View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
May 4, 2015
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the 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. Pledge of
3. Approve Agenda
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded approval of the agenda as presented.
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
Sara Barsel, 1276 Eldridge Avenue
provided the City Council with a status update on the Roseville Block Nurse
Reinvention Task Force members, and provided hard copies of the two surveys
completed and now on SurveyMonkey along with a cover letter. The surveys were
entitled: "Roseville Senior Health Needs Survey" and "Roseville Senior Housing Health Service Survey."
advised that an additional survey on adult health needs addressing the more
diverse and/or low income population in the community was still in process,
along with a medical providers' survey as well.
noted that at least twelve people were serving on the Task Force, and while the
process had taken longer than the initial six months projected, she anticipated
having it completed by the end of the summer and a subsequent report to the
advised that the presentation to the City Council would include recommended
resolutions for their consideration as the Task Force continued to work with
various agencies and faith communities in addressing this issue to coordinate
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Ms. Barsel advised that copies of the survey were available by
hard copy or on the City's website; and they were open to and willing to explore any other ways to get the survey out to the public, including through a gmail address at: email@example.com.
Ms. Barsel noted that housing managers were being asked to fill out a health
service survey and to encourage their residents to fill out the senior health
Trudgeon agreed to make the surveys available for pick-up at City Hall as well;
and at the request of Councilmember Laliberte, offered to make the surveys
available on NextDoor.com.
advised that the cover letter provided instructions that the anonymous surveys
could also be dropped off in the black utility payment collection box outside
City Hall as well.
encouraged Councilmembers and residents to utilize any avenues open to get the
surveys to Roseville's senior population; noting that other agencies in the Ramsey County Public Health and Human Services Departments were very interested in the results of the Roseville survey.
Stewart, 2807 Fernwood Street
As President of
and representative the Area League of Women Voters (LWV), Ms. Stewart read a
written statement of the League expressing their disappointment in the City
Council delay in taking action based on a 3/2 vote until results of a community
survey could be taken. Ms. Stewart expressed further dismay when the City
Council, following the rather confused and slanted survey question, subsequently
decided at a recent meeting to not pursue organized action and to eliminate
public discussion of the item at the requested June 8, 2015 City Council
noted the support of organized trash collection by the LWV for a variety of
reasons, and also noted the support of the City's Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC) and their recommendation in their advisory role to the City Council supporting organized trash collection. Ms. Stewart noted that following the PWETC recommendation, the LWV had conducted an independent study.
noted that there were other options that many cities have chosen to take beyond
those two provided in the survey question, allowing current haulers to keep
their market share and an assigned area of the City. Ms. Stewart opined that
the study supported the fact that multiple heavy trucks wore out streets, costing
taxpayers more dollars.
thanked Councilmember McGehee for bringing the topic forward for potential
discussion at the June 8, 2015 meeting; and expressed the LWV's shock that the City Council voted to not implement organized trash collection or not to discuss it further, without the benefit of any further public comment and in their apparent response to the imperfectly worded survey question. Ms. Stewart opined that such City Council action did not support community engagement, for which topic there was much interest from both sides; and further opined that representative government should always err on the side of receiving more input from their constituency.
conclusion, Ms. Stewart, speaking on behalf of the LWV, urged the City Council
to reconsider their action and schedule a public hearing on organized trash
Communications, Reports, and Announcements
announced upcoming community events, including free document shredding at City
Hall; and noted that the upcoming Parks & Recreation Commission meeting was
scheduled at Cedarholm Golf Course providing an opportunity to discuss and tour
the golf course, pro shop and clubhouse, and as always, was open to the public
announced the upcoming Roseville University and encouraged residents to attend
this free, but limited space, opportunity to become familiar with their local
Laliberte reported on the recent Alzheimer's and Dementia action meeting held at the City Hall Council Chambers to a packed room, with considerable and good information disseminated for families and caregivers, including resources and directions to pursue. Having served as a member of the kick-off committee, Councilmember Laliberte presented to City Manager Trudgeon the formal letters from legislators providing their support.
Mayor Roe agreed
that it was a great event with lots of information provided; with that
information available by streaming online via the City's website.
McGehee referenced a recent St. Paul Pioneer Press article about a father/son
team from Woodbury who had created a technique for bagging Buckthorn stumps to
prevent their regrowth versus chemical treatments or digging them out by hand.
As the City
Council moved forward with the 2016 budget process, Councilmember McGehee asked
that staff be directed to bring forward policies for consider as part of the
budget process for review and potential implementation specific to financial
sustainability as part of the overview of how and why the City made decisions.
Councilmember McGehee opined this would prove useful for future City Council
reference related to a sustainability function.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Councilmember McGehee clarified her intent would be for each
department to consider sustainability when requesting funds for their specific
department and to present useful policies for consideration when bringing their
department budgets forward.
concurred that it would be an excellent idea to incorporate that into department
presentations, at least from a conceptual standpoint.
Property/Sherman Project Update (current truck terminal)
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus at the previous City Council meeting, City Manager
Trudgeon provided a brief update on the proposed multi-family, freestanding
development of Sherman Associates for market rate and affordable housing, as
well as a commercial application as part of a proposed development for this
site. While the project had been on hold for some time, Mr. Trudgeon reported
that as of last Friday, staff had received a request for tax increment
financing (TIF) that had been forwarded to the City's TIF/financial consultant for initial review. Mr. Trudgeon advised that he anticipated bringing the request forward for City Council consideration by the end of June.
Donations and Communications
Proclaim Police Week
Mayor Roe read
a proclamation declaring National Police Week on May 10 - 16, 2015 and May 15, 2015 as Police Officers' Memorial Day in the City of Roseville; recognizing law enforcement officers, past and present, who render dedicated service to the community.
McGehee seconded, proclaiming May 10 - 16, 2015 as National Police Week in the City of Roseville; and Police Officers' Memorial Day on May 15, 2015.
McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.
Proclaim May Older Americans Month
Mayor Roe read
a proclamation declaring May 2015 as Older Americans Month in Roseville, MN,
urging citizens to honor older adults and the professionals, family members and
volunteers who care for them.
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, proclaiming May 2015 as Older Americans Month in Roseville, MN.
Laliberte noted the fourth annual Suburban Ramsey County memorial event for
fallen officers, including several from Roseville, would be held at North
Heights Lutheran Church on May 11, 2015 at 11:00 a.m.
Trudgeon also noted the awards ceremony for applicable Roseville Police
officers would be held in the City Hall Council Chambers on May 13, 2015 at
Laliberte recognized the work of a Roseville couple, Mr. & Mrs. Kaiser, in
their Honor Flights who will be making their fourteenth trip to transport by
air World War II Veterans from the Twin Cities to Washington, D. C. for a visit
to the memorial honoring their service.
offered the thanks of the community, expressing his pride in having the Kaisers
as part of the Roseville community.
7. 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 City Council Minutes from April 20, 2015 Meeting
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of April 20, 2015 Meeting Minutes as presented.
8. Approve Consent Agenda
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being
considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for
Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, dated May 4, 2015.
Etten moved, Willmus
seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and
77148 - 77332
Approve Business and Other Licenses and Permits
moved, Willmus seconded, approval/renewal of business and other licenses and
permits for terms as noted.
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of
Willmus seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services, and
where applicable, trade-in/sale of surplus equipment as noted in the RCA and
Attachment A entitled, "2015 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," updated March 31, 2015.
Approve Budget Calendar
Etten moved, Willmus
seconded, the proposed 2016 Budget Calendar as presented.
Approve Environmental Consulting Services Agreement for Property
Located at 2959 Hamline Avenue N
Etten moved, Willmus
seconded, approving an agreement between the City of Roseville and Terracon
Consultants, Inc. (Attachment A) to perform semi-annual groundwater monitoring
and reporting at 2959 Hamline Avenue N, at a cost not to exceed $21,700 as
outlined; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document.
Approve Recreation Agreement with the City of Lauderdale
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, City Manager Trudgeon clarified that the cost-share
for this agreement would ensure fees for resident and non-resident rates would
be covered and no additional Roseville taxpayer monies would be used to
subsidize the program.
Etten moved, Willmus
seconded, approving a Recreation Agreement between the City of Roseville's Parks & Recreation Department and the City of Lauderdale (Attachment A) for the provision of summer recreation programs between June 22 and August 15, 2015 as outlined; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document.
Consider Items Removed from Consent
General Ordinances for Adoption
Consider Lake Owasso Safe Boating Association's Request for
Permit Renewal of the Water-Ski Slalom Course on Lake Owasso
opened the public hearing for the purpose of receiving public comment on the
above-referenced request at approximately 6:35 p.m.
Trudgeon and Mayor Roe referenced and recognized written e-mails received
to-date from supporters of this request: Michael and Cynthia Walz; 389 S Owasso
Blvd W; Steve Youngquist, 391 S Owasso Blvd. W; Maren Youngquist, (same as
above); and Paul Tragiai, 206 E Owasso Lane.
Vester, 3701 Sandyhook Drive
As a 34-year
user of the course and a long-time volunteer for the Courage Center's participation with the Association, Mr. Vester spoke in support of continuing this program.
Roseville Police Lt. Lorne Rosand
provided staff's recommendation for ratifying the permit from the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department as detailed in the RCA for the 2015 season, noting that the ski jump was no longer located on Lake Owasso.
closed the public hearing at approximately 6:38 p.m.
Business Items (Action Items)
Approve/Deny Lake Owasso Safe Boating Association's Request for
Permit Renewal of the Water-Ski Slalom Course on Lake Owasso
moved, Etten seconded, approval of the request by the Lake Owasso Safe Boating
Association for a permit from the Ramsey County Sheriff for a water ski course and
jump on Lake Owasso for the 2015 season.
Community Development Department Request to Perform an Abatement
for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 2560 Fry Street
Coordinator Don Munson reviewed current code violations at this commercial
property, formerly the Press Gym and vacant for approximately eight years, and
the current owner identified as Morrissey Development Company. Mr. Munson
provided a status update, including photos, of current violations, primarily
the building and site in significant disrepair (violations of City Code,
Sections 407.02.Cl 407.02.D, 407.02.J & K, 407.03.H, 906.05.B, C & D).
In order to abate this property, Mr. Munson estimated costs at $20,000 for
removal of debris in the parking lot; removal of junk/debris from the site
(e.g. mattress, sign, logs); cutting and removing overgrown brush between the
building and road; cutting overgrown grass; and patching, repairing and
repainting the entire building.
Munson advised that a previous abatement had been approved for the site by the
City Council, but after the winter snow had diminished, additional complaints
had been received regarding more exterior issues, as detailed in the RCA dated
May 4, 2015. Due to these additional issues, Mr. Munson advised that staff was
requesting a delay in City abatement until June 20, 2015 to allow the property
owner additional time to address the issues on their own, especially those additional
exterior items not previously identified. Mr. Munson clarified that this
abatement would simply be the most cost-effective way to provide a short-term
solution to the property owner to determine whether to rebuild or demolish the
Munson noted that the property owner had been in contact with the City, but
to-date, there had been no resolution; and further noted that Mr. Jason Morrissey
was present in the audience and wished to address the City Council.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Munson clarified that the request for additional
time for the abatement was due to the additional exterior issues discovered in
April after the snow melt, not due to any request by the owner for additional
time to decide whether or not to raze or repair the building.
At the request of
Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Munson estimated it may take that additional two
months to bid the work out for a contractor, to cut vegetation and other work
that may take considerable time to accomplish. However, Mr. Munson recognized
that the work could also be accomplished sooner than that, but the June 20th
date allowed sufficient time for completion prior to implementing a City
abatement, and also at a cost much less for the owner to perform the work than
the City to hire contractors to perform the abatement.
Morrissey, Morrissey Development
provided a history of the building, and their work with the City in pursuing a
zoning/planning process before the Planning Commission for an apartment
building several years ago. However, at that time, Mr. Morrissey stated that
they had backed off those plans based on the City's apparent interest in acquiring this property for the adjacent park land, with that process taking several years and a subsequent decision by the City not to pursue it due to higher-than-anticipated appraisal coming in at half the tax value of the property.
Morrissey stated he was now back at the beginning to consider options for a
redevelopment project. Mr. Morrissey opined that the existing building's current condition would not pass City Code inspection, nor did he think the City of Roseville would want it to remain.
staff's recommended date of June 20, Mr. Morrissey opined he could have the property violations corrected by then; and his only request was for flexibility regarding painting the entire building based on the possible demolition for a future project. Mr. Morrissey offered his willingness to spray wash and touch-up paint the building to look better without spending too much time and money on that aspect. Regarding missing sections of siding, Mr. Morrissey advised that some had rotted spots and would be repaired, in addition to the large sections cut out intentionally to determine if rebar was in place that would prove sufficient to support a two-story apartment building with underground parking, which it would not. Mr. Morrissey assured the City Council that he would do a good job in cleaning up the property, advising that he would be performing the work himself.
clarified that he had hired someone to cut the grass, and had not been aware
that that person had felt no need to cut grass behind the berms where the
public couldn't see it, but agreed it needed to be cleaned up.
building security, Mr. Morrissey advised that the building had been secured
when previously notified by the City, and had since been compromised again. As
recently as yesterday, Mr. Morrissey advised that the door had been welded shut
and the roof door fastened shut, so opined there should be no way in or out.
Mr. Morrissey noted that this left basically cosmetic issues to bring into
compliance with City Code. Mr. Morrissey asked that he and Mr. Munson work
cooperatively on options for a gate to keep people from depositing more debris
on the lot in the future.
questioned Mr. Morrissey on a timeline and/or decision for potentially razing
responded that the building was not usable the way it is; and advised that it
would mean his working with City staff to determine how to develop a
multi-family building there, based on adjacent multi-family properties. Mr.
Morrissey advised that he'd also had some interest for a small family business, consisting of a one-story office building. At this point, Mr. Morrissey advised that he had initially contacted the City's Senior Planner Thomas Paschke last week and would be meeting with him later this week to review the old plans to see if they were still applicable. In response to Councilmember Willmus' question regarding demolition, Mr. Morrissey advised that if the City Council had determined that he only had two weeks to comply, he would look at the situation much differently and would probably be seeking a demolition permit sooner rather than later.
admitted that a lot of the building is subgrade, and to demolish it at this
time would create a liability issue due to that depth and require a fence
around the former perimeter of the building. Mr. Morrissey advised that he was
willing to demolish the building as soon as possible, since he owned a company
that could perform the demolition. However, Mr. Morrissey also noted the potential
delay as he needs to follow the planning/development process among various City
Commissions or Boards to seek approval. Given that potential delay, Mr.
Morrissey questioned if immediate demolition was the safest thing for
Roseville, noting it would be a substantially deep hole existing while seeking
permit approval for redevelopment.
noted the two options apparently available for Mr. Morrissey's serious consideration: a one-story office building or multi-family building, offering her support for either option. If Mr. Morrissey was actually going to be working in the immediate future with staff on redeveloping the site, Councilmember McGehee offered her support for the proposed short-term work versus demolition, allowing for some future development.
invitation of Mayor Roe, no one appeared to make public comment on this
clarified with Mr. Munson that an acceptable outcome for staff and the City
would be for the property owner to develop a plan for demolition and secure the
site and address external issues for brush and debris removal.
Mr. Munson agreed;
opining that he did not see building demolition and/or redevelopment plans
coming forward in the immediate future. However, Mr. Munson noted that staff
was more than willing to work with the property owner to eliminate violations
and the public nuisance, since the property owner could do so at a much lower
cost than the City being required to abate the property. Mr. Munson advised
that he and Mr. Morrissey had met on the site last week and discussed the
issues. Mr. Munson noted that the resolution of violations and the proposed
redevelopment could move forward on a parallel track; however, he noted that it
could take another year to get that project ready.
Willmus moved, McGehee
seconded, directing the Community Development staff to abate the public
nuisance violations at 2560 Fry Street by hiring general contractors to correct
the site violations as previously noted, if not corrected by the property owner
by June 20, 2015, at an estimated cost of $20,000; with the property owner to
be billed for actual and administrative costs, and if charges not paid, authorizing
staff to recover costs as specified in City Code, Section 407.07B.
Being aware of
some area youth accessing the vacant building, Councilmember Laliberte
expressed her interest in making sure the larger holes in the building were
addressed prior to more park traffic occurs this spring. Councilmember
Laliberte stated she was not interested in having children exploring the
building and/or site.
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Twin Lakes Discussion - Community Mixed Use (CMU) Zoning
BENCH HANDOUT - Land Use Table Worksheet (updated from RCA)
Development Director Paul Bilotta provided an overview of the proposed Twin
Lakes discussion timeline showing major anticipated milestones based on
Bryan Lloyd advised that he had put together an updated table as the next step
in this process to review specific land uses and regulatory issues for the Twin
Lakes Redevelopment Area as described in detail in the RCA dated May 4, 2015.
At the request of Mayor Roe, staff displayed a revised subarea map overview of
subareas as identified through the recent public input processes.
Mr. Lloyd noted
the values coming out of the public process entered on the table, and their
specific application of negative, positive or neutral values for each proposed
use, suggesting those uses that could be permitted or not permitted, or permitted
through a Conditional Use (CU) process. Mr. Lloyd admitted that there were a
lot of neutral values that were difficult to distinguish, and therefore staff
had developed a five-point scale, shown in the table legend grouping those values
and differentials for each use.
Mr. Lloyd noted
that Subarea 4 was the subject of the citizen petition received earlier this
year for moving zoning designation to medium density residential (MDR).
advised that the process in grouping variously valued areas had led to some
similarities in subareas, leading staff to group them in this way. Mr. Lloyd
noted Subareas 1, 3, and 4 had presented similarities for uses and areas for
lack of support of some uses; with areas 2 and 7 seeming similar in scale and
direction; and subareas 5 and 6 showing similar consistencies as well.
Therefore, Mr. Lloyd advised that the ultimate recommendation was to group
subareas as proposed by staff, or for staff to seek further direction for
refining land uses based on tonight's discussion and identification of areas
that could be regulated accordingly.
In an effort to
keep discussion focused and provide clarity for that discussion and the
listening audience, Mayor Roe suggested having the City Council discussion
followed by public comment in response to that discussion. For the City Council's own discussion point of view, Mayor Roe suggested grouping subareas together as a preliminary to that discussion as suggested by staff and within the boundaries of those subareas previously outlined.
McGehee expressed interest in adjusting the boundaries, while agreeing with
Mayor Roe's suggested discussion focus in working through the list of uses on the table, with Mr. Lloyd adjusting the table as part of those discussions and tonight's actions.
Laliberte expressed appreciation for the preliminary discussion on grouping
subareas, and sought the initial discussion on that grouping before considering
stated his interest in making sure, if a use is removed from the table of uses,
or not permitted in any or some areas, it be sufficiently recorded and captured
as 'not permitted' for the record in the zoning code table.
McGehee concurred with Mayor Roe, opining it would be interesting to see the resulting
Subareas Together (Attachment B)
reiterated staff's recommendation.
Laliberte stated her initial thought was to get some comments on what was now
being called Subarea B on the two far ends of the development area which were
similar. Councilmember Laliberte expressed particular concern about Subarea B
(formerly Subarea 7) especially with significant existing traffic issues by
Byerly's and Snelling Avenue. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she may be more open to high traffic generating uses in Subarea B (the former Subarea 2), but unless there was some defined resolution to traffic issues, would not be amenable to such uses proposed in Subarea B (formerly Subarea 7). Mayor Roe
opined that subject lent itself to talking about Conditional Uses (CU) and
conditions as a follow-up.
McGehee stated that she thought of those things related to Subarea C
differently than those things right on Cleveland Avenue, noting that uses next
to Subarea B at the bottom part of Subarea A and bumping up against Subarea C
south of Twin Lakes Parkway created significant differences for her between
that and the northerly strip along Langton Lake Park. Councilmember McGehee
stated she was unsure what she thought about the upper piece of Subarea C, but
opined that somehow Subarea C itself had a different character than the
internal side of the pieces.
stated that he drew a line on his personal map, opining that the south part of
Subarea A belongs in Subarea C (actually Subarea B or C) due to its adjacency
to the central core of Subarea C.
In the staff
report, Mr. Lloyd noted that Twin Lakes Parkway seemed to become an apparent
dividing line between where places seemed to favor higher or lower density uses
(e.g. residential), suggesting that may correspond to the issue raised by Mayor
McGehee spoke in support of a more horizontal line on the map; while Mayor Roe
expressed his preference for the previous line on the map; and Councilmember
Willmus suggested dissecting parcels may actually play out with dollar
recognized a clear consensus by Councilmembers Laliberte, Etten and Willmus as
well as himself, for Twin Lakes Parkway to serve as the dividing line.
boundaries, Mayor Roe offered his perspective in the northwest section of
Subarea A adjacent to Cleveland Avenue, recognizing the concern raised by
Councilmember Willmus in dividing parcels, making him question whether Subarea
A is correct for those properties adjacent to the storm water pond and adjacent
to Langton Lake Park.
responded that Subarea A involved properties near the more sensitive issues
(e.g. Langton Lake Park) and those areas of concern. While the decision was
qualitative, Mr. Bilotta suggested taking those parcels on the far east and
drawing a line; while other parcels have visibility to County Road C and/or
Cleveland Avenue. Mr. Bilotta opined that this would avoid splitting parcels
while still providing protection for the park.
expressed concern with narrowing Subarea A and it only becoming a strip
adjacent to the park.
McGehee opined that the storm water pond was a nice amenity for future
development in the area. Councilmember McGehee expressed her support for not
splitting that section, but leaving it all in Subarea A for lower intensity
uses, and more heavy intensity to the south.
At the request
of Mayor Roe for clarification, Councilmember Etten suggested leaving all
parcels currently identified in the northwest corner in Subarea A and not split
it up given the lake storm water pond and other things, making sense to leave
it as a whole parcel and avoid running into other multi-family residential
Laliberte agreed, opining that if intended for a less intensive use, she saw no
reason to carve up that area.
Groupings (Attachment B, continued)
Mayor Roe noted
significant differences between Subareas B and C, noting two distinct City
Council viewpoints expressed tonight regarding intended uses or locations,
particularly in Subarea C, the central area around Fairview Avenue.
Subarea C, Councilmember McGehee noted that it was a huge area, including up to
County Road C, and she saw a slight difference in Subarea C south of Terrace
Drive versus those areas along County Road C and Fairview Avenue, at least east
of Fairview Avenue (former Subarea 5).
clarification at the request of Mayor Roe, Councilmember McGehee stated that
she was fine with including former Subarea 5 in Subarea B all the way up to
stated that he still lumped those Subareas together as a zoning area, while
recognizing the City Council's approach to former Subarea 6 may suggest more of a rehabilitation versus redevelopment process.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Councilmember Etten concurred that the former Subarea 6, now
Subarea C, should not be split up since it has some flexibility and Subarea C
fit close enough. Councilmember Etten suggested leaving that area whole,
especially with the current businesses there being successful and not desiring
to zone them out of that area.
Mayor Roe noted
there were three basic subareas moving forward and creating a target depending
on how they were defined.
Laliberte sought clarification as to whether the body saw Subareas C uses being
treated differently than the two Subarea B's.
McGehee and Etten agreed they would consider treating them differently.
opined there may be a significant difference; however, those differences should
come out in the specific uses for each Subarea.
Since Subarea C
abuts Fairview Avenue and access on and off that corridor, Councilmember Laliberte
stated her view of that being different and her preference to leave it, based
on traffic compared to Cleveland Avenue and County Road C.
McGehee opined that when The dividing line became Twin Lakes Parkway, it
changed Subarea A to an expanded Subarea C.
Mayor Roe and
Councilmember Etten concurred.
McGehee opined that Subarea C was a large area, and if any changes in the
dividing lines were made, she would suggest moving Subarea B over to Fairview
Avenue, making it different than the rest of Subarea C, and allowing for
Subarea C to become a larger chunk for development.
Laliberte sought clarification if the intent was for the four properties along
County Road C to become a bridge (e.g. Tile Shop, Fireplace Shop, and Twin
Lakes Medical and the site directly to the north).
clarified that the east side of Fairview Avenue would extend Subarea C to the
west, and the Tile shop and site directly north would become part of Subarea B,
expanding east of Fairview, while the area west of Subarea B still needed
further discussion and consensus.
McGehee sought clarification that Subarea C ran west of Fairview Avenue down to
County Road C.
Mayor Roe concurred, noting that it also extended to the north end of Subarea
B. However, Mayor Roe expressed concern moving the line that far north for
Subarea B based on properties at the northernmost end and not even at issue on
the west end of Fairview Avenue.
Laliberte agreed that she would not extend Subarea B that far north, while she
could see the Tile and Fireplace uses included, only because they were less
intensive uses emptying onto Fairview Avenue.
Etten opined that, before moving forward with that, the City Council should
address their individual and corporate thoughts on uses that would be allowed
in each subarea. Councilmember Etten noted that he had a different vision for
Subarea B, and questioned if it ended up allowing larger buildings, was that a
desired outcome. Councilmember Etten noted it may be necessary to actually
identify parcels before proceeding further.
concurred, suggesting leaving Subarea C for the time being, and considering
actual uses permitted for Subareas B and C.
Laliberte suggested, with concurrence by Mayor Roe, on receiving public input
prior to moving ahead to avoid further confusion.
expressed her sincere appreciation for this format allowing for public comment
after initial discussions.
McCormick expressed her personal concerns in the significant differences in how
she viewed Subarea C immediately south of Terrace Drive and down County Road
C. Ms. McCormick expressed her appreciation in the comments made about traffic
on Fairview Avenue, and referenced her discussion with Mr. Bilotta earlier on
the character of properties off Fairview Avenue and current Tile Shop and
Medical building setting the gateway at the corners for that entrance. Ms.
McCormick noted both buildings were two-stories, and suggested something
missing from this discussion was height as well as 24-hour operations. Given
the character of Fairview Avenue, Ms. McCormick expressed a preference for less
intense uses along the corridor.
Mayor Roe noted
both height and 24-hour operations were intended for discussion as part of this
further cautioned the City Council and reminded them that Mr. Lloyd suggested
the indication of positive survey responses for industrial uses in Subarea 4.
clarified that the responses, as reported by Mr. Lloyd, indicated negative to
neutral responses to industrial uses in Subarea 4.
opined that there was more indication for residential uses; and sought to
continue bringing that up as it fell in line with the citizen petition previously
submitted for what the neighborhood wanted in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment
Area: less intense uses along Fairview Avenue and height issues addressed in
the entire area.
Uses (Attachment A)
Mayor Roe suggested
starting at the top and moving through each use, with the City Council reacting
to both the existing zoning designation under Community Mixed Use (CMU) and
those permitted uses, and the uses as proposed in the 2014 exercise and
suggested changes based on public feedback.
clarified that the entire Twin Lakes Redevelopment had been zoned CMU (shown on
the left of the table) and 2014 changes (shown on the right of the table)
indicating a change of direction by the City Council based on public feedback
and taken into account during tonight's discussion. If zoning is not currently permitted in either case, Mayor Roe suggested it was easy to simply delete those uses. However, for those uses not currently permitted and proposed to be changed to permitted uses, Mayor Roe noted the need to make a decision tonight between the two to address those conflicts.
suggested an additional category beyond "Permitted (P)" or "Not Permitted (NP)," that would include "Permitted with a Conditional Use (CU)" or "Permitted with a Planned Unit Development (PUD)."
Mayor Roe noted
the need to address parameters for PUD; with Mr. Bilotta suggesting that would
only indicate at this point that additional discretion was desired by the City
Council for that particular use, and could be dealt with in later discussions.
Mayor Roe noted
they were currently and proposed as NP.
Willmus noted that this would mean no banks would be allowed in the Twin Lakes
Redevelopment Area, and suggested more discussion and feedback was needed.
concurred, noting that this also included no pharmacies or other applicable
uses with drive-thru's.
Mayor Roe clarified
that current Commercial and/or Business Park/Office zoning designations require
a CU for a drive-thru; and suggested clarifying this NP specific to fast food.
McGehee questioned the need for any drive-thru, opining that their uses created
more asphalt, idling traffic, and pass-through traffic issues.
Laliberte expressed her support of a pharmacy, coffee or bank drive-thru use,
as long as they were not up against residential properties due to headlight,
direction and speaker issues. While not opposed to this use in Subarea B and
could see it in Subarea C, Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was not
supportive of it as a use up against residential properties, such as in Subarea
A. However, in general, Councilmember Laliberte stated she was not wild about
having fast food uses allowed in the area.
Etten agreed that drive-thru's were appropriate uses in Subareas B and C.
McGehee stated she'd support that use in Subarea B, but not Subarea C.
As in other
commercial districts, Mayor Roe noted their use would need CU approval, and
therefore would be determined on a case by case basis in those zoning
designations. Therefore, Mayor Roe noted the consensus was to allow
drive-thru's in Subarea B with a CU.
permitting them in Subarea C, Councilmember Willmus opined that it appeared
uses were being overly restricted in some areas. While understanding the need
to protect residential areas and the area around Langton Lake by only allowing
drive-thru's in certain areas of Subarea B and not in Subarea A, Councilmember Willmus noted that the body was literally talking about one side of Prior Avenue or another, making much less sense.
Mayor Roe asked
Councilmember Willmus if the CU could address that issue for him.
Willmus responded that it could; however, he recognized incredibly complex land
use scenarios that could come forward; and expressed his concern with
development applications and implications moving forward. While trying to keep
an open mind for this discussion, Councilmember Willmus stated that it might
behoove the City Council to work out definitions of uses before specifically
discussion Subareas A, B, and C on the map.
suggested those definitions may be identified as uses were reviewed, such as
differences for fast food drive-thru's versus other uses.
McGehee provided clarification from her perspective that this was only a first
pass and would be deferred for further refinement based on this discussion and
public comment, and would not be the final word.
confirmed that this was not intended as the final discussion.
for this specific use, Mayor Roe, with no objection from the body, concluded
that Accessory Use: drive-thru's were Permitted Use with a CU for Subarea B and potentially Subarea C as well, subject to further public input for more public areas.
Since Mayor Roe
was unable to find reference to this use (specifically hospitals) in existing
use tables to determine how they were being handled in other zoning
designations, he admitted he was unsure how to do so here. Mayor Roe stated
that the only reference he found was for Permitted Use with CU in Office/Business
Park zoned districts.
advised that they had been included in that designation as a result of the
one-time hospital proposal in that area.
stated that, in Subarea A, the response had been lukewarm to negative, and also
in Subareas C and B, questioning what that indicated.
McGehee stated, when considering a modern hospital with a helipad and emergency
traffic and operating 24/7, she would rule that use out based on previous
objection, Mayor Roe concluded that this was a NP use anywhere in the Twin
Mayor Roe noted
this use had received a fairly positive response in most districts.
By consensus without
objection, Mayor Roe concluded that this was a P use in all Subareas, subject for
additional public input.
Mayor Roe noted
the response had been negative for this use in Subareas A and C and some
already existing in Subarea B, indicting, by apparent consensus, it was a NP
use in Subareas A and C, and a P use in Subarea B.
Restaurants (Fast Food)
noted, as previously indicated, this was only a P use in Subarea B.
clarified that 'fast food' needed further definition as it didn't only indicate a drive-thru, but was also considered for uses such as a Subway franchise, and indicated counter service versus a sit-down restaurant.
When Mayor Roe
questioned the designation of a Panera franchise, Mr. Bilotta responded that
this fell under a different use category, 'fast casual.'
fell into potential restaurants that could already be in process for the Twin
Lakes Area as part of current development, City Manager Trudgeon clarified that
current development indicated restaurants, but their type or category had yet
to be determined and would need to be based on a number of limiting factors,
including whether traditional, fast food without a drive-thru, or sit-down restaurant.
drive-thru definition was causing the problem in whether fast food uses were
permitted or not, Mayor Roe questioned if that category needed further definition
McGehee stated that she'd be fine with some fast food uses without drive-thru access, noting the problematic synergy created in her immediate neighborhood specific to drive-thru's.
objection, Mayor Roe concluded that fast food with drive-thru was a P use with
CU, in Subareas A and possibly Subarea C; with the use determined as NP across
the board in Subarea B. Mayor Roe noted the need for specific fast food
definitions for future determination on any permitted CU coming forward.
Laliberte stated she could see that use in Subarea A (formerly Subarea 1), but
wasn't sure if she could see it in Subarea A (formerly Subarea 4).
suggested making it a P use with a CU and look further at conditions associated
with it, only in Subarea A, but not the other Subareas.
Willmus noted that it had been permitted before, and was listed as P in 2014
with fairly strong responses, causing him to question why.
McGehee agreed with the comments of Councilmember Willmus, opining that there
was a strong desire across the City to have more variety and sit-down
restaurants, and in this area in particular with workers and those residents in
that immediate area.
objection, Mayor Roe concluded that this was P use throughout the Twin Lakes
Retail (24-hour operation)
Mayor Roe noted
that it was a P use in the original CMU district and the proposed 2014 CMU; and
permitted in other areas with standards addressed in other areas of City Code
for 24-hour issues (e.g. noise, delivery times, buffer zones) for those uses
adjacent to single-family residential uses. Mayor Roe suggested the question
was whether to go with a city-wide strategy with restrictions for uses adjacent
to residential uses, or note a strong negative in this area across the board.
McGehee noted the use was NP outside of a hospital, and opined nothing needed
to be open 24 hours/day, creating an additional drain on the City's public safety departments.
Etten questioned the impacts for a 24-hour urgent care service, opining there
were some tremendous services being offered under current business models; and
questioned how parameters could be put around such a use to permit them.
Willmus stated he would restrict the use as NP adjacent to residential
properties and make it a P use with CU for other areas.
Mayor Roe concluded that this would be a NP use in Subarea A and a P with CU in
Subareas B and C.
Retail (big box)
Mayor Roe noted
that "big box" had yet to be defined in code, and was an originally P use in CMU zoning, and currently proposed with a CU throughout the Twin Lakes area. However, based on the strong negative feedback received, Mayor Roe suggested it seemed preferred as a NP use in Subarea A.
Willmus proposed a similar finding for this use as that of Commercial: Retail
(24 hour operation), pending a better definition being developed for "big box." Councilmember Willmus noted that some may consider a Total Wine franchise as big box retail, but it differed considerably from other examples of "big box" and required further definition.
concurred with Councilmember Willmus.
sought consensus and suggested concluding that this could remain a P use with
CU in Subareas B and C.
Willmus stated he would concur for now for the purpose of tonight's discussion and a similar use as indicated in the 2014 exercise.
McGehee stated that she would not support it as a P use in Subarea C; and would
prefer not to deal with it at all until a definite definition was developed.
clarified that, as she understood the definition now, Councilmember McGehee
wouldn't support the use anywhere; which she affirmed as being a correct summation.
Laliberte stated she would support it as a P use with CU in Subarea B and if
that included the parcels serving as a bridge along County Road C as previously
discussed tonight. Councilmember Laliberte stated she was not supportive of
its use in Subarea C to avoid additional traffic on Fairview Avenue. However,
Councilmember Laliberte noted the public comment she'd received about how nice it would be to have a Lowe's or Home Depot franchise in Roseville, and suggested they'd be considered "big box," suggesting the need for CU if considered a P use.
Etten concurred with Councilmember Laliberte, and depending on how Subarea B
was drawn and its connections; with Subarea B fine with him for a P use with
CU. However, Councilmember Etten reiterated his cautions depending on the map
borders and definition developed for "big box."
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus for other potential businesses included in this use
(e.g. the Tile Shop), Mayor Roe suggested revisiting NP as the process
continued and to determine if it met the definition.
objection, Mayor Roe concluded that this use was NP in Subareas A and C at this
time; and was a P use with CU only in Subarea B.
Retail (smaller scale)
Mayor Roe noted
that this use was permitted in all commercial zones and office/business park
zones in the City; with current HDR zoning in the area north indicating NP.
However, Mayor Roe suggested this may change further as zoning changes.
Etten suggested leaving it as is.
Willmus noted the new Target business model for mini-stores and questioned how
that would fit.
noted the need to define "small scale retail" as well as "big box."
Willmus suggested leaving it as a P use throughout.
Laliberte noted the lower part of Subarea A was just north of the Wal-Mart
development, and would push small retail against the lake and park if left as
is. Councilmember Laliberte supported it as a P use with CU only in Subarea A.
McGehee and Etten stated they would not support that, with Councilmember Etten
expressing concern in getting too controlling and restrictive in permitted
uses, while noting the need (to) (for) condition (all) uses to provide a buffer
for the lake as one example.
objection, Mayor Roe concluded this was a P use across the board at this point.
Vertical Mixed Use
advised that this was a NP use in any district except CMU at this time.
Laliberte questioned how vertical is vertical.
opined his was originally intended when stacked uses were considered, with
residential typically above retail; but was not sure how high that was.
noted staff's observation of height concerns expressed, opining that this use may have fallen victim to that concern.
becomes a height concern, Councilmember McGehee questioned whether or not it
was appropriate in the current marketplace for commercial on the first floor
and two stories for housing above it.
responded that most multi-family developments want a minimum of four stories,
with concrete for the first floor, actually creating a height of five stories,
the limit under code for stick construction. If commercial was required for
the first floor, Mr. Bilotta opined that this would typically knock out many
developers today, as most projects tended to be subsidized if multi-family, and
generally 2-3 story developments were not seen unless in a more downtown, hot
McGehee suggested NP use in the entire area.
stated he was thinking NP in Subarea A and P with CU in the other Subareas.
Laliberte stated she didn't have a problem with it being a P use in Subarea B, opining that the City would be supportive of a four-story office park in Subarea B.
Mayor Roe concluded this was a P use in all Subareas with the exception of
Noting this was
a NP in all commercial zoning districts and Office/Business Park, and by apparent
consensus, Mayor Roe concluded that this would remain unchanged as a NP use.
McGehee opined a P use with CU might be a good thing (e.g. medical technology).
Mayor Roe noted
this use was a P use in Regional Business (RB)-2 Districts, but not in RB-1 or
other commercial Districts.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Bilotta noted this might include other uses, some
current in the northwest area of Twin Lakes, such as an incubator use or a
business that had an office in the front and a "clean room" for processing in the back (e.g. electronic components and blood meter production), or other businesses where others manufactured the part and they were put together in a facility permitted under this type of use category. Mr. Bilotta advised that staff received many inquiries for that type of use or category, typically a one-story industrial park throughout the area. As a general goal, and as indicated on this working copy of the Use Table, Mr. Bilotta advised that if you stood outside the building, you would see no difference from this and an ordinary office building, even though production and processing were occurring inside, and sometimes even multi-tenant uses. Mr. Bilotta opined that the only tricky part was in addressing the level of deliveries. However, at this point, Mr. Bilotta advised that staff was trying to keep the understanding more on the street level than defining the uses in more detail for this exercise.
Mayor Roe noted
a definition currently existed in code for this use; with Councilmember
Laliberte clarifying that the definition dealt mostly with sound, as confirmed
by Mr. Bilotta.
Laliberte stated that her only caveat for this use would be related to sound
and potential impacts from shift work and disruptive traffic patterns; with
Mayor Roe adding another caveat for odors.
duly noted those caveats, adding others already in place that would address how
the use was conducted indoors and whether or not it was compatible with other
uses in the same building or complex.
objection, Mayor Roe concluded that this remained a P use in all zones as
indicated in the 2014 change.
McGehee noted this was the use hashed out in the past regarding the number and
size of trucks and provided in RB-2. Councilmember McGehee stated she would
not want this use in Subarea A, but would support it in Subareas B or C.
Laliberte noted her concurrence with the proposed 2014 changes.
Mayor Roe noted
they could be P under that proposed 2014 change.
Willmus stated they should be left as a P use under CU in all zoning
objection, Mayor Roe concluded that this remain a P use under CU in all
discussion and without objection, Mayor Roe concluded that this remains an NP
use in all Subareas for both categories.
Categories (Clinic, Medical, Dental, Optical, Corporate Headquarters, General,
Mayor Roe noted
the only change from current status to the 2014 proposed use was to NP Office
Showroom, with it being P in all other Office/Business Park and other
Willmus suggested permitting the Office Showroom use as well.
Laliberte questioned the rationale in arriving at a NP use in previous
conversations; with Mayor Roe suggesting it perhaps never got to the discussion
point at that time.
objection, Mayor Roe concluded that uses remain P across the board in all
Mayor Roe asked
staff if there were any projections or proposals from them at this time on how
to break down Multi-Family within use tables depending on specific zoning codes.
advised that it was broken down for questioning, and as an example,
multi-family was just that, no matter the considerable amount of emotion surrounding
it. Mr. Bilotta stated that some are fine with condominium housing, but not
with Section 8 housing, and based on Fair Housing Laws, the City was not allowed
to pick apart or slice individual multi-family housing types. and the only
option was to control whether or not there were owner-occupied or not, with no
other levels of control.
Mayor Roe noted
the need to also control the height limitations for multi-family and other use
types adjacent to single-family residential areas.
noted that Mr. Bilotta touched on this as well and the difficulty in getting
into conversations for market rate, workforce, Section 8 or other housing based
on the underlying use. Councilmember Willmus noted that someone could walking
the door seeking dollars for market rate housing, and 2-3 years later, convert
them to a different type of use. Therefore, Councilmember Willmus indicated
his hesitancy in having this conversation at all.
concurred, noting that the City would have no recourse based on Fair Housing
Laws; with the City unable or not desiring to discriminate in any way.
stated that that City may or may not decide uses based on other decisions
beyond zoning, such as with funding participation, but the basic zoning designation
is simply multi-family.
Laliberte noted that it looked like in the single-family category, multi-family
was a P use and others NP.
clarified that single-family was just single-family and therefore, not broken
down by type.
concurred, noting that the only discussion needed for the multi-family category
was building type, no matter who occupied it.
Laliberte questioned if this was a good place to discuss height since it hadn't been done in the Office category.
suggested height be considered for Subareas A, B and C or across the entire
area, and based on its adjacency to the park, single-family homes, etc.
McGehee clarified that she considered assisted living as a different category
confirmed that it was a different category, referencing its including on as a
separate category at the very end of the table.
Mayor Roe asked
that the assisted living category be a different discussion than the
multi-family discussion currently underway.
multi-family, Councilmember McGehee stated her preference to incorporate
discussions with other projects coming forward in the recent past, and while
not separating buildings by category, making sure that each building provide
workforce or non-market rate housing as well as market-rate units so all people
shared similar amenities and were not disenfranchised from one building to
another. Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of also having multi-family
buildings specifically for families to provide play areas.
suggested that may be more of a policy rather than zoning discussion.
Mayor Roe suggested a conclusion to allow multi-family housing as a P use in
the CMU zoning district, and generally speaking permitted throughout the area,
pending future discussions specific to height issues.
As this area is
shaped, Councilmember McGehee opined it was turning into more of a business and
light industrial area.
Mayor Roe noted
that this was part of the discussion in previous uses, but now the discussion
was moving into the residential uses.
McGehee opined that originally the City Council had talked about stacked uses,
thus the residential consideration, but now since it was moving toward
stand-alone residential, which could be adjacent to a park or other use, it
created quite a different feel for the entire area.
expressed his disagreement with Councilmember McGehee on her recollection of
the original discussion and creation of CMU zoning for the last Twin Lakes
development proposal to provide distinct areas, including a block of
residential uses and a block of office uses. Under that scenario, Mayor Roe
opined that things remained amenable and the City Council remained consistent
with that 2014 exercise, pending addressing issues about adjacencies.
multi-family responses and public input, Councilmember Willmus spoke in support
of changing from P uses to P with CU across the board.
Laliberte noted the need to address density as the next issue in multi-family
Willmus clarified that he was speaking specifically to multi-family uses on the
table of uses, and when getting into other uses, he would not change Medium
Density Residential (MDR) areas.
Mayor Roe noted
HDR provided for so many units per acre.
Willmus noted that HDR in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area would therefore,
under his scenario, all be under the P with CU use designation.
stated that would get to his concern should Area B become a larger retail
function, wondering if that should be a P use in that area. Councilmember
Etten opined that a lot of business was already going on in that area, based on
street visibility, and Councilmember Willmus' suggestion would ensure that multi-family residential uses would all fall under a P with CU in Subareas A and B.
Mayor Roe noted
that by making uses P with CU in all districts it would get to those remaining
issues and concerns in all districts.
Laliberte opined that she saw interest by developers for multi-family in
Subarea B due to its proximity to the bus line.
Willmus opined that his proposal would not preclude that, but would still
provide for a deeper look if and when it came around.
Mayor Roe noted
that the zoning code already and often had specific conditions for CU's.
objection, Mayor Roe concluded that multi-family would be a P use in all
Subareas of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.
One-family attached (Duplexes - MDR)
Mayor Roe noted
current use designation indicated NP and there appeared to be no indication for
One-family (Townhome/Row House)
Mayor Roe noted
current use designation indicated P and there appeared to be a positive
response, indicating no change.
objection, Mayor Roe concluded and confirmed that duplexes remained a NP use
and townhomes a P use throughout the Twin Lakes area.
Laliberte questioned the side by side houses off County Road C and Dale Street
off Overlook Drive, and whether they were also considered duplexes.
Willmus stated they were considered townhomes.
Laliberte spoke in support of more housing of that type in the community if
they were not considered a duplex.
clarified that duplexes, based again on the street term, was that a duplex,
while feeling like two single-family homes stuck together was different than
the homes on Overlook that were considered a townhome and broken up versus
being all in a row.
Mayor Roe, as
another example, noted the Ramsey Square/Westwood Village units of a similar
nature were townhomes; and confirmed for Councilmember Laliberte that they
would be permitted in this area as well.
objection, Mayor Roe confirmed that duplexes would remain a NP use and
townhomes a P use.
Willmus stated his satisfaction with the last four residential/family listings.
Mayor Roe noted
that they were currently NP and there appeared to be no proposal to change.
Laliberte questioned some areas around Langton Lake.
Etten noted the west edge of Langton Lake was in Subarea A; with Councilmember
Laliberte noting similarities to properties on the east side. Councilmember
Etten noted that side would allow for duplexes or single-family homes.
Willmus stated he would consider a P use with a CU when looking at
single-family developments backing up to the lake as an amenity, opining that
this could attract larger homes than other areas of the development. If considering
height restrictions, Councilmember Willmus questioned staff's interpretation of that.
responded that the height was determined at 30' to the midpoint of the gable.
Councilmember Willmus advised that he would look at it as P use with CU only in
Subarea A, and only specifically for single-family and not duplexes.
objection, Mayor Roe confirmed that this would be a P use with CU in Subarea A.
Mayor Roe noted
current zoning was a P use with CU; and no change was proposed.
clarified that it was permitted in HDR zoned districts.
objection, Mayor Roe confirmed that this was a P use in all Subareas.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Mayor Roe confirmed that this was a draft document
and nothing was permanent, with discussions to follow on scale, height and
other issues raised during tonight's discussion.
bridge parcels previously discussed tonight between Subarea B on the west side
and the east side along County Road C, Mayor Roe questioned if there was a
desire by the body to change the strip or leave as staff originally displayed.
Willmus opined it should be left open 'to be determined' for now.
Laliberte sought to go on record to state that she was not in support of that
Subarea progress as far north as staff's dotted line on the map indicated.
stated she was not totally committed to her original proposal tonight in any
thanked staff for their assistance and suggested further thought and feedback
be considered prior to a decision on this bridge area.
opined that she was in essence seeing a disregard by the City Council in
requests from its residents and simply moving current HDR zoning to CMU.
concurred that the City Council was proposing CMU zoning for Subarea 4 of the
Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, as originally suggested in 2014.
stated she found this very disappointing, opining that she would have much
appreciated a discussion of heights as part of this. Form her recollection of
residential survey results and her discussions with Mr. Bilotta, indications
were not in favor of multi-family housing in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area,
and if considered at all it would only be in Subarea B, even though she was now
seeing it as being a P use.
clarified that it was a P use with conditional uses applied; with Councilmember
stated that she had an issue with multi-family in Subarea C, south of Terrace
Drive, and reiterated the example with her property and how far noise and odors
actually travelled, with 750' not actually being that far from single-family homes. Ms. McCormick expressed further concern with limited production and processing uses, formerly NP and suggested for change tonight by the City Council to a P use, even after hearing people speak in opposition to that. If the neighborhood could be assured that the uses would be restricted to office and clean rooms, Ms. McCormick stated they would be somewhat relieved. However, Ms. McCormick asked how oversized bays would be addressed and whether they'd be allowed or not, in addition to many other questions with this use proposed so close to Langton Lake and single-family residences.
All in all, Ms.
McCormick noted that 65 surveys had been returned, contrasted with 80
signatures on several very specific petitions. Under those circumstances, Ms.
McCormick stated that she felt slighted, and in some respects felt things were
moving forward, while in other areas they were not.
Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane
perspective, Mr. Callaghan stated his belief that the City was pursuing too
high density next to a residential area. Mr. Callaghan opined that the City
plan didn't used to allow HDR next to residential, but required MDR on the way and as a buffer. In his review of this, Mr. Callaghan stated a multi-family building with 400 residents was fine next to a single-family neighborhood (Subarea A, formerly Subarea 4), which he found to be a mistake and didn't understand why duplexes were not being allowed when two townhomes were permitted in the same area and could look the same as long as they weren't called duplexes. Mr. Callaghan opined that he was having a hard time with definitions, since those two seemed so close to each other and either provided a transition to HDR from the single-family residential area. Mr. Callaghan expressed his lack of certainty if multi-family housing was allowed in Subarea C; and stated he had no problem with it in Subarea B.
opined that big box retail didn't belong anywhere in this area; and while there was a certain amount of retail the City could still support and had the ability to handle traffic to accommodate; it, all that appeared to him to be happening was that additional retail was increasing the load for Police and Fire personnel without generating any additional revenue beyond that paid for by Roseville taxpayers, which was not a good idea in his opinion.
Callaghan stated he would not include the red line on the displayed map, as it
was way too close to Langton Lake Park and he would back it down. Mr.
Callaghan reiterated statements made at previous Council meetings regarding his
lack of support or belief in the whole Twin Lakes Parkway issue and City
Council responses heard during that time as a result of a fake traffic study
assuming six lanes on Snelling Avenue. Mr. Callaghan agreed with Councilmember
McGehee's proposal for the line more horizontal; and again questioned the rationale for building Twin Lakes Parkway at all, therefore not using it as a dividing line for Subareas and uses.
Erickson, Centennial Drive
process was begun almost a year ago, Ms. Erickson opined that she felt it was a
last attempt to participate in civic planning and discussion. However, at this
point, Ms. Erickson opined she found it in some ways to have been a fruitless
endeavor, even though the neighborhood had organized, been courteous and played
by the rules, they continued to be discounted and things remained predetermined
from her perspective, just like Twin Lakes Parkway, as well as moving from HDR
to CMU zoning even though the neighborhood asked by petition that it not
occur. Ms. Erickson noted that she didn't have a 750' buffer between her property and adjacent property, but abutted on the business directly behind here, and would have preferred MDR in that area to protect her single-family parcel.
stated her love for the neighborhood, and the desire of her and her neighbors
not to see it urbanized, nor did they desire to become an Oakcrest that was cut
off from the rest of the community.
At a minimum,
Ms. Erickson thanked the City Council for the process that allowed her to get
to know her neighbors much better. However, Ms. Erickson noted that neighbors had
yet to receive one response to the petitions submitted to the City Council; and
reiterated her request that their neighborhood's desire to be heard.
1766 Millwood Avenue
some are saying, Ms. Tosi opined that multi-family uses in Subarea A should
remain as NP uses. Ms. Tosi thanked the City Council for the good discussion
about CU's and how that would allow the City to have input on the kind of development for a particular area, which she saw working in Subareas B and C. However, Ms. Tosi opined that Subarea A was different in that regard, and referenced the positive and/or neutral survey responses for duplexes in Subarea A (former Subarea 4) and could support P with CU near those residential areas.
emphasized that work on the Table of Uses and map lines remained preliminary
and would be subject to further public input; and at a minimum a public hearing
before the Planning Commission as required by state law and city code. Mayor
Roe noted there would also be opportunities for additional feedback by other
means, as usual, as discussions continued.
Laliberte stated that she remained clear about her perspective on the various
conversations; and she reminded the public that she had asked for and was confident
that the City Council would get to a discussion about HDR. Councilmember Laliberte
stated that, from her perspective, she felt there was still too many permitted
uses even though other grandfathered uses were in place at this time. Also,
Councilmember Laliberte noted the need to address opportunities to get more MDR
in the City, as there were many current residents who may be ready to move from
their single-family homes. Councilmember Laliberte advised that she may give
further consideration as to whether to support multi-family residential as a P
use and encourage MDR next to single-family homes.
reiterated that currently, multi-family use is moving from a P use to P with
CU, a significant step in allowing the City Council review of individual
applications versus a developer simply pulling a permit to build a building.
Councilmember Willmus expressed his personal disappointment that the
neighborhood had not acknowledged that significant step moving forward.
Councilmember Willmus further clarified that the City Council was not prohibiting
MDR and that it would be continued as a P use, indicating that the City Council
may need to do a better job of articulating the steps being taken; opining that
in many areas the City Council and neighborhood were on the same page.
McGehee echoed the comments of both Councilmembers Laliberte and Willmus. To
the extent that she was not a supporter of CU, Councilmember McGehee opined
that it provided the City Council with a chance to look at things. Regardless
of the outcome of the future height discussion, and in light of this being a
first touch in addressing the use table, Councilmember McGehee stated her
willingness to favor MDR as a permitted use throughout Subarea A given the new
line drawn on the displayed map; and expressed her willingness to have
multi-family as a NP use in that area. However, Councilmember McGehee noted
that while the CU provided that additional scrutiny, it left the door open for
future Council's to allow proposals that would run with the land under that CU.
through tonight's process, Councilmember McGehee asked that staff be directed to post the results of the discussion on the City's website that allowed for questions from residents on what future development may look like and provide their responses before decisions are made. Councilmember McGehee shared the sentiments about the process and inviting participation by residents; however, she also noted the challenge in accomplishing everything the way everyone wanted. At the end of the process however, Councilmember McGehee expressed the goal to have people feel they'd been heard, with the difference being in hearing and doing what they heard, suggesting there was plenty of room for compromise from the original scenario.
Etten concurred with some of the comments of Councilmembers Willmus and
Laliberte, stating the City Council's intent to respond to the desires of the broader community. Councilmember Etten noted future discussions regarding height to protect adjacent single-family homes; but expressed concern in eliminating multi-family from Subarea A entirely, since there were a number of positive uses for it in areas. Councilmember Etten reiterated his intent to address zones that would protect not only Langton Lake but single-family homes to make sure the neighbors, lake and environment were respected. However, Councilmember Etten noted that a lot of Roseville residents currently lived with single-family and multi-family housing abutting each other and typically a setback was in place to address that co-mingling of housing types, and this type of development would not be the first time it happened in Roseville.
by the City Council to address significant geographical differences between
Subareas, Councilmember Willmus opined the multi-family use may be appropriate
in Subarea A along County Road C, while it may be appropriate in Subarea A
north of Terrace. Councilmember Willmus further opined that, as mentioned by
Councilmember Etten, future discussion needs to focus on the lake and existing
residential areas and in reviewing the overall context.
Specific and in
response to the MDR petition, Mayor Roe recognized the large number of
residents in the immediate neighborhood, but also noted the need for the City
Council to address responses received from the broader community as well and
weight their concerns as well in the decision-making process. From his
personal perspective, Mayor Roe advised that moving to MDR for the entire strip
north of Terrace Drive was far too restrictive of uses even though such uses may
be acceptable to the neighbors.
agreed that the City needed to use care in addressing adjacency issues for
single-family homes and the lake, which remained a concern throughout the City,
and admitted that planning and land use decisions made in the past didn't always end up right. Mayor Roe used the Har Mar Mall project as one of those examples, and the ongoing code enforcement issues in that area, recognizing the need to be conscious of that moving forward. Mayor Roe opined that the way to accomplish that is through using specific restrictions in the zoning code versus agreements;, and advised that he'll be looking to that going forward. Mayor Roe reiterated his concern that he found the MDR citizen petition too restrictive and opined he found other uses should be on the table, making it more appropriate for CMU zoning there.
Based on his
personal opinion, and as stated previously by Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe
opined that when going through these processes as a representative democracy,
there will seldom if ever be 100% satisfaction; but the goal was to get the
best possible solution for what was believed to be the best for the community
moving forward. Under that scenario, Mayor Roe opined that the City Council
and staff had made a good effort to accommodate public concerns, and would
continue to listen and look at ways and conditions (e.g. buffer zones and
possibly change initial designations). Mayor Roe reminded everyone that this
was only a first draft, and not the end of the discussion; and while not
satisfying all, the City Council was doing its best and didn't want to shut
anyone out of the process.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, and at the direction of Mayor Roe, Mr. Bilotta
advised that future height issue discussions may alleviate some concerns,
especially around lakes and single-family residences. Mr. Bilotta stated that
staff would return with options for how that may be addressed, suggesting as an
example, the north side of Terrace Drive may not be appropriate for a
five-story building. Mr. Bilotta anticipated looking at CMU and CMU-light
concepts as part of that height decision, addressing not only changes in uses,
but also intensity of uses. Mr. Bilotta advised that staff would return with
proposed standards for City Council consideration allowing them to break from
overall discussions to address that vertical issue.
current single-family height of 30' to the center of the gable, Mayor Roe noted that even that created issues for single-family homes; and even single-family abutting other single-family could create an issue. Therefore, Mayor Roe expressed his interest in the next part of the conversation related to conditions and height.
McGehee expressed appreciation for the way Mayor Roe expressed that last
phrase, and requested direction from staff on what was too restrictive, since
the goal was to have something that will incent development but not be too
restrictive; and sought additional insight from staff.
duly noted that interest, noting that with the gap in City Council meetings
after next week, it would allow time for the neighborhood, staff and the City Council
to absorb tonight's discussion and decisions, and come back in June with those ideas.
At the request
of Mayor Roe on behalf of Councilmember Laliberte's interest in the next steps, Mr. Bilotta reviewed the eight steps as detailed in the RCA.
suggested staff provide some theoretical conditions that could be applied to
Willmus asked that staff be directed to track changes on future iterations of
the spreadsheet based on tonight's discussion and action; with Mayor Roe suggesting simply dating each version of the spreadsheet going forward.
suggested that future iterations could include three columns for A, B and C
even though future adjustments would also be forthcoming.
Mayor Roe advised that, in
accordance with Minnesota State Statute 13.D.05, subd. 3.c, the City Council
could move to closed session to discuss potential property purchases or sales,
in this instance to discuss the potential purchase of portions of properties located
at 934 - 950 Woodhill Drive and 2659 Victoria Street (former Owasso School site).
At approximately 9:06 p.m.,
Willmus moved, Etten seconded, moving to closed session to discuss the
potential purchase of portions properties at 934 - 950 Woodhill Drive and 2659 Victoria Street (former Owasso School site).
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus,
Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.
At approximately 9:12 p.m., Mayor
Roe convened in Closed Session with Councilmembers McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte,
Etten, and Roe present. Others present included City Manager Patrick Trudgeon
and City Attorney Mark Gaughan; and Community Development Director Paul Bilotta
and Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke.
At approximately 9:57 p.m., Willmus moved, Etten seconded,
returning to Open Session to discuss the potential purchase of portions
properties at 934 - 950 Woodhill Drive and 2659 Victoria Street (former Owasso
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.
At approximately 9:58 p.m., Mayor Roe reconvened in Open
Session and provided a summary of the discussion held in Closed Session.
At approximately 9:58 p.m.,
Laliberte moved, seconded by Willmus, to extend the meeting curfew to finish
Etten moved, Willmus seconded,
approved authorizing staff to negotiate with United Properties and the School
District as applicable, for the potential purchase of portions of properties located
at 934 - 950 Woodhill Drive and 2659 Victoria Street (former Owasso School site), within the parameters discussed in Closed Session.
Councilmember Etten expressed
confidence in the continuing cooperation of the above-referenced entities in
working together to review and consider potential site changes as recommended
by United Properties to create efficiencies in the overall site plan and create
synergy for all parties involved.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:02 p.m.