HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC_Minutes_2010_0426City of
L~~~
~~~
Minnesota, USA
Regular City Council Meeting
Minutes
City Hall Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive
Monday, April 26, 2010
1. Roll Call
Mayor Klausing called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approx-
imately 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone. (Voting and Seating Order for April: Ihlan;
Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing). City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present. City
Finance Director Chris Miller served as Acting City Manager in the absence of City
Manager Bill Malinen.
2. Approve Agenda
At the request of Mr. Miller, the agenda was amended to include an additional item under
the Consent Agenda, Item 7.f entitled, "Cellars Wines & Spirits Off-Sale Liquor License
at 2701 Lincoln Drive;" scheduling a public hearing on May 10, 2010 for the relocation
of an Off-Sale Liquor License for Cellars Wines & Spirits for potential relocation of their
current retail store at 1649 County Road C West, approximately 500 feet north of the cur-
rent location.
By consensus, the agenda was approved as amended.
3. Public Comment
Mayor Klausing called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-
agenda items. No one spoke.
4. Council Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and Redevelop-
ment Authority (HRA) Report
Councilmember Roe reminded the public of a recent ordinance addressing stormwater
runoff and illicit discharge to the City's stormwater system, asking that residents remove
grass clippings from the street or away from gutters to prevent them entering the system.
Mayor Klausing announced the upcoming community meeting on May 3, 2010 from 6:30
- 8:30 p.m. at the Roseville Skating Center to receive additional information, offer public
comment, and be part of the decision-making for the 2011 budget process, as one of the
goals of the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning process.
Mayor Klausing announced upcoming Compost Classes beginning May 11, 2010; and the
truckload sale of rain barrels/compost bins beginning May 1, 2010.
Additional information on these items is available by contacting City Hall or via the
City's website.
5. Recognitions, Donations, Communications
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, Apri126, 2010
Page 2 ,
a. Proclaim May Asian Pacific American Heritage Month
Mayor Klausing read a proclamation recognizing May 2010 as Asian Pacific
American Heritage Month.
Roe moved, Ihlan seconded, proclaiming May 2010 as Asian Pacific American
Heritage Month.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
6. Approve Minutes
a. Approve Minutes of Apri112, 2010 Regular Meeting
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approval of the minutes of the April 12, 2010
Regular meeting as presented.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
7. Approve Consent Agenda
There were no additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted. At
the request of Mayor Klausing, Acting City Manager Chris Miller briefly reviewed those
items being considered under the Consent Agenda.
a.
Approve Payments
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approval of the following claims and pay-
ments as presented.
ACH Pa ents $2,596,930.89
58212-58340 356,360.35
Total $2,953,291.24
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
b. Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding $5,000
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approval of general purchases and/or con-
tracts as follows:
De artment Vendor Item/Descri tion Amount
Recreation TruGreen Fertilizer/weed control in arks $5,456.10
Recreation Biolawn Fertilizer/weed control in arks 5,525.03
Roll Call
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, Apri126, 2010
Page 3
Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
c. Accept First Quarter Financial Report
d. Approve Part-time Firefighter Associate Job Description
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, authorizing the Fire Deparhnent to establish
a new "Associate Firefighter" position within the Fire Department with corres-
ponding rate of pay.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
e. Adopt Resolution Authorizing a DEED Contamination Investigation Grant
Application for the PIK Parcel
At the request of Councilmember Ihlan, Acting City Manager Miller confirmed
that any matching funds would be the responsibility of the property owner, not the
city.
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10803 entitled,
"City Approving the Application, Committing Local Match, and Authorizing
Contract Signature for a DEED Contamination Investigation and RAP Develop-
ment Grant for the PIK Site."
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
Addition to Consent Agenda
f. Cellars Wines & Spirits Off-Sale Liquor License at 2701 Lincoln Drive
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, scheduling a public hearing on May 10, 2010
for the relocation of an Off-Sale Liquor License for Cellars Wines & Spirits for
potential relocation of their current retail store at 1649 County Road C West to
approximately 500' move to the north; in accordance with the Request for Coun-
cil Action dated April 26, 2010; and presented as a bench handout.
Roll Call
Ayes: Thlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
8. Consider Items Removed from Consent
9. General Ordinances for adoption
10. Presentations
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, April 26, 2010
Page 4
a. Presentation of Progress and Proposals regarding the Zoning Regulations
Update
City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized the zoning ordinance rewrite process,
since the previous report on February 11, 2010; as detailed in the Request for
Council Action (RCA) dated April 26, 2010, and related to the residential and
commercial/mixed use district drafts of the zoning code rewrite. Mr. Paschke
noted that Sections 3.2 and 4.2 of the RCA highlighted those areas where more
predominant changes to code were proposed. Mr. Paschke then reviewed the next
steps in the rewrite process.
Discussion included anticipated amount of public comment related to the changes
and whether more than one public hearing would need to be scheduled, with the
schedule allowing for delay if necessary; additional educational materials for the
public as part of the process for long-term land use throughout the community;
background information and ongoing reiterations of proposed ordinance changes
available on the City's website and through staff contact during the process for
public review and comment, in addition to public comment opportunities at the
Planning Commission level; with opportunity for comment until final adoption of
the Ordinance by the City Council.
Further discussion included inclusion of the recent application for a regional
church use as Institutional land use districts are considered, and as an outcome of
the upcoming Comprehensive Plan Amendment; as well as putting performance
measures in place in Industrial land use districts to ensure clear definition of ap-
plicable uses for those more intense business impacts (i.e., asphalt plants), given
the public interest and concern expressed in recent application for such a facility.
Additional discussion included minimum lot sizes to achieve 93% compliance
versus current compliance of approximately 52% of single-family lots not in con-
formance and requiring variances, with the proposed 9,500 square foot minimum
lot size and 75' width.
Councilmember Ihlan expressed policy concerns to a draft provision in imposing
lesser minimum lot sizes city-wide, referencing the previous study by a citizen
advisory panel several years ago that looked at lot sizes with the intent to preserve
neighborhoods where lot sizes are larger; and expressed the need for additional
public input before such a change was implemented.
Councilmember Pust expressed the need to review that study again as part of the
rezoning rewrite process, as her recollection of their recommendations differed
from that of Councilmember Ihlan.
Further discussion included the creation of an overlay district for smaller lot size
allowing for reduced setbacks; and past controversy on several subdivisions and
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, Apri126, 2010
Page 5
preference that they conform to the surrounding neighborhood; and staff's esti-
mate that approximately 70 new lots would be created with such a code revision
for reduced lot sizes at 9,500 square feet.
Councilmember Johnson thanked staff for their ongoing work on this rewrite.
11. Public Hearings
a. Public Hearing regarding Twin Lakes Infrastructure Study Amendment
City Engineer Debra Bloom summarized the Twin Lakes Infrastructure Study first
adopted in February 25, 2008; updated December 15, 2008; and annually re-
viewed and updated as conditions change; all detailed in the RCA dated April 26,
2010.
Ms. Bloom reviewed the purpose and background of the Infrastructure Study and
provided an update on roadway costs since that previous review, including envi-
ronmental clean-up, building demolition, actual right-of--way costs, actual con-
struction and engineering costs, and adjustment for construction events.
Ms. Bloom referenced Attachments C and D included in the packet, with Attach-
ment Drecently updated and highlighting fixed cost agreements. Ms. Bloom re-
viewed calculations for network trips (sum of development vehicular trips that
pass through intersections/segments requiring improvements); and total cost allo-
cation (this developments total cost proportion based on its network impacts).
Ms. Bloom further reviewed costs for public utilities, noting that there were no
proposed changes at this time, as those calculations were based on parcel acreage.
Discussion included attendance at the most recent meeting for property owners,
with staff advising that approximately 25 attended that meeting, in addition to
other opportunities to meet with staff one-on-one.
Mayor Klausing opened the Public Hearing at approximately 6:42 p.m.
Public Comment
Reed Aaron, RV resident (with solar group)
Mr. Aaron sought information on the process for soil contamination studies and
analysis, as well as resolution of that contamination.
Ms. Bloom advised that all phases of infrastructure improvements for the redeve-
lopment were under review by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
through Response Action Plans (RAP's) filed with the MPCA for all areas dis-
turbed on the City rights-of--way, with private property owners responsible for any
contamination on their private property.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, April 26, 2010
Page 6
Mayor Klausing closed the. Public Hearing at 6:44 p.m.
12. Business Items (Action Items)
a. Approve Twin Lakes Infrastructure Study Amendment
Johnson moved, Pust seconded, amendments to the Infrastructure Improvements
for the Twin Lakes AUAR Area-Final Report, as detailed in the Request for
Council Action dated Apri126, 2010.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
b. Adopt Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Adver-
tisement for Bids for Twin Lakes Infrastructure Improvements -Phase II
City Engineer Bloom summarized the proposed road and utility infrastructure
construction components of Phase II of the Twin Lakes Infrastructure Improve-
ments, consisting of construction of Twin Lakes Parkway from Cleveland Avenue
to Mount Ridge Road; the construction of Mount Ridge Road from Twin Lakes
Parkway to County Road C-2; and the installation of the storm water management
system, streetlights and a portion of the landscaping.
Discussion included signal locate at County Road C in conjunction with Ramsey
County as part of the previous project; traffic routing to and from the Metropoli-
tan Council's park and ride facility; and plans for the construction to be opera-
tional by the end of 2010, as per requirements of the DEED grant.
Roe moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10804 entitled, "Reso-
lution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids
for Twin Lakes Infrastructure Improvement -Phase II."
Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of this action to accommodate aself-
contained loop through the redevelopment area and to take advantage of funding
opportunities. However, Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to any further
phasing in the area until development warranted it, specifically that the connec-
tion to Fairview Avenue (Phase III) not be completed due to cost and avoiding
creation of acut-through for traffic from I-35W to Fairview Avenue toward Snel-
ling Avenue through residential neighborhoods.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
c. Amend Contract for Design Services for Twin Lakes Infrastructure Im-
provements
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, Apri126, 2010
Page 7
Two bench handouts were distributed related to this item: an amended draft reso-
lution entitled, "Resolution Approving Agreement Amendment for the Design of
Twin Lakes AUAR Subarea 1 Infrastructure Improvements;" and Consultant Ser-
vices Agreement Amendment between the City of Roseville and Consultant WSB
and Associates, at the recommendation of the City Attorney in consultation with
staff.
Ms. Bloom briefly summarized the original scope of the contract for work per-
formed by WSB and Associates; changes to the plan with break-out of separate
phases and bidding packages; alternate bid items; and federal funding requiring
additional cost for redesign of portions of the project. Ms. Bloom noted the addi-
tional work of the consultant included schedule changes; budget track-
ing/invoicing; additional design review meetings; design of biofiltration beds and
lift station for Phase III; miscellaneous plan sheets; and a second set of contract
documents prepared. Ms. Bloom advised that the deliverables would include final
plans for Phases 1 and II and preliminary plans for Phase III.
Discussion included comparisons of the action proposed in the RCA and those
bench handouts, with staff advising that the action remained the same but was on-
ly presented in more formal documentation, with Attachment A still detailing the
original scope of services; clarification of cost allocations for those additional
costs and paid back to the City through the AUAR; use of and reimbursement of
tax increment financing (TIF) funds; and distribution of any excess TIF funds to
taxing jurisdictions when the district is closed out in 25 years, and originally es-
tablished in 2006.
City Attorney Mark Gaughan clarified that, sine the original agreement was ap-
proved by resolution, it would be appropriate for this significant amendment to be
approved in similar fashion.
Councilmember Ihlan sought clarification as to how much of the $143,131 was at-
tributable to Phase III yet to be authorized.
Ms. Bloom advised that there would be approximately $20,000 of the total
amount attributable to Phase III, specifically for the lift station and plan sheets.
Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10805 entitled,
"Resolution Approving Agreement Amendment for the Design of Twin Lakes
AUAR Subarea 1 Infrastructure Improvements;" and Consultant Services Agree-
ment Amendment between the City of Roseville and Consultant WSB and Asso-
ciates in an amount not to exceed $143,131.
Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her support of Phases I and II for future reim-
bursement by developers; however, she spoke in opposition to including any au-
thorization for expenses for Phase III at this time.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, Apri126, 2010
Page 8
Mayor Klausing noted that the City Council had, by previous action, approved
draft feasibility studies and plans for Phases I -III.
Councilmember Roe noted that AUAR traffic studies indicate that not very far in
to redevelopment, Phase III would need to be implemented, and opined that it was
appropriate to complete the design work now for Phase III, while not yet approv-
ing the phase itself.
Councilmember Ihlan disagreed with Mayor Klausing and Councilmember Roe,
opining that there were serious considerations needed related to environmental
and quality of life impacts with Phase III, in addition to costs, and accordingly
spoke in opposition to the motion.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan.
Motion carried.
d. Adopt Resolution directing Xcel Energy to Underground Overhead Electric
Lines along Rice Street
A bench handout, consisting of an e-mail from Roger Hess Jr, 1914 Wagener
Place, to staff and staffls response was distributed.
Public Works Director Duane Schwartz summarized the project's total history;
preliminary cost estimate in January of 2010 of $574,300 and subsequent City
Council support of the Cities of Roseville and Little Canada respectively; and re-
vised and reduced total cost estimates refined at $551,259, with $275,629.50 net
cost estimated for the City of Roseville's share, and will include burying of
east/west overhead lines at the County Road B-2 intersection. Mr. Schwartz
noted that there may be some additional costs for Roseville for necessary ease-
ments for ground-mounted transfer switches and other equipment estimated at ap-
proximately $10,000. Mr. Schwartz noted that the City of Little Canada was pro-
posing to cost-share this project and participate in buying down the City of Rose-
ville's portion to achieve the net cost to Roseville, proposed for collection through
Xcel Energy surcharge option, Community Requested Facility Surcharge (CRFS),
as authorized by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC).
Mr. Schwartz advised that the surcharge cost over a three year (36 month) period
for Roseville's Xcel electric residential customers would be $0.44/month over
that period, with the largest commercial customer estimated at $1.76/month for
that same period. Mr. Schwartz noted that an agreement was being negotiated be-
tween the Cities of Roseville and Little Canada regarding this transaction, and
would come before the City Council in May for their approval. Mr. Schwartz an-
ticipated construction to begin in June of 2010, with overhead lines removed by
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, Apri126, 2010
Page 9
the fall of 2010, at which time the City would be notified by Xcel of CRFS im-
plementation and the surcharge implemented 60-90 days after construction was
completed and based on actual construction costs.
Collette Jurek, Xcel Energy Manager -Community & Local Government
Relations, SE Metro Area -Newport Service Center
Ms. Jurek was present and assisted in presenting more detailed information from
the perspective of Xcel Energy for this type of request.
Councilmember Ihlan sought any other source of financing for this project, ex-
pressed concern with requiring residential property owners to be surcharged
across the entire City for this $15 - 16 total over the next three years, questioning
if the entire city benefited from the undergrounding of lines in a specific area of
the City. Councilmember Ihlan suggested it may be more appropriate to use re-
serves, or other options, prior to considering acity-wide surcharge without the
public being fully aware of it until applied to their utility bill.
Finance Director Miller advised that there was nothing in place at this time for
something of this magnitude; noting that many cities have used such a surcharge,
equating the improvement to a service enhancement benefitting the entire com-
munity; and recommended this financing as the easiest and best way to accom-
plish the undergrounding and aesthetic improvement to the community and the
Rice Street corridor at this time.
Councilmember Roe noted that the City currently spreads a significant portion of
its street projects through the City - 75%, establishing a precedent in spreading the
benefit of such an overall community improvements throughout the City, similar
to undergrounding of electric lines. Councilmember Roe noted that, if the City of
Roseville had a franchise fee similar to that of Little Canada, the costs would be
passed on by Xcel to rate payers for such an improvement and all residents would
be paying for the improvement through that method.
Discussion included approval of such a surcharge by the PUC and not requiring a
public hearing for this type of action, based on recent case law (City of Oakdale v.
Xcel Energy) and Xcel Energy's right to recover incremental costs for improve-
ments; and the inclusion of installation of empty conduit for additional street
lighting and fiber by both cities during this undergrounding of electric lines.
Mayor Klausing recognized the additional cost being imposed on property own-
ers, in addition to him and individual Councilmembers; however, he spoke in
support of the minimal cost of $15 - 16 over a three year period to make such an
aesthetic improvement to one of the main thoroughfares into through the commu-
nity, and opined that the benefit far outweighed the cost, and would open up other
beautification and environmental options. Mayor Klausing expressed his lack of
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, Apri126, 2010
Page 10
support for the current "tree trimming" performed by Xcel Energy for overhead
lines.
Further discussion included options for customers to challenge the surcharge and
how the surcharge was allocated among customers, addressed as a nine-step
process by Ms. Jurek in accordance with standard PUC requirements; and the op-
portunity for the City Council to have one final review once the project was com-
pleted and final construction costs were available, which could actually serve to
reduce the estimated cost.
Klausing moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10806 entitled, "Res-
olution Directing Xcel Energy to Underground Overhead Utilities on Rice Street
between County Road B and County Road B-2;" utilizing the Community Re-
quested Facility Surcharge (CRFS) financing option.
Councilmember Roe noted that this proposed undergrounding of utility lines had
been included in discussions during the Comprehensive Plan update; and noted
that, while this project was along the Rice Street corridor, there would be future
projects in the community and opportunities for undergrounding that would serve
those other areas as well, and that over time the burdens would be shared more
equitably than this first project indicated.
Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern with not having public input from resi-
dents and business owners regarding this city-wide surcharge; and with there sup-
port, noted that she could then support the project. However, without that infor-
mation and their support, Councilmember Ihlan advised that she would be unable
to support the motion when the only way for residents to challenge the surcharge
would be through the PUC.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan.
Motion carried.
By consensus, Mayor Klausing amended the agenda to address Items 12.f and 12.g at this
time.
f. Authorize City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 1748
Galtier Street
Permit Coordinator Munson reviewed the request for abatement as detailed in the
RCA dated April 26, 2010; providing a visual update on this single-family, de-
tached home at 1748 Galtier Street, where regular collection occurs weekly on
Thursdays.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, Apri126, 2010
Page 11
Mr. Munson summarized the proposed abatement and estimated costs, consisting
of removal of garbage stored in bags in the yard or on the driveway at an approx-
imately one-time total cost of $250.00; previous City Council directive; and
staffls attempts to resolve the situation in accordance with their directive:
Mr. Munson noted that staff could not locate and/or contact the property owner,
Carol Armstrong, even after repeated efforts, and advised that one of the adjacent
neighbors, in attendance tonight, indicated that the property was a rental and not
owner-occupied since approximately 2006.
Staff recommended that the Community Development Department be authorized
to abate the unresolved City Code violations as detailed as aone-time action, and
if not resolving the situation, returning to the City Council with further recom-
mendation.
Discussion included the process staff would follow in attempting to resolve this
recurring situation for the long-term; the concerns in lack of resolution of this is-
sue and apparent lack of interest of the property owner in its resolution; directing
staff to send notices to the property owner as well as "occupant;" how to resolve
the issue permanently, not just on a one-time basis; incentives for compliance by
the occupant and/or property owner; further attempts to research the current ad-
dress of the property owner; and the process in issuing a Ramsey Court citation
with City Attorney Gaughan outlining such a criminal citation.
Mayor Klausing noted that the property owner and/or occupant was currently in
violation of City ordinance and needed to show their willingness to cooperate to
avoid further recourse, and admonished that this situation was not acceptable.
Neighbor, Laura Florhaug, 1740 Galtier Street
Ms. Florhaug confirmed that Ms. Armstrong no longer lived in the home, which
was currently occupied by Ms. Joy Hayden and her two daughters; and expressed
concern that Ms. Armstrong was not receiving the notices and opined that she
would be responsive if she had received them.
Ms. Forhaug expressed concern with how incentives could be provided to resolve
the situation; further expressing her frustration in this ongoing problem, and their
personal expense in installing blinds and a fence to alleviate the eyesore from
their property's view.
Discussion included unpaid property taxes and forfeiture; how to enforce com-
pliance; difficulty in communication with the current occupants; other nuisance
issues for this occupant including lack of maintenance (snow shoveling) and dogs
running wild and defecating in other yards; and lack of refuse service at this ad-
dress.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, Apri126, 2010
Page 12
Councilmember Roe noted that tonight's discussion had enlightened his under-
standing of this specific property and other issues at the property, including ani-
mal control, unpaid utility bills, no rental registration of the property, and no snow
shoveling during the winter; opining that the garbage issue appeared to be a
symptom of a larger issue, and in order to consider all segments of the larger is-
sue, it was key to track down the property owner.
Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, directing staff to abate the above-referenced
public nuisance violations of City Code at 1748 Galtier Street by hiring general
contractors to remove garbage stored in bags but not in a trash receptacle; as de-
tailed in the RCA dated April 26, 2010, at an estimated cost of approximately
$250.00; and further directing that the property owner be billed for all actual and
administrative costs; and if those charges remain unpaid, staff is to recover costs
as specified in Minnesota Statute, Section 407.07B; with costs to be reported to
the City Council following the abatement.
Staff was further directed to further research the current address of the property
owner, and to return to the City Council for authorization of further action if
needed.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
e. Adopt a Resolution Approving a Policy for Reviewing and Approving Solar
Energy Systems in Roseville
Two bench handouts were distributed related to this item, consisting of an e-mail
from Susan Weum and staff response to that a-mail; and revised draft resolution
entitled, "A Resolution Establishing a Policy for Review and Approval of Resi-
dential Solar Energy Systems;" resulting from comments with that property own-
er.
City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized the RCA dated April 26, 2010 and the
model ordinance drafted from a MPCA template as a starting point for the City in
reviewing these requests.
Discussion included aesthetic versus technical structural analysis or industry stan-
dards for clearances; general Council support of use of solar energy, while recog-
nizing and anticipating any unintended consequences; existing solar units in-
stalled to-date through permit or without permit and how they comply with this
proposed policy; implications for the City's zoning ordinance rewrite; considera-
tions for such requests from a Building Permit and/or land use reference; and this
policy serving as an interim solution.
Public Comment
Susan Weum, 1176 Skillman Avenue W
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, April 26, 2010
Page 13
Ms. Weum thanked the City Council for their consideration of this request; and
expressed pride in the City's other environmental and energy sustainable projects
and solutions.
Mr. Aaron previous speaker)
Mr. Aaron noted that this was a critical issue, and also thanked Mayor Klausing
and the City Council for their support of the Mayor's Climate resolution and en-
couraged that Roseville continue to be a leader and part of the solution.
Mayor Klausing recognized staff's research and recommendation for such in-
itiates; and noted the other sustainable initiatives such as the storm water man-
agement at the Twin Lakes redevelopment, as well as geothermal system at the
OVAL, and staff's initiation and recommendation of those projects.
Page 13, line 15: I suggest removing the reference to "(undocumented
solar house)" as being unnecessary. Is it really undocumented, which has
a very negative and illicit connotation, or just approved administratively
when built?
Dale Howe, 919 Parker
Mr. Howe advised that his existing solar system had been installed in 2005 on the
home constructed in 2000, looking to maximize the efficiency of the system and
addressing the aesthetics of the home; submission of engineering documents to
staff, as well as pulling plumbing and electrical permits. Mr. Howe recognized
development of a new process; and the proposed angles above the roofline. Mr.
Howe cautioned that aesthetics were not the driving force for such installation,
but how to achieve maximum effectiveness and functionality, in addition to ad-
dressing wind shear via engineering expertise; and expressed his willingness for
review of his existing system.
Mayor Klausing noted that residents had pulled permits, and that it was a gap in
the City's system that a solar policy was not in place as part of the review process
until now.
Cynthia White, Churchill Street
Ms. White addressed the improved technologies for use of solar power since she
first built a passive solar room onto her home in 1980, and the increased learning
available since that time.
Rebecca Lundberg, solar installer who submitted permit
Ms. Lundberg provided educational information related to this issue to achieve
optimal performance and/or to meet minimum allowances for financial rebate
from the State of MN, based on engineering and structural engineering rather than
industry standards. At the request of Councilmember Ihlan, Ms. Lundberg out-
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, Apri126, 2010
Page 14
lined some rebate programs available to residents through various agencies and
potential tax credits.
Councilmembers strongly encouraged applicable exhibits at the 2011 Roseville
Living Smarter Home and Garden Fair.
Councilmember Roe suggested further clarification of the proposed language on
page 4 of the draft resolution, beginning at line 114, related to specific restrictions
for mounting related to roof pitch.
Mayor Klausing expressed his concern with revising the proposed language.
Mr. Paschke advised that staff was amenable to the proposed language revisions;
and Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon concurred that the pro-
posed language revisions was appropriate.
Councilmember Ihlan expressed preference for language remaining as drafted.
Councilmember Johnson expressed no preference for review language in either
draft.
Roe Amendment, starting at Line 114, page 4
Roe moved, Pust seconded, amendment as follows:
"... Roof-mounted systems that are visible from the nearest edge of the street
frontage right-of--way shall be reviewed and approved by Community Develop-
ment staff to ensure the system meets the wind load standards for the roof and
there are not major aesthetic impacts with the system to the surrounding proper-
ties."
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; Roe; and Pust.
Nays: Ihlan and Klausing.
Motion carried.
Pust moved, Roe seconded„ adoption of Resolution No. 10807 entitled, "A Reso-
lution Establishing a Policy for Review and Approval of Residential Solar Energy
Systems;" with a revised resolution presented as a bench handout, and further
amended as noted in the previous motion.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
f. Authorize Automated Meter Reading Implementation Plan
Public Works Director Duane Schwartz highlighted the RCA dated April 26,
2010, detailing the challenges of maintaining and managing an efficient water
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, April 26, 2010
Page 15
system; staff's review of comprehensive technology solutions and product capa-
bilities, including promoting efficiency and conservation; more pro-active re-
sponse to leaks and water usage; retrofit capabilities; decreased reading and bill-
ing time; reliability; staff resource management; and uses of more-detailed pro-
grammable and adaptable data.
Mr. Schwartz reviewed the two phases for the proposed seven year implementa-
tion plan:
Phase I - 2010 - 2012
Start-up; all commercial; 650 new meters + radios; 350 retrofits with ADE
head and radio; approximately 900 residential new meter + radios
Phase II - 2013 - 2016
Residential focus; finish remaining 8,400 residential meters; new meter +
radios on aging meters; retrofitting newer meters
Mr. Schwartz reviewed impacts to water customers, with incremental rate in-
creases anticipated within three years, but not implemented immediately during
initial installation; and worst-case scenarios for residential customers at an esti-
mated 1.5 - 2.5% rate increase, or $3.52 increase annually on a residential base
fee. Mr. Schwartz reviewed the benefits to residents of leak detection and dollar
savings for the resident and City through that early detection; and detailed water
usage provided for customers allowing for more efficient budgeting and accuracy
of the meters.
Mr. Schwartz provided specific examples of early leak detection as customer ben-
efits for residents and/or commercial users based on actual experiences over the
last year. Mr. Schwartz reviewed the average customer service requests fielded
by staff per month.
Mr. Schwartz addressed proposed project funding and system cost comparisons,
as detailed in the RCA; and staff recommendation for the Neptune fixed-base
AMR system that will work with the City's current inventory of meters; as well as
start-up costs and net comparisons for the phases of the installation.
Discussion included application for a licensed radio frequency band by the City
through the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and upon receipt to re-
turn to the City Council with a purchase order request to begin purchase of the
various components to facilitate apro-active meter replacement process; educa-
tional steps to alert the public; recovery of annual operating costs through utility
rates, as with other capital investment plan (CIP) purchases; and longer life of me-
ters due to the higher quality of water in Roseville than in some other distribution
systems using well water with more mineral components.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, Apri126, 2010
Page 16
Further discussion included the frequency and type of data available for residents
and the City in managing the water system; rationale for meter replacement sche-
duling; incremental funding for the project; and normal replacement cycle of me-
ters throughout the City.
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, authorization of the implementation plan for
a Neptune fixed-base, two-way Automated Meter Reading (AMR) system.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
h. Approve Extension for St. Paul Water Services Approval of Concrete Recy-
cling as an Interim Use at the Dale Street Reservoir
Mayor Klausing referenced an e-mail received earlier today from Judith and Da-
vid Thoreson, 1870 Alta Vista Drive, related to this item and distributed as a
bench handout.
City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the RCA dated Apri126, 2010 requesting
an extension of the Interim Use for concrete recycling at this site due to contract
delays during the contract award process. Mr. Paschke advised that staff had pro-
vided notice of the requested extension and tonight's discussion to those property
owners first receiving notice of the original request for the Planning Commission
public hearing as well as City Council consideration. Mr. Paschke advised that
staff supported and recommended the extension; however, noted that staff had re-
ceived anumber of a-mail comments related to operation of the concrete recy-
cling process.
Mr. Paschke advised that, to his knowledge, there was not a representative present
from Saint Paul Regional Water Services.
Discussion included options available and implications of those other options
(i.e., hauling concrete off-site versus on-site recycling); mitigation options for the
crushing operation itself; and impacts if the extension is not approved.
Further discussion included why the operation was delayed and why the process
was taking longer than anticipated; the requested extension of four weeks; status
of the park trail and access, in addition to signage by the applicant; detriment of
additional truck traffic, dust and noise by off-site resolution; and conditions of the
original Interim Use.
Mayor Klausing, while not happy about the extension, questioned whether deny-
ing it served the interests of the residents any better.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, Apri126, 2010
Page 17
Councilmember Roe spoke in support of extending the on-site crushing process;
but encouraged the applicant to get the demolition over with as soon as possible,
even with the extension.
Councilmember Ihlan noted her inability to attend the meeting when the original
Interim Use was requested, further noting that she would have opposed the re-
quest, given the proximity to the residential neighborhood and park, an docu-
mented impacts to health and quality of life from the dust; and would have sup-
ported recycling off-site. Therefore, Councilmember Ihlan advised that she could
not support the requested extension based on those concerns.
Councilmember Johnson opined that trucking off-site would be much more dis-
ruptive than extending on-site recycling for another month.
Discussion included anticipated truck loads of materials (600-900 truck loads for
transport off-site); mitigation steps available for the applicant on-site during the
crushing process.
Councilmember Pust noted references on Attachment E to the RCA coordination
by the applicant with the City's Park and Recreation Department of an implemen-
tation plan to restrict access to the project area and to keep the public informed on
use of the park trails.
Public Works Director Schwartz advised that City Engineer Bloom and Parks and
Recreation Director Brokke had both attended the preconstruction conference
held with the contractor during which time the schedule had been discussed; and
that the contractor made a commitment to keep trails open most of the time and to
sign them as applicable.
Roe moved, Johnson seconded, extension of the dates of operation of the ap-
proved INTERIM USE, as detailed in Condition "H" of Resolution No. 10787
adopted February 22, 2010; and as detailed in the RCA dated April 26, 2010; al-
lowing the temporary recycling of concrete at the Dale Street Reservoir, 1901
Vista Drive to continue until June 12, 2010; based on the comments and findings
of Sections 4-5; and subject to the condition that the applicant send a letter to the
owners of property within 500 feet of the reservoir site to inform them of the
project status and to instruct the property owners to call Saint Paul Regional Wa-
ter Services (SPRWS) staff with questions and concerns.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan.
Motion carried.
Recess
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, Apri126, 2010
Page 18
Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at approximately 9:14 p.m. and reconvened at approx-
imately 9:19 p.m.
13. Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
a. Finance Department Presentation regarding Imagine Roseville 2025 Topics
Imagine Roseville 2025 Comments
Finance Director Chris Miller highlighted the limited number of action steps iden-
tified as part of the process related to Finance and/or Information Technology
functions of the City, and those items systematically addressed and responded to
by staff. Mr. Miller noted the pro-active steps taken over the last decade in leve-
raging partnership opportunities with other jurisdictions (i.e., library system,
school districts) and other communities in the area; leveraging local and non-local
dollars (i.e., grants); and further evolution and expansion of those partnerships in
the future. Mr. Miller applauded the willingness of those other jurisdictions for
their willingness to discuss and consider such partnership, especially in areas
sharing common constituents to achieve economies of scale, and keep tax rates
down.
Capital Investment Plan (CIP~ Comments
While not anticipating significant changes, Mr. Miller noted that staff was in the
process of revising and updating this document, hopefully for presentation to the
City Council at their meeting on May 17, 2010. Based on assumptions and pro-
jections, Mr. Miller emphasized to Councilmembers the significant needs coming
up over the next decade and funding gaps in replacing assets at the end of their
useful life, while recognizing improving technologies for cost-effective or effi-
cient replacement, elimination or shared services where possible. Mr. Miller
noted the significant portion of the City's Park Improvement Plan (PIP) substan-
tially unfunded with existing funding sources and current revenue streams, with
the Master Planning process providing a great template for future park decision-
making.
Mr. Miller also addressed vehicle replacement, now at approximately one-half of
the optimum sustainable amount needed; and future need to rethink the number
and type of vehicles in the fleet.
Discussion included future realistic decisions for potential joint or shared facilities
(i.e., Fire Stations); potential sharing of street/park maintenance vehicles, plowing
equipment, and patrol cars; estimated $18 million of the total $40 million shortfall
represented in park system assets; original park facility construction and amenities
built with money no longer available; continued deterioration of water and sewer
system components originally built in the 1960's; need to capitalize on new tech-
nologies; and planning for replacement of general City-owned facilities.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, April 26, 2010
Page 19
Further discussion included financing options for major capital improvements,
such as bond financing and the commitment for paying off those bonds; availa-
bility of a more aggressive payment system and refunding than that obligated for
the bond terms; and reality of CIP funding gaps.
Additional discussion included retirement in 2011 of the $490,000 internal loan
from the City's PMP to take advantage of interest savings in paying off a bond is-
sue early; realistic goals for an annual allotment for rolling stock replacement
while recognizing previous deferrals for those replacements, with Mr. Miller tar-
getingbetween $400 - 900,000 as a specific priority for 2011.
Mr. Miller suggested a strong vehicle replacement program before adding to the
existing fleet; in addition to funding replacement of existing facilities prior to
building any new facilities; and to base those decisions on the City Council's and
community's priorities and preferred service levels to systematically drive CIP
needs and meet those service level goals.
Mayor Klausing noted the disconnect between expectations for a high level of
service versus the pain of increased property taxes, particularly during an eco-
nomic downturn.
b. Budgeting and Alternative Revenues and Preliminary Levy
Finance Director Miller provided a brief look at non-property tax revenues antic-
ipated in 2011, similar to 2010, for tax supported services (i.e., General and Parks
& Recreation Funds) for preliminary discussion points on tax levy target levels.
Mr. Miller noted the one glaring exception to that forecast was in interest rates,
having become stagnant over the last few years, and not anticipated to improve.
Mr. Miller noted that challenges will continue during the 2011 budgeting and pri-
oritization process for the City's core functions.
Councilmember Roe requested that staff keep the City Council aware of the pro-
jected residential property valuation from the Ramsey County Assessor's Office
when it becomes available, with preliminary residential values estimated to be re-
duced by approximately 4.5%.
Mr. Miller noted that the City would be decertifying Tax Increment Financing
(TIF) District No. 1 in 2011, which had a sizable balance, and which would pro-
vide some relief to taxing jurisdictions; however, he anticipated a slight reduction
in the City's overall tax base, with limited redevelopment coming on line in 2011,
and would require a determination from the City Council on how to appropriate
that one-time, approximate $1.25 million.
Discussion included actuarial analyses for a new funding base for the Fire Relief
Association, with the City Council requesting that staff provide that updated in-
formation at their earliest convenience.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, Apri126, 2010
Page 20
Further discussion included implicit price deflators; and personnel costs
representing the largest expense for the City, and implications of previous frozen
wages for non-union staff and whether that remained sustainable, suggesting fur-
ther dialogue for 2011.
Additional discussion included whether the Council was interested in staffprovid-
ing additional options for alternative revenue sources; with the consensus being
that the City Council was interested in further discussion (i.e., franchise fees), in-
cluding any restrictions on use of those funds.
c. Discussion regarding the Size of the Parks and Recreation Commission
Mayor Klausing opined that the primary motivation for the proposal to increase
the membership of the Parks and Recreation Commission seemed a solution dis-
proportionate to the need, and questioned whether a larger commission would be
as effective.
Councilmember Ihlan noted that, when she first came on board the City Council,
several commissions had a range of members with options for filling the complete
contingent; and advised that her intent was not to arbitrarily increase the number
serving on the Parks and Recreation Commission, but to facilitate those interested
and qualified to serve, suggesting that the membership be increased from 10 to 12
members to retain manageability.
Councilmember Pust opined that it would make it difficult to relay to potential
candidates when vacancies were to occur, unless there was provision for standing
applications; and questioned how to determine if and when openings existed.
Councilmember Ihlan referenced previous difficulties in filling vacancies on the
Human Rights Commission due to a sustained lack of interest in the commission
at that time; and suggested that consideration of the number to serve could be de-
termined annually and based on the size of the applicant pool.
Councilmember Pust suggested that the City Council defer to the recommendation
of the Parks and Recreation Commission, and their comments provided in the
agenda packet, not recommending a larger group.
Councilmember Johnson, as a previous member on the Parks and Recreation
Commission, spoke in support of maintaining the current membership level at 10
rather than increasing it, in order to maintain the integrity of the commission and
sustain the group.
Councilmember Roe concurred with Councilmembers Johnson and Pust.
14. City Manager Future Agenda Review
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, Apri126, 2010
Page 21
Acting City Manager Miller distributed upcoming agenda items.
Mayor Klausing requested a review of the current 15' setback from curbs for political
signs on rights-of--way, as part of the political sign ordinance discussion.
15. Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Councilmember Johnson advised that the data was compiled and ready for review for the
annual review of City Manager Malinen; and that Mr. Malinen had requested the review
on May 10, 2010 in Executive Session; and advised that he would contact Human Re-
sources Director Eldona Bacon to provide applicable information to individual Council-
members for their review and discussion.
16. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:02 p.m.
C ig D. Klausing, Ma r
ATTEST: ~
Wi iam J. alinen, City Manager
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Department Approval: Manager Reviewed
~~~ .+~'~
~l a ~ I ~ ° Date: 4/26/10
Item No.:
Agenda Section
Consent
Description: Cellars Wines & Spirits Off-Sale Liquor license at 2701 Lincoln Drive
Background
Cellars Wines & Spirits has requested a relocation of there current retail store that currently has an
Off-Sale Liquor License at 1649 County Rd C W. The City Attorney will review the application
prior to the issuance of the license to ensure that it is in order. A representative from Cellars Wines
& Spirits will attend the hearing to answer any questions the Council may have.
Financial Implications
The revenue that is generated from the license fees collected is used to offset the cost of police
compliance checks, background investigations, enforcement of liquor laws, and license
administration.
Council Action
Motion to set a public hearing for the relocation of anOff-Sale Liquor license, for Cellars Wines &
Spirits will be held on May 10, 2010.
VI. Review of Ethics Code
• EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was held on the 12`h day of June, 2006, at
6:00 p.m.
The following members were present: Mayor Klausing, and Council Members
Ihlan, Kough, Maschka, and Pust.
Council Member Klausing introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 10408
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A CODE OF ETHICS
WHEREAS, it is the Council's desire to create and maintain ethical standards that
guide Public Officials in the transaction of public business; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined the most effective way to do so is to
adopt and enforce a Code of Ethics that guides the conduct of Public Officials:
. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roseville City Council, that the
following Code of Ethics is hereby adopted:
CODE OF ETHICS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN THE CITY OF
ROSEVILLE
Purpose
Officials in the public service must maintain the highest possible standards of ethical
conduct in their transactions of public business. Such standards must be clearly defined
and known to the public as well as to the Public Officials. Violations of the ethical
standards in this ordinance are punishable by the City Council and are not to be deemed
criminal misdemeanors of any other type of crime except as those behaviors or activities
may separately be determined to be criminal under state or federal law.
Section 1. Declaration of Policy
The proper operation of democratic government requires that Public Officials be
independent, impartial and responsible to the people; that government decisions and
• policy be made in the proper channels of the government structure; that public office not
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
~-~a~~~a
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING
OF CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was duly held in the City Hall at 2660 Civic Center
Drive, Roseville, Minnesota, on Monday, 26th day of April, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.
The following members were present: and the following members were absent:
Councilmember introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING
AGREEMENT AMENDMENT FOR THE DESIGN OF THE
TWIN LAKES AUAR SUBAREA I INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City and WSB and Associates, the Consultant, entered into an agreement on
June 9th, 2008, for the design of the Twin Lakes AUAR SubArea I Infrastructure
Improvements.
WHEREAS, the City and the Consultant desire to amend the original agreement pursuant to
Section C of Exhibit A of the original agreement.
WHEREAS, the City desires the Consultant to complete additional design services for the
Twin Lakes AUAR SubArea I Infrastructure Improvements, and the Consultant desires to
perform those services for the compensation and the terms described in the agreement
amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mayor and the City Manager are hereby
authorized and directed on behalf of the City of Roseville to amend the original agreement to
include additional services as described in the agreement amendment, a copy of which said
agreement amendment was before the City Council and which is made a part hereof by
reference.
The motion was duly seconded by Councilmember and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof: ;the following voted against: ;and the following
abstained:
WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
2
1 STATE OF MINNESOTA )
2 ) ss
3 COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville,
County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the
attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on
the 26th day of April, 2010, with the original thereof on file in my office.
WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 26th day of April, 2010.
William J. Malinen, City Manager
(SEAL)
~I~~+I~
1 CITY OF ROSEVILLE
2 CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT
3 AMENDMENT
4
5
6 THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT entered into the 9th day of
7 June, 2008, by and between the City of Roseville, Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the City,
8 and WSB and Associates., hereinafter referred to as the Consultant.
9
10 WHEREAS, the City and the Consultant desire to amend the original agreement pursuant to
11 Section C of Exhibit A of the original agreement.
12
13 WITNESSETH:
14
15 WHEREAS, the City desires the Consultant to complete additional design services for
16 the Twin Lakes AUAR SubArea I Infrastructure Improvements, and the Consultant desires to
17 perform those services for the compensation and on the terms described herein.
18
19 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows:
20
21 I. Scope of Services. The Consultant shall perform those Additional Services as are
22 described in the attached Exhibit A.
23
24 II. Term. This Agreement shall be effective upon the approval of the City Council and
2$ execution by the Mayor and City Manager and shall continue until terminated by either
26 party upon a seven (7) day written notice thereof.
27
28 III. Compensation. The fees for the Consultant's services will be billed on and in accordance
29 with the hourly rate shown in the attached Exhibit B. Consultant's compensation for the
30 Exhibit A work shall not exceed $143,131.00. Fees shall be paid within thirty (30) days
31 following receipt of a monthly invoice and status report detailing the services performed.
32
33 IV. Schedule. Exhibit C contains a schedule for completion of the scope of services. It is
34 understood that if the schedule is delayed, through no fault of the Consultant, so that it is
35 no longer possible to complete the work in 2010, the hourly rates shown on the attached
36 Exhibit B can be updated to the current year hourly rates, so long as those rates do not
37 increase more than 5%.
38
39 V. Indemnification. The Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and
40 its officials, agents, and employees from any loss, claim, liability, and expense (including
41 reasonable attorney's fees and expenses of litigation) arising out of consultant
42 performance of the service of this contract.
43
44 VI. Assi ngnment. This Agreement shall not be assigned, sublet, or transferred without the
45 written consent of the City.
46
1 VII. Conflict of Interest. The Consultant agrees to immediately inform, by written notice, the
2 City Engineer of possible contractual conflicts of interest in representing the City, as well
3 as property owners or developers on the same project. Conflicts of interest maybe
4 grounds for termination of this Agreement.
5
6 VIII. Ownership of Work. Should the City elect to terminate this Agreement under Section II
7 hereof, Consultant shall promptly provide all work-product to the City for which payment
8 has been made and the City shall be entitled to utilize the work in any manner determined
9 by the City to be in its best interests.
10
11 IX. Notices. All notices to be given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed given
12 on the earlier of receipt or three (3) business days after deposit in the United States mail,
13 postage prepaid, addressed to:
14
15 A. City of Roseville
16 Attn: City Engineer
17 2660 Civic Center Drive
1 g Roseville, MN 55113
19
2Q B. WSB & Associates Inc.
21 Attn: Jupe Hale
22 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300
23 Minneapolis, MN 55416
24
25 IX. Attachments. All attachments referenced in the Agreement are attached to and
26 incorporated into this Agreement, and are part hereof as though they were fully set forth
27 in the body of this Agreement.
28
29
30 (signature page follows)
31
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THIS AGREEMENT was adopted by the City Council in and for the City of Roseville,
Minnesota, on the day of , 2010.
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Its Mayor
Its City Manager
THIS AGREEMENT was accepted by
day of , 2010.
on the
Bret A. Weiss, President
Anthony Heppelmann, Principal/ Vice President
3
1 Exhibit A
2 Scope of Additional Services
3
4 Exhibit A outlines a Scope of Additional Services which as an amendment to the Consultant Services
5 Agreement constitutes an agreement between the City of Roseville, hereinafter referred to as the
6 CLIENT, and WSB & Associates, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the CONSULTANT for
7 professional planning services for the Twin Lakes AUAR SubArea I Infrastructure
$ Improvements, hereinafter referred to as the PROJECT.
9
10 The CLIENT and CONSULTANT agree as set forth below:
11 A. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
12 1. Project Phasing
13 The original scope of services assumed that these projects would be bid as a single construction package.
14 Much of the change in approach from a single project to a multi phase project occurred after the plans
15 were at the 60% level. These items increased the overall cost to provide these services by $18,798. This
16 created the following additional work:
17 1.1 Temporary Twin Lakes Approach -
] $ When switching from full plans to Phase 1 plans, the City directed WSB to design part of
19 Twin Lakes Parkway for temporary connection to Cleveland Avenue rather than the full
20 width, as the Cleveland Avenue and I-35 ramp improvements were not being built. WSB was
21 also directed to avoid demolition of the building to the south (Cummins building) if possible.
22 WSB designed as directed, but noted the difficult grades adjacent to the building. Through
23 right of way negotiations, the City determined that it was more economical to have the
24 building removed as part of Phase 1, and directed WSB to add the building removal back into
25 the plans, and revised the road plans in this area to include the full width and sidewalk for the
26 majority of the formerly temporary area.
27 1.2 Financial Phasing -
28 At the 60 percent level, the City directed WSB to divide the full project into logical portions
29 and prepare a corresponding cost estimate in order to make decisions regarding the scope of
30 Phase 1. The City used this information to correlate the limit of the Phase 1 improvements
31 with their corresponding funding. WSB coordinated the logical division points with the City,
32 prepared an exhibit to graphically depict the different segments, and split the quantities for
33 the entire project to correspond to these limits.
34 1.3 Alternate Bid Items -
35 To accommodate funding concerns, the City directed WSB and Hoisington Koegler to
36 establish five alternate bid items for the contract. These items included building removal (in
37 case the owners could get better prices), concrete pavers (alternate to colored textured
38 concrete), rain gardens along Mount Ridge Road (base bid was just a sodded area), induction
39 lighting (alternate to conventional lighting in base bid), and remote telemetry (SCADA)
40 system. WSB and HKGi prepared modified plan sheets, alternate and extra specifications,
41 performed product research, and modified the bid documents to accommodate these requests.
42 1.4 Bidding -
43 Bidding services were not included in the original scope of work. At the time of the original
44 RFP, the City anticipated that WSB would complete the development of plans and
45 specifications only. In 2008, the City did not have funding available to construct the
2
1 infrastructure improvements. WSB handled the bidding process, including questions from
2 bidders and issuing of addenda. The inclusion of the storm water reuse system and associated
3 filtration beds made this more time consuming than a typical level of effort for both
4 answering questions and issuing addenda.
5 1.5 Federal Funding-
6 $1.6 million dollars of Federal UPA funding was provided by Metro Transit to construct
7 Phase 1 of this project. Due to the use of UPA money, the specifications had to include
8 several additional requirements, mostly for DBE requirements. WSB needed to coordinate
9 with Metro Transit personnel, obtained electronic copies of their forms, and reviewed and
10 redlined them for inclusion into the project manual.
11 2. Comprehensive Storm Water Plan
12 The original scope assumed that much of the water treatment for these public
13 improvements would be accomplished in concert with redevelopment. WSB was
14 responsible for After submittal of 60 percent plans with drainage treatment ponds shown
15 on redevelopment parcels, it was determined that the effort to coordinate a master
16 drainage plan with the use of ponds (and obtaining the additional right of way) would
17 increase the right of way acquisition cost, as well as create potential future obstacles for
18 the property owners to redevelop their sites in accordance with the Twin Lakes design
19 principles. At that time, the City directed WSB to design a storm treatment system that
20 would be located entirely within the boundaries of the right of way that was being
21 acquired for the project. This included a storm water reuse system, complete with
22 underground retention and storage, as well as a force main for conveyance of the storm
23 water to the irrigation system. These items increased the overall cost to provide these
24 services by $81,733. The following tasks were required to complete the final design of
25 the system. Many of these tasks were not contemplated as part of the original proposal,
26 and required the redesign of the storm sewer conveyance system.
27 2.1 Changes in the Storm Water Conveyance System-
28 The original conveyance system directed storm water to a series of ponds throughout the
29 project. Per the City's direction, all the storm water was now to be directed to a central
30 location for storage. WSB reworked the conveyance system to direct water to the future
31 remnant parcel at the northeast corner of the roundabout. However, through development of
32 the MPCA Response Action Plan, it was determined that this location would not be feasible
33 due to high potential for contaminated soils. Thus, WSB had to design the conveyance
34 system a third time, resulting in two systems -one that drained as much as possible to the
35 new storage location at the north end, and the rest toward Cleveland Avenue. This meant
36 redoing spread-runby calculations, modifying catch basin layouts, realigning pipes, adjusting
37 pipe grades, and deleting/adding pipe profiles to the plans.
38 2.2 Storm Water Storage, Reuse, and Infiltration System -
39 Custom design of the storage, reuse, and infiltration system was required. Activities included
40 research of available systems and materials; coordination with potential suppliers to provide
41 a wide variety of alternatives for consideration; schematic design of the system to meet
42 requirements for seasonal considerations, infiltration rates and volumes, storage versus reuse
43 rates, and maintenance access; introduction of lift station and well system design expertise
3
1 for returning the water to the irrigation system; design of the storm water force main;
2 coordination with and design by an electrical subconsultant to design the power.
3 2.3 Additional Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) Coordination-
4 WSB had anticipated coordination with Rice Creek to accommodate traditional approaches
5 to drainage treatment. Because of the custom and unique nature of this system, additional
6 correspondence, negotiation, and discussions with the District were required to establish
7 proper credit and permitting for the new system. Additional time was also spent to resolve
8 interagency coordination between the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and RCWD.
9 2.4 Biofiltration Beds -
10 Original landscape design for the areas along Twin Lakes Parkway called for planting beds.
11 At the direction of the City, Hoisington Koegler Group and WSB investigated direct
12 application of storm water to these bids, converting them to biofiltration beds. Additional
13 plant types were researched and specified, special soil design to aid infiltration was
14 performed, special direct inlets were designed, the drain systems were researched and
15 specified, weir systems were designed, specified and detailed for drainage and aesthetic
16 improvements, and overflow/safeguard systems were calculated and designed.
17 3. Additional Services Phase 2 and 3
18 3.1 Schedule and Budget Tracking /Invoicing:
19 With the additional time added to the schedule of the contract, the project manager must
20 perform additional monthly budget and schedule tracking. The duration of Phase 2 & 3
21 design is expected to be three months.
22 3.2 Design Review Meetings:
23 Three additional design review meetings are anticipated for Phase 2 & 3 (one per month).
24 3.3 Biofiltration Beds:
25 Much of the design detail from the biofiltration beds can be carried forward as a template for
26 Phase 2. However, each bed is custom designed to match road grade, width, length, and
27 sidewalk offset. The proposed hours accommodates these custom calculations and design.
28 3.4 Lift Station Design -Phase 3:
29 In order to ensure to meet Rice Creek Watershed District requirements for Phase 3, it is
30 anticipated that a combination of pond expansion and use of the existing irrigation
31 reuse/infiltration system (installed in Phase 1) will need to be utilized. In order to get storm
32 water into the existing system, a small lift station will be required within Phase 3.
33 3.5 Miscellaneous Plan Sheets -Second Set:
34 As discussed in allocation of original design fee proposal, there are several sheets that must
35 be included and customized for each plan set. The work -required for these sheets must be
36 duplicated for each set, and the proposed hours reflect this effort.
37 3.6 Contract Document Preparation-
38 The documents needed for contracting, beyond the drawings and special provisions, must be
39 regenerated for each contract. Bid Advertising, Instruction to Bidders, contracts, bid forms,
40 etc., must all be reviewed and modified for a new contract.
4
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
B. SUB-CONSULTANTS
To complete aspects of the PROJECT as described in Paragraph A, the CONSULTANT shall
make separate agreements with other qualified firms listed in this paragraph. The
CONSULTANT shall coordinate the work of Sub-Consultants as part of the work of the
PROJECT. The CONSULTANT shall not remove the involvement of identified firms or add
the involvement of unmentioned firms without written consent from the CLIENT. Costs for
Sub-Consultants shall be billed directly to the City with no CONSULTANT markup. The
identified Sub-Consultants for the PROJECT are:
Braun Intertec Corporation
11001 Hampshire Ave S
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55438
652-995-2000
HKGI
Attn: Paul Paige
123 N 3rd Street, Suite 400
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
651-7125
5
Exhibit B
Scope of Add 1 Services
m
a
0
a`
N
d
A
t
a
-a
m
Z
d
W
d
N
l~
Z
a
c
E
L
a
E
3
N
C
r
L
Q
Q
H
Y
J
C
N
m
t
V
Q
f0
P a
CD Y
D t
N N
0
N l m W
O r
+f !~l l O
m
+f W
O
W O
H! N NIW ~O'g
N N~ t0,
O N~ O~ ~ ~
~~~ h
m ml~
m i W
i~.
l ~
Y
7
A
3 p ~ p ~
y H N
N~ K YY
N b {0
H ~9~V1~f9,~
f N
K p
U
HIH N
~ ~ ` I
~ i ~ M '
i N
I `~
I
1
t
o ~ ~ ~~
l
O N W 1 m iN IN
~~
b
01
M i
~
i I 1
1 i0
~'
C N
"' 10 ~ ~ I N ino m
e i
a 1
~ i0 N
Nf I O'~~ ~
Y 10 ~ N
N ~ N ~ ~; N r
i
1 i
n W ~ ~ ao
~ e' ao
m
O ~ ~
W ~
N r I~I~~,
~ v~
~ ~
y
N ^
O
N
W
N
N
r
N A l i
N ~ t0~ O; N
N i
I dp
pp
N ~ ~ ~ t
~
p
~
M
Y r
W
iD
OD ~ ~
N Ni~~~iW
r l
N1~
W
r g~
c
~
~ c
y
N ~
E ~a
~ ~
'~1 I ~ y 1
~i
o
a ~ m
LI aI ~ " 9
0 o d
C
N
Y
~ 0
C K ~
Y Fj ~ .L
~OI ~ .a
~
O1 L
y
c ~i
di
c
E A
~ h i
~
~g
°'c
a cl
I
~ a ~ • ~ ~ m
~
B ~
~ 0 ~ 8
U
~ g
~ W
L
~ ,o
~
Ci.~~mj ~ m
.7
~i
O N Q c a m o~ >>>ol c; c g ~(
~g
5 s
~
U ~ rn
o ~
g
~ o
a oIK~~;.i
~1 c.
~ o til c
p1'~
c
0
8
`~ ~ E
o
c o ~y
a ~~ a
?2 v, o1~E~ ~ cl €
of o `o
'~
rn rn rY co a -- ii a m m~oim;~ ~ c~~a m
0
N
0
M
0
O
N
O ~
{'
~O
7
~
~O ~ Ni lD;
O O~O~O~~
~O
O 1
m~ A
OHO
W
O
u i v i v i ui r d fc ~ 6 r c sc n; rte; r;1 r r rj r ; ~
1 Exhibit C
2 Schedule
4 All work included in this amended agreement will be completed by May 30, 2010.
Ma
ret DrisCOll
From:
Sent:
Cc:
Subject:
~r,E~ -I-~ ~-H-+
Duane Schwartz ~/ ~ b'
Monday, April 26, 2010 9:35 AM
rogerhessjr@aol.com
*RVCouncil; Bill Malinen; Chris Miller; Gretchen Carlson; Tony Thury
FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact Duane Schwartz
Roger,
The automated meter reading system we are proposing utilizes radio technology for
communication from the meter location to a centralized data collectors. The information is
then sent back to city hall via cell phone technology. It is also capable of being sent over
fiber when and if the city builds out a fiber optic backbone. The backhaul could possibly be
sent via the web and some systems do this. We are talking large amounts of data. We are not
aware of web technology that communicates directly with a water meter. Some older systems
used the hardwired landline phone systems but that became unreliable due to people moving
often and more recently as in Minneapolis a large number of homeowners no longer have a
landline phone. They are migrating to the newer radio technology. The data collection units
that communicate to all of the meters in the city and send the information back to city hall
is a small part of the overall cost of the project.
Let me know if you have further questions.
Duane Schwartz
Duane Schwartz
Public Works Director
City of Roseville
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN. 55113
651-792-7041
--Original Message-----
From: support@civicplus.com [mailto:support@civicplus.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 10:40 AM
To: Duane Schwartz
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact Duane Schwartz
The following form was submitted via your website: Contact Duane Schwartz
Name:: roger hess, jr
Address:: 1914 wagener place
City:: Roseville
State: MN
Zip:: 55113
Home Phone Number:: 651-270-6910
Daytime Phone Number;: 651-270-6910
Email Address:: ro~erhess~r~aol.com
Please Share Your Comment, Question or Concern: hi,
concerning the proposed automated water meter system, i was wondering if there is a less
expensive web-based version. a radio system seems to be old technology and very expensive.
since most homes in roseville have internet service, i would think it would be cheaper to
access the meter information via the web. if a location didn't have internet service, i would
think any of the numerous wireless services available in roseville would still be cheaper.
thank you for any insight you can provide,
roger
roger b. hess, jr
Additional Information:
Form submitted on: 4/24/2010 10:39:33 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 66.41.24.210
Form Address: http•//www cityof roseville com/forms.aspx?FID=77
Confidentiality Statement: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential
information that is legally privileged. This information is intended only for the use of the
individuals or entities listed above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the
contents of these documents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in
error, please notify the sender immediately and arrange for the return or destruction of
these documents.
z
~c~ +Fanda~-E-
M
Driscoll
From: Pat Trudgeon
sSent: Friday, April 23, 2010 3:07 PM
To: *RVCouncil
Subject: FW: Solar permitting and Resolution
FYI for Monday night.
Patrick Trudgeon, AICP
City of Roseville
Community Development Director
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
(651) 792-7071
(651) 792-7070 (fax)
pat.trudgeon(cDci.roseville.mn.us
www.ci.roseville.mn.us
From: Pat Trudgeon
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 3:06 PM
To: 'susan.weum@smiths-medical.com'
Cc: Thomas Paschke; Don Munson
Subject: FW: Solar permitting and Resolution
Susan,
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your input. As you know, we do not have any codes to regulate the placement of
solar energy systems and we have scrambled to get something in place to better allow for these systems. Solar energy
systems are something that we as a City certainly want to encourage as an option for our residents.
Given that doing a whole ordinance could take several months, staff is proposing that the City adopt a policy in the
interim to address the installation solar energy systems which as you know will be discussed by the City Council on
Monday night. We based the policy over a model ordinance that is used by several cities. We did make some
modifications in translating it from an ordinance to a policy. For instance (and the heart of the matter as it relates to your
concerns), the model ordinance allows systems with a pitch more than 5% as a Conditional Use (which is a specific land
use approval the City Council gives). As we are doing a policy, we cannot mandate that it will be conditional use.
]nstead, we would need to amend the code to state that pitches over 5% are conditional uses.....and then we are back to
square one with the timing issue.
So instead, we removed the reference to the Conditional Use and instead just said that they were not allowed, in full
anticipation that we would allow for greater pitches through some process once the ordinance was worked out in the fall.
However, it is apparent that we need to have it addressed as part of the policy now, so in looking at the matter we will
suggest to the City Council on Monday night that the policy should be changed to allow for systems with a pitch 5%
greater than the pitch of roof after additional review and approval by staff (Any installation of a solar energy system
requires a building permit). Specifically the language would be changed to read as follows:
Solar Systems with Mounting Devices -Solar systems using roof mounting devices or ground-mount
solar systems shall not be restricted if the system is not visible from the closest edge of any public right-
of-way other than an alley. Roof-mount systems that are visible from the nearest edge of the street
frontage right-of--way shall not have a highest finished pitch more than five (5) percent steeper than the
roof pitch on which the system is mounted, and shall be no higher than ten (10) inches above the roof
unless the system is reviewed and approved by Community Development staff to ensure the additional
pitch of the system meets the wind load standards for the roof and there are not major aesthetic impacts
with the system to the surrounding ~ropT es•
I Qr
This change will allow staff to review each proposal on a case by case basis and not automatically prohibit certain types
of solar energy systems and will allow staff to take into account individual circumstances.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Pat
Patrick Trudgeon, AICP
City of Roseville
Community Development Director
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
(651) 792-7071
(651) 792-7070 (fax)
mat trudgeonCc~ci.roseville.mn.us
wvwv.ci.roseville.mn.us
_J __. ~~.~------__-._r__..----.._ _ _.._.__ _ -_ --------
From: Weum, Susan (MPAU) [mailto:susan.weum@smiths-medical.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 1:27 PM
To: *RVCouncil
Subject: Solar permitting and Resolution
Dear Mayor Klausing and Honorable Members of Roseville City Council,
I am grateful that Roseville is finding a way to allow solar systems without waiting for the zoning ordinance updates! The
proposed Resolution regarding solar installations is much appreciated, and does make the letter I wrote to City Council
Members on April 15th lag quite a bit behind your accomplishments. With one exception (which might apply to our
proposed system) the Resolution looks wonderful to me.
Section C.2 speaks to systems which are "visible from the nearest edge of the street frontage right-of-way" and requires
that these systems have a pitch that roughly matches the roof and is no higher than 10 inches above the roof. The
visibility of our proposed system from the street will be v r minimal at most-I'm doubtful the panels will be visible unless
someone is really looking as they will be set back from the South edge of our roof by a few feet-only a small corner of
one or two panels might be seen. I hope they will meet the intent of the Resolution. Because the roofline of our addition
runs North-South, those panels on the addition would be tilted to face south and would not match the roof line of our
addition within 5%. You can see a photo of what a tilted panel looks like on the 2nd photo from the top at
http~//www powerfullygreen.com/projects (Powerfully Green is the solar installer we've chosen). The furthest left panel in
the photo is tilted to face south along the long edge; ours would be tilted to face south along the short edge, which would
raise one corner about 2 feet above the roof of the addition. The addition roof is lower than our main roof. No panels will
be seen above our main roof.
One other comment is that the requirement for `matching the slope of the roof & no higher than 10 inches above the roof'
and 'systems with a pitch more than five percent greater than the roof pitch are not allowed' would effectively eliminate
most roof-mounted solar thermal installations. Solar thermal panels require a fairly steep angle for effective collection.
Even if mounted on the roof in the rear of the house they are usually visible from the street. Good photos of this are here:
http~//ips-solar com/recentproiects.html 2nd here http~//ips-solar com/PGResidential.html .This is not an issue for our
proposed installation but it certainly is for two of our neighbors who already have solar thermal installations and one of our
neighbors who wants to add a system for solar thermal in the future. It also doesn't appear to apply in other area
communities where these solar thermal systems are located. Though I fully realize Roseville does not need to conform to
what other cities do, wouldn't it be nice to encourage solar as much as our neighboring communities do? Is it possible
that those few sentences could be reviewed?
(`sincerely thank each of you for. hearing my concerns and for the work you are doing to improve access to solar energy in
Roseville. Please express my appreciation to Bryan Lloyd as well, he was most helpful and polite when I spoke to him
yesterday. Certainly feel free to contact me by phone or email with any comments. Xcel Energy and the Minnesota
Department of Energy Security have reviewed our proposed system and approved it. I so hope the City of Roseville will
do the same with our permit; I'm excited to become a solar homeowner!
I look forward to meeting you at the City Council meeting on April 26tH
Best regards,
Susan Weum
1176 Skillman Avenue West
Roseville MN 55113
Susan Weum
Senior Project Engineer
Six Sigma Black Belt
Smiths Medical North America
1285 Grey Fox Road
Arden Hills MN 55112
Tel: +1 651-628-7208
FAX: +1 651-628-7093
www.smiths-medical.com
email: Susan.Weum@Smiths-Medical.com
The information contained in, or attached to, this a-mail, may contain confidential information and is intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed and maybe subject to legal privilege. If
you have received this a-mail in error you should notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail, delete the
message from your system and notify your system manager. Please do not copy it for any purpose, or disclose
its contents to any other person. The views or opinions presented in this a-mail are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of the company. The recipient should check this a-mail and any
attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused, directly or
indirectly, by any virus transmitted in this email.
************************************************
Smiths Medical is the Medical division of Smiths Group plc. The Head Office of Smiths Medical is located at
1265 Grey Fox Road, St Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Confidentiality Statement: The documents accompanying this transmission contain connaenuai mrormauun u~ni ~„rya"r N"~"~a~~~ ""~ ""-""-""' "- ""-"`--
only for the use of the individuals or entities listed above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or
action taken in reliance on the contents of these documents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately
and arrange for the return or destruction of these documents.
~eN~
~I~ ali
~~~a~
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
1 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
2 of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was held on the 26~' day of April 2010 at 6:00 p.m.
3 The following Members were present:
a and Members were absent.
5 Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
s adoption:
7 RESOLUTION NO.
s A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF
RESIDENTIAL SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS
1 o WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has received increased interest in
11 residential solar energy systems; and
12 WHEREAS, the existing zoning regulations (Title 10) of the Roseville City Code does
13 not provide any guidance or regulations on such accessory residential uses; and
14 WHEREAS, Roseville's 2030 Comprehensive Plan includes specific goals and policies
15 regarding sustainability and the use of sustainable practices and encourage and promote the use
1 E of alternative energy such as solar and wind; and
17 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined it is in the best interest of the community to
1 s create a policy now versus waiting until the zoning ordinance update process is finished to
19 address such alternative energy systems;
20 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roseville City Council, to APPROVE
21 the following definitions and approval requirements:
22
23 DEFINITIONS
24 Active Solar System - A solar energy system that transforms solar energy into another form of
25 energy or transfers heat from a collector to another medium using mechanical, electrical, or
26 chemical means.
27 Building-integrated Solar Systems - An active solar system that is an integral part of a principal
28 or accessory building, rather than a separate mechanical device, replacing or substituting for an
29 architectural or structural component of the building. Building-integrated systems include but are
3o not limited to photovoltaic or hot water solar systems that are contained within roofing materials,
31 windows, skylights, and awnings.
32
Page 1 of 6
33 Grid-interne Solar System - A photovoltaic solar system that is connected to an electric circuit
34 served by an electric utility company.
35 Off-grid Solar System - A photovoltaic solar system in which the circuits energized by the solar
36 system are not electrically connected in any way to electric circuits that are served by an electric
37 utility company.
3s Passive Solar System - A solar energy system that captures solar light or heat without
39 transforming it to another form of energy or transfemng the energy via a heat exchanger.
4o Photovoltaic System - An active solar energy system that converts solar energy directly into
41 electricity.
42 Renewable Energy Easement, Solar Energy Easement - An easement that limits the height or
43 location, or both, of permissible development on the burdened land in terms of a structure or
44 vegetation, or both, for the purpose of providing access for the benefited land to wind or sunlight
45 passing over the burdened land.
46 Renewable Energy System - A solar energy or wind energy system. Renewable energy systems
47 do not include passive systems that serve a dual function, such as a greenhouse or window.
4s Roof Pitch -The final exterior slope of a building roof calculated by the rise over the run,
49 typically but not exclusively expressed in twelfths such as 3/12, 9/12, 12/12.
5o Solar Access - A view of the sun, from any point on the collector surface, that is not obscured by
51 any vegetation, building, or object located on parcels of land other than the parcel upon which the
52 solar collector is located, between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM Standard time on any day
53 of the year.
54 Solar Collector - A device, structure or a part of a device or structure for which the primary
55 purpose is to transform solar radiant energy into thermal, mechanical, chemical, or electrical
56 energy.
57 Solar Collector Surface -Any part of a solar collector that absorbs solar energy for use in the
5s collector's energy transformation process. Collector surface does not include frames, supports
59 and mounting hardware.
so Solar Daylighting - A device specifically designed to capture and redirect the visible portion of
61 the solar spectrum, while controlling the infrared portion, for use in illuminating interior building
62 spaces in lieu of artificial lighting.
63 Solar Energy -Radiant energy received from the sun that can be collected in the form of heat or
64 light by a solar collector.
65 Solar Energy Device - A system or series of mechanisms designed primarily to provide heating,
66 to provide cooling, to produce electrical power, to produce mechanical power, to provide solar
6~ daylighting or to provide any combination of the foregoing by means of collecting and
68 transferring solar generated energy into such uses either by active or passive means. Such
69 systems may also have the capability of storing such energy for future utilization. Passive solar
~o systems shall clearly be designed as a solar energy device such as a trombe wall and not merely a
71 part of a normal structure such as a window.
72
Page 2 of 6
73 Solar Energy System - A device or structural design feature, a substantial purpose of which is to
74 provide daylight for interior lighting or provide for the collection, storage and distribution of
75 solar energy for space heating or cooling, electricity generating, or water heating.
~o Solar Heat Exchanger - A component of a solar energy device that is used to transfer heat from
~~ one substance to another, either liquid or gas.
~$ Solar Hot Water System - A system that includes a solar collector and a heat exchanger that
79 heats or preheats water for building heating systems or other hot water needs, including
so residential domestic hot water and hot water for commercial processes.
81 Solar Mounting Devices -Devices that allow the mounting of a solar collector onto a roof
s2 surface or the ground.
s3 Solar Storage Unit - A component of a solar energy device that is used to store solar generated
sa electricity or heat for later use.
55 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE -Active solar energy systems shall be allowed as an accessory use in all
£36 zoning classifications where structures of any sort are allowed, subject to certain requirements as set forth
87 below:
as A. Height -Active solar systems must meet the following height requirements:
89 1. Building- or roof- mounted solar systems shall not exceed the maximum allowed
9o height in any zoning district. For purposes for height measurement, solar systems
91 other than building-integrated systems shall be considered to be mechanical devices
92 and are restricted consistent with other building-mounted mechanical devices.
93 2. Ground- or pole-mounted solar systems shall not exceed 15 feet in height when
9a oriented at maximum tilt.
95 B. Set-back -Active solar systems must meet the accessory structure setback for the zoning
96 district and primary land use associated with the lot on which the system is located.
97 1. Roof-mounted Solar Systems - In addition to the building setback, the collector
98 surface and mounting devices for roof-mounted solar systems shall not extend beyond
g9 the exterior perimeter of the building on which the system is mounted or built.
10o Exterior piping for solar hot water systems shall be allowed to extend beyond the
101 perimeter of the building on a side yard exposure.
102 2. Ground-mounted Solar Systems -Ground-mounted solar energy systems may not
103 extend into the side-yard or rear setback when oriented at minimum design tilt.
104 C. Visibility -Active solar systems shall be designed to blend into the architecture of the
105 building or be screened from routine view from public right-of--ways other than alleys.
1 os The color of the solar collector is not required to be consistent with other roofing
10~ materials.
1 os 1. Building Integrated Photovoltaic Systems -Building integrated photovoltaic solar
109 systems shall be allowed regardless of visibility, provided the building component in
11 o which the system is integrated meets all required setback, land use or performance
111 standards for the district in which the building is located.
Page 3 of 6
112 2. Solar Systems with Mounting Devices -Solar systems using roof mounting devices
113 or ground-mount solar systems shall not be restricted if the system is not visible from
114 the closest edge of any public right-of--way other than an alley. Roof-mount systems that
115 are visible from the nearest edge of the street frontage right-of--way shall not have a
116 highest finished pitch more than five (5) percent steeper than the roof pitch on which
117 the system is mounted, and shall be no higher than ten (10) inches above the roof unless
118 ~e the system is reviewed and approved b~ Community Development staff to ensure the
119 additional itch of the s stem meets the wind load standards for the roof and there are
120 not major aesthetic impacts with the system to the surrounding nroyerties. Sy~~k
121
122 3. Coverage -Roof or building mounted solar systems, excluding building-integrated
123 systems, shall not cover more than 80% of the south-facing or flat roof upon which
124 the panels are mounted, and shall be set back from the roof edge by a minimum of
125 one (1) foot. The surface area of pole or ground mount systems shall not exceed half
126 the building footprint of the principal structure.
127 D. Approved Solar Components -Electric solar system components must have a UL
128 listing.
129 E. Plan Approval Required -All solar systems shall require administrative plan approval
13o by the Community Development Department.
131 1. Plan Applications -Plan applications for solar systems shall be accompanied by to-
132 scale horizontal and vertical (elevation) drawings. The drawings must show the loca-
133 tion of the system on the building or on the property for aground-mount system,
134 including the property lines.
135 a. Pitched Roof Mounted Solar Systems -For all roof-mounted systems other than
136 a flat roof the elevation must show the highest finished slope of the solar collector
137 and the slope of the finished roof surface on which it is mounted.
138 b. Flat Roof Mounted Solar Systems -For flat roof applications a drawing shall be
139 submitted showing the distance to the roof edge and any parapets on the building
14o and shall identify the height of the building on the street frontage side, the shortest
141 distance of the system from the street frontage edge of the building, and the
142 highest finished height of the solar collector above the finished surface of the roof.
143 PLAN APPROVALS -Applications that meet the design requirements of this policy shall be
144 granted administrative approval by the zoning official and shall not require Planning
145 Commission review. Plan approval does not indicate compliance with Building Code or Electric
146 Code.
147 F. Compliance with Building Code -All active solar systems shall meet approval of local
148 building code officials, consistent with the State of Minnesota Building Code.
149 G. Compliance with State Electric Code -All photovoltaic systems shall comply with the
15o Minnesota State Electric Code.
151 H. Utility Notification - No grid-intertie photovoltaic system shall be installed until
152 evidence has been given to the Community Development Department that the owner has
Page 4 of 6
153 submitted notification to the utility company of the customer's intent to install an
154 interconnected customer-owned generator. Off-grid systems are exempt from this
155 requirement.
156 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council
157 Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor:
158 and voted against.
159 WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
160
161
162
Page 5 of 6
Resolution -Solar Energy Systems Policy
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County
of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and
foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 25~' day of
January 2010 with the original thereof on file in my office.
WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 26~' day of Apri12010.
William J. Malinen, City Manager
(SEAL)
Page 6 of 6
~~n~l, ++~,~c
Pat Trud4eon
From: Chris Miller
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 3:08 PM
To: Pat Trudgeon
Subject: FW: Thoreson/Water Reservoir Reconstruction Online Form Submittal: Contact City
Council
Pat,
Not sure if this found its way to you or not. See below.
Christopher K. Mille r
Finance Director
City of Roseville, MN 55113
651-792-7031
-----Original Message----- _
From: Margaret Driscoll
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 1:28 PM
To: Chris Miller; Duane Schwartz
Subject: FW: Thoreson/Water Reservoir Reconstruction Online Form Submittal: Contact City
Council
FYI....sent in Bill's absence.
-----Original Message-----
From: support@civicplus.com [mailto:support@civicplus.com]
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 10:17 AM
To: *RVCouncil; Margaret Driscoll; Bill Malinen
Subject: Thoreson/Water Reservoir Reconstruction Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council
The following form was submitted via your website: Contact City Council
Subject: Water Reservoir Reconstruction
Name:: Judith and David Thoreson
Address:: 1870 Alta Vista Dr.
City:: Roseville
State: MN
Zip:: 55113
How would you prefer to be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact
information.: Email
Home Phone Number:: 651-488-0813
Daytime Phone Number:: 651-488-0813
Email Address:: jltdat~acomcast.net
i
Please Share Your Comment, Question or Concern: The neighbors of the reservoir have attended
two meetings already, and everything we had been promised has not happened. We were told
that all the noisy, dusty work would occur in the months when we had our windows closed. Now
we are told this will be happening until Tune 12th. Arguably the two best months in
Minnesota for outdoor activities and open windows are May and ]une. We are becoming a bit
cynical about promises made. Are we wrong in assuming that this will happen regardless of
what we say? Are there any consequences if it drags on all summer? Coming to another meeting
doesn't seem to make much difference. When our street has been heavily used by all the
construction equipment and traffic, and after having been dug up in many spots for water pipe
repair who pays to replace it ? Another concern is keeping the park trails open during
this extremely long construction process.
Additional Information:
Form submitted on: 4/26/2010 10:17:23 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 66.41.5.242
Form Address: http•//www ci roseville.mn.us/forms.aspx?FID=115
Confidentiality Statement: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential
information that is legally privileged. This information is intended only for the use of the
individuals or entities listed above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the
contents of these documents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in
error, please notify the sender immediately and arrange for the return or destruction of
these documents.
z