Council Meeting Minutes
September 15, 2014
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: Willmus,
Etten, McGehee, Laliberte, and Roe. City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also
2. Approve Agenda
Etten seconded approval of the agenda as presented.
Etten, McGehee, Laliberte, and Roe.
3. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one
appeared to speak.
Communications, Reports, and Announcements
reviewed upcoming meetings rescheduled; along with this week?s meeting
schedule. Mayor Roe also provided information about the upcoming Roseville
Volunteer Marketplace and HRA-sponsored "Minnesota Gardening Year Round."
Willmus reported that last week he had the opportunity to tour the Eureka Recycling
facility with some of the Public Works, Environment and Transportation
Commission members and encouraged other Councilmembers to schedule a tour as
well, opining that it was very interesting.
thanked those who assisted with and/or attended the annual Wild Rice Festival
at the Harriet Alexander Nature Center last weekend; with Councilmembers
Willmus and Etten reporting on the successful event and great turnout in
Laliberte announced the League of Women Voters annual meeting Tuesday at 7:00
p.m. to be held at the OVAL, with a review of the GreenStep Cities Program.
Donations and Communications
6. Approve Minutes
7. Approve Consent Agenda
Consider Items Removed from Consent
General Ordinances for Adoption
Business Items (Action Items)
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Concept Plan Review of Redevelopment Proposal by Cities Edge
Architects for the Old Dominion Property
Development Director Paul Bilotta and City Planner Thomas Paschke were present
to introduce developers and prompt discussions with the City Council on review
of a concept plan for a redevelopment proposal by Cities Edge Architects for
the Old Dominion Property, as well as the adjacent Xtra Lease site in the Twin
Lakes Redevelopment Area.
noted that this involved the parcels around the Metropolitan Transit Park &
Ride facility north of WalMart. Mr. Bilotta advised that two different
developers were working on those respective parcels; and staff had asked that
those developers coordinate their work; with the current status now at the
concept plan review stage. Mr. Bilotta clarified that this was not an
informational meeting, nor a formal public hearing, which would be happening
later in the process, but a preliminary look by the City Council and public
before that more formal process, when things are still fluid and easier to
revise, when approximately designed at the 30% stage.
displayed a plan of the area, proposed to include two hotels, a small grocer
of approximately 17,000 square feet, and a strip mall, with interconnected
parking lots and massing of the buildings on the outside of the site, in line
with the regulating plan. Mr. Bilotta advised that there remained some issues
still under discussion for resolution between the developers and staff
regarding access points, particularly on Twin Lakes Parkway where the proposed
access point may interfere with existing best management practices (BMP's) for
storm water management; as well as some issues on Cleveland Avenue pending
further discussion and resolution with Ramsey County. Mr. Bilotta advised that
actual tenants are still pending, but this presentation provided developers the
opportunity for the Council and public to have a first look and be aware of
intents. Mr. Bilotta reiterated that this was not a public hearing, and no
notices had been sent, but this served as an additional presentation for the
purpose of community awareness, and for the City Council to provide their
initial input on the proposals.
with Java Properties
advised that, while under a non-disclosure agreement with potential tenants, he
could talk about the project in general. Mr. Krogh noted that development firm
had a strong Letter of Intent from two grocers, and one pharmacy, and while
still in negotiations, he anticipated a decision within the next 2-3 weeks.
Mr. Krogh stated that the retail strip could be shrunk if necessary, but the
Letter of Intent was for between 10,000 and 11,000 square feet. While
development remains in the early stages, Mr. Krogh advised that the site has
already received a clean environmental report, both for Phases I and II, and
bids had gone out seeking a civil engineer. As soon as the grocer had been
confirmed, Mr. Krogh advised that they would begin the formal process with the
Planning Commission and City Council, with informational and public hearings.
Regarding additional potential tenants, Mr. Krogh advised that interest and/or
Letters of Intent had been received from a hair salon, casual burger
restaurant, dentist, and sandwich shop, all standard and typical tenants for
this type of strip retail projects.
Hanson, Cities Edge Architects (north lot for hotel side development)
As a local
Minnesota developer with Torgerson Hospitality, Mr. Hanson reviewed other
properties around the metropolitan area, as part of their 30-40 properties
total. Mr. Hanson advised that Torgerson Hospitality was a long-term investor
in their properties, remaining owners over their 40-plus year history in the
Specific to the
site itself, Mr. Hanson advised that they were somewhat ahead of the Java
developments, with agreements already in place for a Hampton Inn (Hilton
property) and a second motel, Home2 Suites, an extended stay property geared
for the business traveler and for longer stays versus the Hampton Inn?s typical
transient business travelers.
displayed the design characteristics of the Home2 Suites and noted that the
type of exterior materials typically used on their prototype buildings were
still in the discussion stages with staff based on franchise requirements,
usually Hardy plank siding, not currently specified as an approved material on
the list of city code regulations. As a point of reference, Mr. Hanson noted
that the recently constructed County Inn & Suites building in Roseville had
the same exterior product. However, Mr. Hanson noted they continued to work
with staff on finalizing those materials.
Mr. Hanson also
displayed a rendering of a similar Hampton Inn to that proposed in Roseville,
this one constructed in Bloomington, MN with a similar format. Mr. Hanson
advised that they would continue to tweak development to get more articulation
per the zoning during the process, but he foresaw no significant issues.
advised that his firm was seeking an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
waiver for this project, noting that a Phase I Environmental Assessment had
already been completed by Torgerson, and a full Phase I and II completed in the
immediate past. Mr. Hanson advised that the current Phase I stated that no
more site remediation was needed, therefore creating their waiver request and
based on time constraints as they sought to bid the project the first of the
year and be in the ground in the spring of 2015.
concurred with the time constraints, seeking to be in the ground in early 2015
opined that it would be a beneficial arrangement for both developers and
synergies with retail and the hotel projects to work together. Mr. Hanson
noted that the entryway off Cleveland Avenue was important to their project,
and committed to working with staff and Ramsey County to address the important
issues for the community and the project with accessibility, parking and
recognized and reiterated, for the benefit of the public, that this concept
plan review, similar to Planned Unit Development sketch plans presented before
the Planning Commission for past projects, provided a good opportunity for
early feedback, but did not preclude the required open house and public hearing
process before the Planning Commission and/or City Council.
McGehee observed a big absence of green space and a large impact with
impervious surfaces. While seeing the inclusion of pathways, something greatly
desired in this area to provide interconnectivity, Councilmember McGehee stated
that the proposed parking lots seemed to have little access across them, and
she would prefer to see more green in the parking lots and even between the
hotels, as well as a pathway for pedestrians that looked less forbidding that
the current concept with only a little green shown around the edge. In
addressing issues of tree trenches and water, Councilmember McGehee opined that
it would be nice if the developer considered installation of a ribbon curb or
trenching/banking to ensure the longevity of trees.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Bilotta advised that staff had not yet reviewed
the percentage of green space for the project, but in his initial review of the
maximums in parking, he anticipated the 7-8 spaces per 1,000 square feet would
exceed the maximum, and may require the addition of a small parking structure
of some type, but would depend on parking on the whole, with the impervious
surface allowed in this type of use at 85%.
echoed the comments of Councilmember McGehee related to connectivity for
pedestrians, especially with the amenity of a grocery store for the hotels, to
make sure to include an intentional effort to make pedestrian connections to
ensure pedestrians felt safe walking through the parking lots. While it is part
of code, Mayor Roe opined it was important in this area. Mayor Roe also asked
that the developer and staff make sure to indicate a four-sided building, to
ensure passersby were not observing an obvious back side of the strip mall.
responded that staff had addressed pedestrian interconnectivity between access
points on the north of the strip mall for the retail/grocery uses; taking into
consideration the potential cut around for lights and potential for making a
convoluted situation for access points that may provide a greater opportunity
for more green space. If approved by Ramsey County, Mr. Bilotta opined that
the access on Cleveland Avenue may actually be moved further north.
opined that made sense.
McGehee noted her observation of some residential neighborhoods in St. Paul
using centers two blocks apart, not roundabouts, but requiring traffic to slow
down around the edge with green space in the middle, and definitely a traffic
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus regarding southbound traffic on Cleveland Avenue for a
left turn, Mr. Bilotta advised that staff was recommending a requirement for a
traffic analysis in this area, especially with the amount of traffic already on
County Road C. Mr. Bilotta advised that this would fall under the EAW
discussion to follow, and if the City Council agreed to an EAW waiver, there
would be elements of that review to pull out and still require as part of the
project, including a traffic study. Given all that is happening in this area
with Cleveland Avenue and the interchange, Mr. Bilotta opined that he expected
Ramsey County to require a traffic study as part of their approval, which would
mean several steps to be followed to achieve that.
questioned if the Twin Lakes Parkway BMP issues were related to the entrance's
current location and whether it would need to be shifted, or if BMP issue was
along the entire area.
responded that it was along the entire area, with the City?s Engineering
Department expressing concerns about potential backing onto Cleveland Avenue,
and not encouraging that process, even though it made it easy to come from the
east on Twin Lakes Parkway. Mr. Bilotta advised that staff was attempting to
bring traffic out on the highway and Cleveland Avenue versus Fairview Avenue
and Twin Lakes Parkway.
Mayor Roe stated that he didn't sense a lot of negativity from individual
Councilmembers, simply pursuing steps with staff to reach agreement.
Willmus expressed his intrigue with the square footage of the potential grocery
stated that he continually heard from residents their desire to have the
restaurant options in Roseville more unique and not so much of a chain store;
and suggested the developer could score some points with the public if that was
the type of offering they were pursuing, with the community looking for
something different in Roseville.
Mayor Roe reminded
staff that the City had a purchase obligation specific to the Xtra Lease
property, and opined that this project could relieve the City of that
Discussion Regarding the Treatment of Non-Conforming Uses
(Particularly in the Twin Lakes Area)
reviewed options for the City Council?s consideration of this discussion
regarding the treatment of non-conforming uses, particularly in the Twin Lakes
Redevelopment Area, as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated
September 15, 2014. Mr. Bilotta noted part of that discussion was more general
in nature, while some of the discussion was related specifically to the Vogel
Sheetmetal parcel; and asked the City Council for their preference in how to
move forward. As outlined in the RCA, Mr. Bilotta noted the differences in
State Statute regarding nonconforming use controls, and those based on City
Council policy. Under the City's policy, Mr. Bilotta noted that the Interim
Use could be used for nonconforming uses, but had a local limitation of five
years, and if the City wanted more flexibility it could look at code amendments
McGehee opined that she heard many more complaints in the City?s use of
Conditional Use Permits versus Interim Uses in terms of enforcement and
longevity of a CUP and lack of ability to change it as the surroundings or
environment change, since the CUP runs with the land. Councilmember McGehee
stated that her personal preference would be to favor a change for an Interim
Use that provided more flexibility beyond the five years; but otherwise she was
perfectly happy with how it was handled, and stated she was not concerned with
nonconforming uses and how handled, if a 10-20 year Interim Use was available
providing different requirements for screening and exterior situations.
Willmus expressed his agreement and disagreement in part with Councilmember
McGehee?s preference. Since the Conditional Use becomes a part of the property
title and ran with the land, Councilmember Willmus agreed it can become an
issue in some instances. However, Councilmember Willmus opined that leaving
the five year timeframe for Interim Uses offered some value and protection
particularly if those uses were abutting less-intensive uses (e.g. commercial
abutting residential). Councilmember Willmus opined that the five year
check-back was a valuable tool and provided some leverage if there were ongoing
issues to make sure they were remedied. Councilmember Willmus questioned if he
would be comfortable with a 20 year Interim Use, while he could consider a ten
year term, unless abutting residential properties, since that was where the
real conflict occurred from his perspective. Councilmember Willmus referenced
a past Interim Use for the former Woof Room location, abutting a residential
neighborhood, and how contentious that had become. Councilmember Willmus
opined that it depended on where Interim Uses were used, which would determine
his consideration of a five or ten year, or longer, term.
suggested if a longer term was considered by the City Council, granting an
Interim Use for a certain period of time should be based on the particular
situation, not a generic timeframe, and determined on a case by case basis.
Mr. Bilotta suggested having some flexibility depending on the situation,
making it less about policy versus removing the handcuffs to allow greater
opined that the term allowed flexibility as far as zoning and nonconforming
uses, noting that if commercial use and zoning had moved toward future
residential uses, he would be less eager to grant a long-term Interim Use,
depending on the viability of the particular business and its impact to the
surrounding area, each which would make a difference. Mayor Roe noted this
relates to the discussion held on the Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) zoning as
well, with the desire for more flexibility and allowing different possibilities
and fewer restrictions. Mayor Roe opined that the advantage of that is that
uses could be set up as conditional in some instances, while permitted uses in
other instances, since what may or may not be good adjacent to one use may be
more amenable to others. Specific to the Terrace Drive issue, Mayor Roe noted
that it had been recently rezoned to High Density Residential (HDR) which
really limited uses, and the rationale in granting the Interim Use for Vogel
Sheetmetal for five years in that instance. If that wasn?t the zoning for that
particular area, Mayor Roe noted that there would be a different issue. Mayor
Roe concurred with Councilmember McGehee?s comment that things were improving
and getting closer to the desired outcome, provided the turnover in multi-use
buildings could still be addressed, and the use didn?t? intensify on the site
away from intended zoning. Mayor Roe spoke to the need to retain good tools in
addressing those sites.
Etten concurred with the comments of Mayor Roe, and his support for not kicking
people out of a successful business unless a significant situation or problem
was in evidence. Councilmember Etten stated that he agreed with the positives
in using a longer term Interim Use to allow more flexibility, and changing City
Code accordingly. However, Councilmember Etten questioned if a business would
prefer a Conditional Use to ensure greater permanence for their business, and
asked Mr. Bilotta for his impression of that preference.
responded that it would depend on whether the choice was between an Interim or
Conditional Use, or if the choice was between a Conditional Use or not being
allowed at all, obviously then indicating a preference for a Conditional Use.
Regarding the current zoning of the Vogel Sheetmetal property, and their
proposed new use, as well as with other situations, Mr. Bilotta noted that
rezoning should or could also be a consideration. While it was preferable to
have the zoning work for proposed uses ultimately for most business uses versus
the need for an Interim Use, Mr. Bilotta noted that it provided two different
situations, one of which was providing fluidity in the Twin Lakes area as the
City Council continued to work its way to resolution of zoning issues and
permitted or conditional uses.
McGehee noted the need for flexibility, and her personal interest in having the
ability to make changes, whether through Interim Uses or zoning, particularly
in those areas abutting residential properties and the need to correct negative
situations through some option. While zoning can be changes, even though the
process was more lengthy and cumbersome, Councilmember McGehee noted that a
Conditional Use remained in place as a nonconforming use, whether or not the
zoning was changed. Therefore, Councilmember McGehee expressed her preference
for an Interim Use versus a Conditional Use.
Willmus stated that he looked at an Interim Use as temporary versus what was
desired long-term for the City, and rather than pushing if off continuously, it
could be closely tied with a Conditional Use and nonconforming uses.
Councilmember Willmus opined that the City Council owed some due diligence for
considering the City?s future vision based on the long-term Comprehensive Plan
guidelines, and not be placed in situations where it was continually setting aside
that long-term vision.
opined that a Conditional Use shouldn?t be the way to consider a nonconforming
use; and while it was fine to put it there, there were conditions applied,
otherwise it would be a permitted use. However, by applying conditions due to
certain circumstances, Mayor Roe stated that this served the purpose. Mayor
Roe stated that he didn't have a problem with a Conditional Use going with the
land as long as it continued to meet those conditions, be forced to come into
compliance, or shut down due to noncompliance.
clarified that Conditional Uses and nonconforming uses overlapped and while a
use may be inappropriate, if it was held to a certain scale or conditions, it
allowed the City to broaden uses in a particular zone (e.g. Terrace Drive).
Mr. Bilotta noted that this permitted uses with conditions, while not
legalizing things preferred to be totally gone in the future as part of the
McGehee opined that she wasn?t tied to the twenty year timeframe.
clarified that the discussion was to remove the limit.
McGehee stated that she had no problem in using a Conditional Use for certain
uses within limits, when she could not foresee any problems (e.g. environmental
or traffic), but referenced past Conditional Uses for nonconformities that may
not be desirable long-term; opining that this was a distinction she wanted
Willmus suggested one distinction may be that of an asphalt plant use.
Specific to the
Vogel Sheetmetal property, Mr. Bilotta and Mayor Roe noted the sense of urgency
for the property owner for City Council guidance due to the requirements of
their lending agency.
For the benefit
of the public, and review of the City Council, Mr. Bilotta reviewed the
issuance in the recent past by the City Council of a five year Interim Use for
Vogel Sheetmetal, anticipating rezoning to CMU, which had yet to happen. Mr.
Bilotta advised that before their lender agreed to a loan for improvements on
the property, they were balking at doing so under an Interim Use due to its
short term nature, stating it was insufficient for loan approval. As far as
the City is concerned, Mr. Bilotta advised that they were fine with having
granted the Interim Use, but it was simply an issue between the company and
their lender; and were therefore asking the City for avenues they should take
or what they could do to satisfy the conditions of their lender. Mr. Bilotta
noted that there were a range of things that could be done, including revising
the Interim Use and its term, or rezoning, along with other options that may
satisfy the lender. However, before pursuing any of those options, Mr. Bilotta
advised that staff and the company wanted to come before the City Council for
their feedback. Mr. Bilotta further advised that the company had the ability
to submit an application for rezoning and a comprehensive plan amendment, while
the City Council had no obligation to grant either, especially pursuit of a
comprehensive plan amendment, and therefore sought the City Council?s policy
direction to save time if they were not amenable to do so, at which time other
options could be considered.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Mr. Bilotta reviewed the process previously initiated to rezone
the area north of Terrace Drive from HDR to CMU, which had gone before the
Planning Commission at a public hearing, and subsequently recommended by that
body to the City Council for approval, but had been tabled at the City Council
personal point of view, Mayor Roe referenced his comments at the end of the
previous discussion: if projects come forward for a use in the CMU zone or
requesting rezoning to CMU, it made sense to him to get language in code that a
regulating plan was needed, which needed to be initiated by that party and get
the regulating plan process in place. Mayor Roe noted that this also fell into
the next discussion, not necessarily the Cunningham plan, but going through all
the steps or three legs of the stool and involving the neighborhood, developer,
and City, as the most obvious way to get things done.
that things addressing green space and connectivity were already in code,
Councilmember McGehee expressed her advocacy for submission of a preliminary
sketch plan and working with staff to tweak that plan. Councilmember McGehee
asked staff how or what they envisioned beyond what was already in place in
terms of design standards.
clarified that those design standards weren't really in place.
noted that the discussion had rolled into the next agenda item, but suggested
continuing, since the Vogel Sheetmetal issue had other pieces to it as part of
this discussion as well.
regulating plans, Mr. Bilotta noted that those plans also affect design, with
materials and other considerations usually considered separately. Specific to
a regulating plan as it applied to Terrace Drive and the Vogel Sheetmetal use,
Mr. Bilotta advised that the plan would control intensity. As an example, Mr.
Bilotta addressed previous discussions in the past related to sub-districts
within a CMU district, since there was no height limitation in most of the CMU
district. While a lack of height limits may not be problematic in the
Cleveland Avenue area adjacent to an elevated highway, with no problem in
allowing a 12-15 story building, Mr. Bilotta noted that along Terrace Drive it
was a different situation when abutting residential properties. Mr. Bilotta
noted the differences in the north and south side of Terrace Drive, and while
allowing the same types of uses, restrictions could be applied for
characteristics from one versus the other. Mr. Bilotta also referenced the
Fairview Avenue area, which currently was close to showing an existing pattern
with walkable mixed use, but with commercial uses on the west side of County
Road C, with the right projects it could have a very different feel than
noted that a regulating plan would address those various pieces, and advised
that staff could get into those descriptors in as detailed a manner as desired
by the City Council. Mr. Bilotta reviewed some of those issues, including
height to massing, parking in front or at the rear, pedestrian connections and
orientation, or trails. Mr. Bilotta advised that staff could provide those
interpretations visually for more clarify versus narrative that may be up to
interpretation, with staff?s feedback on ways to address those issues in the
private/public sectors that made the most sense.
noted that the Terrace Drive area seemed to be primed for development at this
time, with so far the only thing agreed upon is that the HDR zoning is not
desired by anyone, meaning the only thing currently allowed for development is
suggested staff be directed to engage the public in a series of public meetings
starting within the next three weeks in-house at the staff level, in an effort
to provide guidance to the City Council; and for the other development area
along County Road C, that developer use their consultants and finances to
follow the same process in meeting with the neighbors to prepare a regulating
plan or modify the Cunningham plan on the west side.
clarified that the design standards referenced by Councilmember McGehee were
provided in Chapter 1005.02 of City Code.
Thomas Paschke responded that the goal in developing that chapter of City Code
was to eliminate regulating plans and adopt regional business standards and
general requirements for the CMU District.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke reviewed the options in extrapolating the Cunningham
plan if adopted by reference, similar to an amended PUD.
McGehee noted past discussions with Mr. Trudgeon and Mr. Paschke with the City
Council related to subareas, with the City Council specifying the area around
Langton Lake and the north side of Terrace Drive sees graduated intensity to
Mayor Roe also
recognized that past discussion; however, he clarified that those subzones were
meant to deal with adjacent areas in other ways, while this discussion was
When the City
Council initiated this discussion, Councilmember Willmus noted that it was
changing HDR to CMU, with feedback heard provided by the business community and
City Council before the neighborhood came forward in August seeking a voice in
the process. Before moving forward and before any other changes are considered,
Councilmember Willmus noted the vital need to hear from them and bring them
into the process. Based on what he had heard to-date from the neighbors,
Councilmember Willmus opined that he wasn't confident that CMU was the vision
they had for their neighborhood, and before formal action by the City Council,
those conversations needed to be part of the process.
McGehee clarified that this was the proposal made by Mr. Bilotta for staff to
initiate that discussion with the neighborhood over the next three weeks.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Mr. Bilotta advised that as long as the discussions were held
in-house, staff required no formal action from the City Council; but if it was
determined that an outside consultant was required, they would return to the
City Council for their authorization. Mr. Bilotta opined that, as long as the
discussion was within the Terrace Drive area, and not further beyond to
Cleveland Avenue, staff could handle the meeting process.
Mr. Bilotta and
Mr. Paschke clarified that a regulating plan was required, but could be done by
the City or the developer and created by area; and by consensus of the City
Council agreed that a regulating plan developed by the private sector would be
amendable to the City Council for consideration as well.
whether to use a regulatory plan or another option, Councilmember Etten opined
that it seemed the regulatory plan allowed flexibility, and in previous discussion
when considering creating subzones as applicable, another part of that
discussion was to simply leave it open, providing enough nuance without
changing all zoning. Councilmember Etten stated that he was in favor of the
open zoning as long as it could be adjusted through a regulating plan.
confirmed that a regulating plan allowed some flexibility, a graphic regulatory
tool would address those pieces, including no build areas, future roadways,
areas of lower intensity, different impervious surface percentages closer to
the lake and other pieces.
Specific to the
Interim Use discussion, Councilmember Laliberte agreed with Councilmember
Willmus on the check-back option; questioning ramifications if that option was
removed not only for this City Council but future Council?s as well.
suggested language could be included for that five year - or more - check-back
or a statement related to renewal terms of an Interim Use.
thanked the City Council for their input, and advised staff would proceed to
the Planning Commission for their deliberation and subsequent recommendation to
the City Council.
Laliberte noted that the Metropolitan Council was still requiring cities to
increase their housing density, and questioned if the City or Roseville would
still be in compliance with this direction.
Willmus noted that CMU could still include housing as part of that mix.
clarified that the Metropolitan Council was not requiring housing density, but
simply projecting it.
noted recent residential developments not yet identified by the Metropolitan
Council, as well as several in the planning stages, that will provide credits
for the City of Roseville in meeting those projections.
7:06 p.m., Mayor Roe opened the discussion up to public comment related to
Boyer, Centennial Drive
Ms. Boyer expressed her appreciation of the City
Council in hearing public comments, opining that it made her feel more
comfortable with planning going forward with input from the neighborhood.
thanked Ms. Boyer for her positive feedback regarding how the City Council was
McCormick, 2850 Wheeler Street North
sought clarification on her understanding on current City Code for the Vogel
Interim Use for five years, with optional renewal(s), which was confirmed by
to tonight?s discussion, Ms. McCormick expressed some concern and asked for
caution from the City Council in dealing with nonconforming uses. While
appreciating looking at the overarching vision, Ms. McCormick asked if there
was a process in place for the City to monitor tenants and potential turnover,
to determine if a tenant will be intensifying a use.
responded that as far as a formal process, this could become known through
initiation of a building permit; and form a planning perspective, a formal
review could be initiated as well for certain improvements. However, if a
business steps into another space without any improvements, it was unlikely
that the City would be aware of that beyond filing of complaints for potential
noncompliance. Mr. Bilotta advised that staff was increasing their due diligence
with property owners to make sure they alert City Hall of any increased
intensity in uses from one tenant to another. In response to Ms. McCormick,
Mr. Bilotta advised that expanding a nonconforming use would not be allowed and
would not make it through a building permit process.
noted the e-mail she?d written the City Council earlier, and had no concerns
beyond that, other than expressing her concerns with the next issue in
considering waiving of EAW?s.
clarified that his firm did need financing to move forward with their project,
and made the City Council aware of new information received earlier today from
the Small Business Administration (SBA), that they would accept a twenty year
Interim Use permit for funding.
suggested Mr. Vogel provide that information to staff for their review.
Erickson, 1790 Centennial Drive
appreciating the financial situation of Vogel Sheetmetal, Ms. Erickson opined
that such was the nature of doing business, for research and due diligence to
know what they were facing. Ms. Erickson expressed concern with a twenty-year
Interim Use permit that provided a blanket continuation, asking the neighbors
to support that without any knowledge of the Vogel operations or their firm,
but to simply trust that they?ll be a good neighbor. However, without
check-backs or ways to ensure compliance, Ms. Erickson noted past experience in
the neighborhood with a previous business that applied for a building permit
without waiting for its approval and proceeded with their improvements. Ms.
Erickson noted that this significantly impacted the lives of the residential
neighborhood, and sought protection in case the intent didn?t live up to
expectations, allowing some avenue to address those issues.
clarified that any extension of the current five year Interim Use would come
before the City Council and allow for public comment at that time.
Since the Vogel
financing is now on the table with the SBA and can be discussed by the
neighborhood group, Councilmember McGehee suggested the twenty-year option be
discussed as a viable option for consideration and for the neighborhood to
think about. As part of that discussion, Councilmember McGehee suggested the
neighbors identify what additional protections they would require, in
particular those properties immediately abutting Vogel; and any other
conditions that would make them feel better as options. Councilmember McGehee
opined that the City Council would be prepared to act favorably to address
concerns of the neighbors, if agreeable with staff and the business owners.
asked the ramifications if the permit was a Conditional versus Interim Use.
For the benefit of Ms. Erickson and members of the audience, Mayor Roe
clarified that the current permit was an Interim Use with conditions, and for a
term of five years, with optional renewal.
noted that the SBA information provided by Mr. Vogel was new to the
neighborhood; and questioned the City Council?s next steps in light of that new
reviewed various options if Vogel chose to move down the twenty year Interim
Use permit process:
City Code through a text amendment to allow that to occur, which would require
public notice, a formal public hearing at the Planning Commission, and their
subsequent recommendation to the City Council. If once adopted, that
longer-term Interim use permit would become law per City Code.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke confirmed that the text amendment regarding interim
use lengths could be heard at the next Planning Commission meeting, scheduled
for October 8, 2014, provided direction was received to allow for publication
and mailing of notice by week-end.
advised that if Vogel proceeded with that process, staff would need to think
through additional conditions that may be different in the long-term than those
currently applied to mitigate neighborhood concerns for that additional fifteen
to regulatory planning along Terrace Drive, both the north and south sides,
with the extension west of Fairview to pick up the Sherman property and
properties north of that, Mr. Bilotta reviewed the process for those
properties, suggesting staff meet with the public, property owners, business
owners, and any other interested parties to receive public input. Mr. Bilotta
suggested this occur over the next three weeks depending on holiday schedules,
intended as listening sessions for the purpose of hearing public comment.
Following those meetings, Mr. Bilotta suggested a regulating plan could be
developed for that area defining what could or could not occur in a CMU
District. However, Mr. Bilotta noted that as a result of that planning
exercise, the City Council may decide to rezone the area to something other
than CMU that may require a regulating plan as well; or other zoning districts
indicated for those areas or a part of those areas, or they could stay HDR,
even though he didn't anticipate that happening. At that point in time, Mr.
Bilotta advised that the neighborhood and property owners would have a good
idea of why things are as they are, and key pieces would be identified, how
they were defined in a plan, and an understanding of what impacted that
decision making with all parties clearly heard. Mr. Bilotta opined this
process would be good for the planning process for property owners and the
neighborhood to understand the overall vision and plan.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Mr. Bilotta advised that there was no reason that both processes
could not go on concurrently; but that the text amendment process would be
pursued by staff no matter the results of the second process.
At the request
of Ms. McCormick, Mr. Bilotta confirmed that the public hearing for the text
amendment would be held at the October 8, 2014 Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Bilotta clarified that Vogel Sheetmetal could not apply for an extended
Interim Use Permit until the text amendment was approved; and further that the
Planning Commission could not make any recommendation regarding the length of
an Interim Use Permit beyond what was contained in current code. Mr. Bilotta
noted that the part that can proceed ahead of this proposed process is
consideration of the text amendment, but not anything specifically related to
the Vogel request for a longer-term Interim Use Permit; but would eventually
work into that approval process with relevant information from the neighborhood
meetings as proposed.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Mr. Bilotta advised that a CMU zoning request had been received
by staff from Vogel Sheetmetal, but had not been formally reviewed by staff at
his concern with a twenty-year Interim Use (IU) Permit, Councilmember Willmus
asked for an explanation of the process staff would pursue even at five year
increments if noncompliance was found.
responded that, if it was found they were not meeting the conditions of the IU,
the City had the ability to revoke it through a process to the City Council
with evidence from staff of noncompliance and a subsequent determination,
through a public hearing, to allow input from the property owner and community.
Willmus questioned if this process would be prolonged with attorney involvement
versus simply having a five year IU that could lapse without renewal, providing
for no discussion and no debate. Councilmember Willmus noted his concern in
the difference in a five year IU citywide versus a reactionary IU extended up
to twenty years for one case or situation, especially when that situation was
immediately abutting residential properties.
Mayor Roe noted
tonight?s discussion revolving around the text amendment was to address any
future application that came forward.
clarified that it may be that the City Council doesn?t approve a particular IU
beyond five years, but this text amendment allowed them the flexibility to do
so at their discretion.
Laliberte concurred with Councilmember Willmus; opining that in the course of
daily business, she could not see the need for a twenty year CU beyond this
issue; and no need to make a change based on one situation.
further noted that, under the existing IU, if there was a change of zoning and
the Vogel Sheetmetal operation became a permitted use under that rezoning,
there would no longer be a need for an IU and it could lapse at that point.
Willmus noted this assumed rezoning would be approved.
Mayor Roe noted
that this is why it was written as a condition of the IU.
Laliberte recognized the interest in going down both pathways; but expressed
her preference for the touchback and renewal versus a blanker period of time;
opining that a different City Council could take a more aggressive stand than
this one, making her nervous.
McGehee opined that she didn't find this specific to Vogel Sheetmetal; and with
many things coming before the City Council that were reasonable, this provided
lenders the ability to approve loans and make business opportunities possible.
Councilmember McGehee opined that the City should have the flexibility but be
able to decide on an individual basis without getting into legal situations.
asked that, at some point, if the language included IU?s for twenty years,
language also include incremental five year check-backs be built into that
Mr. Bilotta stated
that staff would check into that to see if it was a possibility; however, he
expressed his suspicion that it may be problematic for lenders.
Cummings, 1800 County Road C-2
opined that from his perspective the Vogel acquisition and the entire process
seemed disorganized. Mr. Cummings opined that he would expect a company to
come forward fully prepared versus the City having to hold their hand and make
things work for them without them performing their own due diligence
beforehand. While being all for helping someone, Mr. Cummings opined that the
firm should already have had these things in place already through their legal
counsel and lenders; opining that this approach seemed amateur to him and
shouldn?t be happening at this stage or on this scale. While recognizing that
the Vogel Sheetmetal firm may provide a great opportunity for everyone, Mr.
Cummings expressed his frustration in the disorganized process.
With no one
else coming to speak on this issue, Mayor Roe closed public comment at
approximately 7:36 p.m.
- Discussion Regarding
Alterations to the Use of the Regulating Plan in the CMU District (Twin
Discussion on Guidance for Waiving the Mandatory Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Requirement
Bilotta provided a history of this issue, as detailed in the RCA dated
September 15, 2014 and the series of discussions held to-date. Mr. Bilotta
noted the specific request for waiver of the EAW for the proposed
developments. Mr. Bilotta clarified that this would be a waiver of only the
city policy requiring discretionary EAW's, not the state mandated requirements
or state thresholds statewide. Mr. Bilotta referenced EAW guidelines and
website links for further information; and the differences between an EAW and
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in determining impacts of proposed
developments (e.g. traffic generation, noise, hazardous waste, etc.).
McGehee opined that this is not an onerous process beyond notice and time awaiting
responses. Councilmember McGehee further opined that a traffic study was
needed for this entire area; with her personal interest also in light
generation and parking lot and noise standards. Councilmember McGehee stated
that her greatest concern was with the Phase I and II specific to TCE,
particularly with any of the proposed buildings to ensure they were constructed
to avoid pylons accessing a TCE pocket allowing more TCE to get into the
aquifer. While not having yet reviewed the 2012 Phase I and Phase II,
Councilmember McGehee stated that those health and safety issues were her main
concern, with the TCE pocket the most critical; otherwise she expressed her
acceptance of a mandatory traffic study, with noise and light impacts for this
particular piece. Councilmember McGehee advised that she would like the City
Council to retain its ability to consider waiving an EAW on a case by case
Bilotta advised that staff could steer applicants down the road for particular
sites in the area if those were the main concerns of the remainder of
Willmus concurred with the comments of Mr. Bilotta.
Roe noted previous discussions for developer submission of a draft EAW, not a
formal process, but something submitted in writing to the City highlighting
potential issues beyond just traffic, for unforeseen uses not yet envisioned,
but allowing the City to review those considerations.
the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Bilotta advised that a typical formal
EAW process required approximately six months, depending on the weather and
Etten noted the suggestion of Mayor Roe for an informal EAW for the City's
benefit could be done more quickly without as in-depth of a process in support
of an applicant?s request for a waiver, calibrated on a case by case basis
depending on the circumstances.
Bilotta advised that the City could stipulate the key pieces it was considering
from an EAW and include that information as a requirement in a waiver process,
requiring the developer to provide those items and demonstrate that there is no
need to go further, much like the formal EAW demonstrating there was no need to
proceed to an EIS, but allowing staff to know the hot button issues beforehand.
a historical perspective, Councilmember McGehee agreed with Mr. Bilotta, with
one addition from the Federal Fish and Wildlife concern that the area around
Langton Lake and surrounding tree area serves as a flyway over Minneapolis for
migratory birds, potentially impacting 140 migratory birds in that area.
Councilmember McGehee opined that this particular development may not be a big
issue, but as development got closer to Langton lake, enhancing that
characteristic as part of the EAW or any waiver should be incorporated.
requested by Mayor Roe, Mr. Bilotta noted incorporating a draft EAW as part of
any waiver requirement, with that approval or denial at the discretion of the
City Council on a case by case basis.
Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:43 p.m. and reconvened at
approximately 7:47 p.m.
Presentation by the St. Paul Port Authority (SPPA) Regarding the
SPPA's Programs to Support Private Sector Solar Energy Installations
introduced a representative of the St. Paul Port Authority (SPPA), Mr. Peter
reviewed the Port Authority?s energy finance programs and almost seventy
projects to-date, including one or more in the City of Roseville.
information detailed in the RCA and attachments dated September 15, 2014, Mr.
Klein reviewed other municipalities and jurisdictions using the SPPA as a
resource and administering energy programs through a joint powers agreement to
provide their expertise in efficiently and economically implementing energy
savings projects, including solar installations.
Specific to the
joint powers agreement, Mr. Klein advised that this would be a one-time action
for St. Christopher?s Church, and was cancellable at any time, but allowing the
SPPA to serve as the PACE OF MN program administrator on behalf of the church
and their solar installation. Mr. Klein reviewed the special assessment
process followed for each project and submission by the property owner to the
city to the SPPA of those special assessments. While the church is not a
property taxpayer, Mr. Klein noted that the PACE billing niche allowed places
of worship or multi-tenant commercial buildings doing energy projects to
allocate special assessments similar to real estate taxes.
reviewed the joint powers agreements allowing that each project would need City
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Klein reviewed the SPPA?s administrative fees of approximately
.05%, ten year financing of projects, rebates, and special assessments at
approximately 4.5%; housing options for four or more units, but not single
family homes; and current legislative changes.
As an example,
Mr. Klein noted that the City of Edina had originally managed their energy
program, but had since decided to transfer that administration to the SPPA.
clarified, and Mr. Klein confirmed, that the joint powers agreement served as
an overarching agreement between agencies, revocable at any time, but the City
Council still had approval rights on a case by case base per project to approve
special assessments; and allowed the City the ability to use the experience and
capabilities of the SPPA.
McGehee seconded, directing staff to negotiate a Joint Powers Agreement with
the St. Paul Port Authority to present the Joint Powers Agreement for approval
at a future City Council meeting.
Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte, and Roe.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Willmus asked that the ?Living at Home Block Nurse? program be included on a
future agenda for discussion and input from Ms. Sara Barsel.
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:05 p.m.
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee, and Roe.