Council Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2014
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: Laliberte,
McGehee, Willmus, Etten, and Roe. City Manager Pat Trudgeon was also present.
Mayor Roe noted that Councilmember Etten had previously advised he would be
unable to attend tonight?s meeting due to other commitments. City Attorney
Mark Gaughan was also present.
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Interviews
four candidates for HRA applicants were held at approximate ten minute intervals.
2. Approve Agenda
Willmus apologized for any miscommunication on the part of the City Council,
and clarified that there would be no action taken tonight on those items listed
in Agenda Item 14, Business Items ? Presentations/Discussions. Councilmember
Willmus noted that the City Council would be discussing those land use items,
and taking public comment only, but not taking any action.
thanked Councilmember Willmus for the clarification.
Willmus moved, McGehee
seconded approval of the agenda as presented.
McGehee, Willmus, 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
announced that applicants were being sought for youth members of the City?s
Park & Recreation Commission for a one-year term concurrent with the school
year. Mayor Roe noted that the application deadline was August 29, 2014; with
additional information available on the City's website or by calling City Hall
Mayor Roe noted
a date change for the August Finance Commission meeting from August 12, 2014 to
August 21, 2014 at 6:30 p.m.
Mayor Roe provided
a brief update on the status of cable franchise renewal negotiations to-date;
with the formal renewal case moving forward to the Administrative Law Judge
Department of Administrative Hearings pending assignment. Regarding the
potential divesting by Comcast of the Twin Cities cable subscriber network if
and when the Time/Warner merger takes place, Mayor Roe advised additional information
would be available at a later date.
Donations and Communications
6. Approve Minutes
and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior
to tonight?s meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft
presented in the Council packet.
Approve August 11, 2014 Regular Council Meeting Minutes
Willmus seconded, approval of the Meeting Minutes of August 11, 2014 as
Page 8, Line 29 (McGehee)
40%? from the sentence.
Page 11, Line 41 (McGehee)
read: "in excess of 24% increase alone; and since [then] had
Page 15, Line 40 (McGehee)
from the sentence.
Page 28, Line 14 (McGehee)
Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, and Roe.
Approve Consent Agenda
Consider Items Removed from Consent
General Ordinances for Adoption
Consider a Small Brewer Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License, an
On-Sale and Sunday Brewer's Taproom License and an Outside Sales and Consumption
Endorsement for Blume Brauhaus, LLC (Bent Brewstillery) locate at 1744 Terrace
Pat Trudgeon summarized the request for this license transfer from the current
license holder, Pour Decisions, for the remainder of 2014, as detailed in the
Request for Council Action (RCA) dated August 18, 2014.
recognized the applicant in the audience.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Trudgeon clarified that the only new
application was for outside sales.
opened and closed the Public Hearing at approximately 6:55 p.m. for the purpose
of considering the liquor licenses; with no one appearing for or against.
Business Items (Action Items)
Approve/Deny a Small Brewer Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License,
an On-Sale and Sunday Brewer's Taproom License and an Outside Sales and Consumption
Endorsement for Blume Brauhaus, LLC (Bent Brewstillery) locate at 1744 Terrace
Willmus moved, Laliberte
seconded, approval of the requested liquor licenses for the remainder of
calendar year 2014; subject to the completion of a criminal background check.
Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, and Roe.
wished the applicant well in their endeavor opening August 21, 2014, as well as
with their sales at this year's Minnesota State Fair booth.
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Community Development Department Update on Rental License Program
Activities through August 1, 2014
Director Paul Bilotta and Permit Coordinator Don Munson were present for this
introduced this item, stating that after only two months employed by the City
of Roseville, he was very favorably impressed by how well-thought out this
program was and the lack of complaints received to-date from multi-family
rental property owners, managers and/or tenants.
reviewed the rental license program activities through August 1, 2014, as
detailed in the RCA dated August 11, 2014. Mr. Munson noted that staff was
finding a rental rate of between 90% and 95% in existing multi-family buildings,
indicating a very low vacancy rate in Roseville; and with 164 total buildings
to be inspected, staff anticipated being finished in November of 2014. Of the
373 units inspected to-date, Mr. Munson advised that only one serious health
issue had been found, with most other issues small and easily fixed; yet with a
few significant health and safety hazards needing immediate correction. Mr.
Munson noted that over 200 correction notices had been issues; and to-date,
little pushback from property owners had been received, with many expressing
surprise that they had overlooked those issues prior to inspections. Mr. Munson
suggested that this indicated their general acceptance of the program and
inspection staff, with most property owners doing their own pre-inspection and
self-policing the buildings themselves, based on a list of typical violations
provided by Roseville staff to those owners.
noted that this first inspection cycle was intended more as an educational
effort versus penalty process, in order to familiarize property owners; however,
he advised that the follow-up procedures would then change after that initial
license period. Mr. Munson noted that it was always and would continue to be
staff?s intent to reinforce past communications that the City prefers to work
cooperatively with property owners and managers in this effort.
estimated that approximately 1/3 of the initial inspection process was
complete, but since some of the buildings yet to be inspected may prove more
problematic, staff may find more difficulties and code violations. Mr. Munson
noted it was encouraging to see some property owners proactively initiating improvements
to their building(s) in anticipation of an upcoming inspection. Mr. Munson
advised that staff intended that the conclusion of the first year?s inspection
cycle would be completed by February of 2015.
between staff and Councilmembers included types of violations; and fairly quick
response time by property owners/managers in correcting violations.
McGehee expressed her appreciation of the program, opining that it was
proceeding so well due to the tremendous amount of forethought in developing
the program by HRA Executive Director Jeanne Kelsey, the HRA, and apartment
building owners providing feedback; and expressed her delight that the program
was going so well.
concurred, opining that Ms. Kelsey had done a good job writing the ordinance,
and that it was being well received.
Willmus offered thanks to the Minnesota Multi-Family Housing Association for
their collaborative efforts in developing this licensing inspection program.
concurred, noting that they had also provided significant input in development
of the rental registration for smaller units as well.
Laliberte also concurred, opining that it was great news that violations were
being resolved fairly quickly; and questioned if there was any requirement for
resolving certain issues in a certain amount of time.
advised that it was dependent on the particular violation: if a life safety
issue, then immediate resolution was required, and for maintenance issues,
typically thirty days, with some longer depending on the situation. Mr. Munson
advised that staff intended to re-inspect for those more generic violations
during the slower winter inspection season; but noted typically a staff finds a
property owner already having assigned a maintenance person to address the
issue while inspection staff was still on-site. Also, as Dave, the staff
inspector, returned to a site, he observed some of those issues already being
taken care of.
Councilmember Laliberte noting the difficulty in evaluating some resolved
issues outside during winter months, Mr. Munson admitted that maybe so; however,
he noted the limited staff and time available to keep costs in line with the
pumps discharging ground water into the city sanitary sewer system, increasing
treatment costs for the City and residents, Mr. Munson advised that inspection
staff was coordinating those findings with the City's Engineering Department
for follow-up as well.
Mayor Roe noted
this inflow is a problematic issue that had been of concern for the City for
many years and the impact of multi-family buildings may not have been fully
appreciated until these inspections began.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Mr. Munson advised that most residents were generally accepting
of inspection staff, but clarified that staff was not taking any pictures to
maintain tenants' privacy; as well as those tenants having the choice of
whether or not to be present during the inspection. With staff attempting to
be sensitive to tenants, Mr. Munson noted that there had been no issues
suggested this also was due to the personality of the inspector as well.
Mayor Roe noted
that original concerns raised by tenants and their fear of being kicked out of
their units for violations had been addressed through clear explanations and
outreach efforts; with Mr. Bilotta concurring, and also noting that tenants
were alerted ahead of time before unit inspections.
thanked staff for their hard work, and for providing this program status
report; anticipating their final report on the initial inspection cycle at a
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 7:18 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 7:24 p.m.
Request by Community Development Department for Approval of a Comprehensive
Land Use Plan Map Change and Zoning Map Change at 1633-1775 Terrace Drive,
2830 Fairview Avenue, 2822-2837, 2825, and 2805-2823 Fairview Avenue
Roe introduced this item, as detailed in the RCA dated August 18, 2014; and Mr.
Bilotta again clarified that this was intended for discussion only and no
action at this meeting; and reviewed community meetings held to-date, and
recent formation of the Langton Lakes Neighborhood Association, many of whom
were present in tonight?s audience.
Manager Trudgeon noted two bench handouts, attached hereto and made a
part hereof, consisting of two e-mails from residents providing their
thoughts and concerns about the proposed rezoning. Mr. Trudgeon noted that
tonight?s discussion was a continuation of past City Council discussions on how
best to rezone the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, revised as part of the
2009/2010 community visioning and Comprehensive Plan update processes. Mr.
Trudgeon clarified that the area north of Terrace Drive was still considered a
part of the Twin Lakes area, but had previously held High Density Residential
(HDR) zoning designation to provide a buffer on both sides of Fairview Avenue,
but was now being considered for Community Mixed Use (CMU) designation. Most
recently, Mr. Trudgeon noted the sale of and changed use of the former Aramark
building, and processing and approval of an Interim Use Permit, and request for
rezoning to CMU by the new owners. Mr. Trudgeon noted that this occurred while
the City Council continued their discussions over the last year to determine
the best classification for this area, and suggested CMU designation on a
preliminary basis, but not yet finalized. Mr. Trudgeon noted the need to look
at long-range plans and what is best for the neighborhood now and in the
future. Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff as seeking City Council direction
before proceeding with a formal process necessary for any zoning and/or land
use designation change.
Roe clarified that the City Council had initiated the process of changing
zoning designation for this area from HDR to CMU based on those City Council
discussions prior to tonight; and suggested individual Councilmembers provide
their perspective and any additional background on the suggested CMU designation
for the benefit of those residents who may not already be aware of those past discussions.
McGehee stated that she came into this discussion and initial zoning
designation change from HDR to CMU as she saw it as a better option than HDR
knowing the land and that neighborhood to the north quite well. However, Councilmember
McGehee further stated that, one thing that had become obvious to her over the
past year was that her view of CMU was nothing like how it was being defined to
her now. Therefore, Councilmember McGehee stated that she was no longer much
in favor of a zoning designation of CMU in that location; and in her review of
previous City Council discussions and the intent being protection of the
neighborhood and lake, she found Low Density Residential-2 (LDR-2) as a more
favorable zoning designation, allowing for townhomes or some type of housing to
provide a buffer going forward into the residential neighborhood, while adding
other options to existing housing stock. Councilmember McGehee suggested a
process similar to the Dale Street Project to achieve additional density, but
including the neighborhood into those discussions to find the best fit for all
parties involved. Councilmember McGehee stated that she was excited to see the
Langton Lake Neighborhood Association formed allowing for more collaboration
between developers, residents and all concerned through cooperative efforts and
compromises, allowing for a sense of ownership in that participation.
looking back to those City Council discussions over the last few years,
Councilmember Willmus stated that their reaching out for feedback from the
business community during part of those discussions may have steered zoning
designation guidance from HDR to CMU. However, as stated by Councilmember
McGehee, Councilmember Willmus noted his interest in finding a solution that
would create a better transition between owner/occupied housing north of this area;
opining that he would be willing to entertain a designation of Low or Medium
Density Residential (LDR or MDR). Also, as came up in recent neighborhood meetings
initiated by Ms. McCormick, the process and post card notice needed to provide
more information than currently given and clarification on how and when the
public should provide their feedback or make a statement. Councilmember
Willmus opined that this additional discussion provided an opportunity to step
back and hear from neighbors before moving forward. Regarding Councilmember
McGehee?s interest in a neighborhood or community process similar to that used
for the Dale Street Project, Councilmember Willmus noted that it was a different
scenario since the City had ownership of that property, making it easier to
pursue the planning process versus this situation with multiple property owners
involved and each having different perspectives. However, Councilmember
Willmus expressed his interest in hearing from residents on abutting
on previous discussions, Councilmember Laliberte stated that she did not feel
strongly that the zoning designation should remain HDR; and also was cognizant
that while the goal was for redevelopment of this area of Roseville, the City did
not own the properties and therefore would be unable to make all the decisions
or reach all of the City's goals given that status. However, Councilmember
Laliberte noted that discussions to-date with property owners had proven
helpful, as long as residents were now given the same opportunity for interaction
with the City Council. Councilmember Laliberte clarified that she continued to
have concerns with the area being completely zoned for multi-residential areas,
and would be open to CMU or a mix so residents would benefit and have some
interaction with the zoning designation as a buffer. While sharing concerns
about what would develop and how it would impact abutting residential
neighborhoods, Councilmember Laliberte suggested that this was the start of
Roe noted that the objective in looking at zoning designation revisions from
HDR to CMU was based on HDR being too restrictive with only one basic use
permitted, with the CMU discussion centered on providing additional flexibility,
which he considered as the key phrase; and not to have the zoning driven by
developers or property owners, but addressing the City Council?s desire to deal
with existing viable concerns in some of those buildings (e.g. practicalities
of the former Aramark property) and other areas that may not develop as
multi-family uses and recognizing that the marketplace will dictate development
over time. Mayor Roe stated that through the proposed rezoning of that area
the intent was that it provided the ability for the marketplace to be
productive along with prompting development sooner rather than later. Mayor
Roe advised that the key for him is the discussion of the next item on
tonight?s agenda, the actual language of zoning text; opining his desire for
buffers and safeguards to address impacts from one zoning designation to
another. Mayor Roe stated that he was not opposed to CMU zoning designation as
long sufficient safeguards are provided and in place to protect adjacent
neighborhoods, which would be clarified in the text of the zoning code. Mayor
Roe stated that if the property was rezoned, his approach would be to seek appropriate
language to ensure those protections while allowing for flexibility in
Willmus reported that one concern of residents was that uses be owner-occupied
as part of the transition or buffer area; and questioned how that could be
accomplished with CMU zoning designation, leading him back to his preference
for LDR or MDR zoning designation.
McGehee reported that she?d seen other communities where CMU allowed for condos
above retail, both owner-occupied. Councilmember McGehee stated that she
continued to have a different take on the options available in this area, while
recognizing the clear need to give land owners their rights to develop their
property, it wasn?t necessary to allow them carte blanch, but to allow for a
collaborative and cooperative process. However, Councilmember McGehee noted
development to-date of some things that weren't particularly envisioned in the
past as the zoning code at that time was to flexible or lax, and the City had
given away its ability to negotiate that development. As the City Council
moved forward, Councilmember McGehee cautioned that the zoning code should
allow for the ability to have standards or guards in place to address any potential
development seen to have a negative effect on the preferred goals for that
area. Councilmember McGehee stated that she was not opposed to CMU, but so far
she had yet to see any use in CMU that she was looking for. Councilmember
McGehee also expressed her interest in regulating maps for smaller areas versus
one map for the overall area; or in the absence of a regulating map if not
pursued, a designated use on the south side of Terrace Drive for a use similar
to CUM, with owner-occupied residential on top and shops or retail uses on the
lower level. Councilmember McGehee noted the disappointment of residents in
the recent Applewood Pointe development in not having those service and small
retail shops available and within walking distance of their units and pathway
access around Langton Lake as they had originally envisioned. In reviewing the
various areas on the south side of Terrace Drive and larger parcels facing County
Road C, Councilmember McGehee opined that they should have a different zoning
that further north, based on different access and clientele, while still
sheltering residential neighborhoods without piecemeal zoning.
Roe clarified that the current regulating map would no longer be applicable as
part of this proposal, but replaced by lot coverage, buffer zones, and setback
requirements in zoning text and applying throughout the CMU zoning designation
as similar with other zoning districts throughout the City. In terms of zoning
differently in different areas, Mayor Roe noted that the proposal as provided
by map in Attachments A and B to the RCA was the result of a City Council
exercise completed several months ago, with one zone (CMU) allowing different
uses in various areas to mitigate impacts to adjacent properties, and opined
that this to him appeared to be the direction of the City Council as a whole.
From his perspective, Mayor Roe stated that he was not so much concerned for
owner-occupied uses, but to provide a higher quality or more upscale rental
property for young professionals before stepping into home ownership, as
indicated by the HRA?s most recent market research results. Mayor Roe opined
that that had some real potential and appeared to be a missing piece in the
Roseville rental housing market, whether that was a multi-story building or
something different. However, Mayor Roe stated that he was not opposed to the
possibility of a rental use north of Terrace Drive.
Laliberte stated that, along that same line, she would not be opposed to market
rate rentals, even if not owner-occupied, as she agreed that was something
missing in the current housing stock. However, Councilmember Laliberte opined
that she would want to talk about building height as she wanted to ensure the
privacy of single-family residential adjacent to a taller building.
Roe clarified that Councilmember McGehee was specifically referencing south of
Terrace Drive in her most recent comments.
McGehee agreed, and suggested if such a use was permitted on the south side of
Terrace Drive, it should be somewhat more removed, suggesting it would be more
appropriate for LDR facing the single-family neighborhood and Oasis Pond.
the need to add height for a rental housing use, Councilmember Laliberte -
referencing the Dale Street Project - noted that unless you went tall, some of
the financials wouldn?t work; creating the need for caution and reality as part
of the regulations. Councilmember Laliberte opined that if the City Council
created zoning that caused developers to remain uninterested, they hadn?t
solved any redevelopment issues. Councilmember Laliberte further opined the
need to be aware that if someone came in with a one-level rental development
proposal, it probably couldn?t work financially.
Roe opined that just such a situation was intended to be addressed through the
flexibility in CMU zoning designation to allow different levels of use and development.
Mayor Roe admitted that he still didn?t know if there were any non-residential
uses that would work on the corner of Fairview Avenue and Terrace Drive, but
based on a scale of intensity and the type of use, that needed to be figured
out as zoning flexibility was looked at in order not to be so universal to end
up with undesirable development(s).
to the Dale Street Project, Councilmember Willmus opined that what made it work
was the owner-occupied aspect. Councilmember Willmus stated that, when looking
at market rate rental housing, it was very cyclical, and redevelopment needed
to consider needs now, over the next 5-10 years, but also look at zoning and
development of these same types of property in the next 20-30 years.
Councilmember Willmus opined that whether it will continue at market rate would
depend on the economy or type of housing needed at that time, and could not be
guaranteed to always remain at market rate, with a need to bear that in mind
when making determinations.
Roe opined that, if developments were built to a certain level of build quality,
their long-term future would not necessarily be problematic; however, he agreed
that there was no question that some things had been let go in some areas of
Roe reviewed protocol for public comment, and focused on the context of this
discussion specific to the proposed change in zoning designation on the sites
indicated and public feedback on that proposed rezoning.
Younker, 2852 Wheeler Street
Younker noted that he was approximately 200? from this property being discussed;
but he did share concerns about the potential for a rental building five stories
high looking into his backyard. Mr. Younker opined that CMU should be further
reviewed, as he found it too wide-ranging and broad, and seemed to be more
favorable for development and promoting more businesses, opening flood gates
for a lot of concerns, including height, as well as environmental issues such
as odors and noise. Mr. Younker opined that a buffer would only allow 100?
from his back yard, and asked that the zone be modified before being approved
as CMU. While not necessarily being against CMU, Mr. Younker opined that he
didn?t think HDR was proper zoning either and needed more adjustment. Mr. Younker
expressed his appreciation for the City Council recognizing what brought these
concerns to the neighborhood?s attention.
McCormick, 2850 Wheeler Street
McCormick noted that her property abutted the area proposed for rezoning, and
thanked the City Council for their enlightening discussions to-date. As a
younger resident coming into Roseville, Ms. McCormick admitted that there were
generally more similarities in those coming into Roseville now and long-term residents;
and opined that the City's park system was the gem of Roseville, as well as the
community being nationally known for its retail area. However, Ms. McCormick
opined that community and its development was more than just about location,
but providing safe pleasant and stable neighborhoods, which she found to be
part of the genius of earlier developers and leaders in the Roseville community,
in allowing for retention of natural parks and development of residential areas
around those amenities. Ms. McCormick opined that most of the residents in
tonight's audience were 10-20 year residents in the neighborhood, having raised
families there and their family history was interwoven with the City's park system.
Therefore, Ms. McCormick opined that it would be a disservice to not take community
needs into consideration in considering this zoning, and expressed her
appreciation - as well as that of the neighborhood - for the City Council's openness
in this process.
that rezoning, Ms. McCormick noted that the neighbors had been asked what
they'd like to see, and while their desires were well demonstrated and diverse,
it didn't clarify what needed to be there. While the business community had
been asked to the table, and the City Council remained undecided, Ms. McCormick
noted that the residents had not had a voice to-date.
McCormick suggested that a Charrette process be utilized as the most beneficial
discussion and creating an atmosphere where decisions would not be made in a
vacuum. With apparent interest from developers being received by the City and
the potential for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on Snelling Avenue, and continued
growth of the University of Northwestern-St. Paul, Ms. McCormick noted the many
factors needed to be considered in this area, including existing traffic issues
along Fairview Avenue. Ms. McCormick opined that to state the area should be
rezoned CMU now, without having those additional discussions and considering
all factors, would be unrealistic. Since becoming aware of this potential
rezoning, Ms. McCormick noted that the neighborhood had been very active, with
an increase from 80 to 123 residents now on NextDoor.com, following the Vogel
Sheetmetal case and Interim Use permit approval.
McCormick referenced, and submitted to City Manager Trudgeon, a petition signed
by 123 neighbors, attached hereto and made a part hereof, in
support of owner-occupied housing to ensure care and pride of ownership in how
the area develops. However, Ms. McCormick noted that residents remained reasonable
and open to change, but were not clear on what that change may be with the proposed
rezoning to CMU, and were all open and agreed on their desire to be involved in
the decision-making process. Regarding the April open house (Attachment C),
Ms. McCormick identified make-up of the eight people attending, with only two
of those abutting property owners due to a lack of information prior to the
open house. Ms. McCormick noted that the Sherman Apartment Complex project had
not been brought up either, and as an attorney specializing in transactional
practice and multi-contractual negotiations, it required building relationship
through many complex issues. Similarly, Ms. McCormick opined that it would
take an entrepreneurial spirit to resolve this issue, but with all pieces in
place, she remained positive of the overall outcome, with all parties
interested in making it happen, and excited about the results as people remained
open and receptive to a good conclusion for all.
McCormick noted that seventeen properties shared a common, abutting boundary,
and all but one of those property owners signed the petition, indicating that
94% were not in favor of the propose CMU zoning, and desired input before a
decision was made. Ms. McCormick further noted that St. Paul Fire and Marine
owned several parcels, along with Vogel Sheetmetal, and expressed interest and
excitement to see what they were willing to do in collaboration, with their
properties currently non-conforming uses grandfathered in. Ms. McCormick
stated that she?d reviewed a similar strip of land, currently zoned MDR and
along County Road C, known as Westwood Village, consisting of owner-occupied
condos, opining that this was one option that had not yet been explored along
McCormick stated that the more she read about CMU, the more concerned she
became that 300' was not a sufficient buffer, when a use such as WalMart could
be considered a permitted use in CMU zoning, which would not be acceptable to
her personally. Ms. McCormick further stated that, the proposed text
amendments were not acceptable to her as they provided an inadequate buffer;
and while not opposed to rentals, residents would seek a requirement for a management
agreement to be signed by a developer of such a use. In her online search of
unit comparables, Ms. McCormick referenced surveys of Snelling Apartments, with
those apartments receiving at low rating of 7% based on fair housing and other
studies which indicated size and management generally determined whether a
housing project or complex could be developed. Since that apartment complex
was another Sherman Associates development, Ms. McCormick advised that Sherman
admitted management at that complex was problematic and they were working to
resolve it. Given that example, Ms. McCormick opined that the City seeking
contractual assurances of Sherman was not too much to ask.
to the road issue, Ms. McCormick reiterated that traffic was a grave problem,
and lots of development was being proposed all at once. Ms. McCormick opined
that even considering rezoning before text amendments was confusing the issue,
since the City Council was well aware of zoning, traffic and other existing
issues. Ms. McCormick suggesting providing an alternative ready to go with
protections in place to accomplish objectives and implement everything, not
simply changing and backfilling later, which she found ineffective and unwise,
and opined that it was certainly contrary to the past history of the Roseville
waiving the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), Ms. McCormick questioned
under what conditions that could be done and if guidelines had been developed
to say when and when that was not appropriate. Ms. McCormick opined that in a
development district this size, an EAW should not be that difficult or delay
things to any great extent; and asked that the City Council not consider
waiving the EAW requirement, in the interest of protection the parks and lakes
that are interwoven throughout the community. Ms. McCormick opined that with environmental
issues not always being readily evident, you couldn?t un-ring the bell in the
future without years of remediation efforts, and urged the City Council to be
careful of that.
addressing the Fairview traffic issue again, Ms. McCormick opined that with any
increase in density, and clear channels for Cleveland and Snelling Avenues, and
with the area gearing up for more transportation along Snelling Avenue, there
should be more funding made available and collaboration among agencies to address
transportation issues, including along Fairview Avenue, which was already a
known problem. While the physical layout and road constraints could not be
changed, Ms. McCormick opined that consideration should be given as more traffic
was generated to route it more toward Cleveland Avenue and/or County Road C in
an effort to protect the gateway into the residential area.
McCormick thanked staff and Councilmembers for clarifying that they would not
be taking any action tonight; opining that she was heartened by the response
from neighbors she had met, and was encouraged by what people could do when
they came together. However, Ms. McCormick referenced the skepticism and
concern she?d also heard from many residents in their neighborhood who had no
clear understanding of this intended rezoning, and their unwillingness to speak
up now as they had been disillusioned in the past when they'd sought
information or spoken up, and often were met with various acronyms thrown
around by staff that were confusion or unknown to them, and remained
unexplained. Ms. McCormick noted, as an example, the post card notice sent out
to residents that could not be understood; and offered her services as a
volunteer to develop clearer notices and communication efforts. In her review
of past meeting minutes, Ms. McCormick note that this was apparently not a new
issue, and suggested it may be worth looking into by the City Council and
McCormick concluded by thanking the City Council for letting residents have their
Erickson, 1790 Centennial Drive
Erickson thanked the City Council for allowing residents a voice in the process;
and specifically thanked Mr. Bilotta and Councilmember Willmus for meeting with
their neighborhood group on such short notice. Ms. Erickson expressed her
pride in neighbors who responded to recent meetings, including tonight?s
meeting, and thanked the City Council for allowing their feedback, and to Councilmember
McGehee for fielding questions and comments before and after meetings to-date.
Erickson referenced her written memorandum sent earlier today, and as a
twenty-nine year resident at this address, also referenced her and neighbors attendance
in the past in speaking at this type of a meeting, and their negative reception
and perception of being demeaned or put down. When she went door to door with
the previously referenced petition, Ms. Erickson noted that many of the
comments she heard were that it wouldn?t? do any good, or residents stating
their intent to never attend another City Council meeting again after their
past experiences. Ms. Erickson reiterated her appreciation to the City Council
in welcoming them and allowing them to speak, noting that they all loved their
community and the small town feel of Roseville and the importance of their
Erickson expressed her stand on the proposed CMU zoning designation as being
too broad as addressed by Ms. McCormick. Ms. Erickson noted the desire of
residents to trust that their best interests were being looked out for; and
noted a difference in attitude in working with staff and the City Council
during their interactions related to the Vogel Sheetmetal operation. Ms. Erickson
reviewed some issues in the past with the former Aramark operation and their
pursuit of some improvements that would have negatively impacted abutting
residential properties, which were found to be not even permitted by the City
when residents checked with staff. Based on that example, Ms. Erickson noted
the caution of residents in recognizing that there may be good intentions in
protecting residents, but it was often hard to monitor every situation.
Erickson stated that she supported owner-occupied housing under MDR zoning
designation, as proposed in the plan across Fairview Avenue, which she understood
to be totally rental, opining that it would better interface with their single-family
neighborhood and another zoning designation would not provide a similar
supporting Ms. McCormick's recommendations regarding better communication and
clearer notice, and using the public hearing held regarding the Vogel
Sheetmetal proposal as an example, Ms. Erickson advised that when receiving the
post card and references to Interim Permits and/or Conditional Uses, they were
not aware of the actual purchase of the property by Vogel Sheetmetal and potential
long-term impacts to abutting properties or they would have attended to ensure
quality of life answers were addressed.
Erickson recognized that residents didn't control the process, but she stated
that residents were interested in Roseville continuing to be a good place to
live and continue as a well-planned-out community with well-transitioned land
Kapaun, 1840 County Road C-2
adjacent to Fairview Avenue, Ms. Kapaun stated her number one concern was
traffic; opining that the more things developed, the more concerned she became.
As the mother of a two-year old, Ms. Kapaun expressed her concern with the
already constantly busy Fairview Avenue, and while willing to hear options for
other development in the area, some of the possibilities she?d heard from
neighbors caused her alarm. However, before their development, Ms. Kapaun
stated that neighbors wanted to be aware of what was proposed for development.
Ms. Kapaun opined that traffic was already unbearable and adding any more traffic
was her main concern.
Kapaun opined that the lakes in Roseville were wonderful, and that was her
family's reason for staying in Roseville, even though moving to another community
may have been more convenient, but the central location of Roseville and its
parks were wonderful and a main draw for them. However, adding so many developments
around Langton Lake was of great concern to her, and she wanted to know about any
other potential developments that residents may not have heard to-date; and to
have an opportunity to know what was going on before it happened, allowing
residents to provide feedback to the City Council.
Easterling, 1850 County Road C-2
a twenty-six year resident of Roseville, originally from California, and on the
faculty of the University of Northwestern, Mr. Easterling expressed his enjoyment
of being a Roseville resident, as well as both he and his wife working in
Roseville and attending church in Roseville. Mr. Easterling stated that he
believed in pride of ownership of their neighborhood.
having no current complaints with the warehouse use abutting their property
north of Terrace Drive, Mr. Easterling spoke in support of LDR or MDR zoning,
recognizing that over time things may change. Mr. Easterling further spoke in
support of owner-occupied housing, as it meant people would take more pride in
and be a part of the neighborhood, opining that was what made Roseville so
Easterling did express concern with traffic on Fairview Avenue, opining that
housing developments needed to stay as far away from there as possible, so as
not to further aggravate north/south traffic and current back-ups from County
Road C-2 to Lydia in peak afternoon hours. Mr. Easterling also spoke to the
wonderful parks in Roseville, and the need to keep them safe and good for
families as an ongoing community and neighborhood amenity.
Tosey, 1766 Millwood Avenue
Tosey referenced her previous e-mails to Councilmembers; and expressed her
appreciation of tonight?s discussion and various viewpoints. Ms. Tosey noted
that everyone felt passionate about their neighborhood, but also noted the health
of any neighborhood was also important to the entire community, as well as
keeping high valued homes and excellent school districts, and a variety of
housing types and styles. In listening to earlier discussions, Ms. Tosey
opined that the real value to the community in maintaining neighborhoods, was
to retain current housing types. Ms. Tosey opined that a number of neighbors
felt comfortable with mid-level residences or potentially HDR, with possible
CMU, and while many are comfortable with those uses already there, she
expressed her appreciation for the City Council?s willingness to better define
CUM, which was what many neighbors were looking for, a clearer understanding.
Ms. Tosey expressed concern, shared by many, that the zoning or CMU designation
could be changed with no idea of what could happen next, but if a plan was in
place for what could be done under CMU and clear guidelines, she opined that
more were likely to be in favor of those uses is it was a good match for the
neighborhood. Ms. Tosey opined that she would appreciate that type of pattern,
standards or a regulating plan before any zoning changes were considered.
Cummings, 1800 County Road C-2
getting together as a neighborhood, Mr. Cummings said his first thought was
which neighbor would stand up and say "not in my neighborhood," but he noted
that no one had done so. Mr. Cummings opined that most embraced this proposed
rezoning to some degree, recognizing that the whole area has been an eyesore
for a number of years and slowly but surely, positive improvements were
occurring. While not living on Terrace Drive, but sharing empathy for those
residents, but also cognizant of the need to develop this area, Mr. Cummings
noted the need for redevelopment and embrace change without asking for too
Cummings questioned if traffic studies would support traffic being bad 24/7 or
only during certain times, recognizing that it was truly awful at times, based
on moving from four to two lanes and the configuration of County Road D, and
other problematic east/west routes, and the few opportunities to resolve the issues.
Mr. Cummings opined that by adding only one apartment complex that exited on
Fairview it would still add such a dynamic to an already crowded area, and
create even more back-ups and frustration for vehicles on Fairview Avenue that
would cause those drivers to seek alternate routes, whether Millwood or Terrace,
creating another awful situation for residents in that area.
Cummings also thanked the City Council, expressing his favorable impression
with how they were approaching this, opining that he found it refreshing, and
that he found it great to see a City Council that was really participating and
allowing residents to provide their feedback.
no one else coming forward to speak, Mayor Roe closed public comment for
further City Council discussion; and asked residents to stay tuned for additional
discussion tonight about zoning language and the process going forward.
on tonight?s comment, Councilmember McGehee offered information on the
difference in Interim Use and Conditional Use applications; and agreed that
notices may not be as clear as they could be. Regarding water testing at
Langton Lake, Councilmember McGehee reviewed her volunteer work on those efforts,
and her support of continuing EAW?s to address drainage and flow into area water
bodies, and the need to retain both the wildlife and water corridor as development
proceeded. Councilmember McGehee opined that it was important to appreciate
all parks, but Langton Lake Park needed special attention.
Roe clarified that the requirement for an EAW did not prevent illegal dumping.
Laliberte agreed that it was difficult to understand the post card notices sent
out, and used an example from her personal experience upon which to base that
judgment. Councilmember Laliberte suggested that the City?s newly-formed
Community Engagement Commission look at all City notices and the process to
engage neighborhoods overall.
Roe noted that this was already included in the Commission?s charge, as a
recommendation of the prior Civic Engagement Task Force.
Discuss Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance for the Twin
Lakes Redevelopment Area
Development Director Bilotta provided a brief summary of past discussions on
proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance specific to the Twin Lakes
Redevelopment Area, as detailed in the RCA dated August 18, 2014. Mr.
Bilotta's summary included the difference and confusion between ?regulating
Plans? and Planned Unit Developments (PUD's) as a tool; their flexibilities and
controls; current regulating plans in place as part of the zoning ordinance
itself and difficulties with that current structure; typical modifications to
regulating plans similar to PUD?s when outside that structure; and regulating
plans that may have been used for past development plans compared to current
and/or future development projects.
suggested a review of how those regulating plans are currently laid out in
ordinance and recommendations for how they can be revised to allow more
flexibility in those plans. Regarding timing of this review, Mr. Bilotta noted
that there were a number of developers in the area east of Fairview Avenue,
which didn't have a regulating plan and requiring a Conditional Use application
that hindered their land use. Also, Mr. Bilotta noted that some developers who
have been waiting long-term for resolution of these issues, specifically in the
Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, who may be able to speed things up by initiating
a potential project and allow for public engagement and give the City Council a
wide-ranging altitude for zoning as a mechanism, with many elements involved.
clarified his interpretation of regulating maps versus a regulating plan, which
he considered a terminology for a plan to refer to something like the Twin
Lakes Master Plan, which was originally incorporated into the Comprehensive
Plan, creating its own set of difficulties. Mayor Roe cautioned that the City
not end up with too many loose strings; however, he admitted he was intrigued
by the Comprehensive Plan also talking about small area regulating plans for
CMU, which was exactly what he envisioned when the Comprehensive Plan update
was completed and adopted in 2010. With a developer creating a plan and submitting
it to the City for review and approval, Mayor Roe opined that this made the
most sense to him as a mechanism to get a plan in place, but not have it be
part of the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code, but serving as a regulating
authority for that type of development. However that could be accomplished,
Mayor Roe stated that he would like such a process to be pursued.
McGehee concurred, opining that this was what she was referring to as well,
seeing it less as a developer coming forward with a regulating plan, but the
City and landowner working cooperatively ahead of time.
Mayor Roe noted
that while a two-way process had been discussed, he preferred to associate it
as a three-legged stool process: the developer/property owners, the city, and
the neighborhood, with all making compromises throughout the process.
noted that, in defining the character of a area, the regulating plan also defined
it for adjacent neighborhoods, as talked about tonight, and based on particular
uses as the regulating plan allowed areas of scale and intensity in those uses
depending on the character of that specific area, while defining it and
allowing property owners flexibility of how to accomplish it while providing
assurances to residential property owners of what would or could happen
adjacent to them.
opined that this should help to address some of the concerns being expressed.
In addressing the whole buffer area issue, Mayor Roe referenced an earlier
submission he'd provided for draft language for buffer zones, similar to that
in place around the Har Mar Mall and tied to 24-hour uses, probably addressing
concerns of those adjacent neighbors (e.g. buffering, landscaping, screening,
proximity to adjacent properties, etc.). Mayor Roe opined that he found that
an interesting approach, and questioned why it should be limited to that area,
but could be provided in other CMU areas as well as a base for the entire area
with the regulating plans addressing specifics for each development.
Willmus opined that he found that suggestion an interesting an valid
perspective, but also noted his interest in learning more from staff on how to
incorporate with residents in the room as this process was revisited. Councilmember
Willmus spoke in support of a process similar to the extent done on the Dale
Street Project on the front end, with neighborhood work sessions to glean more
feedback before taking the next step of plan review, and let adjoining neighbors
hash out the details beforehand.
Mayor Roe noted
a similar process was used with the multi-family licensing situation, in having
another leg of the stool at the table, opining that it made sense to have
everyone communicating, which he noted had been the intent of the original Twin
Lakes stakeholder group.
Laliberte opined that she liked the idea as a first step; and spoke in support
of stepping back to determine if the current process was the best way and the
steps were appropriate, a way of self-policing the process.
concurred, noting that part of what was initially driving the zoning change was
the Vogel Sheetmetal property; and in his mind, he wasn?t yet prepared to act
on their zoning request without knowing how and where the CMU was at.
McGehee opined that she liked the idea of having all three legs of the stool
present when developing a regulating map; but questioned if it made sense to
continue the current process in developing a regulating plan for this large
area including nearby residential areas as well as surrounding businesses who
want to know what may develop next to them.
suggested that the process could grow from the entire Twin Lakes area (e.g.
James Addition) or perhaps through smaller groups, opining that he was open to
McGehee opined that as the City got more pedestrian and bicycle friendly and
more hotels were built, more parks and amenities should be included in various
areas (e.g. James Addition and access to Rosedale for residents at Applewood
Point) with the overarching idea for more small retail and industrial developments
in those areas.
clarification, City Manager Trudgeon reviewed staff's directive:
· Some type of small area regulating plan or map, preferably using
different terminology than ?regulating;?
· Break up smaller areas (e.g. north of Terrace Drive) and allow
input in any or all areas, with a mechanism in place for the City to initiate
it, but due to developer interest, received their input as well as part of the
three-legged stool process;
· Attempting to bring information together with defined steps by
those three parties before a staff recommendation came to the City Council level;
· Review the current ordinance and make staff recommendations to
the City Council on revised, additional or stricken language and development of
a CMU ordinance, and in the meantime use the current ordinance as applicable
noted that this was time sensitive as there were interested developers out
there, and there was a need for the open ability for a private property owner
to propose something. Mr. Bilotta suggested that, if such a proposal came
forward quickly, it come forward to the City Council in work session format
with the developer's proposal of how they anticipate preparing their site to
move forward, allowing for public participation as a primary concern of the
City Council throughout that interim process and with any future proposals
concurred, opining that it made sense, and expressing his concern that this not
be perceived by property owners/developers as yet another shift of gears by the
City to continue costing them money by having to hold their properties.
McGehee sought a clear differentiation from the current open developer house
process to make sure developers and property owners understood that this was a
noted that, while nothing had been submitted at this point, if the market could
provide a development project that balanced the goals of the City and intents
of the area, a project may come forward in accordance with tonight?s discussion.
Laliberte concurred with comments of Mayor Roe in making sure Roseville did not
have the reputation for not allowing developers to accomplish anything, but to
keep the door open for proposals.
McGehee expressed her appreciation for the changed atmosphere from past
Council?s and this Council in managing a municipal government that was
receptive to residents and the business community; and expressed her excitement
in having these sessions and people seeing the changes being made.
note that one thing to understand was that the Twin Lakes Master Plan and
related process was originally set up for one large Master Developer to develop;
but clarified that that market was no longer there, and with changes to legislation
about such master developments, tax increment financing, and other land use
laws, this created part of the problem in the past.
For the benefit
of staff and the audience, City Manager Trudgeon again reviewed the direction
for staff to pursue:
· There was a large interest in exploring ways-whether through a Charrette
process of development of small regulating plans-for certain areas;
· Given that emphasis, any potential rezoning request remains
stagnant unless project specific, and may never come to fruition depending on
the results of this process;
· The specific zoning for Terrace Drive, since under no 60-day
rule, was set aside at this time, and may come back at a later date or may not;
in addition to consideration of CMU designated zoning for this area.
the City Council as a whole agreed to this staff directive.
As the Terrace
Drive area was currently under discussion, Councilmember Laliberte questioned
if it would go through that small area process, providing a summary for the
rest of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, or also be put on hold until small
area plans are divided up.
Trudgeon responded that staff was fully aware of where development pressures
were occurring and would try to get several work sessions together to discuss a
plan. Mr. Trudgeon noted that a regulating plan was already in place west of
Fairview, but not east of Fairview Avenue or north and south of Terrace Drive.
In her effort
to keep people dialoguing, Councilmember Laliberte questioned what else was in
opined that, if something needed to get done quickly, the onus was on the
developer to run the process and developers could speed up the process if sufficiently
interested in getting things done.
McGehee opined that, in the not too distant future, the CMU document should be
reviewed as it was overarching for this entire area; and allowing for a
determination on what worked and what was or was not permitted; and for
specific consideration of language (e.g. higher impervious surface requirements
due to the proximity to lakes; the use table itself, etc.)
Willmus noted that tonight was the first work session in a long time, something
a number had been looking forward to for a while; and gave credit to City
Manager Trudgeon and Community Development Director Bilotta for making that
recognized Mr. Bilotta?s background and his recommendation for this format in a
less formal way to make wishes known; and expressed his appreciation of the
audience and their participation. Mr. Trudgeon asked that residents continue
to recognize the different atmosphere of their local government and staff, and
stick with them moving forward in a positive way, with different people in a
different place, making that difference.
local governments hold work sessions, some have them in another room and off
camera and no opportunity for public participation; however, Mayor Roe noted
that is not how the City of Roseville intended to hold work sessions.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
City Manager Trudgeon
distributed upcoming draft agendas.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Willmus moved, McGehee
seconded adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:02 p.m.
McGehee, Willmus, Etten, and Roe.