View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
May 23, 2016
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: Willmus,
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee, and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City
Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.
2. Pledge of
3. Approve Agenda
Trudgeon advised that Consent Item 8.b inadvertently included a request for an
on-sale 3.2% non-intoxicating Liquor License for HR LLC, d/b/a Home 2 Suites
Roseville, a hotel located at 2020 Iona Lane. Mr. Trudgeon noted this item
required a public hearing, which had been noticed, but should be considered as
a separate agenda item. The amended agenda provided as a bench handout
included this item as Item 12.a to hear public comment and consider possible
requested removal of Item 8.f from the Consent Agenda for separate
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee, and Roe.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
Kathy Ramundt, 1161 Laurie Road
referenced a recent topic of discussion by the City Council last week related
to NextDoor.com and its use as a tool to inform citizens of city messages. Ms.
Ramundt reviewed the misconceptions about this tool, changes made over the last
4-5 years, features/controls available, and reviewed the process to sign up,
advising that approximately 2,500 residents were signed up to-date. Ms.
Ramundt asked that the City Council consider this as one tool in their city
toolbox of media options.
advised that she had spoken with city staff on ways to make people aware of
this and suggested ways the city could assist in those efforts while still
emphasizing that this was a self-managed tool for and by residents, with the
city not controlling the site.
Ellen Mechura, 3063 Victoria Street N and
Weldon, 3055 Victoria Street N
Ms. Mechura, on
behalf of their neighborhood, presented a formal petition to City Manager
Trudgeon with 87 signatures asking that the city connect the pathway on
Victoria Street to connect County Roads C and D. Ms. Mechura read the preamble
to the signatures; and reviewed initial concerns related to her elementary-age
children riding their school bus for ½ hour. Ms. Mechura stated that, if there
was a safe pathway for them to walk, her children and others would walk to
Ms. Mechura and
Ms. Weldon asked the City Council for their consideration with this request.
thanked Ms. Mechura and Ms. Weldon for their timely request, advising that as
part of the upcoming comprehensive plan update and review of the Pathway Master
Plan, the city would be reviewing those priorities and making adjustments as appropriate.
and City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements
announced the upcoming kick-off for the A-line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along
Snelling Avenue near Har Mar Mall, and provided logistic information and events
scheduled as well as free ridership.
Mayor Roe noted
two City Council seats were up for this fall's municipal election, and reviewed
the filing schedule and process at City Hall or at Ramsey County Elections in
downtown St. Paul.
announced two vacancies on the City's Human Rights and Community Engagement
Commissions, a synopsis of their respective advisory roles, and the application
announced the Human Rights Commission' sponsored summer reading program this
June, and details of the book chosen and discussion to follow, with events
scheduled at the Ramsey County Library - Roseville branch.
Laliberte reported on the most recent Cedarholm Golf Course Clubhouse
Replacement Task Force meeting, with the topic of "uses," and including small
group discussions and large group review of the parameters of the current
building's functionality, site layout and constraints. Councilmember Laliberte
opined it was a good conversation, and well attended; and noted the next
meeting was scheduled for June 9, 2016. At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, Councilmember Laliberte reported that, while most meetings are
primarily held at the Clubhouse, given a scheduling conflict with a rental
there, the June 9th meeting would be held at Autumn Grove Park.
announced the annual Rosefest event coming up the end of June.
As part of
Rosefest, City Manager Trudgeon announced the "Taste of Rosefest" sponsored by
the Rotary Club, scheduled for June 23, 2016 at the Arboretum. Mr. Trudgeon
advised that tickets were available through him, at City Hall and/or area
businesses. Mr. Trudgeon noted this was a good opportunity to meet your
neighbors, and advised that the ticket fee helped raise money for area
charities, listing several of those past recipients.
Trudgeon noted the recent shredding day held at City Hall had resulted in a
great turnout with approximately seven tons of shredded material received, as
well as a similar event at Spire Credit Unit collecting approximately 10,000
pounds of material. Mr. Trudgeon opined it had proven very successful at both
sites, and with security and privacy concerns, was a no-cost service to
residents of Roseville. Mr. Trudgeon thanked the City's Public Works
Department and Environmental Engineer Ryan Johnson for coordinating the
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 May 16, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the May 16, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended.
Page 2, Lines 8 - 11 (Laliberte)
read: "Councilmember Laliberte also reported on the Roseville Community Health Awareness
Team (CHAT) and their recent meeting to review the [the recent]
Page 5, Lines 39 - 42 (Laliberte)
read: "Regarding the Golf Course Fund, Councilmember Laliberte noted that the [Clubhouse]
Task Force [working on capital for a potential new clubhouse]
heard from several other municipalities [having golf courses providing
some ideas for] [regarding] funding capital needs versus daily operations."
Page 13, Lines 34 - 35 and 38 - 40 (McGehee)
read: "Councilmember McGehee opined that the position at that time had prove[n]
extremely useful and provided an additional knowledge base at City Hall for
residents to contact." "Councilmember McGehee opined that it [would
be detrimental to the Roseville city government structure and its residents to
eliminate it.] [should be considered.]
Page 17, Lines 32 - 34 (McGehee)
read: "From a policy perspective, Councilmember McGehee opined that [it]
this proposal sounds more top down from the city and Parks & Recreation
Department rather than play space acquisition and types of activity[ies]
[and] [with] providing input from residents."
Page 19, Lines 41 - 43 (McGehee)
read: "Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of [a]
concerted [effort for those] [input from those] areas with
pieces [impacting a specific geographic area] [directly impacted]
to allow residents to respond."
Page 20, Lines 13 and 14 (Etten)
read: "limited services [if nay] and insufficient room on
those buses. Councilmember Etten recognized the significant population density
[in that one area of Roseville] at Rice Street and
Page 28, Line 19 (McGehee)
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee, 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, May 23, 2016.
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and
Mayor Roe noted
that the higher-than-usual total claims for this meeting was mostly the result
of funds from a retired tax increment financing district being returned to
Ramsey County in a lump sum payment. Mayor Roe advised that, once the funds
were redistributed to all taxing jurisdictions, including a portion to the City
of Roseville, that windfall would go into the General Fund when received.
Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of business and other licenses and permits for terms as
noted; with the exception of the 3.2 Non-Intoxicating Liquor License for HR
LLC, d/b/a Home 2 Suites Roseville, as previously noted.
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Approve General Purchases in Excess of $5,000 and Sale of Surplus
moved, McGehee seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for
services as noted in the RCA dated May 23, 2016, and Attachment A entitled,
"2016 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," dated April 30, 2016; excluding the
3.2% Non-Intoxicating Liquor License for HR LLC d/b/a Home 2 Suites Roseville,
for a separate public hearing as noticed, and possible separate action (Item
Approve Terms of 2016 - 2018 IUOE Local 49 Maintenance Contract
moved, McGehee seconded, approved the proposed terms and conditions of the 2016 - 2018 collective bargaining agreement with the Local 49 as presented; and
directed staff to prepare the necessary documentation for execution, subject to
City Attorney approval.
e. Termination of Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement 1385, approved
by the Roseville City Council on July 13, 2009
moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11321 (Attachment A)
entitled, "A Resolution Terminating Planned Unit Development Agreement No.
1385, As Amended, Located at 2167 Lexington Avenue and 1126 Sandhurst Avenue."
g. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing a Pilot Program for Greater
Notification of Specific Land Use Applications
moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11322 (Attachment A)
entitled, "A Resolution Creating a Pilot Open House and Public Hearing Notification
Program for Five Land Use Applications Processed by the Community Development
Department;" for a six-month pilot open house and public hearing notification
McGehee noted this was a timely request, and thanked staff for pointing this
9. Consider Items
Removed from Consent
Amendment to Election Services Agreement with Ramsey County
the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as
detailed in the RCA and related attachments, May 23, 2016. City Manager
Trudgeon noted recent legislation included a cost-share provision that remained
pending until finalized, but starting this year and separate from the presidential
Laliberte thanked City Manager Trudgeon for the explanation clarifying that the
23% increase was not a change from the 2015-2016 elections only. However,
Councilmember Laliberte noted the significant jump for these services, and
asked City Manager Trudgeon if it was due to increased wages for election
judges or for Ramsey County staff for their administration.
Manager Trudgeon advised that the most significant cost was for election judges
and increase in minimum wages; noting that this year judges would be paid a
flat fee of $150. Mr. Trudgeon noted that a secondary driver of some of the
cost increase was the high election participation rate in Roseville, and significant
number of absentee voters raising operating costs, in addition to some inflationary
Laliberte stated she was not opposed to continuing with Ramsey County, but
thought it was worth noting, especially given her discomfort in approving a four-year
extension, with the price for those services only available for the first two
years or other increases coming due to unforeseen circumstances.
Laliberte clarified that none of this covers school board elections in odd
years, with those costs borne by the school district.
Manager Trudgeon confirmed that the school district handled their costs and
arrangements. Closer to the year 2020, and as information on projected costs becomes
available, City Manager Trudgeon offered to provide that data to the City
Council for further discussion.
Roe read the contract's termination clause for six month written notice the
year prior to the next election and for either party. Mayor Roe cautioned the
need to keep that in mind if and when changes are indicated.
the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Manager Trudgeon advised that city
staff still handled absentee voting, but a lot of processing occurred at Ramsey
County, driving some of their costs. Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the new absentee
voting machine process within seven days of the election, opining that should improve
the overall process. At the further request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr.
Trudgeon opined that from staff's perspective, he still thought this agreement
with Ramsey County was a good deal.
Willmus asked, with the advent of the new method of machine absentee voting
within seven days, would Ramsey County provide staffing to oversee that or
would city employees still be responsible and need training.
Community Development Director Kari Collins
former Assistant to the City Manager, Ms. Collins, advised that city staff had
already received some training at Ramsey County to test out the new systems. With
some details of this new "voting early in person" still pending, Ms. Collins
advised that a machine would be located at Roseville City Hall, and absentee voters
could still opt for a paper ballot, even though the same number of city staff
would be trained on the machine and available to assist voters. Ms. Collins reported
that the procedure for nightly delivery of ballots or tape printouts from the
machine remained pending with Ramsey County.
Manager Trudgeon advised that staff would be available to officially demonstrate
machines to the City Council before elections.
Laliberte applauded the legislature for passing the Presidential Primary,
opining that a lot of people in the community felt disenfranchised or were
unable to participate; and this was a good move and should allow for more
moved, Etten seconded, approval of an Amendment to the agreement (Attachment A)
between Ramsey County and the City of Roseville, extending Election Services
General Ordinances for Adoption
Request for Approval of Minor Clarifying Amendments to
Subdivision Code, Section 1103.06 (Lot Standards)
Bryan Lloyd revised this request as detailed in the RCA redlined and Exhibit B attached.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Lloyd clarified that everything in Section 10 of
the City Zoning Code would remain intact, including lot size standards as
spelled out in text.
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1501 (RCA Exhibit B) entitled, "An
Ordinance Amending Title 11 of Roseville City Code, Clarifying the Intent and
Applicability of Certain Subdivision Regulations)."
in the new Section F (page 2, lines 62 - 64), Councilmember Laliberte asked if
language was appropriate where lots back "up on" or "upon" a thoroughfare.
reported that, based on his research, the term "upon" was the correct
terminology for referencing lots with two frontages.
expressed appreciation for the thoughtfulness of staff and the Planning
Commission in reviewing this, noting several lot side line issues had come up
with a number of subdivisions recently. Mayor Roe thanked them for their efforts;
and even though these text amendments seemed like a lot of words, it should be
helpful for developers in determining what works. Mayor Roe expressed his
personal acknowledgement of the work that went into this recommendation.
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1501 (RCA Exhibit C) entitled, "An
Ordinance Summary Amending Title 11 of Roseville City Code, Clarifying the
Intent and Applicability of Certain Subdivision Regulations)."
Public Hearings and Action Consideration
Public Hearing to Approve/DENY an On-Sale 3.2% Non-Intoxicating
Liquor License for HR LLC, d/b/a Home 2 Suites Roseville, a Hotel located at
2020 Iona Lane
Director Chris Miller provided a brief summary of this request, and purpose of
the public hearing to hear public comment on the application. Mr. Miller
advised that staff had reviewed all application materials and found them to be
complete; and noted staff was currently performing background checks for managers
of the facility.
Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 6:52 with no one
appearing for or against.
Roe noted the applicant was not present in the audience.
moved, Willmus seconded, approval of an On-Sale 3.2% Non-Intoxicating Liquor
License for HR LLC, d/b/a Home 2 Suites Roseville, a Hotel located at 2020 Iona
Lane; pending completion of criminal background checks; and effective for
a term December 31, 2016.
Business Items (Action Items)
Request for Approval to REZONE the Property at 1415 County Road B
from High Density Residential-1 (HDR-1) to High Density Residential-2 (HDR-2)
Thomas Paschke reviewed this rezoning request by Good Samaritan Society as
detailed in the RCA for their owned parcel at Albert Street and County Road B,
in the proximity of Target One, Perkins Restaurant and TCF Bank.
noted that the request was precipitated on the applicant's desire for a 62-unit
senior affordable housing facility that wouldn't work on the property given
current size requirements under HDR-1 zoning. Mr. Paschke noted that this
project, to be financial feasible, required a greater density to achieve. Mr.
Paschke advised that he had plans available for the proposed project, but
clarified that they were not part of this rezoning consideration. Mr. Paschke
noted the Planning Commission had unanimously recommended approval, along with
staff's recommendation for approval.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke revised impervious coverage and maximum
allowable height for HDR-1 and HDR-2 zoning districts as follows.
Mr. Paschke clarified
that there were other differences in the two designations, including setbacks
and other items as they related to Table 1004.06, with any development bound by
the city's main design standards including any and all multi-family
HDR-1 or HDR-2, Councilmember Willmus asked if placement of the building itself
would be subject to the "building forward" design, and asked if so, which
intersection would it be pushed toward.
stated the building would be closest to the Albert Street and County Road B
As a long-term
consideration and discussion for the City Council, Councilmember Etten noted
that current setbacks for HDR-2 were very limited, and while understanding the
increased density, he opined it was significantly less than setback requirements
in HDR-1, with no apparent specificity for extra setbacks adjacent to low
density residential (LDR) zoned areas. Councilmember Etten expressed concern
with potential impacts to neighboring areas and how best to adjust the current
code for future projects.
the traffic study, Councilmember McGehee asked Mr. Paschke if staff had
consulted with the Public Works Department, noting current traffic issues
already along that entire area.
advised that the traffic study had indicated no alerts for development
scenarios up to 250 units, and while making some suggestions, indicated nothing
McGehee noted that, by changing this zoning designation from LDR-1 to LDR-2, a
project could actually significantly exceed 62 units.
confirmed that a project could do so, with nothing stopping a higher density
project under LDR-2 zoning designation, and allowing for a much denser project
on the site, thus the traffic study requirement as part of the application
In these types
of situations, when particular requirements of a district appear to be
problematic for development, Mayor Roe asked staff if they looked at zoning to
a higher use to accommodate that development or if consideration was given
(e.g. text amendments) changing components of the zoning district itself.
responded that staff had not looked at text amendments for the zoning district,
and opined he wasn't sure if staff was overly concerned about requirements
built into the code or design standards, since the goal was to balance the
ordinance with city code (e.g. design standards, setbacks, parking, etc.) to
achieve overall compliance. Mr. Paschke stated he wasn't aware of any discussion
about one being more problematic than another; and when accepting the application
to go to a greater density to accommodate extra units on the site, the building
would still have been placed on the same location based on current code
the zoning code in 2010, and not requiring any additional setbacks, Mayor Roe
opined that may have been the context for adding HDR-2 amongst higher intensity
uses. Mayor Roe suggested that maybe wasn't a concern at that time, but
language was added for staff to be able to consider greater setbacks for those
types of developments if they are proposed next to less intense uses.
City Manager Trudgeon concurred with that context. Specific to Mayor Roe's
suggestion for a text amendment versus rezoning, Mr. Trudgeon suggested caution
and further review of that, since the concern in creating HDR-2 was that this
type of density wasn't recommended citywide, but only at very specific
locations and to serve as a vehicle for greater density on each project's
merits versus a general text amendment. Mr. Trudgeon stated he would not
advise a text amendment, but would advise keeping review on a case-by-case
Representatives, Construction Consultant Nathan Kraft with Good Samaritan
Society; and Enrico Williams, Kaas Wilson Architects, Bloomington, MN
reported that financials for this type of affordable senior housing project
indicated a minimum of sixty units would work, with this current model seeking
62 units. Mr. Kraft reiterated Good Samaritan's intention that there was no
intention of moving toward any higher density than those 62 units.
noted that the design of the proposed building actually follows HDR-1 zoning
with the only exception that of density and pervious versus impervious areas,
at 50%. Mr. Williams advised that the proposed structure was intentionally
kept under the maximum height requirements, with setbacks were within HDR-1
guidelines as well.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Williams advised that the maximum number of units
in HDR-1 was 40 units according to acreage; and were insufficient to make the
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Mr. Williams clarified that the proposed one-bedroom units were
between 650-700 square feet; and the two bedroom units were approximately 950
square feet, with no larger units intended.
Mayor Roe asked
if potential long-term future use of the facility would allow easy combination
of smaller units or if that would not be architecturally feasible, or if the
units could be reconfigured to market rate units.
stated, at this preliminary stage of design, he was unable to answer that
question as to how feasible that may be.
For the benefit
of the developer, Mayor Roe noted that the City Council was struggling with
short- and long-term use and number of potential units allowed in HDR-2 zoning
designation indefinitely, or 35 years from now when the property may redevelop
once again, especially the potential for higher density HDR in that area.
Kappes, Policy Coordinator for Metro Interfaith Council on Affordable Housing
Similar to her
comments at the Planning Commission's public hearing on this request, Ms.
Kappes spoke in support of this housing in Roseville; and reiterated the goals
of the Metropolitan Council and City of Roseville for increased affordable
housing units in the community. Ms. Kappes noted that the senior population
was, and was projected to continue, as the fastest growing population in Minnesota,
and in great need of affordable housing options.
1700 Fry Street, Falcon Heights, MN
his comments at the Planning Commission public hearing, Mr. Kwong provided a
brief history of his own family and their housing needs. Mr. Kwong spoke in
support of this request, and the amenities available in Roseville to retain a
stable residential base and allow current residents to move into this type of
housing and remain loyal to their community and their familiarity with it.
stated her dilemma was similar to that of Mayor Roe. While happy to have
affordable housing for seniors, and 40 units would be nice, the potential for
additional traffic in this already congested area was problematic for her.
Councilmember McGehee reiterated that she wasn't against the project, but with rezoning
under current HDR-2 zoning designation indefinitely and the concern with higher
density in the area.
Willmus stated that he shared some of those concerns, but questioned staff as
to the date the application was received compared to when the City Council
approved the Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance.
clarified that the PUD ordinance was approved after receipt of this
application; and while the city could request that the developer go through the
PUD process, he questioned if the project would actually qualify.
Willmus agreed with Councilmember McGehee's statements, and those made by
Councilmember Etten earlier; and noted that his concern wasn't the proposed
project in front of him but the fact the City Council needed to be cognizant of
what could be the most intense use on that site, especially with HDR-2 zoning
If the project
were to return under the PUD ordinance, Councilmember Etten asked staff if the
applicant's proposed 50% versus 75% to 80% impervious coverage would work in
favor of the applicant.
advised that staff would need to review all PUD criteria to see what the
developer was bringing to the table, not just specific to density, but if they
could actually achieve the bar to begin the PUD process, which was long and
drawn out, and had strict limitations on who could come forward to begin that
process for a PUD on any site, including this one.
Etten opined this was an important development for the community, and something
currently lacking, since a lot of multi-family senior housing was available in
Roseville, but not from an affordable standpoint. With HRD-2 zoning on this
site and its proximity abutting LDR on two sides, Councilmember Etten reiterated
his concern in rezoning the property.
Mayor Roe noted
the current designation in the Zoning Table of Uses with two distinct
categories with varying characteristics for each: group living and family
living with a certain number of units. Mayor Roe referenced discussion during
the time of the proposed development on County Road B and Cleveland Avenue and
traditional rental property with a lower number of larger units and more
amenities. Mayor Roe suggested looking at that type of scenario and two types
of living categories for this type of application as well: traditional family
living rental units in HDR and a second category for group living that is more
specific and regulated such as this; with a line added to the Table of uses for
property standards distinguishing maximum density for each category. Mayor Roe
noted this would allow for more site-specific consideration for either type of
category if applicable, and may prove an easier and quicker solution than the
McGehee stated her opposition to such a solution, since it would become
applicable across the board based on the table already existing. Councilmember
McGehee opined that this development proposal was a good fit for the PUD
process; and if the PUD ordinance recently adopted was already found to have
insufficient flexibility to consider a project such as this, a text amendment
to the PUD ordinance seemed a simpler thing to accomplish, allowing the City
Council to make a determination on this and future cases. Councilmember
McGehee noted the support for this type of project in the community, but also
noted the need for conditions applicable to a 62-unit development but not
applicable citywide; addressing this specific site without changing the rules
for the entire community.
Mayor Roe stated that he was personally supportive to change the rules across
the board for this type of use, since it had come up on several occasions with
a need for more density on a site and not necessarily adding a lot of other issues
to surrounding properties. Mayor Roe expressed his concern in having a
developer need to jump hoops or meet standards for a PUD simply to gain a
little more density.
Willmus stated his concerns with amending the Table that may have long-term
applications and affect how this or any facility may change over the life of
the infrastructure in place. Councilmember Willmus noted the frequency of
seeing apartments constructed as market rate and then converting to condominiums,
creating his concern in amending the Table with such specificity as suggested
by Mayor Roe.
Mayor Roe noted
that these units were smaller and not as appealing for conversion, which could
be a further consideration as well.
questioned whether this could qualify as group living under state statute; and
noted the proposed financing from various agencies to develop this as
affordable senior housing and the specific regulations for that financing.
agreed that his suggestion may not suffice since he had incorrectly thought
this proposal was for an assisted living type facility, and not for afford-able
senior housing which is what is actually proposed. Mayor Roe thanked staff for
setting him straight and withdrew his text amendment suggestion.
As a point of
information, City Manager Trudgeon noted that the PUD ordinance, specific to
density, allowed for only up to a 10% increase in residential density, and with
42 units allowed, that would only increase units by another 4 units for a total
of 46 units. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the developer had already stated that
their proposal wasn't feasible for anything under 60 units.
McGehee spoke in support of tabling this request pending further investigation
of how to make it work short- and long-term. Councilmember McGehee noted that
this site was ideal for seniors to access amenities without driving; and she
spoke in favor of this location, but not as HDR-2 zoning designation.
Mayor Roe noted
the options included tabling or extending, depending on the land use review
deadline and process.
Willmus noted the review process could be extended by the City Council in
writing for up to 60-days.
Gaughan agreed, as per state statute, the City Council has the ability to
extend the review period, as long as their specific reasons for the extension
are provided to the applicant in writing.
From a staff
perspective, Mr. Paschke stated that he was unaware of any easy process to
accomplish what the City Council appeared to be seeking, whether timing was
involved or not. Mr. Paschke advised that a number of things would need to be
analyzed and taken into consideration to patch in a text amendment as discussed,
or for any other process. Mr. Paschke noted that a number of area residents
attended the developer's open house but had not subsequently shown up at the
public hearing at the Planning Commission; and suggested that may be an indication
of their lack of concern with the development. While understanding concerns
with future development or redevelopment, Mr. Paschke opined that it would not
be possible to get a density of 250 units on this site even under today's city
code, opining any development would be well below that number of units and may
look dramatically different than this proposed development (e.g. parking and the
structure itself), but still be subject to the same limitations. Mr. Paschke
recognized a significant amount of fear he was hearing from the City Council
about the potential for increased density, but stated he could not see any
density as high as the 250-units addressed in one of the traffic study
McGehee opined that those residents attending the open house weren't thinking
long-term or ramifications if this proposed development didn't come to
fruition, especially if the city was left with a parcel zoned HDR-2 and its
McGehee seconded, DENIAL of the HDR-2 rezoning request based on the findings
that the intensity of such zoning use could result in a greater overall
density, height and setbacks on that site, making it a concern due to its
proximity to surrounding single-family properties.
McGehee spoke to the points made by Councilmember Willmus and in agreement with
them. Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in having the applicant and
city planning staff work on ways to make this type of development work for the
developer and the city, through some other method than rezoning the parcel to
Laliberte admitted she was struggling with this, but concurred with her
colleagues: that it was a good proposal and a good addition for Roseville, but
created discomfort for her in the build forward design standards resulting in a
very tall building right up along the road.
clarified that city code would require that the building be set back 30' from
Laliberte stated she was in favor of a project like this in Roseville, but not
with the potential intensity of use on this parcel in the future. Councilmember
Laliberte stated she was open to other potential scenarios, but in this case,
she would support the findings in the motion.
Etten asked staff if there was a way to put a maximum on a structure in HDR-2
zoning, as it related to underground and/or surface parking.
responded that it would depend on the size of the units and community space and
other amenities of the facility, all project-dependent. On this particular
site, Mr. Paschke stated that he could not define a specific maximum density.
Mayor Roe spoke
in opposition to the motion to deny the rezoning request, while understanding
the findings and concern about future development or redevelopment on the
parcel if this project doesn't move forward. However, if the project doesn't
move forward, Mayor Roe noted the City still retained the option to change
HDR-2 requirements or initiate its own rezoning of the property. If the City
Council is of the mind that this appears to be a solution for this project
going forward, but concern remains that some other development may push the
HDR-2 requirements, there is in the code already a footnote available to help
mitigate the situation. Mayor Roe stated that he was more uncomfortable with
this discussion than with other potential paths (e.g. PUD process or his
suggested text amendment) and therefore would oppose the motion.
Etten stated he was in agreement with Mayor Roe. While supporting the reasons
stated for denial, Councilmember Etten opined that Mr. Paschke's point about
the maximum potential density that could develop and Mayor Roe's point that if
this development proposal fell through, the City could move to reinstate HDR-1
zoning, it was sufficient for him to noted that this was such an important project
for Roseville, he would oppose the motion to deny.
McGehee spoke in support of the motion to deny in the hopes that the city would
work with the developer to come up with a solution to make the project work.
Laliberte stated that this ongoing discussion had swayed her and she would
oppose the motion to deny. At the request of Councilmember McGehee as to her
rationale in doing so, Councilmember Laliberte noted that the fear factor
seemed to be a potential for 250 units, creating her original hesitation in
supporting the project; and since it appeared not to be feasible, the overall
need for and nature of this particular project is important to the community.
Willmus and McGehee.
Etten, and Roe.
Laliberte seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. ___ (Attachment G) entitled, "An
Ordinance Amending Title 10 of Roseville City Code, Changing the Zoning
Designation of Certain Real Property;" rezoning the property addressed at 1415
County Road B from HDR-1 to HDR-2 District.
noted that he would appreciate other ways to make the project work outside
rezoning, he had been convinced that the parcel was small enough that the
feared 250 units could not be developed, negating that potential great negative
as being unrealistic given current code restraints.
Willmus expressed his concern with the overall height of the proposed building
to those adjacent single-family parcels; and stated his continued opposition to
the rezoning request. Had the rezoning request not been successful,
Councilmember Willmus opined that the PUD process could have sufficed, with
little effort on the city's part. Councilmember Willmus opined that the City
Council was being shortsighted and taking the easy road out especially with
long-term implications for the area in doing so.
Laliberte asked Councilmember Willmus what path he saw going forward in
proposing the PUD process at this stage.
Councilmember Willmus stated his preference to revisit the PUD ordinance.
Councilmember Willmus stated that he had no issue with the developer's proposed
62 units; but explained that his issue was that potential project that could
occur. Councilmember Willmus noted that he wasn't implying that this developer
is going to change their proposal, but noted that they could market this parcel
as HDR-2 without developing their proposed project; and there would be nothing
the city could do.
McGehee stated her only concern was that if the PUD ordinance is so restrictive
it can't be used to facilitate a project like this that was sorely needed in
Roseville and serving the population needing this type of housing at this
favorable location, then something was wrong with that PUD ordinance.
Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Willmus that the City Council
was being shortsighted.
clarification purposes, and for the benefit of Councilmember McGehee,
Councilmember Etten identified several HDR-2 areas in Roseville at this time.
Councilmember Etten noted City Manager Trudgeon's information about the actual
10% increase in units available with the PUD ordinance process if applicable;
and questioned if that was applicable or the more significant increase of 30%
or more in density, that may open the door to other implications, including
through the PUD process.
suggested this PUD ordinance discussion be a separate debate outside this
Mayor Roe noted
that a text amendment to the PUD ordinance would require a public process and
public hearing before the Planning Commission followed by the developer
subsequently applying for and staff analyzing that application and then the
approval process. While it may sound simple, Mayor Roe suggested it may not be
so given a number of mitigating factors (e.g. size of property, parking,
stormwater management, etc.). Mayor Roe noted that staff currently has the ability
to require greater setbacks given adjacent uses; and also the City Council has
the ability to re-designate zoning back to HDR-1.
McGehee opined that this give and take is certainly germane to this rezoning
request, and that it would be inappropriate for Mayor Roe to push forward the
motion and arguing only his point of view.
Mayor Roe duly
noted Councilmember McGehee's comment; but clarified that the City Council is
not here to discuss the PUD process, but the motion currently before the body.
Laliberte stated she was not concerned if there were a few extra steps needed
for the PUD process to evolve; opining that was less a concern for her than
doing what was right on this parcel. Councilmember Laliberte stated she would vote
to pursue the PUD process if it resulted in a better product no matter the time
required to reach that goal.
Laliberte withdrew her second to the motion.
seconded the motion and restated the motion was to approve the rezoning
Laliberte and McGehee.
Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, reconsideration of the motion to DENY the
rezoning request as previously stated.
Laliberte and McGehee.
Roll Call (Original Willmus/McGehee Motion to DENY based on findings,
now under reconsideration):
Gaughan advised that a resolution memorializing the findings for denial would
be prepared and presented at the next meeting of the City Council.
Community Development Director Collins noted staff's sensitivities with HDR
zoning; and advised that staff would look at those during the comprehensive
plan update and how PUD fit with that.
Willmus suggested a more immediate review by staff of the current PUD
ordinance. Councilmember Willmus noted the value of this type of project and
community housing needs supported a text amendment, with components as
suggested by Councilmember Etten, to the PUD ordinance.
objection, staff was so directed.
it may require a longer process, Councilmember Willmus opined the important
thing was to ultimately get this right.
advised that, if the applicant was still interested, staff would walk them
through the process.
Receive Update on Marion Street Park Proposal and Southeast
Community Development Director Collins provided the City Council and public
with an update on the Marion Street park proposal, and SE Roseville visioning
as detailed in the RCA and attachments.
At the request
of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Collins confirmed that Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funds were specific to this site and its particular use as a
park. Ms. Collins referenced subsequent conversations between her and Ramsey
County staff; and shared their responses related to the use of CDBG funds; and
the County's willingness to work with the City on other options.
Willmus stated his interest in not only developing this 1716 Marion Street
parcel, but also incorporating it with other parcels further north; and asked
if those CDBG funds could help develop that broader area.
opined that Ramsey County was amenable as long as use of funds was for a
similar purpose and in this same area.
Willmus noted that action was needed on the $500 earnest money by June 1, 2016.
Willmus seconded, authorizing staff to pay $500 in earnest money by June 2,
2016, as outlined in the terms of the Purchase Agreement (Attachment D) as
presented; including all other contingencies as outlined in the RCA by
August 1 to fulfill terms of the Purchase Agreement.
McGehee spoke in support of this particular site for a park, mainly for the
safety of a considerable number of children in the area. Based on her
observations, Councilmember McGehee noted that there was no green space but for
this small interior parcel close to those residents; and key to her was to address
this type of courtyard type housing and green space. As she had done in the
past and continued to do, Councilmember McGehee spoke of her ongoing advocacy
for green space in multi-family housing facilities with children. While this
facility is older and without such green space available, Councilmember McGehee
opined this was a unique opportunity to provide that assistance and ensure the
safety for these children.
Etten spoke in support of the motion as stated.
Willmus spoke in support of the acquisition of this parcel, even though he had
some hesitation about some previous grant applications. Councilmember Etten
expressed his interest in looking at this parcel in conjunction with other
parcels for a broader plan versus a piecemeal approach.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Ms. Collins reported on recent meetings for visioning SE
Roseville, as detailed in the purchase agreement; and reviewed next steps for
this multi-jurisdictional process. Ms. Collins reported that one more preliminary
planning session was scheduled in July, with the public and all stakeholders welcome
to participate and address what they see as the needs in that area.
Mayor Roe noted
the process idea still required more thought depending on individual
municipalities and as a broader group, with the immediate need to hear from
stakeholders to gain a baseline understanding of problems, opportunities and
issues all on the table at the July meeting. At that point, Mayor Roe stated
that foundation could serve as a building block going forward, but would also
allow everyone to be present to hear the same information and discussion.
McGehee stated her interest in making sure each municipality had a voice and
participated, but also to recognize that each of those communities, including
Roseville was a separate entity, and could address certain areas on their own
versus the broader approach, and suggested businesses get together to address
their priorities as the main contingent on that boundary.
Etten noted over 300 apartment units within a block of the corridor as well.
Mayor Roe noted
this was indicative of the many types of things to be discussed and the varying
interest and challenges (e.g. crime, victimization of new immigrants, shabby
buildings, etc.), some of which were jurisdictional while others were
cross-related among jurisdictions (e.g. development, types of uses,
streetscaping, etc.). Mayor Roe reiterated the need to establish an
information base to build from and connect people accordingly.
Willmus stated his appreciation for the multi-jurisdictional approach, but
stated his main concern is whether everyone will have the same level of buy-in
or desire to effect change. Therefore, as Roseville, Councilmember Willmus
spoke to the need to be fully prepared as a community to move forward whether
the other stakeholders did so or not. Councilmember Willmus noted some of
these steps will be easier than others and have an immediate impact.
Councilmember Willmus stated his interest in seeing discussion along those
lines, taking immediate steps to improve the quality of life in SE Roseville;
and if and as necessary, for Roseville to take the lead in a lot of those
issues and proceed forward accordingly.
Etten spoke in support of Roseville moving forward and leading the charge.
However, Councilmember Etten opined that the first step needed to get community
input from all stakeholders, including across from Roseville in other
jurisdictions to better understand what others are talking about or concerned
with. Councilmember Etten opined it would ultimately prove more effective and
successful to move forward in a common direction or through common pieces to
work on together, and arrive at the ultimate answer all were seeking. Councilmember
Etten expressed concern that no wall be erected between jurisdictions, but that
everyone works together. Councilmember Etten clarified that this didn't mean
that Roseville couldn't do things in Roseville, but the long-term results if
pursued separate from neighboring communities could result in a process without
that neighborhood support or common vision, even if not all areas or aspects
are in agreement.
Councilmember Laliberte agreed with the comment expressed by all of her colleagues.
While working with other jurisdictions on the broader area and the larger
neighborhood, Councilmember Laliberte recognized it had already taken considerable
time to reach this point; and suggested taking advantage of opportunities as
they occur, but also being ready to move forward as the Roseville community
tells it what they want, while also working with surrounding communities on the
bigger vision versus simply being reactionary.
several times by City Councilmembers, City Manager Trudgeon noted the first
step would be the July listening session with an ease in crossing borders. Mr.
Trudgeon advised that what came out of that session would be incumbent on the
working group and individual communities to identify for commonalities, or
specificities. Mr. Trudgeon opined that while the listening session was
multi-jurisdictional, it was a good first step but didn't stop Roseville from
perspective, Mayor Roe noted past complaints about the City doing things
piecemeal without getting necessary input, and stressed the importance of
receiving that input in this case, whether Roseville-specific or collectively,
but not to get ahead of the Roseville community.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Ms. Collins discussed options available for corridor
revitalization along Rice Street and Larpenteur Avenue, depending on interest
levels found at the July meeting. Ms. Collins noted there was also the
possibility for Roseville to have its own smaller neighborhood plan. Ms.
Collins noted that Ramsey County was already doing a traffic study along
Larpenteur Avenue that would occur in tandem with this effort.
Specific to the
former Linders site, Ms. Collins reported that a Charter School primarily
serving Hmong and Karen youth was planned, as least in the conceptual stage that
she had found on Facebook; and subject to some approvals from the City of St.
Paul, but appeared to be a significant campus.
Mayor Roe noted
new ownership for one apartment in the area, with Ms. Collins reporting that
1721 Marion Avenue, a 30-unit structure, was currently being considered for
purchase by AEON. Ms. Collins anticipated a closing in early June, and noted
its proximity directly across from the 1716 Marion Street parcel.
1716 parcel, Councilmember Willmus asked if the City had some provisions as
part of the Purchase Agreement, for the seller to maintain the site.
Councilmember Willmus stated that his visit to the site earlier today indicated
a fair amount of debris still strewn about, including a mattress and high
clarified that there was nothing embedded in the Purchase Agreement, other than
correspondence between the City Attorney and current owner to keep the parcel
tidy. However, Ms. Collins advised she would alert code enforcement to check
out the site.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Collins stated the plans for AEON were mostly for
exterior rehabilitation of the 1721 Marion Street building, as she understood
from their representative that the inside of the units were pretty well
maintained, mostly 2-3 bedroom units housing approximately 30 immigrant
If the building
was going to be rehabilitated, Councilmember McGehee asked that discussion
re-ensue related to sprinkler systems.
Mayor Roe noted
the need to be conscious that tenants are not displaced as a result of
rehabilitating this or other buildings, and ensure that equity issues were addressed.
noted this was an element of AEON and their sensitivities in their housing
reported that he had found St. Paul Councilperson Amy Brendmoen very receptive
to this SE Roseville and broader area effort and proceeding with it. Given the
City of St. Paul's system, Mayor Roe opined that they should be able to plug in
fairly well and bring an energy level to the process. From his observation,
Mayor Roe suggested the majority of the 200 names on the Facebook page were
probably St. Paul residents. Mayor Roe further opined that the City of Maplewood
may be the least prepared for this effort, noting their size and different issues,
and crime in the area their major concern. Mayor Roe addressed the varying
difference in the building conditions of those businesses among jurisdictions.
Mayor Roe further noted the importance of receiving feedback from each jurisdiction's
City Council to get them on board under their governmental and community
objection, Mayor Roe directed staff to publically notice future meetings of the
informal working group for these multi-jurisdictional meetings, all of which
may not provide for public testimony, but to allow communication and observation
at a minimum, and to allow for a potential quorum of Roseville City Councilmembers
to attend at any given time. Without objection, Mayor Roe further directed
staff to enhance the City's website to provide connections and links as applicable
to the SE Roseville effort.
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Request to Amend City Code, Section 1004.09C (Improvement Area)
to Allow Greater Development of Building Footprints and Paved Surfaces on Parcels
in the Low Density Residential-2 (LDR-2) Zoning District
Bryan Lloyd briefly summarized this unintentional disparity in city code
adopted in 1998 related to building footprints and paved surfaces on LDR-2
zoned parcels, as detailed in the RCA and attachments. Mr. Lloyd noted most of
the challenges were found with older properties and smaller lots in the LDR-2 district
that served as an important source for housing stock variety in the community.
Willmus stated he found staff's recommended 50% allotment too excessive.
Councilmember Willmus noted that one of the reasons he had found LDR-2 zoning
designation attractive in the first place was it could help provide for
smaller, but newer single-family homes at a more affordable rate within today's
market, with those coverages and smaller lot sizes coming into play. When he considered
this 50% recommendation, Councilmember Willmus opined that you could wind up
with a fairly significant home on an LDR-2 zoned lot, which was certainly not
his intent to facilitate.
McGehee concurred with Councilmember Willmus, especially the changes proposed
compared to her maximum lot minimum areas and hard surface maximums when first
adopted, and her interest in providing for smaller homes on smaller lots.
Councilmember McGehee noted that she continued to look for legislative changes
to retain water on individual properties without significant investment in
underground tanks or rain garden installations, creating a lifelong liability
to maintain. Councilmember McGehee opined that 40% was more than adequate for
LDR-2 zoned parcels.
proportionality, Mayor Roe provided his calculations and differences in area
between LDR-1 and LDR-2 zoning and proportionality with the ultimate goal in
mind. Mayor Roe stated his lack of support for the 50% recommendation, but
agreed to consider something between 35% to 50%.
Etten noted that he had previously voted against LDR-2 and increasing
impervious surface over six lots, and moving from 3 potential homes to six now,
and arriving at a similar square footage of impervious surface at 30%.
Councilmember Etten stated that he was uncomfortable with the proposed big jump
to 18,000 square feet or impervious surface over that area, but would be open
to some increase. Councilmember Etten stated his first concern was over water
and stormwater drainage problems already in existence in that area. Councilmember
Etten also questioned the general purpose for LDR and allowing for sufficient
space between homes, noting homes in LDR-2 sections of this development continued
to increase in value resulting in some pretty expensive homes.
Laliberte spoke in favor of some space, but also expressed concern about
resulting large homes on tiny lots. To keep continuity with what was already
in Roseville, Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of what was already in
place; and while being open to a smaller number, stated that the recommended
50% was too high for her.
McGehee agreed with Councilmember Laliberte, and recognized Councilmember
Etten's opposition to this development in the first place, since he is familiar
with the topography of this area. Councilmember McGehee noted that this
touched on Councilmember Laliberte's comments, and involved how to move forward
as a community with infill development and increasing density, and what the
aesthetic of the community was. While willing to give a little, Councilmember
McGehee stated she would not support the recommended 50%, but would also not be
unhappy remaining at the 30%.
Mayor Roe noted
there were two Councilmembers not wishing to move from the current 30%, and
three who might consider more than that.
moved, McGehee seconded, enacting an ordinance limiting a maximum improvement
area to 35% rather than the current 30%.
Gaughan specified that this ordinance was proposed as a specific text amendment
at 50%; and therefore any action other than that would require DENIAL of the
request with specific findings; followed by subsequent action by the City
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan recommended that the most appropriate
subsequent action would be to go back to the Planning Commission process
separate form this action.
clarified that the request, at its core, was to consider more than 30% as is
currently written in city code, with the 50% being a suggested and reasonable
benchmark addressing building footprint and parking needs for LDR-2 zoning
designation. While it appeared in the application, Mr. Lloyd advised that the
50% was not the number being ultimately sought by the applicant.
Mayor Roe noted
that there was a specific statement in paragraph three of the applicant's
narrative seeking city code change for minimum area to 50% coverage; and deemed
that represented a specific request. Therefore, as noted by City Attorney
Gaughan, Mayor Roe suggested denial of the request, with subsequent direction
to staff to initiate another action if the City Council so chose to initiate a
text amendment and go through that process.
Gaughan clarified that specific findings for denial would need to be provide to
the applicant as soon as possible, with a subsequent resolution memorializing
Willmus withdrew his motion.
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded
DENIAL of the request allowing 50% impervious surface in LDR-2 zoning
designations, based on the following findings:
That percentage of impervious coverage would create an
undesirable amount of runoff;
That percentage would be too limiting of sufficient green
space between or surrounding individual homes; and
That percentage would change the character of LDR-2
Valley Land CO Representative Matt Pavek, Project Developer
expressed appreciation to the City Council for their consideration of the
motion. Mr. Pavek reviewed his firm's rationale in this request based on LDR-2
lot sizes of 6,000 square feet and the amount available for actual building.
As noted in their narrative, Mr. Pavek noted experience working with builders
having difficulty to have space available on that size lot to provide a two-car
garage and two-stall driveway, in addition to any sizable or marketable main
floor livable footprint, or any patio or sidewalk to the front door. Mr. Pavek
noted the resulting homes would still be small modest homes, but with current
constraints, the first floor living area became impractical. Mr. Pavek opined
that this may have been an inadvertent error in drafting the original
ordinance, advising that he had never seen similar constraints in other
communities in which they work. Mr. Pavek asked the City Council to simply
allow for some flexibility in constructing a single-family home that worked on
these lots, with a two-car garage.
Specific to the
drainage, Mr. Pavek reiterated past discussions on their project and planned
infiltration basins as part of the project that would be upsized to handle the
entire impervious surface on their parcels, while also picking up off-site upstream
drainage on Dale Street. After completion of the development, Mr. Pavek
advised that the drainage would be better than current; and noted the
stormwater engineering report had already been approved.
McGehee stated her same concern with not having green space around the homes;
and note that the developer was aware of current city code before going into
this project and as indicated in the proposed homes being considered for these
parcels. Councilmember McGehee questioned how many empty nesters actually
needed a two-car garage; and stated if the developer was interested to return
with a different plan for these 6,000 square foot lots in accordance with the
current city code.
Mr. Pavek opined that, if the city
was going to keep this in their zoning code, it resulted in unbuildable lots in
the current market environment.
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte,
Etten, McGehee, and Roe.
Discussion ensued as to the
direction to staff, with percentages between 35% to 40% suggested; and
comparables to other communities without benefit of LDR-2 zoning in those
communities researched; and confirmation from the Public Works Department as to
potential volume of runoff specific to this situation as previously reviewed at
the Planning Commission level.
Without objection, staff was
directed to return with two options (35% and 40%) for Council consideration of
an applicable text amendment.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Trudgeon provided a preview of upcoming agenda items.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, City Manager Trudgeon advised he would scan and
disseminate the formal petition received tonight regarding the Victoria Street
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:52 p.m.
Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee, and Roe.