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

City Council


City Council Meeting Minutes

July 6, 2015


1.       Roll Call

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


2.        Pledge of Allegiance


3.       Approve Agenda

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


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


At approximately 6:03 p.m., Etten moved, McGehee seconded, moving into Closed Executive Session for the purpose of discussing and providing direction for labor relations negotiations, in accordance with the statutory exception to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

Closed Executive Session

Mayor Roe convened the City Council in closed Executive Session at approximately 6:05 p.m.  In addition to Councilmembers, City Manager Trudgeon, City Attorney Gaughan, and Human Resources Manager Eldona Bacon were also present. 


At approximately 6:44 p.m., McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, adjourning the closed session and reconvening in open session.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

Open Session

4.       Public Comment

At approximately 6:49 p.m. Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.  No one appeared to speak. 


5.        Council Communications, Reports, and Announcements

Mayor Roe announced opportunities for public feedback on the 2016 budget and tax levy process, with return post cards provided in the most recent City News newsletter and copies available at City Hall and on the City's website.  Mayor Roe advised that City Manager Trudgeon had volunteered to be the City Hall contact for any questions, comments, or for those needing additional information; and can be contacted at 651/692-7021. 


Mayor Roe reported that he and City Manager Trudgeon had represented the City of Roseville at a presentation in Duluth, MN recognizing the City's receipt of Step Two status in the GreenStep Cities Program.  Mayor Roe expressed pride in the
efforts in achieving that status, and thanked the public and staff for making the
City more environmentally sustainable.


Councilmember Laliberte thanked various commissions, staff, and reserve officers for their participation and attendance at the recent Party in the Park and July 4th celebrations.


Mayor Roe concurred; and acknowledged all the efforts that had gone into this year's annual Rosefest community festival.


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 June 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes

Laliberte moved, Willmus seconded, approval of June 22, 2015 Meeting Minutes as amended.



·         Page 22, Line 32 through Page 23, Line 6 (Laliberte)

Strike lines 32 (page 22) through line 6 (page 23) in their entirety, and replace as follows: "?Councilmember Laliberte spoke at some length about the five priorities and initiatives, targets and measures. In the end, she recommended that civic engagement, organizational effectiveness, and effective governance be eliminated from the document because that work is already being done by departments and commissions and our City Manager.  She recommended that the Housing and Redevelopment priorities and Infrastructure Sustainability priorities remain, but more work be done on the initiatives and targets/measures."


                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee 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 July 6, 2015.


a.            Approve Payments

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


ACH Payments


77862 - 78090





                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Approve 2015 Business and Other License Renewals

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Finance Director Miller advised that the massage therapy licenses are new versus renewal licenses.  In response to Councilmember Laliberte regarding the high number being processed, City Manager Trudgeon advised that typically appears to be a high turnover in this field, but even for part-time massage therapists, they were required to be licensed.


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


                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


c.            Approve Resolution Awarding Contract for the Wagner Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Project

Councilmember Laliberte asked if there was a policy or process in place among all departments as to whether a lowest bid or best value procurement process was used for projects.


City Manager Trudgeon advised that, while there is no policy in place, the Parks & Recreation and Public Works Departments utilized the Best Value Procurement process as they had personnel trained in doing so.  Mr. Trudgeon noted the Administration staff had used the Best Value process for the past City Attorney contract as well, but since it requires extensive training, its use was not the case across all departments.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that there was no requirement to use the Best Value Procurement process, but it had been embraced as it usually provided for better projects and prices for the larger projects.


Councilmember Laliberte questioned if the City should have such a policy in place based on a specific department and/or project.


Mayor Roe suggested this was more of a question for the City Council than for City Manager Trudgeon.


Specific to the Wagner Lift Station, Councilmember Laliberte questioned if the cost of developing plans and specifications had been budgeted for or if those costs were folded into the overall bid.


City Manager Trudgeon responded it had not been part of the bid, but was an additional project cost; with the construction bid coming in higher than the actual engineer's estimate. Since it was a project already planned, Councilmember Laliberte asked if those costs were covered for that development work.


City Manager Trudgeon responded generally, with every project, the design work was part of the overall cost and therefore factored into estimates.  However, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the bid climate had recently gone up significantly.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Public Works Director/Engineer Marc Culver apologized for not breaking down those design costs in the Request for Council Action (RCA), as had been done in the upcoming I-35W Interchange project, showing the breakdown of consultant fees compared to overall project costs.  Historically as part of this Wagner Lift Station project, Mr. Culver advised that in March, the City Council approved the firm of Bolton & Menk, Inc. to develop plans and specifications to reconstruction the lift station, as well as their oversight of the work, with bids for the work itself subsequently received on June 17, 2015.  On a related note, Mr. Culver advised that the firm of S.E.H. had been retained for the same consultant work and oversight for the St. Croix Stormwater Lift Station Project, coming before the City Council for bid award in the near future.  Mr. Culver advised that he would make sure the budget breakdown was provided in that RCA.  For both projects, Mr. Culver advised that funding would come from the respective enterprise funds as applicable; and as noted by City Manager Trudgeon, agreed with his comments about the current bidding climate.  However, given the age of this lift station, even though the bids had come in higher than anticipated, Mr. Culver opined it was worth updating the facility.


As indicated in the RCA, page 1, Mayor Roe noted the original estimated cost of $280,000 for the project, and actual construction and engineering proposals of over $294,702.61.  Mayor Roe asked if the additional cost above the construction bid amount of $268,000 was representative of the engineering costs (approximately $28,000).


Mr. Culver responded that those costs were slightly higher than that; and the current Capital Improvement Program (CIP) estimates had only allotted approximately $200,000 for this sanitary sewer lift station replacement; with these construction costs coming in significantly higher than the original estimates.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver advised that the revised engineer's estimate, including construction costs, was based on the current bidding climate being found industry-wide.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11230 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Awarding Best Value Proposal for Project SS-15-12 Wagner Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Project;" to Meyer Contracting, Inc. of Maple Grove, MN in an amount not to exceed $268,927.61


                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


d.         Approve a Programmatic Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Agreement between the City of Roseville and the Rice Creek Watershed District

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approving the programmatic stormwater management facility maintenance agreement (Attachment A) between the City of Roseville and Rice Creek Watershed District.


                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


e.            Approve I-35W at Cleveland Avenue Interchange Project Plans and Authorize Advertisement for Bids

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the plans and specifications for the I-35W at Cleveland Avenue Interchange Project and authorize staff to advertise for bids.


                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


f.             Resolution Approving I-35W at Cleveland Avenue Interchange Project Traffic Signal Control Maintenance Agreement

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, City Manager Trudgeon confirmed that funding for their part of this project had already been received from WalMart.


Councilmember McGehee stated that, historically, the Public Works Department had not used the same Best Value Procurement method as used by the Parks & Recreation Department; but rather had used the Lowest Responsible Bid method and she opined that she had been more impressed with the process used by the Public Works Department.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that their method seemed to be based more on the State Public Works' bid process, was more well-documented and straightforward.  Directing her question to the City Council based on her conversations earlier today with Mr. Culver, Councilmember McGehee noted the recommended firm had rated a 83% for the technical weighting versus the other firms rating 90% in that category.  Given the complexity of this work, and even with assurances from Mr. Culver of the confidence with this contractor, Councilmember McGehee noted the similarity of the other two bids, making this one seem more like a lowball bid.  Historically, Councilmember McGehee noted there was no Public Works-related policy stating the City needed to go with the lowest bid when there was such a technical difference.


Further, Councilmember McGehee questioned if the contract for this work had anticipated work around or after the State Fair this fall or even next spring.


Mr. Culver advised that, specifications were written based on today's bidding climate, attempting to allow the contractors as much flexibility as seemed optional; and thereby giving them an option of starting work this fall or holding off until next spring; at which time they would then have a certain number of days to complete the work once started.  If the work is started this fall, it would need to be completed before the end of the construction season, and therefore Mr. Culver advised the contract did not include a provision that the contractor could not start work before the State Fair.  Given the current bidding climate, Mr. Culver advised that it was considered more flexibility would result in a better bid without applying another caveat for the contractor to comply with.  Mr. Culver noted there would be impacts during the construction, which might involve the Met Transit Park & Ride in that area if used for fair versus typical commuter traffic. However, Mr. Culver advised that even though ceasing work during the State Fair was typically included unless not of major impact, since there was already such a heightened level of traffic throughout the entire community during the State Fair, in this case the determination had been made that it was more vital to get the project done at the most reasonable price possible.


Councilmember McGhee suggested staff contact the Roseville Visitor's Association (RVA) to alert them to potential impacts for hotel chains with this project, given the high use during the State Fair for visitors and exhibitors.


Specific to the cost of a signal, Councilmember McGehee questioned what the annual maintenance cost was for the City, if different than the $23,653 stated for the cabinet and post, if the City were to consider installing a standalone signal.


Mr. Culver responded that the total cost for a traffic signal is more in the area of $200,000 and above for all components and wiring; and the $25,000 estimated cost for the City represents the reimbursement to the state for the traffic signal controller (e.g. cabinet) and related electronics.  Mr. Culver noted there is specialized equipment required by the state to maintain the signal compatible with their other components.


Councilmember McGehee questioned if the fact that the City of Roseville is paying most of the cost for this particular interchange beyond the state and county costs, was based on the City requesting installation of it before those jurisdictions determined there was a need.


Mr. Culver responded affirmatively; and confirmed for Councilmember McGehee that this would typically be the case when making such a request.


Specific to the Best Value Procurement process, Councilmember Etten suggested future RCA's include categories clarifying rating systems of each proposal.


Regarding the City's cost for installation of equipment, such as signal lights, on property belonging to other jurisdictions, Councilmember Etten asked that staff alert the City Council if and when they can provide impetus to Ramsey County or MnDOT, whether at the staff or City Council level, to accelerate their timeframes in improving intersection and roadways as appropriate.  Councilmember Etten noted the significant number of roadways in the City of Roseville that were controlled by other jurisdictions, and suggested by the City becoming more proactive in encouraging improvements, the County and/or MnDOT may revise their timeframes accordingly to serve the overall community and region better.  Councilmember Etten advised that he would look to staff's leadership to advise the City Council how they could best assist these efforts.


Mr. Culver thanked Mr. Etten for bringing that up; and as an example noted staff's current lobbying to move up on the County's priority list the intersection of County Road D and Fairview Avenue.


Mayor Roe noted that the Public Works Department had in fact used both the Best Value procurement process and the Lowest Responsible Bidder process. Mayor Roe agreed with Councilmember Etten's request to provide more detailed information in future RCA's related to particular categories.


Mayor Roe noted that, while the City applied for and received the $1.2 million in Federal funding for this project, those dollars were still Federal dollars and not City dollars.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11231 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Approving MnDOT Traffic Control Signal Maintenance Agreement No. 1000792 (Attachment B)."


                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


g.            Resolution Approving I-35W at Cleveland Avenue Interchange Project cooperative Construction Agreement

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11232 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Approving MnDOT Cooperative Construction Agreement No. 1000870 (Attachment B)."


                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


9.            Consider Items Removed from Consent


10.         General Ordinances for Adoption


11.         Presentations


12.         Public Hearings

Finance Director Chris Miller briefly reviewed this request as detailed in the RCA dated July 6, 2015.


Mayor Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 7:15 p.m. for the purpose of considering a micro distillery off-sale intoxicating liquor license for Blume Brauhaus, LLC (Bent Brewstillery) located at 1744 Terrace Drive; with no one appearing for or against.


13.         Budget Items


14.         Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Approve/Deny Micro Distillery Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Blume Brauhaus, LLC (Bent Brewstillery) located at 1744 Terrace Drive

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of a micro distillery off-sale intoxicating liquor license for Blume Brauhaus, LLC (Bent Brewstillery) located at 1744 Terrace Drive, for the remainder of calendar year 2015.


                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Request by HR LLC for Approval of a FINAL PLAT at 2750 Cleveland Avenue

Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd provided a brief summary of this FINAL PLAT request, with the actual address of the final plat at 2700 Cleveland Avenue (previously listed as 2750 Cleveland Avenue).  Mr. Lloyd provided a history of the project and completion of several of the conditions applied to the previously-approved PRELIMINARY PLAT, as detailed in the RCA dated July 6, 2015.  Displaying the Final Plat drawing, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff was recommending approval subject to completion of the remaining eight of ten conditions shown in the RCA.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Lloyd outlined those conditions already ready addressed and those yet to be completed.


Councilmember McGehee noted the difficulty in approving this Final Plat without knowing what may develop on this site, which may or may not prove impactful to the area and surrounding properties depending on that actual development.  Councilmember McGehee opined that it seemed premature to her to approve a Final Plat until an actual development plan was available.


Mr. Lloyd responded that approval of a Final Plat was basically fundamental, and as with any such plat application, the applicant need not produce any real information about the actual users; even though it may prove more risky for them to develop the property boundaries without that knowledge.  Mr. Lloyd defined the purpose in approving a Final Plat to address boundaries and easements without the specific tenants of the development being known at that time. 


In his brief conversation with the applicant team earlier today, Mr. Lloyd advised that their main concern was Condition 8 as it related to right-out access onto Twin Lakes Parkway, of considerable interest to the development team in securing that access since it impacted what can or cannot be built on the site depending on the needs of a potential users or exact alignment of the roadway.  However, even though some of those components are important to use of the site, Mr. Lloyd clarified that a specific development plan or defined tenants are not necessary for the Final Plat application and approval process.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Lloyd reviewed the approval process for the Preliminary Plat and public hearing before the Planning Commission and their recommendation for approval to the City Council; and that process providing that the Final Plat is then reviewed and approved by the City Council only, and not the Planning Commission. 


Councilmember Etten referenced map C2.0 regarding the northeast corner showing turn lanes in and out; and asked for staff's understanding of this parcel's interaction with the north property currently without a Final Plat.


Mr. Lloyd advised that the northern parcel also included an entrance off Iona Lane. Community Development Director Paul Bilotta clarified that it was important to staff to ensure the applicant was clear about what was or was not being approved with the Final Plat approval.  Mr. Bilotta addressed the turn lanes as shown were not being approved as part of the final plat, and staff's understanding of the property to the north and its interaction with this subject property as part of the previously approved Final Plat for that northern parcel.  Therefore, Mr. Bilotta advised that the rationale in retaining that condition was to ensure  that, it will be a requirement for each property owner to work together on cross access points. They are currently showing two access points: one for the hotel on Iona and another hotel access from Mount Ridge through the Iona property. The additional access point on Twin Lakes Parkway remains an issue to be addressed as noted on that specific condition.


Councilmember Etten clarified, with Mr. Bilotta confirming, that the only direct access to that northern lot is from Iona and on the northeast corner of this lot that would serve both properties.  At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Bilotta advised that there was no traffic control proposed there, other than for the roundabout at that location that the traffic study had addressed and found adequate.  Noting the lanes reduced from three to one lane at that location, location of the proposed right-in and right-out, Councilmember Etten sought clarification of the distance between those access points and the intersection.


At the request of Mr. Bilotta, Public Works Director/Engineer Marc Culver responded that the spacing is approximately 200' or less between Cleveland Avenue and the right-out access point.  While close, and having shared those same concerns about a vehicle coming out of the access and turning left across several lanes on Cleveland Avenue, Mr. Culver advised that the engineering comments included in the RCA were intended to balance the actual number of right turns coming out and the volume on Twin Lakes Parkway to determine if there was a major issue.


Councilmember Etten questioned if a right-in with more of a lane for that turn, which seemed potentially safer from his perspective, would allow vehicles to get off the roadway and reduce chaos at that point, by requiring the developer to install that lane.


Mr. Culver responded that it could be required; however, based on existing traffic and traffic approaching from the roundabout, which will have a reduced speed estimated at a maximum of 35 mph through that area, given the amount of activity going on there, he anticipated it was more than likely traffic would be stopped at that intersection.  Personally from a technical standpoint considering all factors, Mr. Culver opined traffic and stormwater drainage and management would be more detrimentally impacted than proven beneficial with the addition of a right turn lane.


Councilmember Willmus questioned if additional conditions could even be legally applied or required at this point in the plat process.


Councilmember Laliberte asked for additional information on truck deliveries coming in and out of those properties, whether from Iona or other road access, and specific to the northeast corner of this property.


Mr. Bilotta responded that trucks would be coming into the north off the northeast corner and backing into the loading docks; with turning movements for trucks in and out rather than moving south.


Development Team Representatives: Dean Devolis of JAVA Capital Partners, and Mark Krog, with JAVA Properties and Capital Partners.

While unable to provide the exact names of tenants at this point in the negotiation process, Mr. Devolis advised that the larger proposed building would be a single-tenant use with one tenant consisting of a children's or pediatric medical clinic. Mr. Devolis advised that the smaller building would have two tenants: one a national credit telephone/communications store, and the other a casual family restaurant.  Mr. Devolis expressed the development team's excitement about the development and getting the project underway.


Mr. Krog reviewed the history of preferred access points originally intended off Cleveland Avenue, and subsequent disapproval from Ramsey County, causing the intended tenant on the east to no longer be interested.  With tenants now ready and willing to move forward on the west or front half of the site, Mr. Krog advised that the development team intended to proceed with the right-out access point, which the confirmed tenants remained very insistent about.  With the loss of the hoped-for Cleveland Avenue access, Mr. Krog advised that it had made them emphasize the Iona access.  Now having full ownership of the property, Mr. Krog noted the need to move forward.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Krog advised that plans were to begin construction by this fall during this construction season; allowing time for them to seek a tenant for the north side of the parcel.


Mr. Devolis noted this parcel should provide three diverse uses to benefit not only the site but also the community as a whole.


No one appeared for public comment related to this issue.


Mayor Roe reiterated that the intention of a Final Plat is strictly to define lot lines on a map; and even if the easterly lot develops with different tenants and/or needs, the building tentatively shown may not actually turn out to be located in that exact location or space, nor be of the same size as indicated.  Mayor Roe clarified that the requested action was approving lot configurations to facilitate development of the western portion.


Councilmember McGehee stated a policy question she had (page 3 of the RCA) related to park dedication fees as noted in the draft Resolution.  Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of a revised policy whereby funds for park dedication remain in the quadrant of the city in which the development took place.


Mayor Roe suggested having that discussion later and separate from this request.


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11233 (Attachment D) entitled, "A Resolution Approving the FINAL PLAT of Cleveland Club (PF15-002);" property located at 2700 Cleveland Avenue.


                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


c.            Authorize Filling Human Rights Commission (HRC) Vacancies

As detailed in the RCA, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed three vacancies due to resignations on the Human Rights Commission in the past month.  Mr. Trudgeon suggested, once the application process is initiated per current policy, the City Council may want to hold a discussion on how to approach the HRC process moving forward. 


Councilmember McGehee noted that the HRC was now at four members, and if all did not attend a meeting they would have no quorum available, potentially hurting their efforts to plan an upcoming forum on civility.


City Manager Trudgeon confirmed that situation; noting that the HRC had not scheduled a July meeting was next scheduled to meet in August; and clarified that the forum was not coming up immediately.


Councilmember Laliberte expressed her personal preference to talk about this particular advisory commission to make sure its present scope and function was applicable going forward.  Councilmember Laliberte opined this would also provide the City Council with an opportunity to assess the work of the HRC and make sure their charge remains meaningful.


At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon advised that the next joint meeting with the HRC was scheduled for August 10, 2015.


Specific to concerns raised by Councilmember Laliberte, Councilmember McGehee clarified that the vacancies were not caused due to any major issue for the HRC, but was simply a confluence of random occurrences: one moving out of the City, and one for personal reasons.  Councilmember McGehee opined that she didn't think they were caused from any dissatisfaction with the HRC or their role; and having spoken with most of the commissioners, they seemed quite satisfied.


Over the last few weeks, Councilmember Willmus advised that he had also had an opportunity to talk to the HRC staff liaison, Kari Collins, who provided some interesting ideas for the City Council to explore.  Councilmember Willmus suggested deferring action until the next City Council Worksession allowing an opportunity to talk with the HRC Chair and staff along the lines of Councilmember Laliberte's comments, and to consider their scope and charge.  Councilmember Willmus questioned if the HRC frankly fit better or tied into the Community Engagement Commission, and suggested further discussion to determine if parallels
existed.  Councilmember Willmus opined that discussion was more appropriate at a Worksession; and suggested not advertising vacancies at this point if there was any potential of changing the direction of the Commission.


Mayor Roe opined that almost presupposed a change of direction for the HRC.


Councilmember Willmus opined otherwise, suggesting it only provided an opportunity for the City Council to have that discussion.


Mayor Roe agreed that there was no need to advertise for vacancies at this time if there was a potential change in roles for the HRC; and noted the July 13, 2015 City Council agenda included a report on and discussion about Community Engagement by he and Councilmember Laliberte, which may provide a segue into the HRC discussion.  Since more than one advisory commission will be involved, Mayor Roe suggested that staff invite more than one of the Chairpersons as well.


With no objection, Mayor Roe directed staff to hold off advertising for vacancies on the HRC until after those discussions are held.


Based on this discussion, City Manager Trudgeon clarified that advertising would be deferred.  Mr. Trudgeon also clarified that while staff has some ideas to put forth, they were not looking to change simply for change's sake; and suggested the City Council may have ideas as well; with the upcoming discussion serving as a springboard for future decisions.


Mayor Roe concurred that it would be appropriate to have the City Council discussion first.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:44 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 7:46 p.m.

15.         Business Items - Presentations/Discussions


a.              Joint Meeting with Planning Commission

As a preliminary note, Mayor Roe suggested the Planning Commission may be another commission the City Council should hold more frequent meetings as being done with others.


Mayor Roe welcomed Planning Commissioners, with the entire Commission present; and turned immediate discussions over to Chair Michael Boguszewski.  Members present were Chair Boguszewski; Vice Chair Shannon Cunningham; and Commissioners James Bull, James Daire, Chuck Gitzen, Robert Murphy, and David Stellmach.


Chair Boguszewski asked Commissioners to introduce themselves; and recognized the newest members on the Commission, opining they were stellar additions to the body, already bringing out points proving the value of their appointment by the City Council.


Chair Boguszewski asked that one additional item be included in tonight's discussion: that of move-up housing and the concept intended by the City Council in their recent strategic planning exercise.


Mayor Roe suggested initiating discussion with move-up housing and the City Council's objective going forward.


As background for that discussion, Chair Boguszewski noted over the last few meetings, comments made by staff and applicants seeking land use approval, that their requests were in line with fulfilling that City Council directive; and questioned what was meant or the threshold had been set or arrived at in defining "move-up" housing stock in Roseville.


Vice Chair Cunningham further noted, from her personal perspective, while developers may use that as a selling point that they're complying with the City Council's desire for move-up housing, she questioned what the upper limit may actually be, since to her knowledge, the City Council had not yet identified that upper limit.


Councilmember Laliberte suggested receiving the report of the Commission on their activities and accomplishments prior to this discussion; as well as hearing from consultants on tree preservation and planned unit developments, opining that it may help to inform this discussion.  Councilmember McGehee concurred with that format as done with other groups during joint meetings.


Mayor Roe acknowledged the past practice of listing accomplishments to begin joint meeting discussions, but opined that it did not seem to him that the tree preservation or PUD discussions would necessarily inform the move up housing discussion. Mayor Roe recognized Chair Boguszewski to note commission accomplishments per past practice.


Chair Boguszewski briefly summarized the activities and accomplishments of the Planning Commission and Variance Board as outlined in the RCA dated July 6, 2015.  Chair Boguszewski opined that the commission had helped in general with the intent for city development, whether through specific direction or in general as guided by the current comprehensive plan.  Chair Boguszewski admitted there had been some tricky things coming before the commission that required some interpretation, but opined that the commission had successfully adjudicated those items through some qualitative and subjective considerations and avoided major potholes by not looking too specifically at extraneous issues versus using the strict application of the current zoning code.  Chair Boguszewski opined that sometimes he thought the commission functioned somewhat like a court where they didn't make the law or rules, but determined whether an applicant met the test.  In general, Chair Boguszewski expressed his pride in the commission's service to-date for the benefit of the community.


As a new member of the commission, Commissioner Bull during his short tenure stated his favorable impression with the Commission in addressing the viewpoints of citizens and developers and both perspectives receiving equal weight as part of their consideration of land use cases.


Chair Boguszewski encouraged favorable comments or "pats on the back" from individual Councilmembers based on their observations of the commission.


Mayor Roe indicated the residential garage door discussion and recommendation should certainly be part of the commission's highlighted accomplishments.


Councilmember McGehee expressed appreciation for the work of the commission and their accomplishments.


Chair Boguszewski noted the commitment of individual commissioners; whether doing personal research and site visits for upcoming land use cases, or by attending as many developer open houses as possible.  Chair Boguszewski expressed his personal appreciation for their role in seeing new development coming into Roseville, using the 2700 Cleveland Avenue example discussed earlier tonight, and recognizing the questions being asked by the City Council were similar to those asked by the Commission.


Commissioner Daire stated his highlight this year had been his active involvement with the Community Engagement Commission (CEC) in re-examining the notification boundary process.  During his interview for the Planning Commission, and in his past career on the City of Minneapolis' planning staff, Commissioner Daire noted the questions about and ideas coming forth regarding organizing community and/or neighborhood groups; and addressing the needs and interests of long-term residents in the community's redevelopment process.  Commissioner Daire advised
that in the City of Minneapolis, he was involved with and very aware of their system of planning districts and citizen neighborhood organizations; and opined that the lack of such a system may be what created the negative sparks in Roseville, especially in an environment of a fully-developed community to make sure residents are aware of and participating in planning for the future of their neighborhoods and/or community.  While recognizing the limited staff resources available in Roseville to pursue some of those ideas, Commissioner Daire noted there were seven Planning Commissioners available to assist in those efforts as well.


During her thirty-five years as a Roseville resident, Councilmember McGehee opined that formal neighborhood associations may not be needed as long as those near potential redevelopment areas are made aware of those issues, the already-established tight neighborhoods would coalesce around issues.  However, Councilmember McGehee agreed that the issue was open of community and notice areas; and opined requiring developer open houses had gone a long way in addressing some of those past issues, as well as the broader notification area than used in the past, allowing those residents with a genuine interest to come forward.  Councilmember McGehee opined that many of the issues in the past grew out of people now knowing about a development or redevelopment project until it came before the Planning Commission and/or City Council for plat consideration, and by the time they saw it, the clock was running and they got all in an uproar due to their lack of awareness or notification.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her appreciation for the new process being used.


Councilmember Willmus echoed the comments of Councilmember McGehee regarding developer open houses and the expanded notification area; however, he noted one area still being struggled with was in notifying renters, whether in single-family residences or multi-family buildings, or even some commercial occupants as applicable.  Councilmember Willmus opined that was something still needing attention, how best to reach those people; referencing the past asphalt plant project affecting a commercial tenant in a multi-tenant building that became a vocal opponent of the project based on that lack of notification or awareness.  Councilmember Willmus suggested the CEC subgroup continue working on that and suggest a way to reach those residents early on in the process.


Chair Boguszewski noted that both he and Commissioner Daire had attended those CEC subgroup meetings, involving how to succeed in notifying those occupants mentioned by Councilmember Willmus.  Chair Boguszewski stated that Community Development Director Bilotta had been very helpful in talking about some of the logistics in obtaining and tracking occupants, their names and addresses; and the subgroup recognized those efforts and difficulties.  Regarding the notice area, Chair Boguszewski opined that certain projects by their very nature may warrant or mandate a broader geography for notice; or those affecting a school may require a broader base covering the entire school district boundary as a default neighborhood.  Chair Boguszewski noted that the subgroup would be bringing forward some recommendations in the near future on potential triggers based on those discussions.


As chairperson, and speaking specifically of the work of the Variance Board, Chair Murphy noted the work of that body, and noted as an accomplishment the lack of Variance Board decisions appealed to-date.


Chair Boguszewski recognized the service of Chair Murphy and Commissioners Daire and Gitzen in serving on the Variance Board; and thanked them for undertaking those additional duties.


With Mayor Roe noting the difficult decisions often involving variance requests and application of those particular rules fitting a situation, Chair Boguszewski opined that one measure of the success of the Variance Board and Planning Commission has been their history of not always following staff recommendations, whether to approve or deny an application.  Chair Boguszewski opined that was an indication they were fulfilling their function of thinking through projects and not just involving a rote process, while recognizing staff had mandates to follow, but allowing the commission to dig deeper under their mandated charge and consider other factors as well.


Move-up Housing Thresholds

During the City Council's priority planning meetings, Councilmember Willmus advised that from a planning perspective he understood the questions from the commission, but could not personally identify a hard target that indicated whether or not a development proposal fit in that category.  Councilmember Willmus opined that it was more of a directive from the City Council to staff based on past experience and future needs for housing stock that addressed higher end or use developments.  Councilmember Willmus advised that the $350,000 number was taken
from a Minneapolis housing study about cost benefit and at what value a home consumed less in services than tax revenues generated.  Councilmember Willmus noted that would always be a moving target; and questioned whether or not the Planning Commission needed to consider this criteria in evaluating a proposal, to which he considered the answer to be "no."


Chair Boguszewski opined that that statement from Councilmember Willmus in itself was helpful for him.


Councilmember Etten concurred with the comments of Councilmember Willmus; opining that there was no specific value range, but intended as a concept in looking at the next level of housing stock to retain residents moving up from their existing housing unit within Roseville versus them feeling the need to relocate to another community if that housing stock was not available in Roseville.  Councilmember Etten opined it was sometimes difficult to find that quality of housing, and used as an example the Josephine Heights/Pulte Homes addition as serving as a huge boon to that effort in keeping those families in Roseville.


Chair Boguszewski expressed his fear as developers hear about that desire, they automatically set that as their asking price when the actual value of the home may not be worth that amount; and questioned if developers may attempt to skew their price points to get more sympathy from the City Council and/or staff for their particular project.


Councilmember Etten opined that the market itself should take care of that.  Councilmember Etten noted the ongoing and huge need, as recognized by the HRA and City Council, for single-level homes under $350,000 accessible for elderly residents, sustaining that housing unit stock without exclusively encouraging the higher-end housing stock.


Chair Boguszewski agreed that the free market had its own way to address housing values; and expressed appreciation for Councilmember Etten's comments.


Based on her personal perspective, Vice Chair Cunningham stated how she struggled with developers coming in with homes that are more in the higher range of $650,000; and her difficulty in considering those as move-up housing when considering the financial status of her own family and her friends, who were unable to afford that price point, even though they may be at the point of considering "move-up" housing as their next step.


Councilmember Etten agreed that it was beyond his personal financial status as well; and considered the range of $350,000 to $450,000 more of an appropriate range for move-up housing rather than any higher than that.  Councilmember Etten echoed the comments of Chair Boguszewski in developers and/or staff coming forward with their proposals stating they are in line with City Council goals; and thanked the commission for considering this as part of their concerns.


Councilmember Laliberte concurred with the comments of Councilmember Etten, opining that it was premature of the Commission to factor that price point into anything they were reviewing.  Councilmember Laliberte noted the housing and redevelopment segment of the priority planning by the City Council had been kept alive, but the target measures and initiatives had not been adopted as there remained considerable work to be done.  Opining that move-up housing meant something different to everyone, Councilmember Laliberte stated she was not comfortable with defining a target range, with the category of housing stock for transition housing still missing from the equation.  Noting that past comments heard anecdotally about the lack of high-end housing in Roseville to attract corporate officers, Councilmember Laliberte noted the large segment of Roseville's population representing aging baby boomers, not looking to move up in cost, but moving toward a simpler, maintenance-free lifestyle that is available with association-type housing.  Whether seeking to move-up or simplify, Councilmember Laliberte noted the need for the City Council in their strategic plan moving forward, specific to the housing and redevelopment priority.


Councilmember McGehee agreed with her colleague's comments; noting she had brought up $350,000 as part of the Minnesota Department of Revenue's study on fiscal disparities. Recognizing the aging housing stock in Roseville, Councilmember McGehee noted the need to refurbish and uplift that stock, whether through use of the programs offered by the HRA, or through new development coming in; agreeing that there was a broad range of values and any figure could be deemed arbitrary, with the median home price in Roseville now listed at $215,000, which in her mind was relatively inexpensive.  From her perspective and beyond the need for available affordable housing, Councilmember McGehee opined that to her the diversity of that housing stock was much more important.


Specific to diversity, Mayor Roe noted the desire for more diversity in housing stock was originally how the high-end, move-up housing stock was brought up as they were found to be under-represented in Roseville's current housing marketplace.  With a majority of the City's homes constructed from 1950 through 1970, Mayor Roe noted it was very uniform in type.  If the Planning Commission was approached or a developer's proposal suggested it was meeting the City's price point, Mayor Roe suggested the Planning Commission's response should be that consideration of that point was not part of the commission's role.  Mayor Roe noted the City's equal interest in identifying under-represented housing in other price ranges as well; and sought any suggestions from the commission on ways for the City Council to promote policies to accomplish those goals.


Councilmember Willmus opined that it will always be part of a developer's narrative to highlight the great thing they're going to do and the price it can achieve; however, he noted that is not and should not be part of the Planning Commission's consideration as it was beyond zoning and comprehensive plan consideration for land use items coming before it.  Councilmember Willmus opined that the commission dealt with much more fundamental considerations than a developer's price point, but recognized it was a developer's job to market their properties however and whenever possible.


Vice Chair Cunningham opined that a lot of the conversation about move-up housing seemed to be coming more from staff through the objectives and goals listed in their staff reports; which may be misleading and need further consideration going forward.


In defense of staff, Mayor Roe noted staff was always eager to promote the initiatives of the City Council.


Councilmember Willmus opined that the Planning Commission had done a good job of calling attention to lot sizes and that was what the City Council was seeking in considering whether a project met goals or not; and not as an expectation that staff considers a project complies with a certain goal.  Councilmember Willmus thanked the commission for their thorough review of and questions on the applicability of land use cases, which were of great value to the City Council.


Specific to the next discussion on tree preservation and planned unit developments, Councilmember McGehee opined that the commission's adherence to involving residents and how new homes fit into an existing neighborhood was of critical importance.


From a context point of view, both philosophically and implementation-wise, Chair Boguszewski expressed the commission's interest in the tree preservation ordinance discussion for future mandates and details to provide equity for all and preserving those existing trees as community assets.


Tree Preservation Ordinance Update

Ben Gozola, Sambatek and Mark Reeder, S & S Tree Service

Mr. Gozola introduced Mark Reeder from S & S Tree Service, with each consultant providing a brief personal biography and a history of their company and services they provided.  Mr. Gozola advised that he would be involved in the process and ordinance writing for each objective; with Mr. Reeder providing detailed expertise on tree preservation and replacement.


Taking the lead in the presentation, Mr. Gozola advised that the intent was two-fold: to exactly understand what the community wished to accomplish, and general approaches based on feedback from the City Council tonight to reach an understanding.  Mr. Gozola noted each community was different and provided examples of other communities and their variable foci.  Mr. Gozola advised that he had researched meeting minutes from the City as part of his background information provided during this presentation and his findings of areas for discussion to glean a better understanding of the community.


At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Gozola confirmed that woodland preservation areas included both private and public properties; frequently identified through GIS mapping; and ecologically rated by species.


Councilmember McGehee noted the need to consider Roseville as a flyway area for migratory song birds over Minneapolis to Langton Lake and surrounding areas where quality vegetation is needed.


Mr. Gozola reviewed tree ordinances for the cities of Minnetonka, Savage, and Farmington among others and their specific approaches.


Chair Boguszewski expressed interest in the tree bank program as a concept he'd be interested in pursuing if moving in that direction in addressing replacement rates and incentives for woodland protection and tree "banking" credits.


Commissioner Daire opined it seemed presumptive to have to replace or take the base line as it is now and anything coming later was referred back to that baseline, making it implicit that there was no consideration of or underlying idea that the current status is enough.  Commissioner Daire suggested consideration also should be given to air quality, amount of shade, sunlight penetration you can use to define where or if you need additional foliage, and other issues as well.


Mr. Gozola noted that this was getting to the heart of discussion, and sought to hear goals or what the City Council and Commission wished to accomplish; at which point he would work with staff to draft an ordinance to achieve those specific goals.


Commissioner Murphy asked if any cities had a concept to put trees somewhere beyond a development like park; and opined that would have been nice alternative to have available with the recent Pizza Lucé development and nearby Oasis Park that could have benefitted.


In his role serving as a Planner for the City of Victoria during a transitional period, Mr. Gozola advised that they allowed that concept in other areas of the community if no place was available on the existing project site, even though their ordinance was very strict.


Councilmember McGehee suggested the use of trees along freeways as sound barriers, which had been considered in past discussions.


Chair Boguszewski noted the issues brought up so far involved symmetric as mentioned by Commissioner Daire and a rationale for establishing goals.


Mr. Reeder noted other ideas in communities, and software applications to establish a baseline, such as by addressing canopy coverage vacillating, to consider where to go in the future.


Commissioner Daire spoke in support of that approach.


Chair Boguszewski opined that underpinning the whole concept, the key seemed to allow part of the comprehensive plan to involve a quantitative plan by holding a broader public discourse around the entire concept and not just the city deciding they have authority of trees in a private yard, but agreeing to a good, long-term goal for the entire community.  Chair Boguszewski opined that it certainly made things more palatable rather than his initial concerns that a tree ordinance was within the realm of government overreach.


Mr. Gozola continued with examples from other communities, including addressing either mechanism during development and/or construction (Maple Grove), limiting tree preservation to a subdivision versus zoning ordinance (Plymouth), or cash in lieu of tree removal or restoration (Minnestrista).


As outlined in Attachment A of Sambatek's memorandum dated July 6, 2015, Mr. Gozola reviewed his current project understanding and observations of the community's current status. 


Chair Boguszewski noted the points discussing flexibility on the part of the community and the overarching goal of why to keep or increase trees as part of the educational piece as well.


Mayor Roe noted the need to justify any city ordinance with some kind of policy.


While hearing a lot about tree preservation from Planning Commission discussions, Councilmember Willmus stated his observation of their deliberations was based on how they were interpreting the letter of the law with the zoning code and comprehensive plan.  However, Councilmember Willmus noted that the Tree Board, as a role of the Parks & Recreation Commission, had not yet been heard from, and expressed his desire to make sure they weighed in on this discussion as a vital part of the equation.


During his eight year tenure with the City, City Manager Trudgeon advised that he was not aware of the Tree Board being involved much or being aware of their actual role.  However, going forward, Mr. Trudgeon advised that he would incorporate them into these discussions.


Councilmember McGehee opined that Public Works was also part of the equation, as this involved the entire city, whether private trees, right-of-way or boulevard trees, or those located in parks or general common spaces.  Councilmember McGehee opined that some of the issues of importance to her included grouping trees or massing them to identify certain areas; recognizing the flyway migratory areas; retaining vegetation in natural areas; diversity with boulevard tree planning, as well as its spacing for maintenance and to ensure tree survival, and how to address use of underground stormwater storage in irrigating trees.  Councilmember McGehee also noted her concerns heard from residents in their lack of confidence with tree inspections requiring the expensive removal of apparently diseased trees, and subsequent discovery when analyzed by the U of MN that they were not actually diseased at all.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her lack of support for planting elsewhere in lieu of the immediate development area, opining that provided nothing but wasteland in some areas and overcrowding in other areas.  Councilmember McGehee further noted a recent newspaper article about one old growth tree species (the state's largest Butternut tree) in the community that needed to be preserved.


Councilmember Willmus agreed with Councilmember McGehee in the need to call attention to old growth trees, with much of the tree planning occurring as the community grew from farmland to residential during the 1950's through 1970's; and impressive growth achieved without any actual tree preservation plan in place.  During the Pulte Housing Development project, Councilmember Willmus admitted it had served as a real eye opener for the City Council in clear-cutting that area for development and replacing those trees that may be found lacking from some perspectives.  Councilmember Willmus clarified that he was not interested in an ordinance governing or requiring a private resident to cut down an old tree or having to approach City Hall to get a replacement tree permit, but was more concerned with an ordinance addressing subdivisions or redevelopment and consistent and fair questions to ask as part of that process.


While recognizing that the Planning Commission as a body didn't have authority over what the City Council ultimately adopted as an ordinance, Chair Boguszewski noted the individual comments of commissioners, and their willingness to serve on a task force or advisory board to assist the City Council in their efforts.


Mayor Roe noted that got back to the balance question and what triggered enforcement; and his tendency to agree with Councilmember Willmus' interest in a reasonable approach to promote adding trees, but recognizing while there may not be much old growth from a technical sense, the community still had some significant trees.


Councilmember Etten agreed that it was necessary to decide the City's purpose in having such an ordinance, with an excellent list available in the annual Arbor Day Resolution addressing the City's regulatory function and benefits for the community and its overall health and public good.  Councilmember Etten noted the involvement of the Tree Board as part of the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) infestation; and encouraged Mr. Gozola and Reeder to review the staff RCA prepared for the November 17, 2014 and past discussions.  While perhaps not being a desirable species, Councilmember Etten noted there was value in a 70' tall Cottonwood tree as a significant tree, even though not considered a specimen tree, a common sight in Roseville.  Councilmember Etten expressed his interest in incentives to preserve such trees; and noted his frustrations in not tying together a tree preservation plan drawing with the grading  plan drawing during review of land use cases during the Planning Commission and City Council review, opining that they needed to go together to understand the overall impact of building in a readable format.  Under current code, Councilmember Etten noted the negative potential to clear all trees in the right-of-way, such as evidenced near Lady Slipper Park on West Owasso Boulevard, but recognizing the positive impact with the replacement berm embankment and appreciation of it as a justification to clear the area, and not just because it happened to be on the right-of-way. Councilmember Etten noted the big impacts to neighborhoods, and solar considerations to address and how to balance those interests as part of the process.


In referencing the previously-noted Pulte Development, Councilmember McGehee noted the need to address tree protection during the construction process, and her concern in the impacts of the Oaks with compaction of their root mass during that construction process, without any guidelines in place to address that.


Councilmember Etten also addressed the Pizza Lucé development as an example and the lack of staff resources to continually monitor every development without professional assistance to maintain quality trees.


Councilmember Laliberte expressed her appreciation of this presentation and examples from other communities.  Councilmember Laliberte stated her biggest concern was with the Pulte Project serving as a wake-up call for her in the potential for clear-cutting trees and starting from scratch.  Councilmember Laliberte agreed that she was not interested in the city assessing or approving a private property owner's need to remove a tree for insurance and/or structure issues, nor in their being required to jump through hoops to accomplish that work, given the expensive nature of such a venture to remove a tree already.  Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of coordinating with various departments and commissions as an integrated part of the decision-making process for the City Council and addressing where responsibilities lie and where final decisions were made; and whether current staffing or a different staffing model was indicated as part of the process moving forward.


City Manager Trudgeon thanked Councilmember Willmus for bringing the Tree Board to his attention; noting they did not currently have a direct role in reviewing tree preservation, which was often tied to development.  However, Mr. Trudgeon noted the need to include their perspective related to shade trees, pests, and boulevard issues; and noted the need to reconcile their role with this discussion.


Mayor Roe opined that the City's first attempt at a tree preservation ordinance was good, but now it was time to refine it.  As noted by Councilmember Etten and the discussion held in November of 2014, Mayor Roe opined that fairly reflected the thoughts of the City Council, and while there may be a difference of opinion among individual Councilmembers about ultimate triggers, the policy decision needed to be made. Mayor Roe indicated that to begin that process, a draft ordinance would provide something for the City Council to respond to, while hoping tonight's input had provided some parameter within which to start that work.


Mr. Gozola thanked the City Council for their overall direction, noting he was not hearing anything to indicate the points already pointed out were not out-of-line or off-base, but still grounded in what the City hoped to accomplish.  Mr. Gozola thanked Planning Commissioners for their input as well; and expressed his interest in bringing all boards and departments into the consultation process.  Since this is the first introductory meeting held, Mr. Gozola noted next steps would be to review this discussion with staff, define a cost to develop an ordinance, with nothing signed to-date; and bringing that proposal back to the City Council with a plan about how to get the city where they thought they wanted to go.


Mayor Roe opined that the preservation areas provided an interesting concept (e.g. Acorn Road) that may indicate different replacement rates, as well as credits for off-site replacement and/or tree "banking," all of which he found worthy to look at.  Mayor Roe opined that the "cash in lieu of" for trees could fund those wanting to put up a tree and the ability to do so at a reduced cost, offering his interest in looking at that concept.


Based on earlier comments and what additional information was needed, Councilmember Laliberte noted the need to have all departments aligned and working together. Recognizing the position for a Forester posted earlier this year, Councilmember Laliberte noted the need to hear more options: whether a staff position was preferable, or an outside consultant or business; or whether the City's role was to get involved in the business or identifying good or bad trees beyond disease issues (e.g. EAB) to avoid being seen as "tree snobs."


Along those lines of good or bad trees, Councilmember McGehee noted the need to avoid encouraging planting of noxious invasive trees, but also providing a general list of trees that differentiated between native or non-native plantings rather than trying to define all tree species; but only those not serving to encroach further.

Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance Update

Similar to the presentation for tree preservation, Mr. Gozola outlined previous discussions as listed in Attachment B dated July 6, 2015; defined what PUD's were, their commonalities and variables by community, various approaches, and what they should look link in Roseville.


Mr. Gozola strongly recommended the City Council's consideration of using an overlay district concept, and provided his rationale in making that recommendation based on most of the zoning regulations already in place or available for specific consideration in a PUD and providing an important safeguard; better understanding by the public in understanding the rezoning concept through use of a PUD; and special regulations available in code and accessible to all.  Mr. Gozola further opined that by controlling things via zoning, it provided the City Council with greater authority to make changes in the future rather than using the Conditional Use approach for a one-time situation and setting conditions that hopefully didn't miss any important issue during that process.  Mr. Gozola
advised that the PUD provided the City the ability to zone by right versus
discretionary zoning; and provided more assurance and specificity for a
developer that a good end product would be achieved.


Mr. Gozola reviewed other considerations, such as where to allow PUD's; how and why to allow them; and the main goals desired by the City in using PUD's and specific benefits to focus on.  Mr. Gozola sought input on the current background and project understanding shown on pages 2 - 4 of Attachment B.


Councilmember Willmus, with concurrence by Mayor Roe, stated he would not agree with a PUD only being tied to a subdivision process only; but would look at applicability beyond just subdivisions.


Councilmember Willmus stated that Mr. Gozolas' presentation slides #25 and #26 concisely stated his thoughts on PUD's.


Councilmember McGehee stated there should be no limit on where a PUD should be; advised that she was not a fan of Conditional Use permits; and liked the sustainability and stormwater management aspects; and supported structured parking as incentives.


To add to what was already stated, Mayor Roe opined that the PUD process should not be unrestricted as to what could be donebut more specific as to the limits and what can happen.  Mayor Roe stated he was not supportive of a PUD approval based on who was sitting at the City Council dais rather than having a consistent policy for a developer to follow versus doing whatever they wanted to do.  Mayor Roe spoke in support of standards and parameters that outlived a sitting City Council to avoid potential arbitrary issues or concerns.  Mayor Roe opined that a perceived problem with the old PUD's was that basically anything could be
proposed with majority support of the City Council.


Councilmember McGehee stated her biggest concern with the old PUD was the lack of protection for underlying zoning as implemented and without a public engagement piece.


Mayor Roe concurred that the public engagement piece was missing in  most development activity at that time. Councilmember McGehee recognized and agreed with the five points for flexibility as listed: building placement, parking standards, trees/landscaping, exterior materials, and open spaces.


Councilmember Etten agreed with presentation slides #25 and #26 as well; noting that the tree preservation ordinance stated the same objective in allowing flexibility as with the PUD.  Councilmember Etten opined that overlaying the PUD with underlying zoning made a lot of sense and served the community better in the long-term.


Councilmember Willmus echoed the comments of Councilmember McGehee, agreeing that the community had issues with the old PUD when the underlying zoning was stripped away and protections lost.  Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the directions highlighted, with specificity or a broad general look, and the overlay maintaining the underlying zoning.  Councilmember Willmus stated he had less concern about having a more open book and seeing what creative aspects could come out in some areas.


Mayor Roe noted that in the old process, the PUD was zoning and you had to catch everything, and clarified that many PUD's with perceived problems as he previously stated actually did not get approved.


Chair Boguszewski asked individual commissioners to share their thoughts specific to PUD's.


Commissioner Daire stated one thing that struck him is the quid pro quo nature of the PUD, allowing tailoring of responses for staff, the Commission and City Council for a development proposal.  Commissioner Daire agreed that if you had four units, this would not be a good tool for that, but it allowed for creative give and take; and agreed that the PUD can't be used to work around the variance process.  If it was felt there was the need for some ability to address good proposals at the same time as offsetting their impacts, Commissioner Daire agreed that the PUD concept allowed for that versus the Conditional Use permit process; and also agreed with the idea of an overlay designated zone for PUD's.  From an historical standpoint, Commissioner Daire opined that it was difficult to see where the Conditional Use permit applied and impacts they've had, while with an overlay district they could be quickly identified, such as with the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area for focus. 


Commissioner Bull agreed the idea of an overlay served as a great foundation as long as the structural standards remained behind it, and allowing the PUD flexible guidelines.  With that flexibility, Commissioner Bull opined it was harder to apply standards and could create difficulty for staff, the Commission and City Council to determine trade-offs.


Vice Chair Cunningham agreed with the concepts of presentation slide #25.


Commissioner Murphy agreed with keeping the underlying zoning requirements and whatever language would be constructed to provide a measure of success if applied consistently.  Commissioner Murphy noted that, even with different staff and/or Councilmembers, the rules would remain the same from year to year and receive similar results when applied.


Commissioner Stellmach expressed appreciation for all of tonight's information and discussion, but offered no opinion or comment beyond that at this time without having more time to digest it.


Commissioner Gitzen opined that the PUD was an important tool for the City Council; and allowed consideration of a variety of options and some sensitivity for particular sites.  Commissioner Gitzen opined that the PUD process should provide for land uses and density variations as the community redeveloped and moved ahead.


Chair Boguszewski also agreed with the need for strong public outreach upfront to make sure of a transparent, consistent process and application of standards to avoid misperceptions as often found in the past.


Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Willmus' statement about creativity; opining that often with rigid planning it seemed that only the City or its staff had really good ideas; while this could open the City up to other ideas and diverse projects.


When the City Council first started considering this, Councilmember Willmus noted it was specifically under the context of residential applications or uses; however, the more he considered it, he was now finding himself looking citywide to address future questions.


Mayor Roe agreed with a citywide consideration and opined that the Conditional Use was not a bad tool, but that it really was most applicable specifically to allowing a particular type of use, with conditions, and could not be used very well as a tool for flexibility beyond just the type of use on the site.   Mayor Roe opined the PUD provided a more flexible tool to deal with multiple issues broader than a Conditional Use permit; and while he was initially opposed to reopening the PUD process, he was now coming around.


Mayor Roe thanked the Planning Commission for their attendance tonight, their ongoing good work, and their input for this discussion.


Mr. Gozola thanked the City Council and Planning Commission for this joint meeting, and the helpful feedback it provided him.

16.         City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manage Trudgeon briefly reviewed upcoming draft agendas.


17.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

Councilmember McGehee requested future discussion of park dedication fees and retaining those funds proportionally in the area from which they initiated.

Mayor Roe suggested having that discussion as Park Dedication policies come forward as a result of the recent joint discussion with the Park & Recreation Commission.


18.         Adjourn

Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:46 p.m.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.