CC_Minutes_2013_1014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City of SEVILLE Minnesota,USA Regular City Council Meeting Minutes City Hall Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Monday, October 14, 2013 1. Roll Call Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 p.m., welcomed everyone and made introductions. Voting and Seating Order: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe. Interim City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present. Mayor Roe noted that Coun- cilmember Etten had previously advised that he would be unavailable for tonight's meet- ing due to work commitments. 2. Approve Agenda Councilmember McGehee requested removal for comment or question of Consent Agen- da Items 7.g and h, respectively entitled, "Approve Agreement with Ramsey County Bench Program;" and"Receive 2013 Third Quarter Financial Report." McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of the agenda as amended. Roll Call Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; McGehee; and Roe. Nays: None. 3. Public Comment Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. a. Jim Palewicz, 1489 Woodlyn Avenue Mr. Palewicz presented neighborhood concerns regarding an absentee landlord renting a single-family home to students at 1493 Woodlyn Avenue. As a bench handout, Mr. Palewicz presented written concerns dated September 4, 2013, from the neighbors, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and their perception that the landlord was taking advantage of the block and the City of with exceeding the allowable number of tenants according to City Code. Mr. Palewicz noted that the ongoing problem with an excess number of automo- biles parked at the home had been somewhat corrected with several now parked in the garage and not all located on the street. Mr. Palewicz noted that the landlord had done some remodeling over the summer, adding egress windows in the base- ment to apparently include two additional bedrooms, also against City Code. Mr. Palewicz stated that he and the neighbors found this aesthetically negative remod- el on the front of the house, the additional traffic, and general situation prohibitive to the neighboring properties and their values.