HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC_Minutes_2016_0718City of
1�1 �
�
Minnesota, USA
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
City Hall Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive
Monday, July 18, 2016
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating
Order: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon
and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present. Mayor Roe noted that, due to a
scheduling conflict, Councilmember Willmus did not expect to be available for tonight's
meeting.
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Approve Agenda
Mayor Roe advised that Councilmember Willmus had requested removal of Items 8.a and
8.b from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.
Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Item 8.c from the Consent Agenda for
separate consideration.
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.
Roll Call
Ayes: Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.
Nays: None.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda
items. No one appeared to speak.
5. Council and City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements
On a personal note, Mayor Roe offered a message of thanks to the Roseville Police De-
partment for their preparation and planning for and addressing potential contingencies to
the planned protest at Rosedale Center last Sunday. While the protest ended up being
cancelled, Mayor Roe noted the professionalism of the Roseville Police Department and
their partnering agencies had been very impressive. Mayor Roe noted the additional
strain on police departments around the metropolitan area as well as across the country;
and publically thanked public safety personnel for all they do on a daily basis, and in
light of current tensions.
Mayor Roe announced an upcoming community engagement meeting next week to gath-
er initial feedback in the process and issues specific to the SE portion of Roseville near
the Rice Street/Larpenteur Avenue intersection. Mayor Roe noted the intent was to begin
conversations and obtain feedback on opportunities, aspirations and the vision for that ar-
ea moving forward, and how various entities can work together to make that happen.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 2
Mayor Roe noted the City of Roseville was partnering with Ramsey County, the St. Paul
Area Chamber of Commerce, and the Cities of St. Paul and Maplewood for these conver-
sations and encouraged residents in all three municipalities to participate in revitalization
efforts in this area. Mayor Roe provided the logistics for the meeting, and sources to
gather additional information on line.
With the excessive heat and humidity, Councilmember McGehee reminded neighbors to
check on their neighbors, especially the elderly; and noted Police Chief Mathwig had
asked that residents contact the Fire or Police Departments if they have any safety con-
cerns. Councilmember McGehee advised that the Police Deparhnent and Fire Station or
other public buildings were available to cool off and seek assistance.
Councilmember Laliberte provided an update on the most recent meeting of the Cedar-
holm Club House Task Force, with ongoing compilation of numerous reports. Coun-
cilmember Laliberte advised a final report would soon be available, at which time a pub-
lic input meeting would be scheduled to seek feedback from the broader community.
Councilmember Laliberte reported that several more meetings were scheduled before that
final report and recommendations were submitted to the City Council. Councilmember
Laliberte thanked the Finance Commission for their ongoing participation and input.
Mayor Roe reminded the task force to make sure those public input opportunities were
well publicized as they came up.
City Manager Trudgeon reported that the City of Roseville had the honor to be the first
municipality in the country to be certified as a Service Enterprise Organization for its
volunteer management efforts. City Manager Trudgeon noted the pride and elation in
having received that recognition of the city's volunteer commitment, and advised that the
City Council would be receiving a full report in August.
Councilmember McGehee noted this also said a lot about the community's volunteers.
Mayor Roe noted he had noted during the Park Master Plan process some of the original
documentation and efforts put into development of the city's park system and when re-
viewing some of those volunteers involved in those initial efforts, found it interesting to
note some of those names were still involved in volunteer efforts today. Mayor Roe stat-
ed this was a good sign of community interest and commitment.
6. Recognitions, Donations and Communications
7. Approve Minutes
8. Approve Consent Agenda
a. Approval of Planned Unit Development (PUD) Fees Necessary to Implement
and Process the Recently-adopted PUD Ordinance (PROJ0017, Amdt.26)
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 3
At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed the re-
maining item being considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in the
Request for Council Action (RCA) dated June 20, 2016 and related attachments.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11339 (At-
tachment A) entitled, "A Resolution Creating Application and Escrow Fees Per-
taining to the Planned Unit Development Process."
Roll Call
Ayes: Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.
Nays: None.
9. Consider Items Removed from Consent
a. Adopt a Resolution Memorializing the Denial of a Request for Approval of a
Minor Subdivision of 1926 Gluek Lane into Two Parcels (PF16-014)
At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item
as detailed in the RCA and related attachments dated June 20, 2016.
Mayor Roe advised that Councilmember Willmus' desire to remove this item
from the Consent Agenda was his concern of the term "marginal" in the third bul-
let point in that it could have multiple meanings.
Based on those concerns, Councilmember McGhee stated her agreement to strike
the word "marginal" from the proposed resolution.
In order to provide some insight from last week's meeting and City Council deci-
sion to deny the minor subdivision request, and subsequent work between his of-
fice and city staff, City Attorney Mark Gaughan addressed the intent of the find-
ings as noted. City Attorney Gaughan advised that staff had expressly meant
"marginal" as "additional," not negligible; but in recognizing there may be vari-
ous ways to interpret that word and since "marginal" was not used in the original
motion outlining findings, he agreed that in this instance, striking "marginal" may
be appropriate.
Councilmember McGehee suggested changing "marginal" to "additional."
Public Comment
Brad Koland, 1926 Gluek Lane
Written comment via letter dated July 18, 2016 and addressed to the Mayor cznd
Councilmembers was provided by Mr. Koland as part of the record, attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 4
Mr. Koland verbally summarized his letter and calculations and asked the City
Council to have a majority voting member from the July 11, 2016 Council meet-
ing move for reconsideration of this denial and subsequently approve this code-
compliant subdivision as recommended by staff and supported by facts outlined in
his letter.
Mayor Roe duly noted this request; and for clarification, confirmed with City At-
torney Gaughan that a simple majority versus super majority vote would suffice
for a motion to reconsider.
McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11337_ (At-
tachment A) entitled, "A Resolution Memorializing the DENIAL of a Request far
Approval of a Minor Subdivision at 1926 Gluek Lane into Two Parcels (PF 16-
014);" as amended: changing resolution language from "marginal" to "addi-
tiona� "
As highlighted in Mr. Koland's written comments, Councilmember McGehee
provided her personal response to her actions of twelve years ago when she sup-
ported a motion to support a previous lot subdivision in this locale. Councilmem-
ber McGehee stated that at that time she was not fully aware of all of the water is-
sues and extending beyond the immediate area. Councilmember McGehee noted
homes experiencing basement collapse in the area; and everyone was now much
more aware of the drainage issues in that broader area; and many additional de-
velopments have occurred since then. Councilmember McGehee identified that
broader area south of Mr. Koland's property and impacts of this subdivision and
development area essentially built on a lake based on the 1940-era maps. Coun-
cilmember McGehee noted this drainage issue only became more problematic
with heavier rainfall patterns now being experienced. Councilmember McGehee
further advised related to several lot and subdivision discussions, she had been
unaware of the large difference in the front and back of the subject parcel and
how current city code was written. Therefore, Councilmember McGehee stated
she would hold her position to deny this subdivision request.
Councilmember Laliberte thanked Mr. Koland for his work in defending his re-
quest and bringing it forward to the City Council. Councilmember Laliberte as-
sured Mr. Koland that she didn't take denial of the request lightly a week ago, nor
did she do so now. Councilmember Laliberte stated her main concern was with
the drainage issues with this requested subdivision for this parcel; and further
stated this was not the first situation that had come to the city's attention during
her tenure; with the city routinely needing to address those existing drainage is-
sues if and when possible. Councilmember Laliberte advised that, specific for her
in this area, was the need to rectify larger and substantial drainage issues in the
area before further subdivision.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 5
Councilmember Etten stated he would not support this motion, as he had not sup-
ported denial of the request last week, since he found the subdivision request sup-
ported by city code.
Mayor Roe noted that he had not supported last week's denial either, and there-
fore could not support a motion to memorialize that denial. However, Mayor Roe
noted he was less troubled by drainage on this site as he was with drainage on the
1861 site.
Councilmember Laliberte expressed her willingness to support a motion to amend
the motion deleting the second finding.
Mayor Roe clarified that, procedurally, that was not an option.
City Attorney Gaughan concurred with Mayor Roe, further clarifying that this
resolution is not the official action, but simply an additional step used per city
policy to memorialize its findings as per last week's motion denying the subdivi-
sion request. City Attorney Gaughan noted those findings remained as approved
by motion July 11 t", and if any changes were desired by the Council to be made,
then a motion to reconsider that motion would be appropriate.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee and Laliberte.
Nays: Etten and Roe.
Motion failed for lack of majority.
City Attorney Gaughan sought to further clarify for the City Council the intent of
this resolution. City Attorney Gaughan noted the resolution that by voting "nay"
on the resolution, individual Councilmembers were in effect stating they didn't
believe these are the actual findings voted on last week. City Attorney Gaughan
noted that was not actually in dispute.
As having voted against the denial of the subdivision request last week, Mayor
Roe stated his lack of support of a resolution memorializing the findings; even
while understanding the point made by City Attorney Gaughan.
With two "nay" votes on the prevailing side for the motion to memorialize find-
ings for denial as adopted last week, City Attorney Gaughan noted it would be up
to Mayor Roe or Councilmember Etten to bring a motion to reconsider findings
next week for the purpose of casting a new vote as to whether or not this new res-
olution reflects those findings for denial from last week's meeting.
Councilmember McGehee expressed her difficulty in understanding the "nay"
votes, when last week the majority vote supported denial in accordance with the
findings as stated, and as memorialized in this resolution. Councilmember McGe-
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 6
hee stated that to vote against affirmation of that record, seemed to her perplexing
and inappropriate.
Mayor Roe noted it was the prerogative for any individual councilmember to vote
as they saw fit on any item.
Councilmember Laliberte asked Councilmember Etten if he was clear on the in-
tent of this resolution affirming last week's action.
Councilmember Etten stated his agreement as noted by Mayor Roe; however, he
admitted City Attorney Gaughan brought up new thoughts after his "nay" vote to-
night.
Discussion ensued as to whether to reconsider the vote; with Mayor Roe clarify-
ing the motion to reconsider could occur at the meeting where action had been
taken or the subsequent meeting.
City Attorney Gaughan clarified that while he didn't believe it technically came
into play under these circumstances, it could be viewed as setting a poor prece-
dent to vote against a resolution such as this in abstract. If under circumstances
where the City Council was bound by particular time constraints for which written
action may occur, City Attorney Gaughan stated that would be different than this
situation when voting to simply memorialize action taken at a previous meeting;
and due to the absence of one Councilmember, defacto action was overturned.
City Attorney Gaughan again offered his input asking that the City Council keep
in mind that this resolution simply memorialized in writing actual events from a
previous meeting; and was not asking individual members to confirm the sub-
stance of those findings, just the existence of those findings in actuality. City At-
torney Gaughan noted the purpose of having this resolution in place was as a
means to make sure the written record was clear so the city could clearly uphold
its 60-day requirement for written findings and thereby make the record extraor-
dinarily clear in through written correspondence to the applicant of those findings;
and for an abundance of caution, the past practice of the City Council has also
been to further memorialize that action via a resolution.
In the spirit of moving forward and in recognition of the legal counsel provided
by City Attorney Gaughan, Mayor Roe sought to act so as not obstruct the pro-
cess.
Motion to reconsider Resolution
Roe moved, McGehee seconded to reconsider the resolution memorializing find-
ings for denial of the minor subdivision request at 1926 Gluek Lane.
Roll Call
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 7
Ayes: Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.
Nays: None.
Ori�inal Motion now under reconsideration and Restated
McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11337_ (At-
tachment A) entitled, "A Resolution Memorializing the DENIAL of a Request for
Approval of a Minor Subdivision at 1926 Gluek Lane into Two Parcels (PF16-
014);" as amended: changing resolution language from "marginal" to "addi-
tiona� "
Roll Call
Ayes: Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.
Nays: None.
Mayor Roe noted this was a rather unique situation created by not having a full
City Council present.
b. Adopt a Resolution Memorializing the Denial of a Request for Approval of a
Minor Subdivision of 1861 Gluek Lane into Two Parcels (PF16-016)
At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item
as detailed in the RCA dated June 20, 2016 and related attachments.
Mayor Roe reiterated Councilmember Willmus' desire to remove this item from
the Consent Agenda due to his similar concern and use of the term "marginal" in
the finding, and potential interpretation with multiple meanings.
Councilmember Laliberte stated that she had the same concerns with this subdivi-
sion request as she had with the previous request related to water drainage; and
questioned why that finding was not also included in this list of findings.
Mayor Roe duly noted Councilmember Laliberte's comment.
While not having reviewed the meeting tape from the July 11, 2016 meeting when
this subdivision request was denied, City Attorney Gaughan stated it was his rec-
ollection that only one finding was stated in the motion for denial.
Councilmember Laliberte noted that clarification, opining she must be recalling
the broader discussion during public comment and discussion with staff and City
Council deliberation after public comment.
Councilmember McGehee agreed with the recollection of Councilmember
Laliberte that staff indicated water issues on this site were even more problematic
than the previous subdivision request.
Public Comment
Arlene Mencke, 1861 Gluek Lane (applicant and owner)
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 8
Written comment via letter dated July 18, 2016 and addressed to Councilmembers
was provided by Ms. Mencke as part of the record, attached hereto and nzade a
part hereof.
Similar to Mr. Koland's request, Ms. Mencke requested reconsideration of the de-
nial and a new vote to change that previous decision of the City Council.
Ms. Mencke summarized the points made in her written comment, disputing the
"facts" utilized by the City Council in making their determination for denial.
Ms. Mencke introduced her contractor to address drainage issues in support of her
request for reconsideration.
Licensed Minnesota Residential Contractor Tony Brown
Having constructed over 600 homes during his career, Mr. Brown noted he had
been met with many challenged, but his goal had always been to find resolution
with drainage on lots in an area; and noted his success to-date in solving those
problems.
Mr. Brown asked the City Council for their expertise with civil engineering in
having based their ruling on that expertise. Mr. Brown further asked if the City's
engineer had approved calculations for drainage on this site; and asked that the
City Council provide a response or seek additional information to determine a so-
lution.
As noted with the previous item, Mayor Roe clarified that tonight's action was to
memorialize action already taken, or a motion to reconsider that previous action
to deny.
Ms. Mencke
In recognizing another home currently under construction in their neighborhood
with similar issues, Ms. Mencke questioned how that had received approval when
theirs had been denied.
Mayor Roe clarified that was not under consideration tonight; and without details
of that approval, could not address that. Mayor Roe thanked Ms. Mencke for her
testimony and advised the City Council would take under advisement her request
to reconsider previous denial.
Brad Koland
As pointed out by Ms. Mencke, Mr. Koland referenced his written comments
(page 6) and calculations he made as a civil engineer, using input provide by the
City of Roseville's engineer. Mr. Koland asked any city professional engineer to
perform their own calculations, or offered to hire a third party engineer to do so.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 9
Mr. Koland reiterated his points previously stated, opining that a fact used for de-
nial had not been made public nor shared; and as pointed out by Mayor Roe, these
requests were usually handled at the administrative level. Therefore, Mr. Koland
opined that there was no established precedent for such action, or no rules out-
lined by the city. If the city wished to create or make rules, Mr. Koland further
opined that it should do so before a subdivision application came forward, as it
was not appropriate to create ordinances on one individual submission. While the
City Council may recognize there is a drainage issue, Mr. Koland noted there had
been no action to prohibit other building within variations of these two requested
submissions, and especially with a home currently under construction in the area,
he found these denials confusion.
John King, 1861 Gluek Lane (applicant and owner)
Referring to the public hearing notice map, as displayed, Mr. King addressed run-
off to their lot from surrounding lots, with theirs being the lowest lot. Mr. King
questioned how and why they should be held accountable for surrounding runoff
but unable to deal with the runoff from their parcel into the established drain due
to topography and changes made by those surrounding parcels over the years.
Mr. King noted the whole mitigation point involves 250 houses above their parcel
and those surrounding neighbors whose parcels drain into their yard and flooded
their yard with each rainfall. Therefore, Mr. King questioned how any additional
impervious surface on their parcel (e.g. driveway) could be deemed excessive,
opining such a statement was a complete double standard and misstatement of any
reality. Mr. King questioned how his one lot could possibly mitigate drainage for
an entire area; and as a Scientist familiar with flow analysis, had come to the con-
clusion that there would be zero impact. Therefore, Mr. King opined the reason
stated for denial of the requested subdivision was false and nonsensical.
Motion to Reconsider
Etten moved reconsideration of the previous motion of July 11, 2016.
Mayor Roe declared the motion failed due to lack of a second.
McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11338_ (At-
tachment A) entitled, "A Resolution Memorializing the DENIAL of a Request for
Approval of a Minor Subdivision at 1926 Gluek Lane into Two Parcels (PF16-
016);" as amended: changing resolution language from "marginal" to "addi-
tiona� "
While appreciating the work put forth by the applicant, Councilmember Laliberte
reiterated her concerns with this particular area. Also without a full Council at
tonight's meeting, Councilmember Laliberte further noted her inability to recon-
sider any of that information presented last week during public testimony.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 10
Councilmember McGehee seconded the remarks of Councilmember Laliberte;
and noted previous discussion for intent of this resolution to memorialize findings
established on July l ltn
For the benefit of the public and applicants, Mayor Roe clarified with City Attor-
ney Gaughan that, while city code standards indicate areas for consideration in
approval or denial of subdivision requests, city code also provides for some dis-
cretion. Specifically, Mayor Roe noted that discretion included the broader con-
sideration of the entire community's health, safety and welfare. While not written
down, Mayor Roe noted those were standard considerations and taken into ac-
count in any circumstances or as a result of public testimony leading the City
Council to believe there is a potential issue with a subdivision even if it appeared
to meet all other code provisions.
City Attorney Gaughan concurred with that statement; noting there was no man-
date that the City Council rubberstamp conclusions and recommendation of city
staff. City Attorney Gaughan noted there was a reason for the City Council to
hear such requests and make a determination based on their discretion, even if and
when those actions may not be in keeping with staff recommendations. City At-
torney Gaughan stated that as long as the actions of the City Council are not arbi-
trary ar capricious and their actions were based on conviction about certain issues
or concerns, those actions were deemed appropriate.
Noting his initial support of denial of this request on July 11, 2016, Mayor Roe
stated he would support memorializatoin of that denial in this case as well.
Roll Call
Ayes: Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.
Nays: None.
For applicants at both parcels on Gluek Lane, Mayor Roe noted a subsequent path
to follow at their choice, via legal recourse through the court system.
c. Consideration of the Roseville Environmental Review Worksheet ER� re-
lated to the Java Capital Partners LLC Proiect at 2700 Cleveland Avenue
(PF15-002)
At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item
as detailed in the RCA dated June 20, 2016 and related attachments.
Councilmember McGehee noted several areas needing consideration by the City
Council in general as well as brought forward during her review of this particular
EAW.
Councilmember McGehee referenced numerous items throughout the ERW that
stated "pending" and since she considered these items of import, questioning what
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 11
that term "pending" actually meant and how completion of each was monitored
and by whom. Councilmember McGehee stated her preference that items no
longer be "pending" when coming before the City Council, but already approved
by other agencies.
Also in her personal review of this ERW, Councilmember McGehee noted that,
while it may not be well known in the community, neither the Minnesota Pollu-
tion Control Agency (MPCA) nor the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWSD)
agencies have sufficient staff to oversee this type or project or others done in the
greater metropolitan area; and that oversight was left to the particular municipali-
ty to oversee.
Also, Councilmember McGehee advised that in referencing various codes listed
throughout the ERW (e.g. construction codes) stating review would be performed
by an environmental engineer/consultant, typically a consultant hired by the de-
veloper/contractor doing the actual building, and not hired by the city whose re-
view would be most concerned with protecting Roseville resident's health, wel-
fare and safety. Councilmember McGehee submitted that it may be worth the
city's consideration as part of its process to escrow funds from the develop-
er/contractor for hiring an independent environmental person reporting back di-
rectly to the city to guarantee residents are well protected.
Councilmember McGehee further expressed her disappointment in this specific
ERW that the intent was to re-use contaminated soils for a 50/50 mix in refer-
enced documents for use in other places rather than stepping up to clean this area
further. Also, referencing documentation related to fill coming onto the site,
Councilmember McGehee noted there was no actual reference to who would re-
view that documentation. She suggested it would behoove the city to have that
information available and reviewed. Specific to the referenced field technician
cited to review soils for potential contamination, Councilmember McGehee stated
she was dubious about that accountability.
In general and throughout her review of this documentation, Councilmember
McGehee suggested the need moving forward for the City Council to put a policy
in place for hiring a consultant approved by the City (and paid for by the develop-
er in an escrow account), a consultant that was accountable and answerable to the
city versus only to the contractor/developer.
On the MPCA letter (page 2), Councilmember McGehee referenced their discus-
sion of and encouragement to the city to look at low impact design. Since 2005,
Councilmember McGehee noted mitigation through special ditches, vegetative
strips, parking lot swales and other options that were all contributions to the
Green Cities efforts and more forward looking building practices. When time al-
lows, Councilmember McGehee expressed her hope that the health, welfare and
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 12
safety of municipal residents would also be incorporated into those MPCA com-
ments and into city policy.
Specific to the referenced engineer, City Manager Trudgeon confirmed for Mayar
Roe that the consultant was hired by the developer at this point.
Mayor Roe asked staff to clarify when items are listed as "pending" what that
meant: whether they weren't going to happen or simply hadn't happened yet.
Mayor Roe stated his hesitancy in holding up the development in this case, but
asked staff to note the need for future discussion as suggested by Councilmember
McGehee's review of this ERW.
City Manager Trudgeon duly noted the requested discussion for future reference;
advising staff would bring forward additional research and ideas at that time.
Councilmember Laliberte thanked Councilmember McGehee for her personal re-
search and comments; and agreed that "pending" could have different meanings
creating some confusion.
McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, acceptance of Java Capital Partners LLC
Environmental Review Worksheet (ERW- Attachment A) and the applicant's re-
sponses to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) comments as satis-
fying the ERW requirements established in City of Roseville Resolution No.
11198; directing staff to approve permits when such necessary information and
project details comply with City and State Codes.
Roll Call
Ayes: Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.
Nays: None.
10. General Ordinances for Adoption
11. Presentations
12. Public Hearings and Action Consideration
13. Budget Items
a. Receive 2017 City Manager Recommended Budget
Two bench handouts were provided as part of this presentation, including the
slide presentation entitled "City of Roseville City Manage Recommended 2017
Budget presentation dated July 18, 2016, and revised copies of Attachments A, B
and D to the RCA of today's date.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 13
City Manager Trudgeon outlined recommendations, specifically highlighting the
proposed Mental Health Liaison Officer was intended as a pilot program for the
first year, with additional details still pending for presentation at a later date to the
City Council, including specific restrictions on use of Forfeiture Funds for short-
term funding. City Manager Trudgeon further noted the contractual obligations of
$105,000 for cost of living adjustments (COLA) increases, reducing the total
COLA accordingly for non-union employees.
Discussion
Councilmember McGehee noted that the recommended use of reserves brought
the projected reserves within a hair of the bottom range and balance. Coun-
cilmember McGehee noted proposed reduction or deferral of capital improvement
program (CIP) items seemed harsh from her perspective.
City Manager Trudgeon noted the annual need to analyze CIP needs, and simply
because it shows up on the spreadsheet, that annual examination identified things
that could be deferred or deemed no longer necessary. Mr. Trudgeon noted a
harder part of that conversation involved whether or not a particular CIP need
could be accommodated if there was no funding available; also involving whether
to defer it when weighed against the broader picture in lieu of no available fund-
ing.
Councilmember McGehee requested additional information from City Manager
Trudgeon via email those specific CIP items that remained imperative, those de-
ferred, and those discontinued.
Mayor Roe clarified that could constitute staff checking off those items on the
spreadsheet to provide a list of what was being recommended for 2017 from that
general spreadsheet.
Mayor Roe noted this provided an annual opportunity to review and understand
the CIP with many questions remaining. While agreeing that each year the review
was needed, Mayor Roe noted the ongoing negative funding that would occur in
the near future and the need to identify solutions for that funding. While confi-
dent it remained on staff's radar screen, Mayor Roe reiterated the need to develop
a plan to deal with those issues.
Councilmember Laliberte questioned the make-up of the ongoing cost for volun-
teer recognition efforts and how much was involved in one-time database costs or
for ongoing support and maintenance of the database.
City Manager Trudgeon reported that there was continuing software support of
approximately $2,000 to $3,000; and clarified that in the past this had not been in-
cluded as a line item, but going forward would be shown as a budget item. At this
point, Mr. Trudgeon noted it was listed under prograimning costs for the Parks &
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 14
Recreation Department. Mr. Trudgeon reported that the remaining volunteer
recognition funding was to provide recreational opportunities with staff-
ing/training in several area parks selected to provide segments of the population
with recreational opportunities at their location. Mr. Trudgeon noted typically
sign up for programs was provided with participants coming to the site; but in this
case, staff would be pursuing bringing staff directly to a particular area (e.g. Ka-
ren neighborhood) to serve them. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the bulk of that cost
would be for seasonal employees to staff those programs and train them accord-
ingly; and obviously would be driven by the number signed up as to the number
of staff needed by ratio of participant to staff person.
At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, City Manager Trudgeon noted the
Parks & Recreation Department was very good at communicating with particular
neighborhoods to determine their needs and interests, thus indicating a potential
need for training in those areas.
Councilmember Laliberte noted such programs may attract youth from surround-
ing communities as well; and asked how staff was prepared to handle that or how
to differentiate residents versus non-resident program use.
City Manager Trudgeon stated he wasn't sure such a decision had made yet, and
noted the ultimate goal was to provide such opportunities at a low or no cost op-
tion; and didn't think there was a large distinction at this time, but would pursue
additional detail with Parks & Recreation Director Brokke.
Since the Mental Health Liaison is proposed as a pilot program the first year,
Councilmember Laliberte questioned staff's funding options if it went beyond that
first year.
City Manager Trudgeon clarified that the intent for the pilot program was to de-
termine the deliverables and what worked or didn't work; after which alternative
financing would be pursued; whether via levy funds or via other revenue re-
sources. While not having an impact on levy funds in 2017 as proposed, Mr.
Trudgeon noted it could very well become a levy factor in the future. Specifically
regarding use of forfeiture funds, Mr. Trudgeon reviewed his understanding that
the funds could be used for supplemental operational needs, and clarified he was
considering this position as an operation need; but further noted he would contin-
ue to review that to make sure use of that fund was being interpreted correctly,
prompting ongoing conversation and involving the city's legal counsel.
Councilmember Laliberte noted she had a similar question regarding funding the
Assistant City Manager position from the Communications Fund as an ongoing
allotment.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 15
City Manager Trudgeon advised that at this time, he felt confident in funding the
position through that fund, envisioning the position would oversee the entire
communication effort of the city. However, as time goes on and depending on the
status of the Communications Fund with future franchise fees and collections, Mr.
Trudgeon agreed that funding resource would need further review, but for the
foreseeable future, he thought it was appropriate to use those funds for that posi-
tion.
Councilmember Laliberte asked for clarification, with City Manager Trudgeon
clarifying that the CIP budget far $160,000 as a new levy amount for the Pave-
ment Management Program (PMP) and also an additional$65,000 for pathways
and parking lots.
To follow-up with the comments of Councilmember Laliberte, Counc'ilmember
McGehee suggested partnering with the School District for SE Roseville out-
reach. Councilmember McGehee also noted past conversations within the com-
munity about the need for adult programming in that area as well with many of
those adults in the Karen community feeling more isolated and currently being
transported to Fairview Community Center for their educational programming
needs.
City Manager Trudgeon noted the city was always open to partnerships, clarifying
that this particular provision was specific to youth programming; but agreed to
look at adult need and additional partnering opportunities with the School District
in the future. Mr. Trudgeon noted the good relationship to-date between the
School District and Karen of Minnesota organization, and while other opportuni-
ties and possibilities will always be considered, this particular initiative is focused
on youth for the purposes of this budget presentation.
Councilmember McGehee opined there wouldn't be partnerships unless pursued;
and asked staff to look into it.
Councilmember McGehee asked staff to pursue the cost for National Alliance on
Mental Illness (NAMI) or Crisis Prevention Institute (CPI) training dollars to pro-
vide such training to each police officer. As an alternative approach, Coun-
cilmember McGehee opined that the city and its residents would be much better
served by training all officers versus having only one position or one shift person
with that training. Councilmember McGehee further asked staff to determine
what funding sources could be used and how much funding was available in the
Police Department reserve fund or other areas (e.g. forfeiture funds).
City Manager Trudgeon reiterated that there were restrictions to using forfeiture
funds, and they should not be considered permanent funding due to their restricted
uses.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 16
Councilmember McGehee noted previous budget discussions indicating seniors
were often forgotten, and while staff had been asked to address that issue, there
was nothing included as part of this presentation.
City Manager Trudgeon agreed there was nothing new or proposed in this 2017
budget. However, as noted in a previous report, Mr. Trudgeon noted the existing
provisions for senior citizens within the community and numerous things already
being done. While recognizing there was always more to be done, Mr. Trudgeon
asked that the City Council remain aware that not all of its priorities will or can be
accomplished in one year. Similarly with the strategic technology initiative, Mr.
Trudgeon noted there wasn't much seen in the 2017 proposed budget, since staff
had determined further and a more detailed review was needed to determine the
gaps in current programming. Mr. Trudgeon noted the same was true for the
needs of seniors in the community, to determine the areas where they're receiving
needed support and to define gaps. Mr. Trudgeon noted there would be a substan-
tial amount of work in the community to fill some of those gaps; but further noted
seniors were being supported in many areas with material costs and with staff
presence. However, at this point, Mr. Trudgeon advised that the intent was to
continue as is until a more detailed review had been accomplished and future op-
portunities indicated; therefore he had not recommended anything new in this par-
ticular 2017 budget.
Councilmember Laliberte agreed that work was already in place, but asked that
this senior segment of the population not be forgotten going forward.
Mayor Roe suggested the Parks & Recreation Department also be involved in that
discussion based on their outreach to the community and awareness of some of
those gaps that the city may know or need to know about.
Specific to partnerships with the School District, Councilmember Laliberte noted
the retirement of the RASP person. Councilmember Laliberte noted this created a
need for everyone involved to understand if there were larger gaps with a change
to that position than what the School District provided.
Mayor Roe suggested staff obtain a report back from the School District on their
plans and any programming gaps from their perspective; with City Manage
Trudgeon duly noting that verification request.
Specific to the $65,000 CIP allotment for pathways and trails, City Manager
Trudgeon confirmed for Councilmember McGehee that the intent was to fund
long-term replacement/rehabilitation to avoid the current conundrum in needing
significant dollars to repair existing facilities.
Councilmember Etten expressed appreciation for his opportunity to discuss some
of these items with City Manager Trudgeon last week. Specific to the focus on
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 17
the senior population, as an example Councilmember Etten noted recent Parks &
Recreation program focus and response far those seniars, when resurfacing tennis
courts by adding Pickleball lines to allow that activity on those courts as well.
As noted at the conclusion of City Manager Trudgeon's presentation, Mayor Roe
reviewed next steps and upcoming opportunities for public comment.
14. Business Items (Action Items)
a. Recycling Service Proposal
Public Works Director Marc Culver briefly introduced the presentation and rec-
ognized the incredible amount of work by Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson
over the last months and his summarization of an amazing amount of information
resulting from four very good proposals received. Mr. Culver noted the current
recycling contract expires the end of 2016; and asked that the City Council would
provide guidance to staff on which option(s) to pursue and to authorize final ne-
gotiations with those options as indicated.
Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson
Mr. Johnson summarized components of the review, including criteria, proposals,
scoring, costs for cart ownership, and actual service costs for curbside recycling,
with and without the addition of park recycling service.
Mr. Johnson reviewed each proposal and their various proposals and comparisons
of each proposal from a three year or five year contract term, and with or without
the park component and/or cart ownership by the city. Mr. Johnson's presentation
included the best value scoring criteria performed without fees addressing project
capability, community values, value added for each company, performance re-
views; and then review adding their proposed fees and average scores.
Mr. Johnson noted maximum points resulting for each company and their shifts
when adding various components.
Mr. Johnson addressed cart ownership for their initial purchase price and invest-
ment by the city, and with a ten-year cart life, the addition of a CIP item for pur-
chase of replacement carts after that point, and needed reserves to facilitate that
replacement cost.
Mr. Johnson reviewed the various proposal scenarios for each firm for the various
services they proposed, including service frequency, cart ownership, contract
term, curbside collection, and multi-family collection costs, revenue share if any
based on 2015 known data and any potential costs to the city in not meeting the
commodity price compared to processing costs, and their total annual collection
costs per firm and per proposal within those four firms. In concluding the top
firms based on all criteria was 1) Eureka Recycling followed by 2) Republic.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 18
Mr. Johnson further detailed options for park and/or trail pick-up and frequency,
providing a variety of costs depending on the actual park, frequency of use, and
locations of trails and their accessibility.
In conclusion, and based on the presented information, Mr. Johnson concluded
that Eureka Recycling was staff's recommendation with a five year contract in-
cluding park collection, and vendor owned carts.
Mr. Johnson asked for City Council feedback and authorization to initiate negotia-
tions with their selected contractor, followed by future City Council approval of a
contract in August ar September of 2016.
Councilmember Etten asked staff to describe the scenarios listed for organics col-
lection looking to the future, and what they thought may work better based on the
submitted proposals from these four firms.
Mr. Johnson noted all proposals, if applicable, considered organic collection as an
opt-in program, with the city or contractor chosen to publicize that offering and
direct contact with the resident to sign up with the vendor. Similar to the current
waste stream option, Mr. Johnson advised that the intent would be to use smaller
vehicles with fewer stops given the lighter load; with the option available should
there be sufficient interest among Roseville residents to make it feasible. If there
was enough interest, Mr. Johnson advised that staff would work with the chosen
vendor to renegotiate prices if and when that interest became high enough. Mr.
Johnson noted there was a large range of prices in that particular market right now
depending on where those organic markets were found.
At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Johnson noted the various collection
options also available depending on the contractor; but confirmed in the short-
term organics collection would be a separate bill between the vendor and resident,
with no involvement by the city other than the customer service realm, with a list
provided to the city by the vendor of those homes participating.
In the scoring area, Councilmember Etten noted the past performance low mark
received by the current vendor, Eureka Recycling, and asked if that service issue
would be addressed in the future if Eureka was the chosen vendor.
Mr. Johnson advised that staff's rationale in the low rank on the performance
sheet was based on a late annual mailing at the time he was performing reviews of
the company, with that mailing two months behind schedule. Mr. Johnson ad-
vised that, in all fairness to Eureka and other proposers, he did not seek out the
reasons for that delay, but simply noted that as a performance issue without fur-
ther explanation.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 19
Councilmember McGehee noted the recent community survey asked about organ-
ic collection interest, with not much enthusiasm shown. However, Councilmem-
ber McGehee noted the interest in park recycling. Councilmember McGehee stat-
ed her support for a five year contract with Eureka Recycling, with park collection
and vendor-owned and stored carts. Councilmember McGehee agreed staff had
done a great job with this difficult RFP, and recognized the huge amount of staff
time it required, but noted this was also the most thorough job she'd seen done in
a long time. Councilmember McGehee noted that staff time required was part of
her rationale in seeking a longer term contract.
For future reference, Councilmember McGehee suggested that the reducing of
community values percentage and increasing added value percentage was likely
not the position of many in the community who strongly favor of recycling.
Knowing where the end product market was for recycling is an important compo-
nent to the community.
Related to process, Councilmember Laliberte asked about the "blue bag" concept
for organic collection, and whether or not that was provide by trash haulers as
well as recycling vendors.
Mr. Culver advised that some vendors offered that as part of general waste collec-
tion, and offered to further research that option and provide further clarification
on the city's website or via the city newsletter at the suggestion of Councilmem-
ber Laliberte.
Councilmember Etten agreed with Councilmember McGehee's stated preference;
and agreed that recycling in parks was an important and obvious next step for the
city to take. Noting the dramatic differences among bids for park service and re-
cycling, Councilmember Etten asked staff to further elabarate on the highlights of
each vendor related specifically to that service.
Mr. Culver noted some vendors offered to provide dumpsters in the park parking
lot, and other vendors offered rolling carts to the parking lots, while other vendors
offered to walk up to the park buildings and roll carts out to parking lots or use a
smaller type vehicles to traverse trails for less impact. Mr. Culver noted three of
the four vendors were offering to go out on pathways and service them according-
ly. Mr. Culver noted that staff would need to determine contamination issues go-
ing forward, and dependent on which park and the type of contamination found.
Mr. Culver noted the goal was to eliminate park debris, or to recycle materials
versus having them littering the parks and trails.
To further expand, Mr. Culver noted previous Public Works, Environment and
Transportation Commission and Parks & Recreation Commission discussions
about the park component and how it was going to work realistically. Mr. Culver
advised that staff recognized the pricing for this component and logistics of such a
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 20
vast rollout of carts at parks and on trails; and recognition that each situation may
not work as initiated. Mr. Culver noted one issue involved the safety of having
vehicles drive down long pathways along with the wear and tear on those trails
that were not designed to support heavy vehicles. Having heard from a variety of
sources, including the public, Mr. Culver noted the interest and goal was to pro-
vide better service for recycling in parks. Mr. Culver noted there were various
opportunities available to do so, and multiple tiers or levels of service within
those options. Therefore, Mr. Culver stated the intent was to keep all options
available through contract negotiations, but to use care in how carts are rolled out
in parks and along trails, to refine their location(s), and work with the Parks &
Recreation Department and Commission to determine what made sense and what
worked and what didn't work; whether or not they were being used; and what got
contaminated; and then to make adjustments accordingly to achieve the best re-
sults.
At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Johnson confirmed there was al-
so a seasonal issue for park recycling, with city staff already addressing that use
depending on the type of use a park and/or trail received. Mr. Johnson advised
that where applicable, the vendor would store carts for the winter months, and
then coordinate with the Parks & Recreation Department when use ramped up in
the spring and which parks to rollout carts in first.
Public Comment
Kathy HIink, 535 Ryan Avenue
Ms. Klink provided her credentials, and for full disclosure noted her former ser-
vice as a member of the Board of Directors of Eureka Recycling.
As a faculty member with the University of Minnesota in the Environmental Sci-
ence and Climatology area, Ms. Klink expressed appreciation as a Roseville resi-
dent the services provided by Eureka. Noting the considerable amount of infor-
mation on the makeup of recycling collections provided by Eureka and their facil-
ity, Ms. Klink opined knowing where that recycling material ended up was a val-
ue that was important to the city and its residents, especially given trends over the
years.
Mark Jensen, Resident Sales Manager for Walters Refuse and Recycling
Services, Blaine, MN
Mr. Jensen testified of Walters commitment to Roseville; and their active service
as a second generation firm. Mr. Jensen provided a history of the firm and current
ownership; and provided his personal recognition of the firm's customer-oriented
service, including those elderly or handicapped customers receiving customized
personal assistance. Mr. Jensen note that their firm had a number of refuse cus-
tomers in Roseville already and expressed the firm's willingness to communicate
with that customer base as well as with new customers to incentivize reduction of
recycling materials entering through the refuse stream as well.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 21
Mayor Roe agreed that park recycling was an important next phase for Roseville,
and supported incorporating it into this new contract. As outlined by staff, Mayor
Roe also agreed it made sense to look at the variety of ways to facilitate that ser-
vice; noting there were no objections from individual Councilmembers as to using
that approach. Based on the top performers and scoring indicated in staff's
spreadsheets, Mayor Roe noted it looked favorable for the city for annual costs
and with park recycling but without the city owning carts. Mayor Roe agreed
with Councilmember McGehee that the city had enough items on its CIP spread-
sheet without adding recycling cart ownership to it. While it may be a lower cost
to the city initially, Mayor Roe opined the benefit to the city long-term was for the
vendor to own and maintain the carts. Regarding a three year versus five year
contract, Mayor Roe stated he had no preference, but thought the longer-term con-
tract may prove more beneficial.
Councilmember Laliberte expressed interest in this issue having another week for
the community to review and provide input, and then take formal action at next
week's City Council meeting.
Discussion ensued regarding the timing for contract negotiation and other logis-
tics between now and year-end; whether additional public comment would be
forthcoming; and recognizing the public input provided in the recent community
survey supporting the decision at this point.
Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of taking action tonight, based on the
lack of public comment received since the item was initially included on last
week's agenda, even though not heard until tonight.
Mayor Roe noted pricing details had not been available to the public before to-
night's meeting.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, authorizing staff to negotiate a contract with
selected contractor, Eureka Recycling for a five-year contract term including the
parks recycling component, and ownership of the carts by the vendor; and further
directing staff to return to the City Council for final approval of the contract at a
future date.
Councilmember Etten recognized the community survey results; and also noted
there was no major change or cost in this contract, while providing increased ser-
vices.
Councilmember Laliberte stated she wasn't in disagreement with the recommen-
dation; but was simply asking for a deferred process before approval; and for that
reason, would not support the motion based on that process only.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 22
Mayor Roe stated that given the timing and apparent lack of interest in public par-
ticipation to-date, he would support the motion.
Roll Call
Ayes: Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Nays: Laliberte.
Motion carried.
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:44 p.m., and reconvened at approximately
8:52 p.m.
15. Business Items — Presentations/Discussions
a. Authorization to Develop a Contract with Accela for a New Permitting, In-
spections, Code Enforcement and Licensing System
Interim Community Development Director Kari Collins introduced this item, as
part of the arganizational priorities included in the City Manager Recommended
budget for 2017. Ms. Collins noted staff had spent parts of the last two years re-
viewing various software programs for e-permitting solutions and to improve
workflow. Ms. Collins deferred to Mr. Koepp for his review of why staff chose
this option to recommend and how it would be intended for integration.
GIS Technician Joel Koepp
As detailed in the RCA, Mr. Koepp reviewed the city's current permitting, inspec-
tions, and code enforcement software and various ages of those programs. Mr.
Koepp noted the department retained one computer station far historical permit
research to access past digital permits.
Mr. Koepp noted there were many vendors in this software realm; and reviewed
their benefits and limitations. Mr. Koepp displayed the City of Rochester, MN as
an example of an Accela software user; the recommended vendor of choice by
staff. Mr. Koepp reviewed the potential benefits for the city, residents and con-
tractors in being able to search the status of permits through a web portal. Mr.
Koepp also noted the benefits for those larger permit and land use applications in-
volving multiple departments for review, with the current system providing for no
central digitalization of that work flow.
Mr. Koepp noted that the city's legacy data could be brought into this one system
and no longer require maintenance of those older systems, which had spurred staff
as a priority to improve overall efficiencies and address the responsiveness — or
lack thereof — frequently experienced with those older systems. Mr. Koepp noted
these inefficiencies currently impacted not only Community Development De-
partment staff, but also that of the Information Technology Department staff and
future viability concerns with that older software with no appreciable updates or
improvements available.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 23
Mr. Koepp reviewed the functionality of the current system and the need to pro-
vide modern functions and GIS data as a way of life for most users, as well as fus-
ing mapping and permit systems. Mr. Koepp also noted the improvements in re-
porting and data research available with this software, including economic devel-
opment and housing data that was cumbersome to obtain in the current system,
and dramatic improvements with this more superior reporting tool and database
that would be available for all departments.
Mr. Koepp provided a comparison table showing various types of software, staffls
review, and alternate options as well as upfront costs plus ongoing maintenance.
As noted in the staff report, Ms. Collins noted the recent purchase of Springbrook
by Accela that would allow the city's current Springbrook financial system to in-
tegrate this software as well. Ms. Collins referenced other departments providing
enforcement (e.g. Fire Department) and the ability with this software for all de-
partments to be on the same page electronically rather than the current phone
and/or email communication system. From that standpoint, Ms. Collins noted the
heightened level of communication and transparency it would provide, particular-
ly in the Design Review Committee (DRC) updates and workflow and communi-
cation advantages.
Ms. Collins advised that staff s research had provided very favorable comments
from users, the City of Rochester and Nicollet County, who both had good things
to say about the program, including from an implementation and support side.
Ms. Collins advised that they also gave good reviews for practical community us-
er feedback as well as from other organizations and with nationwide best practic-
es. Ms. Collins noted that the City's former Community Development Director
Paul Bilotta at his new employer, the City of Corvallis, OR also used this software
and indicated they were very pleased with its performance.
Mayor Roe asked if business licensing and/or pet licensing were available with
this software that could make it even more multi-departmental.
Ms. Collins advised that it has that capability, but she hadn't yet discussed its via-
bility with the Finance Department, while focusing on the land management mod-
ule, including rental and contractor licenses.
With the variable components in this software, Mr. Koepp noted modules were
priced according to the number of users; and this presentation was proposed to re-
coup costs for installation and maintenance via land use and application fees. Mr.
Koepp advised that other departments could add users at any time, as their de-
partments were able to absorb the related costs to do so. At this point for the
Community Development Department, Mr. Koepp stated the intent would be for
an initial 8 to 10 users; and the ability to add other users at any point those other
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 24
departments were ready to joint into the system. Mr. Koepp advised that he
would suggest at a minimum having the Engineering and Fire Departments have
at least one user to be able to participate in interdepartmental reviews for larger
proj ects.
At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Koepp advised that Accela worked
with a third party implementation partner to convert tables and numbers of stand-
ard permit and license type templates to the greatest extent possible and included
in the initial cost. After that, Mr. Koepp advised there were different tiers of im-
plementation available and related costs depending on the number of departures
from that standard template. Mr. Koepp clarified that the proposal received earli-
er today was approximately $40,000 plus for that implementation that could take
from 4 to 6 months. Mr. Koepp stated the intent was to use the remainder of 2016
to load and update those forms and data; and then go live at the beginning of 2017
and modify city fees accordingly to recoup costs.
Mr. Collins advised that $20,000 had been set aside in 2016 for e-government ef-
forts; and noted the request is for an additional $50,000 in 2017 with the remain-
der of the cost made up through a proposed 1% technology fee applied to com-
mercial fees, a typical practice for communities using this type of software.
Mr. Koepp noted that staff had calculated a revenue source of approximately
$15,000 in using that 1% technology fee based on permits issued to-date in 2016.
Mr. Koepp clarified that the intent was to structure any fees to apply to commer-
cial licenses and permits and shield residential permits and fees to recoup as much
of that annual cost for the software as possible.
At the request of Councilmember Etten as it related to implementation, Ms. Col-
lins projected that the fees could be absorbed from each department as applicable
when coming on as a user of the software with their licenses at the 1% technology
fee, anticipating that would make the cost neutral.
Discussion ensued regarding the cost of legacy data transfer and ongoing annual
maintenance available through the technology fee; blending of the systems within
the department and reality to do so; and options available to download paper ap-
plications or electronically as per preferred customer choice.
Councilmember Laliberte thanked staff for their research, information provided
and presentation. However, Councilmember Laliberte opined that she felt this
came out of nowhere, but then heard staff had been researching it over the last
two years, which had been new information for her. Councilmember Laliberte
stated staffls presentation made sense, but she wanted to ensure face to face cus-
tomer was available for those seeking that, noting it was not only important to the
City Council, but also Department Heads in making that part of the streamlining
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 25
process for whatever was decided. Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of
a per user versus per transaction software program.
For reference, Mr. Koepp noted the variables in that type of application based on
each software program reviewed by staff; and substantial costs that could be real-
ized with a per transaction concept versus per user.
At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Ms. Collins addressed how current
data would transfer into this new system for rental registrations, eliminating the
labor intensive nature of the current system and ability to auto-generate renewal
notices and electronic payment options.
Mr. Koepp noted the current $4,0000 cost paid by the city for Pay Pal online
payment support, but its inability to provide data reports without custom charges
to do so.
Councilmember Laliberte noted in the past there had been some difficulty in get-
ting software to work with other software (e.g. HSI program) and asked if there
were any concerns in this case.
City Manager Trudgeon noted with Accela's purchase of Springbrook, it was an-
ticipated this would work much better than past experiences had found.
Sharing those concerns, Councilmember McGehee noted the advantages with the
less "silo" system among city departments, allowed more vetting by the Infor-
mation Technology Department on potential software programs, which she found
a good improvement.
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, authorizing staff to start developing a profes-
sional services agreement with Accela to implement a new software solution for
permits, inspections, licensing and code enforcement.
Mr. Koepp advised staff anticipated having the information available to the City
Council at next week's meeting.
Roll Call
Ayes: Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.
Nays: None.
b. Receive Update on New Employee Positions Created in the 2016 Budget
As detailed in the RCA and attached department memoranda, City Manager
Trudgeon briefly reviewed new positions as adopted in the 2016 City Budget and
in accordance with the City Council's request for a mid-year update on their sta-
tus .
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 26
Specific to the License Center, Councilmember Laliberte noted past discussion
for agreements with auto dealerships and the city.
Finance Director Chris Miller
Finance Director Miller responded that staff had talked about it internally, and
with the State of MN, but had been unable to-date to find any legal authority or
incentive to do so. Mr. Miller opined that dealers would continue to shop around,
and have the ability to leave on a whim as they chose. Mr. Miller suggested the
best way to retain their business was to provide them with a level of customer
service unavailable to them elsewhere. Mr. Miller noted the Roseville License
Center currently served eleven dealers, higher than at any point in its history.
Mayor Roe thanked City Manager Trudgeon and staff for their feedback; and
asked that this mid-year update be retained as standard practice and part of the
process for future budgets.
Fire Department Emergency Management and Safety and Risk Management
Presentation
Fire Chief Tim O'Neill introduced tonight's presentations and deferred to Assis-
tant Fire Chief David Brosnahan for this annual update.
Emergency Mana ement
Assistant Chief Brosnahan summarized this aspect new to Fire Department man-
agement,
Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of nationwide encouragement for in-
frastructure providers to get these utilities underground.
Safetv and Risk Mana ement
At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Assistant Chief Brosnahan advised
that the Fire Department currently offered hands only CPR training, and in the
near future was looking to offer a monthly training for the general public consist-
ing of a 1 to 1.5 hour training format.
City Manager Trudgeon publically thanked the Fire Department for the time, and
especially thanked Assistant Chief Brosnahan for taking on the safety mantel and
improving it, both the compliance and training aspects. Mr. Trudgeon personally
thanked them for volunteering to take it on, and recognized the amount of paper-
work and tracking necessary to address this serious component of management,
opining their department was a perfect fit for it.
d. Fire Department City Code Update Presentation
As detailed in the RCA, Chief O'Neill noted the need to update all facets of the
Department's Prevention and Inspection program and city code as it applied to the
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 27
area of fire inspections and enforcement. Chief O'Neill noted this would provide
for consistency and compliance with State Fire Code.
Chapter 404 — Air Pollution Control
Chief O'Neill noted Item D related to Institutional Recreational Burning Permits;
and with typically only one permit issued annually at Halloween time for the B-
Dale Club, recommended discontinuing issuing these permits and limiting them to
portable or permanent burning structures as noted.
As an asthma sufferer, Councilmember McGehee noted all burning made a great
difference in her ability to be outside or have the windows open, and recognizing
others in the community shared that difficulty, spoke in support of eliminating
this option.
Recognizing that on any given weekend in the fall, Chief O'Neill noted there may
be hundreds of burns going on, and clarified the intent wasn't to look to change
code to prohibit those, only large burns.
Councilmember Etten suggested that staff check with residents around the B-Dale
Club who may be disappointed if this is discontinued, as it served as a wonderful
community event.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Chief O'Neill confirmed there was no permit fee for
this type of burn, and therefore no staffing or equipment availability on site by
Fire Department staff.
At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, and with clarification by Chief
O'Neill as to specifications for an enclosed ring versus other options depending
on size of the burn and location, Mayor Roe asked staff to further clarify language
in Section 404.02 (Open Burning) for items 1 and 2 related to permanent and
portable enclosures. Mayor Roe agreed with Councilmember Laliberte that for
institutional permits, it might make sense to bring that removed language as pro-
posed remain pending public input.
Chapter 902 — Fire Prevention
At the request of Mayor Roe, Chief O'Neill defined the difference in the Fire
Marshal position (appointed by the Fire Chie� and Fire Inspectar position now
assigned to each shift. Chief O'Neill advised that the Marshall addressed en-
forcement and Inspectors performed inspections (e.g. multi-family units, permits,
daycares, etc.).
While this was addressed within the current staffing section, Mayor Roe asked
that staff address this distinction in code language or elsewhere to make it more
understandable far a layperson and for the benefit of future City Councils.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 28
Motion to Extend Curfew
At 10:00 p.m., Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, extending the meeting to the conclusion of
this item.
Roll Call
Ayes: Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.
Nays: None.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Chief O'Neill advised that trees and
brush are not typically considered part of a prairie burn, with a few exceptions.
Chief O'Neill noted there may be a situation where it was not convenience or a
homeowner was unable to transport those materials (e.g. a large hill or other en-
cumbrance) and small piles (e.g. Buckthorn) may be permitted by the Fire De-
partment for burning on site. However, in general, Chief O'Neill noted code did
not allow for it, but advised it was currently at the discretion of the Fire Chief ar
Fire Marshall(s) if and when to make such a permit available, and only on a case
by case basis when it made sense.
Unlike Institutional Burning Permits, and at the request for confirmation by
Councilmember Laliberte, Chief O'Neill advised that fees would be attached to
fireworks, display and sale permits as currently outlined in the city's fee structure
and reviewed annually. However, Chief O'Neill advised that he could find no
corresponding line item in city code, apparently inadvertently missed when added
to the fee structure.
Mayor Roe recalled approval of such permits following the change in state law;
and also thought he recalled there was a specific citation in code.
Chief O'Neill opined it must have been missed when the state law and regulations
changed; but agreed to further research other business licenses in Chapter 3 of
city code (business licenses).
Mayor Roe noted prairie burns had been approved in the past, and asked staff to
make sure other code references were not in place.
As noted by Mayor Roe related to installation or modification of fire alarm detec-
tion or signaling systems, Chief O'Neill clarified this didn't apply to a home
smoke detector, only commercial systems that required those inspections. At the
request of Mayor Roe and Councilmember Laliberte, staff was requested to clari-
fy language that this applied to multi-family buildings as well as commercial
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, July 18, 2016
Page 29
plications. Chief O'Neill agreed to research all areas beyond single-family situa-
tions.
Specific to Section 902.05 (Explosives and Blasting Agents), Chief O'Neill noted
this was no longer referenced in fire code and therefore recommended removal in
its entirety.
In Section 902.06 (Storage of Flammable Liquids), and the annual review ad-
dressed in Item 3, Chief O'Neill stated he was unaware of it ever having been
done, nor was it included in any report generated by the department. Since Chief
O'Neill was also unaware of where the Department could obtain the original per-
mit, he suggested removal of Item 3 as well.
In Item B for New Bulk Plants, Councilmember Etten asked staff to review the
geographical boundaries shown, suggesting I-35W may be more appropriate than
Cleveland Avenue.
Similarly, with Section 902.10 (Evidence of Compliance with Code), Chief
O'Neill recommended removal of this section completely.
As a next step, Chief O'Neill advised that staff would take feedback from tonight
and put together a revised document for future City Council review and formal
action.
e. Discussion regarding High Density Residential Housing (HDR) Housing Dis-
tricts and the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Process (PROJ0039)
City Manager Future Agenda Review
City Manager Trudgeon provided a preview of upcoming agenda items.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Adjourn Meeting
Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:12
p.m.
Roll Call
Ayes: Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.
Nays: None.
ATT .
Patrick J. T dgeon, City ager
,�
���tC���
�. ' �- �. •
a�,�� �����
s�t� r$,�.o��
G. �c� �v�H�c �
n�.��`'�
July 18, 2016
Mayor and Council members
Roseville City Council
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
Re: 1926 Gluek Lane Roseville, MN minor subdivision (PF16-014) request for removal on consent agenda
and reconsideration based upon the facts
Dear Council Members, thanks for your time and your consideration of my request for a minor lot
subdivision at last week's meeting. I appreciate your commitment in keeping Roseville safe and a
desirable community in which to live. We all want to do the right thing for our neighbors and our
neighborhoods.
However, I would like to move for removal of item 8a from the consent agenda.
My basis for removal and further discussion is in response to the facts forming the denial are:
(Pertaining to the Denial of Minor Subdivision letter l dated on Tuesday July 15 through US Mail).
• Fact one: not relevant
• Fact two: not factual
Fact three: specifies requirements that are not supported by the city code and were not publicly
disclosed requirements prior to this subdivision request
Once removed, I would further like to move, in accordance to Rosenberg's Rules of Order, that one of
the three Council Members in the majority of this vote enter a motion to reconsider based upon the
following responses of the "facts" that formed this subdivision denial.
In accordance with the options provided to the Council, there was a 3-2 vote to deny this subdivision at
the July 11th meeting. The denial was supported by three statements of fact, as follows:
1) The existing storm water runoff and drainage issues in the area are extreme
2) The proposal does not meet minimum requirements of the city code for lot width
3) The marginal runoff from the residential development intended for the subdivided parcel might
be injurious to other homes in the surrounding neighborhood.
There is no definition of what constitutes a"fact" in the city vocabulary. Needing to understand these
"facts" outlined by the Council, I referred to, what I felt would be a mutually agreeable definition source:
Merriam-Webster. Their definition of fact is:
Something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence : a true
piece of information.
_ _
_ _ _ _. _ _ _ _
1926 Gluek Lane Minor Subdivision request PF16-014 response to facts of denial
1�Page
If the Council has a different definition, I would appreciate you sharing. Assuming we have an agreeable
definition of fact, I would like to address each item of fact.
1) The existing storm water runoff and drainage issues in the area are extreme.
Response 1A. Irrelevant and nonspecific statement.
Response 1B. If you will recall, there was a second Gluek Lane minor subdivision request heard
and denied on July 11, 2016. The proposers of the subdivision shared their denial letter issued
by the city. I was surprised to only see only one item on the "facts" — the same finding of fact as
my third item. Since fact #1 on my denial was not on the other subdivision request, the Council
must have determined that "the area" they defined in my factual denial only relates to my
adjacent neighbors. This surprises me, since no facts or information was presented on current
drainage issues on my lot or to lots adjacent to my lot.
I request the following definitions of the terms used: issues and extreme?
I will finish addressing this issue in response to item #3 below.
2) The proposal does not meet minimum requirements of the city code for lot width.
I have to admit; I am quite perplexed by this statement of fact. Line 58 to 59 of the PF-16-014
submission address the minimum width of an interior lot and states the following.
"City Code 1004.08 (LDR-1 Dimensional Standards): Table 1004-3 specifies that interior lots must
be at least 85 feet wide, 110 feet deep and comprise at least 11,000 square feet in area."
The proposal submitted indicates a lot width of 100' at the front. 100' is greater than 85'.
I spent months working with Roseville's planning team in developing the proposal to submit a
code compliant submission. We reviewed and modified our submission, in collaboration with
the city planners. We even verified the submission per the recently adopted section 1103.-
6A&B that was approved unanimously by the Council on May 23.
Item A.1. establishes the following requirement:
A. The minimum lot dimensions in subdivisions designed for single family detached dwelling
developments shall be: 1, Eighty five (85J feed wide at the established building setback line and
on outside street curvatures.
City Code 1103.06.B requires:
(from line 80 of the submission) "the rear lot line to be at least 30' in length."
On the submission, the width of the lot is in excess of 85' at 30' back from the front line (the
building setback line) and 30' at the rear property line. In excess of 85' is greater than 85'. It is
100% guaranteed that it is at least 85'. It is a fact that this submission is compliant with regards
to lot width.
__ _ _ _ _ _
__
1926 Gluek Lane Minor Subdivision request PF16-014 response to facts of denial
2�Page
In the video of the council meeting, time 3:38, Council Member Willmus asks for clarification on
lot width 30' back from the 30' lot setback line. 60' back from the street in not a location where
a requirement has been defined by the City of Roseville Code. The code, as recently adopted
unanimously by this very Council less than two months ago requires 85' width at the set back
line, nothing further.
Before finalizing this denial, I ask that the Council please clarify how this submission does not
meet width requirements?
3) The marginal runoff from the residential development intended for the subdivided parcel
might be injurious to other homes in the surrounding neighborhood.
Response 3A. (from the City of Roseville's website) In the spring of 2013 the city updated its
stormwater management standards to meet the requirements of the surface water
management plan. Following is a summary of the standards:
• All new development and redevelopment on projects which encompass one-half acre or
more of disturbed area or 5,000 square feet or more of new or reconstructed imperious
surface will be evaluated based on the new stormwater requirements.
More conditions exist, but are not relevant to this application.
The proposed lot split does not exceed one-half acre; therefore, it could not possibly disturb
one-half acre or more. There are no policies or ordinances that support denial of this lot split on
this condition. This statement of fact does not follow the city's policies.
Response 36: Given the definition of "the area" by Council in item fact #1, I can prove,
undeniably, that the runoff from my lot would not be injurious to the neighboring homes. There
are two adjacent neighbors to "the area". Based upon the use of my trust Stanley� Pocket
Sighting level, my neighbor's homes are between 4' to 6' and 8' to 10' higher than the average
elevation of the proposed lot to be split. If my entire subdivided was covered with impermeable
surfaces to 30% (Roseville City Code standard) , then design standard of 4.18" of rainfall can
then be determined the impact to the two neighbor lots and my current lot.
4.18x0.3x0.5acres/3.5acres=l/6"
Potentially raising the water level 1/6" on our two neighbor's lots (and my other subdivided lot)
is substantially less than the height difference of 48" to 120". No damage to their homes. The
Council's statement is not Factual.
Response 3C: Understanding that you may not have intended to define "the area" as you did
and that is why you used "neighborhood", I decided to look at the whole 120-acre water shed.
My findings are as follows:
I request the following definitions of the terms used:
_ _. ____ __ _ _ _ _ _
1926 Gluek Lane Minor Subdivision request PF16-014 response to facts of denial
3�Page
1) Marginal: Factually, what is the quantum of the marginal runoff? The submission does not
propose any specific square footage of impervious surface. How was it factually determined
that there is runoff? At time 3:55 of the meeting, Council Member Willmus states
(paraphrasing, since minutes are not yet published.) `I can't state that added impervious
coverage in the area would not potential harm the existing property owner'. No impervious
surface was proposed in this submission, so I ask for clarity on how impervious coverage was
determined on this denial, as a basis of fact.
2) Intended: My submission met all requirements set forth by the city. In this submission I did
not provide any specifics of development, so how did the Council define the development?
3) Might be: According to our definition of fact above, a fact should be true. This statement
may be true, and it may not be true. This is not factual.
4) Injurious to other homes: No facts were brought forward in the denial defining how or to
what extent the injuries that would be sustained by the neighborhood for this submission.
Some community comment was brought forward by the neighbors, but no facts were
presented or are known about damages to homes only land.
5) Surrounding: What is definition of this area?
6) This assessment on drainage is not appropriate and should not be considered on this
submission, because it is not and has not previously been a condition for minor subdivision
The entire sentence is a non-factual and could just as easily be written as:
An unknown amount of potential runoff from the undefined residential development that
may be intended for the subdivided parcel might or might not be safe or injurious to other
homes in the surrounding neighborhood.
In fact, while the City of Roseville has not done any calculations to substantiate or refute this
issue, I will offer you something to consider.
Theoretically, IF we were to split the lot, and put in a 25'x50' driveway and a home with a roof
area of 2000 ft^2 AND assume a worst case scenario that all added development is
impermeable with no other rainwater retention devices on our property (which we do have
installed at our current house) the following items are factual. See appendix A for calculations.
• Marginal runoff is 8,472 gallons
• The marginal runoff increases the 120-acre drainage by 0.062%
• The marginal runoff increases the storm system overstress from 28.247% to 28.326%
0.062% is a challenging number for me to understand, so for demonstration purposes, I used the
monthly salary of a City of Roseville Council member, $585 per month, lets apply this
percentage:
$585.00 * 0.062% _ $0.36
If we apply this idea of injurious at a threshold of 0.062%, that leads me to conclude that a
monthly payment to you of $584.64 rather than $585.00 would be injurious to your finances. In
_ _ _ __ .. __ __ _
1926 Gluek Lane Minor Subdivision request PF16-014 response to facts of denial
4�Page
my education at University of Wisconsin Madison engineering school about significant digits and
rounding errors, 0.062% is not significant and is a rounding error. Even if the development area
was doubled, it is still not a significant addition.
Closin� comments
Subdivisions in this "area" are actually quite common. I have defined an area land between
Cleveland and Fairview and between County Road B and Highway 36. While not an exhaustive
list, here is the numbers I calculated from Ramsey County Aerial maps and City of Roseville data.
Year of assessment Number of Homes Homes on Gluek Lane
1953 2 1
1973 Many (high density development) 22
1985 Many 27
1991 Many 30
2003 Many 32
2016 260 34
The denial of this subdivision is unprecedented and not supported by fact.
For precedent and context, I encourage you to search the minutes of the two lot subdivisions
that have taken place in my 12 years living in this community. The most recent one was for 1937
Gluek. Council Member McGehee, you may remember this one, since you seconded the motion
and contributed to unanimous support of the division.
The City Council's mission statement is as follows:
To provide ethical, efficient, and responsive local government, in support of community
aspirations, guided by the policies of the City Council, and implemented by the professiona! staff,
to ensure that Roseville remains strong, vibrant and sustainable for current and future
generations.
It was disappointing to me that the professional staff to which the Council looks for guidance
and implementation was dismissed, as they recommended approval for this subdivision. The
Council set the rules, I worked with the city staff using their professional judgement to deem
that this submission follows the rules of the City of Roseville. Yet, the rules appear to have
changed through this subdivision denial.
I once again urge you to remove item 8a from the consent agenda, have a member of the
majority voting members move for reconsideration, and approve this code compliant
subdivision motion as is recommended by your staff, and supported by the facts.
Regards,
_ �
ad Kol nd 926 Gluek Lane, Roseville, MN 55113
_ __- ___ __ _ ___
1926 Gluek Lane Minor Subdivision request PF16-014 response to facts of denial
S�Page
APPENDIX A— Mar�inal Runoff Calculations.
Note, all engineering input was proved by the City of Roseville, 1 calculated depth, area,
volume, and percentage (simple math - not engineeringJ. Given my attachment to this proposal
and the preliminary nature of the calculations, I feel it would be unethical for me to certify these
calculations. 1 would ask that the City Professional Engineers perform their own professional
analysis. If this city wishes, I would be willing to hire an independent Professional Engineer to
provide certified calculations to the city.
The rainfall volume conforming to a 24hour/10year storm is 4.18", as verified and verbally
confirmed by the City of Roseville Engineering staff on 7/15/16. The drainage area of this storm
sewer system is 120 acres. The total amount of drainage is:
4.18" X 120acres = 41.8 acre f eet or 13,620,589 gallons
The total impervious surface added in this assumption would be 3,250 ft^2.
The marginal water flow from this development would be:
3,250 ftZx 4.18" = 13,585 ft^2 inches
Convert this to acre ft:
13,585 f t2 inches *(1 f t\*� lacre 1= Q 026 acre f t
\12in� 43,560ft2�
Convert this to gallons:
325,851gallons
0.026acre f t*( )= 8,472 gallons
lacreft
The marginal contribution is 8,472 gallons. As a ratio:
8472 gallons
13,620,589 gallons 0.000621 = 0. 062%
Looking at this another way, the storm sewer system is overstressed as follows:
13,620,589
= 1.28247 or 28.247%
13,620,589 — 3,000,000
Adding in the assumed marginal runoff from above:
13,620,589 + 8,472
= 1.28247 = 28.326%
13,620,589 — 3,000,0000
The marginal runoff adds the following overstress to the system:
1.28326
1.28247 1.00062 or 0.062%
_ __ _ . _ _ _ ___
1926 Gluek Lane Minor Subdivision request PF16-014 response to facts of denial
6�Page
,
�J�VIG �l �eGN �rJv�
��.1 � 1 �� 2_.Dl�i
1861 Gluek Lane, Roseville, MN minor subdivision C� �� �n'�'n ��� �
Planning File: 16-016 � � fi� �
July 18, 2016
Written by: Arlene J.Mencke, PhD
Dear Council Members
Thanks for your time and your consideration of my request for a minor lot subdivision at
last week's meeting.
I would like to move for removal of item 8b from the consent agenda to allow for
discussion, additional input and a new vote to change the decision of the council.
I would further like to move, in accordance to Rosenberg's Rules of Order, that one of
the Council Members in the majority of this vote enter a motion to reconsider based on
the following response to the "facts" that formed this denial of this request for
subdivision.
In accordance with the options provided to the Council, there was a unanimous vote to
deny this subdivision at the July 11th meeting. The denial was supported by "the
following "factual findino�':
"The marginal runoff from the residential development intended for the subdivided
parcel im ght be injurious to other homes in the surrounding neighborhood."
I would like to address the facts:
** No plan for developing the 1861 lot have been submitted which would form a basis
for the Councit to make a decision based on fact.
At the July 11 th City Council meeting:
**Photographs from 1885 Gtuek Lane were shown that were taken after a"storm of the
century" which downed at least 19 trees on 1861 and the easement and resulted in the
loss of electricity for several days. We have lived at 1861 for 23 years and have
experienced only one such storm.
**Photographs from 1885 Gluek Lane were shown which showed flooding between
1885 and 1861. Indeed that flooding was primarily in the easement owned by the city.
The fence at 1885 extends 15 feet into the 20 feet of the easement and so is misleading
about the flooding on the 1885 property.
v
**The map submitted showing areas of flooding were constructed by the owners of 1885
and 1895 and constitute opinion rather than fact. The official drawings are merely
measuring topography of the land.
**A compost pile at 1895 is located on the easement and partially on the 1861 property.
It is an impediment to the flow of runoff into the storm sewers.
**Neither 1885 nor 1895 have done any modifications to the properties to mitigate
runoff. 1861 is lower than 1885 and 1895 so the runoff accumulates in the easement
and on the 1861 property.
**Occupants of 1885 and 1895 "have spoken with the city planner, we told him we all
support your proposed subdivisions and future site developmenY'. Further, "we have
requested that the city pay particular attention to the storm water drainage issues as
they go through their routine site development approvals at the time that those
applications are filed." Further "we support you and do not want to block your plans for
subdividing and site development."
** Concerns were expressed re blocking the view of drivers coming around the curve in
the street would be blocked and be a cause of auto accidents. In fact, the view is
blocked by a large evergreen on the 1885 lot. Using the setback requirements of the
city, the view of the street would not be impeded by the new structure. Occasionally
cars park along that area. A simple solution might be to post no parking signs.
*"Professional staff of the City of Roseville indicated that the suggested subdivision "the
application has been reviewed by staff of various departments, and it was found to be
complete and not to raise any concerns related to City regulations administered by staff
in those departments."
**As previously presented, calculations by Brad Koland - a qualified professional
engineer - have determined that the incremental runoff would be insignificant. We wish
to incorporate his calculations and apply them to our application as well.
"`*The size of the proposed lot is 42,788 square feet. We are proposing a 3,000 square
foot house with a 900 square foot garage with driveways and sidewalks for an estimated
total of 4500 square feet of impermeable surfaces which is 10.5% of the total area. This
is well below the city requirement of 30% coverage or less.
"*We have invited our contractor - who has experience with building on lots with
potential drainage problems - to join us and talk about his experience.