers dropped off a mass of work at once, or staff may pick up
or drop off that work at their place of business to further accommodate them,
depending on the situation.
McGehee stated that she was impressed with how well the License Center was run
over the last few years and Finance Director Miller’s vision and guidance in
doing so. From her personal perspective, Councilmember McGehee stated that
she’d like to receive additional information and costs for expansion and
relocation of the existing tenant, but recognizing that the License Center Fund
had sufficient funds for the improvements and enough reserve remaining after the
remodel, she considered it a safe bet that it would improve customer service
and flow. Councilmember McGehee opined that as staff worked in the space, they
would best understand the flow and knew what was needed to get the job done
right. Councilmember McGehee opined that this was a good opportunity and
further opined that the city was fortunate to be able to remain in the same
location that customers had come to expect.
Etten spoke in support of Option 2, and expressed his appreciation of the work
done by staff; opining that all residents and customers to the License Center
knew that more space was needed. Councilmember Etten sought clarification from
Finance Director Miller on whether the $250,000 potential investment included
relocation costs for the existing tenant.
Director Miller reiterated that his estimate was broad, but suggested
relocation costs may be separate to and in addition to those costs. Mr. Miller
clarified that the direction staff was seeking from the City Council was how
much of an investment they were interested in authorizing. Mr. Miller noted
that a space needs analysis had been done, but not any architectural or
interior design estimated, as staff considered that premature at this point
until having this conversation. Mr. Miller advised that the License Center had
approximately $1 million in reserve, so the $250,000 expenditure should go a
long way, and may end up less than that estimate, given the amount of
value-engineering that could be done between now and then.
Etten noted that the operating surplus from the License Center had been used by
the city for the last few years to reduce the General levy, and asked Finance
Director Miller if and how this would affect that ability.
Director Miller advised that he was sensitive to that situation, and with
$300,000 in surplus revenue taken annually over the last few years to support
other city services/programs, he recognized the potential to cut into that
amount of surplus annual given the double lease amounts over a period of time.
However, Mr. Miller stated that he was hopeful that revenue growth would more
than accommodate that increased expense, but would be assessed over the next
few years in reality. Mr. Miller noted that any significant revenue gains
would probably remain stagnant for the next few years in the short-term until
the new business model is implemented. Mr. Miller noted the importance of
improved space for customers and the frustration for License Center staff to
watch lines going out the door for those customers waiting for a passport, and
with money ready to be spent but frequently seeing those customers walk away
due to the poor customer service and/or long wait lines.
Center Supervisor Pam Ryan reported that, as part of the Deputy Registrar
Association, she was very aware of the Real ID situation with a lobbyist
continually watching legislative discussions and actions. If and when Real ID
happened, Ms. Ryan assured council members and the public that the Roseville
License Center was ready to do staff training for this potentially longer
drivers license transaction.
additional space is made available and space reconfigured, Councilmember
Laliberte asked Ms. Ryan if staff would be prepared for that additional
increased burden for both passport and drivers license functions as of January
1, 2018; with Ms. Ryan responding affirmatively.
Director Miller reported on and reviewed the results of further discussions he
and City Manager Trudgeon had with Gaughan (landlord) on the timing of space
renovations including relocation of the existing tenant into another open space
in the mall; and timing for the city to complete specifications and secure the
additional 1600 square feet by hiring additional professional services for
those drawings. Mr. Miller reiterated that staff was awaiting City Council
direction before moving forward.
Councilmembers noting several issues involving the physical property itself,
Finance Director Miller noted that staff had already alerted Gaughan of
expectations for improvements with some already planned for the facility,
including parking lot improvements and exterior branding for Roseville and the
License Center itself to receive distinction from other leased space at the mall.
Ryan further noted the importance for that distinction for License Center staff
to be recognized as city employees by the public.
Laliberte noted the need for the License Center’s interior space to also
reflect that City of Roseville branding immediately noticeable by customers
(e.g. decal on the back wall to identify Roseville) and to avoid taping notices
all over the facility.
Director Miller advised that staff had already had internal discussions about
the appearance of the interior, and about the possibility of identifiable
clothing for staff at the License Center for immediate recognition by
on conversations to-date, Councilmember Willmus offered his support of securing
the lease and looking hard at additional space.
McGehee offered her support of moving forward at this time.
moved, Etten seconded, authorizing staff to finalize lease negotiations with
Gaughan enter into a lease under Option 2 with the additional square footage as
detailed by staff in the RCA of today’s date.
Roe clarified, with confirmation by City Manager Trudgeon, that upon approval
of this motion, the next steps would be for staff to seek and bring back
information to proceed with specifications for design work from an
architectural firm for City Council approval of final design.
the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon clarified that bids would be
sought for the actual construction work itself; estimating that staff would
return in June for additional discussions based on tonight’s action.
Mayor Roe recessed
the meeting at approximately 7:47 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 7:55
Review and Provide Comment on the Last Chapter of a Comprehensive
Technical Update to the Requirements and Procedures for Processing Subdivision
Proposals as Regulated in City Code, Title 11 (Subdivisions) (PROJ-0042)
Planner Bryan Lloyd provided a brief summary of tonight’s requested discussion
as a precursor to continuation of this subdivision review from the previous
City Council meeting.
McGehee opined that the City Council should give careful consideration to
several areas (e.g. street section) and attempt to make this code easier to
understand by including diagrams showing rights-of-way and curbs as simple
illustrations rather than eliminating that detail from city code and also
removing the ability for the general public beyond designers and planners to
fully understand city code.
Willmus asked at what point the Public Works Department would ensure that the
Design Standards Manual was completed and available for use.
Lloyd advised that the manual was being continually updated as changes or new
recommendations were received from the Planning Commission and City Council and
evaluated collaboratively throughout this entire review process.
McGehee opined that it was disheartening to reference the manual without it yet
RCA Exhibit C (continued)
Page 1, Section
182 (Chapter 1103.01: Street Plan)
McGehee stated her preference for including current language back into proposed
language to provide a broad statement of intent for this section.
Roe sought feedback from staff as to their rationale in revised versus current
Lloyd advised that a considerable number of those elements (e.g. reasonable
traffic circulation, new streets and their context, etc.) were addressed in the
Transportation Plan as part of the overall Comprehensive Plan Update; with the
idea to more succinctly summarize them and let those goals guide this as well.
that may be all well and good, Councilmember McGehee stated that there was
nothing left in the subdivision code to allow enforcement of findings when
Roe stated that he tended to concur with Councilmember McGehee that more
specificity may not be a bad thing.
Etten agreed that more specificity may be indicated, but sought confirmation of
staff’s acknowledgement that a lot of this is brought up in the comprehensive
Roe noted that with the comprehensive plan update still in process, there was
no guarantee what would end up in the revised transportation plan.
agreed, noting that it hadn’t been revisited in a while, and by simply
referencing those documents that could be in need of an update, she wasn’t sure
there was a process in place to make sure they’re relevant at all times they
were being relied upon.
speaking of the Pathway Master Plan, Councilmember Willmus sought clarification
as to which variation was being referenced, noting that the most recent plan
from his recollection had some rather interesting dynamics when last discussed.
Roe questioned if that document had actually been adopted by the City Council,
opining that the original 2008 Pathway Master Plan remained in effect.
Lloyd confirmed that, noting that it was included in the transportation plan
process for updating at this time.
Etten opined that this section wasn’t easy to understand in the current
language while the new language seemed to do so; and suggested that the
language of the current code in its entirety wasn’t necessary to carry over,
but some of the items could be included to make the revised language more
Roe suggested a hybrid, and used examples to include from current code, and
without objection, staff was so directed.
1 – 4, Sections 184 – 202 (1103.02: Streets)
these various sections, Mr. Lloyd advised that the effort was being sought to
make this more consistently address rights-of-way from the street.
Roe agreed with that intent, noting that what was being platted for
subdivisions was for rights-of-way and not streets.
McGehee suggested including something in the definition section to ensure that
anyone reading city code could easily determine what a particular street was.
Roe noted that there are some industry known terms, and therefore wasn’t sure
how they needed to be defined in city code, even in the definition chapter.
Lloyd advised that the rationale in leaning toward more technical terms is to
avoid any confusion, since many state and county roads or at least segments of
them had been turned back to the city and therefore.
Works Director Marc Culver responded that each of those street definitions were
clearly defined in the transportation plan; and in an effort to be efficient
and not duplicate definitions in numerous places, staff had chosen well-known
definitions in the plan, as indicated in Mayor Roe’s comments.
McGehee agreed to their use in the manual, provided illustrations were
Culver agreed that the Public Works Design Standards Manual could be enhanced
with illustrations as much as possible.
Laliberte asked Mr. Culver the expected process for adoption of that manual as
part of this subdivision code revision by the City Council or if it would
simply be amended and revised by staff. Councilmember Laliberte noted the continued
reference to and emphasize on a document that may not have the same approval
process for this and future City Councils.
his perspective, Mr. Culver advised that the intent was to remove the specifics
from city code to allow for more easy revision from the formal city code
ordinance adoption. Mr. Culver clarified that this was not to say if there
were more relevant items of concern, they would not come back to the City
Council for review and action; but at a minimum, any proposed changes would be
filtered through the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission
(PWETC). Mr. Culver noted that some of the elements were often of such
miniscule detail (e.g. pipe materials and/or sizes) that they had little to do
with a developer’s perspective of a new development beyond the actual cost for
them. Mr. Culver advised that many of those standards are already used that
are not currently in the existing subdivision code.
Roe suggested that the City Council was seeking assurance that from a general
perspective applicable things be taken into account in the subdivision code and
clearly stated. However, Mayor Roe noted that those specifics as to how
they’re put in place or best management practices or specifications in doing so
made more sense in the design manual with the code itself stating what was not
wanted to occur and addressed more generally with the finer points made in the
manual. As a council member, Mayor Roe stated that he didn’t necessarily need
to approve the design manual and periodic minor revisions to it.
Laliberte agreed with Mayor Roe’s comments, but clarified that she wanted to
ensure that so much was not being removed from city code that it bypassed an
Roe referenced this discussion to clarify that.
Willmus opined that as for the design manual, most things were already included
(e.g. road specifications as to types of grades and asphalt types, compaction
testing, etc.) and what he considered applicable for the manual, while the
higher level aesthetic view of a street something he’d seek to remain in city
Culver reviewed several examples on pages 2-3, including several sections being
deleted (e.g. Section 195 – 197) that were found redundant with other language
or no belonging in city code if and when they were a design standard element.
Mr. Culver clarified that, once this was more finalized based on feedback from
the Planning Commission and City Council and weekly review by the Planning and
Public Works Departments cooperatively, the subdivision code and design manual
would both be updated and once more solidified. At that point, Mr. Culver
advised that the design manual would be brought forward to the City Council not
necessarily for their formal action, but for information purposes.
McGehee agreed that the more of this went into the design manual the better
from a technical perspective.
Culver advised that staff would anticipate and continue to lead developers of a
subdivision to review both the city code and design manual as part of their
application; with staff intent on balancing both between technicalities versus
general information. In that aspect, Mr. Culver opined that tonight’s City
Council direction was helpful beyond staff’s perspective of what was too
detailed for city code and should be moved to the manual and vice versa.
Attorney Gaughan suggested that another way to think in terms of balance was
that this was a subdivision code involving divisions of land, with the
necessary elements of city code intended to address geometric configurations of
those lots from a subdivision application, where the radius of a turnaround may
be applicable in city code, as an example, while the actual composition of that
turnaround was more technical and should be addressed in the design manual.
Culver concurred, noting that the concept was being considered as to at what
point the city felt strongly enough that it would require a variance rather
than simply negotiating with staff on certain aspects, with those items clearly
identified as requirements in city code and not up for negotiation.
McGehee questioned how meaningful functional classifications would be if not
illustrated sufficiently. If something is mandatory, however, whether highly
technical or not, shouldn’t it be included in city code?
Etten opined that it would become more meaningful at the point when the
developer hires an engineer to plat it out. While the City Council won’t build
the road, Councilmember Etten opined that city code required teeth for a
process in place for any variances. While recognizing tonight’s discussion,
Councilmember Etten spoke in support of staff’s intent to leave specifics out
of city code for that purpose.
Willmus stated his complete agreement of what Public Works Director Culver was
speaking to for those things when provided for in ordinance no longer subject
to administrative negotiation, but considered a standard and expectation of
what a developer brought forward on site plans, surveys, and/or plats.
Councilmember Willmus agreed that those auxiliary items provided for in the
manual that didn’t rise to that level and including some discretion, were more
appropriate to the design manual versus those required as mandates in city
Laliberte expressed appreciation for this discussion and clarifications by
staff and City Attorney Gaughan.
to alleys (Section 200) no longer being permitted, Councilmember Etten asked if
there were not some existing areas in Roseville with alleys and if they were or
were not included in city code.
Culver responded that there were a few areas that shared private driveways, but
whether they were legally-defined alleys was a good question. However, at this
point going forward (new versus existing), Mr. Culver suggested that the focus
be on whether or not alleys should be considered for any future subdivisions or
Lloyd reminded council members that this subdivision addressed rights-of-way so
existing things in older parts of town would involve platted alley
rights-or-way or something similar; but stated that he was not aware of any
Culver confirmed Mr. Lloyd’s interpretation.
forward, Mr. Lloyd suggested that developments may include private drives that
functioned as alleys, but would not be regulated as rights-of-way.
4, Section 204 (Chapter 1103.021: Minimum roadway Standards)
an example in this section, Councilmember Willmus referenced the private road
near Slumberland and Olive Garden that served as a private drive off East
Snelling Service Drive and asked how that was distinguished in conjunction with
the Planning Commission recommendation on bike lanes; or in similar situations
where a private drive may provide access to 3-4 homes built to city standard
and including a bike lane.
Lloyd opined that the comment was intended in the context of streets in general
rather than specifically in the context of private drives.
Roe noted that this section states city “and” private roadways and therefore
refers to both.
Willmus opined that there should be some level of distinction and purpose
outlined for private roadways and/or drives to avoid significant loss of front
yards to provide a bike lane that may only service two homes.
a technical standpoint, Mayor Roe asked why this referred to existing private
roadways when the subdivision code by its very nature involved new construction
and didn’t address standards for reconstruction of roadways.
Lloyd advised that it related indirectly to Sections 205 – 208 when addressing
street width, not rights-of-way for parking arrangements, but minimum road
widths in various situations that would remain relevant. As an example, Mr.
Lloyd referred to a development application for subdivision made several years
ago where new lots would be created along a street with no on-street parking
and the nearest available parking would be a block or more away. Therefore,
Mr. Lloyd advised that this revised language provided a developer with the
expectation of street width to ensure new property owners and visitors would
have adequate parking.
Roe opined that he still didn’t consider reference to existing streets and
situations to be applicable in the subdivision code, nor “reconstruction of
existing streets” unless this is the only location in city code that they exist
(e.g. design manual) and asked that staff reconsider that when platting new
land that was not part of this subdivision code and if and where it needed to
Etten agreed with this discussion, noting that he had also been confused with
the reconstruction aspect.
speaking, Mr. Lloyd advised that when talking about a physical street width
rather than the importance of rights-of-way, that was the question rather than
how and why it was addressed in code; and advised that he and Mr. Culver would
discuss that further.
Culver noted that this came into play in several potential situations: when a
business reconstructs its parking lot to a certain percentage if not meeting
current standards it would now be required to do so; and the same could be said
for existing private streets not meeting current standards for parking and
minimum width. As it applies specifically to the subdivision code, Mr. Culver
advised that if one side of a street has yet to be developed, when a
development proposal came forward to do so, an existing street situation may be
found substandard to meet the needs of more development in that area.
Roe opined that there needed to be more clarity if that was the intent; whether
or not “existing streets” were addressed in the subdivision code versus design
his reading of subdivision code, City Attorney Gaughan opined that it
specifically included redevelopment in an area with existing streets. However,
Mr. Gaughan agreed that it didn’t make sense to use “existing” when discussing
reconstruction, and therefore suggested removing “existing” and leaving in
language “as constructed or reconstructed.”
Roe further suggested adding “as part of a subdivision” to the language as
5, Sections 214-215
McGehee asked for a better understanding of those areas proposed to be deleted
in the new subdivision code.
Lloyd referenced Mr. Culver’s previous comments that the current code language
deviated from current design standards, therefore setting up the city for
negotiation and an approval process. Mr. Lloyd advised that the suggestion was
to remove that making it become grounds for a formal variance process rather
than negotiated as part of that process.
McGehee stated her preference to retain it to allow developers to come forward
with more interesting ideas that, which while they may be a variation, would
not eliminate their possibility and serve as an option to consider beyond
Roe agreed to not having it allowed in code for negotiation, but allowing
developers who want to show some creative in their proposal, to then seek a
Culver clarified that at this point the only areas of discussion involved
cul-de-sacs and rights-of-way widths.
6, Sections 218 and 220 (Chapter 1103.03: Easements)
ensued regarding the width for standard utility easements (6’ on each lot for a
total of 12’); with more clarity sought for easements between lots and those
typically built in street rights-of-way, as well as clarifying “not all
Culver clarified that a dedicated pathway right-of-way or easement could be
through the center of a parcel, but the city would want to retain 20’ for an
8-12’ wide pathway and space on either side for its construction, grading and
maintenance; while 12’ centered is intended for drainage and utility easements
on side lots.
7, Section 227
Roe suggested adding “railroads” consistent with its reference with limited
access highways or marginal access rights-of-way and their screening.
8, Section 230
Roe noted that minimum rear yard width of 30’ had previously been included,
and was proposed to be removed, seeking rationale in doing so since it had come
up in several recent subdivision proposals.
Lloyd responded that this was consistent with Section 231 and other areas
addressing lot sizes, proposed to be relocated to the zoning code as most had
already been, consistent with this proposed removal from the subdivision code.
Lloyd opined that while this has not been an issue to-date, and since there
appeared to be no huge demand for them, suggested that “butt lots platted 5’
wider than average interior lots” no longer be included here or in the zoning
McGehee suggested a “period” after “residential development;” opining that if
this is intended as a technical document, it seemed unnecessarily aspirational.
Etten agreed with the attempt to guide lots when possible by allowing for that
potential guidance as long as the subdivision code remains an outline and
doesn’t get into too much specificity.
Roe and Councilmember Laliberte agreed, asking that it stay in; and without
objection staff was so directed to retain existing language.
9-10, Section 244
to flag lots, discussion ensued at the prompting of Councilmember Willmus as to
the intent in removing the second half of the sentence: “…not permitted.”
Lloyd advised that this, as well as the previous discussion with Section 238,
was simply intended to simplify language as recommended by the consultants, to
address conforming width along the front as being the area of most concern.
Willmus stated that he hated to prohibit large rectangular lots that may
conform to required width but if recombining lots may create an L-shaped lot or
two lots. As long as they met proper frontage at the street, Councilmember
Willmus spoke in support of allowing them.
Lloyd displayed an illustration of two lots and potential combinations; and
after further discussion, suggested that be addressed in city code as it had
been provided in existing code to get to that point.
Roe suggested that another way to get beyond flag lot language would be to say,
“… as long as both lots of any subdivision meet standards,” noting that the
code already didn’t permit front lots less than 85’ in width whether or not
the lots were wider at the rear.
Lloyd advised that consideration would be given to rewording or eliminating
that section (flag lots), noting that the language had been added back to the
subdivision code last summer to address lot size and shape parameters replacing
provisions that at that time were considered too simple and not clear as to
whether flag lots fell into those parameter or not.
Section 246, as pointed out by Councilmember Etten, Mr. Lloyd advised that this
section required more review and consideration for higher classification and
functionality for placement of driveway access on one street compared to
another with higher function.
Section 247, Mayor Roe questioned if the reference to screening should be
included in the subdivision code.
Lloyd thanked Mayor Roe for spotting that issue, noting that this needed
further staff review as well to address instances where a lot with streets in
front and back required latitude depending on varying lot depths, or how many
instances remained where they needed to be addressed.
Roe suggested it may refer to “through lots” not being permitted where access
was not allowed from both but only from one street or the other. However, Mayor
Roe noted there may be topography issues of a lot that may indicate a variance
situation (e.g. County Road B). Mayor Roe suggested that whether or not this
was a subdivision issue needed further staff review.
Roe noted that new language in Section 249 stating “… conforming to Title 10 of
this code” seemed obvious and suggested instead saying, “…while conforming…”
Section 251, Mayor Roe suggested further review of that language as well; and
suggested that this should perhaps be relocated after Item A on page 8, Line A
addressing lots for single-family detached residents and the infamous irregular
shaped lots to allow for easier tracking.
11-13, Sections 252 – 259, (1103-07: Park Dedication)
Section 253, Councilmember Willmus noted reference to state statute and asked
if proposed language mirrored that state statute.
Lloyd advised that it did mirror state statute language directly; noting that
staff had included the statute (Attachment E) in packet materials for
Willmus stated that he didn’t want to see this used as it had been in the past
as a point of negotiation to secure a potential development of some type.
Councilmember Willmus further stated that he wanted to make sure the
determination of how dollars or land determinations were made was done so with
input from the Parks & Recreation Commission and considered unique to each
potential subdivision that may come along. Therefore, Councilmember Willmus
stated his concern with trying to simplify language without addressing those
issues or to create a situation for a potential developer using construction of
a pathway around their development as their solution to meet park dedication
Lloyd noted that the language still clearly states that the choice would be at
the City Council’s discretion, as recommended by the Planning Commission versus
Roe stated that he didn’t see the risk here.
Etten stated that part of his concern was whether a developer may decide on
what their park dedication consisted of; and whether non-single-family
residents may be required to put it in anyway. As a part of this discussion
with other advisory commissions and staff, Councilmember Etten asked if the
Pathway Master Plan and pathway connectivity be included by reference beyond
state statute (e.g. Exhibit E. Item G) currently changed to “park system plan”
related to new land in general. While supportive of referencing the
comprehensive plan, Councilmember Etten opined that when you say “Pathway
Master Plan” you moved away from that intent when the intent was for park use
and funds for sidewalk connections that may not necessarily be the intent of
the state statute referencing park planning and moving in another direction
that he would not necessarily be comfortable with.
Attorney Gaughan directed the City Council’s attention to Subd. 2b of
particular attention to Exhibit E, parends b. While he hadn’t researched parks
and open space plan or pathway language completely at this point, Mr. Gaughan
clarified that was the authority allowing the city to pursue park dedication.
Therefore, Mr. Gaughan advised that the intent was that the city wanted to
review those plans and language of the comprehensive plan in addressing parks and
open space that would be a component of and referenced in this and other city
ordinances. As noted, while he had not yet personally reviewed those
documents, Mr. Gaughan advised that he would do so, based on his understanding
that the city had to-date been operating from that interpretation.
terms of the Master Plan and Park/Open Space Plan, Parks and Recreation
Director Lonnie Brokke advised that there was a section in the comprehensive
plan addressing parks/open space as referenced, with the goals and policies of
that section included there and also in the Parks Master Plan. As the
comprehensive plan update process moves forward, Mr. Brokke advised that those
goals and policies would be connected.
the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan confirmed that state statute
referenced a city’s comprehensive plan, and the park/open space component; and
suggested that this presented a good opportunity to review those particular
sections of those referenced documents. As to whether that reference included
the transportation section versus another section as noted by Mayor Roe, City
Attorney Gaughan suggested that reference in code should mirror that of state
statute for “Park and Open Space Plan.”
Roe asked if this addressed Councilmember Willmus’ and Etten’s concerns.
Willmus stated that it did in part; but his concern remained as to whether park
dedication money would be used by a developer to complete a sidewalk section
along a roadway or corridor and if so whether that then became Roseville
property or if city dollars were being expended for potential corridor
improvements for city collection of dedication fees on roadways not belong to
the city (e.g. county roads).
Roe noted that this was a current practice.
Etten questioned if that concern actually fell into state statute territory and
how those dollars were collected.
Manager Trudgeon referenced the last comprehensive plan update performed in 2009
that referenced the Pathway Master Plan that had been in progress at that time;
and included in the Parks and Open Space chapter of the comprehensive plan as
previously referenced by Mr. Brokke.
Attorney Gaughan suggested that it was important to note that the city had a
plan in place and that dedication dollars should be used to complete that
portion of the plan. If another project that is not part of that plan gets
into a grey area and whether or not it was an appropriate use of those monies,
Mr. Gaughan noted that it was important to keep in mind what current documents
say as to the appropriate use under the current plan.
Etten stated his thoughts to pull language out for sidewalks, since this caused
him concern that it would become a hole for money to go versus potential park
use that had been the intent of state statute when referring to park plans, not
Section B indicating that a capital improvement budget must be adopted or
comments on in the comprehensive plan. With the 2009 trail map having gone
through several discussions and updated, Councilmember Etten stated his concern
that by referencing it in the comprehensive plan, it quickly became dated and
may open up problematic doors when addressing park dollars and current needs,
opining that it wasn’t germane to park dedication statutes.
McGehee questioned how Councilmember Etten could consider pathways and trails
around and throughout the city not to be germane to parks. She emphasized the
desire of residents to have increased connectivity as to a subdivision
adjacent to an area needing improved connectivity; and part of the
transportation and recreation plans and needs.
Laliberte agreed that connectivity is a city priority; but if not included in
this subdivision code rewrite, asked if there was actually anything requiring
this section to be updated from current language. Councilmember Laliberte
stated that she found it to be an attempt to fix something that wasn’t broken
and over-prescribing this section versus other sections by bulking this section
up. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she’d be concerned with any future
development planning to provide that connectivity and using this section to
cover two things with one effort. However, if the City Council and Park and
Recreation Commission are already working together to connect any gaps,
Councilmember Laliberte opined that there was no need for the level of change
proposed in the new rewrite.
Roe stated that this got to his point that a lot of times developments plan for
a pathway along one or more streets that they pay for but the city gets the
reward of since it was located in city rights-of-way. Mayor Roe stated that
his only concern was that those may be used to offset park dedications; and if
language could be developed similar to that current language to address
technical issues and not trade-offs as a credit for the park dedication wanted
by the city, then he offered his support for reverting back to the original
noted in the RCA (page 1, section d), Mr. Lloyd advised that when a proposal
came forward for a trail or open space, it was considered available to the
public as a requirement by the city to consider it part of the park dedication
component whether calculated as land or cash.
Roe stated that was what he would argue against, but mandated in statute.
Attorney Gaughan clarified that this was not the case, and that the city could
refer to their plan; with the statute simply stating that the city would give
consideration to the fact the applicant proposes to do something on private
property, with the state statute not mandating but simply asking the city to
take that “into consideration.”
Roe stated that he read that as a financial consideration, with City Attorney
Gaughan advising that was not his reading.
Lloyd agreed with City Attorney Gaughan that it was at the city’s discretion
whether or not to accept a developer component as part of the park dedication
Attorney Gaughan advised that statute addressed that a subdivision application
could not be held up if there was a dispute over park dedication, and since
this may speak to that point, if an applicant disputes the city’s position on
dedication of an amount or other issue, the city couldn’t hold up approval of
the application but could proceed with a subsequent dispute resolution process.
Mr. Gaughan advised that the city was mandated to provide due consideration to
that part of the proposal in arriving at an appropriate city decision.
McGehee stated that she felt protected given the state statute and legal
counsel’s statements tonight in that the city would retain discretion as part
of the negotiation with a developer. Since she didn’t think anything better
could be written that would be more direct than current language, Councilmember
McGehee opined that current language should be retained as it provided
authority for the city to make decisions as it had done in the past, with
consistency but perhaps allowing for some flexibility in addressing
Laliberte stated that she would lean toward retaining current language, perhaps
with some tweaks to make it clearer and more functional. If the desire was to
hold the city accountable with how those funds are used in filling and/or
improving connectivity, Councilmember Laliberte suggested a City Council policy
for consideration outside this code and as mandated by state statute.
Etten stated that he was in agreement with the majority of Councilmember
Laliberte’s comments, with current code referencing the process with the Parks
& Recreation Commission’s recommendations to City Council. Councilmember
Etten expressed concern with proposed language focusing on state statute by
expanding definitions. While supporting connectivity, Councilmember Etten
expressed concern that as soon as those funds moved outside existing park space
or for expanding that park/open space, the money could disappear and not meet
other needs in the parks in addition to the millions of dollars needed for
pathway extensions and connectivity.
Roe clarified that he was not suggesting that money from park dedication funds
be used exclusively for pathways, but simply that building pathways was an
important component of a subdivision project in lieu of or as part of land or
dollars related to that subdivision. Mayor Roe clarified that it was not the
intent to use the park dedication fund to fund numerous pathways.
Willmus offered his agreement with Councilmembers Laliberte and Etten, in that
existing language was preferable. While realizing the intent of Mayor Roe,
Councilmember Willmus noted that a future body may look at something
differently, and therefore, preferred the current language over that proposed.
Roe stated that he supported that also; and with the consensus being to use
current language in the rewrite, pending legal tweaks, to direct staff to use
current language over that proposed.
Section 255, Mayor Roe asked that staff reconsider the sentence structure
Lloyd addressed Section 255, as addressed in the RCA (line 94) specific to
non-residential language that he found problematic in current language and
expectations for residential and commercial zoned designations and expectations
whether similar or distinct.
ensued, resulting in staff directed to review and consider new language for
Sections 255, 256 and 257, with current language retained for Sections 253 and
254; with specifics addressed in the annually reviewed fee schedule.
Attorney Gaughan noted the need to base these figures and calculations on state
law; with the city reasonably determining that a portion of the land is
necessary based on a particular application, and arrived at with the same level
of methodology, perhaps relating to differences in residential and commercial
that may be a perception, Councilmember Willmus referenced Langton Lake as an
example of commercial development but that park heavily used by those working
in businesses during their lunch breaks, referring back to the intent of the
Parks Master Plan as well.
Attorney Gaughan duly noted those variables, but cautioned the City Council to
keep it in mind.
Roe suggested that the inconsistency between land and cash was currently
notable and needed to be addressed better in residential areas.
Etten referenced the RCA (page 3) with the land option unchanged since its
creation in 1989 while cash fees have increased several times during that same
period. Therefore, Councilmember Etten spoke in support of bringing it up to
10% for residential as with the cash amount.
potential land changes were proposed, Councilmember Laliberte asked that staff
and the Parks & Recreation Commission bring back recommendations for the
Sections 253-254 (pages 11-12), City Manager asked for clarification about the
one acre threshold.
Lloyd addressed the relevant section in Section 254 in proposed language
stating “net increase of development sites comprising more than one acre of
Manager Trudgeon noted how that had been interpreted and applied in the past
and distinctions if smaller lots (under 1 acre) are then not required to pay
Roe interpreted this to mean before the overall site was subdivided; with
Councilmember Willmus interpreting it to mean for those parcels in excess of one
Attorney Gaughan reviewed actual existing code language to clarify
interpretations: “…when a new building site is created in excess in excess of
one acre,” indicating the net area.
Lloyd advised that the intent was for it to be the same but simply further
clarified with new language intended to provide consistency with how it had
been applied over the last years when a subdivision results in net area and not
simply addressing lots refigured.
Etten noted that there was nothing in state statute referring to one acre and
why that was being used as a threshold.
minor subdivisions, Councilmember Willmus expressed his concern that developers
and/or property owners not be required to seek additional financing to make
their proposal work due to park dedication requirements.
Roe noted discussions at the last meeting defining what qualified as a minor
subdivision under new language and if one acre, it could be stated that this
only applies to platting processes for that demarcation.
review, Mr. Lloyd noted that the proposed minor plat process didn’t specify
size thresholds nor did it provide a distinction for residential or commercial
properties, simply anything resulting in not more than three lots.
Roe noted that the one acre clarification was then still needed.
objection, Mayor Roe directed staff to fix the old language to match; with Mr.
Lloyd advising that was what the proposed language was attempting to
accomplish. Upon further discussion, Councilmember Willmus suggested, without
objection to state, “… total property involved greater than one acre and any
subdivision creating additional lots.
discussion ensued, with City Attorney Gaughan clarifying that all park
dedication decisions required a determination that there was a need created by
a particular project. In the scenario of a minor plat, Mr. Gaughan noted that
the City Council could, in its approval process, determine that there was no need
created for park dedication and part of the submission from staff when the
project came before the City Council would preserve some City Council
discretion for the project that may create a need based on geography of a
particular project and therefore an argument to consider park dedication.
Willmus continued to support his language that “park dedication is not
applicable unless subdividing one acre or larger.”
Lloyd clarified that this involved the starting parcel and not what is created;
with Mayor Roe noting that this still provided for discretion if there is a
need, but otherwise that it wasn’t on the table if less than one acre and no
Parks & Recreation Commission involvement if based on that need as stated.
Discuss Proposed Text Amendments to Roseville City Code, Chapter
Coordinator Dave Englund provided suggested revisions to Chapter 407, including
Mayor Roe’s suggested revisions to Section 407.02.G (Attachment A) and resident
feedback to-ate (Attachment C, with one additional comment provided as a bench
Roe – suggested combined discussion with next item – aspects addressing farm
animals – specifically pet pigs and goats
Revised Chapter 407 (Attachment B)
407.01: Definitions (lines 26-28)
Englund noted revisions to this section based on other city code.
407.02 – line 128
Roe noted his suggestion to move “non-domestic” in front of “animals.”
McGehee questioned if 300’ was sufficient for lots with bees and chickens, and
while it may be common it may not be realistic.
in existing language, Mayor Roe agreed that may be an issue with bees in that
300’ may require an exception as he addressed in his proposed language
(Attachment A). Mayor Roe clarified that city code had been silent as to
whether bees could be kept, but was now being addressed, stating that they
would not be allowed within 300’ of an adjacent lot.
noted by Councilmember Willmus, current code was also silent on whether
roosters could be kept, with the only stipulation related to noise that would
be addressed with the nuisance ordinance.
ensued with varying opinions, with the prevailing result suggested by
Councilmember Etten for a “period” after “bees” in line 130.
Etten corrected the end of this statement to “or” rather than “and.”
Etten noted that the reference to Section 407.02.A and “ground cover” was no
longer relevant related to backyard composting unless involving the
newly-created Item K created on line 231 (used to be Item C).
340 (hours to allow peddling)
ensued regarding times to allow peddling, with varying opinions expressed and
rationale for each.
Attorney Gaughan cautioned the City Council that, while it is true they can regulate
peddlers and solicitors, those regulations were required to be reasonable or
and often were subjected to litigation. Mr. Gaughan advised that 9:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. were too restrictive for the rights to solicit; with
typically 9:00 p.m. found to be allowable, but suggesting 8:00
a.m. to 8:00 p.m. would prove defensible if the intent was to be more
restrictive. Mr. Gaughan further noted that code specifically referenced a
homeowner’s right to notice that solicitors were not welcomed, but when it came
to governmental regulations, it was a different story.
objection, the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. as suggested by Councilmember
Willmus, were approved for staff to include in revised language accordingly.
lines 513-517, Mr. Englund advised that previous City Council discussions on
notice had not been clear, and therefore he had included both versions for
further review and preferred choice (Items 4 or 5)
Roe stated that he preferred Item 5 at 100%.
Willmus recalled that the discussion concluded in reverting back to something
other than a 100% majority, (e.g. 75% or a 2/3 majority).
Roe opined that it had actually never been resolved, thus the need to resolve
it now as noted by Councilmember Etten. Mayor Roe noted that in comparison to
the multiple dog ordinance, this did require a higher standard than that.
Etten agreed with the 75%.
objection, staff was directed to use Item 4.
Roe provided technical corrections to strike notice “… prior to consideration
by the City Council,…” since the City Council did not consider it with a
process outlined for staff consideration of a variance then applicable for
appeal to the City Council, and therefore should read accordingly.
Attorney Gaughan advised that he found the reference in line 507.a for clarity
and notices pursuant to Section 407.07.
Roe disagreed, noting that these variances were dealing with a nuisance not an
Attorney Gaughan advised that a variance could be requested after notice of
Roe questioned if the entire section (#2, line 510) should be struck; since
similar notice was addressed on lines 521-532.
Englund advised that he read it as a property owner who had been notified of a
nuisance on their property; and able to apply for a variance, but as noted by
Mayor Roe, if there was already a city code in place that they were seeking a
variance from, the nuisance may not yet exist.
Attorney Gaughan suggested a provision be included to that affect; since his
comments had considered an existing nuisance requiring abatement. Therefore,
Mr. Gaughan suggested retaining line 511, with notices as provided in Section
Attorney Gaughan suggested enumerating this as one provision; addressing
“notify” in line 521; “shall” in line 520; and “D” in lines 528-531 as a
starting point for appeals to move all under Section 407.01.
line 201 of the proposed changes, Councilmember Etten referenced public hearing
posting and questioned if that would be a violation of Item 5 in line 516 or if
it should be added as an Item 6 referring to large commercial vehicles.
ensued as to whether public hearings should be included in this section at all,
or whether only in the abatement section. Staff was directed to further review
whether line 201 should remain or be deleted.
City Code, Chapter 407.02.G Regulating Pigs and Goats
objection, at the suggestion of Councilmember Willmus, Mayor Roe directed staff
to defer this item to a future meeting on a date to be determined.
& City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements
Councilmember Initiated Future Agenda Items and Future Agenda
Mayor Roe asked
that the next meeting agenda include consideration by the City Council of a
text amendment for multi-family residential as a Regional Business Conditional Use
designation to move the process forward to the Planning Commission as soon as
Laliberte also noted her repeated requests to look at those parcels and areas
currently zoned high density residential (HDR) but not utilized to-date to see
if there were areas that should be rezoned. While recognizing that the city is
in the middle of its comprehensive plan update process, Councilmember Laliberte
questioned if that precluded the City Council from looking at those sites at
At the request
of City Manager Trudgeon, without objection, Mayor Roe confirmed that this
included a broader conversation about all designated HRD parcels.
Development Director Kari Collins advised that the Planning Commission would
begin land use discussions at their meeting next week as part of the
comprehensive plan update process. With their deeper dive into land use,
including HDR, Ms. Collins suggested that the City Council delay their
subsequent discussion until that initial commission feedback was available.
Mayor Roe duly
noted that suggestion.
Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, adjournment of the
meeting at approximately 10:00 p.m.