City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

February 23, 2015

 

1.       Roll Call

Mayor Roe called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m.  Voting and Seating Order: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.  City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.

 

2.      Pledge of Allegiance

 

3.       Approve Agenda

Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Item 8.e from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.

 

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

4.       Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.

 

Chad Michael Baker, 935 Roselawn Avenue

Mr. Baker confirmed with Mayor Roe the allotted time for public comment on the Victoria Street project.

 

5.      Council Communications, Reports, and Announcements

Mayor Roe announced vacancies on several Citizen Advisory Commissions, with the application deadline on March 2, interviews scheduled on March 9, and appointments for terms beginning April 1, scheduled March 23, 2015.  Applications and additional information are available on the City's website under the "commissions" tab.

 

Mayor Roe announced an upcoming free community conversation scheduled at 6:30 p.m. on March 16, 2016 at the Roseville Skating Center, sponsored in part by the Human Rights Commission, and addressing mental health illness issues in general and associated stigmas.

 

Mayor Roe noted that his annual State of the City Address would be presented on February 25, 2015 at 7:30 a.m. as part of the monthly Roseville Business Council to be held at Affinity Credit Union in Roseville; and sponsored in part by the Twin Cities North and St. Paul Area Chambers of Commerce.

 

Mayor Roe announced scholarship opportunities available through the North Suburban Cable Commission for residents of the nine member communities with students interested in communication, journalism or similar studies.  Additional information, with a deadline of April 10, 2015 for scholarship applications, is available at ctvnorthsuburbs.org/scholarships or by calling 651/792-7515.

 

6.      Recognitions, Donations and Communications

 

7.       Approve Minutes

Comments 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.

 

a.            Approve Minutes of February 9, 2015 Meeting

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2015 as presented.

                       

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

8.      Approve Consent Agenda

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, dated February 23, 2015.

 

a.            Approve Payments

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and detailed.

 

ACH Payments	$1,615,950.06
76499 - 76634	824,744.99
TOTAL	$2,440,695.05

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

b.            Approve Business and Other Licenses and Permits

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval/renewal of business and other licenses and permits for terms as noted.

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

c.            Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of $5,000

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services, and where applicable, trade-in/sale of surplus equipment as noted in the RCA and Attachment A entitled, "2015 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," updated January 31, 2015.

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

d.            Certify Unpaid Utility and Other Charges to the Property Tax Rolls

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11209 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Levy Unpaid Water, Sewer and Other City Charges for Payable 2015 or Beyond."

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

9.            Consider Items Removed from Consent

 

e.            Receive Annual Police Forfeiture Report

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in specific Requests for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, dated February 23, 2015.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Police Chief Mathwig clarified that there were several accounts: two under Minnesota State Statutes, and one under Federal Statutes, with different guidelines for all three.  Chief Mathwig responded that federal funds could be used for supplemental staffing under strict interpretation, and depending on the current State Attorney General's definition of "supplemental" employees. 

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Chief Mathwig also clarified that forfeiture funds varied and were therefore not a sustainable use for personnel or equipment use.

 

By consensus, the report was received and acknowledged.

 

10.         General Ordinances for Adoption

 

a.            Approve Rental Licensing Ordinance Amendment

Codes Coordinator Don Munson reviewed the requested action, as detailed in the February 23, 2015 RCA.  Mr. Munson advised that revisions had been made based on staff's previous presentation to the City Council and subsequent discussions, and in consultation with the City Attorney.

 

Mr. Munson noted several other potential language revisions as suggested by Councilmembers (page 4, lines 130 - 143) and suggested that with City Council consensus, staff return at a later date with recommendations for either or both of those suggestions.

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1476 (Attachment A) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Title 9, Chapter 908 to Regulate Rental Licensing for Multi-Family Rental Dwelling Units;" and approval of the Memorandum of Understanding policy; directing staff regarding incentives and criminal background checks as recommended and noted in the RCA dated February 23, 2015.

 

Mr. Munson clarified that the Memorandum of Understanding referenced in the ordinance was included for guidance (page 3, lines 91 - 107 of the RCA).

 

Councilmember Laliberte thanked staff for tweaking this new program based on actual application to make it work better for all parties.

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1476 (Attachment B) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Title 9, Chapter 908 of the Roseville City Code to Regulate Rental Licensing for Multi-Family Rental Dwelling Units."

 

                                                Roll Call (Super Majority)

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

McGehee moved, seconded by Etten, directing staff to return with recommendations for incentives for smoke-free buildings and  a way to emphasize the requirement of criminal background checks.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mayor Roe noted that it would be appropriate to have this come forward again in work session format for discussion prior to action.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

11.         Presentations

 

a.            Twin Lakes Area Traffic Study Update

City Engineer Marc Culver provided background information for design and completion of Twin Lakes Parkway; and to verify and/or respond to other questions raised regarding accuracy of the previous traffic study and changes in the area and within the region. 

 

Mr. Culver advised that the City Council had previously directed staff to contract with a traffic consultant to update the 2007 traffic study and the original Alternative Urban Area-wide Review (AUAR) completed in 2001.  Mr. Culver noted that the study included changes in traffic volume, corridors and intersections, and impacts of an extension of Twin Lakes Parkway.  Mr. Culver introduced Mr. Vaughn.

 

SRF Consulting Group Traffic Engineer Craig Vaughn

Mr. Vaughan noted that he had also performed the 2007 traffic study as well as this update; and appreciated the opportunity to verify his previous data and modeling with the realities under this update.

 

Mr. Vaughn's presentation highlighted data and findings encapsulated in his Memorandum dated February 12, 2015 (Attachment A) and included with the RCA.

 

Those highlights included recognizing the expanded study area not originally included in past analyses and bounded by Snelling Avenue, Cleveland Avenue, County Road D and County Road C within the City of Roseville.  Mr. Vaughan noted this involved sixteen key intersections, with two found to already be operating unacceptably (Lincoln Drive and Snelling Avenue as they intersected with County Road C.

 

Some of the findings and comparisons included: changes to the 2030 regional travel demand model since the 2007 AUAR study (page 13); operation levels of the sixteen key intersections and their operations (page 7); recommended roadway improvements under future conditions (page 18); and recommended improvements under all three scenarios for Fairview and Lydia Avenues (page 22); in addition to the affects projected for extension of Twin Lakes Parkway (pages 23-25).

 

City Council Discussion

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Vaughn reviewed industry standard traffic modeling was done and calculations applied, and differential information used in a regional travel demand model utilizing existing conditions and travel volumes in the area today and how it could exist based on traffic originating at or near the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.  Mr. Vaughn also provided a definition of mitigation opportunities in various segments as future road projects were planned. 

 

Mr. Culver noted that this took into consideration that it was recognized all of the roadways were not operating well and above capacity, while seeking opportunities to improve capacity at some of the more problematic intersections and as right-of-way and roadway width allowed to provide a more concise and through movement of traffic.  Mr. Culver clarified that this did not include any associated dollar amount, but was kept in mind as various funding sources became available and as development continued.  Mr. Culver noted that there would also be additional costs associated with such mitigation efforts, but could serve to benefit traffic movement when combined with other efforts (e.g. trail blazing signage or way finding) to re-route traffic to Snelling Avenue.

 

Councilmember Etten noted the presence of Ramsey County to participate in this discussion and address findings.  Councilmember Etten advised that he had previously spoken to Ramsey County Commissioner McGuire and her staff regarding potential ways to improve traffic flow and improve congestion, whether or not the City did specific projects or not.

 

Mr. Culver advised that Joe Lux from Ramsey County was present and could respond or expand on comments; and noted that Roseville staff had held preliminary detailed discussions with Ramsey County for long-term plans for area roadways, especially intersections that deserved some attention.  However, Mr. Culver noted that these intersections were not currently on the Ramsey County capital improvement plan, but that they were aware of them and looking at them.  Mr. Culver expressed staff's commitment to continue working cooperatively with Ramsey County and MnDOT to find short-term as well as long-term solutions to improve intersection operations.

 

Joe Lux, Ramsey County Transportation Planner

Mr. Lux agreed with Mr. Culver's assessment of casual discussions to-date regarding traffic generation issues at County Road D, Fairview Avenue, and Lake Johanna Boulevard and spillover of that Lake Johanna Boulevard traffic into the Lydia Avenue intersection.  Mr. Lux noted that, when Presbyterian Homes began their Arden Hills facility expansion, they acquired homes in the north triangle, and held discussions with Ramsey County on whether realignment of New Brighton Boulevard 600' north would allow a signal at that intersection.  While that may be a few years away yet to address current delays, Mr. Lux advised that it would improve that intersection.  Mr. Lux advised that, at the Ramsey Council staff level, discussions had included restriping, and noted from Mr. Vaughn's report the significant right-turn movement at Lydia that could possibly be addressed by striping the northbound lanes and reconfiguring the southbound lane accordingly, while still maintaining sufficient shoulder width.

 

Councilmember Laliberte thanked Mr. Lux for his attendance, and asked if any conversations had been held about County Road C and Lincoln Drive at Snelling Avenue.

 

Mr. Lux responded that discussion had not yet occurred, even though some discussion of a westbound right-turn lane on Snelling had been discussed only conceptually and as additional capacity improvements were needed.  Due to the railroad location, Mr. Lux noted that there wasn't a lot that Ramsey County could do; and further noted that the intersection of Lincoln Drive was difficult due to its proximity to Snelling Avenue and efficiently time signals, creating ongoing issues.

 

Councilmember McGehee asked how effective a roundabout would be at the five-leg intersection at New Brighton and Lake Johanna Boulevards versus waiting several more years and realigning the intersection after land acquisition.

 

Mr. Lux opined that it would be efficient, and only create some issues with nearby driveways, but once resolved would operate well, with only a small investment required to acquire additional rights-of-way.  However, at this time, Mr. Lux advised that Ramsey County did not have the ability to model it.

 

Mr. Mr. Vaughn agreed with Mr. Lux's assessment of that intersection, opining that given the existing traffic of that intersection, any additional traffic control (a signal or roundabout) would work.  Having a broader or more regional transportation view, Mr. Mr. Vaughn opined that right-of-way acquisition would be much more critical, unless a decision was made to reduce the intersection to a 4-legged intersection and make modifications to tie it in, which he thought could be done.  Mr. Vaughn noted a roundabout would introduce lower speeds, and would prove a good solution at that location.

 

Regarding timing of improvements, Councilmember Laliberte asked Mr. Lux how any City improvements on its interior roadway infrastructure could improve things if Roseville wasn't even on the County's plans; and asked how the two entities could get more in sync for things to happen in tandem.

 

Mr. Lux advised that through City and County staff continuing to discuss and communicate these issues, with this updated study providing a more formal format for the County to take notice.  While nothing is currently programmed, Mr. Lux opined that didn't mean it couldn't be programmed in a relatively short time. Mr. Lux noted that funding was always a significant issue, and existing warrants (e.g. crash data) did not indicate problems at the two most problematic intersections, which was incredibly good, but didn't lend an incentive to get things done from a safety funding standpoint.  However, Mr. Lux reiterated that this study paved the way to get things done.

 

Councilmember Laliberte sought clarification that there was no indication that the lowest rated intersections were dangerous in terms of safety, just slow.

 

Mr. Culver responded affirmatively, suggesting that a lack of safety concerns may be due to the level of congestion along Fairview Avenue, with the roadway being flat and open with plenty of wide shoulders and two all-way stops; and unfortunately therefore limiting funding options.  Mr. Culver noted the problems encountered during p.m. peak drive times or when events occur or incidents on I-35W, creating even more significant congestion issues on Fairview Avenue.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned if there were any legal requirements obligating the City and its taxpayers to provide assistance to correct traffic issues that are significantly under the purview of the County and State.

 

Mr. Culver responded that from the perspective of the roadway and corridor itself, they were maintained by Ramsey County and their responsibility to monitor and maintain it, as well as to program the corridor for capacity and safety.  However, Mr. Culver noted that, when a County project was undertaken, it included a local cost share and obligation for the municipal jurisdiction.

 

Mr. Lux used Terrace Drive as a good example: as a City street, it intersected with a County Road (Fairview Avenue) and there would be a 50/50 cost split between the County and City of Roseville if a four-way signal was installed. However, Mr. Lux acknowledged the foresight of City staff to retain a right-of-way on the west side, so when that does develop, it will keep future costs down.  Mr. Lux also noted that funding for development-driven signals were often passed onto the developer by the City, with some cities escrowing funds from developments for that purpose.  Mr. Lux advised that the County also required lead time to build such improvements into its budget similar to the City's budget process.

 

In the past, Councilmember McGehee noted that the City had attempted to build in infrastructure costs into the development, but the concept had been legally challenged, and ultimately eliminated as an option.  Councilmember McGehee questioned how Mr. Lux's proposal differed from what the City had already tried.

 

Mr. Culver clarified that Councilmember McGehee was referencing originally proposed Traffic Impact Fees that had been legally and successfully challenged, with those fees intended for collection some time prior to and sometimes post-development.  Mr. Culver noted that an example of a past success was with the WalMart development, when specific impacts to the adjacent road network was identified with a specific development, and required to pay for those improvements, similar to a development triggering installation of a traffic signal.  Mr. Culver advised that in a lot of cases, a developer may not be happy to do so, but most realized that the success of their development was dependent on those improvements as well.  However, Mr. Culver noted that a Regional Traffic Impact Fee was more difficult to justify, probably impacting why it failed.

 

Mayor Roe further clarified that, after that failure to implement those fees, it was the City's decision to proceed with the Minnesota Statute Chapter 429 assessment process to demonstrate benefits to properties with infrastructure improvement.

 

Regarding I-35W managed lane improvements, Mayor Roe sought additional information as to the status of those intended improvements.

 

Mr. Vaughn responded that the improvement was programmed within MnDOT's most recent plans, but proper due diligence and analysis had been performed to determine that it provided a positive impact on the transportation system, and should be next in line for improvements.  Mr. Vaughn noted the improvements found already with the work on the I-35E, I-494 and Highway 62 managed lanes in mitigating system issues.

 

While not sure of the status of that study, Mr. Lux noted that MnDOT indicated the managed lanes would be built by 2019.

 

Public Comment

Mayor Roe opened discussion for public comment at 7:08 p.m., reviewing protocol, and the intent to respond to questions tonight or at subsequent meetings as applicable.

 

LisaMcCormick, Wheeler Street

Ms. McCormick expressed appreciation for the presentation, and listed a number of questions:

·   Sought further clarification of changes referenced to the regional transportation system (page 4 of the SRF Report) and clarification if that included I-35W construction as early as 2019 and when proposed for completion

·        Rationale in and accountability for indicating a 15% decrease (page 4)

·      Clarify the table that Fairview and Lydia are currently operating at a Level B (page 7)

·      Applied 15% reduction to account for two regional distributions (page 13) and the expanded rationale for that calculated reduction, if more than a multi-use trip and potential traffic generation

·         Assumptions relying on two additional lanes on Snelling Avenue and if that was programmed, or when expected to occur

·         Table 7: Snelling Avenue level of service indicated at F and improving to E that still seems unacceptable, and whether other mitigation efforts were acceptable in that area

·     If modifications are not made to Snelling Avenue, and diversion flowing to alternate routes, when that was anticipated

·    Questioned if the study looked at proposed modifications with one-direction turn lanes on some intersections if only for right-turns and if that was taken into account as a potential mitigation, as opposed to both right- and left-turns

·    Comments by Mr. Vaughn in follow-up that few regional trips were expected to use Twin Lakes Parkway; opining that it sounded like that was based on existing data without development; and questioned how speculations could be accurate with any certainty if there was no development now and what future traffic would do.

 

Tim Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane

Mr. Callaghan noted that the study showed that Twin Lakes Parkway was needed to relieve congestion on County Road C.  However, Mr. Callaghan opined that the study didn't look at the major problem for County Road C with constriction down to two lanes for a ¾ mile section directly adjacent to the City Hall campus, which had been a four-lane road for some time, but suddenly constricted.  Mr. Callaghan questioned if that had been done at the City's request, opining that it caused considerable congestion, and suggested it be expanded to its original four lanes.

 

Mr. Callaghan agreed with the comments of Ms. McCormack in not making assumptions of six lanes on Snelling Avenue, as he was aware of no plans to update that corridor, and he was under the impression that a traffic study looked at current conditions.  Mr. Callaghan opined that, when Snelling Avenue was reconstructed at I-694, it had a major impact on Fairview Avenue; and suggested that be addressed in the study. 

 

At the request of Mayor Roe for clarification, Mr. Callaghan opined that during the two-year construction period, traffic from Lydia Avenue up Fairview Avenue increased by 50%; and the traffic measurement provided in this report was the lowest he'd seen in the last year, suggesting it was due to snowbirds being gone.  Mr. Callaghan expressed curiosity in whether traffic measured on Fairview Avenue was consistent with Ramsey County study measurements done last fall, since there was no reference provided to that.  Mr. Callaghan expressed further curiosity with how this study matches up with that done by the University of Northwestern that should have been filed with the City as part of their required Planned Unit Development campus build-out.

 

In proposing three lanes from Fairview Avenue to County Road D, Mr. Callaghan questioned if sufficient land was available, opining that traffic circles were huge and he didn't know where they'd get the land for it.  Mr. Callaghan further opined that the Presbyterian Homes building at Fairview Avenue and County Road D impacts that intersection dramatically; and expressed his suspicion that there was not sufficient room for what is being proposed.

 

Bartley Bloom, Bent Brewstillery , 1744 Terrace Drive

From a business perspective, Mr. Bloom opined that additional traffic was a great advantage for businesses, and supported the more traffic the better, especially at the Fairview Avenue and Terrace Drive intersection near his business. Mr. Bloom opined that this was indicated by the new businesses moving into that area, and spoke in support of installing a stoplight at that intersection. Mr. Bloom stated his support for the proposed Parkway as a great business opportunity for growing existing Roseville businesses and attracting more, perhaps creating a small retail pocket away from the congestion of Rosedale. Mr. Bloom noted that he currently traveled Fairview Avenue to County Road D to access I-35W, and the Parkway would provide another great opportunity for access, and reiterated his support for creating that option.

 

Kathleen Erickson, 1790 Centennial Drive

As a thirty-plus year resident in this area, Ms. Erickson noted a number of concerns of residents in the area that the study didn't seem to take into consideration; and questioned how impacts of development could be projected when not yet created.  Ms. Erickson noted the proposed addition of a 190 unit housing development for that corner of Terrace Drive, the existing problems at intersections at County Road C-2 and Lincoln Drive, neither providing a straight shot even if the Parkway is extended, but representing another bottleneck and stacking during peak travel times.  With the recent expansion of the University of Northwestern into the former County Inn and Suites site, Ms. Erickson opined that it only created more difficulties rather than serving as a good mitigating factor for Fairview Avenue. 

 

While it may be good for local businesses, Ms. Erickson opined that it was not a nice view for residents, and created difficulties in their ingress and egress options.  Ms. Erickson opined that extension of Twin Lakes Parkway would not reduce congestion, since it will not connect directly with Snelling Avenue, but would only create more problems for residents.

 

Lisa McCormick Ms. McCormick expressed appreciation for Mr. Bloom's comments, and sought additional comment as to whether there was a timing measurement as part of the study for the entrances of County Road C onto I-35W versus at County Road B.  Ms. McCormick questioned if someone attempted to access I-35W from Twin Lakes Parkway if it would be quicker.

 

END at 7:24 pm

 

Responses to Questions on the Report as noted by Mayor Roe

Were changes to the regional system (page 4) taken into account during the traffic study; specifics of timing of the I-35W plan; and how completely it would be built out; and consideration of additional lanes on Snelling Avenue.

Mr. Culver reviewed some of Mr. Vaughn's information provided during the presentation, and the significant advances to-date from improvements at I-694 and Highway 10 on Snelling Avenue in some areas, as well as alternate access opening to go north versus onto I-35W directly.  Mr. Culver clarified that the model anticipated what would be in place by 2030 including managed interstate lanes, and auxiliary lanes being added in 2015 on I-694 that were being added in 2015 to finish the six lanes between I-35W and I-35E, helping support the model's projected distribution of traffic through the regional system.

 

Under the 2030 model, Mr. Vaughn advised that it assumed complete and operational extension of the regional system through Blaine and perhaps further north to the I-35W and I-35E connection point.

 

Regarding additional lanes on Snelling Avenue, Mr. Vaughn clarified that that was not a regional model improvement impacting travel pattern shifts, and differentiated his comments that such an addition of lanes could impact 2030 projections by directing the affect or positive/negative changes to travel patterns around the Twin lakes Redevelopment Area study area, whether regional or local improvements.  Specific to Snelling Avenue, Mr. Vaughn clarified that the study was analyzed under existing geometric configurations and deficiencies in how it was currently operating. 

 

Mr. Vaughan advised that the study performs a demand assessment given known improvements to a regional system, and what was provided was an operations analysis, and as the resident pointed out, level of service was at a D, and was a result of looking at necessary improvements to affect change at that location in either direction from Snelling Avenue, with level E based on future signal timing over time.  Mr. Vaughn advised that whether or not an improvement may occur is not taken into account as part of the regional demand model, but the study recommended that it should be considered as part of any future improvements.

 

15% decrease and what accounted for that or applied to model

Mr. Vaughn, referencing page 4 with respect to traffic volumes decreasing along the corridor, advised that the study is looking at actual 2006/07 volumes and the most current volumes available from 2014/15 collectively, showing a decrease between those two values.

 

How do you account or do you for seasonal adjustments based on timing

Mr. Vaughn advised that, typically when performing a traffic operations analysis and spot time, seasonal factors are not applied to that data, but that perspective had had been included in this study relative to traffic volumes, and as previously shared in a document in December of 2014 from data gathered at that time as part of other development activities in Roseville, and indicating daily volumes from 2005 to 2014.  Mr. Vaughn noted his review of additional data points and examples such as: Fairview Avenue showing a decrease from 11,500 in 1999 to 7,400 in 2014, consisting of the average daily traffic volume, but not peak hour or day of week.  Mr. Vaughan further noted that his documented data indicated a decrease from 8,700 to 4,000 during those 8 to 9 years.

 

Table 7 related to Fairview and Lydia to confirm current service level B

Mr. Vaughn confirmed that data, noting that while it was not at various daily peaks, peaking characteristics and overall operations over the course were modeled and rated accordingly.

 

Factoring in multi-use reduction and how trip generations were calculated (page 13) 

Mr. Vaughn reviewed study data and modeling using Institute of Transportation Engineers' national industry standards related to multi-use trip reduction generation for like-type land uses and taking any number of data points into consideration as well as curvilinear equations, and applying them to land use assumptions for a particular zone or area, including the most recent review of land uses in this particular area.  Mr. Vaughn advised that he used that model as well as an independent review and calculation for comparison and to check accuracy of the model, based on other developments around the metropolitan area, and felt justified in his 15% reduction assumption.

 

County Road C and Snelling Avenue: further mitigation at that location; what happens when flow diverted into other areas - and mitigation efforts - whether 4 or 6 lanes on Snelling

Mr. Vaughn advised that this comment was related to I-694 and Snelling Avenue construction timeframes. Mr. Vaughn recognized current congestion at County Road C and Snelling Avenue and their consistency and significance on a daily basis, with such a situation often exacerbated due to weather and/or construction. Mr. Vaughn stated that it was typical for traffic volume to look for the path of least resistance, and therefore comments regarding options to trail blaze or way find additional routes to mitigate those situations. Mr. Vaughn opined that, specific to Terrace Drive to Lincoln Drive to County Road C-2 as those roads exist today, those configurations would not exist under future conditions or with future improvements to accommodate that volume.

 

To expand further from the perspective of the overall study, Mr. Culver advised that assumptions were for improvements on Snelling Avenue to make the entire picture work. While recognizing that the City is not in control of that corridor, nor the interstate system, Mr. Culver noted that it did not preclude the City from lobbying for improvements along that corridor or at its intersections; but clarified that this study was focused on those things under the City's control, including traffic impacts at Fairview and Cleveland Avenues and County Roads C and D, and areas surrounding them.  Mr. Culver opined that if the focus was drawing so much attention on diverting traffic from Snelling, the impact of Twin Lakes Parkway was lost.  As indicated by Mr. Vaughn, Mr. Culver concurred that there would be times when more traffic will divert from that corridor than average, putting a larger strain on Fairview Avenue, but was not a result of what the impact would be of Twin Lakes Parkway on Fairview Avenue itself.

 

Right-turn only as mitigation versus r/l

Mr. Vaughn opined that his interpretation of that question was whether the study recommended restricted turn movements, which had not been reviewed as part of this study, and further opined that option would not be appropriate given the intersections being dealt with.  If the suggestion was to not allow left turns to happen from Twin Lakes Parkway at Fairview Avenue or Terrace Drive in an effort to improve traffic, Mr. Vaughn opined that it would not be appropriate, but a use such as at a WalMart access point was a better use for that option, at a development's access point.

 

Mr. Lux advised that he had interpreted the question yet differently, targeting only certain movements at some locations, which he thought about at Lydia Avenue and different southbound turn movements or adding lanes to target improvements without a large land impact.  Mr. Lux suggested this may be a future strategy to consider.

 

How is existing data used in regional trips and larger trips specific to this area

Mr. Vaughn advised that there were few regional trips expected to use Twin Lakes Parkway, and cautioned that the system as it is today could not be compared to 2030 scenarios, improvements coming in, and with additional lanes added.  With the sub-regional or regional movements on major arteries (e.g. Highway 36, I-35W and I-694), Mr. Vaughn opined that without those regional system improvements, then it may be possible to see future regional trips using the Parkway.

 

Certain number of lanes east of Snelling and how that impacts analysis of this study or if it did

Mr. Culver advised that significant back-ups are seen both east and west of Snelling Avenue, often associated with event-related times; or during snow or other incidents on the regional system.  However, Mr. Culver opined that he had not observed any back-ups to or past on the east side of Snelling Avenue backing up Snelling Avenue itself, which from his perspective would be the only situation impacting demand on the west side of Snelling.  Mr. Culver opined that it could be debated why the four lane County Road C had been reduced to two drive lanes with turn lanes, it did provide safety benefits in that design with a median divided roadway along with aesthetic values and traffic calming efforts versus the narrower medians with more turn lanes and/or drive lanes.  Mr. Culver suggested there may be an opportunity to review that design in the future if significant capacity issues develop on the east side.  However, Mr. Culver opined that he had not observed any issues on the east side that impacted operations through the Snelling Avenue intersection, even though sometimes the back-ups are long into Hamline Avenue, but not impacting the west side of Snelling Avenue.  Mr. Culver suggested traffic signal timing for more green time may help alleviate the issue.

 

Mayor Roe noted that, when the change was made to County Road C, the design allowed sufficient space to add more lanes in the section south of City Hall if and when indicated.

 

Mr. Lux noted that Ramsey County had fielded a few calls on this as well; and while not supporting increasing County Road C to four lanes, there had been some talk at the County level about restriping to make the turn lanes longer, which he would discuss further with City staff. 

 

Regarding the service lane east of Snelling, Mr. Culver noted that lanes had been reduced past Lexington Avenue.  Mr. Culver also noted another issue was that during winter snow and ice events, traffic typically used only one lane versus two if they couldn't clearly see the lanes.

 

Mayor Roe concurred.

 

Do we have enough land for a potential change to 3 lanes north of County Road C-2

Mr. Lux responded that while the right-of-way was wide enough, there would be some impact to landscaping in place along that route.  However with the lack of accidents along that stretch, Mr. Lux advised that the County's attitude was to wait and see, while continuing to monitor the situation.  Mr. Lux opined that concerns at the County level included if the intersections at County Road C and D were freed up, things may get worse at Lydia Avenue and County Road D.  However, with relatively little impact in creating a center turn lane, Mr. Lux noted this may be something to keep in mind in the future as further monitoring occurred.

 

Projecting impacts of development and how projected as part of analysis

Mr. Vaughn referenced the ITE trip generation rates and leveraging past experience on future expectations as part of the analysis. Mr. Vaughn used a past experience in Roseville, and the potential to shift traffic patterns and volumes, through utilizing data after project improvements were in place, the actual calculations had supported the modeling performed. Mr. Vaughn stated that, while the studies were not always spot on, they had proven to come very close to reality as indicated by past experiences; and stood in support of his work based on that track record.

 

Looking at time savings or differentials, came up with County Road C-2 connection several years ago

Mr. Vaughn advised that he based this on today's experience in traveling the corridor and then with Twin Lakes Parkway in place, opining that his instinct would be to not take the Parkway but to get further north to avoid back-ups at I-35W.  However, once the managed lane was in place on I-35W, Mr. Vaughn opined that traffic flow would continue to improve and would not result in the same situation with future conditions, again human nature supporting traveling in the path of least resistance.

 

b.            Update on the Owasso School Site Development

Community Development Director Paul Bilotta provided preliminary information on the status of this project and negotiations to-date by the School District with United Properties.  Mr. Bilotta introduced United Properties President Bryan Carey, School Board Consultant John Shardlow with Stantec, and noted that School Superintendent Dr. John Thein was also in tonight's audience.  Mr. Bilotta briefly reviewed the background of this development proposal, and unique situation with the School District owing and the City wishing to negotiate purchase of the adjacent ballfields.  While not yet in contract negotiations, Mr. Bilotta suggested the City Council may wish to set up a subcommittee going forward in the near future for initial negotiations.

 

Mr. Shardlow reviewed the process to-date from the School Board's perspective, and developers contacted but ultimately indicating they were unable to make market rate housing units work on that site, and alternative products considered for the site prior to settling on United Properties for the current proposal.

 

Bryan Carey, United Properties

Mr. Carey reviewed current plans for another development at a site adjacent to Lexington Avenue and Woodhill Drive called Cherrywood Pointe, with plans to break ground later this summer.  During discussions about that project, Mr. Carey advised that City Manager Trudgeon had suggested that United also look at the School District site, and after meeting with Community Development and HRA staff, they made it clear that the City had strong interest in keeping the ball fields.  While the City expressed their interest in United exploring market rate apartments and affordable senior apartments, Mr. Carey advised that to build affordable senior housing it would require significant subsidies greater than the 4% tax credit available or TIF.  Mr. Carey advised that originally they had thought it was a win-win solution to take TIF from the Cherrywood project and allocate it to the affordable apartments, he noted that upon further review it was decided not to pursue that option, and reviewed some of the reasons that decision was ultimately made.

 

After further review, Mr. Carey advised that other options were considered that also fell short or were not economically viable even with TIF applied to the site, resulting the current proposal consistent with their past developments at Applewood Pointe for a senior cooperative that had sold out early in its planning stages or completion.  Mr. Carey expressed their confidence in this housing option at this site, and continued success of such options in surrounding communities and other areas in the metropolitan area.  Mr. Carey advised that United planned a survey of area residents for their interest in the near future.

 

Discussion among Councilmembers and the developer included the number of units proposed on this site and at Cherrywood Pointe (110 units and 115 units respectively); acreage of the ball field (just under 6 acres); proposed acquisition by the City of the ballfields and necessary parking; anticipated underground parking of 110 stalls; and average size of units and their costs (estimated at from 1,000 to 1,650 square feet at a cost range of $210 per square foot.

 

Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Carey for the presentation and update, offering the City's interest in the next steps.

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:07 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:16 p.m.

 

12.         Public Hearings

 

a.            Public Improvement Hearing for the Reconstruction of Victoria Street between Larpenteur Avenue and County Road B

City Engineer Marc Culver introduced this project as detailed in the February 23, 2015 RCA and attached Feasibility Report for Project P-ST-SW-15-02 (Attachment D).

 

Councilmember Laliberte questioned why this was a reconstruction project versus a mill and overlay project since there appeared to be no utility infrastructure breakdowns of note.

 

Mr. Culver advised that this road, turned back from Ramsey County was not constructed to City standards as it related to the base materials, and had only been minimally maintained by the County over the last forty years of this roadway's existence, causing concern for future costs over and beyond typical Pavement Management Program (PMP) maintenance efforts.

 

Regarding the section adjacent to the cemetery, at the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Culver confirmed that the sidewalk was proposed on the east side throughout the entire project area, with mailboxes moving to the west side. 

 

Mr. Culver also clarified that the roadway would be a typical roadway section for boulevard installation, offset 5' from the existing roadway, and addressing extensive wetlands, based on consultation with MnDOT, Ramsey County and the applicable watershed district; and reviewed stormwater management plans in various areas of the project depending on slopes, urban design standards for curb and gutter installation, and mitigating current drainage directly into wetlands and utilizing best management practices (BMP's) where available.

 

Mr. Culver also reviewed sidewalk locations and widths along various stretches of the project area; and staff's recommendation for on-street parking on the east side of the street and reduces speed ad detailed in the RCA. 

 

Mayor Roe opened the Public Hearing at approximately 8:53 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public testimony on the proposed project as outlined in Attachment A.

 

Public Comment

Mayor Roe recognized written comment received to-date and included in the RCA as applicable.

 

Richard Money, 1945 Victoria Street

Mr. Money opined that the last time the roadway was done, it was raised 14 inches; and cautioned if it went up another foot, there would be no way to get their car out of their driveway. 

 

Mr. Money spoke in support of the reduced speed limit recommended by staff, opining that southbound traffic was often traveling upwards to 70 mph until the curve.

 

RichSchlueter, 794 Lovell Avenue

Mr.  Schlueter asked if this was approved as laid out, would it affect construction of a sidewalk between County Roads B and B-2.

 

Chad Michael Baker, 935 Roselawn Avenue

As a resident with small children at the intersection of Victoria Street and Roselawn Avenue, Mr. Baker spoke in support of a reduced speed limit, opining that people frequently used Victoria as a fast north/south route.  Mr. Baker opined that it was a public safety issue, especially since cars didn't typically stop at the stop sign. 

 

Mr. Baker respectfully requested more policing and enforcement efforts of current speed and stop signs. 

 

Gale Pederson, 929 W Roselawn

Ms. Pederson thanked staff for being proactive and listening to residents on drainage and other issues, and spoke in support of the perforated drainage pipe to alleviate current issues.

 

Specific to speed limits, Ms. Pederson opined that it had been and continued to be problematic and agreed that there was a need for more enforcement efforts.

 

Ken Serivich, 1023 N Victoria Street

Mr. Serivich spoke in support of speed reductions to address safety issues.

 

With no one else appearing to speak, Mayor Roe closed the Public Hearing at approximately 9:05 p.m.

 

In response to the question of the status of the sidewalk north of County Road B, Mr. Culver responded that a set of plans had been developed for that segment, with discussions underway with Ramsey County for subsequent action by the City Council at a later date and as an individual project if necessary.  Mr. Culver noted that costs may vary since there were economies of scale involved with this project.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver clarified that Park Renewal Program funds would only cover the sidewalk between County Roads B and B-2.

 

13.         Budget Items

 

14.         Business Items (Action Items)

 

a.            Request to Order Victoria Street Reconstruction Project

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11210 (Attachment B) entitled, "Resolution Ordering the Improvement and Preparation of Plans and specifications for Victoria Street between Larpenteur Avenue and County Road B."

 

Councilmember Laliberte questioned whether the goal was to have the sidewalk on the cemetery side extend throughout the entire corridor; and whether or not it had been reviewed for the west side due to residential properties and mailbox access.

 

Mr. Culver advised that some analysis had been performed prior to his hire, but the biggest issue with the west side was the number of driveways and safety concerns in locating the sidewalk on that side, as well as impacts to front yards, driveways and losing the drainage ditch, essentially impacting negatively on the rural design.  With locating the sidewalk on the east side, Mr. Culver advised that there would still be enough room to retain drainage on the east side and have no driveways for pedestrians and/or bicyclers to contend with.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned the status of City standards versus homeowner specifications or expectations for driveway replacement.

 

As a result of discussions held after the County Road D project about that issue, Mr. Culver advised that City standards remained in place when replacing or installing a concrete driveway for a 6' concrete on top of a deeper base than generally installed for private parties.  Mr. Culver clarified that issues developed with the County Road D project due to the need for resloping driveways that had previously been reinforced, but the City did not do so when replacing them. 

 

Mr. Culver stated that he was not sure if, as a result of that issue, staff had received formal or official guidance from the City Council to use what was originally in place.  However, Mr. Culver expressed staff's strong opinion that what the City proposed for replacement was a very good product with a long life, and while some residents may not agree, staff still supported that product and base using their past experiences to-date.  Mr. Culver offered staff's willingness to comply with City Council direction; however advised that staff's recommendation would be to stay with the current standards that had been used for some time with very good success.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that this was a separate issue from the matter at hand; and could be suggested as a later motion if so supported by Council majority.

 

                        Roll Call (Super Majority)

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11211 (Attachment C) entitled, "Resolution Declaring Victoria Street to be an Urban District from Larpenteur Avenue to County Road B, and Establishing the Statutory Speed Limit of 30 Miles Per Hour."

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

b.            Dale Street Fire Station Redevelopment

               City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this request based on recent updates and actions of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and current status of the development.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that only Phase I of the project is assured for funding through Western Bank at this time, with Phases II and III funding only anticipated at this point, with no assured funding. 

 

Mr. Trudgeon reviewed action of the HRA at their February 17, 2015 meeting, after considerable discussion and another opportunity for public comment, as well as input from Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC), a representative of Western Bank, and their development team.  With six of the seven Board Members present, Mr. Trudgeon advised that no clear consensus had been achieved for the two motions considered by the HRA, and therefore, the HRA had tabled action at the meeting, with those actions highlighted as follows.

 

Motion: Member Wall moved, seconded by Member Majerus to direct staff to work with GMHC on Phase I; and specific to Phases II and III, directed staff to come back to the HRA with a process to proceed with, not necessarily exclusive to GMHC.

 

Ayes: 3 (Wall, Elkins, Lee)           

Nays: 3 (Majerus, Etten, Maschka)

Motion failed.

 

Motion: Member Maschka moved, seconded by Member Majerus to direct staff to terminate any further relationship with GMHC and authorize staff to start the process to solicit other potential builders/developers for proposals of medium-density, owner-occupied housing that recognizes the existing development concept (Staff Option #3).

 

Ayes: 3 (Majerus, Maschka, Etten)

Nays: 3 (Wall, Elkins, Lee)

Motion failed.

 

Motion: Member Majerus moved, seconded by Member Etten moved to TABLE action on this item to a date not specific; and directed staff to poll members to schedule a special HRA meeting to further consider this item only.

 

Ayes: 6

Nays: 0

Motion carried.

 

City Manager Trudgeon advised that, based upon that lack of clear direction by the HRA and after consultation with the City Manager, he was recommending that the City Council withdraw from the project, with rationale for that recommendation detailed in the Request for Council Action dated February 23, 2015.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that this action would serve to formally alert the GMHC and HRA of the City Council rescinding their support of the current project, and remove the City's former fire station property from the picture.  Mr. Trudgeon expressed his opinion that the City had been more than fair in the lengthy timeframe for getting this development proposal to move forward, and with expiration of the Preliminary Development Agreement some time ago, it was time to make this difficult decision.

 

Another concern expressed by City Manager Trudgeon was that, if the first phase of the project, which appears to be financially viable, was to proceed, but the other two phases did not come to fruition, it could lead to the City and HRA being left with less than desirable properties for further development. Mr. Trudgeon noted that it was obvious that the first phase was needed to help finance future phases, which at this time remained only a hope with no guarantee. 

City Manager Trudgeon opined that the ongoing "wait and see" saga, and potential of multi-year construction was disruptive to neighbors; and if a new developer was sought, it would still probably required a phased approach as originally planned by GMHC, but would hopefully be less disruptive.

 

City Manager Trudgeon advised that, by the City Council taking this recommended action, it would then open up the way for the City Council and HRA to hold a joint meeting to discuss next steps. Mr. Trudgeon noted, no matter whether or not the property was put back on the market or what type of project resulted, it was important that the neighborhood be kept aware of future discussions and subsequent actions. Mr. Trudgeon recommended that the City Council act as he proposed, and move forward to make that decision.

 

Carolyn Olson, President of Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC)

At the invitation of Mayor Roe, Ms. Olson advised that the prices for Phase II and III were something GMHC felt it could achieve; and once the townhomes were under construction and pre-marketing was underway, they anticipated once five were sold, the bank would be willing to move onto the next phase.  Ms. Olson opined that the appraisal comparables were good and they could build to meet that market.

 

Ms. Olson advised that the entire development team was available tonight for any questions or to provide additional information at the City Council's request, including the RE/MAX realtors chosen to market the project in all of its phases. 

 

Ms. Olson advised that the team felt they had worked hard on this project to-date, and though the appraisal came back low, it was found that Western Bank was not willing to initially fund Phases I and II as originally planned, GMHC was confident the project could and should continue, and that it would be successful. 

 

Ms. Olson noted that GMHC had developed this unique and interesting plan at the City of Roseville's request, and had already invested $200,000 in the project to-date.  Contrary to information provided by staff, Ms. Olson stated that GMHC had requested extension of the Preliminary Development Agreement, and had continued to work in good faith with staff, and was now ready to move forward and draft a Development Agreement. 

 

Ms. Olson advised that the prices for Phase II and III were something GMHC felt it could achieve; and once the townhomes were under construction and pre-marketing was underway, they anticipated once five were sold, the bank would be willing to move onto the next phase.  Ms. Olson opined that the appraisal comparables were good and they could build to meet that market.

 

Ms. Olson noted that the project had gone off course in June of 2014 when the City and U. S. Bank could not come to an agreement on their mortgage interest and GMHC was forced to find another lender, and at staff's suggestion had met with community lenders, ultimately finding Western Bank interested in financing the project.  Ms. Olson questioned if another developer might experience the same appraisal issues due to current comparables with other communities given new banking requirements.  However, Ms. Olson opined that GMHC had provided everything requested to-date; and had shared in the frustration when the appraisal documents took from November of 2014 to January of 2015 to accomplish.  While asked repeatedly what was going on, Ms. Olson noted that GMHC was legally constrained in what information they could provide during the appraisal process itself.  Ms. Olson expressed disappointment that, now that the appraisal was completed, the City was considering the decision to seek another developer for the project, when GMHC was now ready to move ahead and remained confident the project would be successful, and remained interested in continuing to work together toward that end. 

 

In conclusion, if the City Council decided not to move ahead with GMHC, Ms. Olson asked that at a minimum GMHC be reimbursed for their staff time and costs to-date on the project's development process.

 

Ms. Olson asked that their real estate team be provided an opportunity to speak from their perspective in marketing the properties.

 

RE/MAX Realtor Jason Stockwell; 5201 Eden Avenue, #100; Edina, MN

Mr. Stockwell briefly reviewed his firm's experience in this type of housing stock and sales history in other metropolitan communities.  Mr. Stockwell opined that this development would be perfect for this site, and phasing seemed appropriate with this price point being achieved at comparable or higher prices in other communities.  Mr. Stockwell stated that as a realtor he did not share City Manager Trudgeon's concern about the long-term development, anticipating that it would be fairly smooth, and barring any market crashes outside the team's control, saw no reason for a delayed construction process.  Mr. Stockwell advised that, without any pre-sale efforts and only through information shown on the City's website and Roseville Review articles about the proposed development, they had already received twenty-eight interest inquiries on the units.

 

RE/MAX Realtor Lindsay Bacigalupo Reuter (1600 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, MN)

Ms. Reuter concurred with Mr. Stockwell's analysis, opining that there is a definite current need for this type of housing, based on comparable units being sold in other areas, and based on available market information to support that projection.  Ms. Reuter noted that she and the Re/Max team had been chosen by GMHC to market and pre-sell units based on their extensive experience with this type of market.

 

Mr. Stockwell stated that they were seeing a demand for new construction across the board due to pent up demand during the economic downturn.  Mr. Stockwell opined that he anticipated actual sales coming in at the team's projected levels, not appraisal values, which he found to be overly conservative.

 

Ms. Reuter concurred, and asked that the City recognize the commitment of GMHC to-date in this process; and stated that none of the team would be here if they didn't believe in the project.

 

Mr. Stockwell advised that he had met with the architects and reputable builder chosen by GMHC and seen other models of their construction; and spoke in support of their work. Mr. Stockwell opined that, from his perspective, it seemed premature to stop the process now even though it had been unexpectedly delayed, especially now that the project is ready to move forward.  Mr. Stockwell urged the City Council to not take the City Manager's recommendation to cancel, but continue on with the project.

 

Councilmember Willmus noted that last week, Ms. Olson had alluded to information on an alternative plan for 18 units that would be built one at a time; and asked that she elaborate on that option, as well as her choice of timing in providing that alternate plan.

 

Ms. Olson deferred to GMHC Director of Construction Bill Buelow for a response.

 

GMHC Director of Construction, Bill Buelow

Some concern and angst about the originally proposed project and apparent lack of faith in the single-family homes not selling, Mr. Buelow Sensing advised that the team had developed another plan that didn't require as much site work as the first option, and for construction of one-level homes on the site. Mr. Buelow noted that the phasing for that construction option would be the same as proposed in the original proposal to start along Cope Avenue, but with construction ongoing with no anticipated delay to ensure financing was in place.

 

Ms. Olson clarified that this would require taking down the entire site at once, and involve ponding versus extra sewer and underground tank costs for storm sewer management.

 

Mr. Buelow noted that this option was more conservative and would not provide as unique or interesting of a plan, but would require less site and utility work and be more streamlined.

 

Councilmember Willmus advised that his rationale in asking this question was based on his attendance at the February 17 HRA meeting, and discussion that the original project in three phases may take up to 3-4 construction seasons to complete. Councilmember Willmus asked GMHC representatives what difference they saw with the option for eighteen units.

 

Mr. Buelow responded that Mr. McNamara from Western Bank may wish to respond, as those units had already received appraisals and that unit type already approved in the appraisal on hand. Therefore, Mr. Buelow opined it should be a quicker process, and as units were sold the financing set-up would keep rolling, with Phase I consisting of six units along Cope Avenue, then selling each additional building with construction to continue nonstop.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated that he had some concerns with the phased approach, especially since some of it centered around demolition of the former fire station, thereby eliminating any potential use of that facility by the City in another capacity. If the building is razed, Councilmember Willmus noted that such an option was no longer available for the City, especially should future phases did not occur.  Councilmember Willmus admitted his frustration with the process, and expressed appreciation to GMHC for their e-mail correspondence received today, that served to shed some light on things for him.  Councilmember Willmus advised that one of those concerns was his confusion as to why GMHC didn't pursue an extension of their Preliminary Development Agreement, which that correspondence indicated they had done, causing him to reconsider tonight's recommended action.

 

While not knowing where his colleagues stood, Councilmember Willmus stated that he was not comfortable taking action tonight to terminate City involvement, since he did not feel he had all of the pertinent information and background on the negotiations to-date, and needed to obtain that information from staff.  Councilmember Willmus further state that he was not putting a motion on the floor at this time, but suggested it may be prudent for the City Council to step back to collect and gather information and then determine where they were at in the process and what was needed to proceed, including a clear timeline before entertaining additional conversation.  At this point, Councilmember Willmus stated that he would not support the City Manager's recommendation to terminate.

 

Mayor Roe stated that he needed to understand better from GMHC representatives and City staff how the City's interests would best be protected if units moved quicker in the market place that indicated by the appraisal; and if entering into a Development Agreement resulting in all three phases being completed, what recourse would be available if not accomplished, and that would be clear to all parties. Mayor Roe stated that this was a key aspect for him in his decision-making. Mayor Roe noted this may relate to figuring out the market after Phase I and if a better appraisal became available as a result of that phase.

 

Ms. Olson advised that, while constructing Phase I, GMHC intended to be marketing Phase II and would be able to get an appraisal based on that one project.

 

Councilmember Laliberte asked Re/Max representatives asked if they had seen the eighteen unit proposal provided by GMHC.

 

Mr. Stockwell confirmed that they had seen the same one-page site plan provided to the City Council.

 

While lacking variety, Councilmember Laliberte asked if they had any concerns in marketing these units, or if they would be less desirable and salable; and asked at what rates they felt they could be moved.

 

Ms. Reuter stated that, while the original proposal provided great and unique options that would appeal to multi-property neighborhoods, based on their sales experience around the metropolitan area and demand for one-level townhomes, she found no reason to doubt their marketability.  Ms. Reuter noted that, with any new construction, she saw no problem selling the first phase of the project and selling it out quickly, and that the only concern appeared to be in financing the phases without more concrete and comparable appraisals in Roseville.

 

Mr. Stockwell concurred with Ms. Reuter's comments; and based on inquiries to-date as previously noted, he anticipated ongoing demand for one-level units based on current demographics, but also seeing no decline in the demand for multi-level units either.

 

Ms. Reuter stated that she had full confidence in either project option, but for it to develop quicker with the more conservative approach that would be safer for the City if that was of great importance to them.  Either way, Ms. Reuter advised that she saw no problem in selling them, but anticipated the one-level units would sell more quickly based on current demand.  Ms. Reuter noted that any new construction in Roseville, as a fully developed community with limited housing stock options, attracted a lot of attention.

 

Mr. Stockwell concurred that one level units will be safer; and questioned the projected length of construction time for all phases, as referenced by Councilmember Etten between 2015 to 2018 based on GMHC presentations and discussions at the HRA level. Mr. Stockwell opined that, as a marketer of new construction, his firm couldn't even come close to the demand for new construction, and since GMHC had a dedicated builder team ready to go, he anticipated a much quicker construction timeframe.

 

Ms. Reuter noted that the quicker the project got started, the sooner the units could be sold.

 

In an effort to confirm what she was hearing, Councilmember McGehee stated that she wished the 18 unit proposal was actually the one before the City Council, as it was a product for which they understood there was a need.  Councilmember McGehee noted that, from her recollection, that type of unit was in the appraisal and approved by the bank as a known quantity, and no further requirements were needed; and needed less site work since it was less dense.  Councilmember McGehee suggested that the neighborhood would be supportive of that option, and sought further comment from GMHC as to her understanding and a timeframe for that option and whether or not it would still need to be phased.

 

Rich McNamara, Western Bank

Mr. McNamara briefly reviewed the position of Western Bank, and results of the townhome portion of the appraisal coming back quite well.  However, as he previously noted and since Western Bank first began working with GMHC in September of 2014, they had anticipated that the vacant land appraisal would come back higher than it did in reality, and due to the difficulty in finding comparable appraisal properties in Roseville, other communities were used for those comparables.  Mr. McNamara noted that the ten single-family home appraisals came in much lower than envisioned by Western Bank, since part of the challenge in Roseville was finding middle-ground comparably valued single-family homes like those proposed, since those being built had higher housing values (e.g. Pulte Homes/Josephine Lakes and Lexington/Victoria).  While there were plenty of ramblers in Roseville built in the 1950's and 1960's, Mr. McNamara noted that they were not of similar type to the proposed housing product.  Mr. McNamara advised that Western could clearly look at the six homes along Cope Avenue, and with the fire station razed at that point, the townhomes were anticipated to lead into Phases II and III.  However, having to work under banking guidelines for lending, Mr. McNamara noted that since the appraisals had not come in as high as anticipated; Western Bank could not commit to any further financing until sales of the townhomes were initiated.

 

Mr. McNamara noted that single-family townhomes were highly sought after and successful, and while asked by GMHC to consider the entire project, he was not in a position to do so.  Mr. McNamara noted that he had been working with GMHC on the 25 unit plan since September of 2014, and was prepared to move forward immediately with the first 6-unit plan as outlined in Phase I.  If GMHC chose to go ahead with the 18 unit model, Mr. McNamara stated that with appraisals in place, the process should be smooth and move faster on the bank's end.  While it still may seem like a "phase," Mr. McNamara advised that it would probably not occur that way. Mr. McNamara noted that, in a perfect world, if the plat was approved and construction begun in June of 2015, it was feasible that six units would be sold by August of 2015, and while construction would not be completed in that timeframe, the units would be sold, at which time the next phase could proceed.  As noted by Councilmember Willmus, Mr. McNamara that without tying their hands in Development Agreement language, he was looking to start Phase I and have the City provide clear deadlines and consequences if Phase II was not firmly tied up and sold out.  Mr. McNamara opined that he anticipated Phase II actually starting in the same construction season as Phase I, and he considered the bank's position to be a rolling line of credit, and as each six units were sold, GMHC applied for financing for the next six units, continuing in a similar manner through completion of all phases. 

 

Mr. McNamara noted that, with the appraisal already in place, there should be no further delay for that process, but having only received the option for the 18-unit project last Friday, he had not fully evaluated that option yet, even though he saw no problem with it.

 

Councilmember Etten asked Mr. McNamara what timeframe he foresaw to finalize the bank's commitment to the first phase of six homes.

 

Mr. McNamara responded that it would remain similar to initial discussions, with the bank committed in general to funding the overall project provided some pre-sale agreement were in place for Phase II at the appropriate time; and the bank committed to proceed with Phase I without any pre-sales to prime the market.  Mr. McNamara noted that for Phase II, the bank would want to see three of the six units committed to, but reminded the City Council that they'd know that prior to moving forward, and GMHC and Western would return with more details at the discretion of the City Council.  Mr. McNamara advised that submittals by GMHC to Western on specificity or guidelines was nearing completion for each phase and subsequent bank approval; and within 2-4 weeks he anticipated the remaining items could be worked through to approve concepts for Phases II and III.

 

Councilmember Etten questioned GMHC if the 18 home proposal would involve the same unit designs or if they would vary some.

 

Mr. Buelow responded that they would be similar, with some units smaller or having different options as they responded to comments from buyers, but in general start with the same concept.

 

At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Buelow confirmed that there would still be a master association for the properties.

 

Specific to phasing, Mayor Roe  noted that talk had revolved around the 18 unit single level proposal; and asked what variation there was from the original  25 unit proposal with different types of housing stock; and how that played out for the bank's commitment since there appeared to be two different approached.

 

Ms. Olson noted that GMHC planned to pre-sell the single family units as the townhomes were being built.

 

Mr. McNamara responded that the challenge was that there was considerable difference in site improvements with the alley concept for the first proposal; and GMHC and the City would need to make that decision quickly on which project was intended, noting a considerable amount of the site work and cost structure on Phases II and III were involved in Phase I of the first proposal.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. McNamara noted that the original project initially contemplated six townhomes and four single-family homes as Phase I, with other housing types for the remaining phases.  If the decision was to continue with the original plan, Mr. McNamara noted that involved much more site improvement costs.   Mr. McNamara advised that to remain committed, the bank needed to see ongoing progress, and was willing to lay out 2-3 variables of options the bank could support.  As stated at the HRA meeting by Community Development Director Bilotta, Mr. McNamara recognized that the City would have similar concerns to those of the bank, with all parties wanting the units to sell.  Mr. McNamara advised that at the February 17 HRA meeting, he was envisioning that discussion to concern what was at the crux of drafting a Development Agreement and the City's requirements for GMHC and clear timelines, which the bank would respond to.  Mr. McNamara stated that he anticipated much shorter timeframes for construction, twelve to eighteen months versus three or four years as a guideline.

 

Councilmember Willmus noted that one issue faced and timeline delays involved two different entities owning property for the development: the HRA and City; and asked staff for their input on whether or not one of those entities should take position of the entire parcel, and which entity that should be.

 

City Manager Trudgeon responded that having two entities with two governing boards did complicate things, and that originally the City Council had ceded responsibility of the development to the HRA.  However, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) transferring that responsibility had now expired, prompting tonight's discussion and his recommendation.  Mr. Trudgeon opined that if the properties were combined under one entity, the City Council had a large vested interest in the project and had used the HRA to make it happen.  However, since the City controlled the former fire station property, City Manager Trudgeon recommended that it may be more appropriate for the City Council to become the entity in charge, and get control of the land and purchase other parcels from the HRA.

 

Councilmember Willmus suggested that action be taken soon.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Buelow confirmed that, regardless of the 18 or 25 unit plan decided upon, the goal was to start on Cope Avenue. 

 

In response to Councilmember Laliberte's question on the need for the former fire station to be razed immediately, Mr. Buelow advised that it added value to the property to have it razed and for marketing purposes to show a clean site, but if necessary could remain even though it would not be aesthetically pleasing to potential buyers of units. 

 

Ms. Olson noted that it would change equity in the property to some extent.

 

Mr. McNamara responded that he was of the opinion that it was everyone's goal to remove the fire station in a timely manner; and while recognizing Councilmember Willmus' comment about that causing uncertain equity concerns for the City, he also understood Mr. Buelow's concerns that it affected marketability of the project.  Mr. McNamara clarified that the bank was not intending to take the fire station as security, but was concerned about the overall marketability of the site and project, with differences in whether or not the fire station remained perhaps negligible.

 

Councilmember Willmus opined that the fire station could come down provided sufficient protections were included in the Development Agreement to protect the City for any loss incurred, which was one point of negotiation.  Councilmember Willmus recognized concerns of the bank and GMHC in marketing the project; however, he opined that a way could be found to make this work and protect the City's future interest in the property if the development should fail.

 

Ms. Olson opined that this could be dealt with early on in the project, as the speed at which the units were selling should be obvious.

 

Motion to Extend

At approximately 9:56 p.m., Laliberte moved, Willmus seconded, extending the meeting beyond the curfew for the purpose of completing discussion on this item (14.c) and the following item, 14.b scheduled for open session.

 

Amendment

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, a friendly amendment to complete only this item (14.c) and no other agenda items.

 

At the request of Councilmember Etten as to Councilmember McGehee's rationale in not completing other items on the agenda, Councilmember McGehee responded that she had a number of comments on item 14.b and did not wish to delay the meeting longer.

 

                                    Roll Call (Amendment)

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee and Laliberte.

Nays: Roe.

Motion carried.

                                    Roll Call (Original Motion as Amended)

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, and McGehee.

Nays: Laliberte and Roe.

 

In response to having a single entity involved Councilmember McGehee also noted the need to determine which option to move forward with; opining that she found the 18 unit proposal more agreeable and salable to the community.

 

Mayor Roe noted that there remained several unanswered questions, but they all did not have to be resolved tonight, but that a decision providing clear direction to staff did need to be made tonight.

 

Laliberte moved, Willmus seconded, to NOT move forward with the City Manager's recommendation.

 

City Attorney Gaughan suggested language in the motion be stated as listed in the RCA (lines 35 - 36), clarifying the City's participation only extending to conveying property to the HRA.  Mr. Gaughan noted it was important that this proposed motion not indicate that GMHC was authorized to undertake any action beyond their own voluntary efforts, and that the City was under no contractual obligations with them at this time.

 

Further discussion included timing for a joint meeting; actions of the HRA at their February 17 meeting to table action until a full contingent of board members was available.

 

Public Comment

Rich Schlueter, 794 Lovell Avenue W

Mr. Schlueter opined that he, and probably the entire neighborhood, would feel affronted if the process were stopped cold at this point and not within the spirit of what was trying to be achieved, especially when he found GMHC's second option as a win-win for all parties, even though it appeared to come out of nowhere.  Whatever the next steps are, Mr. Schlueter opined that the neighborhood would appreciate the opportunity to express their opinion for either option, and while he could somewhat envision what the 18 unit proposal may look like, he would prefer to see a model before a decision was made.  Even though Councilmember McGehee alluded to support by the neighborhood for the 18 unit proposal, Mr. Schlueter noted that this was the first he'd heard of it, and suspected that was the case with many of his neighbors as well; and while it sounded great, he would like them to have the opportunity to express their opinion on either or both proposals.

 

Grady Matwood, 841 Lovell Avenue

Mr. Matwood echoed the comments of Mr. Schlueter, noting the fair amount of cynicism expressed at the initial community meetings, with neighbors being unsure of the City's motives but pleased their opinions were apparently being respected. Mr. Matwood noted the changed atmosphere at the end of that process, with the neighborhood 100% supportive of the 25-unit development being proposed.  However, since those meetings ended, Mr. Matwood opined that the neighborhood had not been re-engaged by the City Council in the process, and he would definitely appreciate the opportunity to be involved and hear options moving forward to get past this stalemate.  Mr. Matwood asked that he and the neighborhood be kept in the loop and retain a voice in the whole process, since the neighbors had a vested interest in the outcome.

 

Motion Restated

Laliberte moved, Willmus seconded, to NOT move forward with the City Manager's recommendation to withdraw City participation in the Dale Street project.

                                                            Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

Councilmember Willmus suggested and sought discussion as to the City Council's desire for the HRA to convey property to the City, with the rationale that due to this process being fairly fluid it could move more rapidly with the City Council's more frequent meeting schedule versus that of the HRA, which may prove critical in getting something accomplished.

 

Mayor Roe suggested this may be an appropriate topic of discussion at a joint meeting with the HRA.

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, requesting sale of the HRA property on Cope Avenue to the City of Roseville.

Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of the motion, given the details needed for a contract, Development Agreement and liability issues.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the most important work of the whole process had been done and done in an excellent manner by the HRA in involving the neighborhood, and did not see the proposed action as a criticism of the HRA in any way.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that the HRA was the only entity to run the process to get everyone to this point.

 

Councilmember Willmus concurred with Councilmember McGehee's comments.

 

Councilmember McGehee agreed that the neighbors should see the plans for the 18 unit proposal, and the HRA should and could perform that task; but opined that the City Council's ability to complete any contracts in a quicker way would prove more beneficial.

 

Councilmember Laliberte agreed as well; and opined that from this point on the City Council was in a better position to keep the project moving forward. Councilmember Laliberte asked that the next meeting include the community as part of the process to avoid delaying getting that feedback into any next steps.

 

At the suggestion of Mayor Roe, Councilmember Etten suggested involvement of the HRA in future decisions based on this expertise with the project and in housing in general.

 

                                                            Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, City Manager Trudgeon advised that he would alert the HRA of the City Council's action, and at that point, determine how best to proceed and which project option was supported in general, after which time neighborhood feedback would be sought.

 

As part of that, Mayor Roe noted the City Council's need to understand any development agreement before making a final determination in one way or the other, for which he thought the neighborhood should also provide feedback.

 

Councilmember Willmus noted the need for GMHC to provide proformas for both proposals for the benefit of the City Council and neighborhood.

 

City Manager Trudgeon suggested a special City Council meeting for only this topic to allow sufficient time and consideration for all parties rather than part of a larger meeting agenda.

 

Mayor Roe concurred, speaking in support of the sooner the better, as long as reasonable notice could be provided to allow the most participation.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe clarified that the HRA would need to meet first to discuss selling property to the City Council before athis matter could come back before the City Council.

 

Councilmember Laliberte asked that the meetings be scheduled as close together as possible to keep the process moving.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Olson and Mr. Buelow confirmed their clear understanding of the next steps and tonight's action by the City Council.

 

15.         Business Items - Presentations/Discussions

 

16.         City Manager Future Agenda Review

 

17.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

 

18.         Adjourn

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:18 p.m.

 

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.

Nays: None.