View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
February 23, 2015
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: Willmus,
Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney
Mark Gaughan were also present.
2. Pledge of
3. Approve Agenda
McGehee requested removal of Item 8.e from the Consent Agenda for separate
Willmus moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.
Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
Baker, 935 Roselawn Avenue
confirmed with Mayor Roe the allotted time for public comment on the Victoria
Communications, Reports, and Announcements
announced vacancies on several Citizen Advisory Commissions, with the application
deadline on March 2, interviews scheduled on March 9, and appointments for
terms beginning April 1, scheduled March 23, 2015. Applications and additional
information are available on the City's website under the "commissions" tab.
announced an upcoming free community conversation scheduled at 6:30 p.m. on
March 16, 2016 at the Roseville Skating Center, sponsored in part by the Human
Rights Commission, and addressing mental health illness issues in general and
Mayor Roe noted
that his annual State of the City Address would be presented on February 25,
2015 at 7:30 a.m. as part of the monthly Roseville Business Council to be held
at Affinity Credit Union in Roseville; and sponsored in part by the Twin Cities
North and St. Paul Area Chambers of Commerce.
announced scholarship opportunities available through the North Suburban Cable
Commission for residents of the nine member communities with students interested
in communication, journalism or similar studies. Additional information, with
a deadline of April 10, 2015 for scholarship applications, is available at
ctvnorthsuburbs.org/scholarships or by calling 651/792-7515.
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 Minutes of February 9, 2015 Meeting
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2015 as presented.
Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.
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 February 23, 2015.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and
76499 - 76634
Approve Business and Other Licenses and Permits
moved, Etten 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 $5,000
Etten 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 January
Certify Unpaid Utility and Other Charges to the Property Tax
moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11209 (Attachment A)
entitled, "Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Levy Unpaid Water, Sewer
and Other City Charges for Payable 2015 or Beyond."
Consider Items Removed from Consent
Receive Annual Police Forfeiture Report
the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed this
item as detailed in specific Requests for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments,
dated February 23, 2015.
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Police Chief Mathwig clarified that there
were several accounts: two under Minnesota State Statutes, and one under
Federal Statutes, with different guidelines for all three. Chief Mathwig
responded that federal funds could be used for supplemental staffing under
strict interpretation, and depending on the current State Attorney General's
definition of "supplemental" employees.
the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Chief Mathwig also clarified that forfeiture
funds varied and were therefore not a sustainable use for personnel or
consensus, the report was received and acknowledged.
General Ordinances for Adoption
Approve Rental Licensing Ordinance Amendment
Coordinator Don Munson reviewed the requested action, as detailed in the
February 23, 2015 RCA. Mr. Munson advised that revisions had been made based
on staff's previous presentation to the City Council and subsequent discussions,
and in consultation with the City Attorney.
noted several other potential language revisions as suggested by Councilmembers
(page 4, lines 130 - 143) and suggested that with City Council consensus, staff
return at a later date with recommendations for either or both of those suggestions.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1476 (Attachment A) entitled, "An
Ordinance Amending Title 9, Chapter 908 to Regulate Rental Licensing for
Multi-Family Rental Dwelling Units;" and approval of the Memorandum of Understanding
policy; directing staff regarding incentives and criminal background checks as
recommended and noted in the RCA dated February 23, 2015.
clarified that the Memorandum of Understanding referenced in the ordinance was
included for guidance (page 3, lines 91 - 107 of the RCA).
Laliberte thanked staff for tweaking this new program based on actual
application to make it work better for all parties.
moved, Laliberte seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1476 (Attachment
B) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Title 9, Chapter 908 of the Roseville City
Code to Regulate Rental Licensing for Multi-Family Rental Dwelling Units."
seconded by Etten, directing staff to return with recommendations for
incentives for smoke-free buildings and a way to emphasize the requirement of
criminal background checks.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Mayor Roe noted that it would be appropriate to have
this come forward again in work session format for discussion prior to action.
Twin Lakes Area Traffic Study Update
Engineer Marc Culver provided background information for design and completion
of Twin Lakes Parkway; and to verify and/or respond to other questions raised regarding
accuracy of the previous traffic study and changes in the area and within the
Culver advised that the City Council had previously directed staff to contract
with a traffic consultant to update the 2007 traffic study and the original Alternative
Urban Area-wide Review (AUAR) completed in 2001. Mr. Culver noted that the
study included changes in traffic volume, corridors and intersections, and impacts
of an extension of Twin Lakes Parkway. Mr. Culver introduced Mr. Vaughn.
Consulting Group Traffic Engineer Craig Vaughn
Vaughan noted that he had also performed the 2007 traffic study as well as this
update; and appreciated the opportunity to verify his previous data and modeling
with the realities under this update.
Vaughn's presentation highlighted data and findings encapsulated in his
Memorandum dated February 12, 2015 (Attachment A) and included with the RCA.
highlights included recognizing the expanded study area not originally included
in past analyses and bounded by Snelling Avenue, Cleveland Avenue, County Road
D and County Road C within the City of Roseville. Mr. Vaughan noted this
involved sixteen key intersections, with two found to already be operating
unacceptably (Lincoln Drive and Snelling Avenue as they intersected with County
of the findings and comparisons included: changes to the 2030 regional travel
demand model since the 2007 AUAR study (page 13); operation levels of the
sixteen key intersections and their operations (page 7); recommended roadway
improvements under future conditions (page 18); and recommended improvements
under all three scenarios for Fairview and Lydia Avenues (page 22); in addition
to the affects projected for extension of Twin Lakes Parkway (pages 23-25).
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Vaughn reviewed industry standard
traffic modeling was done and calculations applied, and differential information
used in a regional travel demand model utilizing existing conditions and travel
volumes in the area today and how it could exist based on traffic originating
at or near the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. Mr. Vaughn also provided a
definition of mitigation opportunities in various segments as future road projects
Culver noted that this took into consideration that it was recognized all of
the roadways were not operating well and above capacity, while seeking opportunities
to improve capacity at some of the more problematic intersections and as
right-of-way and roadway width allowed to provide a more concise and through
movement of traffic. Mr. Culver clarified that this did not include any
associated dollar amount, but was kept in mind as various funding sources
became available and as development continued. Mr. Culver noted that there
would also be additional costs associated with such mitigation efforts, but
could serve to benefit traffic movement when combined with other efforts (e.g.
trail blazing signage or way finding) to re-route traffic to Snelling Avenue.
Etten noted the presence of Ramsey County to participate in this discussion and
address findings. Councilmember Etten advised that he had previously spoken to
Ramsey County Commissioner McGuire and her staff regarding potential ways to
improve traffic flow and improve congestion, whether or not the City did
specific projects or not.
Culver advised that Joe Lux from Ramsey County was present and could respond or
expand on comments; and noted that Roseville staff had held preliminary
detailed discussions with Ramsey County for long-term plans for area roadways,
especially intersections that deserved some attention. However, Mr. Culver
noted that these intersections were not currently on the Ramsey County capital
improvement plan, but that they were aware of them and looking at them. Mr.
Culver expressed staff's commitment to continue working cooperatively with
Ramsey County and MnDOT to find short-term as well as long-term solutions to
improve intersection operations.
Lux, Ramsey County Transportation Planner
Lux agreed with Mr. Culver's assessment of casual discussions to-date regarding
traffic generation issues at County Road D, Fairview Avenue, and Lake Johanna
Boulevard and spillover of that Lake Johanna Boulevard traffic into the Lydia
Avenue intersection. Mr. Lux noted that, when Presbyterian Homes began their
Arden Hills facility expansion, they acquired homes in the north triangle, and
held discussions with Ramsey County on whether realignment of New Brighton
Boulevard 600' north would allow a signal at that intersection. While that may
be a few years away yet to address current delays, Mr. Lux advised that it
would improve that intersection. Mr. Lux advised that, at the Ramsey Council
staff level, discussions had included restriping, and noted from Mr. Vaughn's report
the significant right-turn movement at Lydia that could possibly be addressed
by striping the northbound lanes and reconfiguring the southbound lane accordingly,
while still maintaining sufficient shoulder width.
Laliberte thanked Mr. Lux for his attendance, and asked if any conversations
had been held about County Road C and Lincoln Drive at Snelling Avenue.
Lux responded that discussion had not yet occurred, even though some discussion
of a westbound right-turn lane on Snelling had been discussed only conceptually
and as additional capacity improvements were needed. Due to the railroad
location, Mr. Lux noted that there wasn't a lot that Ramsey County could do;
and further noted that the intersection of Lincoln Drive was difficult due to
its proximity to Snelling Avenue and efficiently time signals, creating ongoing
McGehee asked how effective a roundabout would be at the five-leg intersection
at New Brighton and Lake Johanna Boulevards versus waiting several more years
and realigning the intersection after land acquisition.
Lux opined that it would be efficient, and only create some issues with nearby
driveways, but once resolved would operate well, with only a small investment
required to acquire additional rights-of-way. However, at this time, Mr. Lux advised
that Ramsey County did not have the ability to model it.
Mr. Vaughn agreed with Mr. Lux's assessment of that intersection, opining that
given the existing traffic of that intersection, any additional traffic control
(a signal or roundabout) would work. Having a broader or more regional
transportation view, Mr. Mr. Vaughn opined that right-of-way acquisition would
be much more critical, unless a decision was made to reduce the intersection to
a 4-legged intersection and make modifications to tie it in, which he thought
could be done. Mr. Vaughn noted a roundabout would introduce lower speeds, and
would prove a good solution at that location.
timing of improvements, Councilmember Laliberte asked Mr. Lux how any City
improvements on its interior roadway infrastructure could improve things if
Roseville wasn't even on the County's plans; and asked how the two entities
could get more in sync for things to happen in tandem.
Lux advised that through City and County staff continuing to discuss and
communicate these issues, with this updated study providing a more formal format
for the County to take notice. While nothing is currently programmed, Mr. Lux
opined that didn't mean it couldn't be programmed in a relatively short time. Mr. Lux noted that funding was always a significant issue, and existing
warrants (e.g. crash data) did not indicate problems at the two most
problematic intersections, which was incredibly good, but didn't lend an incentive
to get things done from a safety funding standpoint. However, Mr. Lux
reiterated that this study paved the way to get things done.
Laliberte sought clarification that there was no indication that the lowest
rated intersections were dangerous in terms of safety, just slow.
Culver responded affirmatively, suggesting that a lack of safety concerns may
be due to the level of congestion along Fairview Avenue, with the roadway being
flat and open with plenty of wide shoulders and two all-way stops; and unfortunately
therefore limiting funding options. Mr. Culver noted the problems encountered
during p.m. peak drive times or when events occur or incidents on I-35W,
creating even more significant congestion issues on Fairview Avenue.
McGehee questioned if there were any legal requirements obligating the City and
its taxpayers to provide assistance to correct traffic issues that are
significantly under the purview of the County and State.
Culver responded that from the perspective of the roadway and corridor itself,
they were maintained by Ramsey County and their responsibility to monitor and
maintain it, as well as to program the corridor for capacity and safety.
However, Mr. Culver noted that, when a County project was undertaken, it
included a local cost share and obligation for the municipal jurisdiction.
Lux used Terrace Drive as a good example: as a City street, it intersected with
a County Road (Fairview Avenue) and there would be a 50/50 cost split between
the County and City of Roseville if a four-way signal was installed. However,
Mr. Lux acknowledged the foresight of City staff to retain a right-of-way on
the west side, so when that does develop, it will keep future costs down. Mr.
Lux also noted that funding for development-driven signals were often passed
onto the developer by the City, with some cities escrowing funds from
developments for that purpose. Mr. Lux advised that the County also required
lead time to build such improvements into its budget similar to the City's
the past, Councilmember McGehee noted that the City had attempted to build in
infrastructure costs into the development, but the concept had been legally challenged,
and ultimately eliminated as an option. Councilmember McGehee questioned how
Mr. Lux's proposal differed from what the City had already tried.
Culver clarified that Councilmember McGehee was referencing originally proposed
Traffic Impact Fees that had been legally and successfully challenged, with
those fees intended for collection some time prior to and sometimes
post-development. Mr. Culver noted that an example of a past success was with
the WalMart development, when specific impacts to the adjacent road network was
identified with a specific development, and required to pay for those improvements,
similar to a development triggering installation of a traffic signal. Mr.
Culver advised that in a lot of cases, a developer may not be happy to do so,
but most realized that the success of their development was dependent on those
improvements as well. However, Mr. Culver noted that a Regional Traffic Impact
Fee was more difficult to justify, probably impacting why it failed.
Roe further clarified that, after that failure to implement those fees, it was
the City's decision to proceed with the Minnesota Statute Chapter 429 assessment
process to demonstrate benefits to properties with infrastructure improvement.
I-35W managed lane improvements, Mayor Roe sought additional information as to
the status of those intended improvements.
Vaughn responded that the improvement was programmed within MnDOT's most recent
plans, but proper due diligence and analysis had been performed to determine
that it provided a positive impact on the transportation system, and should be
next in line for improvements. Mr. Vaughn noted the improvements found already
with the work on the I-35E, I-494 and Highway 62 managed lanes in mitigating
not sure of the status of that study, Mr. Lux noted that MnDOT indicated the
managed lanes would be built by 2019.
Roe opened discussion for public comment at 7:08 p.m., reviewing protocol, and
the intent to respond to questions tonight or at subsequent meetings as
McCormick expressed appreciation for the presentation, and listed a number of questions:
· Sought further clarification of changes referenced to the regional
transportation system (page 4 of the SRF Report) and clarification if that
included I-35W construction as early as 2019 and when proposed for completion
· Rationale in and accountability for indicating a 15% decrease
· Clarify the table that Fairview and Lydia are currently operating
at a Level B (page 7)
· Applied 15% reduction to account for two regional distributions
(page 13) and the expanded rationale for that calculated reduction, if more
than a multi-use trip and potential traffic generation
Assumptions relying on two additional lanes on Snelling Avenue
and if that was programmed, or when expected to occur
Table 7: Snelling Avenue level of service indicated at F and
improving to E that still seems unacceptable, and whether other mitigation
efforts were acceptable in that area
· If modifications are not made to Snelling Avenue, and diversion
flowing to alternate routes, when that was anticipated
· Questioned if the study looked at proposed modifications with
one-direction turn lanes on some intersections if only for right-turns and if
that was taken into account as a potential mitigation, as opposed to both
right- and left-turns
· Comments by Mr. Vaughn in follow-up that few regional trips were
expected to use Twin Lakes Parkway; opining that it sounded like that was based
on existing data without development; and questioned how speculations could be
accurate with any certainty if there was no development now and what future
traffic would do.
Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane
Callaghan noted that the study showed that Twin Lakes Parkway was needed to
relieve congestion on County Road C. However, Mr. Callaghan opined that the
study didn't look at the major problem for County Road C with constriction down
to two lanes for a ¾ mile section directly adjacent to the City Hall campus,
which had been a four-lane road for some time, but suddenly constricted. Mr.
Callaghan questioned if that had been done at the City's request, opining that
it caused considerable congestion, and suggested it be expanded to its original
Callaghan agreed with the comments of Ms. McCormack in not making assumptions
of six lanes on Snelling Avenue, as he was aware of no plans to update that
corridor, and he was under the impression that a traffic study looked at current
conditions. Mr. Callaghan opined that, when Snelling Avenue was reconstructed
at I-694, it had a major impact on Fairview Avenue; and suggested that be
addressed in the study.
the request of Mayor Roe for clarification, Mr. Callaghan opined that during
the two-year construction period, traffic from Lydia Avenue up Fairview Avenue
increased by 50%; and the traffic measurement provided in this report was the
lowest he'd seen in the last year, suggesting it was due to snowbirds being
gone. Mr. Callaghan expressed curiosity in whether traffic measured on
Fairview Avenue was consistent with Ramsey County study measurements done last
fall, since there was no reference provided to that. Mr. Callaghan expressed
further curiosity with how this study matches up with that done by the
University of Northwestern that should have been filed with the City as part of
their required Planned Unit Development campus build-out.
proposing three lanes from Fairview Avenue to County Road D, Mr. Callaghan
questioned if sufficient land was available, opining that traffic circles were
huge and he didn't know where they'd get the land for it. Mr. Callaghan
further opined that the Presbyterian Homes building at Fairview Avenue and
County Road D impacts that intersection dramatically; and expressed his suspicion
that there was not sufficient room for what is being proposed.
Bloom, Bent Brewstillery , 1744 Terrace Drive
a business perspective, Mr. Bloom opined that additional traffic was a great
advantage for businesses, and supported the more traffic the better, especially
at the Fairview Avenue and Terrace Drive intersection near his business. Mr.
Bloom opined that this was indicated by the new businesses moving into that
area, and spoke in support of installing a stoplight at that intersection. Mr.
Bloom stated his support for the proposed Parkway as a great business
opportunity for growing existing Roseville businesses and attracting more,
perhaps creating a small retail pocket away from the congestion of Rosedale. Mr. Bloom noted that he currently traveled Fairview Avenue to County Road D to
access I-35W, and the Parkway would provide another great opportunity for
access, and reiterated his support for creating that option.
Erickson, 1790 Centennial Drive
a thirty-plus year resident in this area, Ms. Erickson noted a number of concerns
of residents in the area that the study didn't seem to take into consideration;
and questioned how impacts of development could be projected when not yet created.
Ms. Erickson noted the proposed addition of a 190 unit housing development for
that corner of Terrace Drive, the existing problems at intersections at County
Road C-2 and Lincoln Drive, neither providing a straight shot even if the
Parkway is extended, but representing another bottleneck and stacking during
peak travel times. With the recent expansion of the University of Northwestern
into the former County Inn and Suites site, Ms. Erickson opined that it only
created more difficulties rather than serving as a good mitigating factor for
it may be good for local businesses, Ms. Erickson opined that it was not a nice
view for residents, and created difficulties in their ingress and egress
options. Ms. Erickson opined that extension of Twin Lakes Parkway would not
reduce congestion, since it will not connect directly with Snelling Avenue, but
would only create more problems for residents.
McCormick Ms. McCormick expressed appreciation for Mr. Bloom's comments,
and sought additional comment as to whether there was a timing measurement as
part of the study for the entrances of County Road C onto I-35W versus at
County Road B. Ms. McCormick questioned if someone attempted to access I-35W
from Twin Lakes Parkway if it would be quicker.
at 7:24 pm
to Questions on the Report as noted by Mayor Roe
changes to the regional system (page 4) taken into account during the traffic study;
specifics of timing of the I-35W plan; and how completely it would be built
out; and consideration of additional lanes on Snelling Avenue.
Culver reviewed some of Mr. Vaughn's information provided during the
presentation, and the significant advances to-date from improvements at I-694
and Highway 10 on Snelling Avenue in some areas, as well as alternate access
opening to go north versus onto I-35W directly. Mr. Culver clarified that the
model anticipated what would be in place by 2030 including managed interstate
lanes, and auxiliary lanes being added in 2015 on I-694 that were being added
in 2015 to finish the six lanes between I-35W and I-35E, helping support the
model's projected distribution of traffic through the regional system.
the 2030 model, Mr. Vaughn advised that it assumed complete and operational
extension of the regional system through Blaine and perhaps further north to
the I-35W and I-35E connection point.
additional lanes on Snelling Avenue, Mr. Vaughn clarified that that was not a
regional model improvement impacting travel pattern shifts, and differentiated
his comments that such an addition of lanes could impact 2030 projections by
directing the affect or positive/negative changes to travel patterns around the
Twin lakes Redevelopment Area study area, whether regional or local improvements.
Specific to Snelling Avenue, Mr. Vaughn clarified that the study was analyzed
under existing geometric configurations and deficiencies in how it was currently
Vaughan advised that the study performs a demand assessment given known
improvements to a regional system, and what was provided was an operations
analysis, and as the resident pointed out, level of service was at a D, and was
a result of looking at necessary improvements to affect change at that location
in either direction from Snelling Avenue, with level E based on future signal
timing over time. Mr. Vaughn advised that whether or not an improvement may
occur is not taken into account as part of the regional demand model, but the
study recommended that it should be considered as part of any future
decrease and what accounted for that or applied to model
Vaughn, referencing page 4 with respect to traffic volumes decreasing along the
corridor, advised that the study is looking at actual 2006/07 volumes and the
most current volumes available from 2014/15 collectively, showing a decrease between
those two values.
do you account or do you for seasonal adjustments based on timing
Vaughn advised that, typically when performing a traffic operations analysis
and spot time, seasonal factors are not applied to that data, but that perspective
had had been included in this study relative to traffic volumes, and as previously
shared in a document in December of 2014 from data gathered at that time as
part of other development activities in Roseville, and indicating daily volumes
from 2005 to 2014. Mr. Vaughn noted his review of additional data points and
examples such as: Fairview Avenue showing a decrease from 11,500 in 1999 to
7,400 in 2014, consisting of the average daily traffic volume, but not peak
hour or day of week. Mr. Vaughan further noted that his documented data
indicated a decrease from 8,700 to 4,000 during those 8 to 9 years.
7 related to Fairview and Lydia to confirm current service level B
Vaughn confirmed that data, noting that while it was not at various daily
peaks, peaking characteristics and overall operations over the course were modeled
and rated accordingly.
in multi-use reduction and how trip generations were calculated (page 13)
Vaughn reviewed study data and modeling using Institute of Transportation
Engineers' national industry standards related to multi-use trip reduction
generation for like-type land uses and taking any number of data points into
consideration as well as curvilinear equations, and applying them to land use
assumptions for a particular zone or area, including the most recent review of
land uses in this particular area. Mr. Vaughn advised that he used that model
as well as an independent review and calculation for comparison and to check
accuracy of the model, based on other developments around the metropolitan
area, and felt justified in his 15% reduction assumption.
Road C and Snelling Avenue: further mitigation at that location; what happens when
flow diverted into other areas - and mitigation efforts - whether 4 or 6 lanes
Vaughn advised that this comment was related to I-694 and Snelling Avenue
construction timeframes. Mr. Vaughn recognized current congestion at County
Road C and Snelling Avenue and their consistency and significance on a daily basis,
with such a situation often exacerbated due to weather and/or construction. Mr. Vaughn stated that it was typical for traffic volume to look for the path
of least resistance, and therefore comments regarding options to trail blaze or
way find additional routes to mitigate those situations. Mr. Vaughn opined
that, specific to Terrace Drive to Lincoln Drive to County Road C-2 as those
roads exist today, those configurations would not exist under future conditions
or with future improvements to accommodate that volume.
expand further from the perspective of the overall study, Mr. Culver advised
that assumptions were for improvements on Snelling Avenue to make the entire
picture work. While recognizing that the City is not in control of that
corridor, nor the interstate system, Mr. Culver noted that it did not preclude
the City from lobbying for improvements along that corridor or at its intersections;
but clarified that this study was focused on those things under the City's
control, including traffic impacts at Fairview and Cleveland Avenues and County
Roads C and D, and areas surrounding them. Mr. Culver opined that if the focus
was drawing so much attention on diverting traffic from Snelling, the impact of
Twin Lakes Parkway was lost. As indicated by Mr. Vaughn, Mr. Culver concurred
that there would be times when more traffic will divert from that corridor than
average, putting a larger strain on Fairview Avenue, but was not a result of
what the impact would be of Twin Lakes Parkway on Fairview Avenue itself.
only as mitigation versus r/l
Vaughn opined that his interpretation of that question was whether the study
recommended restricted turn movements, which had not been reviewed as part of
this study, and further opined that option would not be appropriate given the
intersections being dealt with. If the suggestion was to not allow left turns
to happen from Twin Lakes Parkway at Fairview Avenue or Terrace Drive in an
effort to improve traffic, Mr. Vaughn opined that it would not be appropriate,
but a use such as at a WalMart access point was a better use for that option,
at a development's access point.
Lux advised that he had interpreted the question yet differently, targeting
only certain movements at some locations, which he thought about at Lydia
Avenue and different southbound turn movements or adding lanes to target
improvements without a large land impact. Mr. Lux suggested this may be a
future strategy to consider.
is existing data used in regional trips and larger trips specific to this area
Vaughn advised that there were few regional trips expected to use Twin Lakes
Parkway, and cautioned that the system as it is today could not be compared to
2030 scenarios, improvements coming in, and with additional lanes added. With
the sub-regional or regional movements on major arteries (e.g. Highway 36,
I-35W and I-694), Mr. Vaughn opined that without those regional system improvements,
then it may be possible to see future regional trips using the Parkway.
number of lanes east of Snelling and how that impacts analysis of this study or
if it did
Culver advised that significant back-ups are seen both east and west of Snelling
Avenue, often associated with event-related times; or during snow or other
incidents on the regional system. However, Mr. Culver opined that he had not
observed any back-ups to or past on the east side of Snelling Avenue backing up
Snelling Avenue itself, which from his perspective would be the only situation
impacting demand on the west side of Snelling. Mr. Culver opined that it could
be debated why the four lane County Road C had been reduced to two drive lanes
with turn lanes, it did provide safety benefits in that design with a median
divided roadway along with aesthetic values and traffic calming efforts versus
the narrower medians with more turn lanes and/or drive lanes. Mr. Culver
suggested there may be an opportunity to review that design in the future if
significant capacity issues develop on the east side. However, Mr. Culver
opined that he had not observed any issues on the east side that impacted operations
through the Snelling Avenue intersection, even though sometimes the back-ups
are long into Hamline Avenue, but not impacting the west side of Snelling
Avenue. Mr. Culver suggested traffic signal timing for more green time may
help alleviate the issue.
Roe noted that, when the change was made to County Road C, the design allowed
sufficient space to add more lanes in the section south of City Hall if and
Lux noted that Ramsey County had fielded a few calls on this as well; and while
not supporting increasing County Road C to four lanes, there had been some talk
at the County level about restriping to make the turn lanes longer, which he
would discuss further with City staff.
the service lane east of Snelling, Mr. Culver noted that lanes had been reduced
past Lexington Avenue. Mr. Culver also noted another issue was that during
winter snow and ice events, traffic typically used only one lane versus two if
they couldn't clearly see the lanes.
we have enough land for a potential change to 3 lanes north of County Road C-2
Lux responded that while the right-of-way was wide enough, there would be some
impact to landscaping in place along that route. However with the lack of
accidents along that stretch, Mr. Lux advised that the County's attitude was to
wait and see, while continuing to monitor the situation. Mr. Lux opined that
concerns at the County level included if the intersections at County Road C and
D were freed up, things may get worse at Lydia Avenue and County Road D. However,
with relatively little impact in creating a center turn lane, Mr. Lux noted
this may be something to keep in mind in the future as further monitoring occurred.
impacts of development and how projected as part of analysis
Vaughn referenced the ITE trip generation rates and leveraging past experience
on future expectations as part of the analysis. Mr. Vaughn used a past experience
in Roseville, and the potential to shift traffic patterns and volumes, through
utilizing data after project improvements were in place, the actual calculations
had supported the modeling performed. Mr. Vaughn stated that, while the
studies were not always spot on, they had proven to come very close to reality
as indicated by past experiences; and stood in support of his work based on
that track record.
at time savings or differentials, came up with County Road C-2 connection
several years ago
Vaughn advised that he based this on today's experience in traveling the corridor
and then with Twin Lakes Parkway in place, opining that his instinct would be
to not take the Parkway but to get further north to avoid back-ups at I-35W.
However, once the managed lane was in place on I-35W, Mr. Vaughn opined that traffic
flow would continue to improve and would not result in the same situation with
future conditions, again human nature supporting traveling in the path of least
Update on the Owasso School Site Development
Development Director Paul Bilotta provided preliminary information on the
status of this project and negotiations to-date by the School District with
United Properties. Mr. Bilotta introduced United Properties President Bryan Carey,
School Board Consultant John Shardlow with Stantec, and noted that School
Superintendent Dr. John Thein was also in tonight's audience. Mr. Bilotta
briefly reviewed the background of this development proposal, and unique
situation with the School District owing and the City wishing to negotiate purchase
of the adjacent ballfields. While not yet in contract negotiations, Mr.
Bilotta suggested the City Council may wish to set up a subcommittee going
forward in the near future for initial negotiations.
Shardlow reviewed the process to-date from the School Board's perspective, and
developers contacted but ultimately indicating they were unable to make market
rate housing units work on that site, and alternative products considered for
the site prior to settling on United Properties for the current proposal.
Carey, United Properties
Carey reviewed current plans for another development at a site adjacent to
Lexington Avenue and Woodhill Drive called Cherrywood Pointe, with plans to
break ground later this summer. During discussions about that project, Mr.
Carey advised that City Manager Trudgeon had suggested that United also look at
the School District site, and after meeting with Community Development and HRA
staff, they made it clear that the City had strong interest in keeping the ball
fields. While the City expressed their interest in United exploring market
rate apartments and affordable senior apartments, Mr. Carey advised that to
build affordable senior housing it would require significant subsidies greater
than the 4% tax credit available or TIF. Mr. Carey advised that originally
they had thought it was a win-win solution to take TIF from the Cherrywood
project and allocate it to the affordable apartments, he noted that upon
further review it was decided not to pursue that option, and reviewed some of
the reasons that decision was ultimately made.
further review, Mr. Carey advised that other options were considered that also
fell short or were not economically viable even with TIF applied to the site,
resulting the current proposal consistent with their past developments at Applewood
Pointe for a senior cooperative that had sold out early in its planning stages
or completion. Mr. Carey expressed their confidence in this housing option at
this site, and continued success of such options in surrounding communities and
other areas in the metropolitan area. Mr. Carey advised that United planned a
survey of area residents for their interest in the near future.
among Councilmembers and the developer included the number of units proposed on
this site and at Cherrywood Pointe (110 units and 115 units respectively);
acreage of the ball field (just under 6 acres); proposed acquisition by the
City of the ballfields and necessary parking; anticipated underground parking
of 110 stalls; and average size of units and their costs (estimated at from
1,000 to 1,650 square feet at a cost range of $210 per square foot.
Roe thanked Mr. Carey for the presentation and update, offering the City's
interest in the next steps.
Mayor Roe recessed
the meeting at approximately 8:07 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:16
Public Improvement Hearing for the Reconstruction of Victoria
Street between Larpenteur Avenue and County Road B
Marc Culver introduced this project as detailed in the February 23, 2015 RCA
and attached Feasibility Report for Project P-ST-SW-15-02 (Attachment D).
Laliberte questioned why this was a reconstruction project versus a mill and
overlay project since there appeared to be no utility infrastructure breakdowns
Culver advised that this road, turned back from Ramsey County was not constructed
to City standards as it related to the base materials, and had only been
minimally maintained by the County over the last forty years of this roadway's
existence, causing concern for future costs over and beyond typical Pavement
Management Program (PMP) maintenance efforts.
section adjacent to the cemetery, at the request of Councilmember Laliberte,
Mr. Culver confirmed that the sidewalk was proposed on the east side throughout
the entire project area, with mailboxes moving to the west side.
Mr. Culver also
clarified that the roadway would be a typical roadway section for boulevard
installation, offset 5' from the existing roadway, and addressing extensive
wetlands, based on consultation with MnDOT, Ramsey County and the applicable watershed
district; and reviewed stormwater management plans in various areas of the
project depending on slopes, urban design standards for curb and gutter
installation, and mitigating current drainage directly into wetlands and utilizing
best management practices (BMP's) where available.
Mr. Culver also
reviewed sidewalk locations and widths along various stretches of the project
area; and staff's recommendation for on-street parking on the east side of the
street and reduces speed ad detailed in the RCA.
Mayor Roe opened
the Public Hearing at approximately 8:53 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public
testimony on the proposed project as outlined in Attachment A.
recognized written comment received to-date and included in the RCA as
1945 Victoria Street
Money opined that the last time the roadway was done, it was raised 14 inches;
and cautioned if it went up another foot, there would be no way to get their
car out of their driveway.
Money spoke in support of the reduced speed limit recommended by staff, opining
that southbound traffic was often traveling upwards to 70 mph until the curve.
794 Lovell Avenue
Schlueter asked if this was approved as laid out, would it affect construction
of a sidewalk between County Roads B and B-2.
Michael Baker, 935 Roselawn Avenue
a resident with small children at the intersection of Victoria Street and
Roselawn Avenue, Mr. Baker spoke in support of a reduced speed limit, opining
that people frequently used Victoria as a fast north/south route. Mr. Baker
opined that it was a public safety issue, especially since cars didn't typically
stop at the stop sign.
Baker respectfully requested more policing and enforcement efforts of current
speed and stop signs.
Pederson, 929 W Roselawn
Pederson thanked staff for being proactive and listening to residents on drainage
and other issues, and spoke in support of the perforated drainage pipe to alleviate
to speed limits, Ms. Pederson opined that it had been and continued to be
problematic and agreed that there was a need for more enforcement efforts.
Serivich, 1023 N Victoria Street
Serivich spoke in support of speed reductions to address safety issues.
no one else appearing to speak, Mayor Roe closed the Public Hearing at approximately
response to the question of the status of the sidewalk north of County Road B,
Mr. Culver responded that a set of plans had been developed for that segment,
with discussions underway with Ramsey County for subsequent action by the City
Council at a later date and as an individual project if necessary. Mr. Culver
noted that costs may vary since there were economies of scale involved with
At the request of
Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver clarified that Park Renewal Program funds would only
cover the sidewalk between County Roads B and B-2.
Business Items (Action Items)
Request to Order Victoria Street Reconstruction Project
moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11210 (Attachment B)
entitled, "Resolution Ordering the Improvement and Preparation of Plans and
specifications for Victoria Street between Larpenteur Avenue and County Road
Laliberte questioned whether the goal was to have the sidewalk on the cemetery
side extend throughout the entire corridor; and whether or not it had been
reviewed for the west side due to residential properties and mailbox access.
Culver advised that some analysis had been performed prior to his hire, but the
biggest issue with the west side was the number of driveways and safety concerns
in locating the sidewalk on that side, as well as impacts to front yards,
driveways and losing the drainage ditch, essentially impacting negatively on
the rural design. With locating the sidewalk on the east side, Mr. Culver advised
that there would still be enough room to retain drainage on the east side and
have no driveways for pedestrians and/or bicyclers to contend with.
McGehee questioned the status of City standards versus homeowner specifications
or expectations for driveway replacement.
a result of discussions held after the County Road D project about that issue,
Mr. Culver advised that City standards remained in place when replacing or installing
a concrete driveway for a 6' concrete on top of a deeper base than generally
installed for private parties. Mr. Culver clarified that issues developed with
the County Road D project due to the need for resloping driveways that had previously
been reinforced, but the City did not do so when replacing them.
Culver stated that he was not sure if, as a result of that issue, staff had received
formal or official guidance from the City Council to use what was originally in
place. However, Mr. Culver expressed staff's strong opinion that what the City
proposed for replacement was a very good product with a long life, and while
some residents may not agree, staff still supported that product and base using
their past experiences to-date. Mr. Culver offered staff's willingness to comply
with City Council direction; however advised that staff's recommendation would
be to stay with the current standards that had been used for some time with
very good success.
Roe clarified that this was a separate issue from the matter at hand; and could
be suggested as a later motion if so supported by Council majority.
Call (Super Majority)
moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11211 (Attachment C)
entitled, "Resolution Declaring Victoria Street to be an Urban District from
Larpenteur Avenue to County Road B, and Establishing the Statutory Speed Limit
of 30 Miles Per Hour."
Dale Street Fire Station Redevelopment
City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this request
based on recent updates and actions of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority
(HRA) and current status of the development. Mr. Trudgeon noted that only
Phase I of the project is assured for funding through Western Bank at this
time, with Phases II and III funding only anticipated at this point, with no
reviewed action of the HRA at their February 17, 2015 meeting, after
considerable discussion and another opportunity for public comment, as well as
input from Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC), a representative of
Western Bank, and their development team. With six of the seven Board Members
present, Mr. Trudgeon advised that no clear consensus had been achieved for the
two motions considered by the HRA, and therefore, the HRA had tabled action at
the meeting, with those actions highlighted as follows.
Member Wall moved, seconded by Member Majerus to direct staff to work with GMHC
on Phase I; and specific to Phases II and III, directed staff to come back to
the HRA with a process to proceed with, not necessarily exclusive to GMHC.
(Wall, Elkins, Lee)
(Majerus, Etten, Maschka)
Member Maschka moved, seconded by Member Majerus to direct staff to terminate
any further relationship with GMHC and authorize staff to start the process to
solicit other potential builders/developers for proposals of medium-density,
owner-occupied housing that recognizes the existing development concept (Staff
(Majerus, Maschka, Etten)
(Wall, Elkins, Lee)
Member Majerus moved, seconded by Member Etten moved to TABLE action on this
item to a date not specific; and directed staff to poll members to schedule a
special HRA meeting to further consider this item only.
Trudgeon advised that, based upon that lack of clear direction by the HRA and
after consultation with the City Manager, he was recommending that the City
Council withdraw from the project, with rationale for that recommendation detailed
in the Request for Council Action dated February 23, 2015. Mr. Trudgeon
advised that this action would serve to formally alert the GMHC and HRA of the City
Council rescinding their support of the current project, and remove the City's
former fire station property from the picture. Mr. Trudgeon expressed his
opinion that the City had been more than fair in the lengthy timeframe for
getting this development proposal to move forward, and with expiration of the
Preliminary Development Agreement some time ago, it was time to make this
expressed by City Manager Trudgeon was that, if the first phase of the project,
which appears to be financially viable, was to proceed, but the other two
phases did not come to fruition, it could lead to the City and HRA being left with
less than desirable properties for further development. Mr. Trudgeon noted that
it was obvious that the first phase was needed to help finance future phases,
which at this time remained only a hope with no guarantee.
City Manager Trudgeon opined that the ongoing "wait and see" saga, and potential
of multi-year construction was disruptive to neighbors; and if a new developer
was sought, it would still probably required a phased approach as originally
planned by GMHC, but would hopefully be less disruptive.
Trudgeon advised that, by the City Council taking this recommended action, it
would then open up the way for the City Council and HRA to hold a joint meeting
to discuss next steps. Mr. Trudgeon noted, no matter whether or not the property
was put back on the market or what type of project resulted, it was important
that the neighborhood be kept aware of future discussions and subsequent
actions. Mr. Trudgeon recommended that the City Council act as he proposed,
and move forward to make that decision.
Olson, President of Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC)
invitation of Mayor Roe, Ms. Olson advised that the prices for Phase II and III
were something GMHC felt it could achieve; and once the townhomes were under
construction and pre-marketing was underway, they anticipated once five were
sold, the bank would be willing to move onto the next phase. Ms. Olson opined
that the appraisal comparables were good and they could build to meet that market.
advised that the entire development team was available tonight for any
questions or to provide additional information at the City Council's request, including
the RE/MAX realtors chosen to market the project in all of its phases.
advised that the team felt they had worked hard on this project to-date, and
though the appraisal came back low, it was found that Western Bank was not
willing to initially fund Phases I and II as originally planned, GMHC was confident
the project could and should continue, and that it would be successful.
Ms. Olson noted
that GMHC had developed this unique and interesting plan at the City of
Roseville's request, and had already invested $200,000 in the project to-date.
Contrary to information provided by staff, Ms. Olson stated that GMHC had
requested extension of the Preliminary Development Agreement, and had continued
to work in good faith with staff, and was now ready to move forward and draft a
advised that the prices for Phase II and III were something GMHC felt it could
achieve; and once the townhomes were under construction and pre-marketing was
underway, they anticipated once five were sold, the bank would be willing to
move onto the next phase. Ms. Olson opined that the appraisal comparables were
good and they could build to meet that market.
Ms. Olson noted
that the project had gone off course in June of 2014 when the City and U. S.
Bank could not come to an agreement on their mortgage interest and GMHC was
forced to find another lender, and at staff's suggestion had met with community
lenders, ultimately finding Western Bank interested in financing the project.
Ms. Olson questioned if another developer might experience the same appraisal
issues due to current comparables with other communities given new banking
requirements. However, Ms. Olson opined that GMHC had provided everything
requested to-date; and had shared in the frustration when the appraisal
documents took from November of 2014 to January of 2015 to accomplish. While
asked repeatedly what was going on, Ms. Olson noted that GMHC was legally
constrained in what information they could provide during the appraisal process
itself. Ms. Olson expressed disappointment that, now that the appraisal was
completed, the City was considering the decision to seek another developer for
the project, when GMHC was now ready to move ahead and remained confident the
project would be successful, and remained interested in continuing to work
together toward that end.
if the City Council decided not to move ahead with GMHC, Ms. Olson asked that
at a minimum GMHC be reimbursed for their staff time and costs to-date on the
project's development process.
Ms. Olson asked
that their real estate team be provided an opportunity to speak from their
perspective in marketing the properties.
Realtor Jason Stockwell; 5201 Eden Avenue, #100; Edina, MN
briefly reviewed his firm's experience in this type of housing stock and sales
history in other metropolitan communities. Mr. Stockwell opined that this
development would be perfect for this site, and phasing seemed appropriate with
this price point being achieved at comparable or higher prices in other communities.
Mr. Stockwell stated that as a realtor he did not share City Manager Trudgeon's
concern about the long-term development, anticipating that it would be fairly
smooth, and barring any market crashes outside the team's control, saw no reason
for a delayed construction process. Mr. Stockwell advised that, without any
pre-sale efforts and only through information shown on the City's website and
Roseville Review articles about the proposed development, they had already
received twenty-eight interest inquiries on the units.
Realtor Lindsay Bacigalupo Reuter (1600 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, MN)
concurred with Mr. Stockwell's analysis, opining that there is a definite
current need for this type of housing, based on comparable units being sold in
other areas, and based on available market information to support that
projection. Ms. Reuter noted that she and the Re/Max team had been chosen by
GMHC to market and pre-sell units based on their extensive experience with this
type of market.
stated that they were seeing a demand for new construction across the board due
to pent up demand during the economic downturn. Mr. Stockwell opined that he
anticipated actual sales coming in at the team's projected levels, not appraisal
values, which he found to be overly conservative.
concurred, and asked that the City recognize the commitment of GMHC to-date in
this process; and stated that none of the team would be here if they didn't
believe in the project.
advised that he had met with the architects and reputable builder chosen by
GMHC and seen other models of their construction; and spoke in support of their
work. Mr. Stockwell opined that, from his perspective, it seemed premature to
stop the process now even though it had been unexpectedly delayed, especially
now that the project is ready to move forward. Mr. Stockwell urged the City
Council to not take the City Manager's recommendation to cancel, but continue
on with the project.
Willmus noted that last week, Ms. Olson had alluded to information on an
alternative plan for 18 units that would be built one at a time; and asked that
she elaborate on that option, as well as her choice of timing in providing that
deferred to GMHC Director of Construction Bill Buelow for a response.
Director of Construction, Bill Buelow
and angst about the originally proposed project and apparent lack of faith in
the single-family homes not selling, Mr. Buelow Sensing advised that the team
had developed another plan that didn't require as much site work as the first
option, and for construction of one-level homes on the site. Mr. Buelow noted
that the phasing for that construction option would be the same as proposed in
the original proposal to start along Cope Avenue, but with construction ongoing
with no anticipated delay to ensure financing was in place.
clarified that this would require taking down the entire site at once, and
involve ponding versus extra sewer and underground tank costs for storm sewer
noted that this option was more conservative and would not provide as unique or
interesting of a plan, but would require less site and utility work and be more
Willmus advised that his rationale in asking this question was based on his
attendance at the February 17 HRA meeting, and discussion that the original
project in three phases may take up to 3-4 construction seasons to complete. Councilmember Willmus asked GMHC representatives what difference they saw with
the option for eighteen units.
responded that Mr. McNamara from Western Bank may wish to respond, as those
units had already received appraisals and that unit type already approved in
the appraisal on hand. Therefore, Mr. Buelow opined it should be a quicker process,
and as units were sold the financing set-up would keep rolling, with Phase I consisting
of six units along Cope Avenue, then selling each additional building with
construction to continue nonstop.
Willmus stated that he had some concerns with the phased approach, especially
since some of it centered around demolition of the former fire station, thereby
eliminating any potential use of that facility by the City in another
capacity. If the building is razed, Councilmember Willmus noted that such an option
was no longer available for the City, especially should future phases did not
occur. Councilmember Willmus admitted his frustration with the process, and
expressed appreciation to GMHC for their e-mail correspondence received today,
that served to shed some light on things for him. Councilmember Willmus advised
that one of those concerns was his confusion as to why GMHC didn't pursue an
extension of their Preliminary Development Agreement, which that correspondence
indicated they had done, causing him to reconsider tonight's recommended action.
knowing where his colleagues stood, Councilmember Willmus stated that he was
not comfortable taking action tonight to terminate City involvement, since he
did not feel he had all of the pertinent information and background on the
negotiations to-date, and needed to obtain that information from staff. Councilmember
Willmus further state that he was not putting a motion on the floor at this
time, but suggested it may be prudent for the City Council to step back to collect
and gather information and then determine where they were at in the process and
what was needed to proceed, including a clear timeline before entertaining
additional conversation. At this point, Councilmember Willmus stated that he
would not support the City Manager's recommendation to terminate.
stated that he needed to understand better from GMHC representatives and City
staff how the City's interests would best be protected if units moved quicker
in the market place that indicated by the appraisal; and if entering into a Development
Agreement resulting in all three phases being completed, what recourse would be
available if not accomplished, and that would be clear to all parties. Mayor Roe
stated that this was a key aspect for him in his decision-making. Mayor Roe
noted this may relate to figuring out the market after Phase I and if a better
appraisal became available as a result of that phase.
advised that, while constructing Phase I, GMHC intended to be marketing Phase
II and would be able to get an appraisal based on that one project.
Laliberte asked Re/Max representatives asked if they had seen the eighteen unit
proposal provided by GMHC.
confirmed that they had seen the same one-page site plan provided to the City
variety, Councilmember Laliberte asked if they had any concerns in marketing
these units, or if they would be less desirable and salable; and asked at what
rates they felt they could be moved.
stated that, while the original proposal provided great and unique options that
would appeal to multi-property neighborhoods, based on their sales experience
around the metropolitan area and demand for one-level townhomes, she found no
reason to doubt their marketability. Ms. Reuter noted that, with any new construction,
she saw no problem selling the first phase of the project and selling it out
quickly, and that the only concern appeared to be in financing the phases
without more concrete and comparable appraisals in Roseville.
concurred with Ms. Reuter's comments; and based on inquiries to-date as
previously noted, he anticipated ongoing demand for one-level units based on
current demographics, but also seeing no decline in the demand for multi-level
stated that she had full confidence in either project option, but for it to
develop quicker with the more conservative approach that would be safer for the
City if that was of great importance to them. Either way, Ms. Reuter advised
that she saw no problem in selling them, but anticipated the one-level units
would sell more quickly based on current demand. Ms. Reuter noted that any new
construction in Roseville, as a fully developed community with limited housing
stock options, attracted a lot of attention.
concurred that one level units will be safer; and questioned the projected
length of construction time for all phases, as referenced by Councilmember
Etten between 2015 to 2018 based on GMHC presentations and discussions at the
HRA level. Mr. Stockwell opined that, as a marketer of new construction, his
firm couldn't even come close to the demand for new construction, and since
GMHC had a dedicated builder team ready to go, he anticipated a much quicker
noted that the quicker the project got started, the sooner the units could be
In an effort to
confirm what she was hearing, Councilmember McGehee stated that she wished the
18 unit proposal was actually the one before the City Council, as it was a
product for which they understood there was a need. Councilmember McGehee
noted that, from her recollection, that type of unit was in the appraisal and
approved by the bank as a known quantity, and no further requirements were
needed; and needed less site work since it was less dense. Councilmember
McGehee suggested that the neighborhood would be supportive of that option, and
sought further comment from GMHC as to her understanding and a timeframe for
that option and whether or not it would still need to be phased.
briefly reviewed the position of Western Bank, and results of the townhome
portion of the appraisal coming back quite well. However, as he previously
noted and since Western Bank first began working with GMHC in September of
2014, they had anticipated that the vacant land appraisal would come back
higher than it did in reality, and due to the difficulty in finding comparable
appraisal properties in Roseville, other communities were used for those comparables.
Mr. McNamara noted that the ten single-family home appraisals came in much
lower than envisioned by Western Bank, since part of the challenge in Roseville
was finding middle-ground comparably valued single-family homes like those
proposed, since those being built had higher housing values (e.g. Pulte
Homes/Josephine Lakes and Lexington/Victoria). While there were plenty of
ramblers in Roseville built in the 1950's and 1960's, Mr. McNamara noted that
they were not of similar type to the proposed housing product. Mr. McNamara
advised that Western could clearly look at the six homes along Cope Avenue, and
with the fire station razed at that point, the townhomes were anticipated to
lead into Phases II and III. However, having to work under banking guidelines
for lending, Mr. McNamara noted that since the appraisals had not come in as
high as anticipated; Western Bank could not commit to any further financing
until sales of the townhomes were initiated.
noted that single-family townhomes were highly sought after and successful, and
while asked by GMHC to consider the entire project, he was not in a position to
do so. Mr. McNamara noted that he had been working with GMHC on the 25 unit
plan since September of 2014, and was prepared to move forward immediately with
the first 6-unit plan as outlined in Phase I. If GMHC chose to go ahead with
the 18 unit model, Mr. McNamara stated that with appraisals in place, the
process should be smooth and move faster on the bank's end. While it still may
seem like a "phase," Mr. McNamara advised that it would probably not occur that
way. Mr. McNamara noted that, in a perfect world, if the plat was approved and
construction begun in June of 2015, it was feasible that six units would be
sold by August of 2015, and while construction would not be completed in that
timeframe, the units would be sold, at which time the next phase could
proceed. As noted by Councilmember Willmus, Mr. McNamara that without tying
their hands in Development Agreement language, he was looking to start Phase I
and have the City provide clear deadlines and consequences if Phase II was not
firmly tied up and sold out. Mr. McNamara opined that he anticipated Phase II
actually starting in the same construction season as Phase I, and he considered
the bank's position to be a rolling line of credit, and as each six units were
sold, GMHC applied for financing for the next six units, continuing in a
similar manner through completion of all phases.
noted that, with the appraisal already in place, there should be no further
delay for that process, but having only received the option for the 18-unit
project last Friday, he had not fully evaluated that option yet, even though he
saw no problem with it.
asked Mr. McNamara what timeframe he foresaw to finalize the bank's commitment
to the first phase of six homes.
responded that it would remain similar to initial discussions, with the bank
committed in general to funding the overall project provided some pre-sale agreement
were in place for Phase II at the appropriate time; and the bank committed to
proceed with Phase I without any pre-sales to prime the market. Mr. McNamara
noted that for Phase II, the bank would want to see three of the six units
committed to, but reminded the City Council that they'd know that prior to
moving forward, and GMHC and Western would return with more details at the
discretion of the City Council. Mr. McNamara advised that submittals by GMHC
to Western on specificity or guidelines was nearing completion for each phase
and subsequent bank approval; and within 2-4 weeks he anticipated the remaining
items could be worked through to approve concepts for Phases II and III.
Etten questioned GMHC if the 18 home proposal would involve the same unit
designs or if they would vary some.
responded that they would be similar, with some units smaller or having
different options as they responded to comments from buyers, but in general
start with the same concept.
At the request
of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Buelow confirmed that there would still be a master
association for the properties.
phasing, Mayor Roe noted that talk had revolved around the 18 unit single
level proposal; and asked what variation there was from the original 25 unit
proposal with different types of housing stock; and how that played out for the
bank's commitment since there appeared to be two different approached.
Ms. Olson noted
that GMHC planned to pre-sell the single family units as the townhomes were
responded that the challenge was that there was considerable difference in site
improvements with the alley concept for the first proposal; and GMHC and the
City would need to make that decision quickly on which project was intended,
noting a considerable amount of the site work and cost structure on Phases II
and III were involved in Phase I of the first proposal.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Mr. McNamara noted that the original project initially
contemplated six townhomes and four single-family homes as Phase I, with other
housing types for the remaining phases. If the decision was to continue with
the original plan, Mr. McNamara noted that involved much more site improvement
costs. Mr. McNamara advised that to remain committed, the bank needed to see
ongoing progress, and was willing to lay out 2-3 variables of options the bank
could support. As stated at the HRA meeting by Community Development Director
Bilotta, Mr. McNamara recognized that the City would have similar concerns to
those of the bank, with all parties wanting the units to sell. Mr. McNamara
advised that at the February 17 HRA meeting, he was envisioning that discussion
to concern what was at the crux of drafting a Development Agreement and the City's
requirements for GMHC and clear timelines, which the bank would respond to.
Mr. McNamara stated that he anticipated much shorter timeframes for
construction, twelve to eighteen months versus three or four years as a
Willmus noted that one issue faced and timeline delays involved two different
entities owning property for the development: the HRA and City; and asked staff
for their input on whether or not one of those entities should take position of
the entire parcel, and which entity that should be.
Trudgeon responded that having two entities with two governing boards did
complicate things, and that originally the City Council had ceded responsibility
of the development to the HRA. However, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) transferring that responsibility had now expired,
prompting tonight's discussion and his recommendation. Mr. Trudgeon opined
that if the properties were combined under one entity, the City Council had a
large vested interest in the project and had used the HRA to make it happen.
However, since the City controlled the former fire station property, City
Manager Trudgeon recommended that it may be more appropriate for the City
Council to become the entity in charge, and get control of the land and
purchase other parcels from the HRA.
Willmus suggested that action be taken soon.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Buelow confirmed that, regardless of the 18 or
25 unit plan decided upon, the goal was to start on Cope Avenue.
In response to
Councilmember Laliberte's question on the need for the former fire station to
be razed immediately, Mr. Buelow advised that it added value to the property to
have it razed and for marketing purposes to show a clean site, but if necessary
could remain even though it would not be aesthetically pleasing to potential
buyers of units.
Ms. Olson noted
that it would change equity in the property to some extent.
responded that he was of the opinion that it was everyone's goal to remove the
fire station in a timely manner; and while recognizing Councilmember Willmus' comment about that causing uncertain equity concerns for the City, he also understood
Mr. Buelow's concerns that it affected marketability of the project. Mr.
McNamara clarified that the bank was not intending to take the fire station as
security, but was concerned about the overall marketability of the site and
project, with differences in whether or not the fire station remained perhaps
Willmus opined that the fire station could come down provided sufficient
protections were included in the Development Agreement to protect the City for
any loss incurred, which was one point of negotiation. Councilmember Willmus
recognized concerns of the bank and GMHC in marketing the project; however, he
opined that a way could be found to make this work and protect the City's
future interest in the property if the development should fail.
opined that this could be dealt with early on in the project, as the speed at
which the units were selling should be obvious.
Motion to Extend
At approximately 9:56 p.m.,
Laliberte moved, Willmus seconded, extending the meeting beyond the curfew for
the purpose of completing discussion on this item (14.c) and the following
item, 14.b scheduled for open session.
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, a
friendly amendment to complete only this item (14.c) and no other agenda items.
At the request of Councilmember
Etten as to Councilmember McGehee's rationale in not completing other items on
the agenda, Councilmember McGehee responded that she had a number of comments
on item 14.b and did not wish to delay the meeting longer.
Roll Call (Amendment)
Ayes: Willmus, Etten,
McGehee and Laliberte.
Roll Call (Original
Motion as Amended)
Ayes: Willmus, Etten, and McGehee.
Nays: Laliberte and Roe.
In response to
having a single entity involved Councilmember McGehee also noted the need to
determine which option to move forward with; opining that she found the 18 unit
proposal more agreeable and salable to the community.
Mayor Roe noted
that there remained several unanswered questions, but they all did not have to
be resolved tonight, but that a decision providing clear direction to staff did
need to be made tonight.
moved, Willmus seconded, to NOT move forward with the City Manager's
Gaughan suggested language in the motion be stated as listed in the RCA (lines
35 - 36), clarifying the City's participation only extending to conveying
property to the HRA. Mr. Gaughan noted it was important that this proposed
motion not indicate that GMHC was authorized to undertake any action beyond
their own voluntary efforts, and that the City was under no contractual
obligations with them at this time.
discussion included timing for a joint meeting; actions of the HRA at their
February 17 meeting to table action until a full contingent of board members
Schlueter, 794 Lovell Avenue W
opined that he, and probably the entire neighborhood, would feel affronted if
the process were stopped cold at this point and not within the spirit of what
was trying to be achieved, especially when he found GMHC's second option as a
win-win for all parties, even though it appeared to come out of nowhere.
Whatever the next steps are, Mr. Schlueter opined that the neighborhood would
appreciate the opportunity to express their opinion for either option, and
while he could somewhat envision what the 18 unit proposal may look like, he
would prefer to see a model before a decision was made. Even though
Councilmember McGehee alluded to support by the neighborhood for the 18 unit
proposal, Mr. Schlueter noted that this was the first he'd heard of it, and
suspected that was the case with many of his neighbors as well; and while it
sounded great, he would like them to have the opportunity to express their
opinion on either or both proposals.
841 Lovell Avenue
echoed the comments of Mr. Schlueter, noting the fair amount of cynicism
expressed at the initial community meetings, with neighbors being unsure of the
City's motives but pleased their opinions were apparently being respected. Mr.
Matwood noted the changed atmosphere at the end of that process, with the
neighborhood 100% supportive of the 25-unit development being proposed.
However, since those meetings ended, Mr. Matwood opined that the neighborhood
had not been re-engaged by the City Council in the process, and he would definitely
appreciate the opportunity to be involved and hear options moving forward to
get past this stalemate. Mr. Matwood asked that he and the neighborhood be
kept in the loop and retain a voice in the whole process, since the neighbors
had a vested interest in the outcome.
moved, Willmus seconded, to NOT move forward with the City Manager's
recommendation to withdraw City participation in the Dale Street project.
Willmus suggested and sought discussion as to the City Council's desire for the
HRA to convey property to the City, with the rationale that due to this process
being fairly fluid it could move more rapidly with the City Council's more
frequent meeting schedule versus that of the HRA, which may prove critical in
getting something accomplished.
suggested this may be an appropriate topic of discussion at a joint meeting with
moved, Etten seconded, requesting sale of the HRA property on Cope Avenue to
the City of Roseville.
McGehee spoke in support of the motion, given the details needed for a
contract, Development Agreement and liability issues. Councilmember McGehee
opined that the most important work of the whole process had been done and done
in an excellent manner by the HRA in involving the neighborhood, and did not
see the proposed action as a criticism of the HRA in any way. Councilmember
McGehee further opined that the HRA was the only entity to run the process to
get everyone to this point.
Willmus concurred with Councilmember McGehee's comments.
McGehee agreed that the neighbors should see the plans for the 18 unit
proposal, and the HRA should and could perform that task; but opined that the
City Council's ability to complete any contracts in a quicker way would prove
Laliberte agreed as well; and opined that from this point on the City Council
was in a better position to keep the project moving forward. Councilmember
Laliberte asked that the next meeting include the community as part of the
process to avoid delaying getting that feedback into any next steps.
At the suggestion
of Mayor Roe, Councilmember Etten suggested involvement of the HRA in future
decisions based on this expertise with the project and in housing in general.
At the request of
Councilmember Willmus, City Manager Trudgeon advised that he would alert the
HRA of the City Council's action, and at that point, determine how best to
proceed and which project option was supported in general, after which time
neighborhood feedback would be sought.
As part of
that, Mayor Roe noted the City Council's need to understand any development agreement
before making a final determination in one way or the other, for which he
thought the neighborhood should also provide feedback.
noted the need for GMHC to provide proformas for both proposals for the benefit
of the City Council and neighborhood.
Trudgeon suggested a special City Council meeting for only this topic to allow
sufficient time and consideration for all parties rather than part of a larger
concurred, speaking in support of the sooner the better, as long as reasonable
notice could be provided to allow the most participation.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe clarified that the HRA would need to meet
first to discuss selling property to the City Council before athis matter could
come back before the City Council.
Laliberte asked that the meetings be scheduled as close together as possible to
keep the process moving.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Olson and Mr. Buelow confirmed their clear
understanding of the next steps and tonight's action by the City Council.
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:18 p.m.