View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
February 20, 2014
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the special meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating
Order: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe. City Manager Patrick
Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.
2. Approve Agenda
Etten seconded approval of the agenda as presented.
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
3. Public Comment
called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
No one appeared to speak.
4. Council Communications, Reports, Announcements and
Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Report
Mayor Roe announced upcoming vacancies in various
City Council's citizen advisory commissions, the deadline for application
(March 5), scheduled interviews (approximately March 12) and appointments to
start April 1, 2014. Mayor Roe noted vacancies were available on the City's
new Civic Engagement Commission and Finance Commission (seven openings each);
one vacancy on the Human Rights Commission and the Parks & Recreation
Commission respectively; and with the expansion of the Public Works, Environment
and Transportation Commission by two additional members, a total of four vacancies
were available. Additional information is available at City Hall or on the
Donations and Communications
Approve Consent Agenda
Consider Items Removed from Consent
General Ordinances for Adoption
Business Items (Action Items)
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Discuss Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area
tonight's discussion, Mayor Roe suggested breaking discussion into two
groups: geographical divisions and different subdistricts within the Twin
Lakes Redevelopment Area, and permitted uses in each subdistrict. Mayor Roe
noted that the map provided in the meeting packet prepared by staff did not
appear to coincide with the City Council's last discussions regarding
district configurations; and asked that before beginning the Council
discussion, staff provide their rational in making those adjustments.
McGehee expressed her preference that discussion move beyond particular uses
and zoning code into a broader policy discussion.
Mayor Roe agreed,
with those discussions following and informed by the first two focus areas.
City Planner Thomas
Paschke reviewed the adjustments made by staff to maps since previous
discussions, in two areas and displayed those two revisions.
corrected staff's line to the east of Cleveland went north at Mt. Ridge Road
in the L-shaped area, which staff duly noted and corrected.
advised that modifications were based on the regulating plan and things that
may take place in the future. As displayed on the map, Mr. Paschke noted
that it would include the connection of Twin lakes Parkway creating a separate
and distinct box at County Road C and similar uses to the south. Mr. Paschke
advised that he didn't think some uses may be appropriate from the standpoint
of their location adjacent to Langton Lake and property under one sole
ownership (PIK property) and potential land assembly that may be obvious to
acquire and redevelop if split into two districts creating a potential
conflict within those districts and permitted uses. Mr. Paschke opined that
this delineation allows focus on specific areas and how they complement each
other to some degree, with keeping them attached to the area more to the
south based on the future Twin Lakes Parkway.
Trudgeon concurred, noting that as staff considered uses and what made sense,
part of their rationale had been looking at subdistricts and uses for
continuity; with the only change to the City Council's original subdistrict
map discussion, allowing for more discussion on uses and achieving that
Mayor Roe noted
the northern part of the "L" had been talked about in the same context,
however, with this latest modification it now was in a different subdistrict,
and suggested it be looked at further west of the PIK property between Mt.
Ridge Road and Cleveland Avenue, creating a contiguous area.
At the request of
Mr. Trudgeon, Mr. Paschke reviewed staff's thoughts in looking at the area
different and why a separation was needed from the properties farther south.
Mr. Paschke referenced the proposed CSI proposal, and review of previous
discussions and potential future redevelopment of that site and best use,
keeping the focus on office versus other types of use. From a
planning/redevelopment perspective, Mr. Paschke opined that it would be a
good parcel for office or residential development as carved up with five
Community Mixed Use (CMU) Districts.
From a City
Council perspective, Mayor Roe sought comment on staff's revisions versus
those lines previously drawn.
Willmus expressed his curiosity to hear from property owners about this
direction, since they are a key component of any changes made, opining that
it would be beneficial to get their input at the onset rather than further
down the road. Councilmember Willmus also expressed interest in getting into
policy discussions to determine where things were moving in the future, as suggested
by Councilmember McGehee. Councilmember Willmus opined that, once that was
in place, other things may follow suit.
Mayor Roe opined
that it was certainly the intent to hear from property owners and developers
not too far into the process and have them join the process. However, Mayor
Roe expressed his preference to have the City Council discussion as a body to
confirm their intentions based on previous discussion and where the lines are
drawn, as well as staff's minor revisions.
McGehee noted that the changes were minimal: only north of Twin Lakes Parkway
in the purpose area; and expressed her concurrence with staff's suggested
clarified the two revisions: the zone west of Langton Lake now no longer extended
south of Twin Lakes Parkway, and the southeast corner joined the same zone
to the west and northern part of the "L" between Cleveland Avenue and Mt.
Ridge Road, becoming the same subdistrict type.
McGehee noted that a number of uses in that area were not that old, and were
reasonable-looking structures and similar to the preferred development; and
stated that she had no problem with that.
Laliberte agreed that the City Council was very intentional in previous
discussions; however, she didn't think things were set in stone. Councilmember
Laliberte echoed Councilmember Willmus' comments that prior to locking
anything in place, she wanted to hear from the property owners, since the
City didn't own anything to justify moving them around. Councilmember
Laliberte stated that she was not opposed to staff's revision to the City
Council's original lines, but remained open at this point.
previous meeting, Councilmember Etten stated that he thought the best course
of action would be to make the zones more general to group them together if
possible. If a great development came forward, Councilmember Etten opined
that his concern was in the green and orange areas along Cleveland Avenue and
that a development may be different than the staff proposal as a permitted or
conditional use (e.g. day care center). Councilmember Etten questioned why
one was a permitted use across Iona on Cleveland and not in the other area.
Councilmember Etten opined that he didn't want as much distinction, but
preferred to open things up and allow more uses to allow potential
development to work, by allowing more flexibility.
Mayor Roe noted that, at the last discussion, it was recognized that with a
broad view, a lot of things were permitted uses in subdistricts, with only a
few distinctions in some subdistricts (e.g. use and scale); with two parts
involved in zoning: what's existing or the future vision. In this case,
Mayor Roe opined that with a potential for new uses as the property owner
desired, there was a need to balance community preferences as well as part of
that process. Mayor Roe concurred that it would be good to hear from
property owners and developers in tonight's audience; opining that it may be
found that a lot of it actually blends together well, with perhaps only more
or less intense subdistricts as the ultimate outcome. However, Mayor Roe
opined that some uses did not make sense in some areas for various reasons.
Mayor Roe noted that the City currently had a very specific use list and it
only made sense to get feedback before discussion of the table and permitted
opined that there was actually a distinct different in the map, with the
purple area north of Terrace Drive currently High Density Residential (HDR)
changing to CMU and adding a number of permitted uses that may be applicable
or complementary to those areas previously supported by property owners or
managers having already reviewed the information and made contact with City
staff, and expressing their appreciation for the greater flexibility beyond
HDR-1, opining the door for them to pursue something different for those
asked Mr. Paschke to describe those major distinctions between the two based
on previous discussions on emphasis.
stated that from previous information and discussions, for those focus areas,
the purpose was for more residential potentials and corresponding complementary
uses (e.g. office) with some of those uses permitted and some not and others
permitted conditionally. In the green area specifically, Mr. Paschke noted
that the focus was on certain types of office, with more intense uses with
higher impact located on the periphery (e.g. larger retail or office) with
the interior closer to Langton Lake Park permitting less impactful uses. Mr.
Paschke advised that the color schemes on the map attempted to designate
those uses and locals along with balancing pre-existing and non-conforming
conditions on some of the properties and potentially others in the future,
while blending similar uses (e.g. production, limited processing versus major
light industrial located in a multi-tenant building).
the intent of the broad area and distinctions, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the
orange area focused on retail without restrictions, with the green area
permitting limited retail (e.g. 20,000 square feet as an estimated suggested
by staff); with the blue area office use but excluding production and limited
processing; and the purple area allowing a variety of uses and limited retail
and office uses, but more residential in focus. Mr. Trudgeon further noted
that the red area is more industrial.
opined that it seemed that the entire area is an opportunity to change and
improve the City's tax base; with long-standing information from the
community stating that they do not wish to have any more retail than is
currently in the community. In broad discussions of the CMU, Councilmember
McGehee opined that she found no reason in the blue area for uses for
anything beyond residential as an ideal use similar to the area surrounding
around Langton Lake. Councilmember McGehee opined that there was a lot of
time being spent with a very narrow definition of focus on this and the
regulating map rather than looking to current property owners for their
suggestions of what they'd like to see and what they think. Councilmember
McGehee spoke in support of a broader look versus a limited focus, and
expressed her failure to understand why either a medical office or housing
couldn't be located in the blue area backing up to the park.
with Mayor Roe pointing out that currently there is no housing use excluded there;
with Councilmember McGehee opining that in a broader discussion, the Council
should get away from the boxes and definitions, get feedback from property
owners since the City doesn't want to acquire the property.
Mayor Roe opined
that the whole context of everything in the CMU District, except certain
areas to be restricted, was for housing of one type or another in most all
areas based on density, noting that this was the result of discussions held
most recently. While reiterating his willingness to hear from property
owners, Mayor Roe clarified that this was the direction given to staff, and
to label things as office or limited use would be too narrow, specifically in
the area immediately adjacent to the park, single-family residences, and the
freeway. Mayor Roe sought consensus if that was still the preference and
direction to pursue.
McGehee spoke in support of that route, since the City didn't own the
Mayor Roe noted
that the City owned little land in Roseville, however, it was still able to
zone it effectively.
noted that the CMU District was wide open now; and if the Council preference
was to have points of emphasis to drive development in certain areas, the
idea of the subdistrict would serve that purpose. However, Mr. Trudgeon further
noted that, if too many things remained permitted uses, there was no guarantee
other things wouldn't occur. If the intent was to develop residential uses
around Langton Lake Park, Mr. Trudgeon opined that the City Council needed to
clearly state that; but could not have it both ways: flexible versus what it
didn't want, creating a challenge to drive the properties to certain uses
that make sense while not being able to guarantee is and zone appropriately.
Mayor Roe opined
that he wasn't sure if the intent should be to emphasize residential at the
exclusion of other uses rather than just to ensure those permitted uses
remained compatible with adjacent properties. Mayor Roe noted that the list
of what was not desired as a permitted use created a much shorter list.
Laliberte noted the desire to manage traffic patterns and vehicle types along
with certain access points as well.
McGehee suggested the need to discuss retail and revise previous definitions
and recommendation of a previous City Attorney to clear up any confusion
about the three types currently in Community Business and Regional Business
Districts. Councilmember McGehee noted the 20,000 square foot delineation
suggested by staff got closer to that preference.
Mayor Roe invited
property owners to come forward.
Mr. Paschke noted
that property owners would speak to their particular parcels and interests
versus the broader area being discussed for map focus.
Mark Rancone, Roseville
Mr. Rancone clarified
that his firm owned a small, approximately 6-acre parcel at 2720 Fairview
Avenue located in the orange area on the map. Mr. Rancone also noted their
firm's unique experience of having been a part of this area for a long time;
opining that this appeared to be just the next step in another re-evaluation
of what should be done in Twin Lakes.
Based on general
comments, Mr. Rancone opined that it may be more prudent to first reflect on
the process followed over the last twenty years and why this high profile
area of land has remained as is for so long without redeveloping. While
everyone had their own opinions, Mr. Rancone referenced comments made earlier
that the City Council's desire is to reflect the wishes of the community.
However, Mr. Rancone opined that often commercial property owners were not
treated as part of the community, with residents holding much more weight and
commercial property owners looked at as second class citizens, when the
contribution of those properties to the City was very significant. Mr.
Rancone referenced his experiences in the City of West St. Paul as an example
of their encouragement to retail businesses to help cushion costs for every resident.
Even though a resident may not want more retail, or not desiring another "big
box" retailer (e.g. Wal-Mart) or other retailer in the orange map area, Mr.
Rancone opined that it is what it is and that's what America wants and that's
what Roseville is, not North Oaks, its Roseville. In today's newspaper, Mr.
Rancone referenced population predictions of 4,000 more in population growth
than current; this all in a landlocked suburb having potential with this
opined that every four years a new City Council came up with new ideas; and
he and the development community were finding it tiring as they'd been down
this road so many times before, yet the land was still underperforming.
Therefore, Mr. Rancone reiterated his suggestion that the City Council do
some self-examination; as many developers were no longer interested in
dealing with Roseville, because the public perception isn't worth tackling.
Mr. Rancone noted the potential in the past when Costco was looking to locate
in Roseville, including a mixed housing unit - everything the Council now is
seeking - with a lot of money spent and frustration on everyone's part. Mr.
Rancone suggested that the economics of how retail benefitted a neighborhood
with little impact to adjacent neighbors needed to be clearly understood, and
could provide a lot of money for the City and School District.
opined that residential apartment developers should be wanting to develop
around Langton Lake; however, they weren't coming forward; and while he
didn't claim to be an expert on what market research may indicate would best
fit there today, he didn't think anyone at the table was an expert either.
Therefore, Mr. Rancone suggested that the City seek expert advice on what
could locate in this area and how to market it to the community to draw
interest, rather than simply saying "no" to this and that; to change the
mindset of the community to look at Roseville and creative incentives to get
what it wanted.
agreed with comments that, if it was too prescriptive, it was going down the
same path as in the past. Mr. Rancone questioned who knew what the market
place was going to be, and it wasn't about the semantics of retail square
footage, but required self-reflection on what has cause the problem in the
past and how to do things differently versus only creating the latest
iteration of a design.
McGehee expressed interest in Mr. Rancone's point of view; and shared her
personal point of view and that of her constituents, in clarifying that tax
increment financing (TIF) districts did not increase a tax base for the City
or School District for a number of years.
clarified that it was held at bay for a limited time period; and Mr. Trudgeon
specified the sixteen years remaining in this TIF District before it expired.
McGehee reiterated that the payback was not instant; and that a lot of
infrastructure improvements had already been installed an paid for by taxpayers.
Councilmember McGehee further noted the traffic and congestions concerns for
people living in that area and going forward as developers want high traffic
generators there. In reviewing the seasons and traffic studies at County
Road C intersections with Cleveland, Fairview and Snelling, the studies
indicate a significantly low rating already without Wal-Mart even being open
yet. When people say they don't want retail, Councilmember McGehee suggested
that they may be comfortable with small retail with housing above, the intent
of the CMU District, and were not in opposition to retail in general, but on
a smaller scale that would serve the community. Councilmember McGehee
questioned how Mr. Rancone and the development community would see that
scenario going forward to be amenable to them and provides the City with an
opportunity to reflect on problems already evidenced in the area.
responded that, while everyone had a personal opinion, someone more in tune
with the market place (e.g. brokerage community or Maxfield Research) and
more expert in the field could and should voice what they thought made sense,
what was practical and realistic in today's market place. While flexibility
was needed for any future developer, Mr. Rancone noted that this was exactly
what was being talked about with Costco - offices and residential - moving up
Twin Lakes Parkway. However, Mr. Rancone noted that today's market no longer
allows such small shops to be financially feasible, opining that this was not
a Grand Avenue or 50th and France, and did not share the same
demographics as the City of Edina did. Mr. Rancone opined that there needed
to be a balance: what people want but how to realistically accomplish it.
McGehee questioned if Mr. Rancone would suggest taking all developers and
pooling resources to hire Maxwell to provide a more professional opinion that
Mr. Rancone noted
that this is a possibility; but only his opinion, and sometimes consultants
were worth their value and other times not; referencing his lack of support
for the overlay district and building location consulting work, opining that
it was a lot of money just wasted.
clarified that not everyone felt that way.
Mr. Rancone noted
that it could be debated whether or not it was well-spent taxpayer money;
however, before going too far down that line on prescriptive uses, he
suggested a "think tank" seeking other opinions. Mr. Rancone opined that the
development had been hardened by a number of things, and would remain a citizen
that these decisions would impact, no matter what happens. However, Mr.
Rancone suggested that the main thing is if the City Council goes down the
same path for another twenty years, it seemed even more futile. Mr. Rancone
opined that a much more productive path would be to change public perceptions
based on realistic versus personal opinions and based on professional advice
of what will work and why it hasn't worked before, as well as incenting new
recognized the frustration of the development community when every few years
the target gets moved. However, from the other end, Councilmember Willmus
expressed the City's willingness to get into a collaborative planning
process; and questioned if that was something property owners would buy into
and take ownership in the process and end results. Councilmember Willmus
questioned if a consultant came forward, would there be buy in from property
Mr. Rancone spoke
in support of a collaborative effort, opining that most community development
or redevelopment efforts in today's market place seemed to involve public/private
partnerships. However, if the City Council was only representing residents
and not the commercial community, Mr. Rancone advise that the end result of
such a collaborative effort needed to represent all parties instead and allow
all opinion, with the end result being an unknown until those discussions
were completed. Mr. Rancone opined that it was important for everyone to
feel like they were part of the process and could share their opinions,
similar to the open discussion tonight and inviting developers to
participation. However, Mr. Rancone noted that previous discussion had moved
fast before tonight without involvement by developers.
While there was
nothing specific now, Mr. Rancone advised that retail brokers were not
looking for large retail areas now, but may come up with several adjacent
properties; and even though no one wants to mention the dirty word "big box,"
which he didn't consider fair, it would serve as another step to produce ancillary
uses once constructed, which would in turn drive other developers. While it
remained up to the City Council to decide, Mr. Rancone expressed appreciation
for being allowed to be involved, which he fully support, he noted that it
was unfortunate that other property owners were also not here, yet recognizing
clarified that it was not the intent to be prescriptive, but the City Council
was interested in hearing thoughts of developers if it was zoned 100% as
office of some scale, limited production, retail, or residential but only in
certain areas, depending on lower density residential or not such an
intensive use by Langton Lake.
opined that he thought the entire area should be one use, CMU, and when
someone came forward with a development proposal, the City Council could
simply say yes or no, even though there may be legal ramifications in doing
so (e.g. asphalt plant).
While eager to
develop Twin Lakes, Mayor Roe noted that the City Council was already on
record stating that type of proposal wouldn't fly in this area.
recognized that the City may not want an asphalt plant, but there were
certain types of industry they did; however, he opined that it may not be
necessary to be so prescriptive per block and allow feedback from the development
community or market survey people for ideas, then decide when the time comes.
Mr. Rancone noted that the City hadn't had to worry about that over the last twenty
Mayor Roe opined
that the perception of the City being too prescriptive by not letting certain
uses develop on certain parcels, was not accurate when other parcels and uses
remained wide open. However, Mayor Roe concurred that a market study could
change from one decade to another.
questioned if a master developer buys in the purple or orange areas with two
different uses, was he going to have a battle.
Mayor Roe opined
that, if in the purple and orange areas, if the uses were clear and defined,
they should be easily understood by the development community, with no
ensuing battle if aware of uses and not trying a use not permitted.
opined that, if certain development was allowed on certain acreage but not others
that developer would locate elsewhere.
summarized Mr. Rancone's comments indicating that rather than uses that were
permitted or not permitted across the board, a more useful thing would be
what was definitely not wanted (e.g. asphalt plant, major trucking terminals,
stripper joints, etc.), Since what was not wanted was a smaller list, Councilmember
McGehee questioned if that was his intent to tell developers what was not a
permitted use and otherwise let their developments be fitted to the area; to
which Mr. Rancone responded affirmatively.
Mayor Roe opined
that this was no different than what he was suggesting, simply different ways
to say it.
At the request of
Councilmember Willmus, Mayor Roe suggested two colors versus five colors
geographically to accommodate the larger development community's request for
a broader picture.
Dan Regan, Roseville-based
commercial developer - Launch Properties - with their office located on
Fairview and Highway 36; and owning a 20-acre parcel on County Road C between
Fairview and Snelling Avenues
Mr. Regan noted
that his firm had been monitoring the situation in Twin Lakes for the last
twenty years as well, and was familiar with and not outsiders to the events
and battles over the years.
general, Mr. Regan looked at the Twin Lakes planning district from a
long-term phased approach for development. While time could be spent guiding
subdistricts to uses or unpermitted uses, Mr. Regan suggested that was a good
exercise at the City Council and staff level and what made the most sense.
However, at the end of the day, Mr. Regan opined that it would be the market
that determined the development, using the Sherman project, the first
apartment complex built in Roseville in over twenty years and serving as a
nice test for the market. In noting where that firm decided to locate the
complex, he noted their consideration of main arterials and backing up to
Langton Lake, a great spot for that type of high density, senior housing type
development, opining that they would work well together from his perspective
as a developer.
Regan further opined that there were other uses that would not work there,
such as evidenced with CSI proposal from Colliers representing the Dorso site
and recent competitions with other metropolitan communities for the CSI which
subsequently proved unsuccessful. Mr. Regan expressed his appreciation to
staff and the City Council for their assistance and support for the proposal,
and the potential of that use making sense for that site. Mr. Regan noted
that they were selected as the lead developer and had become aware of that
deal through the marketplace as they researched who was looking in certain
areas and their interest and focus. Mr. Regan noted that they were looking
for high visibility to the freeway - a perfect market case study - and at
adjacent properties and their uses. Mr. Regan opined that housing would not
have made sense on that site; and as he worked around Langton Lake, that area
made perfect sense for housing or a larger corporate office use. Mr. Regan
noted that other sites were found more favorable (e.g. NW Quadrant in New
Brighton and in Brooklyn Park/Highway 610) to provide that billboard presence
referenced further down County Road C and the successful retail area and
existing node where Walgreens decided to redevelop by demolishing existing
buildings on a land site versus bare ground to achieve that location adjacent
to similar service businesses.
At the specific
site of his firm, Mr. Regan reviewed those adjacent uses and the need for
consistency with those uses, with their site dictating a similar use, which
could be "big box" but was limited due to the County storm ditch around the
site on the west and north side and up Terrace Drive, creating an island and
no connectivity to adjacent sites to the north or west; as well as the deep
size of the lot for buildings other than of 10,000 square feet. Mr. Regan
noted the need to mass uses on the north side of their site and provide a
nice boulevard and well landscaped frontage along County Road C and the
entrance to the overall site and push things up on County Road C. While
problematic, Mr. Regan expressed confidence that his firm could mitigate
design concerns and concerns about massive parking fields. Mr. Regan opined
that consolidation of medical facilities was no longer an option for their
site, but based on retail brokers and other retailers, it could support a
high quality retail development, as long as it wasn't limited to under 20,000
square feet, at least not as the initial catalyst to develop the site and
drive that development further onto the site if limited to smaller retail or
quasi-office uses, it couldn't be accomplished in a piecemeal fashion.
Therefore, Mr. Regan advised that they would continue to sit on the
challenging site until opinions changed or more flexibility was allowed.
At Mayor Roe's
recognition of the current draft of over 20,000 square feet in retail laid
out for that site, Mr. Regan responded that what was now being outlined
seemed consistent with what could be developed there and demand for that property
type that remained consistent over the long-term. Mr. Regan opined that he
had no problem with the proposal as laid out, that it made sense.
Mayor Roe asked
Mr. Regan to elaborate on what he was hearing from other brokers or
developers and their perception of Roseville.
responded that Wal-Mart served as a poster child of the perception, since it
received significant press over a long period; and similar experiences for
Ryan Companies and Rottland. However, Mr. Regan opined the cycle appeared to
be ending and felt like it was starting to trend in the right direction with
a whole different set of players. But, Mr. Regan cautioned that those things
were still fresh in the minds of the development community; and while deals
will still get done, he couldn't predict how and when. Based on his
experience with responsiveness and receptiveness at the City staff level, and
support of the current City Council as the CSI proposal was pursued, he
offered to do his best to spread the word about that new trend. At the
request of Mayor Roe for any other suggestions of things the City could do
to change perceptions or lingering issues, Mr. Regan responded that he could
think of nothing specific.
McGehee noted the problems with the land in Twin Lakes and pollution, noting
that the rationale provided by CSI was that the City's land option was not
"shovel ready" since the land hadn't been cleansed up yet. Since the land
was not owned by the City, Councilmember McGehee questioned Mr. Regan as to
whether it made sense to be more proactive in collaborating with property
owners and assisting them with clean up for the types of projects he
responded that it always paid to be as ready as possible to respond to opportunities,
making sites where due diligence had been done much more interesting (e.g.
buildings demolished, MPCA clean-up programs, etc.), all beneficial. As an
example, Mr. Regan noted that collaborative efforts by the City and property
owner on the PIK site; and while some seemed baby steps, they all represented
progress in the right direction. From their personal perspective on their
property, Mr. Regan noted that Roseville was always in high demand from
trucking companies and "dirty" industrial users, keeping all of their
buildings full. Therefore, Mr. Regan advised that they would not consider
taking steps now to demolish and clean-up until an application was completed
submitted and formally approved with a redevelopment plan in place and signed
leases with tenants. Mr. Regan noted the reality of needing the income to
pay property taxes and other expenses until the right opportunity became
apparent to move forward with redevelopment, which they were anxious to see.
Council Discussion following Public Comment
At the request of
Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke outlined the message received from an attorney
representing the AirMark parcel, responding that they were very happy with
and accepting of the flexibility being proposed to build into the property; with
a similar response received from the property to the east and managed by
Traveler's Insurance or Transwestern) including support of mixed uses versus
the current HDR-1 as now guided to allow other opportunities that may be more
appropriate and applicable to the former Aramark building, which was
further reported his phone conversation with Ms. Nanette Pikofsky regarding
her property in this area; and while not having all the information being
presented tonight, her concern was that she not lose anything she already had
with the location in the current CMU District allowing multiple uses with few
non-permitted uses. From her perspective, Mr. Paschke advised that she was
very interested in retaining that flexibility; and while she was unable to
attend tonight's meeting, Mr. Paschke indicated that this involved not
restricting retail or other more impactful or less desirable uses adjacent to
spoke in support of seeking input from market experts, either brokers or
market research groups, in addition to community and property owner input.
Mr. Trudgeon opined that such information was probably missing in the discussion,
but that the City should be aware of what the market wanted, noting that it
may not be what the community wants, but suggested a happy medium could be
noted the tortuous path periodically taken by the City, as referenced by
developers, with this discussion prompted by the Wal-Mart development and
related issues and potential conflicts in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Code for CMU Districts. Mr. Trudgeon suggested that the City Council as a
policy board and staff maybe needed to look at how we got here and suggesting
five different subdistricts. Mr. Trudgeon noted that he was hearing tonight
that restrictions were not necessary, and if the solution was to go back to
the CMU, it could simply be solved with a few tweaks and fixing the
Comprehensive Plan to address any incompatibilities. Mr. Trudgeon noted that
this would allow for a variety of uses in the CMU, all remaining one color,
even though he had heard a number of issues with that as well. If that was
the decision, Mr. Trudgeon opined that the City needed to be prepared for
uses they may not want next to Langton Lake Park if strict definitions were
not provided for what is permitted; and accepting that the zoning code
currently allows those uses. As long as everyone remained aware of that, Mr.
Trudgeon guaranteed that developers would start knocking on the doors seeking
to develop the properties, even though they would lean toward retail uses,
since that is the current interest; noting that the Comprehensive Plan
modification could address that versus this current process.
Mr. Paschke, from
his role in interpreting codes, noted the different areas in Twin Lakes that
were and could develop well in advance of the expiration of the current
Comprehensive Plan expiration in 7 - 9 years; as well as areas that may stay
the same as they are currently for the long-term, with certain areas showing
no interest in redeveloping. Mr. Paschke opined that the market would only
look at certain spots, what he considered to be Phase I of the Twin Lakes
Redevelopment Area, but not newer buildings built under many future phases. Other
than that, Mr. Paschke advised that there wasn't a whole lot of interest in
development in that area, with properties not at the point allowing purchase
and redevelopment to make them work.
opined that the multiple colors were not all that prescriptive from what
currently was in the boxes under CMU, simply identifying areas from past
discussions to place certain uses better suited as a focus for that area and
complementary to other uses already there. Mr. Paschke opined that the right
balance could never be achieved unless the CMU was left with minor tweaks to
allow whatever came in whenever it wanted. Mr. Paschke further opined that
the purpose of planning and zoning was to be prescriptive and to guide the
community to avoid certain uses in areas where they are not appropriate,
which is exercise recently completed and subsequent colors articulated on the
Willmus questioned whether a discussion should be pursued for those parcels
the City wished to acquire and when and how to enter into a more detailed
planning process, when there was no other issue to work around or any need to
satisfy a private property owner. Councilmember Willmus suggested a broader
discussion focused more on resident expectations for some of these areas.
Even though something we avoid talking about, Councilmember Willmus referenced
the recent Dale Street Fire Station Redevelopment project as an example of
how it could work, even though that was on a much smaller scale.
from the picture, Mr. Trudgeon agreed that when you control the land, you
could control the use and developer choice. However, Mr. Trudgeon noted that
the holding costs and time could prove significant, even though the end goal
was to develop the right product and use at a certain location. Mr. Trudgeon
opined that developers could be found who were eager to sell at which time
the City could accomplish whatever the desired goal and ensure use for what
was wanted by citizens and the City.
opined that he wasn't sure if staff had yet identified the particular
properties for acquisition due to a lack of funding sources as well as the
market. Mr. Paschke concurred that holding costs were the biggest issue, and
how long was necessary to wait for a project to come forward.
recognized that staff's delay was also due to not having received direction
from the City Council to identify properties.
Willmus suggested that, based on CSI selecting the property in New Brighton
for development, it may be time for Roseville to have those discussions.
Laliberte spoke in support of having the discussion; however, she noted that
it still wouldn't work whether the City or developer owned the property if
the market didn't want to build it.
Willmus spoke in support of how to incentivize development (e.g. TIF funding,
city ownership of property as part of the package) and other areas of
discussion and based on things occurring in surrounding communities.
Laliberte opined that the discussion could be held regarding property
acquisition; however, based on the repeated comments she heard while
campaigning for office, the perception was that Roseville was difficult to do
business with; further opining that perception could not be changed
referenced the Dorso site and previous active inquiry for FBI headquarters
that eventually went to the City of Brooklyn Center by the City's removal of
a less-than-desirable hotel use making that land available. She also
referenced the NW Quadrant in New Brighton and the Excelsior and Grand
project with the City assembling land for the site. Councilmember McGehee
spoke in support of having a discussion on property acquisition; and like Councilmember
Willmus noted, was unable to define where she would come down on the issue in
reviewing pros and cons. However, Councilmember McGehee noted that the City
was granted Port Authority in 1987 with express discretion to clean-up and
market the Twin Lakes area; and as yet had done nothing other than bond for
blighted parks, while losing out to another community that had chosen to purchase
and clean-up polluted land - a former asphalt plant - that no longer existed.
Mayor Roe noted
that it was something to consider; however, he cautioned that not every
situation was the same or having the same cookie cutter answer. While it may
make sense to buy land, Mayor Roe opined that if under contract and not sold,
the City would still own it, and would be more preferable if there was a fast
time frame while not limiting viewpoints, and adding to the discussion.
Mayor Roe further opined that it made sense to be flexible and have options,
the City still made the zoning decisions. Mayor Roe sought consensus on
Council preferences: whether to tweak the CMU or create two subdistricts,
with one closer to Langton Lake and the remaining parcels in another
subdistrict. Keeping them all the same or specific parcel to parcel zoning
was another option outlined by Mayor Roe, recognizing that the development
community desired flexibility, which either of the first two options should
Laliberte noted that the current CMU District had a variety of uses
permitted, yet still nothing was happening and the City chased things away.
While campaigning, Councilmember Laliberte noted the comments she heard in
opposition to Wal-Mart and preferring Costco, yet not supporting that when it
came forward either. Councilmember Laliberte expressed her desire to not
repeat past City Council cycles by saying its CMU and other than a few
parcels, not supporting that designation.
In all fairness
to past City Councils, Councilmember Willmus noted that they had approved
Costco as a mixed use.
Mr. Paschke noted
that on the east side of Fairview Avenue there was no regulating plan to
guide redevelopment making it difficult to redevelop; while the west side
does have that distinction, creating differences for the east and west sides.
Willmus questioned the level of incentive wanted by the community to see
development as it wished, since public assistance could take many different
forms (e.g. infrastructure installation, demolishing of existing buildings,
land ownership, such as done in the City of new Brighton). However, Councilmember
Willmus questioned how that City fared at the end of the period and even
though they no longer have an asphalt plant, what other end results
occurred. Jumping back to the core question of where we're at, Councilmember
Willmus opined that, absent those additional discussions, he would fall back
on the option to update the zoning code and comprehensive plan and not be
overly prescriptive with the exception of a few minor tweaks.
McGehee concurred with Councilmember Willmus, opining that she would prefer
not to be too prescriptive. However, Councilmember McGehee opined that she
was no fan of the regulating map, and would like to consider returning the
Planned Unit Development (PUD) to the City's tool box, not that this is a
PUD, but having available for appropriate applications.
Etten expressed preference to not be too specific to one business but to look
to continue if a building was vacant and the owner wanted to redevelop it, at
which time the City may be able to assist in clearing the land. Councilmember
Etten questioned what was needed to complete Twin Lakes Parkway, as requested
by property owners and developers, suggesting that it be done. Without
memorizing current zoning permitted zoning uses and not having that information
available, Councilmember Etten questioned the best option, opining that this
is more prescriptive than he was willing to accept at this time without further
reviewing the current table of uses, which was subsequently displayed by Mr.
Paschke. Councilmember Etten advised that he was not against the two colored
map, recognizing that the current map north of Terrace Drive and east of
Fairview Avenue did not include mixed us, even though property owners would
like that flexibility for the open market to allow them to make positive
moved. Therefore, with minor tweaks, Councilmember Etten suggested looking
at the current CMU, driven by the fact that it was easier to amend that
versus having another discussion on how to get to the same goal.
Mayor Roe opined
that two versus five columns would be much easier.
suggested only one column, not a separate subdistrict CMU-1, in an effort to
be more restrictive of uses adjacent to the park on the PIK terminal parcels,
but only serving to eliminate opportunities currently available.
Mayor Roe noted
that what was being described and the purpose outlined on the map was
basically CMU-2 and all others were CMU-1, with things not allowed or only
allowed at a certain scale. Mayor Roe suggested that may be the next step,
to determine if that was the right delineation and any differences between
the two. Mayor Roe opined that they were identical with few exceptions in
the purple area on the map, located near single-family residential or the
park; with the two lists looking the same except for that.
Willmus opined that in essence it was creating a buffer around the park,
which he was fine with, but not the entire area currently shaded as purple,
bur roughly the area south of Iona Lane and blending with the other larger
specific to the PIK parcels as outlined on the map and splitting the parcels
or following their property line. Mr. Paschke advised that the old parcel
lines would need re-established with new property lines, but may be splitting
suggested if two districts were proposed that option be confirmed tonight for
the benefit of property owners in attendance. However, Mr. Trudgeon
suggested a different track, since if it remained zoned as CMU, he
anticipated people knocking at the door and development applications received
immediately under that current code. Mr. Trudgeon noted that this allowed
the most flexibility, with minor tweaking, and with addressing any
inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan using proposed language provided
by staff in the RCA, it would then eliminate any perceived conflict.
noted that the City Council had previously directed staff to figure out the
zoning; and while his next comments may seem to be a leap, he would recommend
keeping the CMU in place, amend the Comprehensive Plan, tweak specifics in
the code, and get rid of the regulating plan requirement, changing HDR across
Terrace, allowing for mixed use. Mr. Trudgeon suggested that by doing that,
and tackling the EAW and environmental issues, and based on tonight's good
discussion on the limits of retail with the City picking where that may
happen, it would keep things simple and allow property owners to move forward
quickly. Under that scenario, Mr. Trudgeon opined that the City Council
would see applications coming forward yet this summer with projects already
ready and waiting in the wings. If the City Council chose to do so, it could
divvy up the area into two districts, and while he saw some merit in doing
so, Mr. Trudgeon opined that a decision needed to be taken on the next steps.
Mr. Paschke, in
addressing specific design standards, noted that each had specifics beyond
the overall plan, with the CMU currently relying on that regulating plan.
Mr. Paschke asked that the Council keep that in mind; and while not a huge
effort by eliminating the regulating plan, it also eliminated a number of
things already put in place (e.g. buffers, pedestrian connections) and other
nuances that would no longer exist to be built into design standards or
At the request of
Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke confirmed that setbacks would be addressed like in
other sections of code, with percentages based on articulations.
Mayor Roe noted
that there was some commonalty in districts, but others were in the context
of urban design principles for the Twin Lakes area.
McGehee spoke in agreement with Mr. Trudgeon's suggestion for design
standard, which she had never been a big fan of in the Twin Lakes area; and
expressed preference for a simpler, less restrictive plan. Councilmember
McGehee opined that the City had good design standards in general around the City
with nice looking buildings brought forward by developers, recognizing some
excellent plans brought forward in the last few years. As far as the last
piece if this was divided and referencing Mayor Roe's comments, Councilmember
McGehee opined that regarding the large PIK terminal parcel, from the standpoint
of the park if residential use was dropped next to the line partway across
the map, she would prefer more of a buffer on the south end of the lake while
still giving the owner more options. If a consensus, Councilmember McGehee
spoke in support of a predominant CMU with residential and minimal tweaks,
noting that there was also a ditch running through that helped to buffer the
lake as well.
offered to bring this item back for a final look before adoption.
displayed a copy of current uses under the current CMU.
Mayor Roe sought
consensus to consider looking at a division of the CMU today minus a few
things to describe it.
McGehee supported that in the purple designated map display with a few
Etten spoke in support of the two-color concept; but questioned what would
not be permitted there, and if questioned if the PIK property was divided
would it create development issues; expressing his preference to leave it
open as long as he was clear on what was not a permitted use and allow
previous discussions, Mayor Roe noted it could include residential from 12
units up per acre, office/retail, civic, institutional - all permitted uses -
while not allowing warehouse, production, or light manufacturing.
Etten questioned if the preference was to make it conditional to allow for
that, with definition of when permitted without actually excluding it.
advised that it would a permitted use with conditions.
Willmus questioned if the goal would be met in providing a bigger buffer
around Langton Lake since the Conditional Use would run with the land.
recognized the park dedication option to encourage development as it
occurred, and creating a buffer by expanding the park in that area as part of
that development. Councilmember Etten recognized the amount of coordination
required between multiple owners and the City, but expressed confidence that
a buffer could be created in a different way, seeking park dedication and
green space, even in the purple area containing the PIK terminal area.
questioned if two districts were needed, or simply to define uses as
conditional where restrictions took place.
McGehee noted residential uses and building where things made sense, based on
past input from developers, brokers, and Mr. Lamb in development of the
regulating map. Councilmember McGehee spoke strongly for housing serving as
the best buffer round the park, while not trying to impose something on the
market that was not uniformly agreed upon.
Mayor Roe pointed
out that everything else could be a permitted use there as well as in the
CMU, such as a nice corporate headquarters
Mr. Paschke questioned
how Councilmembers were thinking regarding a buffer, noting that since the
regulating plan seemed to be falling out of flavor, it had still provided an
additional ten foot buffer to the City as part of any park dedication which
would add to the park, and/or pedestrian connections to get to the park,
adding another buffer inherent in that. Mr. Paschke noted that, while some
could built into the code versus requiring a conditional use, it was not
clear to him when the buffer was eliminated with the regulating plan. Mr.
Paschke noted that this had served to reduce impacts from one use to another,
with current code providing mitigation for those impacts from one use to an
adjacent one. Mr. Paschke questioned how this fit with his perception of the
City Council's direction to staff to proceed with the current CMU and tweak
recognized that point, noting that some people thought of buffers as strips
of vacant land, while others thought of buffers as less-intensive uses. For
purposes of creating appropriate buffers in this case, the Conditional Use approach
could make sense, creating conditions that would establish buffers for certain
uses when adjacent to certain other uses.
summarized current directive to retain the one CMU District with some uses
conditioned around Langton Lake Park; opining that this would provide a good
framework moving forward and what was needed for tweaks, which should not
prove complicated and get to the point quicker than the various colors.
McGehee questioned if staff was proposing certain uses allowed across the
entire area as a conditional use, or only in the area closest to the lake.
using retail as an example, if at or over 20,000 square feet, it would require
a conditional use, and would go through the process on design, location and
other conditions for the City Council's review. While the City Council may
approve it adjacent to retail versus Langton Lake Park, it would be possible
to consider it and set up sufficient mitigation at that location.
To add to that,
currently in code, Mayor Roe noted that conditional uses were required with
certain uses with specific conditions attached and broader conditions applied
to all scenarios. Mayor Roe opined that a similar situation could occur if
going this route.
Mr. Paschke noted
that certain uses and proximity to residential or other uses could be
considered to mitigate potential impacts.
Laliberte used the example of Iona and exclusion of warehouse and
distribution; and if remaining CMU that would be an excluded use creating a
buffer and uses around Langton Lake and everything else.
noted that conditions would be applied to such a use.
clarified that such uses couldn't happen, but only in some areas; with
staff's response to allow more limited warehousing, but not industrial.
advised that the CMU identified multiple uses, and could end up on the PIK
site adjacent to the park, and questioned if that was appropriate, opining
that it did if mitigating impacts were applied and then made sense.
Laliberte questioned what was needed to work back in if the regulating plan
suggested one more refinement to come back to the City Council with this
discussion and ideas to be followed by the official process once a consensus
was determined and opportunities for public comment. At that point Mr.
Trudgeon suggested an accelerated process to keep momentum going for property
owners. Mr. Trudgeon opined that this discussion had been helpful even
though it went from separate districts back to basically the same framework.
the potential time frame for the process for Comprehensive Plan amendment and
CMU text change, approximately two months if the City Council accepted
proposed definitions drafted by staff and detailed in the RCA, initiating the
formal process to amend the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan in that
same timeframe; returning to the City Council with a modified use chart and
certain uses identified as conditional.
Etten spoke in support of that process.
regarding indication of preferences for the use chart revisions, with the
zoning ordinance becoming the regulating document.
The proposed language
on page 3 of the RCA was approved in concept by consensus.
reviewed the official process: open house, public hearing at the Planning
Commission level, and ultimate approval by the City Council, with those all
providing an opportunity for public comment, and allowing other minor tweaks
prior to adoption; with initial review of the proposed revisions scheduled
for the March 24, 2014 City Council meeting at the latest in order to meet
notice requirements and scheduling.
At the request of
Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke advised that the CMU was currently in place and
operational of the west side of Fairview but not the east side.
At the request of
Mr. Paschke related to environmental issues, and with consensus of the body,
the policy would remain that each future development in the Twin Lakes
Redevelopment Area would be required to provide an EAW with discretional
waiver by the City Council as projects came forward.
thanked Councilmembers and developers for the very productive discussion;
with Mr. Paschke concurring that it had proven a very worthwhile exercise.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Etten moved, Willmus
seconded adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:00 p.m.
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.
Mayor Roe called to order the second Roseville City
Council special meeting of, for purposes of discussing land acquisition at
2169 St. Stephens and 2168 St. Croix Street, at approximately 8:00 p.m.
Voting and Seating Order: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe. City
Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present.
Mayor Roe noted that, in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes, Section 13D, all city council meetings must be held in public, but
that certain exceptions were allowed, including discussion of the
acquisitions or sale of property, and consideration of appraisals or offers
on such property.
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adjourning to closed
executive session for the purposes of discussing land acquisisiton at 2169
St. Stephens and 2168 St. Croix Street in Roseville.
Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe
Mayor Roe convened the City Council in Closed Executive
Session. In addition to the City Council, City Manager Trudgeon, Parks &
Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke, and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adjourning the Closed
Executive Session and returning to Open Session.
Willmus; Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Mayor Roe reconvened the City Council in Open Session at
approximately 8:45 p.m.
Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adjournment of the meeting.
Willmus; Laliberte, Etten; and Roe.