View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: Willmus,
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney
Mark Gaughan were also present.
2. Pledge of
3. Approve Agenda
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the agenda as presented.
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
At approximately 6:03 p.m., Etten
moved, McGehee seconded, moving into Closed Executive Session for the purpose
of discussing and providing direction for labor relations negotiations, in
accordance with the statutory exception to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law.
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte,
Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Closed Executive Session
Mayor Roe convened the City
Council in closed Executive Session at approximately 6:05 p.m. In addition to
Councilmembers, City Manager Trudgeon, City Attorney Gaughan, and Human
Resources Manager Eldona Bacon were also present.
At approximately 6:44 p.m.,
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, adjourning the closed session and reconvening
in open session.
4. Public Comment
6:49 p.m. Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any
non-agenda items. No one appeared to speak.
Communications, Reports, and Announcements
Mayor Roe announced
opportunities for public feedback on the 2016 budget and tax levy process, with
return post cards provided in the most recent City News newsletter and
copies available at City Hall and on the City's website. Mayor Roe advised
that City Manager Trudgeon had volunteered to be the City Hall contact for any
questions, comments, or for those needing additional information; and can be
contacted at 651/692-7021.
reported that he and City Manager Trudgeon had represented the City of Roseville
at a presentation in Duluth, MN recognizing the City's receipt of Step Two status in the GreenStep Cities Program. Mayor Roe expressed pride in the
efforts in achieving that status, and thanked the public and staff for making the
City more environmentally sustainable.
Laliberte thanked various commissions, staff, and reserve officers for their
participation and attendance at the recent Party in the Park and July 4th
concurred; and acknowledged all the efforts that had gone into this year's annual Rosefest community festival.
Donations and Communications
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 June 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes
moved, Willmus seconded, approval of June 22, 2015 Meeting Minutes as amended.
Page 22, Line 32 through Page 23, Line 6 (Laliberte)
lines 32 (page 22) through line 6 (page 23) in their entirety, and replace as
Laliberte spoke at some length about the five priorities and initiatives,
targets and measures. In the end, she recommended that civic engagement,
organizational effectiveness, and effective governance be eliminated from the
document because that work is already being done by departments and commissions
and our City Manager. She recommended that the Housing and Redevelopment
priorities and Infrastructure Sustainability priorities remain, but more work
be done on the initiatives and targets/measures."
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
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 July 6, 2015.
Etten moved, Willmus
seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and
77862 - 78090
Approve 2015 Business and Other License Renewals
the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Finance Director Miller advised that
the massage therapy licenses are new versus renewal licenses. In response to
Councilmember Laliberte regarding the high number being processed, City Manager
Trudgeon advised that typically appears to be a high turnover in this field,
but even for part-time massage therapists, they were required to be licensed.
moved, Willmus seconded, approval of renewals of business and other licenses
and permits for terms as noted.
Approve Resolution Awarding Contract for the Wagner Sanitary
Sewer Lift Station Project
Laliberte asked if there was a policy or process in place among all departments
as to whether a lowest bid or best value procurement process was used for
Trudgeon advised that, while there is no policy in place, the Parks &
Recreation and Public Works Departments utilized the Best Value Procurement
process as they had personnel trained in doing so. Mr. Trudgeon noted the Administration
staff had used the Best Value process for the past City Attorney contract as
well, but since it requires extensive training, its use was not the case across
all departments. Mr. Trudgeon advised that there was no requirement to use the
Best Value Procurement process, but it had been embraced as it usually provided
for better projects and prices for the larger projects.
Laliberte questioned if the City should have such a policy in place based on a
specific department and/or project.
suggested this was more of a question for the City Council than for City
Specific to the
Wagner Lift Station, Councilmember Laliberte questioned if the cost of
developing plans and specifications had been budgeted for or if those costs
were folded into the overall bid.
Trudgeon responded it had not been part of the bid, but was an additional project
cost; with the construction bid coming in higher than the actual engineer's estimate. Since it was a
project already planned, Councilmember Laliberte asked if those costs were
covered for that development work.
Trudgeon responded generally, with every project, the design work was part of
the overall cost and therefore factored into estimates. However, Mr. Trudgeon
noted that the bid climate had recently gone up significantly.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Public Works Director/Engineer Marc Culver apologized for not
breaking down those design costs in the Request for Council Action (RCA), as
had been done in the upcoming I-35W Interchange project, showing the breakdown
of consultant fees compared to overall project costs. Historically as part of
this Wagner Lift Station project, Mr. Culver advised that in March, the City
Council approved the firm of Bolton & Menk, Inc. to develop plans and
specifications to reconstruction the lift station, as well as their oversight
of the work, with bids for the work itself subsequently received on June 17,
2015. On a related note, Mr. Culver advised that the firm of S.E.H. had been
retained for the same consultant work and oversight for the St. Croix
Stormwater Lift Station Project, coming before the City Council for bid award
in the near future. Mr. Culver advised that he would make sure the budget
breakdown was provided in that RCA. For both projects, Mr. Culver advised that
funding would come from the respective enterprise funds as applicable; and as noted
by City Manager Trudgeon, agreed with his comments about the current bidding
climate. However, given the age of this lift station, even though the bids had
come in higher than anticipated, Mr. Culver opined it was worth updating the
As indicated in
the RCA, page 1, Mayor Roe noted the original estimated cost of $280,000 for
the project, and actual construction and engineering proposals of over
$294,702.61. Mayor Roe asked if the additional cost above the construction bid
amount of $268,000 was representative of the engineering costs (approximately
responded that those costs were slightly higher than that; and the current
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) estimates had only allotted approximately
$200,000 for this sanitary sewer lift station replacement; with these construction
costs coming in significantly higher than the original estimates.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver advised that the revised engineer's estimate, including construction costs, was based on the current bidding climate being found industry-wide.
Etten moved, Willmus
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11230 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution
Awarding Best Value Proposal for Project SS-15-12 Wagner Sanitary Sewer Lift
Station Project;" to Meyer Contracting, Inc. of Maple Grove, MN in an amount
not to exceed $268,927.61
d. Approve a Programmatic Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance
Agreement between the City of Roseville and the Rice Creek Watershed District
moved, Willmus seconded, approving the programmatic stormwater management
facility maintenance agreement (Attachment A) between the City of Roseville and
Rice Creek Watershed District.
Approve I-35W at Cleveland Avenue Interchange Project Plans and
Authorize Advertisement for Bids
moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the plans and specifications for the I-35W
at Cleveland Avenue Interchange Project and authorize staff to advertise for
Resolution Approving I-35W at Cleveland Avenue Interchange
Project Traffic Signal Control Maintenance Agreement
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, City Manager Trudgeon confirmed that funding for
their part of this project had already been received from WalMart.
McGehee stated that, historically, the Public Works Department had not used the
same Best Value Procurement method as used by the Parks & Recreation
Department; but rather had used the Lowest Responsible Bid method and she
opined that she had been more impressed with the process used by the Public
Works Department. Councilmember McGehee further opined that their method
seemed to be based more on the State Public Works' bid process, was more well-documented and straightforward. Directing her question to the City Council based on her conversations earlier today with Mr. Culver, Councilmember McGehee noted the recommended firm had rated a 83% for the technical weighting versus the other firms rating 90% in that category. Given the complexity of this work, and even with assurances from Mr. Culver of the confidence with this contractor, Councilmember McGehee noted the similarity of the other two bids, making this one seem more like a lowball bid. Historically, Councilmember McGehee noted there was no Public Works-related policy stating the City needed to go with the lowest bid when there was such a technical difference.
Councilmember McGehee questioned if the contract for this work had anticipated
work around or after the State Fair this fall or even next spring.
advised that, specifications were written based on today's bidding climate, attempting to allow the contractors as much flexibility as seemed optional; and thereby giving them an option of starting work this fall or holding off until next spring; at which time they would then have a certain number of days to complete the work once started. If the work is started this fall, it would need to be completed before the end of the construction season, and therefore Mr. Culver advised the contract did not include a provision that the contractor could not start work before the State Fair. Given the current bidding climate, Mr. Culver advised that it was considered more flexibility would result in a better bid without applying another caveat for the contractor to comply with. Mr. Culver noted there would be impacts during the construction, which might involve the Met Transit Park & Ride in that area if used for fair versus typical commuter traffic. However, Mr. Culver advised that even though ceasing work during the State Fair was typically included unless not of major impact, since there was already such a heightened level of traffic throughout the entire community during the State Fair, in this case the determination had been made that it was more vital to get the project done at the most reasonable price possible.
McGhee suggested staff contact the Roseville Visitor's Association (RVA) to alert them to potential impacts for hotel chains with this project, given the high use during the State Fair for visitors and exhibitors.
Specific to the
cost of a signal, Councilmember McGehee questioned what the annual maintenance
cost was for the City, if different than the $23,653 stated for the cabinet and
post, if the City were to consider installing a standalone signal.
responded that the total cost for a traffic signal is more in the area of
$200,000 and above for all components and wiring; and the $25,000 estimated
cost for the City represents the reimbursement to the state for the traffic
signal controller (e.g. cabinet) and related electronics. Mr. Culver noted
there is specialized equipment required by the state to maintain the signal
compatible with their other components.
McGehee questioned if the fact that the City of Roseville is paying most of the
cost for this particular interchange beyond the state and county costs, was
based on the City requesting installation of it before those jurisdictions determined
there was a need.
responded affirmatively; and confirmed for Councilmember McGehee that this
would typically be the case when making such a request.
Specific to the
Best Value Procurement process, Councilmember Etten suggested future RCA's include categories clarifying rating systems of each proposal.
City's cost for installation of equipment, such as signal lights, on property belonging to other jurisdictions, Councilmember Etten asked that staff alert the City Council if and when they can provide impetus to Ramsey County or MnDOT, whether at the staff or City Council level, to accelerate their timeframes in improving intersection and roadways as appropriate. Councilmember Etten noted the significant number of roadways in the City of Roseville that were controlled by other jurisdictions, and suggested by the City becoming more proactive in encouraging improvements, the County and/or MnDOT may revise their timeframes accordingly to serve the overall community and region better. Councilmember Etten advised that he would look to staff's leadership to advise the City Council how they could best assist these efforts.
thanked Mr. Etten for bringing that up; and as an example noted staff's current lobbying to move up on the County's priority list the intersection of County Road D and Fairview Avenue.
Mayor Roe noted
that the Public Works Department had in fact used both the Best Value
procurement process and the Lowest Responsible Bidder process. Mayor Roe agreed
with Councilmember Etten's request to provide more detailed information in future RCA's related to particular categories.
Mayor Roe noted
that, while the City applied for and received the $1.2 million in Federal funding
for this project, those dollars were still Federal dollars and not City dollars.
Etten moved, Willmus
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11231 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution
Approving MnDOT Traffic Control Signal Maintenance Agreement No. 1000792
Resolution Approving I-35W at Cleveland Avenue Interchange
Project cooperative Construction Agreement
moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11232 (Attachment A)
entitled, "Resolution Approving MnDOT Cooperative Construction Agreement No.
1000870 (Attachment B)."
Consider Items Removed from Consent
General Ordinances for Adoption
Chris Miller briefly reviewed this request as detailed in the RCA dated July 6,
Mayor Roe opened
and closed the public hearing at approximately 7:15 p.m. for the purpose of
considering a micro distillery off-sale intoxicating liquor license for Blume
Brauhaus, LLC (Bent Brewstillery) located at 1744 Terrace Drive; with no one
appearing for or against.
Business Items (Action Items)
Approve/Deny Micro Distillery Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License
for Blume Brauhaus, LLC (Bent Brewstillery) located at 1744 Terrace Drive
moved, Etten seconded, approval of a micro distillery off-sale intoxicating
liquor license for Blume Brauhaus, LLC (Bent Brewstillery) located at 1744
Terrace Drive, for the remainder of calendar year 2015.
Request by HR LLC for Approval of a FINAL PLAT at 2750 Cleveland
Bryan Lloyd provided a brief summary of this FINAL PLAT request, with the
actual address of the final plat at 2700 Cleveland Avenue (previously listed as
2750 Cleveland Avenue). Mr. Lloyd provided a history of the project and
completion of several of the conditions applied to the previously-approved
PRELIMINARY PLAT, as detailed in the RCA dated July 6, 2015. Displaying the
Final Plat drawing, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff was recommending approval
subject to completion of the remaining eight of ten conditions shown in the
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Mr. Lloyd outlined those conditions already ready addressed and
those yet to be completed.
McGehee noted the difficulty in approving this Final Plat without knowing what
may develop on this site, which may or may not prove impactful to the area and
surrounding properties depending on that actual development. Councilmember
McGehee opined that it seemed premature to her to approve a Final Plat until an
actual development plan was available.
responded that approval of a Final Plat was basically fundamental, and as with
any such plat application, the applicant need not produce any real information
about the actual users; even though it may prove more risky for them to develop
the property boundaries without that knowledge. Mr. Lloyd defined the purpose
in approving a Final Plat to address boundaries and easements without the specific
tenants of the development being known at that time.
In his brief
conversation with the applicant team earlier today, Mr. Lloyd advised that
their main concern was Condition 8 as it related to right-out access onto Twin
Lakes Parkway, of considerable interest to the development team in securing
that access since it impacted what can or cannot be built on the site depending
on the needs of a potential users or exact alignment of the roadway. However,
even though some of those components are important to use of the site, Mr.
Lloyd clarified that a specific development plan or defined tenants are not
necessary for the Final Plat application and approval process.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Lloyd reviewed the approval process for the
Preliminary Plat and public hearing before the Planning Commission and their
recommendation for approval to the City Council; and that process providing
that the Final Plat is then reviewed and approved by the City Council only, and
not the Planning Commission.
referenced map C2.0 regarding the northeast corner showing turn lanes in and
out; and asked for staff's understanding of this parcel's interaction with the north property currently without a Final Plat.
advised that the northern parcel also included an entrance off Iona Lane. Community
Development Director Paul Bilotta clarified that it was important to staff to
ensure the applicant was clear about what was or was not being approved with
the Final Plat approval. Mr. Bilotta addressed the turn lanes as shown were
not being approved as part of the final plat, and staff's understanding of the property to the north and its interaction with this subject property as part of the previously approved Final Plat for that northern parcel. Therefore, Mr. Bilotta advised that the rationale in retaining that condition was to ensure that, it will be a requirement for each property owner to work together on cross access points. They are currently showing two access points: one for the hotel on Iona and another hotel access from Mount Ridge through the Iona property. The additional access point on Twin Lakes Parkway remains an issue to be addressed as noted on that specific condition.
clarified, with Mr. Bilotta confirming, that the only direct access to that
northern lot is from Iona and on the northeast corner of this lot that would
serve both properties. At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Bilotta
advised that there was no traffic control proposed there, other than for the
roundabout at that location that the traffic study had addressed and found
adequate. Noting the lanes reduced from three to one lane at that location,
location of the proposed right-in and right-out, Councilmember Etten sought
clarification of the distance between those access points and the intersection.
At the request
of Mr. Bilotta, Public Works Director/Engineer Marc Culver responded that the
spacing is approximately 200' or less between Cleveland Avenue and the right-out access point. While close, and having shared those same concerns about a vehicle coming out of the access and turning left across several lanes on Cleveland Avenue, Mr. Culver advised that the engineering comments included in the RCA were intended to balance the actual number of right turns coming out and the volume on Twin Lakes Parkway to determine if there was a major issue.
Etten questioned if a right-in with more of a lane for that turn, which seemed
potentially safer from his perspective, would allow vehicles to get off the
roadway and reduce chaos at that point, by requiring the developer to install
responded that it could be required; however, based on existing traffic and
traffic approaching from the roundabout, which will have a reduced speed estimated
at a maximum of 35 mph through that area, given the amount of activity going on
there, he anticipated it was more than likely traffic would be stopped at that
intersection. Personally from a technical standpoint considering all factors,
Mr. Culver opined traffic and stormwater drainage and management would be more
detrimentally impacted than proven beneficial with the addition of a right turn
Willmus questioned if additional conditions could even be legally applied or
required at this point in the plat process.
Laliberte asked for additional information on truck deliveries coming in and
out of those properties, whether from Iona or other road access, and specific
to the northeast corner of this property.
responded that trucks would be coming into the north off the northeast corner
and backing into the loading docks; with turning movements for trucks in and
out rather than moving south.
Team Representatives: Dean Devolis of JAVA Capital Partners, and Mark Krog,
with JAVA Properties and Capital Partners.
While unable to
provide the exact names of tenants at this point in the negotiation process,
Mr. Devolis advised that the larger proposed building would be a single-tenant
use with one tenant consisting of a children's or pediatric medical clinic. Mr. Devolis advised that the smaller building would have two tenants: one a national credit telephone/communications store, and the other a casual family restaurant. Mr. Devolis expressed the development team's excitement about the development and getting the project underway.
reviewed the history of preferred access points originally intended off
Cleveland Avenue, and subsequent disapproval from Ramsey County, causing the intended
tenant on the east to no longer be interested. With tenants now ready and
willing to move forward on the west or front half of the site, Mr. Krog advised
that the development team intended to proceed with the right-out access point,
which the confirmed tenants remained very insistent about. With the loss of
the hoped-for Cleveland Avenue access, Mr. Krog advised that it had made them
emphasize the Iona access. Now having full ownership of the property, Mr. Krog
noted the need to move forward.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Krog advised that plans were to begin
construction by this fall during this construction season; allowing time for
them to seek a tenant for the north side of the parcel.
noted this parcel should provide three diverse uses to benefit not only the
site but also the community as a whole.
No one appeared
for public comment related to this issue.
reiterated that the intention of a Final Plat is strictly to define lot lines
on a map; and even if the easterly lot develops with different tenants and/or
needs, the building tentatively shown may not actually turn out to be located
in that exact location or space, nor be of the same size as indicated. Mayor
Roe clarified that the requested action was approving lot configurations to
facilitate development of the western portion.
McGehee stated a policy question she had (page 3 of the RCA) related to park
dedication fees as noted in the draft Resolution. Councilmember McGehee spoke
in support of a revised policy whereby funds for park dedication remain in the
quadrant of the city in which the development took place.
suggested having that discussion later and separate from this request.
McGehee moved, Willmus
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11233 (Attachment D) entitled, "A
Resolution Approving the FINAL PLAT of Cleveland Club (PF15-002);" property
located at 2700 Cleveland Avenue.
Authorize Filling Human Rights Commission (HRC) Vacancies
As detailed in
the RCA, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed three vacancies due to
resignations on the Human Rights Commission in the past month. Mr. Trudgeon
suggested, once the application process is initiated per current policy, the
City Council may want to hold a discussion on how to approach the HRC process
McGehee noted that the HRC was now at four members, and if all did not attend a
meeting they would have no quorum available, potentially hurting their efforts
to plan an upcoming forum on civility.
Trudgeon confirmed that situation; noting that the HRC had not scheduled a July
meeting was next scheduled to meet in August; and clarified that the forum was
not coming up immediately.
Laliberte expressed her personal preference to talk about this particular
advisory commission to make sure its present scope and function was applicable
going forward. Councilmember Laliberte opined this would also provide the City
Council with an opportunity to assess the work of the HRC and make sure their
charge remains meaningful.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon advised that the next joint meeting with
the HRC was scheduled for August 10, 2015.
concerns raised by Councilmember Laliberte, Councilmember McGehee clarified
that the vacancies were not caused due to any major issue for the HRC, but was
simply a confluence of random occurrences: one moving out of the City, and one
for personal reasons. Councilmember McGehee opined that she didn't think they were caused from any dissatisfaction with the HRC or their role; and having spoken with most of the commissioners, they seemed quite satisfied.
Over the last
few weeks, Councilmember Willmus advised that he had also had an opportunity to
talk to the HRC staff liaison, Kari Collins, who provided some interesting
ideas for the City Council to explore. Councilmember Willmus suggested
deferring action until the next City Council Worksession allowing an opportunity
to talk with the HRC Chair and staff along the lines of Councilmember
Laliberte's comments, and to consider their scope and charge. Councilmember Willmus questioned if the HRC frankly fit better or tied into the Community Engagement Commission, and suggested further discussion to determine if parallels
existed. Councilmember Willmus opined that discussion was more appropriate at a Worksession; and suggested not advertising vacancies at this point if there was any potential of changing the direction of the Commission.
opined that almost presupposed a change of direction for the HRC.
Willmus opined otherwise, suggesting it only provided an opportunity for the
City Council to have that discussion.
agreed that there was no need to advertise for vacancies at this time if there
was a potential change in roles for the HRC; and noted the July 13, 2015 City
Council agenda included a report on and discussion about Community Engagement
by he and Councilmember Laliberte, which may provide a segue into the HRC
discussion. Since more than one advisory commission will be involved, Mayor
Roe suggested that staff invite more than one of the Chairpersons as well.
objection, Mayor Roe directed staff to hold off advertising for vacancies on
the HRC until after those discussions are held.
Based on this
discussion, City Manager Trudgeon clarified that advertising would be
deferred. Mr. Trudgeon also clarified that while staff has some ideas to put
forth, they were not looking to change simply for change's sake; and suggested the City Council may have ideas as well; with the upcoming discussion serving as a springboard for future decisions.
concurred that it would be appropriate to have the City Council discussion
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 7:44 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 7:46 p.m.
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Joint Meeting with Planning Commission
preliminary note, Mayor Roe suggested the Planning Commission may be another
commission the City Council should hold more frequent meetings as being done
welcomed Planning Commissioners, with the entire Commission present; and turned
immediate discussions over to Chair Michael Boguszewski. Members present were
Chair Boguszewski; Vice Chair Shannon Cunningham; and Commissioners James Bull,
James Daire, Chuck Gitzen, Robert Murphy, and David Stellmach.
Boguszewski asked Commissioners to introduce themselves; and recognized the
newest members on the Commission, opining they were stellar additions to the
body, already bringing out points proving the value of their appointment by the
Boguszewski asked that one additional item be included in tonight's discussion: that of move-up housing and the concept intended by the City Council in their recent strategic planning exercise.
suggested initiating discussion with move-up housing and the City Council's objective going forward.
for that discussion, Chair Boguszewski noted over the last few meetings,
comments made by staff and applicants seeking land use approval, that their
requests were in line with fulfilling that City Council directive; and questioned
what was meant or the threshold had been set or arrived at in defining
"move-up" housing stock in Roseville.
Cunningham further noted, from her personal perspective, while developers may
use that as a selling point that they're complying with the City Council's desire for move-up housing, she questioned what the upper limit may actually be, since to her knowledge, the City Council had not yet identified that upper limit.
Laliberte suggested receiving the report of the Commission on their activities
and accomplishments prior to this discussion; as well as hearing from
consultants on tree preservation and planned unit developments, opining that it
may help to inform this discussion. Councilmember McGehee concurred with that
format as done with other groups during joint meetings.
acknowledged the past practice of listing accomplishments to begin joint
meeting discussions, but opined that it did not seem to him that the tree
preservation or PUD discussions would necessarily inform the move up housing
discussion. Mayor Roe recognized Chair Boguszewski to note commission accomplishments
per past practice.
Boguszewski briefly summarized the activities and accomplishments of the
Planning Commission and Variance Board as outlined in the RCA dated July 6,
2015. Chair Boguszewski opined that the commission had helped in general with
the intent for city development, whether through specific direction or in
general as guided by the current comprehensive plan. Chair Boguszewski
admitted there had been some tricky things coming before the commission that
required some interpretation, but opined that the commission had successfully
adjudicated those items through some qualitative and subjective considerations
and avoided major potholes by not looking too specifically at extraneous issues
versus using the strict application of the current zoning code. Chair Boguszewski
opined that sometimes he thought the commission functioned somewhat like a
court where they didn't make the law or rules, but determined whether an applicant met the test. In general, Chair Boguszewski expressed his pride in the commission's service to-date for the benefit of the community.
As a new member
of the commission, Commissioner Bull during his short tenure stated his
favorable impression with the Commission in addressing the viewpoints of
citizens and developers and both perspectives receiving equal weight as part of
their consideration of land use cases.
Boguszewski encouraged favorable comments or "pats on the back" from individual Councilmembers based on their observations of the commission.
indicated the residential garage door discussion and recommendation should
certainly be part of the commission's highlighted accomplishments.
McGehee expressed appreciation for the work of the commission and their
Boguszewski noted the commitment of individual commissioners; whether doing
personal research and site visits for upcoming land use cases, or by attending
as many developer open houses as possible. Chair Boguszewski expressed his
personal appreciation for their role in seeing new development coming into Roseville,
using the 2700 Cleveland Avenue example discussed earlier tonight, and
recognizing the questions being asked by the City Council were similar to those
asked by the Commission.
Daire stated his highlight this year had been his active involvement with the
Community Engagement Commission (CEC) in re-examining the notification boundary
process. During his interview for the Planning Commission, and in his past
career on the City of Minneapolis' planning staff, Commissioner Daire noted the questions about and ideas coming forth regarding organizing community and/or neighborhood groups; and addressing the needs and interests of long-term residents in the community's redevelopment process. Commissioner Daire advised
that in the City of Minneapolis, he was involved with and very aware of their system of planning districts and citizen neighborhood organizations; and opined that the lack of such a system may be what created the negative sparks in Roseville, especially in an environment of a fully-developed community to make sure residents are aware of and participating in planning for the future of their neighborhoods and/or community. While recognizing the limited staff resources available in Roseville to pursue some of those ideas, Commissioner Daire noted there were seven Planning Commissioners available to assist in those efforts as well.
thirty-five years as a Roseville resident, Councilmember McGehee opined that
formal neighborhood associations may not be needed as long as those near
potential redevelopment areas are made aware of those issues, the
already-established tight neighborhoods would coalesce around issues. However,
Councilmember McGehee agreed that the issue was open of community and notice areas;
and opined requiring developer open houses had gone a long way in addressing
some of those past issues, as well as the broader notification area than used
in the past, allowing those residents with a genuine interest to come forward.
Councilmember McGehee opined that many of the issues in the past grew out of
people now knowing about a development or redevelopment project until it came
before the Planning Commission and/or City Council for plat consideration, and
by the time they saw it, the clock was running and they got all in an uproar
due to their lack of awareness or notification. Councilmember McGehee
expressed her appreciation for the new process being used.
Willmus echoed the comments of Councilmember McGehee regarding developer open
houses and the expanded notification area; however, he noted one area still
being struggled with was in notifying renters, whether in single-family
residences or multi-family buildings, or even some commercial occupants as
applicable. Councilmember Willmus opined that was something still needing
attention, how best to reach those people; referencing the past asphalt plant
project affecting a commercial tenant in a multi-tenant building that became a
vocal opponent of the project based on that lack of notification or awareness.
Councilmember Willmus suggested the CEC subgroup continue working on that and
suggest a way to reach those residents early on in the process.
Boguszewski noted that both he and Commissioner Daire had attended those CEC
subgroup meetings, involving how to succeed in notifying those occupants
mentioned by Councilmember Willmus. Chair Boguszewski stated that Community
Development Director Bilotta had been very helpful in talking about some of the
logistics in obtaining and tracking occupants, their names and addresses; and
the subgroup recognized those efforts and difficulties. Regarding the notice
area, Chair Boguszewski opined that certain projects by their very nature may
warrant or mandate a broader geography for notice; or those affecting a school
may require a broader base covering the entire school district boundary as a
default neighborhood. Chair Boguszewski noted that the subgroup would be
bringing forward some recommendations in the near future on potential triggers
based on those discussions.
and speaking specifically of the work of the Variance Board, Chair Murphy noted
the work of that body, and noted as an accomplishment the lack of Variance
Board decisions appealed to-date.
Boguszewski recognized the service of Chair Murphy and Commissioners Daire and
Gitzen in serving on the Variance Board; and thanked them for undertaking those
With Mayor Roe noting
the difficult decisions often involving variance requests and application of
those particular rules fitting a situation, Chair Boguszewski opined that one
measure of the success of the Variance Board and Planning Commission has been
their history of not always following staff recommendations, whether to approve
or deny an application. Chair Boguszewski opined that was an indication they
were fulfilling their function of thinking through projects and not just
involving a rote process, while recognizing staff had mandates to follow, but
allowing the commission to dig deeper under their mandated charge and consider
other factors as well.
During the City
Council's priority planning meetings, Councilmember Willmus advised that from a planning perspective he understood the questions from the commission, but could not personally identify a hard target that indicated whether or not a development proposal fit in that category. Councilmember Willmus opined that it was more of a directive from the City Council to staff based on past experience and future needs for housing stock that addressed higher end or use developments. Councilmember Willmus advised that the $350,000 number was taken
from a Minneapolis housing study about cost benefit and at what value a home consumed less in services than tax revenues generated. Councilmember Willmus noted that would always be a moving target; and questioned whether or not the Planning Commission needed to consider this criteria in evaluating a proposal, to which he considered the answer to be "no."
Boguszewski opined that that statement from Councilmember Willmus in itself was
helpful for him.
Etten concurred with the comments of Councilmember Willmus; opining that there
was no specific value range, but intended as a concept in looking at the next
level of housing stock to retain residents moving up from their existing
housing unit within Roseville versus them feeling the need to relocate to
another community if that housing stock was not available in Roseville. Councilmember
Etten opined it was sometimes difficult to find that quality of housing, and
used as an example the Josephine Heights/Pulte Homes addition as serving as a
huge boon to that effort in keeping those families in Roseville.
Boguszewski expressed his fear as developers hear about that desire, they
automatically set that as their asking price when the actual value of the home
may not be worth that amount; and questioned if developers may attempt to skew
their price points to get more sympathy from the City Council and/or staff for
their particular project.
Etten opined that the market itself should take care of that. Councilmember
Etten noted the ongoing and huge need, as recognized by the HRA and City
Council, for single-level homes under $350,000 accessible for elderly
residents, sustaining that housing unit stock without exclusively encouraging
the higher-end housing stock.
Boguszewski agreed that the free market had its own way to address housing
values; and expressed appreciation for Councilmember Etten's comments.
Based on her
personal perspective, Vice Chair Cunningham stated how she struggled with
developers coming in with homes that are more in the higher range of $650,000;
and her difficulty in considering those as move-up housing when considering the
financial status of her own family and her friends, who were unable to afford
that price point, even though they may be at the point of considering "move-up"
housing as their next step.
Etten agreed that it was beyond his personal financial status as well; and
considered the range of $350,000 to $450,000 more of an appropriate range for
move-up housing rather than any higher than that. Councilmember Etten echoed
the comments of Chair Boguszewski in developers and/or staff coming forward
with their proposals stating they are in line with City Council goals; and
thanked the commission for considering this as part of their concerns.
Laliberte concurred with the comments of Councilmember Etten, opining that it
was premature of the Commission to factor that price point into anything they
were reviewing. Councilmember Laliberte noted the housing and redevelopment
segment of the priority planning by the City Council had been kept alive, but
the target measures and initiatives had not been adopted as there remained
considerable work to be done. Opining that move-up housing meant something
different to everyone, Councilmember Laliberte stated she was not comfortable
with defining a target range, with the category of housing stock for transition
housing still missing from the equation. Noting that past comments heard
anecdotally about the lack of high-end housing in Roseville to attract corporate
officers, Councilmember Laliberte noted the large segment of Roseville's population representing aging baby boomers, not looking to move up in cost, but moving toward a simpler, maintenance-free lifestyle that is available with association-type housing. Whether seeking to move-up or simplify, Councilmember Laliberte noted the need for the City Council in their strategic plan moving forward, specific to the housing and redevelopment priority.
McGehee agreed with her colleague's comments; noting she had brought up $350,000 as part of the Minnesota Department of Revenue's study on fiscal disparities. Recognizing the aging housing stock in Roseville, Councilmember McGehee noted the need to refurbish and uplift that stock, whether through use of the programs offered by the HRA, or through new development coming in; agreeing that there was a broad range of values and any figure could be deemed arbitrary, with the median home price in Roseville now listed at $215,000, which in her mind was relatively inexpensive. From her perspective and beyond the need for available affordable housing, Councilmember McGehee opined that to her the diversity of that housing stock was much more important.
diversity, Mayor Roe noted the desire for more diversity in housing stock was
originally how the high-end, move-up housing stock was brought up as they were found
to be under-represented in Roseville's current housing marketplace. With a majority of the City's homes constructed from 1950 through 1970, Mayor Roe noted it was very uniform in type. If the Planning Commission was approached or a developer's proposal suggested it was meeting the City's price point, Mayor Roe suggested the Planning Commission's response should be that consideration of that point was not part of the commission's role. Mayor Roe noted the City's equal interest in identifying under-represented housing in other price ranges as well; and sought any suggestions from the commission on ways for the City Council to promote policies to accomplish those goals.
Willmus opined that it will always be part of a developer's narrative to highlight the great thing they're going to do and the price it can achieve; however, he noted that is not and should not be part of the Planning Commission's consideration as it was beyond zoning and comprehensive plan consideration for land use items coming before it. Councilmember Willmus opined that the commission dealt with much more fundamental considerations than a developer's price point, but recognized it was a developer's job to market their properties however and whenever possible.
Cunningham opined that a lot of the conversation about move-up housing seemed
to be coming more from staff through the objectives and goals listed in their
staff reports; which may be misleading and need further consideration going
In defense of
staff, Mayor Roe noted staff was always eager to promote the initiatives of the
Willmus opined that the Planning Commission had done a good job of calling
attention to lot sizes and that was what the City Council was seeking in
considering whether a project met goals or not; and not as an expectation that
staff considers a project complies with a certain goal. Councilmember Willmus
thanked the commission for their thorough review of and questions on the
applicability of land use cases, which were of great value to the City Council.
Specific to the
next discussion on tree preservation and planned unit developments, Councilmember
McGehee opined that the commission's adherence to involving residents and how new homes fit into an existing neighborhood was of critical importance.
From a context
point of view, both philosophically and implementation-wise, Chair Boguszewski
expressed the commission's interest in the tree preservation ordinance discussion for future mandates and details to provide equity for all and preserving those existing trees as community assets.
Preservation Ordinance Update
Ben Gozola, Sambatek
and Mark Reeder, S & S Tree Service
introduced Mark Reeder from S & S Tree Service, with each consultant
providing a brief personal biography and a history of their company and services
they provided. Mr. Gozola advised that he would be involved in the process and
ordinance writing for each objective; with Mr. Reeder providing detailed expertise
on tree preservation and replacement.
Taking the lead
in the presentation, Mr. Gozola advised that the intent was two-fold: to
exactly understand what the community wished to accomplish, and general
approaches based on feedback from the City Council tonight to reach an understanding.
Mr. Gozola noted each community was different and provided examples of other
communities and their variable foci. Mr. Gozola advised that he had researched
meeting minutes from the City as part of his background information provided
during this presentation and his findings of areas for discussion to glean a
better understanding of the community.
At the request
of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Gozola confirmed that woodland preservation areas
included both private and public properties; frequently identified through GIS
mapping; and ecologically rated by species.
McGehee noted the need to consider Roseville as a flyway area for migratory
song birds over Minneapolis to Langton Lake and surrounding areas where quality
vegetation is needed.
reviewed tree ordinances for the cities of Minnetonka, Savage, and Farmington
among others and their specific approaches.
Boguszewski expressed interest in the tree bank program as a concept he'd be interested in pursuing if moving in that direction in addressing replacement rates and incentives for woodland protection and tree "banking" credits.
Daire opined it seemed presumptive to have to replace or take the base line as
it is now and anything coming later was referred back to that baseline, making
it implicit that there was no consideration of or underlying idea that the
current status is enough. Commissioner Daire suggested consideration also
should be given to air quality, amount of shade, sunlight penetration you can
use to define where or if you need additional foliage, and other issues as
noted that this was getting to the heart of discussion, and sought to hear
goals or what the City Council and Commission wished to accomplish; at which
point he would work with staff to draft an ordinance to achieve those specific
Murphy asked if any cities had a concept to put trees somewhere beyond a
development like park; and opined that would have been nice alternative to have
available with the recent Pizza Lucé development and nearby Oasis Park that
could have benefitted.
In his role
serving as a Planner for the City of Victoria during a transitional period, Mr.
Gozola advised that they allowed that concept in other areas of the community
if no place was available on the existing project site, even though their ordinance
was very strict.
McGehee suggested the use of trees along freeways as sound barriers, which had
been considered in past discussions.
Boguszewski noted the issues brought up so far involved symmetric as mentioned
by Commissioner Daire and a rationale for establishing goals.
Mr. Reeder noted
other ideas in communities, and software applications to establish a baseline,
such as by addressing canopy coverage vacillating, to consider where to go in
Daire spoke in support of that approach.
Boguszewski opined that underpinning the whole concept, the key seemed to allow
part of the comprehensive plan to involve a quantitative plan by holding a broader
public discourse around the entire concept and not just the city deciding they
have authority of trees in a private yard, but agreeing to a good, long-term
goal for the entire community. Chair Boguszewski opined that it certainly made
things more palatable rather than his initial concerns that a tree ordinance
was within the realm of government overreach.
continued with examples from other communities, including addressing either
mechanism during development and/or construction (Maple Grove), limiting tree
preservation to a subdivision versus zoning ordinance (Plymouth), or cash in
lieu of tree removal or restoration (Minnestrista).
As outlined in
Attachment A of Sambatek's memorandum dated July 6, 2015, Mr. Gozola reviewed his current project understanding and observations of the community's current status.
noted the points discussing flexibility on the part of the community and the
overarching goal of why to keep or increase trees as part of the educational
piece as well.
Mayor Roe noted
the need to justify any city ordinance with some kind of policy.
While hearing a
lot about tree preservation from Planning Commission discussions, Councilmember
Willmus stated his observation of their deliberations was based on how they
were interpreting the letter of the law with the zoning code and comprehensive
plan. However, Councilmember Willmus noted that the Tree Board, as a role of
the Parks & Recreation Commission, had not yet been heard from, and
expressed his desire to make sure they weighed in on this discussion as a vital
part of the equation.
eight year tenure with the City, City Manager Trudgeon advised that he was not
aware of the Tree Board being involved much or being aware of their actual
role. However, going forward, Mr. Trudgeon advised that he would incorporate
them into these discussions.
McGehee opined that Public Works was also part of the equation, as this
involved the entire city, whether private trees, right-of-way or boulevard
trees, or those located in parks or general common spaces. Councilmember
McGehee opined that some of the issues of importance to her included grouping
trees or massing them to identify certain areas; recognizing the flyway migratory
areas; retaining vegetation in natural areas; diversity with boulevard tree
planning, as well as its spacing for maintenance and to ensure tree survival,
and how to address use of underground stormwater storage in irrigating trees.
Councilmember McGehee also noted her concerns heard from residents in their
lack of confidence with tree inspections requiring the expensive removal of
apparently diseased trees, and subsequent discovery when analyzed by the U of
MN that they were not actually diseased at all. Councilmember McGehee
expressed her lack of support for planting elsewhere in lieu of the immediate
development area, opining that provided nothing but wasteland in some areas and
overcrowding in other areas. Councilmember McGehee further noted a recent
newspaper article about one old growth tree species (the state's largest Butternut tree) in the community that needed to be preserved.
Willmus agreed with Councilmember McGehee in the need to call attention to old
growth trees, with much of the tree planning occurring as the community grew
from farmland to residential during the 1950's through 1970's; and impressive growth achieved without any actual tree preservation plan in place. During the Pulte Housing Development project, Councilmember Willmus admitted it had served as a real eye opener for the City Council in clear-cutting that area for development and replacing those trees that may be found lacking from some perspectives. Councilmember Willmus clarified that he was not interested in an ordinance governing or requiring a private resident to cut down an old tree or having to approach City Hall to get a replacement tree permit, but was more concerned with an ordinance addressing subdivisions or redevelopment and consistent and fair questions to ask as part of that process.
recognizing that the Planning Commission as a body didn't have authority over what the City Council ultimately adopted as an ordinance, Chair Boguszewski noted the individual comments of commissioners, and their willingness to serve on a task force or advisory board to assist the City Council in their efforts.
Mayor Roe noted
that got back to the balance question and what triggered enforcement; and his
tendency to agree with Councilmember Willmus' interest in a reasonable approach to promote adding trees, but recognizing while there may not be much old growth from a technical sense, the community still had some significant trees.
agreed that it was necessary to decide the City's purpose in having such an ordinance, with an excellent list available in the annual Arbor Day Resolution addressing the City's regulatory function and benefits for the community and its overall health and public good. Councilmember Etten noted the involvement of the Tree Board as part of the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) infestation; and encouraged Mr. Gozola and Reeder to review the staff RCA prepared for the November 17, 2014 and past discussions. While perhaps not being a desirable species, Councilmember Etten noted there was value in a 70' tall Cottonwood tree as a significant tree, even though not considered a specimen tree, a common sight in Roseville. Councilmember Etten expressed his interest in incentives to preserve such trees; and noted his frustrations in not tying together a tree preservation plan drawing with the grading plan drawing during review of land use cases during the Planning Commission and City Council review, opining that they needed to go together to understand the overall impact of building in a readable format. Under current code, Councilmember Etten noted the negative potential to clear all trees in the right-of-way, such as evidenced near Lady Slipper Park on West Owasso Boulevard, but recognizing the positive impact with the replacement berm embankment and appreciation of it as a justification to clear the area, and not just because it happened to be on the right-of-way. Councilmember Etten noted the big impacts to neighborhoods, and solar considerations to address and how to balance those interests as part of the process.
the previously-noted Pulte Development, Councilmember McGehee noted the need to
address tree protection during the construction process, and her concern in the
impacts of the Oaks with compaction of their root mass during that construction
process, without any guidelines in place to address that.
also addressed the Pizza Lucé development as an example and the lack of staff
resources to continually monitor every development without professional
assistance to maintain quality trees.
Laliberte expressed her appreciation of this presentation and examples from
other communities. Councilmember Laliberte stated her biggest concern was with
the Pulte Project serving as a wake-up call for her in the potential for
clear-cutting trees and starting from scratch. Councilmember Laliberte agreed
that she was not interested in the city assessing or approving a private
property owner's need to remove a tree for insurance and/or structure issues, nor in their being required to jump through hoops to accomplish that work, given the expensive nature of such a venture to remove a tree already. Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of coordinating with various departments and commissions as an integrated part of the decision-making process for the City Council and addressing where responsibilities lie and where final decisions were made; and whether current staffing or a different staffing model was indicated as part of the process moving forward.
Trudgeon thanked Councilmember Willmus for bringing the Tree Board to his
attention; noting they did not currently have a direct role in reviewing tree
preservation, which was often tied to development. However, Mr. Trudgeon noted
the need to include their perspective related to shade trees, pests, and
boulevard issues; and noted the need to reconcile their role with this discussion.
opined that the City's first attempt at a tree preservation ordinance was good, but now it was time to refine it. As noted by Councilmember Etten and the discussion held in November of 2014, Mayor Roe opined that fairly reflected the thoughts of the City Council, and while there may be a difference of opinion among individual Councilmembers about ultimate triggers, the policy decision needed to be made. Mayor Roe indicated that to begin that process, a draft ordinance would provide something for the City Council to respond to, while hoping tonight's input had provided some parameter within which to start that work.
thanked the City Council for their overall direction, noting he was not hearing
anything to indicate the points already pointed out were not out-of-line or
off-base, but still grounded in what the City hoped to accomplish. Mr. Gozola
thanked Planning Commissioners for their input as well; and expressed his interest
in bringing all boards and departments into the consultation process. Since
this is the first introductory meeting held, Mr. Gozola noted next steps would
be to review this discussion with staff, define a cost to develop an ordinance,
with nothing signed to-date; and bringing that proposal back to the City
Council with a plan about how to get the city where they thought they wanted to
opined that the preservation areas provided an interesting concept (e.g. Acorn
Road) that may indicate different replacement rates, as well as credits for
off-site replacement and/or tree "banking," all of which he found worthy to look at. Mayor Roe opined that the "cash in lieu of" for trees could fund those wanting to put up a tree and the ability to do so at a reduced cost, offering his interest in looking at that concept.
earlier comments and what additional information was needed, Councilmember
Laliberte noted the need to have all departments aligned and working together. Recognizing the position for a Forester posted earlier this year, Councilmember
Laliberte noted the need to hear more options: whether a staff position was
preferable, or an outside consultant or business; or whether the City's role was to get involved in the business or identifying good or bad trees beyond disease issues (e.g. EAB) to avoid being seen as "tree snobs."
lines of good or bad trees, Councilmember McGehee noted the need to avoid
encouraging planting of noxious invasive trees, but also providing a general
list of trees that differentiated between native or non-native plantings rather
than trying to define all tree species; but only those not serving to encroach
Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance Update
Similar to the
presentation for tree preservation, Mr. Gozola outlined previous discussions as
listed in Attachment B dated July 6, 2015; defined what PUD's were, their commonalities and variables by community, various approaches, and what they should look link in Roseville.
strongly recommended the City Council's consideration of using an overlay district concept, and provided his rationale in making that recommendation based on most of the zoning regulations already in place or available for specific consideration in a PUD and providing an important safeguard; better understanding by the public in understanding the rezoning concept through use of a PUD; and special regulations available in code and accessible to all. Mr. Gozola further opined that by controlling things via zoning, it provided the City Council with greater authority to make changes in the future rather than using the Conditional Use approach for a one-time situation and setting conditions that hopefully didn't miss any important issue during that process. Mr. Gozola
advised that the PUD provided the City the ability to zone by right versus
discretionary zoning; and provided more assurance and specificity for a
developer that a good end product would be achieved.
reviewed other considerations, such as where to allow PUD's; how and why to allow them; and the main goals desired by the City in using PUD's and specific benefits to focus on. Mr. Gozola sought input on the current background and project understanding shown on pages 2 - 4 of Attachment B.
with concurrence by Mayor Roe, stated he would not agree with a PUD only being
tied to a subdivision process only; but would look at applicability beyond just
Willmus stated that Mr. Gozolas' presentation slides #25 and #26 concisely
stated his thoughts on PUD's.
McGehee stated there should be no limit on where a PUD should be; advised that
she was not a fan of Conditional Use permits; and liked the sustainability and
stormwater management aspects; and supported structured parking as incentives.
To add to what
was already stated, Mayor Roe opined that the PUD process should not be unrestricted
as to what could be donebut more specific as to the limits and what can
happen. Mayor Roe stated he was not supportive of a PUD approval based on who
was sitting at the City Council dais rather than having a consistent policy for
a developer to follow versus doing whatever they wanted to do. Mayor Roe spoke
in support of standards and parameters that outlived a sitting City Council to
avoid potential arbitrary issues or concerns. Mayor Roe opined that a
perceived problem with the old PUD's was that basically anything could be
proposed with majority support of the City Council.
McGehee stated her biggest concern with the old PUD was the lack of protection
for underlying zoning as implemented and without a public engagement piece.
Mayor Roe concurred
that the public engagement piece was missing in most development activity at
that time. Councilmember McGehee recognized and agreed with the five points for
flexibility as listed: building placement, parking standards, trees/landscaping,
exterior materials, and open spaces.
Etten agreed with presentation slides #25 and #26 as well; noting that the tree
preservation ordinance stated the same objective in allowing flexibility as
with the PUD. Councilmember Etten opined that overlaying the PUD with
underlying zoning made a lot of sense and served the community better in the
Willmus echoed the comments of Councilmember McGehee, agreeing that the
community had issues with the old PUD when the underlying zoning was stripped
away and protections lost. Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the directions
highlighted, with specificity or a broad general look, and the overlay
maintaining the underlying zoning. Councilmember Willmus stated he had less
concern about having a more open book and seeing what creative aspects could
come out in some areas.
Mayor Roe noted
that in the old process, the PUD was zoning and you had to catch everything, and
clarified that many PUD's with perceived problems as he previously stated actually did not get approved.
Boguszewski asked individual commissioners to share their thoughts specific to
Daire stated one thing that struck him is the quid pro quo nature of the PUD,
allowing tailoring of responses for staff, the Commission and City Council for
a development proposal. Commissioner Daire agreed that if you had four units,
this would not be a good tool for that, but it allowed for creative give and
take; and agreed that the PUD can't be used to work around the variance process. If it was felt there was the need for some ability to address good proposals at the same time as offsetting their impacts, Commissioner Daire agreed that the PUD concept allowed for that versus the Conditional Use permit process; and also agreed with the idea of an overlay designated zone for PUD's. From an historical standpoint, Commissioner Daire opined that it was difficult to see where the Conditional Use permit applied and impacts they've had, while with an overlay district they could be quickly identified, such as with the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area for focus.
Bull agreed the idea of an overlay served as a great foundation as long as the
structural standards remained behind it, and allowing the PUD flexible
guidelines. With that flexibility, Commissioner Bull opined it was harder to apply
standards and could create difficulty for staff, the Commission and City
Council to determine trade-offs.
Cunningham agreed with the concepts of presentation slide #25.
Murphy agreed with keeping the underlying zoning requirements and whatever
language would be constructed to provide a measure of success if applied
consistently. Commissioner Murphy noted that, even with different staff and/or
Councilmembers, the rules would remain the same from year to year and receive
similar results when applied.
Stellmach expressed appreciation for all of tonight's information and discussion, but offered no opinion or comment beyond that at this time without having more time to digest it.
opined that the PUD was an important tool for the City Council; and allowed
consideration of a variety of options and some sensitivity for particular
sites. Commissioner Gitzen opined that the PUD process should provide for land
uses and density variations as the community redeveloped and moved ahead.
Boguszewski also agreed with the need for strong public outreach upfront to
make sure of a transparent, consistent process and application of standards to
avoid misperceptions as often found in the past.
McGehee agreed with Councilmember Willmus' statement about creativity; opining that often with rigid planning it seemed that only the City or its staff had really good ideas; while this could open the City up to other ideas and diverse projects.
When the City
Council first started considering this, Councilmember Willmus noted it was
specifically under the context of residential applications or uses; however,
the more he considered it, he was now finding himself looking citywide to
address future questions.
agreed with a citywide consideration and opined that the Conditional Use was
not a bad tool, but that it really was most applicable specifically to allowing
a particular type of use, with conditions, and could not be used very well as a
tool for flexibility beyond just the type of use on the site. Mayor Roe opined
the PUD provided a more flexible tool to deal with multiple issues broader than
a Conditional Use permit; and while he was initially opposed to reopening the
PUD process, he was now coming around.
thanked the Planning Commission for their attendance tonight, their ongoing
good work, and their input for this discussion.
thanked the City Council and Planning Commission for this joint meeting, and
the helpful feedback it provided him.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
City Manage Trudgeon
briefly reviewed upcoming draft agendas.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
McGehee requested future discussion of park dedication fees and retaining those
funds proportionally in the area from which they initiated.
suggested having that discussion as Park Dedication policies come forward as a
result of the recent joint discussion with the Park & Recreation
Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:46 p.m.