View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

City Council


City Council Meeting Minutes

May 4, 2015


1.       Roll Call

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


2.       Pledge of Allegiance


3.       Approve Agenda

Etten moved, McGehee seconded approval of the agenda as presented.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


4.       Public Comment

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


a.            Sara Barsel, 1276 Eldridge Avenue

Ms. Barsel provided the City Council with a status update on the Roseville Block Nurse Reinvention Task Force members, and provided hard copies of the two surveys completed and now on SurveyMonkey along with a cover letter.  The surveys were entitled: "Roseville Senior Health Needs Survey" and "Roseville Senior Housing Health Service Survey."


Ms. Barsel advised that an additional survey on adult health needs addressing the more diverse and/or low income population in the community was still in process, along with a medical providers' survey as well. 


Ms. Barsel noted that at least twelve people were serving on the Task Force, and while the process had taken longer than the initial six months projected, she anticipated having it completed by the end of the summer and a subsequent report to the City Council. 


Ms. Barsel advised that the presentation to the City Council would include recommended resolutions for their consideration as the Task Force continued to work with various agencies and faith communities in addressing this issue to coordinate current programs.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Barsel advised that copies of the survey were available by hard copy or on the City's website; and they were open to and willing to explore any other ways to get the survey out to the public, including through a gmail address at: Ms. Barsel noted that housing managers were being asked to fill out a health service survey and to encourage their residents to fill out the senior health needs survey.


City Manager Trudgeon agreed to make the surveys available for pick-up at City Hall as well; and at the request of Councilmember Laliberte, offered to make the surveys available on


Ms. Barsel advised that the cover letter provided instructions that the anonymous surveys could also be dropped off in the black utility payment collection box outside City Hall as well.


Ms. Barsel encouraged Councilmembers and residents to utilize any avenues open to get the surveys to Roseville's senior population; noting that other agencies in the Ramsey County Public Health and Human Services Departments were very interested in the results of the Roseville survey.


June Stewart, 2807 Fernwood Street

As President of and representative the Area League of Women Voters (LWV), Ms. Stewart read a written statement of the League expressing their disappointment in the City Council delay in taking action based on a 3/2 vote until results of a community survey could be taken.  Ms. Stewart expressed further dismay when the City Council, following the rather confused and slanted survey question, subsequently decided at a recent meeting to not pursue organized action and to eliminate public discussion of the item at the requested June 8, 2015 City Council meeting.


Ms. Stewart noted the support of organized trash collection by the LWV for a variety of reasons, and also noted the support of the City's Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC) and their recommendation in their advisory role to the City Council supporting organized trash collection.  Ms. Stewart noted that following the PWETC recommendation, the LWV had conducted an independent study.


Ms. Stewart noted that there were other options that many cities have chosen to take beyond those two provided in the survey question, allowing current haulers to keep their market share and an assigned area of the City.  Ms. Stewart opined that the study supported the fact that multiple heavy trucks wore out streets, costing taxpayers more dollars.


Ms. Stewart thanked Councilmember McGehee for bringing the topic forward for potential discussion at the June 8, 2015 meeting; and expressed the LWV's shock that the City Council voted to not implement organized trash collection or not to discuss it further, without the benefit of any further public comment and in their apparent response to the imperfectly worded survey question.  Ms. Stewart opined that such City Council action did not support community engagement, for which topic there was much interest from both sides; and further opined that representative government should always err on the side of receiving more input from their constituency. 


Therefore, in conclusion, Ms. Stewart, speaking on behalf of the LWV, urged the City Council to reconsider their action and schedule a public hearing on organized trash collection.


5.       Council Communications, Reports, and Announcements

Mayor Roe announced upcoming community events, including free document shredding at City Hall; and noted that the upcoming Parks & Recreation Commission meeting was scheduled at Cedarholm Golf Course providing an opportunity to discuss and tour the golf course, pro shop and clubhouse, and as always, was open to the public to attend.


Mayor Roe announced the upcoming Roseville University and encouraged residents to attend this free, but limited space, opportunity to become familiar with their local government.


Councilmember Laliberte reported on the recent Alzheimer's and Dementia action meeting held at the City Hall Council Chambers to a packed room, with considerable and good information disseminated for families and caregivers, including resources and directions to pursue.  Having served as a member of the kick-off committee, Councilmember Laliberte presented to City Manager Trudgeon the formal letters from legislators providing their support.


Mayor Roe agreed that it was a great event with lots of information provided; with that information available by streaming online via the City's website.


Councilmember McGehee referenced a recent St. Paul Pioneer Press article about a father/son team from Woodbury who had created a technique for bagging Buckthorn stumps to prevent their regrowth versus chemical treatments or digging them out by hand.


As the City Council moved forward with the 2016 budget process, Councilmember McGehee asked that staff be directed to bring forward policies for consider as part of the budget process for review and potential implementation specific to financial sustainability as part of the overview of how and why the City made decisions.  Councilmember McGehee opined this would prove useful for future City Council reference related to a sustainability function.

At the request of Mayor Roe, Councilmember McGehee clarified her intent would be for each department to consider sustainability when requesting funds for their specific department and to present useful policies for consideration when bringing their department budgets forward.


Mayor Roe concurred that it would be an excellent idea to incorporate that into department presentations, at least from a conceptual standpoint.


Hagen Property/Sherman Project Update (current truck terminal)

At the request of Councilmember Willmus at the previous City Council meeting, City Manager Trudgeon provided a brief update on the proposed multi-family, freestanding development of Sherman Associates for market rate and affordable housing, as well as a commercial application as part of a proposed development for this site.  While the project had been on hold for some time, Mr. Trudgeon reported that as of last Friday, staff had received a request for tax increment financing (TIF) that had been forwarded to the City's TIF/financial consultant for initial review.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that he anticipated bringing the request forward for City Council consideration by the end of June.


6.         Recognitions, Donations and Communications


a.            Proclaim Police Week

Mayor Roe read a proclamation declaring National Police Week on May 10 - 16, 2015 and May 15, 2015 as Police Officers' Memorial Day in the City of Roseville; recognizing law enforcement officers, past and present, who render dedicated service to the community.


Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, proclaiming May 10 - 16, 2015 as National Police Week in the City of Roseville; and Police Officers' Memorial Day on May 15, 2015.

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Proclaim May Older Americans Month

Mayor Roe read a proclamation declaring May 2015 as Older Americans Month in Roseville, MN, urging citizens to honor older adults and the professionals, family members and volunteers who care for them.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, proclaiming May 2015 as Older Americans Month in Roseville, MN.


                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Councilmember Laliberte noted the fourth annual Suburban Ramsey County memorial event for fallen officers, including several from Roseville, would be held at North Heights Lutheran Church on May 11, 2015 at 11:00 a.m.


City Manager Trudgeon also noted the awards ceremony for applicable Roseville Police officers would be held in the City Hall Council Chambers on May 13, 2015 at 3:30 p.m.


Councilmember Laliberte recognized the work of a Roseville couple, Mr. & Mrs. Kaiser, in their Honor Flights who will be making their fourteenth trip to transport by air World War II Veterans from the Twin Cities to Washington, D. C. for a visit to the memorial honoring their service.


Mayor Roe offered the thanks of the community, expressing his pride in having the Kaisers as part of the Roseville community.


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 City Council Minutes from April 20, 2015 Meeting

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of April 20, 2015 Meeting Minutes as presented.

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, 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 May 4, 2015.


a.            Approve Payments

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


ACH Payments


77148 - 77332





                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Approve Business and Other Licenses and Permits

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


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


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

Etten moved, Willmus 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 March 31, 2015.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


d.            Approve Budget Calendar

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, the proposed 2016 Budget Calendar as presented.

                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


e.            Approve Environmental Consulting Services Agreement for Property Located at 2959 Hamline Avenue N

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approving an agreement between the City of Roseville and Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Attachment A) to perform semi-annual groundwater monitoring and reporting at 2959 Hamline Avenue N, at a cost not to exceed $21,700 as outlined; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


f.             Approve Recreation Agreement with the City of Lauderdale

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Manager Trudgeon clarified that the cost-share for this agreement would ensure fees for resident and non-resident rates would be covered and no additional Roseville taxpayer monies would be used to subsidize the program.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approving a Recreation Agreement between the City of Roseville's Parks & Recreation Department and the City of Lauderdale (Attachment A) for the provision of summer recreation programs between June 22 and August 15, 2015 as outlined; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


9.            Consider Items Removed from Consent


10.         General Ordinances for Adoption


11.         Presentations


12.         Public Hearings


a.            Consider Lake Owasso Safe Boating Association's Request for
Permit Renewal of the Water-Ski Slalom Course on Lake Owasso

Mayor Roe opened the public hearing for the purpose of receiving public comment on the above-referenced request at approximately 6:35 p.m.


Public Comment

City Manager Trudgeon and Mayor Roe referenced and recognized written e-mails received to-date from supporters of this request: Michael and Cynthia Walz; 389 S Owasso Blvd W; Steve Youngquist, 391 S Owasso Blvd. W; Maren Youngquist, (same as above); and Paul Tragiai, 206 E Owasso Lane.


Bruce Vester, 3701 Sandyhook Drive

As a 34-year user of the course and a long-time volunteer for the Courage Center's participation with the Association, Mr. Vester spoke in support of continuing this program.


City of Roseville Police Lt. Lorne Rosand

Lt. Rosand provided staff's recommendation for ratifying the permit from the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department as detailed in the RCA for the 2015 season, noting that the ski jump was no longer located on Lake Owasso.


Mayor Roe closed the public hearing at approximately 6:38 p.m.


13.         Budget Items


14.         Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Approve/Deny Lake Owasso Safe Boating Association's Request for
Permit Renewal of the Water-Ski Slalom Course on Lake Owasso

Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, approval of the request by the Lake Owasso Safe Boating Association for a permit from the Ramsey County Sheriff for a water ski course and jump on Lake Owasso for the 2015 season.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Community Development Department Request to Perform an Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 2560 Fry Street

Codes Coordinator Don Munson reviewed current code violations at this commercial property, formerly the Press Gym and vacant for approximately eight years, and the current owner identified as Morrissey Development Company.  Mr. Munson provided a status update, including photos, of current violations, primarily the building and site in significant disrepair (violations of City Code, Sections 407.02.Cl 407.02.D, 407.02.J & K, 407.03.H, 906.05.B, C & D).  In order to abate this property, Mr. Munson estimated costs at $20,000 for removal of debris in the parking lot; removal of junk/debris from the site (e.g. mattress, sign, logs); cutting and removing overgrown brush between the building and road; cutting overgrown grass; and patching, repairing and repainting the entire building.


Mr. Munson advised that a previous abatement had been approved for the site by the City Council, but after the winter snow had diminished, additional complaints had been received regarding more exterior issues, as detailed in the RCA dated May 4, 2015.  Due to these additional issues, Mr. Munson advised that staff was requesting a delay in City abatement until June 20, 2015 to allow the property owner additional time to address the issues on their own, especially those additional exterior items not previously identified.  Mr. Munson clarified that this abatement would simply be the most cost-effective way to provide a short-term solution to the property owner to determine whether to rebuild or demolish the building.


Mr. Munson noted that the property owner had been in contact with the City, but to-date, there had been no resolution; and further noted that Mr. Jason Morrissey was present in the audience and wished to address the City Council.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Munson clarified that the request for additional time for the abatement was due to the additional exterior issues discovered in April after the snow melt, not due to any request by the owner for additional time to decide whether or not to raze or repair the building.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Munson estimated it may take that additional two months to bid the work out for a contractor, to cut vegetation and other work that may take considerable time to accomplish.  However, Mr. Munson recognized that the work could also be accomplished sooner than that, but the June 20th date allowed sufficient time for completion prior to implementing a City abatement, and also at a cost much less for the owner to perform the work than the City to hire contractors to perform the abatement.


Owner Jason Morrissey, Morrissey Development

Mr. Morrissey provided a history of the building, and their work with the City in pursuing a zoning/planning process before the Planning Commission for an apartment building several years ago.  However, at that time, Mr. Morrissey stated that they had backed off those plans based on the City's apparent interest in acquiring this property for the adjacent park land, with that process taking several years and a subsequent decision by the City not to pursue it due to higher-than-anticipated appraisal coming in at half the tax value of the property. 


Therefore, Mr. Morrissey stated he was now back at the beginning to consider options for a redevelopment project.  Mr. Morrissey opined that the existing building's current condition would not pass City Code inspection, nor did he think the City of Roseville would want it to remain.


Regarding staff's recommended date of June 20, Mr. Morrissey opined he could have the property violations corrected by then; and his only request was for flexibility regarding painting the entire building based on the possible demolition for a future project.  Mr. Morrissey offered his willingness to spray wash and touch-up paint the building to look better without spending too much time and money on that aspect.  Regarding missing sections of siding, Mr. Morrissey advised that some had rotted spots and would be repaired, in addition to the large sections cut out intentionally to determine if rebar was in place that would prove sufficient to support a two-story apartment building with underground parking, which it would not.  Mr. Morrissey assured the City Council that he would do a good job in cleaning up the property, advising that he would be performing the work himself.


Mr. Morrissey clarified that he had hired someone to cut the grass, and had not been aware that that person had felt no need to cut grass behind the berms where the public couldn't see it, but agreed it needed to be cleaned up.


Regarding building security, Mr. Morrissey advised that the building had been secured when previously notified by the City, and had since been compromised again.  As recently as yesterday, Mr. Morrissey advised that the door had been welded shut and the roof door fastened shut, so opined there should be no way in or out.  Mr. Morrissey noted that this left basically cosmetic issues to bring into compliance with City Code.  Mr. Morrissey asked that he and Mr. Munson work cooperatively on options for a gate to keep people from depositing more debris on the lot in the future.


Councilmember Willmus questioned Mr. Morrissey on a timeline and/or decision for potentially razing the building.


Mr. Morrissey responded that the building was not usable the way it is; and advised that it would mean his working with City staff to determine how to develop a multi-family building there, based on adjacent multi-family properties.  Mr. Morrissey advised that he'd also had some interest for a small family business, consisting of a one-story office building.  At this point, Mr. Morrissey advised that he had initially contacted the City's Senior Planner Thomas Paschke last week and would be meeting with him later this week to review the old plans to see if they were still applicable.  In response to Councilmember Willmus' question regarding demolition, Mr. Morrissey advised that if the City Council had determined that he only had two weeks to comply, he would look at the situation much differently and would probably be seeking a demolition permit sooner rather than later.


Mr. Morrissey admitted that a lot of the building is subgrade, and to demolish it at this time would create a liability issue due to that depth and require a fence around the former perimeter of the building.  Mr. Morrissey advised that he was willing to demolish the building as soon as possible, since he owned a company that could perform the demolition.  However, Mr. Morrissey also noted the potential delay as he needs to follow the planning/development process among various City Commissions or Boards to seek approval.  Given that potential delay, Mr. Morrissey questioned if immediate demolition was the safest thing for Roseville, noting it would be a substantially deep hole existing while seeking permit approval for redevelopment.


Councilmember McGehee noted the two options apparently available for Mr. Morrissey's serious consideration: a one-story office building or multi-family building, offering her support for either option.  If Mr. Morrissey was actually going to be working in the immediate future with staff on redeveloping the site, Councilmember McGehee offered her support for the proposed short-term work versus demolition, allowing for some future development.


Upon the invitation of Mayor Roe, no one appeared to make public comment on this property.


Mayor Roe clarified with Mr. Munson that an acceptable outcome for staff and the City would be for the property owner to develop a plan for demolition and secure the site and address external issues for brush and debris removal.


Mr. Munson agreed; opining that he did not see building demolition and/or redevelopment plans coming forward in the immediate future.  However, Mr. Munson noted that staff was more than willing to work with the property owner to eliminate violations and the public nuisance, since the property owner could do so at a much lower cost than the City being required to abate the property.  Mr. Munson advised that he and Mr. Morrissey had met on the site last week and discussed the issues.  Mr. Munson noted that the resolution of violations and the proposed redevelopment could move forward on a parallel track; however, he noted that it could take another year to get that project ready.


Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, directing the Community Development staff to abate the public nuisance violations at 2560 Fry Street by hiring general contractors to correct the site violations as previously noted, if not corrected by the property owner by June 20, 2015, at an estimated cost of $20,000; with the property owner to be billed for actual and administrative costs, and if charges not paid, authorizing staff to recover costs as specified in City Code, Section 407.07B.


Being aware of some area youth accessing the vacant building, Councilmember Laliberte expressed her interest in making sure the larger holes in the building were addressed prior to more park traffic occurs this spring.  Councilmember Laliberte stated she was not interested in having children exploring the building and/or site.

                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


15.         Business Items - Presentations/Discussions

7:00 pm

a.            Twin Lakes Discussion - Community Mixed Use (CMU) Zoning
Designation Uses

BENCH HANDOUT - Land Use Table Worksheet (updated from RCA)

Community Development Director Paul Bilotta provided an overview of the proposed Twin Lakes discussion timeline showing major anticipated milestones based on previous discussions.


Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd advised that he had put together an updated table as the next step in this process to review specific land uses and regulatory issues for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area as described in detail in the RCA dated May 4, 2015.  At the request of Mayor Roe, staff displayed a revised subarea map overview of subareas as identified through the recent public input processes.


Mr. Lloyd noted the values coming out of the public process entered on the table, and their specific application of negative, positive or neutral values for each proposed use, suggesting those uses that could be permitted or not permitted, or permitted through a Conditional Use (CU) process.  Mr. Lloyd admitted that there were a lot of neutral values that were difficult to distinguish, and therefore staff had developed a five-point scale, shown in the table legend grouping those values and differentials for each use.


Mr. Lloyd noted that Subarea 4 was the subject of the citizen petition received earlier this year for moving zoning designation to  medium density residential (MDR).


Mr. Lloyd advised that the process in grouping variously valued areas had led to some similarities in subareas, leading staff to group them in this way.  Mr. Lloyd noted Subareas 1, 3, and 4 had presented similarities for uses and areas for lack of support of some uses; with areas 2 and 7 seeming similar in scale and direction; and subareas 5 and 6 showing similar consistencies as well.  Therefore, Mr. Lloyd advised that the ultimate recommendation was to group subareas as proposed by staff, or for staff to seek further direction for refining land uses based on tonight's discussion and identification of areas
that could be regulated accordingly.


City Council Discussion

In an effort to keep discussion focused and provide clarity for that discussion and the listening audience, Mayor Roe suggested having the City Council discussion followed by public comment in response to that discussion.  For the City Council's own discussion point of view, Mayor Roe suggested grouping subareas together as a preliminary to that discussion as suggested by staff and within the boundaries of those subareas previously outlined.


Councilmember McGehee expressed interest in adjusting the boundaries, while agreeing with Mayor Roe's suggested discussion focus in working through the list of uses on the table, with Mr. Lloyd adjusting the table as part of those discussions and tonight's actions.


Councilmember Laliberte expressed appreciation for the preliminary discussion on grouping subareas, and sought the initial discussion on that grouping before considering individual uses.


Mayor Roe stated his interest in making sure, if a use is removed from the table of uses, or not permitted in any or some areas, it be sufficiently recorded and captured as 'not permitted' for the record in the zoning code table.


Councilmember McGehee concurred with Mayor Roe, opining it would be interesting to see the resulting uses remaining.


Grouping Subareas Together (Attachment B)

Mayor Roe reiterated staff's recommendation.


Councilmember Laliberte stated her initial thought was to get some comments on what was now being called Subarea B on the two far ends of the development area which were similar.  Councilmember Laliberte expressed particular concern about Subarea B (formerly Subarea 7) especially with significant existing traffic issues by Byerly's and Snelling Avenue.    Councilmember Laliberte stated that she may be more open to high traffic generating uses in Subarea B (the former Subarea 2), but unless there was some defined resolution to traffic issues, would not be amenable to such uses proposed in Subarea B (formerly Subarea 7). Mayor Roe opined that subject lent itself to talking about Conditional Uses (CU) and conditions as a follow-up.


Councilmember McGehee stated that she thought of those things related to Subarea C differently than those things right on Cleveland Avenue, noting that uses next to Subarea B at the bottom part of Subarea A and bumping up against Subarea C south of Twin Lakes Parkway created significant differences for her between that and the northerly strip along Langton Lake Park.  Councilmember McGehee stated she was unsure what she thought about the upper piece of Subarea C, but opined that somehow Subarea C itself had a different character than the internal side of the pieces.


Mayor Roe stated that he drew a line on his personal map, opining that the south part of Subarea A belongs in Subarea C (actually Subarea B or C) due to its adjacency to the central core of Subarea C.


In the staff report, Mr. Lloyd noted that Twin Lakes Parkway seemed to become an apparent dividing line between where places seemed to favor higher or lower density uses (e.g. residential), suggesting that may correspond to the issue raised by Mayor Roe.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of a more horizontal line on the map; while Mayor Roe expressed his preference for the previous line on the map; and Councilmember Willmus suggested dissecting parcels may actually play out with dollar indications.


Mayor Roe recognized a clear consensus by Councilmembers Laliberte, Etten and Willmus as well as himself, for Twin Lakes Parkway to serve as the dividing line.


Regarding boundaries, Mayor Roe offered his perspective in the northwest section of Subarea A adjacent to Cleveland Avenue, recognizing the concern raised by Councilmember Willmus in dividing parcels, making him question whether Subarea A is correct for those properties adjacent to the storm water pond and adjacent to Langton Lake Park.


Mr. Bilotta responded that Subarea A involved properties near the more sensitive issues (e.g. Langton Lake Park) and those areas of concern.  While the decision was qualitative, Mr. Bilotta suggested taking those parcels on the far east and drawing a line; while other parcels have visibility to County Road C and/or Cleveland Avenue.  Mr. Bilotta opined that this would avoid splitting parcels while still providing protection for the park.


Mayor Roe expressed concern with narrowing  Subarea A and it only becoming a strip adjacent to the park.


Councilmember McGehee opined that the storm water pond was a nice amenity for future development in the area.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her support for not splitting that section, but leaving it all in Subarea A for lower intensity uses, and more heavy intensity to the south.


At the request of Mayor Roe for clarification, Councilmember Etten  suggested leaving all parcels currently identified in the northwest corner in Subarea A and not split it up given the lake storm water pond and other things, making sense to leave it as a whole parcel and avoid running into other multi-family residential parcels.


Councilmember Laliberte agreed, opining that if intended for a less intensive use, she saw no reason to carve up that area.


General Groupings (Attachment B, continued)

Mayor Roe noted significant differences between Subareas B and C, noting two distinct City Council viewpoints expressed tonight regarding intended uses or locations, particularly in Subarea C, the central area around Fairview Avenue.


Specific to Subarea C, Councilmember McGehee noted that it was a huge area, including up to County Road C, and she saw a slight difference in Subarea C south of Terrace Drive versus those areas along County Road C and Fairview Avenue, at least east of Fairview Avenue (former Subarea 5).


For clarification at the request of Mayor Roe, Councilmember McGehee stated that she was fine with including former Subarea 5 in Subarea B all the way up to Terrace Drive.


Mayor Roe stated that he still lumped those Subareas together as a zoning area, while recognizing the City Council's approach to former Subarea 6 may suggest more of a rehabilitation versus redevelopment process.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Councilmember Etten concurred that the former Subarea 6, now Subarea C, should not be split up since it has some flexibility and Subarea C fit close enough.  Councilmember Etten suggested leaving that area whole, especially with the current businesses there being successful and not desiring to zone them out of that area.


Mayor Roe noted there were three basic subareas moving forward and creating a target depending on how they were defined.


Councilmember Laliberte sought clarification as to whether the body saw Subareas C uses being treated differently than the two Subarea B's.


Councilmembers McGehee and Etten agreed they would consider treating them differently.


Mayor Roe opined there may be a significant difference; however, those differences should come out in the specific uses for each Subarea.


Since Subarea C  abuts Fairview Avenue and access on and off that corridor, Councilmember Laliberte stated her view of that being different and her preference to leave it, based on traffic compared to Cleveland Avenue and County Road C. 


Councilmember Etten concurred.


Councilmember McGehee opined that when The dividing line became Twin Lakes Parkway, it changed Subarea A to an expanded Subarea C.


Mayor Roe and Councilmember Etten concurred.


Councilmember McGehee opined that Subarea C was a large area, and if any changes in the dividing lines were made, she would suggest moving Subarea B over to Fairview Avenue, making it different than the rest of Subarea C, and allowing for Subarea C to become a larger chunk for development.


Councilmember Laliberte sought clarification if the intent was for the four properties along County Road C to become a bridge (e.g. Tile Shop, Fireplace Shop, and Twin Lakes Medical and the site directly to the north).


Mayor Roe clarified that the east side of Fairview Avenue would extend Subarea C to the west, and the Tile shop and site directly north would become part of Subarea B, expanding east of Fairview, while the area west of Subarea B still needed further discussion and consensus.


Councilmember McGehee sought clarification that Subarea C ran west of Fairview Avenue down to County Road C.

Mayor Roe concurred, noting that it also extended to the north end of Subarea B.  However, Mayor Roe expressed concern moving the line that far north for Subarea B based on properties at the northernmost end and not even at issue on the west end of Fairview Avenue.


Councilmember Laliberte agreed that she would not extend Subarea B that far north, while she could see the Tile and Fireplace uses included, only because they were less intensive uses emptying onto Fairview Avenue.


Councilmember Etten opined that, before moving forward with that, the City Council should address their individual and corporate thoughts on uses that would be allowed in each subarea.  Councilmember Etten noted that he had a different vision for Subarea B, and questioned if it ended up allowing larger buildings, was that a desired outcome.  Councilmember Etten noted it may be necessary to actually identify parcels before proceeding further.


Mayor Roe concurred, suggesting leaving Subarea C for the time being, and considering actual uses permitted for Subareas B and C.


Councilmember Laliberte suggested, with concurrence by Mayor Roe, on receiving public input prior to moving ahead to avoid further confusion.


Public Comment

Lisa McCormick, Wheeler Street

Ms. McCormick expressed her sincere appreciation for this format allowing for public comment after initial discussions.


However, Ms. McCormick expressed her personal concerns in the significant differences in how she viewed Subarea C immediately south of Terrace Drive and down County Road C.  Ms. McCormick expressed her appreciation in the comments made about traffic on Fairview Avenue, and referenced her discussion with Mr. Bilotta earlier on the character of properties off Fairview Avenue and current Tile Shop and Medical building setting the gateway at the corners for that entrance.  Ms. McCormick noted both buildings were two-stories, and suggested something missing from this discussion was height as well as 24-hour operations.  Given the character of Fairview Avenue, Ms. McCormick expressed a preference for less intense uses along the corridor. 


Mayor Roe noted both height and 24-hour operations were intended for discussion as part of this process.


Ms. McCormick further cautioned the City Council and reminded them that Mr. Lloyd suggested the indication of positive survey responses for industrial uses in Subarea 4.


Mayor Roe clarified that the responses, as reported by Mr. Lloyd, indicated negative to neutral responses to industrial uses in Subarea 4.


Ms. McCormick opined that there was more indication for residential uses; and sought to continue bringing that up as it fell in line with the citizen petition previously submitted for what the neighborhood wanted in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area: less intense uses along Fairview Avenue and height issues addressed in the entire area.


Table of Uses (Attachment A)

Mayor Roe suggested starting at the top and moving through each use, with the City Council reacting to both the existing zoning designation under Community Mixed Use (CMU) and those permitted uses, and the uses as proposed in the 2014 exercise and suggested changes based on public feedback.


Mayor Roe clarified that the entire Twin Lakes Redevelopment had been zoned CMU (shown on the left of the table) and 2014 changes (shown on the right of the table) indicating a change of direction by the City Council based on public feedback and taken into account during tonight's discussion.  If zoning is not currently permitted in either case, Mayor Roe suggested it was easy to simply delete those uses.  However, for those uses not currently permitted and proposed to be changed to permitted uses, Mayor Roe noted the need to make a decision tonight between the two to address those conflicts.


Mr. Bilotta suggested an additional category beyond "Permitted (P)" or "Not Permitted (NP)," that would include "Permitted with a Conditional Use (CU)" or "Permitted with a Planned Unit Development (PUD)."


Mayor Roe noted the need to address parameters for PUD; with Mr. Bilotta suggesting that would only indicate at this point that additional discretion was desired by the City Council for that particular use, and could be dealt with in later discussions.


Accessory: Drive-thru

Mayor Roe noted they were currently and proposed as NP.


Councilmember Willmus noted that this would mean no banks would be allowed in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, and suggested more discussion and feedback was needed.


Mr. Bilotta concurred, noting that this also included no pharmacies or other applicable uses with drive-thru's.


Mayor Roe clarified that current Commercial and/or Business Park/Office zoning designations require a CU for a drive-thru; and suggested clarifying this NP specific to fast food.


Councilmember McGehee questioned the need for any drive-thru, opining that their uses created more asphalt, idling traffic, and pass-through traffic issues.


Councilmember Laliberte expressed her support of a pharmacy, coffee or bank drive-thru use, as long as they were not up against residential properties due to headlight, direction and speaker issues.  While not opposed to this use in Subarea B and could see it in Subarea C, Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was not supportive of it as a use up against residential properties, such as in Subarea A.  However, in general, Councilmember Laliberte stated she was not wild about having fast food uses allowed in the area.


Councilmember Etten agreed that drive-thru's were appropriate uses in Subareas B and C.


Councilmember McGehee stated she'd support that use in Subarea B, but not Subarea C.


As in other commercial districts, Mayor Roe noted their use would need CU approval, and therefore would be determined on a case by case basis in those zoning designations.  Therefore, Mayor Roe noted the consensus was to allow drive-thru's in Subarea B with a CU.


Regarding permitting them in Subarea C, Councilmember Willmus opined that it appeared uses were being overly restricted in some areas.  While understanding the need to protect residential areas and the area around Langton Lake by only allowing drive-thru's in certain areas of Subarea B and not in Subarea A, Councilmember Willmus noted that the body was literally talking about one side of Prior Avenue or another, making much less sense.


Mayor Roe asked Councilmember Willmus if the CU could address that issue for him.


Councilmember Willmus responded that it could; however, he recognized incredibly complex land use scenarios that could come forward; and expressed his concern with development applications and implications moving forward.  While trying to keep an open mind for this discussion, Councilmember Willmus stated that it might behoove the City Council to work out definitions of uses before specifically discussion Subareas A, B, and C on the map.


Mayor Roe suggested those definitions may be identified as uses were reviewed, such as differences for fast food drive-thru's versus other uses.


Councilmember McGehee  provided clarification from her perspective that this was only a first pass and would be deferred for further refinement based on this discussion and public comment, and would not be the final word.


Mayor Roe confirmed that this was not intended as the final discussion.


In conclusion for this specific use, Mayor Roe, with  no objection from the body, concluded that Accessory Use: drive-thru's were Permitted Use with a CU for Subarea B and potentially Subarea C as well, subject to further public input for more public areas.


Civic/Institutional: Hospital

Since Mayor Roe was unable to find reference to this use (specifically hospitals) in existing use tables to determine how they were being handled in other zoning designations, he admitted he was unsure how to do so here.  Mayor Roe stated that the only reference he found was for Permitted Use with CU in Office/Business Park zoned districts.


Mr. Bilotta advised that they had been included in that designation as a result of the one-time hospital proposal in that area.


Mayor Roe stated that, in Subarea A, the response had been lukewarm to negative, and also in Subareas C and B, questioning what that indicated.


Councilmember McGehee stated, when considering a modern hospital with a helipad and emergency traffic and operating 24/7, she would rule that use out based on previous discussions.


Without objection, Mayor Roe concluded that this was a NP use anywhere in the Twin Lakes Area.


Commercial; Daycare Center

Mayor Roe noted this use had received a fairly positive response in most districts.


By consensus without objection, Mayor Roe concluded that this was a P use in all Subareas, subject for additional public input.


Commercial: Lodging (hotel)

Mayor Roe noted the response had been negative for this use in Subareas A and C and some already existing in Subarea B, indicting, by apparent consensus, it was a NP use in Subareas A and C, and a P use in Subarea B.


Commercial: Restaurants (Fast Food)

Mayor Roe noted, as previously indicated, this was only a P use in Subarea B.


Mr. Bilotta clarified that 'fast food' needed further definition as it didn't only indicate a drive-thru, but was also considered for uses such as a Subway franchise, and indicated counter service versus a sit-down restaurant.


When Mayor Roe questioned the designation of a Panera franchise, Mr. Bilotta responded that this fell under a different use category, 'fast casual.'


As discussion fell into potential restaurants that could already be in process for the Twin Lakes Area as part of current development, City Manager Trudgeon clarified that current development indicated restaurants, but their type or category had yet to be determined and would need to be based on a number of limiting factors, including whether traditional, fast food without a drive-thru, or sit-down restaurant.


If the drive-thru definition was causing the problem in whether fast food uses were permitted or not, Mayor Roe questioned if that category needed further definition accordingly.


Councilmember McGehee stated that she'd be fine with some fast food uses without drive-thru access, noting the problematic synergy created in her immediate neighborhood specific to drive-thru's.


Without objection, Mayor Roe concluded that fast food with drive-thru was a P use with CU, in Subareas A and possibly Subarea C; with the use determined as NP across the board in Subarea B.  Mayor Roe noted the need for specific fast food definitions for future determination on any permitted CU coming forward.


Commercial: Restaurants (Traditional)

Councilmember Laliberte stated she could see that use in Subarea A (formerly Subarea 1), but wasn't sure if she could see it in Subarea A (formerly Subarea 4).


Mayor Roe suggested making it a P use with a CU and look further at conditions associated with it, only in Subarea A, but not the other Subareas. 


Councilmember Willmus noted that it had been permitted before, and was listed as P in 2014 with fairly strong responses, causing him to question why.


Councilmember McGehee agreed with the comments of Councilmember Willmus, opining that there was a strong desire across the City to have more variety and sit-down restaurants, and in this area in particular with workers and those residents in that immediate area.


Without objection, Mayor Roe concluded that this was P use throughout the Twin Lakes area.


Commercial: Retail (24-hour operation)

Mayor Roe noted that it was a P use in the original CMU district and the proposed 2014 CMU; and permitted in other areas with standards addressed in other areas of City Code for 24-hour issues (e.g. noise, delivery times, buffer zones) for those uses adjacent to single-family residential uses.  Mayor Roe suggested the question was whether to go with a city-wide strategy with restrictions for uses adjacent to residential uses, or note a strong negative in this area across the board.


Councilmember McGehee noted the use was NP outside of a hospital, and opined nothing needed to be open 24 hours/day, creating an additional drain on the City's public safety departments.


Councilmember Etten questioned the impacts for a 24-hour urgent care service, opining there were some tremendous services being offered under current business models; and questioned how parameters could be put around such a use to permit them.


Councilmember Willmus stated he would restrict the use as NP adjacent to residential properties and make it a P use with CU for other areas.


Without objection, Mayor Roe concluded that this would be a NP use in Subarea A and a P with CU in Subareas B and C.


Commercial: Retail (big box)

Mayor Roe noted that "big box" had yet to be defined in code, and was an originally P use in CMU zoning, and currently proposed with a CU throughout the Twin Lakes area. However, based on the strong negative feedback received, Mayor Roe suggested it seemed preferred as a NP use in Subarea A.


Councilmember Willmus proposed a similar finding for this use as that of Commercial: Retail (24 hour operation), pending a better definition being developed for "big box."  Councilmember Willmus noted that some may consider a Total Wine franchise as big box retail, but it differed considerably from other examples of "big box" and required further definition.


Mayor Roe concurred with Councilmember Willmus.


Mayor Roe sought consensus and suggested concluding that this could remain a P use with CU in Subareas B and C.


Councilmember Willmus stated he would concur for now for the purpose of tonight's discussion and a similar use as indicated in the 2014 exercise.


Councilmember McGehee stated that she would not support it as a P use in Subarea C; and would prefer not to deal with it at all until a definite definition was developed.


Mayor Roe clarified that, as she understood the definition now, Councilmember McGehee wouldn't support the use anywhere; which she affirmed as being a correct summation.


Councilmember Laliberte stated she would support it as a P use with CU in Subarea B and if that included the parcels serving as a bridge along County Road C as previously discussed tonight.  Councilmember Laliberte stated she was not supportive of its use in Subarea C to avoid additional traffic on Fairview Avenue.  However, Councilmember Laliberte noted the public comment she'd received about how nice it would be to have a Lowe's or Home Depot franchise in Roseville, and suggested they'd be considered "big box," suggesting the need for CU if considered a P use.


Councilmember Etten concurred with Councilmember Laliberte, and depending on how Subarea B was drawn and its connections; with Subarea B fine with him for a P use with CU.  However, Councilmember Etten reiterated his cautions depending on the map borders and definition developed for "big box."


At the request of Councilmember Willmus for other potential businesses included in this use (e.g. the Tile Shop), Mayor Roe suggested revisiting NP as the process continued and to determine if it met the definition.


 Without objection, Mayor Roe concluded that this use was NP in Subareas A and C at this time; and was a P use with CU only in Subarea B.


Commercial: Retail (smaller scale)

Mayor Roe noted that this use was permitted in all commercial zones and office/business park zones in the City; with current HDR zoning in the area north indicating NP.  However, Mayor Roe suggested this may change further as zoning changes.


Councilmember Etten suggested leaving it as is.


Councilmember Willmus noted the new Target business model for mini-stores and questioned how that would fit.


Mr. Bilotta noted the need to define "small scale retail" as well as "big box."


Councilmember Willmus suggested leaving it as a P use throughout.


Councilmember Laliberte noted the lower part of Subarea A was just north of the Wal-Mart development, and would push small retail against the lake and park if left as is.  Councilmember Laliberte supported it as a P use with CU only in Subarea A.


Councilmembers McGehee and Etten stated they would not support that, with Councilmember Etten expressing concern in getting too controlling and restrictive in permitted uses, while noting the need (to) (for) condition (all) uses to provide a buffer for the lake as one example.


Without objection, Mayor Roe concluded this was a P use across the board at this point.


Commercial: Vertical Mixed Use

Mayor Roe advised that this was a NP use in any district except CMU at this time.


Councilmember Laliberte questioned how vertical is vertical.


Mayor Roe opined his was originally intended when stacked uses were considered, with residential typically above retail; but was not sure how high that was.


Mr. Bilotta noted staff's observation of height concerns expressed, opining that this use may have fallen victim to that concern.


When stacking becomes a height concern, Councilmember McGehee questioned whether or not it was appropriate in the current marketplace for commercial on the first floor and two stories for housing above it.


Mr. Bilotta responded that most multi-family developments want a minimum of four stories, with concrete for the first floor, actually creating a height of five stories, the limit under code for stick construction.  If commercial was required for the first floor, Mr. Bilotta opined that this would typically knock out many developers today, as most projects tended to be subsidized if multi-family, and generally 2-3 story developments were not seen unless in a more downtown, hot retail area.


Councilmember McGehee suggested NP use in the entire area.


Mayor Roe stated he was thinking NP in Subarea A and P with CU in the other Subareas.


Councilmember Laliberte stated she didn't have a problem with it being a P use in Subarea B, opining that the City would be supportive of a four-story office park in Subarea B.


Without objection, Mayor Roe concluded this was a P use in all Subareas with the exception of Subarea A.


Industrial: Light Industrial

Noting this was a NP in all commercial zoning districts and Office/Business Park, and by apparent consensus, Mayor Roe concluded that this would remain unchanged as a NP use.


Industrial: Limited Production/Processing

Councilmember McGehee opined a P use with CU might be a good thing (e.g. medical technology).


Mayor Roe noted this use was a P use in Regional Business (RB)-2 Districts, but not in RB-1 or other commercial Districts.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Bilotta noted this might include other uses, some current in the northwest area of Twin Lakes, such as an incubator use or a business that had an office in the front and a "clean room" for processing in the back (e.g. electronic components and blood meter production), or other businesses where others manufactured the part and they were put together in a facility permitted under this type of use category.  Mr. Bilotta advised that staff received many inquiries for that type of use or category, typically a one-story industrial park throughout the area.  As a general goal, and as indicated on this working copy of the Use Table, Mr. Bilotta advised that if you stood outside the building, you would see no difference from this and an ordinary office building, even though production and processing were occurring inside, and sometimes even multi-tenant uses.  Mr. Bilotta opined that the only tricky part was in addressing the level of deliveries.  However, at this point, Mr. Bilotta advised that staff was trying to keep the understanding more on the street level than defining the uses in more detail for this exercise.


Mayor Roe noted a definition currently existed in code for this use; with Councilmember Laliberte clarifying that the definition dealt mostly with sound, as confirmed by Mr. Bilotta.


Councilmember Laliberte stated that her only caveat for this use would be related to sound and potential impacts from shift work and disruptive traffic patterns; with Mayor Roe adding another caveat for odors.


Mr. Bilotta duly noted those caveats, adding others already in place that would address how the use was conducted indoors and whether or not it was compatible with other uses in the same building or complex.


Without objection, Mayor Roe concluded that this remained a P use in all zones as indicated in the 2014 change.


Industrial: Limited Warehousing/Distribution

Councilmember McGehee noted this was the use hashed out in the past regarding the number and size of trucks and provided in RB-2.  Councilmember McGehee stated she would not want this use in Subarea A, but would support it in Subareas B or C.


Councilmember Laliberte noted her concurrence with the proposed 2014 changes.


Mayor Roe noted they could be P under that proposed 2014 change.


Councilmember Willmus stated they should be left as a P use under CU in all zoning categories.


Without objection, Mayor Roe concluded that this remain a P use under CU in all Subareas.


Industrial: Manufacturing

Industrial: Warehouse

With little discussion and without objection, Mayor Roe concluded that this remains an NP use in all Subareas for both categories.


Office: All Categories (Clinic, Medical, Dental, Optical, Corporate Headquarters, General, Office Showroom)

Mayor Roe noted the only change from current status to the 2014 proposed use was to NP Office Showroom, with it being P in all other Office/Business Park and other Commercial Districts.


Councilmember Willmus suggested permitting the Office Showroom use as well.


Councilmember Laliberte questioned the rationale in arriving at a NP use in previous conversations; with Mayor Roe suggesting it perhaps never got to the discussion point at that time.


Without objection, Mayor Roe concluded that uses remain P across the board in all Subareas.


Residential in General

Mayor Roe asked staff if there were any projections or proposals from them at this time on how to break down Multi-Family within use tables depending on specific zoning codes.


Mr. Bilotta advised that it was broken down for questioning, and as an example, multi-family was just that, no matter the considerable amount of emotion surrounding it.  Mr. Bilotta stated that some are fine with condominium housing, but not with Section 8 housing, and based on Fair Housing Laws, the City was not allowed to pick apart or slice individual multi-family housing types. and the only option was to control whether or not there were owner-occupied or not, with no other levels of control.


Mayor Roe noted the need to also control the height limitations for multi-family and other use types adjacent to single-family residential areas.


Residential/Family: Multi-family

Councilmember Willmus noted that Mr. Bilotta touched on this as well and the difficulty in getting into conversations for market rate, workforce, Section 8 or other housing based on the underlying use.  Councilmember Willmus noted that someone could walking the door seeking dollars for market rate housing, and 2-3 years later, convert them to a different type of use.  Therefore, Councilmember Willmus indicated his hesitancy in having this conversation at all.


Mayor Roe concurred, noting that the City would have no recourse based on Fair Housing Laws; with the City unable or not desiring to discriminate in any way. 


Mr. Bilotta stated that that City may or may not decide uses based on other decisions beyond zoning, such as with funding participation, but the basic zoning designation is simply multi-family.


Mayor Roe concurred.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that it looked like in the single-family category, multi-family was a P use and others NP.


Mayor Roe clarified that single-family was just single-family and therefore, not broken down by type.


Mr. Bilotta concurred, noting that the only discussion needed for the multi-family category was building type, no matter who occupied it.


Councilmember Laliberte questioned if this was a good place to discuss height since it hadn't been done in the Office category.


Mayor Roe suggested height be considered for Subareas A, B and C or across the entire area, and based on its adjacency to the park, single-family homes, etc.


Councilmember McGehee clarified that she considered assisted living as a different category than multi-family.


Mr. Bilotta confirmed that it was a different category, referencing its including on as a separate category at the very end of the table.


Mayor Roe asked that the assisted living category be a different discussion than the multi-family discussion currently underway.


Specific to multi-family, Councilmember McGehee stated her preference to incorporate discussions with other projects coming forward in the recent past, and while not separating buildings by category, making sure that each building provide workforce or non-market rate housing as well as market-rate units so all people shared similar amenities and were not disenfranchised from one building to another.  Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of also having multi-family buildings specifically for families to provide play areas.


Mayor Roe suggested that may be more of a policy rather than zoning discussion.


By consensus, Mayor Roe suggested a conclusion to allow multi-family housing as a P use in the CMU zoning district, and generally speaking permitted throughout the area, pending future discussions specific to height issues.


As this area is shaped, Councilmember McGehee opined it was turning into more of a business and light industrial area.


Mayor Roe noted that this was part of the discussion in previous uses, but now the discussion was moving into the residential uses.


Councilmember McGehee opined that originally the City Council had talked about stacked uses, thus the residential consideration, but now since it was moving toward stand-alone residential, which could be adjacent to a park or other use, it created quite a different feel for the entire area.


Mayor Roe expressed his disagreement with Councilmember McGehee on her recollection of the original discussion and creation of CMU zoning for the last Twin Lakes development proposal to provide distinct areas, including a block of residential uses and a block of office uses.  Under that scenario, Mayor Roe opined that things remained amenable and the City Council remained consistent with that 2014 exercise, pending addressing issues about adjacencies.


Specific to multi-family responses and public input, Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of changing from P uses to P with CU across the board.


Councilmember Laliberte noted the need to address density as the next issue in multi-family uses.


Councilmember Willmus clarified that he was speaking specifically to multi-family uses on the table of uses, and when getting into other uses, he would not change Medium Density Residential (MDR) areas.


Mayor Roe noted HDR provided for so many units per acre.


Councilmember Willmus noted that HDR in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area would therefore, under his scenario, all be under the P with CU use designation.


Councilmember Etten stated that would get to his concern should Area B become a larger retail function, wondering if that should be a P use in that area.  Councilmember Etten opined that a lot of business was already going on in that area, based on street visibility, and Councilmember Willmus' suggestion would ensure that multi-family residential uses would all fall under a P with CU in Subareas A and B.


Mayor Roe noted that by making uses P with CU in all districts it would get to those remaining issues and concerns in all districts.


Councilmember Laliberte opined that she saw interest by developers for multi-family in Subarea B due to its proximity to the bus line.


Councilmember Willmus opined that his proposal would not preclude that, but would still provide for a deeper look if and when it came around.


Mayor Roe noted that the zoning code already and often had specific conditions for CU's.


Without objection, Mayor Roe concluded that multi-family would be a P use in all Subareas of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.


Residential/Family: One-family attached (Duplexes - MDR)

Mayor Roe noted current use designation indicated NP and there appeared to be no indication for change.


Residential/Family: One-family (Townhome/Row House)

Mayor Roe noted current use designation indicated P and there appeared to be a positive response, indicating no change.


Without objection, Mayor Roe concluded and confirmed that duplexes remained a NP use and townhomes a P use throughout the Twin Lakes area.


Councilmember Laliberte questioned the side by side houses off County Road C and Dale Street off Overlook Drive, and whether they were also considered duplexes.


Councilmember Willmus stated they were considered townhomes.


Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of more housing of that type in the community if they were not considered a duplex.


Mr. Bilotta clarified that duplexes, based again on the street term, was that a duplex, while feeling like two single-family homes stuck together was different than the homes on Overlook that were considered a townhome and broken up versus being all in a row.


Mayor Roe, as another example, noted the Ramsey Square/Westwood Village units of a similar nature were townhomes; and confirmed for Councilmember Laliberte that they would be permitted in this area as well.


Without objection, Mayor Roe confirmed that duplexes would remain a NP use and townhomes a P use.


Residential/Family: One-Family Detached

Councilmember Willmus stated his satisfaction with the last four residential/family listings.


Mayor Roe noted that they were currently NP and there appeared to be no proposal to change.


Councilmember Laliberte questioned some areas around Langton Lake.


Councilmember Etten noted the west edge of Langton Lake was in Subarea A; with Councilmember Laliberte noting similarities to properties on the east side.  Councilmember Etten noted that side would allow for duplexes or single-family homes.


Councilmember Willmus stated he would consider a P use with a CU when looking at single-family developments backing up to the lake as an amenity, opining that this could attract larger homes than other areas of the development.  If considering height restrictions, Councilmember Willmus questioned staff's interpretation of that.


Mr. Lloyd responded that the height was determined at 30' to the midpoint of the gable.


Therefore, Councilmember Willmus advised that he would look at it as P use with CU only in Subarea A, and only specifically for single-family and not duplexes.


Without objection, Mayor Roe confirmed that this would be a P use with CU in Subarea A.


Residential/Group: Assisted Living

Mayor Roe noted current zoning was a P use with CU; and no change was proposed.


Mr. Bilotta clarified that it was permitted in HDR zoned districts.


Without objection, Mayor Roe confirmed that this was a P use in all Subareas.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mayor Roe confirmed that this was a draft document and nothing was permanent, with discussions to follow on scale, height and other issues raised during tonight's discussion.


Map Lines/Boundaries

Regarding the bridge parcels previously discussed tonight between Subarea B on the west side and the east side along County Road C, Mayor Roe questioned if there was a desire by the body to change the strip or leave as staff originally displayed.


Councilmember Willmus opined it should be left open 'to be determined' for now.


Councilmember Laliberte sought to go on record to state that she was not in support of that Subarea progress as far north as staff's dotted line on the map indicated.


Councilmember McGehee stated she was not totally committed to her original proposal tonight in any strong way.


Mayor Roe thanked staff for their assistance and suggested further thought and feedback be considered prior to a decision on this bridge area.


Public Comment

Lisa McCormick

Ms. McCormick opined that she was in essence seeing a disregard by the City Council in requests from its residents and simply moving current HDR zoning to CMU.


Mayor Roe concurred that the City Council was proposing CMU zoning for Subarea 4 of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, as originally suggested in 2014.


Ms. McCormick stated she found this very disappointing, opining that she would have much appreciated a discussion of heights as part of this.  Form her recollection of residential survey results and her discussions with Mr. Bilotta, indications were not in favor of multi-family housing in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, and if considered at all it would only be in Subarea B, even though she was now seeing it as being a P use.


Mayor Roe clarified that it was a P use with conditional uses applied; with Councilmember Willmus concurring.


Ms. McCormick stated that she had an issue with multi-family in Subarea C, south of Terrace Drive, and reiterated the example with her property and how far noise and odors actually travelled, with 750' not actually being that far from single-family homes.  Ms. McCormick expressed further concern with limited production and processing uses, formerly NP and suggested for change tonight by the City Council to a P use, even after hearing people speak in opposition to that.  If the neighborhood could be assured that the uses would be restricted to office and clean rooms, Ms. McCormick stated they would be somewhat relieved.  However, Ms. McCormick asked how oversized bays would be addressed and whether they'd be allowed or not, in addition to many other questions with this use proposed so close to Langton Lake and single-family residences.


All in all, Ms. McCormick noted that 65 surveys had been returned, contrasted with 80 signatures on several very specific petitions.  Under those circumstances, Ms. McCormick stated that she felt slighted, and in some respects felt things were moving forward, while in other areas they were not.


Tim Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane

From his perspective, Mr. Callaghan stated his belief that the City was pursuing too high density next to a residential area. Mr. Callaghan opined that the City plan didn't used to allow HDR next to residential, but required MDR on the way and as a buffer. In his review of this, Mr. Callaghan stated a multi-family building with 400 residents was fine next to a single-family neighborhood (Subarea A, formerly Subarea 4), which he found to be a mistake and didn't understand why duplexes were not being allowed when two townhomes were permitted in the same area and could look the same as long as they weren't called duplexes. Mr. Callaghan opined that he was having a hard time with definitions, since those two seemed so close to each other and either provided a transition to HDR from the single-family residential area. Mr. Callaghan expressed his lack of certainty if multi-family housing was allowed in Subarea C; and stated he had no problem with it in Subarea B.


Mr. Callaghan opined that big box retail didn't belong anywhere in this area; and while there was a certain amount of retail the City could still support and had the ability to handle traffic to accommodate; it, all that appeared to him to be happening was that additional retail was increasing the load for Police and Fire personnel without generating any additional revenue beyond that paid for by Roseville taxpayers, which was not a good idea in his opinion.


Personally, Mr. Callaghan stated he would not include the red line on the displayed map, as it was way too close to Langton Lake Park and he would back it down.  Mr. Callaghan reiterated statements made at previous Council meetings regarding his lack of support  or belief in the whole Twin Lakes Parkway issue and City Council responses heard during that time as a result of a fake traffic study assuming six lanes on Snelling Avenue.  Mr. Callaghan agreed with Councilmember McGehee's proposal for the line more horizontal; and again questioned the rationale for building Twin Lakes Parkway at all, therefore not using it as a dividing line for Subareas and uses.


Kathleen Erickson, Centennial Drive

When this process was begun almost a year ago, Ms. Erickson opined that she felt it was a last attempt to participate in civic planning and discussion.  However, at this point, Ms. Erickson opined she found it in some ways to have been a fruitless endeavor, even though the neighborhood had organized, been courteous and played by the rules, they continued to be discounted and things remained predetermined from her perspective, just like Twin Lakes Parkway, as well as moving from HDR to CMU zoning even though the neighborhood asked by petition that it not occur.  Ms. Erickson noted that she didn't have a 750' buffer between her property and adjacent property, but abutted on the business directly behind here, and would have preferred MDR in that area to protect her single-family parcel.


Ms. Erickson stated her love for the neighborhood, and the desire of her and her neighbors not to see it urbanized, nor did they desire to become an Oakcrest that was cut off from the rest of the community.


At a minimum, Ms. Erickson thanked the City Council for the process that allowed her to get to know her neighbors much better.  However, Ms. Erickson noted that neighbors had yet to receive one response to the petitions submitted to the City Council; and reiterated her request that their neighborhood's desire to be heard.


Brooke Tosi, 1766 Millwood Avenue

Echoing what some are saying, Ms. Tosi opined that multi-family uses in Subarea A should remain as NP uses.  Ms. Tosi thanked the City Council for the good discussion about CU's and how that would allow the City to have input on the kind of development for a particular area, which she saw working in Subareas B and C. However, Ms. Tosi opined that Subarea A was different in that regard, and referenced the positive and/or neutral survey responses for duplexes in Subarea A (former Subarea 4) and could support P with CU near those residential areas.


Mayor Roe emphasized that work on the Table of Uses and map lines remained preliminary and would be subject to further public input; and at a minimum a public hearing before the Planning Commission as required by state law and city code.  Mayor Roe noted there would also be opportunities for additional feedback by other means, as usual, as discussions continued.


Councilmember Laliberte stated that she remained clear about her perspective on the various conversations; and she reminded the public that she had asked for and was confident that the City Council would get to a discussion about HDR.  Councilmember Laliberte stated that, from her perspective, she felt there was still too many permitted uses even though other grandfathered uses were in place at this time.  Also, Councilmember Laliberte noted the need to address opportunities to get more  MDR in the City, as there were many current residents who may be ready to move from their single-family homes.  Councilmember Laliberte advised that she may give further consideration as to whether to support multi-family residential as a P use and encourage MDR next to single-family homes.


Councilmember Willmus reiterated that currently, multi-family use is moving from a P use to P with CU, a significant step in allowing the City Council review of individual applications versus a developer simply pulling a permit to build a building.  Councilmember Willmus expressed his personal disappointment that the neighborhood had not acknowledged that significant step moving forward.  Councilmember Willmus further clarified that the City Council was not prohibiting MDR and that it would be continued as a P use, indicating that the City Council may need to do a better job of articulating the steps being taken; opining that in many areas the City Council and neighborhood were on the same page.


Councilmember McGehee echoed the comments of both Councilmembers Laliberte and Willmus.  To the extent that she was not a supporter of CU, Councilmember McGehee opined that it provided the City Council with a chance to look at things.  Regardless of the outcome of the future height discussion, and in light of this being a first touch in addressing the use table, Councilmember McGehee stated her willingness to favor MDR as a permitted use throughout Subarea A given the new line drawn on the displayed map; and expressed her willingness to have multi-family as a NP use in that area.  However, Councilmember McGehee noted that while the CU provided that additional scrutiny, it left the door open for future Council's to allow proposals that would run with the land under that CU.


Having gone through tonight's process, Councilmember McGehee asked that staff be directed to post the results of the discussion on the City's website that allowed for questions from residents on what future development may look like and provide their responses before decisions are made.  Councilmember McGehee shared the sentiments about the process and inviting participation by residents; however, she also noted the challenge in accomplishing everything the way everyone wanted. At the end of the process however, Councilmember McGehee expressed the goal to have people feel they'd been heard, with the difference being in hearing and doing what they heard, suggesting there was plenty of room for compromise from the original scenario.


Councilmember Etten concurred with some of the comments of Councilmembers Willmus and Laliberte, stating the City Council's intent to respond to the desires of the broader community.  Councilmember Etten noted future discussions regarding height to protect adjacent single-family homes; but expressed concern in eliminating multi-family from Subarea A entirely, since there were a number of positive uses for it in areas.  Councilmember Etten reiterated his intent to address zones that would protect not only Langton Lake but single-family homes to make sure the neighbors, lake and environment were respected. However, Councilmember Etten noted that a lot of Roseville residents currently lived with single-family and multi-family housing abutting each other and typically a setback was in place to address that co-mingling of housing types, and this type of development would not be the first time it happened in Roseville.


Despite efforts by the City Council to address significant geographical differences between Subareas, Councilmember Willmus opined the multi-family use may be appropriate in Subarea A along County Road C, while it may be appropriate in Subarea A north of Terrace.  Councilmember Willmus further opined that, as mentioned by Councilmember Etten, future discussion needs to focus on the lake and existing residential areas and in reviewing the overall context.


Specific and in response to the MDR petition, Mayor Roe recognized the large number of residents in the immediate neighborhood, but also noted the need for the City Council to address responses received from the broader  community as well and weight their concerns as well in the decision-making process.  From his personal perspective, Mayor Roe advised that moving to MDR for the entire strip north of Terrace Drive was far too restrictive of uses even though  such uses may be acceptable to the neighbors. 


Mayor Roe agreed that the City needed to use care in addressing adjacency issues for single-family homes and the lake, which remained a concern throughout the City, and admitted that planning and land use decisions made in the past didn't always end up right.  Mayor Roe used the Har Mar Mall project as one of those examples, and the ongoing code enforcement issues in that area, recognizing the need to be conscious of that moving forward.  Mayor Roe opined that the way to accomplish that is through using specific restrictions in the zoning code versus agreements;, and advised that he'll be looking to that going forward.  Mayor Roe reiterated his concern that he found the MDR citizen petition too restrictive and opined he found other uses should be on the table, making it more appropriate for CMU zoning there. 


Based on his personal opinion, and as stated previously by Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe opined that when going through these processes as a representative democracy, there will seldom if ever be 100% satisfaction; but the goal was to get the best possible solution for what was believed to be the best for the community moving forward.  Under that scenario, Mayor Roe opined that the City Council and staff had made a good effort to accommodate public concerns, and would continue to listen and look at ways and conditions (e.g. buffer zones and possibly change initial designations).  Mayor Roe reminded everyone that this was only a first draft, and not the end of the discussion; and while not satisfying all, the City Council was doing its best and didn't want to shut
anyone out of the process.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, and at the direction of Mayor Roe, Mr. Bilotta advised that future height issue discussions may alleviate some concerns, especially around lakes and single-family residences.  Mr. Bilotta stated that staff would return with options for how that may be addressed, suggesting as an example, the north side of Terrace Drive may not be appropriate for a five-story building.  Mr. Bilotta anticipated looking at CMU and CMU-light concepts as part of that height decision, addressing not only changes in uses, but also intensity of uses.  Mr. Bilotta advised that staff would return with proposed standards for City Council consideration allowing them to break from overall discussions to address that vertical issue.


Given the current single-family height of 30' to the center of the gable, Mayor Roe noted that even that created issues for single-family homes; and even single-family abutting other single-family could create an issue.  Therefore, Mayor Roe expressed his interest in the next part of the conversation related to conditions and height.


Councilmember McGehee expressed appreciation for the way Mayor Roe expressed that last phrase, and requested direction from staff on what was too restrictive, since the goal was to have something that will incent development but not be too restrictive; and sought additional insight from staff.


Mr. Bilotta duly noted that interest, noting that with the gap in City Council meetings after next week, it would allow time for the neighborhood, staff and the City Council to absorb tonight's discussion and decisions, and come back in June with those ideas.


At the request of Mayor Roe on behalf of Councilmember Laliberte's interest in the next steps, Mr. Bilotta reviewed the eight steps as detailed in the RCA.


Mayor Roe suggested staff provide some theoretical conditions that could be applied to uses.


Councilmember Willmus asked that staff be directed to track changes on future iterations of the spreadsheet based on tonight's discussion and action; with Mayor Roe suggesting simply dating each version of the spreadsheet going forward.


Mr. Bilotta suggested that future iterations could include three columns for A, B and C even though future adjustments would also be forthcoming.


Closed Session

Mayor Roe advised that, in accordance with Minnesota State Statute 13.D.05, subd. 3.c, the City Council could move to closed session to discuss potential property purchases or sales, in this instance to discuss the potential purchase of portions of properties located at 934 - 950 Woodhill Drive and 2659 Victoria Street (former Owasso School site).


At approximately 9:06 p.m., Willmus moved, Etten seconded, moving to closed session to discuss the potential purchase of portions properties at 934 - 950 Woodhill Drive and 2659 Victoria Street (former Owasso School site).


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

At approximately 9:12 p.m., Mayor Roe convened in Closed Session with Councilmembers McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, and Roe present.  Others present included City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan; and Community Development Director Paul Bilotta and Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke.


At approximately 9:57 p.m., Willmus moved, Etten seconded, returning to Open Session to discuss the potential purchase of portions properties at 934 - 950 Woodhill Drive and 2659 Victoria Street (former Owasso
School site).


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


At approximately 9:58 p.m., Mayor Roe reconvened in Open Session and provided a summary of the discussion held in Closed Session.


At approximately 9:58 p.m., Laliberte moved, seconded by Willmus, to extend the meeting curfew to finish this item.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approved authorizing staff to negotiate with United Properties and the School District as applicable, for the potential purchase of portions of properties located at 934 - 950 Woodhill Drive and 2659 Victoria Street (former Owasso School site), within the parameters discussed in Closed Session.


Councilmember Etten expressed confidence in the continuing cooperation of the above-referenced entities in working together to review and consider potential site changes as recommended by United Properties to create efficiencies in the overall site plan and create synergy for all parties involved.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


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 10:02 p.m.

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.