• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

Announcements, Events, Recently Updated

1.    Call to Order.  The regular meeting of the Council of the City of Rogers was called to order by Acting Mayor Davis on Tuesday, June 23, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. at Rogers Community Center, 21201 Memorial Drive, Rogers, MN, 55374.

Council present:  Jay Bunting, Jamie Davis and Steve Rauenhorst.

Council excused:  Mayor Jason Grimm and Rob Bell.

Staff present:  Chuck Burnham, City Planner; Jeff Carson, City Attorney; Stacy Doboszenski, Assistant City Administrator; Scott Lange, City Engineer; Jeff Luther, Police Chief; John Seifert, Public Works Director; Steve Stahmer, City Administrator; and Lisa Wieland, Finance Director.

2.    Open Forum. 

3.    Presentations. 
       3.01 Presentation by the I94 West Chamber of Commerce on Corridor Coalition
Mike Altimari, Leonard Kirscht, and Kathleen Poate presented the I94 West Chamber of Commerce discussion regarding the I94 Coalition project.  Mr. Altimari stated the purpose of tonight is for financial support to continue the lobbying for the extra lanes on I94 from Maple Grove to Monticello.  The cost is $.50 per capita to help continue the lobbying efforts with $450M for total project completion.

Bunting asked if they came tonight looking for a decision from the Council.

Davis stated he isn’t willing to make a decision unless we know if the funding can be used with TIF #1 funds.

Rauenhorst stated difficult to do this with service impacts being discussed, however, it is easy to justify because of transportation improvements.

Council consensus was to put this on the next agenda for Council to make a decision.

Administrator Stahmer stated the current population estimate is 7200, which would be a funding request for $3600.

Finance Director Wieland asked specifically where the monies would be used.

Mr. Altimari stated it is to fund lobbying efforts for extra lanes from Maple Grove to Monticello and it would be an ongoing membership into the coalition to continue to pay in future years/$.50 per capita.

Ms. Poate handed out a letter summarizing the presentation.

Staff was directed to research if TIF funds could be used for this purpose.

4.    Approve agenda.  The following items were added to the Agenda:
       8.01  Pools
       8.02  Brief Discussion on Annexation

5.    Consent Agenda.
       5.01   Approval of Minutes from June 9, 2009 City Council Meeting
       5.02   Approval of Bills and Claims and Additional Claims List
       5.03   Sound System for Rogers Activity Center Meeting Room
       5.04   Rogers Police Commission Meetings 
       5.05   Authorization for Rental of Contractor Staging Space at Rogers Public Works
       5.06  Request by the City of Dayton for a Letter of Support for the Brockton Interchange

Recommendation to approve the letter as written minus the sentence regarding funding discussions.

Additional Claims, question by Rauenhorst on claim number 28.

Motion by Rauenhorst, seconded by Bunting the consent agenda as revised with additional claims and letter of support for Dayton.  Motion carried 3-0.

6.    Public Hearing.  None.

7.    General Business.
       7.01   Formal Appointment of Bret Weiss, WSB as the City Engineer
Administrator Stahmer reported that after the June 9, 2009 City Council meeting where Council accepted the recommendation to appoint Mr. Weiss from WSB as the City Engineer, staff has already begun to meet with Mr. Weiss regarding transition, a process that will continue intensely over the coming weeks and months.

Administrator Stahmer stated Mr. Weiss has asked that staff and Council consider the consulting services agreement for future action.

Administrator Stahmer stated tonight’s action would also be approving the fee schedule that
Mr. Bret Weiss presented and introduced to the Council.

Motion by Bunting, seconded by Rauenhorst to appoint Bret Weiss of WSB and Associates to the position of consulting City Engineer effective June 24, 2009.
Council welcomed Mr. Weis aboard.  Motion carried 3-0.

       7.02  Standard Sign Adjustment Request from Veit, Located at 14000 Veit Place
Planner Burnham provided the staff report on the request from Veit for a standard sign adjustment.  Burnham stated adjustments to the requirements and standards for the height, number, type, lighting, area or location of a sign or signs established by this chapter may be approved through the site plan review process if the following criteria are met:
   (1)   There are site conditions which require a sign adjustment to allow the sign to be
           reasonably visible from a street immediately adjacent to the site; or
   (2)   The sign adjustment will allow a sign of exceptional design or a style that will enhance the
           area or that is more consistent with the architecture and design of the site; and
   (3)   The sign adjustment will not result in a sign that is inconsistent with the purpose of the
           zoning district in which the property is located.

Burnham stated in a review of this particular situation, staff believes a 60 square foot sign in this location would be visible from the Interstate.  The additional 33 square feet being requested will certainly make the sign more visible, but in staff’s opinion the enhanced size of the proposed wall sign is not necessary.

In relation to Criteria #2, the proposed location of the sign is a metal building.  It is difficult for the applicant to indicate that the architecture and design of the site will be improved with the addition of a wall sign.  A metal building itself does not generally lend itself to high architectural standards.  The sign does enhance the building itself, but the exterior material of the building is not of a high architectural quality.

The purpose of the Limited Industrial District is generally to allow industrial uses within the City Limits.  Staff does not believe the sign itself will be inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning district.

Burnham reported on Tuesday, June 16, 2009; the Planning Commission recommended the City Council deny the request for a standard sign adjustment by a vote of 4-3.  The Commission did not believe the criteria as established in Section 113-12 had been met for this particular application.

Mr. Rob Anderson with Veit was in attendance to answer any questions.

Bunting asked Mr. Anderson why a permit was not pulled on the sign in the first place.

Mr. Anderson stated he was not involved in the initial procedure, and still doesn’t know why a sign permit wasn’t pulled in first place, they should have known.

Bunting stated he is a little surprised the sign company did not pull the permit.

Rauenhorst stated we have rules and rules should be followed.  This went through the Planning Commission and he doesn’t see any reason to go against what the Planning Commission is recommending and feels the City should deny application and move on.

Mr. Anderson reported that Veit feels criteria #1 and #2 have been met.

Anderson spoke on criteria #1, stating he is having a problem with the theory of reasonable visibility calling the language vague and questioned what exactly is reasonable visibility.  He referenced west-bound traffic not being able to see the sign due to trees.

Mr. Anderson then argued criteria #2 regarding sign design and style that enhanced the area.  He referenced the Appliance Smart sign adjustment which was granted before, and asked what makes Appliance Smart different than us.  He stated he has advice for the future; firm up the standards calling them gray and need to be more definitive and more enforcing.

Rauenhorst stated the biggest difference is that Appliance Smart pulled a permit.

Rauenhorst and Bunting addressed the “grayness” in the code and the length of time taken to approve the sign ordinance.

Bunting stated it is tough for him to get over the fact the sign was constructed without a permit.

Mr. Anderson stated the permit not being pulled is a separate issue.

Jeff Carson stated the standard the City is dealing with is 60 feet.  Question being asked is to consider certain criteria not as black and white as the applicant wants, but there for reasons to expand the standard.  Council needs a reason in order to go beyond. 

Motion by Rauenhorst, seconded by Bunting to adopt the findings of the Planning Commission for denial: criteria #1 has not been met:  (1) There are site conditions which require a sign adjustment to allow the sign to be reasonably visible from a street immediately adjacent to the site.

Davis stated he doesn’t see ignorance as an excuse and in going forward make sure a permit is pulled.

Bunting stated the differences between City and Veit are not coming into play in this decision.
Motion carried 3-0.

       7.03   Discussion regarding Solicitation Ordinance and approval of 2009 High Traffic Zone
Chief Luther provided a brief update on solicitation ordinance and annual concerns from residents and city leaders. Discussed was the process of the solicitation ordinance.

Chief Luther then addressed the map and had no proposed changes for 2009.

Motion by Bunting, seconded by Rauenhorst to approve the 2009 High Traffic Zone map.  Motion carried 3-0.

       7.04   2010 Budget Discussion
There was discussion regarding the setting of the next budget workshop and the consideration of the brush contract with Lynde McLeod.

Motion by Bunting, seconded by Rauenhorst to schedule the next budget workshop for 5:30 p.m. on July 14, 2009 at the Community Room.
Motion carried 3-0.

Davis stated prior to meeting there was a 2009/2010 budget discussion and the issue of continuing with the yard waste service going forward; $20,000 per year is the budget impact.
Bunting stated the service can be available through your trash provider.

Rauenhorst stated in bills and claims, we just spent over $3,000 on the service.

Council discussed giving the residents a one month notice of the cancellation.

Motion by Rauenhorst, seconded by Bunting to end the agreement with Lynde McLeod.
Davis stated the one thing that has come up in the past is Hassan residents have been using this service, give them notice too.
Motion carried 3-0.

       7.05  Approval of Resolution No. 2009-23, A Resolution Requesting Support for Management Position from Friends of the Rogers Library
Administrator Stahmer stated staff has received a request from Kristie Hoyt, on behalf of the Friends of the Rogers Library for the Council to consider a resolution supporting the continuation of the position of on-site library manager at the Rogers location, as opposed to an apparent plan to combine the positions of the Maple Grove and Rogers managers into a single joint position overseeing the two different locations.

Kristie Hoyt was present and addressed the Council on the request for the resolution of support.

Ms. Hoyt stated the resolution would be presented at a Hennepin County meeting the next day.

Motion by Bunting, seconded by Rauenhorst to adopt resolution 2009-23, A Resolution Requesting Support for Management Position from Friends of the Rogers Library.  Motion carried 3-0.

8.    Other Business. 
       8.01  Pools
Davis discussed pools without fences and asked that the CSO go out and do inventory on which ones have a permit and which ones are fenced.  Davis referenced both the Sunnyside Estates and Fox Creek Neighborhoods.

Bunting said that it should be stated that our statute on pools mimics the state’s requirements.

Davis stated that ignorance to the ordinance is not an excuse.

Planner Burnham clarified what is considered a fence; a wall height if over 4 feet, qualifies as fence with the removal of any ladders.

Davis stands corrected on fence requirement. Burnham further commented that a 4 foot fence is required around anything greater than 2 feet in depth.

Council questioned how many existing pools have permits, what needs a fence, and enforcement of the code.
Administrator Stahmer stated staff will work in this issue and get the requirements published as they already have been in the newsletter.

       8.02  Brief discussion on annexation
Bunting stated, at the request of a Hassan Township Board member, he is asking Council if there is any interest to meet with Board to discuss concerns with impending annexation. 

Davis questioned what they want to discuss; do they want to discuss changing the date?

Davis and Rauenhorst stated they will not entertain discussion unless they come forward with a resolution on the change of date; not willing to talk about the date until they are willing to do that.

Rauenhorst stated it is not in Rogers’ best interest to move the date.  He works for citizens of Rogers and needs to look out for their best interest, not Hassan’s best interest.

No formal action taken.

9.  Correspondence and Reports
     9.01   Tail Grant Submittal – information only, submitted and accepted.
     9.02   May 2009 Financial Reports
     9.03   Park Board Minutes from May 19, 2009
No formal action taken.

10. Adjourn
Motion by Rauenhorst, seconded by Bunting at 8:05 p.m.  Motion carried 3-0.

Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Doboszenski
Assistant City Administrator/Clerk

For Business


  • Business Registration Certificate +

    A Business Registration Certificate (BRC) is meant to provide information to the City when a new business moves in or Read More
  • Winter Parking +

    In order to keep our streets clear of parked vehicles during the winter months, the City of Rogers prohibits parking Read More
  • Crime Increase in Rogers +

    Rogers experienced significant increase in crimes in the past two months. Part of this is due to the holiday season. Read More
  • 1