View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
April 11, 2016
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 5:30 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: McGehee,
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City
Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.
2. Pledge of
With the arrival
of Councilmember Willmus at approximately 5:35 p.m., all Councilmembers were
available for interviews held with four candidates to fill one vacancy for an
unexpired term on the Finance Commission.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 6:15 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 6:22 p.m.
4. Approve Agenda
Etten moved, Willmus
seconded, approval of the agenda as presented.
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
5. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
Annabelle Slade, student at Roseville Area High School (RAHS),
and Joe Hart, Coach Mentor for the RAHS Fire Bears Robotics Term
Ms. Slade noted
recent competition by the Fire Bears with other robotics teams. Ms. Slade
noted the group's interest in attending the first worldwide robotics league
scheduled in St. Louis, MO later this year. Since this is a non-profit group,
Ms. Slade humbly asked for financial assistance from the community and various
civic organizations in helping fund this trip for fees, transportation, housing
and other logistical support. Ms. Slade noted that the group would need to
rely on the generous donations from sponsors and their community.
information is available on Facebook or by searching Firebears.org on the RAHS
On behalf of
the City Council and community, Mayor Roe wished the team luck and
congratulated them on their competition successes to-date.
& City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements
Mayor Roe made
several announcements about upcoming events and opportunities:
House painting assistance through the Greater Minnesota Council
of Churches (GMCC) and their Paint-A-Thon program for those qualifying under
age and income guidelines with additional information available by phone or
on-line at GMCC.org.
"Ask the Experts" a partnership of the City of Roseville and
Ramsey County Library-Roseville Branch and upcoming seminars scheduled during
April, with additional information available through the City of Roseville or
An upcoming Advanced Care Planning seminar offered through the
Roseville's CHAT organization (additional information available at
Annual Roseville Clean-Up Day coming up on April 23
· "April Shower" for babies in need, sponsored by the Roseville
Police Department through the month of April to benefit the Tubman Center (drop
bins available during normal hours at City Hall)
Etten thanked everyone who helped with the recent SE Roseville park clean-up,
including members of the Karen Organization of Minnesota (KOM). Councilmember
Etten further highlighted and expressed appreciation for the efforts with the
Rice Street Gardens to provide an opportunity for fresh produce for community
members in rental housing or without private space. Councilmember Etten noted
the location, east of Rice Street and north of Roselawn Avenue on the Maplewood
side of that intersection. Councilmember Etten noted several additional dates
in April to finish preparing and marking out the plots and assist those
individuals taking on leadership for this great asset.
communication request for staff, Councilmember Willmus reported that he had
been receiving inquiries about a fair amount of discussion regarding
legislative activities, particularly about Ramsey County's interest in pursuing
economic development activities. Councilmember Willmus advised that the calls
were seeking the position of the Roseville City Council as a whole and that of
individual Councilmembers. Before being able to respond completely,
Councilmember Willmus noted his need for more official information,
particularly regarding how those efforts may be funded and how that funding
might be used, specifically if Economic Development Authority funding from
Roseville could or would be applied elsewhere (e.g. soccer stadium or TCAAP).
Trudgeon responded that staff had researched that legislation today, and had
received basic information. However, Mr. Trudgeon advised that he intended to
meet with Ramsey County representatives to better understand what was being
proposed and a clear understanding of what the potential legislation meant as
for its status and what it meant in turn for Roseville. Mr. Trudgeon advised
that he would being that more detailed information forward at the City
Council's April 18, 2016 Worksession.
Mayor Roe noted
this year's Rosefest buttons stating "I am Roseville," noting that they were
free this year at various sources, and offered a great way to start thinking
about this year's community celebration.
As liaison to
the Ramsey County League of Local Governments, Councilmember Laliberte reported
on the upcoming April meeting at which time a panel discussion would be held
with the Minnesota Ethnic Council. Given meeting room capacity at the Maplewood
City Council Chambers, Councilmember Laliberte asked those interest in
attending to reach out to her.
Trudgeon reported on Lake McCarrons Neighborhood Association's first "linking
communities" project for Karen residents; and reported on the remaining meetings
open to the public via R.S.V.P. for meeting room capacity.
Trudgeon further reported on anticipating closing on the Owasso Fields next
week, with the City Attorney finalizing their review and preparation of
Trudgeon advised that the much-anticipated lighting replacement in the City
Council chambers was scheduled for the week of April 27, at which time the
room's lighting will be converted to LED lighting, and hopefully not needing
replacement for another 15-20 years. Mr. Trudgeon anticipated a dramatic
difference in lighting in the room and for those of the viewing audience, with
the first test of that at the May 9, 2016 City Council meeting after
installation of the lights.
Donations and Communications
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 March 28, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of the March 28, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended.
Page 8, Line 12 (Etten)
read: "road, even though [the neighbors would like the city to take
it over] [it's a private road]."
Page 21, Line 25 (Willmus)
read: "From his perspective, Councilmember Willmus opined that he found a [narrower]
Page 22, Lin 10 (Etten)
from "Dale Street" to "Wheaton Avenue"
Page 34, Line 20 (McGehee)
correction: Correct spelling for Councilmember McGehee
McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Approve Consent Agenda
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being
considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for
Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, March 28, 2016.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of business and other licenses and permits for terms as
Approve General Purchases in Excess of $5,000
Etten seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as
noted in the RCA dated April 11, 2016, and Attachment A entitled, "2016 Capital
Improvement Plan Summary," dated February 29, 2016.
Request for Approval for a Training Agreement between the East
Metro Public Safety Training Facility and the City of Roseville
Laliberte sought assurance that emergency fire training opportunities for live
burn training would still be an option within the City of Roseville if and when
Trudgeon responded that they would be an option; but noted that the burns had
to be under controlled circumstances, and live burning required more controls
in place and specialization.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, authorizing the Fire Department to enter into a Training Agreement
between the East Metro Public Safety Training Facility and the City of
Award Pavement Management (PMP) Contract
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11311 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution
Awarding Bids for 2016 Pavement Management Project; awarding bid to T. A.
Schifsky & Sons, Inc. of No. St. Paul, MN in an amount not to exceed
Cleveland Lift Station Consultant Contract
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, awarding an engineering services contract to Bolton & Menk, Inc.
for engineering services for reconstruction of the Wagner sanitary sewer lift
station, in an amount not to exceed $51,530.00.
Morris Leatherman Survey Contract
Laliberte noted previous discussion on some survey questions tagged for quick
responses (e.g. recycling) and asked if those had been clearly identified.
Trudgeon responded that they had been tagged, including those specific to
recycling, to inform the Recycling RFP in process. City Manager Trudgeon
further reported that it was his understanding, once this contract received
approval from the City Council, the firm could begin surveying next week, with preliminary
answers hopefully available by June of 2016.
Laliberte noted an incorrect date on the survey agreement (page 2, Section 2,
Line 29); duly noted by City Manager Trudgeon for correction.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute an agreement
(Attachment A) with The Morris Leatherman Company to provide residential survey
Consider Renewing the IT Shared Service Agreement with the Anoka
County Joint Law Enforcement Council (JLEC)
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the Information Technology Shared Service Agreement
(Anoka County Contract No. C0004847-Attachment A) with the Anoka County JLEC
for the purposes of sharing a City of Roseville System Engineer employee and
Receive Authorization to Accept Minnesota Department of Public
Safety Grant Funds - Financial Crimes Presentation
Laliberte thanked the Police Department for applying for this grant.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, authorizing acceptance of grant funding from the Minnesota Department
of Public Safety and proceed with the purchase of financial crimes prevention
outreach and education materials; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to
execute the Agreement (Attachment B).
Consider Items Removed from Consent
General Ordinances for Adoption
Adopt an Ordinance Creating Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Standards within the City Code
Thomas Paschke briefly reviewed revisions to the PUD ordinance based on
feedback based on previous City Council meeting discussion and direction to
staff. Upon the City Council's concurrence, Mr. Paschke advised that staff
recommended approval of the ordinance as drafted, as well as a summary ordinance
for publication, all detailed in the RCA dated April 11, 2016.
At the last
Council discussion, Councilmember Willmus noted administrative waiver of certain
information if deemed unnecessary by staff at the Preliminary Plan stage,
specifically spelling out submittal requirements process and staff's rationale
for waiving any requirements, with that information then forwarded to the City
Council as part of their approval process. However, Councilmember Willmus stated
that he only found that language carried over to PUD Final Plan review when he
understood the intent was for both stages.
B, page 9, line 253, Mr. Paschke advised that submittal requirements were
applied at the PUD Concept Plan stage.
Willmus noted that the intent was that any waivers be brought to the attention
of the City Council at the PUD Final Plan stage as well.
of the City Council was that this iteration had inadvertently omitted that
requirement; and without objection, Mayor Roe noted language of Item 3.b PUD
Final Plan Review (lines 364 - 370, specifically lines 369-370) addressed it,
but suggested also including that language at line 320 on page 11 as well.
Gaughan noted that, if the language is added to the PUD Concept Plan Review on
page 11 as well, it would incorporate three different bites, including at the
PUD Concept Plan stage (page 8, line 228) that also includes the waiver
statement. City Attorney Gaughan clarified that previous discussion directed
staff to alert the City Council of any waivers at the Concept and Final Plan
reviews, but not at the Concept Plan review stage.
Willmus opined that at any point in time that staff waives a requirement, the
City Council needed to be aware of it.
objection, Mayor Roe reiterated the request to add the language to the Concept
Plan Review stage on page 11, line 320 as referenced above.
McGehee noted that, in each of the three instances, language needed to be
revised to indicate that "staff [should] [shall] identify
any information submittals that were waived" (Lines 228, 253, the added
language at line 320, and line 369).
Paschke noted that staff attempted, with assistance of Consultant Ben Gozola
from Sambetek, to incorporate all previous suggestions of the full Council in
this draft of the ordinance.
McGehee noted other revisions suggested in her submittal of proposed changes
submitted as a bench handout to "Attachment C."
Mayor Roe asked
the status of those suggestions by Councilmember in this latest draft from
Community Development Director Kari Collins
Interim Community Development Director Collins advised that the suggested
changes submitted by Councilmember McGehee and provided in the bench handout,
had not yet been incorporated into this latest draft by staff until the City
Council as a whole had provided feedback on her recommendations.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Councilmember McGehee proceeded to review her recommended changes
to staff's most recent draft of the ordinance.
Lines 125 - 127
Based on the
sentence construction by staff, Councilmember McGehee requested a change to
page 5, lines 125 - 127 as noted on the bench handout, and a similarly parallel
revision for each phase of the proposed PUD when construction was intended over
more than one phase. Councilmember McGehee noted her concern that each phase
of a development be able to demonstrate that it could stand independent of
subsequent phases. Recognizing staff's note in red that the sentence
construction hadn't been updated, Councilmember McGehee reiterated her concern
that each phase stand on its own merits.
objection,Mayor Roe suggested to take out the second "each"phrase and say "it" instead.
Lines 206 and 210
McGehee asked that the examples listed in staff's draft be removed entirely.
Without objection, Mayor Roe agreed that the examples be removed.
Page 9, Line
Councilmember McGehee asked that the examples listed in staff's draft be
Lines 317, 329 and 331
McGehee asked that language as indicated in her submittal be struck as noted; and
assigning to staff completion of the PUD Concept Plan Review process.
stated his satisfaction with existing language as drafted by staff.
McGehee sought to ensure, through her suggested striking of draft staff
language in lines 316 - 332, to ensure that Community Development staff shall,
as a condition of PUD Concept Plan Review approval, be responsible for the
clarified that during the process, many things were happening and being
completed by multiple entities, and suggested it was better not to identify anyone
at all, since the City Council had final approval via adoption of the ordinance.
McGehee agreed with Mayor Roe's clarification; and no changes were made to
staff's draft language (page 11). However, Councilmember McGehee reiterated
that her attempt was to make Items 3.a and d parallel so the Community
Development Department would generate the analysis instead of only addressing
it as Item 2.g on page 10.
perspective, and without objection from his other colleagues, Mayor Roe stated
that the preambles are fine and served to get the point across.
Item 2.i, Lines 361-366
McGehee reviewed her proposed language as noted; with Mayor Roe suggesting
"must include" in the sentence.
Gaughan noted that the language for this provision was intended to put the onus
on the owner of the lands and building, thus its particular wording.
After further discussion,
without objection, and upon input and recommendation of the City Attorney,
language as submitted in staff's draft remained unchanged for lines 361 - 365.
Item 3.f, Line 388
noted that this proposed change from her was similar to those addressed in
lines 330 and 332 that hadn't been changed.
objection, Mayor Roe ruled no changes for this language either.
Item A, Existing PUD Overlay Districts, Lines 429 - 436
stated her intent to assign the duty - as on page 13 as referenced above - that
the Community Development Department "shall" establish.
administrative amendments, Mayor Roe asked if the City Council wanted to have
notice of something being changed that wouldn't typically fall within the
purview of the City Council.
Etten opined that at some point, staff would end up tied in circles, and unable
to move forward, essentially grinding development to a halt if all review needed
to come before the City Council in addition to staff.
Laliberte stated that she'd long been a proponent of Roseville being easier to
do business with and without making it too onerous, and therefore agreed with
the comments of Councilmember Etten. For full transparency concerns expressed
to-date by members of the community, Councilmember Laliberte noted that if
substantive changes were made, those have been addressed and included in
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke confirmed that nothing of substance was able to be
approved by staff without first coming before the City Council in a public
setting to ensure that transparency.
Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1497 (Attachment C) entitled, "An
Ordinance Adding Text to Title 10, Zoning Ordinance of then Roseville City Code
Relating to Planned Unit Developments;" as amended in the
Councilmember McGehee, echoed by
her colleagues, thanked staff for this accomplishment.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, publication of Ordinance Summary No. 1497S (Attachment D) entitled,
"An Ordinance Adding Text to Title 10 Zoning Ordinance of then Roseville City
Code Relating to Planned Unit Developments."
Consider Amendments to Roseville City Code Chapter 201, Advisory
Commissions; Chapter 205, Human Rights Commission; and Chapter 207 Ethics Commission
Trudgeon briefly reviewed the revisions made as a result of previous
discussions and as detailed in the RCA dated April 11, 2016.
City Manager Trudgeon
reported that the only concern was the potential omission of some language
inadvertently removed at the Human Rights Commission (HRC) level during their
review and deliberation. After his consultation with the HRA Chairperson Wayne
Groff, and as detailed in the RCA, lines 21-28, Mr. Trudgeon reported that had
been the case, and advised that the language had been reinserted accordingly.
moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1498 (Attachment C) entitled,
"An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of the Roseville City Code, Chapter 201
(Advisory Commissions); Chapter 205 (Human Rights Commission); and Chapter 207
Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, enactment
of Ordinance Summary No. 1498S (Attachment D) entitled, "An Ordinance Relating
to City of Roseville Advisory Commissions."
Call (4/5ths Majority Required)
Public Hearings and Action Consideration
Business Items (Action Items)
Consider Request by Vogel Mechanical for a Conditional Use (CU)
to Allow Limited Production and Processing at 2830 Fairview Avenue
Community Development Director Kari Collins briefly reviewed the RCA dated
April 11, 2016 detailing past action to-date for this property and current CU
summarized RCA detail on separate definitions in code clarifying accessory and
primary uses for limited production and processing; reviewed land use tables in
all four CMU districts without distinction; staff's review of the Vogel's
business plan and staff's determination that the principle use remained general
office in every function and capacity with this limited production and processing
further reported that staff continued to have issues and concerns with the
purported easement agreement that could not be found. Ms. Collins reviewed
staff's aggressive research at Ramsey County for this documentation, with the only
language found and included in tonight's packet to be the indenture dated in
1968 (Attachment E) with remaining debate as to how that particular language
addresses an easement. Ms. Collins reported that the result was staff's
inconclusive evidence that there was an easement agreement in place along the
north property line; and while recognizing there were overhead power lines
could not define an actual easement agreement in place for them or the
underground CenturyLink cables. Ms. Collins noted that the existing chain link
fence along the property line had been removed by Vogels in November of 2015 in
anticipation of installing the new fence until coming across the purported
reviewed staff's recommendations for conditional approval (page 5 of the RCA)
of the request as detailed in the staff report and those conditions differing
from the Planning Commission's recommendation, some based on further inconclusive
research by staff on an easement agreement.
Attachment B, Page 2, Councilmember Etten asked City Attorney Gaughan whether
or not the city was to not look at the previous Interim Use (IU) and consider
if the Conditional Use (CU) request had come independent of the IU to be viewed
on its own merits and under the city's CU requirements for all applications.
Gaughan responded that yes, it was the City Council's obligation to view each
application on its own merits within provision of the code, in this instance a
requested CU, not an IU. Mr. Gaughan advised that the obligation was to apply
the city's CU requirements to this CU application, and while there may be
information and facts surrounding the IU that the City Council might like to bring
into this current CU application, as a general principle, this application was
specific to the CU portion of city code.
McGehee asked City Attorney Gaughan if the City Council had the ability to
address any potential negative impacts with this CU application.
Gaughan responded that it did, specific to how CU is defined under local code
and after due consideration in determining whether or not any such potential
negative impacts can be determined under the parameters of the CU code.
CEO and Owner; Attorney Zachary Crain, Roseville resident and Legal Counsel for
offered to answer any questions of the City Council.
Laliberte asked for Ms. Vogel's comments related to the recommendation of the
Ms. Vogel stated
that she would like to object to earlier recommendations and findings reported
by staff regarding their inability to find an easement agreement, noting that
their company had forward that communication, recognizing a discrepancy between
their former attorney and a specialist from the land title company and
information submitted earlier. In terms of the former IU application, Ms.
Vogel clarified that their company had never sought an IU and were simply seeking
a new home for their family company, and selected Roseville based on their
reputation as a welcoming community. Ms. Vogel noted their involvement in education
programs in schools, employment fairs at local colleges and other efforts to
inform about this growing industry and to provide jobs.
Ms. Vogel opined that their error had been in not immediately applying for
rezoning of their parcel in the first place. Ms. Vogel noted that their business
had been from the beginning and continued to be interested in a long-term
solution, and throughout a process of questionnaires, open houses, and other interaction,
everyone was in agreement as a community that the CU application was indicated,
and accessory use for limited production and processing. Ms. Vogel asked that
the City Council consider the CU application independently of past discussions
and IU issues with the neighborhood, and hold their company and its operations
to that use.
stated that it was difficult for their small business to not feel they were
being punished when they were seeking the help and support of their new community.
Ms. Vogel noted the unfortunate situations that had developed for all parties,
including them personally, their employees, the neighbors, and entire
community. Ms. Vogel opined that so much negative time and energy had been
spent to-date and some had proven devastating for their business and uncomfortable
as their employees were continually on camera by neighbors observing them
whenever they were on site at the business. Ms. Vogel stated that their
business needed to focus on operations in order to thrive.
Specific to the
recommendation for a condition to keep production area doors shut during operations,
Ms. Vogel reviewed their uses for limited production and compared it to other
uses in a CMU-1 designated zoning district, questioning such a blanket
statement in this condition. Ms. Vogel sought some reasonable consideration
rather than neighbors through the city attempting to control every business;
noting that there were sufficient city code provisions in place related to
noise and environment that would address any concerns that may come up and
serve to address any fears or unknowns for adjacent residential neighbors. Ms.
Vogel asked the City Council to apply the same conditions for a CU that they
would for any other use in this spectrum, and just as those residential
neighbors shouldn't need to close their windows, their business should be given
some leniency for using their common sense rather than simply setting up
another opportunity for future miscommunication among parties.
In response to
Councilmember Laliberte's initial question regarding the Vogel response to
Planning Commission recommended conditions, Mr. Crain noted that they were
inconsistent with those recommended by staff advising the City Council to
follow city code for CU applications for screening in front and back and simply
moving on. Mr. Crain questioned why the Commission made the decision to move
beyond staff's expertise rather than depend on their objective expertise to
apply code and move forward. Specifically Mr. Crain opined that the Commission
had moved far beyond city code in stating that a fence rather than screening
for parking needed to be on the property line and doors closed during
With respect to
the fence, Mr. Crain opined that moving the fence from where staff recommended
to the property line did not actually affect the condition being applied for today,
and the actual permitted use, comparing other uses this could be (e.g. daycare
or liquor store) where no fence would be needed. Instead, Mr. Crain advised
that Vogel Mechanical was seeking a CU for one employee to occasionally stage
and form sheet metal for a particular job off-site. Under those circumstances
and from his perspective, Mr. Crain questioned the connection between the
activity itself and the location of the fence. Mr. Crain noted that the intent
was to screen the property, and the only benefit in placing the fence on the
property line appeared to him to allow the adjacent residential properties to
have a nice new fence, and having nothing to do with the actual use of the
With respect to
closing and opening doors, Mr. Crain opined that he found that to be an
enforcement issue, and questioned how and when that enforcement would be
realistic or whether it would be enforced by the neighbors keeping watch and
taking photos whenever the doors are opened to ensure Vogel Mechanical was
following the rules. If the intent was to get to a potential noise issue, Mr.
Crain opined that if that became a potential issue, there were already noise
ordinances in effect in the city for staff enforcement, similar to potential
issues with smell or other things. Mr. Crain stated that he has no doubt that
any issues occur he would guarantee they would be brought to staff's attention,
but restated that the Vogels intended to stay.
As a follow-up
on the easement, Mayor Roe asked if Ms. Vogel or Mr. Crain had any information
with them to submit on the easement agreement or applicable restrictions on the
easement that could serve to enlighten the City Council.
advised that, as part of the record, staff had previously been presented with information
from CenturyLink addressing underground cables and their conditions for fence
installation, 2' from that cable, which appeared to meander some.
Ms. Vogel spoke
to the 10' utility easement on the north side of their property.
referenced language in the Vogel deed about lines above and below and
referencing any encroachment; however, he could not stretch that to conclude
there was an easement, suggesting a simple Quit Title action could remove any
referenced a land title document dated April 8, 2016 from Jeff Christianson of
that firm, but noted that while the document relates to a 10' utility easement
on the most northerly 10' of their property. However, Ms. Vogel noted that the
City Attorney was not in agreement with this interpretation.
Willmus asked for a copy of the title binder itself, with Ms. Vogel advising a
copy had been provided to staff and the City Attorney for dissemination.
Mayor Roe noted
that a public hearing had already been held at the Planning Commission, but
opened the meeting for public comment at this time.
2926 Mildred Drive
While not a
direct neighbor to this property, Mr. Metz stated his observation of this
two-year fence issue as part of the IU application. Mr. Metz opined that this
fence issue had been tap danced around for that two years, but opined the
biggest issue was when the Vogels decided to tear out the existing fence and so
cut up existing trees some had to be removed. Mr. Metz noted there was now no
privacy for adjacent residential backyards, and questioned what recourse those
residents had if CU conditions were not met, opining some way was needed to
enforce those conditions.
McCormick, Wheeler Street
asked that the City Council take into consideration its own comprehensive plan
guidance for this area and other information already available in making the
best decision possible as it relates to this parcel. Ms. McCormick reviewed
past planning processes, rezoning form HDR to CMU north of Terrace Drive to
protect residents adjacent to commercial parcels; original neighborhood
concerns beginning in 2014; and original requests of the residential neighbors
for separating those uses by extending the existing 8' privacy fence east of
the Vogel property line parallel to their line and west to Fairview Avenue.
With additional neighborhood concerns in the extension of Twin Lakes Parkway
and potential redevelopment in the area, Ms. McCormick opined that their requests
were more than justified, and were intended to not only separate uses but
enhance visual protection with landscaping intended to complement that visual
continued with her perspective on the history of this IU approving limited
production and processing at 2830 Fairview Avenue (PF14-012) displaying a
resolution signed by Ms. Vogel. Ms. McCormick noted that the Vogels purchased
the property in 2014 when the parcel was still zoned HDR for residential use
and any other use was illegal at that time; with rezoning not occurring until
January of 2016, but until then they had still been allowed to occupy the
space, having done remodeling and a determination made on SAC charges reviewed
by the Metropolitan Council. Since the Vogels chose to use this space as
office, meeting and warehousing space, Ms. McCormick opined they had been doing
so illegally to-date until rezoning was approved in January of 2016.
noted residents continued to come before the City Council seeking enforcement
of the conditions for IU approval, with further clarification of those
conditions in August of 2015, still not resulting in action or enforcement
while the Vogels were allowed to continue occupying the space.
Specific to the
easement, Ms. McCormick stated her disagreement with the Vogel attorney
opinion, and addressed her interpretation of the CenturyLink easement and hand
digging requirements around their underground cable. Ms. McCormick advised
that she too had researched Ramsey County records, and referenced a 1978
housing subdivision and replat, she found no utility easement along the south
property line for residential properties; but most important to her was a copy
of the legal description provided for the Vogel property and no mention of an
easement (Commitment LT File No. 503870).
McCormick opined that was a moot point if the Vogels wanted to replace the
fence and be the good neighbor they claim to want to be; and install the fence
in the same location it was before. Ms. McCormick opined that interests of all
parties were more in line than apart; and assured all that the residential
neighbors had no objection to the Vogel's business, but simply sought
protection for their own properties. Ms. McCormick asked that the City Council
enforce what the Vogels had promised to do and what was right.
extensive record had already been submitted for the public record previously,
Ms. McCormick advised that she would submit additional handouts as referenced
tonight, including a list of eleven conditions requested by the neighborhood
for this CUP if approved. Given the City Council's repeated interest in
community engagement, Ms. McCormick asked that the City Council act to protect
these residential property owners as was previously expressly promised. Also,
for a City Council apparently concerned with setting precedents, Ms. McCormick
expressed her interest and concern in how their action tonight would take that
Erickson, 1790 Centennial Drive
As a neighbor directly
abutting the Vogel property, Ms. Erickson stated that she hardly knew where to
begin her comments other than to put a human face to tonight's legal jargon.
Ms. Erickson spoke to the recent and lengthy Planning Commission without
allowing any additional public comment; and stated that the process seemed to
be a sham leaving residents without recourse.
opined that this was a red herring form the beginning, since the fence had been
installed for years and now there was suddenly a problem with its location.
Ms. Erickson opined that she found that to be not true; and provided various
examples in the community where similar shielding or screening between
residential and commercial properties was done. Ms. Erickson opined that the
residents had attempted to be transparent, even though characterized as
snooping; and suggested if the Vogels didn't want them watching they shouldn't
have mutilated their trees or removed the existing fence.
referenced an email from former Community Development Director Paul Bilotta to
Ms. McCormick regarding a CU, timing of the rezoning issue before resolution,
and determinations for resolution from staff's perspective, which she also
found untrue. Since not only commercial property owners, but also residential
property owners make city and other jobs available in Roseville, Ms. Erickson
opined that she didn't feel city staff was representing residents. Even though
she now feels victimized, Ms. Erickson stated that residents had simply asked
for a barrier fence between residential and commercial properties to protect
them from a new business representing an unknown quantity. Ms. Erickson noted
that this is a test case for resident concerns with new development coming into
their neighborhood and touching them where they lived. Ms. Erickson opined
that the lack of enforcement by staff was part of their victimization, noting
that the IU would be in effect for two years in June, but its conditions had
yet to be met or enforced.
noted that this was where she lived and she had hoped to be in her property for
the next twenty years, but now felt characterized as a snooping and meddling
Comment/Response from Vogel
Ms. Vogel noted
that the IU required them - the applicant - to install an opaque fence of 6'-8' in height, not a continuous replacement of the existing fence. Ms. Vogel
admitted that assumptions were initially made in defining the northern edge of
the property on an exact line, and noted their full agreement with the
conditions at that time. Ms. Vogel stated they had done their best to get the
new fence installed, and had not anticipated the uncertainties created in
discovering the easement. However, when offering a solution similar to the
original screening solution, Ms. Vogel noted that the residential neighbors had
said that wasn't good enough; and if they had known at the time, she stated
they would have left the old fence in place with no impacts to the existing
Ms. Vogel noted
that the reason for removal of the existing fence in November of 2014 was to
accommodate the locate by CenturyLink for the new fence installation, scheduled
for installation later that same week. However, as evidenced during the
ensuing process, Ms. Vogel noted that the project had been put on hold due to
questions and concerns with border conditions and differing survey and
underground cable locates, creating additional confusion.
Ms. Vogel noted
that when the neighbors appeared before the City Council in August of 2015
saying that all obstacles had been removed, they actually had not been.
In March of
2015, Ms. Vogel reported that their business began renovation of the building,
and moved into it in June of 2015, clarifying that they had not even been there
for a year due to zoning and other issues as well, but not two years as suggested.
Ms. Vogel asked
what was so bad about looking at an empty parking lot; and further asked what
the screening was protecting residential properties from. Ms. Vogel noted that
their business had also been affected during this process; and recognized the
personal piece, with their business being responsible for twenty or more of
their employees' families.
stated that he had issues with the Planning Commission's use of the word
"cedar" since that was a technical issue. Mr. Crain stated his concurrence in
designating a "wood" fence, but asked that it be cedar or like quality rather
than causing the Vogels to return for approval if another material was found
more appropriate and cost effective.
Ms. Vogel noted
that the original condition of approval only designated "opaque."
opined that, no matter the action tonight, it wouldn't resolve hurt feelings;
and in his perception of the City Council and attempting to balance things, opined
that it was important for them to be leaders and state what they cared about.
Mr. Crain asked if tonight's decision would inhibit small business from being
successful in Roseville or not. Mr. Crain noted that even with installing the
new fence 20' beyond where residential property owners wanted it located was in
support of staff's reading of city code compliance.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte as to their intended location for the new fence
installation once the old one had come down, Ms. Vogel responded that after the
existing fence had come down, multiple readings were done by CenturyLink
further confusion new fence installation based on the inconsistencies of those
readings and potential location of underground cable. Ms. Vogel noted that one
reading had the cable on the residential neighbors' side, another further south
on the Vogel property, and yet another directly under the previous fence location.
Being told by CenturyLink cable locators that the fence and trees were
affecting those readings, Ms. Vogel noted that they had attempted to resolve
those discrepancies by removing the old fence and having trees trimmed as well
as to facilitate installation of the new fence, even though then told later
that wouldn't have been necessary. However, Ms. Vogel noted that this served
to create a different situation in placing footings for an 8' fence versus
those needed for a shorter fence at 6.5' due to load bearing on those footings
for the fence based on height.
If the Vogels
were to install the fence today, based on the three optional locations shown on
the area map (Attachment D.1), Councilmember McGehee asked where she would
locate the fence, and how the Vogels intended to maintain the opposite side of
the fence if it had been located right on the property line.
responded that the intent was to install the fence 5' south of the abutting
property line to facilitate that maintenance for lawn care, mulch or snow storage,
even though it would prove more expensive, time-consuming and difficult to do,
it was still part of the requirements of Vogel to meet conditions.
moved that the applicant install a 6.5' opaque fence 5' south of the north
property line as originally proposed; and that the installation be completed by
July 29, 2016.
ruled the motion failed for lack of a second.
Laliberte seconded, that the applicant installs a 6.5 Cedar fence, not Pine,
and that the opaque fence be placed on the property line where the previous
chain link fence stood.
Gaughan clarified that if this motion passes, placing a condition on a
subsequent CU motion, it was recognized that this motion may still fail if a subsequent
CU motion fails.
McGehee opined that the City Council had an obligation to make the residential
neighbors whole again. From the standpoint of the request, and in good faith,
Councilmember McGehee noted that the original agreement had been without any
intended burden on the business owner. When the Vogel's fence contractor
appeared before the City Council previously, Councilmember McGehee noted that
she had specifically asked the cost for the fence as stipulated in her motion,
and been told the cost would be $16,000, not the $40,000 to $45,000 for an 8'
fence due to additional engineering requirements of a taller fence. Councilmember
McGehee opined that it had never been the City Council's direction to install
an 8' fence, since the process was considering a 6.5' fence throughout.
Councilmember McGehee stated that her lack of support for Pine was due to concerns
that it wouldn't last; and since the fence has to be maintained, it would be
better served with Cedar. Because this has been promised and the existing
fence already removed and not yet replaced, Councilmember McGehee opined that
the cost to replace it wasn't comparable to the legal costs in fighting its
installation over the last two years. At the minimum, Councilmember McGehee reiterated
the City Council's obligation for the benefit of residents and businesses, and
stated that she didn't think this represented an unbearable expense or
inconvenience and verified the Board of Appeals and Adjustments' previous
denial of the appeal.
If the fence is
to be replaced and installed directly along the property line, Councilmember
Willmus asked how Councilmember McGehee intended to address maintenance on the
north side of the fence by Vogels if there is no 5' setback for that maintenance
If installed on
the property line, Councilmember McGehee presumed that neighbors on the other
side would maintain it as part of their property. Councilmember McGehee
expressed her objection in principle to establishing a 5' "no man's land" between fences or property lines, especially such a long expanse on uneven
topography, opining that at least the former chain link fence was all the same
If the fence
was installed further south between the grove of Vogel-planted deciduous trees,
Councilmember Willmus suggested asked staff if the chain link fence and line of
evergreens in place from north to south on that east/west line would suffice as
opined that evergreen trees were tough on chain link fences, providing
photographic evidence of the area in question.
Willmus clarified that the intent of the fence was not to secure yards for LDR
properties to the north, but intended to provide a break or buffer screen
between. Therefore, with that intent in mind, Councilmember Willmus questioned
what the difference was in where the fence was installed, suggesting that it
made sense to locate the fence far enough south to allow the owner of the fence
to maintain it on both sides.
McGehee stated she didn't agree with Councilmember Willmus' premise, noting that
the fence originally installed by Aramark had served as a visual delineation
between residential and commercial property owners and maintained by that
business owner for forty years on one side and maintained on the other by
residential property owners, without issue during that time period.
Councilmember McGehee stated her belief that the demarcation between residential
and business uses should be by way of an attractive, Cedar, opaque fence, which
she thought had been sufficiently clarified with the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments' assertion, and yet still hadn't happened. However, Councilmember
McGehee opined that instead what had happened was a complete destruction of
backyards as a result of this ongoing issue and lack of staff enforcement of a condition
asked for over a year ago.
Willmus noted that one item discussed by the Planning Commission was placing
the foundation and framing structure for a wooden versus metal fence, and
requirements for those posts to be cemented in. Whether or not that created an
issue and proximity concern with the underground cable, Councilmember Willmus
opined seemed to be a reasonable assumption; noting that had not been part of
the IU discussion and not considered at that time. While there was some discussion
as a possible utility easement during that IU discussion, Councilmember Willmus
stated that it had not been known to him that there was a buried phone cable
located there, which would have made a difference in his decision.
McGehee noted that at the public hearing after appeal of staff's administrative
ruling, that information had been brought forward, including verbal and written
testimony from the Vogel fence contractor, assuring that a 6.5' fence could be
installed on the property line.
Laliberte referenced her original motion, noting that she remained in support
of a 6.5' high fence, installed 5' south of the property line, which the Vogels
were willing to do. Councilmember Laliberte noted that this took into account
the cement installation for wood post supports; and agreed that the City
Council owed it to the neighborhood to follow-through with the intent for a
buffer in this area. Short of dragging this out even further with an
encroachment easement, Councilmember Laliberte opined that 5' would accommodate
the posts and encroachment areas, yet be as far north as the city could ask the
Vogels to install the fence.
Willmus, Etten and Roe.
ruled the motion was not in order as it had been offered previously and failed
due to lack of a second.
moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11312 (Attachment G)
entitled, "A Resolution Approving Limited Production and Processing as a
Conditional Use at 2830 Fairview Avenue;" subject to the following conditions:
solid opaque Cedar fence approximately 6.5' in height shall be installed
immediately north of the existing eastern parking lot's chain link fence to
screen the lot, as well as delivery, dock and refuse/recycling areas.
landscaping shall be installed in and around the berm adjacent to the front
employee and customer parking lot to more fully screen headlights from view of
the adjacent residentially zoned properties.
required screening shall be installed no later than July 29, 2016.
work associated with limited production and process be contained indoors.
Willmus stated this allowed for a significant transition between the
residential and commercial properties while screening residential properties
from lights and tied this fence to the building where the chain link fence was
on the western edge, but not extending to the eastern property edge by stopping
at the eastern edge of the existing chain link fence.
Gaughan suggested that the makers of the motion include Diagram D.1 as part of
their motion serving as an illustrious diagram.
Etten expressed his frustration, opining this was the wrong answer to how the
city wanted to take care of its neighbors, and apologized for that. However,
Councilmember Etten also expressed his belief that the city had a legal
responsibility to adhere to its own CU and noted that code stipulated screening
the parking area, and this is the best way to address that under current code
provisions, and thus the reason for his decision.
Laliberte stated she had heard language read from city staff to the residential
neighbors, stating IU provisions would prevail, causing a contribution to the
interpretation by Councilmember Etten.
Willmus clarified that it was his understanding in the context of that staff
statement as offered, that this was prior to the rezoning of this property; and
now a completely different application and process was in place, as addressed
by City Attorney Gaughan when asked by Councilmember Etten earlier tonight
specific to whether or not the IU carried forward and should be considered as
part of this application process.
McGehee expressed her disagreement with that interpretation, reiterating what
she felt was the city's obligation to its residents, and not attempting to
revise those promises made almost two years ago, reinforced by a public hearing
process, resulting in leaving those neighbors much worse than before. Councilmember
McGehee opined that it was the city's obligation to maintain the condition of
the IU as part of the conditions of the CU, which could be legally accomplished
based on the city's right to ensure any significant negative impacts to
surrounding properties were properly addressed. Councilmember McGehee further
opined that these negative impacts were a result of previous city action; and
stated the need for the city to enforce that obligation and set a precedence by
affirming and reaffirming that the city would not abandon them two years later.
In speaking to
the proposed CU motion, Mayor Roe recognized that it essentially responded to
code requirements for buffering and screening. Mayor Roe also expressed his
understanding of the past history, IU approval and actions since then. For
those exact same reasons mentioned by Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe opined
that the city had the ability to apply additional conditions to address impacts,
impacts created more as a result of city action rather than the use proposed.
If the city was clear in stating its rationale for doing something outside of
city code and not following it strictly, Mayor Roe opined that he could be supportive
of not following code to the letter. While understanding the makers of the
motion intended additional conditions served to address residential concerns, especially
5' south and not create a "no man's land," Mayor Roe stated he still could not
support the motion.
stated that he was largely supportive of the Planning Commission's recommended
language with the exception of the Cedar fence and including staff's suggestion
for the indoor containment of limited production and processing work.
Laliberte and Roe.
Roe moved, McGehee
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11312 (Attachment G) entitled, "A
Resolution Approving Limited Production and Processing as a Conditional Use at
2830 Fairview Avenue;" subject to the following conditions:
solid opaque fence approximately 6.5' in height shall be installed on the
northern edge of the property as clarified by the Board of Adjustments and
Appeal on January 25, 2016.
required screening shall be installed no later than July 29, 2016.
work associated with limited production and processing be contained indoors.
noted past language about the fence meandering.
Mayor Roe noted
that the key word was "can" and was something he'd approved at the time and
still supported that language.
Willmus suggested an amendment to the specific installation location to
accommodate interference with the underground cable.
Mayor Roe noted
that this clarification had been addressed by the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals in allowing that the fence could "meander," while still being built as
far north as possible.
ensued on actual language of the motion and intent; with City Attorney Gaughan
suggesting language directly from the Board of Adjustments be incorporated into
the motion. After further debate, Mayor Roe further clarified that language
from the August 24, 2015 action and January 25, 2016 language included
reference to "meander" and remained consistent with the intent of his motion.
perspective based on the language recommended by staff, City Attorney Gaughan
advised that the applicant's position is that the easement precludes the fence
being installed 10' from the property line due to that easement. However, Mr.
Gaughan opined that this language didn't serve to clear up that language; and
his office's position on the easement having never seen any such document and
without any ability to review the supposed easement agreement for confirmation,
and also beyond the 1968 conveyance referencing an easement, it assumes the
easement to be non-conclusive. Therefore, Mr. Gaughan advised that there is no
city presumption that the fence can't be installed on the easement; nonetheless
that language as addressed by Ms. Collins in the RCA, clears up the applicant's
contention if the city chooses to handle it. Mr. Gaughan noted that the city
had and is still asking the applicant for such a document, but never having
received the actual document to-date even with reference to it by the 1968
conveyance document, it cannot speak for the document itself.
Mayor Roe sought
clarification if City Attorney Gaughan was suggesting adding language that was clearer
than the administrative ruling as to the actual location of the fence.
noted that there was a proposed deadline for installation of July 29, 2016, unless
the applicant provides the actual easement agreement document.
further clarified that the fence has to be installed by that date whether or
not the document is provided, leaving the only question the location of the installation.
Gaughan responded that the City has had two years attempting to interpret
language; but clarified that the approved and confirmed language remains that
the fence is to be installed at the northernmost property line unless an
easement precludes that location. Mr. Gaughan stated it was his opinion that
the applicant continues to state they can't install the fence at that location
because there's an easement there and it won't allow fence installation; while
others continue to there is no easement. Mr. Gaughan suggested that this body
may want to simply be more definitive on where the fence is going to be
installed; and provide staff with that clarification; and if an encroachment
agreement can be submitted for review, consideration can be given to deviating
2' or where needed. From his personal perspective, Mr. Gaughan opined that
more clarity was needed to direct staff accordingly in order for them to
enforce the location for installation.
questioned if revision to the language that "unless an easement or encroachment
agreement is submitted" would suffice without making it too broad.
Willmus asked City Attorney Gaughan about the information provided by the
applicant's title company and definition of what a proscriptive easement is.
Gaughan clarified that a "prospective easement" defines what a property owner
can or cannot do; and advised it was typically recorded. Mr. Gaughan advised
that it is the opinion of the Vogel's title company that there is an easement
at that location on the property; and clarified that the city, nor the City
Attorney's office, is arguing that there is a 10' utility easement, but only
that neither the title company or city has yet to see it.
suggested language stating, "unless a prospective easement is submitted
prohibiting a fence in that area" that it be installed on the property line.
Gaughan clarified that his only point was if the city never received a
definitive answer as to whether or not an easement agreement existed, should
the city come up with a definitive answer conditioning its own condition,
noting that it had done so before unsuccessfully.
Laliberte pointed out that the city talking about a 10' easement; with a
statement available from the applicant that they're willing to move the fence
location south up to 5'. While recognizing that no one wants to create a "no
man's land," Councilmember Laliberte noted this would put the full burden for
maintenance on the owner for both sides of the fence, especially since
residential property owners are saying they're not looking for a wall between
the properties, simply a buffer; and this would still accomplish that intent.
Trudgeon concurred with the City Attorney specifically that this proposed
motion left a lot of discrepancy; and by having a clear definition however the
City Council chooses to word it, on behalf of staff he would appreciation
further refining the motion, noting the considerable amount of time and energy
already having been spent by staff.For clarification, Mayor Roe restated the
motion, as amended, was in accordance with the language of the August 24, 2015
ensued along the same lines; with City Attorney Gaughan suggesting that the
city define how many feet off the property line they wanted the fence installed,
or if they wanted it to stay right on the property line.
McGehee suggested leaving out the language about the easement agreement
completely and making it clear the fence was to be installed on the
northernmost property line.
Gaughan noted that the reference was in the 1968 document about a utility
easement; and since it remains unknown as to whether or not that remains
exclusive or if it still exists or not, it remained as referenced. Mr. Gaughan
noted that it would be better than having the motion conditioned on anything.
moved, Laliberte seconded, amendment to Condition A of the proposed motion as
solid opaque fence approximately 6.5' in height shall be installed 5' south of
the northernmost property line.
Laliberte noted that was her original motion that hadn't received a second.
McGehee stated she would not support this amendment creating a 5' area between,
opining that the location should be on the property line especially since no
easement agreements have come forward nor anything more definitive.
consideration, Councilmembers Willmus and Laliberte withdrew their amendment.
Willmus seconded, amendment to Condition A of the proposed motion as follows:
solid opaque fence approximately 6.5' in height shall be installed the entire
length of the northern edge of the property except as needed to make
adjustments to avoid underground utility cables.
Motion as Restated
moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11312 (Attachment G)
entitled, "A Resolution Approving Limited Production and Processing as a
Conditional Use at 2830 Fairview Avenue;" subject to the following
solid opaque fence approximately 6.5' in height shall be installed the entire
length of the northern edge of the property except to make adjustments to avoid
underground utility cables.
required screening shall be installed no later than July 29, 2016\
work associated with limited production and process be contained indoors
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 8:55 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 9:02 p.m.
Authorize Entering into a Professional Services Contract with
Economic Development Consultant
Community Development Director Kari Collins reviewed staff's recommendation for
a contract with Economic Development Services, Inc. as detailed in the RCA
dated April 11, 2016. Ms. Collins noted inclusion in the agenda packet of a
biography with Ms. King's expertise and credentials. Ms. Collins noted that
Ms. King was also a Roseville resident.
McGehee moved, Willmus
seconded, authorizing entering into a Professional Services Contract for
Economic Development services with Economic Development Services, Inc. for
preparation of a Phase I Economic Development Strategy; and authorizing the
Mayor and City Manager to execute the document.
Laliberte spoke in support of this motion, but for the purposes of full
disclosure and noting that Ms. King is a resident of Roseville, advised that
Ms. King was also a resident in her direct neighborhood. While having no
direct connection to her business, Councilmember Laliberte sought to make that
Recycling Request for Proposals (RFP)
Works Director Marc Culver reviewed this request for City Council approval of
the draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for a new curbside recycling contract for
the City of Roseville, as detailed in the RCA dated April 11, 2016 and related
part of his review and presentation materials as made available to the Public
Works, Environment and Transportation Commission at their February 2016 monthly
meeting, Mr. Culver provided comparisons with the current contract and this
the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Culver clarified that costs and averages
in the current Eureka contract were offset by expected revenue and didn't
include actual costs for that buy-down.
the request of Councilmember Laliberte for a comparable contract with the RFP,
Mr. Culver confirmed that the RFP maintained single-sort collection and continued
option for every other week collection cycle.
part of his presentation, Mr. Culver reviewed the evaluation criteria and
weighting that will be used as part of the Best Value Procurement process; and
covered next steps after incorporating tonight's City Council feedback on the
RFP, its release and timeline for proposals and their analysis.
McGehee noted that the previous contract spent considerable time and effort to
identify where the City of Roseville's recycling materials ended up after
leaving the community to determine if and how they were properly recycled.
Councilmember McGehee asked where that was addressed in this RFP.
Culver advised that even in the existing three-year contract with Eureka Recycling,
there was no requirement that materials be handled locally. However, Mr.
Culver clarified that this was part of the weighting criteria in the Community
Values portion of the evaluation process for scoring as high as 10% based on
where a proposer intended to deliver materials. Based on market conditions at
any given time, Mr. Culver noted that this varied for contractors; and further
clarified that the City didn't hold Eureka to any requirements that they prove
to the City of Roseville that they use a local market versus identifying where
they actually send it. Mr. Culver reiterated that this was due to today's
market fluctuations and in some cases, lack of local markets.
McGehee opined that she considered that an important piece of Roseville's
process all along, and didn't want it to get lost in the fine print or reduced
to a less important role.
McGehee asked how trash buckets were currently handled in city-owned parks.
Culver responded that Park & Recreation Department maintenance staff emptied
their own bins.
McGehee questioned if it would be possible, based on her personal review of the
map showing parks, to obtain a more effective price if once every week, Parks
staff picked up recycling materials at the same time they did trash and took it
to a central location (e.g. Central Park or City Hall campus). Councilmember
McGehee suggested staff consider that option as part of the RFP, since she
anticipated a large cost for a vendor to perform that pick-up multiple times at
included in the Appendix price sheets, Mr. Culver noted different options for a
separate pick-up of individual containers at various locations versus a central
location in each park. Mr. Culver opined that this should allow sufficient
comparison information to allow Park staff to consider their resources and
ability to assist that process.
the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Culver confirmed that a total of
14,000 cans were available including for multi-family residential units. Mr.
Culver clarified that this also accounted for those multi-family buildings, a
total of approximately 9,000 units citywide, having more than one unit per container.
Mr. Culver noted that some buildings have only a few actual bins and that the
totals were not based on a one-to-one container per unit; but provided for at
least one-to-one containers for each single-family residents, with some of
those utilizing multiple bins.
the cost of cart ownership by the city, cost for staff administration and
storage of carts addressed by Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Culver clarified that
even if the result was for city-ownership of the carts, the contractor would
still be required to manage and store the carts, with the city just maintaining
ownership of them.
Willmus opined that the RFP would reflect that those contractors would not
store or manage the carts for free.
Culver noted that this was a recognized option, and would be reflected in the
price per unit, identifying storage, swapping out and other logistical
the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Culver confirmed that the RFP
included a proposal for weekly pick-up versus every-other-week.
to revenue sharing and current market conditions, Councilmember Willmus
suggested that the RFP provide a conduit for or incentive for some type of
reward program or system for its customers.
Culver advised that each proposer/contractor would be able to add such incentives
to their value-added submissions as part of the proposal. Mr. Culver reviewed
some options used by other communities, such as a coupon program based on the
amount of recycling and earning points from participating vendors.
Laliberte advised that she had been asked about coupon programs, and also told
of incentives used by other communities when recycling tonnage increased, and
asked if rebates or other considerations could be part of the value-added
component of the RFP.
Culver advised that a contractor could propose such a program as part of their
value-added RFP submittal. Mr. Culver stated that he wasn't sure how other
communities had handled credits for increasing tonnage. However, given the
past experience and good revenue sharing achieved with Eureka's contract when
there was a market available, Mr. Culver opined that it would be interested to
see how proposers address that area in the value-added portion of the RFP given
today's market for recyclable materials.
from organics, and in recognition of the eight city licensed solid waste
haulers Councilmember Laliberte asked if their programs, if any, could be considered
as part of their weekly trash pick-up; and asked if so, could that information
be provided to those haulers at some point.
Culver advised that those licensed haulers could be asked those questions, and
could be submitted to the City Council when staff returned with recycling
proposed language of the RFP (page 20), Councilmember Etten noted language
addressing educational tags used by contractors for curbside materials that
were unacceptable; and expressed his wholehearted agreement with that language.
However, on that same page, Councilmember Etten noted different language for
that same situation for multi-unit dwellings and that education tags would be
left 'if available" and questioned the difference in language.
Culver advised that was an error, and he would strike "if available" to make it
mandatory as with the first language.
page 28, Section 6.06, related to public education materials and community
outreach, Councilmember Etten questioned if there was any way that such outreach
and efforts to encourage participation in recycling could be given assistance
through translation for those lower participating communities with a language
barrier. Councilmember Etten stated that his intent was to help the contractor
and residents to accomplish that outreach in targeted parts of the community.
recycling in parks and a one-to-one rollout, Councilmember Etten opined that
this was a big deal; and he shared concerns as pointed out by his colleagues,
using the example of 24 new bins in Central Park Lexington as just one case.
Councilmember Etten questioned if a proliferation of cans was the best
practice, or if there should be targeted areas moving forward in more
incremental stages. Councilmember Etten noted it could become problematic as
well as taking considerable staff time to manage another 139 carts; and while
he might consider it more cost-effective for city staff to collect and haul to
a central location, it would be a big change, and questioned how best to
balance those needs and resources.
those same lines, Councilmember McGehee suggested having trash vendors pick up
recycling in the parks as part of their service. Councilmember McGehee further
questioned if it would be better to focus recycling collection at those parks
most heavily used.
to cart storage, Councilmember McGehee noted the variable sizes of carts, and
if the city got in the cart business, perhaps it would be best to handle only
one size rather than attempting to handle the cosmetic aspect of cart manipulation.
previously noted by staff, Mayor Roe clarified that the contractor would be
storing the carts, no matter who owned them.
education tags, Councilmember Laliberte presumed that this RFP retained the
single-sort and would not revert to "shaming" versus "educating" about sorting.
Culver reiterated that the goal was for education.
Willmus moved, McGehee
seconded, receipt of the Recycling Request for Proposals (RFP) as presented (Attachment
A); and approval of the RFP for advertisement; as amended to correct
language as noted above by Councilmember Etten related to education tags being
Twin Lakes Parkway East Collector Project - Authorization to
Proceed with Final Design
Director Marc Culver provided an update on study of the Twin Lakes Parkway and
Fairview Avenue corridor over the last few months as previously approved by
staff and completed by SRF consultants.
In addition to
the detail provided in the RCA dated April 11, 2016, and maps attached to the
report, Mr. Culver's presentation included background information on the
project; additional upgrades in and around the area, including the interchange
at Cleveland Avenue and I-35W; Twin Lakes Parkway extension; new signals at
Twin Lakes Parkway and Terrace Avenue; and recent redevelopment in the area.
reviewed project goals of this specific Twin Lakes East Collector Project to
promote through-movements from Twin Lakes Parkway to Snelling Avenue, to
improve intersection operations at Lincoln Drive and County Road C-2, and to
improve those through-movements throughout the area, particularly at major
As part of the
study by the consultant SRF, traffic forecasts were done for eastbound County
Road C-2 at Snelling, both existing and projected 2030 peak afternoon vehicles.
reviewed some proposed design features, including changing some movements for eastbound
to northbound traffic at Lincoln drive while maintaining a three-way stop at
that intersection with County Road C; adding dual left turn lanes on County
Road C-2 to northbound Snelling Avenue to allow additional capacity; closure of
the median; and right in/right out only movements for 2875 and 2887 Snelling
Avenue, while having full access at Lincoln Drive.
provided projected costs for these improvements, including signal upgrades
and/or signal replacements since MnDOT is scheduled to replace one signal in
2020 and cost-share with the City of Roseville may be a viable option for this
Minnesota State Aid (MSA) roadway; cost containment due to no additional
rights-of-way requirements, only temporary easements for grading and landscape
removal at Lincoln Drive and Terrace Avenue during construction. Mr. Culver
noted that revenue would be allocated through Tax Increment Financing District
13 for roadway and engineering costs, anticipated to total approximately
reported that staff had sought preliminary feedback from area businesses that
would be affected, including the University of Northwestern with student
housing in the former Comfort Suites building, Grumpy's Restaurant, Scandinavian
Design and Midway Ford (no response received). To-date, Mr. Culver advised
that Scandinavian Design had communicated with staff on their concerns with
loss of full access along County Road C-2, as previously noted to the City
advised that the purpose of tonight's request from staff is to seek authorization
for staff to hold a neighborhood meeting on the conceptual design of the
project and authorization to complete final design of the project for City
Council consideration before going to bid.
thanked Mr. Culver for taking the initiative on this project, opining it was
necessary as part of the "big picture" improvements for this area. As part of
the concept design presented by Scandinavian Design, Councilmember Etten noted
that on idea was to change the median to allow one turn lane west bound from
the County Road C-2 intersection using the city's easement on the south side of
the road to create additional room. Councilmember Etten asked Mr. Culver for
his thoughts on that idea, which would increase costs for additional road
surface but allow Scandinavian Design more access to their property.
In displaying a
map of the concept design from Scandinavian Design, Mr. Culver reviewed potential
issues with the location of the signal pole and need to extend the radius from
the existing location along the right-of-way line, requiring an additional
easement from Scandinavian Design for relocating the signal pole. Mr. Culver
advised that he was not sure at this point on other existing utilities and
their potential location that might also be impacted. Mr. Culver noted that
with that concept and resulting significant grade, there may be the need for a
retaining wall to protect the parking lot of Scandinavian Design, with loss of
boulevard trees. While there would be impacts and additional costs with that
design, Mr. Culver noted that MnDOT would also have some say with the traffic
signal location; and further noted MnDOT's past lack of support with left
access and median openings, creating traffic stacking back toward Snelling
advised that he had received the scanned concept plan from Scandinavian Design
along with their communication; and from his observation living in that area
and frequenting that intersection on a daily basis, especially during peak
period times, access into that drive is already restricted due to traffic
stacking. Councilmember Willmus opined that the question was whether or not
Scandinavian Design's proposed access would be useful during those peak times,
and expressed his disinterest in exacerbating the problem when traffic volume increases.
Therefore, Councilmember Willmus stated that he was inclined to look more
favorably on staff's design proposal. Councilmember Willmus asked staff if the
property and right-of-way between Grumpy's and Midway Ford had been 100%
acquired from the current property owners.
stated that staff presumed it was platted, but noted a more detailed search on
how it was initially obtained would be necessary; and if vacated, typically
half of the property would go to the Grumpy's property and the other half to
Midway Ford property owners.
Willmus suggested staff research records back to the original easement
transactions; suggesting that from his recollection, originally Terrace Drive
or the frontage road may now actually be part of Midway Ford's parking lot.
Mayor Roe noted
that part of the design process and feasibility report would be identifying
McGehee spoke in opposition to this entire plan, opining the city needed to
hold off until the entire piece was done (Twin Lakes Parkway extension) to see
how much traffic is actually generated. Councilmember McGehee spoke in support
of the city's businesses, and opined this access is important to Scandinavian
Design, especially during peak hours if vehicles stack and block access to
their parking lot, creating problems, for their customers, employees, and
delivery trucks. Councilmember McGehee opined that she considered this to be a
significant impediment for Scandinavian Design, and if the intent was to
proceed with the project, she stated she would argue strongly that
consideration be given to the cost and possibility of pursuing the design
concept presented by Scandinavian Design.
suggested it may be feasible to move the current northern access into
Scandinavian Design further west to line it up with the proposed Lincoln Drive
access to create a quasi-intersection further west of Snelling Avenue
alleviating some of the stacking and give them an identified turn lane from the
city's excess median. However, Mayor Roe noted that Scandinavian Design would
then need to move their access and perhaps reconfigure their parking lot.
While understanding the perspective of Scandinavian Design, Mayor Roe noted if
their firm agreed with such a proposal, pending location of utilities and other
approvals, it could be a solution, noting his preference to keep the proposed
median. Mayor Roe stated that overall he was generally supportive of this
project, noting the current need to address the intersection at County Road C-2
and northbound Snelling Avenue, currently at a dangerous level and needing to
Gjerdingen, 1363 W County Road B
expressed appreciation for seeing plans for this project. Mr. Gjerdingen asked
why there were so many wide truck-style turns on Terrace Avenue and Lincoln
Drive, expressing his interest in buttoning up the intersection and making it
more pedestrian friendly. Mr. Gjerdingen opined that the corners didn't need
to be so rounded as it decreased safety.
Road C-2 and Lincoln Drive, Mr. Gjerdingen provided several options as well as
concerns for through-movements to continue northbound on Lincoln Drive past the
County Road C-2 intersection without yielding; however, he cautioned the need
to address pedestrians in the crosswalk with the blind view created, especially
with college student housing in the immediate vicinity and lack of sidewalks on
Lincoln Drive. Mr. Gjerdingen noted that the overall concept for the Twin
Lakes area is to be pedestrian friendly and integrate public and private s
paces to enhance walkability. Mr. Gjerdingen asked that be a definite consideration
going into this process.
noted that attempting to cross Snelling Avenue in this area now was
challenging, but at least the median provided some safe refuge for pedestrians;
with natural zigzag movements created with sidewalk access. If the project is
contemplating extending the roadway into the right-of way at County Road C-2
west of Snelling Avenue, Mr. Gjerdingen suggested a sidewalk along County Road
C-2 to facilitate pedestrian movements and other pedestrian accessibility
throughout the area and as part of this process.
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, receipt of the staff presentation for a proposed Twin Lakes East
Collector project; and authorizing staff to hold a neighborhood meeting on the
project; complete final design; and bring that final design to the City Council
prior to review and consider future bidding of the project.
McGehee opined that Mr. Gjerdingen brought up excellent points and expressed
her hope that they be taken into consideration especially with the businesses
in the immediate area and along Snelling Avenue. Councilmember McGehee opined
that the broader point was that this roadway coming off I-35W was simply a
thoroughfare primarily for those trying to go north on Snelling Avenue. As the
project is defined in the RCA, Councilmember McGehee opined that it did nothing
more than bringing more traffic through Roseville with no particular purpose.
While she supported bringing traffic in for jobs and shopping, Councilmember
McGehee spoke to the need to limit that traffic to ensure safety in high
pedestrian traffic areas. Councilmember McGehee further opined that this is a
really bad spot with few options for the city; and similar to her stated
opposition to other proposals and/or projects for this area, stated that this
is not the right thing to do with the traffic being invited off I-35W that will
only further clog an already difficult and dangerous intersection regularly
used by Roseville residents.
Laliberte spoke in support of the motion to receive additional information
about cost and design, noting that it contain additional concept designs as
suggested by Mayor Roe with different access options for Scandinavian Design.
Councilmember Laliberte specifically asked that staff include that option when
going out to neighborhood meetings for their feedback as well.
Etten agreed with the comments of Councilmember Laliberte, in addition to the
comments of Mr. Gjerdingen about that intersection design and facilitating
pedestrian crossings. Councilmember Etten reiterated discussion that there was
already a capacity problem with this intersection, and more traffic volume
anticipated with the extension of Twin Lakes Parkway, opined that it was
important to get this project started.
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
At approximately 9:57 p.m.,
McGehee moved, Etten seconded, extending the meeting curfew to complete Item
Ayes: McGehee, Willmus,
Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Southeast Roseville Redevelopment Discussion
provided a brief background on how this redevelopment discussion initiated
based on current properties available for consideration. Along with Interim
Community Development Director Kari Collins, GIS Technician Joel Koepp was
available for this presentation, with detailed information and maps included in
the RCA dated April 11, 2016 and related attachments.
noted the four areas outlined for discussion and City Council feedback as noted
in the RCA; with the presentation including socioeconomic data based on the
current census tract and its rationale, scope of the geographic area along the
Rice Street/Larpenteur Avenue corridor, and how to define the area and identify
development swells and those properties in need of reinvestment.
the Boundaries of SE Roseville
Seeking to have
that SE Roseville scope and its boundaries discussion in context, Mayor Roe
noted that this is not just a Roseville jurisdiction discussion, but needed to
envision the Cities of Maplewood and St. Paul beyond just their currently
engaged leadership. However, Mayor Roe noted that there were some things in
Roseville proper that were independent of those joint efforts and that the city
could make decisions along those lines or consider the opportunities. Mayor
Roe suggested, rather than the displayed aerial map showing the SE Roseville
boundaries from Dale Street and County Road B and/or Dale Street to I-35E,
suggesting that the city concentrate more primarily along a smaller area.
Willmus agreed that would be much more beneficial and manageable.
Councilmember Willmus opined that he didn't see the city doing a lot soon with
established residential neighborhood, and suggested paring the boundaries down
from roughly the current National Guard Armory parcel to the Margolis parcel
and then along the Larpenteur Avenue/Rice Street corridor.
Mayor Roe concurred, noting that on the east side, the railroad tracks could be
used as a boundary with the City of Maplewood used as the other boundary.
McGehee agreed with that corridor approach, creating a large "L" shape, or as
staff identified it "high, upscale boot" shape.
As a counter
thought, Councilmember Etten noted when the former Housing & Redevelopment
Authority (HRA) looked at this corner; it was the only census tract in
Roseville identified with a high concentration of poverty. If the current
armory parcel redevelops at some point into more residential, Councilmember Etten
opined that it could result in a significant number of homes and fostering investments
in existing homes, something that the city may not want to manipulate too
much. Instead, Councilmember Etten noted the greatest need from his perspective
was closer to the Rice Street/Larpenteur intersection even though as other data
points were reviewed, there were greater needs within the entire "box."
Laliberte agreed with Councilmember Etten's comments, but also with comments
focusing from the armory parcel down the corridor and up to the Margolis area.
Councilmember Laliberte noted that this was a big geographical area and
questioned if the city could bite off that entire census tract at once, or if
it would be better to make significant strides by working with other agencies
on smaller bites allowing bigger successes in the end. For those opportunities
deeper into Roseville proper, Councilmember Laliberte suggested the city could
respond as those situations arose, but reiterated her preference to start off
by finding successes along the Rice Street/Larpenteur corridor.
Scope/Collaborators for SE Roseville Redevelopment/Reinvestment
opined that collaborators had already been addressed in previous discussions,
with the consensus to engage adjacent communities and residents and businesses
in those communities as well.
Councilmember Willmus agreed, opining that the immediate next step was to chart
a path for Roseville and to get started, since people in Roseville had been
waiting for generations to revitalize this area, and it needed to be addressed
McGehee agreed, and from the choices, agreed with corridor development
initiative as part of this process. Councilmember McGehee opined that perhaps
the planning didn't need to be as expensive as a design Charrette, noting that
the Dale Street Process using corridor Development Initiatives (CDI) had proven
very effective and resulted in good feedback from the neighborhood.
Etten agreed with his colleagues, and opined that the process must include the
Cities of St. Paul and Maplewood noting that whatever they did impacted us and
therefore, a great partnership was needed for all. However, Councilmember
Etten opined that the City of Roseville needed to be the leaders for any
process moving forward, and actively encourage, engage and push those
concurred, also noting that whatever Roseville did also affected those
neighboring communities. Mayor Roe opined that the key was that Roseville
should be the leaders since it was in the position to begin, but also cautioned
that Roseville not leave those other communities behind, but involve them in
the process to any extent possible, while still being proactive in Roseville
but not too much in the lead that those other communities are left out of the
process. Mayor Roe agreed that the process in those communities may take
longer or look different, but suggested in these early phases in identifying
the problems, their input was a vital part of the dialogues. As to the process
itself, Mayor Roe stated his leaning toward an approach similar to the
Charrette Design option; even though it is more expensive it resulted in a more
inclusive process and end product of more substance.
Laliberte agreed with the comments of her colleagues related to working with
other partners. However, Councilmember Laliberte noted that there were things
the city could do in the meantime and not wait for them on areas applicable to
acting along. Since it affects all three cities, Councilmember Laliberte noted
that the City of Roseville could make all the greatest improvements in the
world and if those adjacent communities didn't pay attention to those same
areas, it would make no difference. Councilmember Laliberte noted that there
were no jurisdictional boundaries for those living or working along that
corridor, and while continuing to work with those agencies, supported working
on things farther off the corridor that were Roseville-specific and could be
done sooner rather than later.
As to the
process component, Councilmember Willmus agreed with Councilmember McGehee on
the CDI process, with the possibility of incorporating a Design Charrette later
in the process, or use a hybrid approach of the two.
her preference for a process, Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was
interested in the partners for that process since some planning discussions
were already held and coordinated in that area with Chambers of Commerce and
the three communities; and questioned the status of that planning.
reviewed the primary content of those collaborative and preliminary meetings
to-date, and their one common denominator indicating conversations needed to
continue. While all parties want to work together, Ms. Collins reported that
each jurisdiction was coming at it from a different angle, with Roseville leading
the charge from the community engagement position and Maplewood's challenges
coming from the public safety standpoint and seeking collaborative police and
public safety efforts. Ms. Collins further reported that the City of St. Paul
was looking at it from a market analysis perspective keyed up to addressing
larger scale collaborative zoning efforts to guide properties together for
future redevelopment. While each one was looking through a different lens, Ms.
Collins noted that the City of Roseville was doing so with the most momentum;
and while there was some interest coming out of those initial discussions,
there was no robust momentum to get going.
Chamber of Commerce opportunity, Ms. Collins noted there was significant
interest, but mostly to continue conversations since each community has their
own challenges; and while all agree that reinvestment is needed, the City of
Roseville was more interested in what that vision would look like, while the
other parties also had some level of interest, but basically she considered them
to be at the preliminary stages at this point.
Kelsey, Housing and Economic Development
advised that funds were available should the City be interested in property
acquisition. Regarding the St. Paul Chamber of Commerce and their interest in
this corridor, Ms. Kelsey noted that the reality was that they had a number of
things on their plate, and agreed with Mayor Roe that the City of Roseville may
need to take the lead.
cities involved in the independent conveners of those preliminary planning
meetings, Councilmember Laliberte asked that to avoid looking like someone was
pushing someone else, she would like answers given to those participants if the
Chamber and Smart Growth America efforts were not going to take a lead; and to
ensure that Roseville wasn't trying to recreate the wheel.
suggested expanding on those initial efforts, and agreed that the St. Paul
Chamber of Commerce was very interested in what was being done, as indicated on
those materials included in tonight's meeting materials, suggesting that the
City of Roseville could serve as a catalyst and rebirth that intent.
To that point,
Councilmember Etten referenced Attachment C and summary report from Smart
Growth America that suggests initiatives be implemented but without specific
ideas or community-specific information. Therefore, Councilmember Etten opined
that follow-through requires the city to move on, especially since the city's
motivation is stronger at this point.
Specific to a
promise he made to bring this issue up at tonight's meeting, Councilmember
Etten addressed who had or should have control of the former ICO gas station on
the corner, opining that while he didn't think it was possible, the site was
actually now uglier than it had been a year ago. Councilmember Etten stated
that he had encouraged city staff to facilitate getting the current structure
demolished immediately and to assist the current owners however possible. Councilmember
Etten noted that staff had attempted to get clarity of the situation and
permitting as applicable; however, he opined that it was now time to use the
city's enforcement tools to get the job done now.
design process, Ms. Collins asked for staff guidance on boundaries for the
project area and the style of visioning/redevelopment plan desired.
stated that he had no problem with a hybrid between the CDI and Design
Charrette process. Mayor Roe stated that his concern with only using the CDI
approach was a limited number of meetings (4), and therefore supported a more
McGehee agreed with the hybrid approach.
the SWOT approach was ruled out, with Mayor Roe noting that as things moved
through the process they would become more refined.
Laliberte spoke in support of the Design Charrette as it allowed from full
participation from all jurisdictions, as per the consensus of the City Council.
Mayor Roe noted
that the process would start by identifying problems and engage all stakeholders
as part of that; and once those problems and issues had been identified a
process could be determined to address them that may not be the same process or
same participants, and therefore suggested not ruling out the Charrette design.
In response to
Councilmember Laliberte regarding process and staff's comments, Councilmember
Willmus expressed his strong preference that as a city, Roseville needed to be
prepared to carry forward with this process even if other stakeholders or
jurisdictions aren't interested in participating; and therefore would not condition
this on any other party's participation, and while inviting them to participate,
continue moving forward as a community.
McGehee stated that she looked at it slightly differently, and while agreeing
with Councilmember Willmus, once a process was outlined, she would invite
businesses and residents from those other cities. However, whether or not
those other communities wanted to be involved, Councilmember McGehee opined it
should not preclude the residents and/or business people from those communities
to continue their involvement not matter their jurisdiction, and suggested that
perhaps it would take their involvement and interest to bring their community
McGehee's thought were shared by consensus by her colleagues.
McCarrons Blvd. (The Armory)
noted that there was an immediate opportunity to look at this site, with
Roseville having the first right of refusal followed by Ramsey County, with the
city's interest needed by the Department of Military Affairs in the very near
future. As detailed in the RCA, Ms. Collins reviewed the appraised value; and
noted that several from staff had toured the site. During that tour, Ms.
Collins reported that the building had challenges, with staff agreeing that the
best option would be to raze the current building and redevelop the parcel for
a different and better use. Ms. Collins offered to set up a tour of the facility
for interested Councilmembers.
McGehee expressed her interest in a tour.
Willmus stated that he was familiar with the interior of the facility, having
toured it several times, and therefore was not interested in another tour.
Councilmember Willmus further stated that he was not interested in leaving the
parcel zoned Institutional, but would be interested in seeing what the city
could do for a zoning change to greatly restrict and guide its future use to
avoid the city being put in a situation where they wouldn't be as involved or
worry about this parcel as with some others in question in that immediate area.
County has the second right of refusal on the parcel, Councilmember Etten asked
if staff had held conversations with them as to their level of interest.
reported that she had spoken with Ms. Heather Worthington of Ramsey County, and
at this point they stated they may consider it, but had no actual decision at
this point. Ms. Kelsey further reported that they had stated that they may be
willing to partner with the city on a collaborative effort should one or the
other parties be unable to take on the parcel.
At the request
of Councilmember Etten, Ms. Kelsey opined that Ramsey County's intended collaboration
would be of a financial nature.
Laliberte expressed interest in a tour, but stated she trusted staff's judgment
and their assessment. Councilmember Laliberte noted that this situation
prompted the city's need for a discussion on what future zoning they'd like to
see for this parcel, and with that in mind, suggested advising the Department
of Military Affairs to extend the city's timeframe for consideration,
especially since this is the first conversation being held and obviously more
vetting was needed.
Mayor Roe also
supported an extension for City Council deliberation and consideration.
Mayor Roe noted
that the city couldn't take advantage of all opportunities presented to it, and
opined he wasn't even sure if this rises to the top of the list. While having
some interest in the parcel, Mayor Roe noted the challenges, not limited to how
to finance its purchase, but agreed with extending the city's time for
considering before passing it off to the next entity in line.
was also agreeable with an extension, but if the desire was to potentially
control what could come of this site in the future, he reiterated the need to
have serious discussions on rezoning the parcel in the near future.
Councilmember Willmus spoke preliminarily of zoning for single family, LDR-2 or
MDR zoning designation.
Mayor Roe noted
that internal process was needed as well as responding to a formal request to
extend deliberations. Mayor Roe noted one or all of the zoning designations
supported by Councilmember Willmus could apply even though they all had
different characteristics, given the size of the parcel it could be split into
different zoning designations as well.
McGehee spoke in support of having Ms. Kelsey continue her discussion with
Ramsey County to see what ideas they might suggest.
On the other
issue of possible rezoning, Mayor Roe noted the need for a public input process
and that should also be key and part of the timeframe, with initial discussions
with the immediate neighborhood and then going into the zoning process versus
them responding to the city's process.
reported that this parcel had been identified three years ago, as detailed in
the RCA and had since fallen into Estate status and the Trustee was seeking cit
interest in purchasing the parcel. After staff's tour and due to the condition
of the property and code issues, Ms. Kelsey reported that there would be challenges,
unless the lot could be used to leverage a larger redevelopment with adjacent
property at 210 S McCarrons Boulevard.
reported on this property as detailed in the RCA, and potential for the parcel
with adjacent property as previously referenced to clean up lot lines and wrap into
one parcel. Ms. Collins noted that this particular parcel was currently listed
Willmus expressed his interest in looking at the potential for using the
Housing Replacement Program to acquire these parcels for recombination and
resale, providing city control over the site in an area needing more
pro-activity by the city than in the past. Councilmember Willmus noted that
this would serve to extend redevelopment efforts further toward Larpenteur
Etten agreed with having acquisition discussions, noting the parcels were along
the edge of where the city could have significant influence. Councilmember
Etten stated his only concern was with the significant difference in asking
prices and values.
Ms. Collins responded
that, if the city was interested in acquiring the parcels, the next step would
be to seek an appraisal for both parcels.
returns with a significantly lower price for the 210 parcel, Councilmember
McGehee expressed concern with pursuing purchase of 210, and questioned the
need for an appraisal on the 196 parcel based on the asking price.
responded that appraisals differ between single-family and commercial sites.
Laliberte stated that she was intrigued with this possibility in an area where
the city was attempting to make change, which was hard to do without
ownership. Councilmember Laliberte stated she was interested enough to get appraisals
and determine if there was a more realistic approach available for the 210
Etten spoke in support of an appraisal on the 210 parcel, but perhaps not on
the 196 parcel at the lower price and already examined a part of the HRP.
However, Councilmember Etten noted that a much clearer understanding of their
value and the city's potential investment was needed.
stated his willingness to spend public dollars on an appraisal to understand
where the parcels are at. While not saying this was his approval to staff to
proceed with acquisition, Mayor Roe did recognize the opportunity since they
were on the market now and if the city wanted to lock them up for
redevelopment, it would be better to do so.
objection, Mayor Roe requested that staff order an appraisal on the 210 parcel.
In the interest
of time, Mayor Roe suggested moving on to discuss the ICO site and perhaps
continue this discussion at a future meeting.
Street (former ICO Site)
In working with
City Planner Thomas Paschke, Ms. Collins advised that the current owner is no longer
interested in pursuing this site as another filling station; with current plans
for retail under urban design standards pushed up to the corner. Ms. Collins
reported that staff was in the final stages of working out access points with
the property owner; and anticipated a considerable amount of improvement on the
At the request
of Mayor Roe and Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Kelsey noted her understanding that
a demolition permit had been pulled.
Trudgeon noted that the application for demolition created other issues and
delays with the Fire Department in removal of the existing underground fuel
opined that this still indicated some progress, and expressed his appreciation
that the building would be pulled up to the corner and hoped its design would
be more compatible with long-term plans versus the situation on Lexington and
Larpenteur Avenues with meaningless windows along the building that may follow
the letter but not the spirit of the intent. When those designs come before
the City Council, Mayor Roe encouraged his colleagues to be cognizant of that intent.
Prior to her
time on the City Council, Councilmember Laliberte recognized the decision for
urban design and buildings up to the street lines. However, Councilmember
Laliberte stated she was unsure if she was a huge fan of that option; and while
not opposed, expressed concern that those buildings could interfere with sight
lines and other issues.
Willmus clarified that building forward design was the result of significant
discussions in 2008 through 2010, and while it ultimately often made him
cringe, he remained willing to provide for some flexibility on proposals presented
that helped with area aesthetics.
closed discussion on SE Roseville for tonight, due to the lateness of the hour;
and thanked audience members for staying for the discussion. Mayor Roe clarified
that the purpose of tonight's discussion was not intended as a public hearing,
but to make the public aware of City Council thoughts and a preliminary process
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Trudgeon provided a preview of upcoming agenda items.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately10:46 p.m.