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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

April 11, 2016


1.       Roll Call

Mayor Roe called the meeting to order at approximately 5:30 p.m.  Voting and Seating Order: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.  City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.


2.         Pledge of Allegiance


3.         Commission Interviews

With the arrival of Councilmember Willmus at approximately 5:35 p.m., all Councilmembers were available for interviews held with four candidates to fill one vacancy for an unexpired term on the Finance Commission.



Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 6:15 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 6:22 p.m.


4.         Approve Agenda

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


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


5.         Public Comment

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


a.            Annabelle Slade, student at Roseville Area High School (RAHS), and Joe Hart, Coach Mentor for the RAHS Fire Bears Robotics Term

Ms. Slade noted recent competition by the Fire Bears with other robotics teams.  Ms. Slade noted the group's interest in attending the first worldwide robotics league scheduled in St. Louis, MO later this year.  Since this is a non-profit group, Ms. Slade humbly asked for financial assistance from the community and various civic organizations in helping fund this trip for fees, transportation, housing and other logistical support.  Ms. Slade noted that the group would need to rely on the generous donations from sponsors and their community.


Additional information is available on Facebook or by searching on the RAHS website.


On behalf of the City Council and community, Mayor Roe wished the team luck and congratulated them on their competition successes to-date.


6.         Council & City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements

Mayor Roe made several announcements about upcoming events and opportunities:

·         House painting assistance through the Greater Minnesota Council of Churches (GMCC) and their Paint-A-Thon program for those qualifying under age and income guidelines with additional information available by phone or on-line at

·         "Ask the Experts" a partnership of the City of Roseville and Ramsey County Library-Roseville Branch and upcoming seminars scheduled during April, with additional information available through the City of Roseville or Library websites

·         An upcoming Advanced Care Planning seminar offered through the Roseville's CHAT organization (additional information available at

·         Annual Roseville Clean-Up Day coming up on April 23

·        "April Shower" for babies in need, sponsored by the Roseville Police Department through the month of April to benefit the Tubman Center (drop bins available during normal hours at City Hall)


Councilmember Etten thanked everyone who helped with the recent SE Roseville park clean-up, including members of the Karen Organization of Minnesota (KOM).  Councilmember Etten further highlighted and expressed appreciation for the efforts with the Rice Street Gardens to provide an opportunity for fresh produce for community members in rental housing or without private space.  Councilmember Etten noted the location, east of Rice Street and north of Roselawn Avenue on the Maplewood side of that intersection.  Councilmember Etten noted several additional dates in April to finish preparing and marking out the plots and assist those individuals taking on leadership for this great asset.


As a communication request for staff, Councilmember Willmus reported that he had been receiving inquiries about a fair amount of discussion regarding legislative activities, particularly about Ramsey County's interest in pursuing economic development activities.  Councilmember Willmus advised that the calls were seeking the position of the Roseville City Council as a whole and that of individual Councilmembers.  Before being able to respond completely, Councilmember Willmus noted his need for more official information, particularly regarding how those efforts may be funded and how that funding might be used, specifically if Economic Development Authority funding from Roseville could or would be applied elsewhere (e.g. soccer stadium or TCAAP).


City Manager Trudgeon responded that staff had researched that legislation today, and had received basic information.  However, Mr. Trudgeon advised that he intended to meet with Ramsey County representatives to better understand what was being proposed and a clear understanding of what the potential legislation meant as for its status and what it meant in turn for Roseville.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that he would being that more detailed information forward at the City Council's April 18, 2016 Worksession.


Mayor Roe noted this year's Rosefest buttons stating "I am Roseville," noting that they were free this year at various sources, and offered a great way to start thinking about this year's community celebration.


As liaison to the Ramsey County League of Local Governments, Councilmember Laliberte reported on the upcoming April meeting at which time a panel discussion would be held with the Minnesota Ethnic Council.  Given meeting room capacity at the Maplewood City Council Chambers, Councilmember Laliberte asked those interest in attending to reach out to her.


City Manager Trudgeon reported on Lake McCarrons Neighborhood Association's first "linking communities" project for Karen residents; and reported on the remaining meetings open to the public via R.S.V.P. for meeting room capacity.


City Manager Trudgeon further reported on anticipating closing on the Owasso Fields next week, with the City Attorney finalizing their review and preparation of documents.


City Manager Trudgeon advised that the much-anticipated lighting replacement in the City Council chambers was scheduled for the week of April 27, at which time the room's lighting will be converted to LED lighting, and hopefully not needing replacement for another 15-20 years.  Mr. Trudgeon anticipated a dramatic difference in lighting in the room and for those of the viewing audience, with the first test of that at the May 9, 2016 City Council meeting after installation of the lights.


7.         Recognitions, Donations and Communications


8.            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 March 28, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the March 28, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended.


·         Page 8, Line 12 (Etten)

Correct to read: "road, even though [the neighbors would like the city to take it over] [it's a private road]."

·         Page 21, Line 25 (Willmus)

Correct to read: "From his perspective, Councilmember Willmus opined that he found a [narrower] [wider]."

·         Page 22, Lin 10 (Etten)

Correct street from "Dale Street" to "Wheaton Avenue"

·         Page 34, Line 20 (McGehee)

Typographical correction: Correct spelling for Councilmember McGehee


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


9.            Approve Consent Agenda

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, March 28, 2016.


a.            Approve Payments

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


ACH Payments







                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits

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


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


c.            Approve General Purchases in Excess of $5,000

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as noted in the RCA dated April 11, 2016, and Attachment A entitled, "2016 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," dated February 29, 2016.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


d.            Request for Approval for a Training Agreement between the East Metro Public Safety Training Facility and the City of Roseville

Councilmember Laliberte sought assurance that emergency fire training opportunities for live burn training would still be an option within the City of Roseville if and when available. 


City Manager Trudgeon responded that they would be an option; but noted that the burns had to be under controlled circumstances, and live burning required more controls in place and specialization.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, authorizing the Fire Department to enter into a Training Agreement between the East Metro Public Safety Training Facility and the City of Roseville.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


e.            Award Pavement Management (PMP) Contract

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11311 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Awarding Bids for 2016 Pavement Management Project; awarding bid to T. A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. of No. St. Paul, MN in an amount not to exceed $2,737,436.80."


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


f.             Cleveland Lift Station Consultant Contract

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, awarding an engineering services contract to Bolton & Menk, Inc. for engineering services for reconstruction of the Wagner sanitary sewer lift station, in an amount not to exceed $51,530.00.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


g.            Morris Leatherman Survey Contract

Councilmember Laliberte noted previous discussion on some survey questions tagged for quick responses (e.g. recycling) and asked if those had been clearly identified.


City Manager Trudgeon responded that they had been tagged, including those specific to recycling, to inform the Recycling RFP in process.  City Manager Trudgeon further reported that it was his understanding, once this contract received approval from the City Council, the firm could begin surveying next week, with preliminary answers hopefully available by June of 2016.


Councilmember Laliberte noted an incorrect date on the survey agreement (page 2, Section 2, Line 29); duly noted by City Manager Trudgeon for correction.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute an agreement (Attachment A) with The Morris Leatherman Company to provide residential survey services.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


h.            Consider Renewing the IT Shared Service Agreement with the Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council (JLEC)

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the Information Technology Shared Service Agreement (Anoka County Contract No. C0004847-Attachment A) with the Anoka County JLEC for the purposes of sharing a City of Roseville System Engineer employee and internet connection.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


i.             Receive Authorization to Accept Minnesota Department of Public Safety Grant Funds - Financial Crimes Presentation

Councilmember Laliberte thanked the Police Department for applying for this grant.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, authorizing acceptance of grant funding from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety and proceed with the purchase of financial crimes prevention outreach and education materials; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the Agreement (Attachment B).


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


10.        Consider Items Removed from Consent


11.        General Ordinances for Adoption


a.            Adopt an Ordinance Creating Planned Unit Development (PUD) Standards within the City Code

City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly reviewed revisions to the PUD ordinance based on feedback based on previous City Council meeting discussion and direction to staff.  Upon the City Council's concurrence, Mr. Paschke advised that staff recommended approval of the ordinance as drafted, as well as a summary ordinance for publication, all detailed in the RCA dated April 11, 2016.



At the last Council discussion, Councilmember Willmus noted administrative waiver of certain information if deemed unnecessary by staff at the Preliminary Plan stage, specifically spelling out submittal requirements process and staff's rationale for waiving any requirements, with that information then forwarded to the City Council as part of their approval process.  However, Councilmember Willmus stated that he only found that language carried over to PUD Final Plan review when he understood the intent was for both stages.


In Attachment B, page 9, line 253, Mr. Paschke advised that submittal requirements were applied at the PUD Concept Plan stage.


Councilmember Willmus noted that the intent was that any waivers be brought to the attention of the City Council at the PUD Final Plan stage as well.


The consensus of the City Council was that this iteration had inadvertently omitted that requirement; and without objection, Mayor Roe noted language of Item 3.b PUD Final Plan Review (lines 364 - 370, specifically lines 369-370) addressed it, but suggested also including that language at line 320 on page 11 as well.


City Attorney Gaughan noted that, if the language is added to the PUD Concept Plan Review on page 11 as well, it would incorporate three different bites, including at the PUD Concept Plan stage (page 8, line 228) that also includes the waiver statement.  City Attorney Gaughan clarified that previous discussion directed staff to alert the City Council of any waivers at the Concept and Final Plan reviews, but not at the Concept Plan review stage.


Councilmember Willmus opined that at any point in time that staff waives a requirement, the City Council needed to be aware of it.


Without objection, Mayor Roe reiterated the request to add the language to the Concept Plan Review stage on page 11, line 320 as referenced above.


Councilmember McGehee noted that, in each of the three instances, language needed to be revised to indicate that "staff [should] [shall] identify any information submittals that were waived" (Lines 228, 253, the added language at line 320, and line 369).


City Planner Paschke noted that staff attempted, with assistance of Consultant Ben Gozola from Sambetek, to incorporate all previous suggestions of the full Council in this draft of the ordinance.


Councilmember McGehee noted other revisions suggested in her submittal of proposed changes submitted as a bench handout to "Attachment C."  

Mayor Roe asked the status of those suggestions by Councilmember in this latest draft from staff.


Interim Community Development Director Kari Collins

In response, Interim Community Development Director Collins advised that the suggested changes submitted by Councilmember McGehee and provided in the bench handout, had not yet been incorporated into this latest draft by staff until the City Council as a whole had provided feedback on her recommendations.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Councilmember McGehee proceeded to review her recommended changes to staff's most recent draft of the ordinance.


Page 5, Lines 125 - 127

Based on the sentence construction by staff, Councilmember McGehee requested a change to page 5, lines 125 - 127 as noted on the bench handout, and a similarly parallel revision for each phase of the proposed PUD when construction was intended over more than one phase.  Councilmember McGehee noted her concern that each phase of a development be able to demonstrate that it could stand independent of subsequent phases.  Recognizing staff's note in red that the sentence construction hadn't been updated, Councilmember McGehee reiterated her concern that each phase stand on its own merits.


Without objection,Mayor Roe suggested to take out the second "each"phrase and say "it" instead.


Page 7, Lines 206 and 210

Councilmember McGehee asked that the examples listed in staff's draft be removed entirely.

Without objection, Mayor Roe agreed that the examples be removed.


Page 9, Line 272

Again, Councilmember McGehee asked that the examples listed in staff's draft be removed entirely.

Without objection, Mayor Roe agreed that the examples be removed.


Page 11, Lines 317, 329 and 331

Councilmember McGehee asked that language as indicated in her submittal be struck as noted; and assigning to staff completion of the PUD Concept Plan Review process.


Mayor Roe stated his satisfaction with existing language as drafted by staff.


Councilmember McGehee sought to ensure, through her suggested striking of draft staff language in lines 316 - 332, to ensure that Community Development staff shall, as a condition of PUD Concept Plan Review approval, be responsible for the process.


Mayor Roe clarified that during the process, many things were happening and being completed by multiple entities, and suggested it was better not to identify anyone at all, since the City Council had final approval via adoption of the ordinance.


Councilmember McGehee agreed with Mayor Roe's clarification; and no changes were made to staff's draft language (page 11).  However, Councilmember McGehee reiterated that her attempt was to make Items 3.a and d parallel so the Community Development Department would generate the analysis instead of only addressing it as Item 2.g on page 10.


From his perspective, and without objection from his other colleagues, Mayor Roe stated that the preambles are fine and served to get the point across.


Page 12, Item 2.i, Lines 361-366

Councilmember McGehee reviewed her proposed language as noted; with Mayor Roe suggesting "must include" in the sentence.


City Attorney Gaughan noted that the language for this provision was intended to put the onus on the owner of the lands and building, thus its particular wording. 


After further discussion, without objection, and upon input and recommendation of the City Attorney, language as submitted in staff's draft remained unchanged for lines 361 - 365.


Page 13, Item 3.f, Line 388

Councilmember McGehee noted that this proposed change from her was similar to those addressed in lines 330 and 332 that hadn't been changed.


Without objection, Mayor Roe ruled no changes for this language either.


Page 15, Item A, Existing PUD Overlay Districts, Lines 429 - 436

Councilmember McGehee stated her intent to assign the duty - as on page 13 as referenced above - that the Community Development Department "shall" establish.


Specific to administrative amendments, Mayor Roe asked if the City Council wanted to have notice of something being changed that wouldn't typically fall within the purview of the City Council.


Councilmember Etten opined that at some point, staff would end up tied in circles, and unable to move forward, essentially grinding development to a halt if all review needed to come before the City Council in addition to staff.


Councilmember Laliberte stated that she'd long been a proponent of Roseville being easier to do business with and without making it too onerous, and therefore agreed with the comments of Councilmember Etten.  For full transparency concerns expressed to-date by members of the community, Councilmember Laliberte noted that if substantive changes were made, those have been addressed and included in revised language.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke confirmed that nothing of substance was able to be approved by staff without first coming before the City Council in a public setting to ensure that transparency.


Without objection, Mayor Roe ruled no changes for this language either.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1497 (Attachment C) entitled, "An Ordinance Adding Text to Title 10, Zoning Ordinance of then Roseville City Code Relating to Planned Unit Developments;" as amended in the above-referenced discussion.


Councilmember McGehee, echoed by her colleagues, thanked staff for this accomplishment.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, publication of Ordinance Summary No.  1497S (Attachment D) entitled, "An Ordinance Adding Text to Title 10 Zoning Ordinance of then Roseville City Code Relating to Planned Unit Developments."


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Consider Amendments to Roseville City Code Chapter 201, Advisory Commissions; Chapter 205, Human Rights Commission; and Chapter 207 Ethics Commission

City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed the revisions made as a result of previous discussions and as detailed in the RCA dated April 11, 2016. 


City Manager Trudgeon reported that the only concern was the potential omission of some language inadvertently removed at the Human Rights Commission (HRC) level during their review and deliberation. After his consultation with the HRA Chairperson Wayne Groff, and as detailed in the RCA, lines 21-28, Mr. Trudgeon reported that had been the case, and advised that the language had been reinserted accordingly. 


Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1498 (Attachment C) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of the Roseville City Code, Chapter 201 (Advisory Commissions); Chapter 205 (Human Rights Commission); and Chapter 207 (Ethics Commission)."


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1498S (Attachment D) entitled, "An Ordinance Relating to City of Roseville Advisory Commissions."

                        Roll Call (4/5ths Majority Required)

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

Nays: None.


12.        Presentations


13.        Public Hearings and Action Consideration


14.        Budget Items


15.        Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Consider Request by Vogel Mechanical for a Conditional Use (CU) to Allow Limited Production and Processing at 2830 Fairview Avenue

Interim Community Development Director Kari Collins briefly reviewed the RCA dated April 11, 2016 detailing past action to-date for this property and current CU request. 


Ms. Collins summarized RCA detail on separate definitions in code clarifying accessory and primary uses for limited production and processing; reviewed land use tables in all four CMU districts without distinction; staff's review of the Vogel's business plan and staff's determination that the principle use remained general office in every function and capacity with this limited production and processing use ancillary.


Ms. Collins further reported that staff continued to have issues and concerns with the purported easement agreement that could not be found.  Ms. Collins reviewed staff's aggressive research at Ramsey County for this documentation, with the only language found and included in tonight's packet to be the indenture dated in 1968 (Attachment E) with remaining debate as to how that particular language addresses an easement.  Ms. Collins reported that the result was staff's inconclusive evidence that there was an easement agreement in place along the north property line; and while recognizing there were overhead power lines could not define an actual easement agreement in place for them or the underground CenturyLink cables.  Ms. Collins noted that the existing chain link fence along the property line had been removed by Vogels in November of 2015 in anticipation of installing the new fence until coming across the purported easement agreement.


Ms. Collins reviewed staff's recommendations for conditional approval (page 5 of the RCA) of the request as detailed in the staff report and those conditions differing from the Planning Commission's recommendation, some based on further inconclusive research by staff on an easement agreement.


Referencing Attachment B, Page 2, Councilmember Etten asked City Attorney Gaughan whether or not the city was to not look at the previous Interim Use (IU) and consider if the Conditional Use (CU) request had come independent of the IU to be viewed on its own merits and under the city's CU requirements for all applications. 


City Attorney Gaughan responded that yes, it was the City Council's obligation to view each application on its own merits within provision of the code, in this instance a requested CU, not an IU.  Mr. Gaughan advised that the obligation was to apply the city's CU requirements to this CU application, and while there may be information and facts surrounding the IU that the City Council might like to bring into this current CU application, as a general principle, this application was specific to the CU portion of city code.


Councilmember McGehee asked City Attorney Gaughan if the City Council had the ability to address any potential negative impacts with this CU application.


City Attorney Gaughan responded that it did, specific to how CU is defined under local code and after due consideration in determining whether or not any such potential negative impacts can be determined under the parameters of the CU code.


Applicant Representatives

Bonnie Vogel, CEO and Owner; Attorney Zachary Crain, Roseville resident and Legal Counsel for Vogel Mechanical

Ms. Vogel offered to answer any questions of the City Council.


Councilmember Laliberte asked for Ms. Vogel's comments related to the recommendation of the Planning Commission.


Ms. Vogel stated that she would like to object to earlier recommendations and findings reported by staff regarding their inability to find an easement agreement, noting that their company had forward that communication, recognizing a discrepancy between their former attorney and a specialist from the land title company and information submitted earlier.  In terms of the former IU application, Ms. Vogel clarified that their company had never sought an IU and were simply seeking a new home for their family company, and selected Roseville based on their reputation as a welcoming community.  Ms. Vogel noted their involvement in education programs in schools, employment fairs at local colleges and other efforts to inform about this growing industry and to provide jobs. 


In hindsight, Ms. Vogel opined that their error had been in not immediately applying for rezoning of their parcel in the first place.  Ms. Vogel noted that their business had been from the beginning and continued to be interested in a long-term solution, and throughout a process of questionnaires, open houses, and other interaction, everyone was in agreement as a community that the CU application was indicated, and accessory use for limited production and processing.  Ms. Vogel asked that the City Council consider the CU application independently of past discussions and IU issues with the neighborhood, and hold their company and its operations to that use.


Ms. Vogel stated that it was difficult for their small business to not feel they were being punished when they were seeking the help and support of their new community.  Ms. Vogel noted the unfortunate situations that had developed for all parties, including them personally, their employees, the neighbors, and entire community.  Ms. Vogel opined that so much negative time and energy had been spent to-date and some had proven devastating for their business and uncomfortable as their employees were continually on camera by neighbors observing them whenever they were on site at the business.  Ms. Vogel stated that their business needed to focus on operations in order to thrive.


Specific to the recommendation for a condition to keep production area doors shut during operations, Ms. Vogel reviewed their uses for limited production and compared it to other uses in a CMU-1 designated zoning district, questioning such a blanket statement in this condition.  Ms. Vogel sought some reasonable consideration rather than neighbors through the city attempting to control every business; noting that there were sufficient city code provisions in place related to noise and environment that would address any concerns that may come up and serve to address any fears or unknowns for adjacent residential neighbors.  Ms. Vogel asked the City Council to apply the same conditions for a CU that they would for any other use in this spectrum, and just as those residential neighbors shouldn't need to close their windows, their business should be given some leniency for using their common sense rather than simply setting up another opportunity for future miscommunication among parties.


Attorney Crain

In response to Councilmember Laliberte's initial question regarding the Vogel response to Planning Commission recommended conditions, Mr. Crain noted that they were inconsistent with those recommended by staff advising the City Council to follow city code for CU applications for screening in front and back and simply moving on.  Mr. Crain questioned why the Commission made the decision to move beyond staff's expertise rather than depend on their objective expertise to apply code and move forward. Specifically Mr. Crain opined that the Commission had moved far beyond city code in stating that a fence rather than screening for parking needed to be on the property line and doors closed during production activities.


With respect to the fence, Mr. Crain opined that moving the fence from where staff recommended to the property line did not actually affect the condition being applied for today, and the actual permitted use, comparing other uses this could be (e.g. daycare or liquor store) where no fence would be needed.  Instead, Mr. Crain advised that Vogel Mechanical was seeking a CU for one employee to occasionally stage and form sheet metal for a particular job off-site.  Under those circumstances and from his perspective, Mr. Crain questioned the connection between the activity itself and the location of the fence.  Mr. Crain noted that the intent was to screen the property, and the only benefit in placing the fence on the property line appeared to him to allow the adjacent residential properties to have a nice new fence, and having nothing to do with the actual use of the Vogel property.


With respect to closing and opening doors, Mr. Crain opined that he found that to be an enforcement issue, and questioned how and when that enforcement would be realistic or whether it would be enforced by the neighbors keeping watch and taking photos whenever the doors are opened to ensure Vogel Mechanical was following the rules.  If the intent was to get to a potential noise issue, Mr. Crain opined that if that became a potential issue, there were already noise ordinances in effect in the city for staff enforcement, similar to potential issues with smell or other things.  Mr. Crain stated that he has no doubt that any issues occur he would guarantee they would be brought to staff's attention, but restated that the Vogels intended to stay.


As a follow-up on the easement, Mayor Roe asked if Ms. Vogel or Mr. Crain had any information with them to submit on the easement agreement or applicable restrictions on the easement that could serve to enlighten the City Council.


Mr. Crain advised that, as part of the record, staff had previously been presented with information from CenturyLink addressing underground cables and their conditions for fence installation, 2' from that cable, which appeared to meander some.


Ms. Vogel spoke to the 10' utility easement on the north side of their property.


Mr. Crain referenced language in the Vogel deed about lines above and below and referencing any encroachment; however, he could not stretch that to conclude there was an easement, suggesting a simple Quit Title action could remove any doubt.


Ms. Vogel referenced a land title document dated April 8, 2016 from Jeff Christianson of that firm, but noted that while the document relates to a 10' utility easement on the most northerly 10' of their property.  However, Ms. Vogel noted that the City Attorney was not in agreement with this interpretation.


Councilmember Willmus asked for a copy of the title binder itself, with Ms. Vogel advising a copy had been provided to staff and the City Attorney for dissemination.


Public Comment

Mayor Roe noted that a public hearing had already been held at the Planning Commission, but opened the meeting for public comment at this time.


Duane Metz, 2926 Mildred Drive

While not a direct neighbor to this property, Mr. Metz stated his observation of this two-year fence issue as part of the IU application.  Mr. Metz opined that this fence issue had been tap danced around for that two years, but opined the biggest issue was when the Vogels decided to tear out the existing fence and so cut up existing trees some had to be removed.  Mr. Metz noted there was now no privacy for adjacent residential backyards, and questioned what recourse those residents had if CU conditions were not met, opining some way was needed to enforce those conditions.


Lisa McCormick, Wheeler Street

Ms. McCormick asked that the City Council take into consideration its own comprehensive plan guidance for this area and other information already available in making the best decision possible as it relates to this parcel.  Ms. McCormick reviewed past planning processes, rezoning form HDR to CMU north of Terrace Drive to protect residents adjacent to commercial parcels; original neighborhood concerns beginning in 2014; and original requests of the residential neighbors for separating those uses by extending the existing 8' privacy fence east of the Vogel property line parallel to their line and west to Fairview Avenue.  With additional neighborhood concerns in the extension of Twin Lakes Parkway and potential redevelopment in the area, Ms. McCormick opined that their requests were more than justified, and were intended to not only separate uses but enhance visual protection with landscaping intended to complement that visual barrier.


Ms. McCormick continued with her perspective on the history of this IU approving limited production and processing at 2830 Fairview Avenue (PF14-012) displaying a resolution signed by Ms. Vogel.  Ms. McCormick noted that the Vogels purchased the property in 2014 when the parcel was still zoned HDR for residential use and any other use was illegal at that time; with rezoning not occurring until January of 2016, but until then they had still been allowed to occupy the space, having done remodeling and a determination made on SAC charges reviewed by the Metropolitan Council.  Since the Vogels chose to use this space as office, meeting and warehousing space, Ms. McCormick opined they had been doing so illegally to-date until rezoning was approved in January of 2016. 


Ms. McCormick noted residents continued to come before the City Council seeking enforcement of the conditions for IU approval, with further clarification of those conditions in August of 2015, still not resulting in action or enforcement while the Vogels were allowed to continue occupying the space.


Specific to the easement, Ms. McCormick stated her disagreement with the Vogel attorney opinion, and addressed her interpretation of the CenturyLink easement and hand digging requirements around their underground cable.  Ms. McCormick advised that she too had researched Ramsey County records, and referenced a 1978 housing subdivision and replat, she found no utility easement along the south property line for residential properties; but most important to her was a copy of the legal description provided for the Vogel property and no mention of an easement (Commitment LT File No. 503870). 


However, Ms. McCormick opined that was a moot point if the Vogels wanted to replace the fence and be the good neighbor they claim to want to be; and install the fence in the same location it was before.  Ms. McCormick opined that interests of all parties were more in line than apart; and assured all that the residential neighbors had no objection to the Vogel's business, but simply sought protection for their own properties.  Ms. McCormick asked that the City Council enforce what the Vogels had promised to do and what was right.


While an extensive record had already been submitted for the public record previously, Ms. McCormick advised that she would submit additional handouts as referenced tonight, including a list of eleven conditions requested by the neighborhood for this CUP if approved.  Given the City Council's repeated interest in community engagement, Ms. McCormick asked that the City Council act to protect these residential property owners as was previously expressly promised.  Also, for a City Council apparently concerned with setting precedents, Ms. McCormick expressed her interest and concern in how their action tonight would take that into consideration.


Kathleen Erickson, 1790 Centennial Drive

As a neighbor directly abutting the Vogel property, Ms. Erickson stated that she hardly knew where to begin her comments other than to put a human face to tonight's legal jargon.  Ms. Erickson spoke to the recent and lengthy Planning Commission without allowing any additional public comment; and stated that the process seemed to be a sham leaving residents without recourse.


Ms. Erickson opined that this was a red herring form the beginning, since the fence had been installed for years and now there was suddenly a problem with its location.  Ms. Erickson opined that she found that to be not true; and provided various examples in the community where similar shielding or screening between residential and commercial properties was done.  Ms. Erickson opined that the residents had attempted to be transparent, even though characterized as snooping; and suggested if the Vogels didn't want them watching they shouldn't have mutilated their trees or removed the existing fence.


Ms. Erickson referenced an email from former Community Development Director Paul Bilotta to Ms. McCormick regarding a CU, timing of the rezoning issue before resolution, and determinations for resolution from staff's perspective, which she also found untrue.  Since not only commercial property owners, but also residential property owners make city and other jobs available in Roseville, Ms. Erickson opined that she didn't feel city staff was representing residents.  Even though she now feels victimized, Ms. Erickson stated that residents had simply asked for a barrier fence between residential and commercial properties to protect them from a new business representing an unknown quantity.  Ms. Erickson noted that this is a test case for resident concerns with new development coming into their neighborhood and touching them where they lived.  Ms. Erickson opined that the lack of enforcement by staff was part of their victimization, noting that the IU would be in effect for two years in June, but its conditions had yet to be met or enforced. 


Ms. Erickson noted that this was where she lived and she had hoped to be in her property for the next twenty years, but now felt characterized as a snooping and meddling person. 


Additional Comment/Response from Vogel

Ms. Vogel noted that the IU required them - the applicant - to install an opaque fence of 6'-8' in height, not a continuous replacement of the existing fence.  Ms. Vogel admitted that assumptions were initially made in defining the northern edge of the property on an exact line, and noted their full agreement with the conditions at that time.  Ms. Vogel stated they had done their best to get the new fence installed, and had not anticipated the uncertainties created in discovering the easement.  However, when offering a solution similar to the original screening solution, Ms. Vogel noted that the residential neighbors had said that wasn't good enough; and if they had known at the time, she stated they would have left the old fence in place with no impacts to the existing trees.


Ms. Vogel noted that the reason for removal of the existing fence in November of 2014 was to accommodate the locate by CenturyLink for the new fence installation, scheduled for installation later that same week.  However, as evidenced during the ensuing process, Ms. Vogel noted that the project had been put on hold due to questions and concerns with border conditions and differing survey and underground cable locates, creating additional confusion.


Ms. Vogel noted that when the neighbors appeared before the City Council in August of 2015 saying that all obstacles had been removed, they actually had not been.


In March of 2015, Ms. Vogel reported that their business began renovation of the building, and moved into it in June of 2015, clarifying that they had not even been there for a year due to zoning and other issues as well, but not two years as suggested. 


Ms. Vogel asked what was so bad about looking at an empty parking lot; and further asked what the screening was protecting residential properties from.  Ms. Vogel noted that their business had also been affected during this process; and recognized the personal piece, with their business being responsible for twenty or more of their employees' families.


Mr. Crain stated that he had issues with the Planning Commission's use of the word "cedar" since that was a technical issue. Mr. Crain stated his concurrence in designating a "wood" fence, but asked that it be cedar or like quality rather than causing the Vogels to return for approval if another material was found more appropriate and cost effective.


Ms. Vogel noted that the original condition of approval only designated "opaque."


Mr. Crain opined that, no matter the action tonight, it wouldn't resolve hurt feelings; and in his perception of the City Council and attempting to balance things, opined that it was important for them to be leaders and state what they cared about.  Mr. Crain asked if tonight's decision would inhibit small business from being successful in Roseville or not.  Mr. Crain noted that even with installing the new fence 20' beyond where residential property owners wanted it located was in support of staff's reading of city code compliance.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte as to their intended location for the new fence installation once the old one had come down, Ms. Vogel responded that after the existing fence had come down, multiple readings were done by CenturyLink further confusion new fence installation based on the inconsistencies of those readings and potential location of underground cable.  Ms. Vogel noted that one reading had the cable on the residential neighbors' side, another further south on the Vogel property, and yet another directly under the previous fence location.  Being told by CenturyLink cable locators that the fence and trees were affecting those readings, Ms. Vogel noted that they had attempted to resolve those discrepancies by removing the old fence and having trees trimmed as well as to facilitate installation of the new fence, even though then told later that wouldn't have been necessary.  However, Ms. Vogel noted that this served to create a different situation in placing footings for an 8' fence versus those needed for a shorter fence at 6.5' due to load bearing on those footings for the fence based on height. 


If the Vogels were to install the fence today, based on the three optional locations shown on the area map (Attachment D.1), Councilmember McGehee asked where she would locate the fence, and how the Vogels intended to maintain the opposite side of the fence if it had been located right on the property line.


Ms. Vogel responded that the intent was to install the fence 5' south of the abutting property line to facilitate that maintenance for lawn care, mulch or snow storage, even though it would prove more expensive, time-consuming and difficult to do, it was still part of the requirements of Vogel to meet conditions.


City Council Deliberation

Laliberte moved that the applicant install a 6.5' opaque fence 5' south of the north property line as originally proposed; and that the installation be completed by July 29, 2016.


Mayor Roe ruled the motion failed for lack of a second.


McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, that the applicant installs a 6.5 Cedar fence, not Pine, and that the opaque fence be placed on the property line where the previous chain link fence stood.


City Attorney Gaughan clarified that if this motion passes, placing a condition on a subsequent CU motion, it was recognized that this motion may still fail if a subsequent CU motion fails.


Councilmember McGehee opined that the City Council had an obligation to make the residential neighbors whole again.  From the standpoint of the request, and in good faith, Councilmember McGehee noted that the original agreement had been without any intended burden on the business owner.  When the Vogel's fence contractor appeared before the City Council previously, Councilmember McGehee noted that she had specifically asked the cost for the fence as stipulated in her motion, and been told the cost would be $16,000, not the $40,000 to $45,000 for an 8' fence due to additional engineering requirements of a taller fence.  Councilmember McGehee opined that it had never been the City Council's direction to install an 8' fence, since the process was considering a 6.5' fence throughout.  Councilmember McGehee stated that her lack of support for Pine was due to concerns that it wouldn't last; and since the fence has to be maintained, it would be better served with Cedar.  Because this has been promised and the existing fence already removed and not yet replaced, Councilmember McGehee opined that the cost to replace it wasn't comparable to the legal costs in fighting its installation over the last two years.  At the minimum, Councilmember McGehee reiterated the City Council's obligation for the benefit of residents and businesses, and stated that she didn't think this represented an unbearable expense or inconvenience and verified the Board of Appeals and Adjustments' previous denial of the appeal.


If the fence is to be replaced and installed directly along the property line, Councilmember Willmus asked how Councilmember McGehee intended to address maintenance on the north side of the fence by Vogels if there is no 5' setback for that maintenance to occur.


If installed on the property line, Councilmember McGehee presumed that neighbors on the other side would maintain it as part of their property.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her objection in principle to establishing a 5' "no man's land" between fences or property lines, especially such a long expanse on uneven topography, opining that at least the former chain link fence was all the same height.


If the fence was installed further south between the grove of Vogel-planted deciduous trees, Councilmember Willmus suggested asked staff if the chain link fence and line of evergreens in place from north to south on that east/west line would suffice as a screen.


Ms. Collins opined that evergreen trees were tough on chain link fences, providing photographic evidence of the area in question.


Councilmember Willmus clarified that the intent of the fence was not to secure yards for LDR properties to the north, but intended to provide a break or buffer screen between.  Therefore, with that intent in mind, Councilmember Willmus questioned what the difference was in where the fence was installed, suggesting that it made sense to locate the fence far enough south to allow the owner of the fence to maintain it on both sides.


Councilmember McGehee stated she didn't agree with Councilmember Willmus' premise, noting that the fence originally installed by Aramark had served as a visual delineation between residential and commercial property owners and maintained by that business owner for forty years on one side and maintained on the other by residential property owners, without issue during that time period.  Councilmember McGehee stated her belief that the demarcation between residential and business uses should be by way of an attractive, Cedar, opaque fence, which she thought had been sufficiently clarified with the Board of Appeals and Adjustments' assertion, and yet still hadn't happened.  However, Councilmember McGehee opined that instead what had happened was a complete destruction of backyards as a result of this ongoing issue and lack of staff enforcement of a condition asked for over a year ago.


Councilmember Willmus noted that one item discussed by the Planning Commission was placing the foundation and framing structure for a wooden versus metal fence, and requirements for those posts to be cemented in.  Whether or not that created an issue and proximity concern with the underground cable, Councilmember Willmus opined seemed to be a reasonable assumption; noting that had not been part of the IU discussion and not considered at that time.  While there was some discussion as a possible utility easement during that IU discussion, Councilmember Willmus stated that it had not been known to him that there was a buried phone cable located there, which would have made a difference in his decision.


Councilmember McGehee noted that at the public hearing after appeal of staff's administrative ruling, that information had been brought forward, including verbal and written testimony from the Vogel fence contractor, assuring that a 6.5' fence could be installed on the property line.


Councilmember Laliberte referenced her original motion, noting that she remained in support of a 6.5' high fence, installed 5' south of the property line, which the Vogels were willing to do.  Councilmember Laliberte noted that this took into account the cement installation for wood post supports; and agreed that the City Council owed it to the neighborhood to follow-through with the intent for a buffer in this area.  Short of dragging this out even further with an encroachment easement, Councilmember Laliberte opined that 5' would accommodate the posts and encroachment areas, yet be as far north as the city could ask the Vogels to install the fence.


                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee and Laliberte.

Nays: Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Motion failed.


Laliberte moved that the applicant install a 6.5' opaque fence 5' south of the north property line as originally proposed; and that the installation be completed by July 29, 2016.


Mayor Roe ruled the motion was not in order as it had been offered previously and failed due to lack of a second.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11312 (Attachment G) entitled, "A Resolution Approving Limited Production and Processing as a Conditional Use at 2830 Fairview Avenue;" subject to the following conditions:

a.    A solid opaque Cedar fence approximately 6.5' in height shall be installed immediately north of the existing eastern parking lot's chain link fence to screen the lot, as well as delivery, dock and refuse/recycling areas.

b.    Additional landscaping shall be installed in and around the berm adjacent to the front employee and customer parking lot to more fully screen headlights from view of the adjacent residentially zoned properties.

c.    All required screening shall be installed no later than July 29, 2016.

d.    All work associated with limited production and process be contained indoors.


Councilmember Willmus stated this allowed for a significant transition between the residential and commercial properties while screening residential properties from lights and tied this fence to the building where the chain link fence was on the western edge, but not extending to the eastern property edge by stopping at the eastern edge of the existing chain link fence.


City Attorney Gaughan suggested that the makers of the motion include Diagram D.1 as part of their motion serving as an illustrious diagram.


Councilmember Etten expressed his frustration, opining this was the wrong answer to how the city wanted to take care of its neighbors, and apologized for that.  However, Councilmember Etten also expressed his belief that the city had a legal responsibility to adhere to its own CU and noted that code stipulated screening the parking area, and this is the best way to address that under current code provisions, and thus the reason for his decision.


Councilmember Laliberte stated she had heard language read from city staff to the residential neighbors, stating IU provisions would prevail, causing a contribution to the interpretation by Councilmember Etten.


Councilmember Willmus clarified that it was his understanding in the context of that staff statement as offered, that this was prior to the rezoning of this property; and now a completely different application and process was in place, as addressed by City Attorney Gaughan when asked by Councilmember Etten earlier tonight specific to whether or not the IU carried forward and should be considered as part of this application process.


Councilmember McGehee expressed her disagreement with that interpretation, reiterating what she felt was the city's obligation to its residents, and not attempting to revise those promises made almost two years ago, reinforced by a public hearing process, resulting in leaving those neighbors much worse than before.  Councilmember McGehee opined that it was the city's obligation to maintain the condition of the IU as part of the conditions of the CU, which could be legally accomplished based on the city's right to ensure any significant negative impacts to surrounding properties were properly addressed.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that these negative impacts were a result of previous city action; and stated the need for the city to enforce that obligation and set a precedence by affirming and reaffirming that the city would not abandon them two years later.


In speaking to the proposed CU motion, Mayor Roe recognized that it essentially responded to code requirements for buffering and screening.  Mayor Roe also expressed his understanding of the past history, IU approval and actions since then.  For those exact same reasons mentioned by Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe opined that the city had the ability to apply additional conditions to address impacts, impacts created more as a result of city action rather than the use proposed.  If the city was clear in stating its rationale for doing something outside of city code and not following it strictly, Mayor Roe opined that he could be supportive of not following code to the letter.  While understanding the makers of the motion intended additional conditions served to address residential concerns, especially 5' south and not create a "no man's land," Mayor Roe stated he still could not support the motion.


Mayor Roe stated that he was largely supportive of the Planning Commission's recommended language with the exception of the Cedar fence and including staff's suggestion for the indoor containment of limited production and processing work.


Roll Call

Ayes: Etten and Willmus.

Nays: McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Motion failed.


Roe moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11312 (Attachment G) entitled, "A Resolution Approving Limited Production and Processing as a Conditional Use at 2830 Fairview Avenue;" subject to the following conditions:

a.    A solid opaque fence approximately 6.5' in height shall be installed on the northern edge of the property as clarified by the Board of Adjustments and Appeal on January 25, 2016.

b.    All required screening shall be installed no later than July 29, 2016.

c.    All work associated with limited production and processing be contained indoors.


Councilmember Etten noted past language about the fence meandering.


Mayor Roe noted that the key word was "can" and was something he'd approved at the time and still supported that language.


Councilmember Willmus suggested an amendment to the specific installation location to accommodate interference with the underground cable.


Mayor Roe noted that this clarification had been addressed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals in allowing that the fence could "meander," while still being built as far north as possible.


Discussion ensued on actual language of the motion and intent; with City Attorney Gaughan suggesting language directly from the Board of Adjustments be incorporated into the motion.  After further debate, Mayor Roe further clarified that language from the August 24, 2015 action and January 25, 2016 language included reference to "meander" and remained consistent with the intent of his motion.


From his perspective based on the language recommended by staff, City Attorney Gaughan advised that the applicant's position is that the easement precludes the fence being installed 10' from the property line due to that easement.  However, Mr. Gaughan opined that this language didn't serve to clear up that language; and his office's position on the easement having never seen any such document and without any ability to review the supposed easement agreement for confirmation, and also beyond the 1968 conveyance referencing an easement, it assumes the easement to be non-conclusive.  Therefore, Mr. Gaughan advised that there is no city presumption that the fence can't be installed on the easement; nonetheless that language as addressed by Ms. Collins in the RCA, clears up the applicant's contention if the city chooses to handle it.  Mr. Gaughan noted that the city had and is still asking the applicant for such a document, but never having received the actual document to-date even with reference to it by the 1968 conveyance document, it cannot speak for the document itself.


Mayor Roe sought clarification if City Attorney Gaughan was suggesting adding language that was clearer than the administrative ruling as to the actual location of the fence.


City Attorney noted that there was a proposed deadline for installation of July 29, 2016, unless the applicant provides the actual easement agreement document.


Mayor Roe further clarified that the fence has to be installed by that date whether or not the document is provided, leaving the only question the location of the installation.


City Attorney Gaughan responded that the City has had two years attempting to interpret language; but clarified that the approved and confirmed language remains that the fence is to be installed at the northernmost property line unless an easement precludes that location.  Mr. Gaughan stated it was his opinion that the applicant continues to state they can't install the fence at that location because there's an easement there and it won't allow fence installation; while others continue to there is no easement.  Mr. Gaughan suggested that this body may want to simply be more definitive on where the fence is going to be installed; and provide staff with that clarification; and if an encroachment agreement can be submitted for review, consideration can be given to deviating 2' or where needed.  From his personal perspective, Mr. Gaughan opined that more clarity was needed to direct staff accordingly in order for them to enforce the location for installation.


Mayor Roe questioned if revision to the language that "unless an easement or encroachment agreement is submitted" would suffice without making it too broad.


Councilmember Willmus asked City Attorney Gaughan about the information provided by the applicant's title company and definition of what a proscriptive easement is.


City Attorney Gaughan clarified that a "prospective easement" defines what a property owner can or cannot do; and advised it was typically recorded.  Mr. Gaughan advised that it is the opinion of the Vogel's title company that there is an easement at that location on the property; and clarified that the city, nor the City Attorney's office, is arguing that there is a 10' utility easement, but only that neither the title company or city has yet to see it.


Councilmember McGehee suggested language stating, "unless a prospective easement is submitted prohibiting a fence in that area" that it be installed on the property line.


City Attorney Gaughan clarified that his only point was if the city never received a definitive answer as to whether or not an easement agreement existed, should the city come up with a definitive answer conditioning its own condition, noting that it had done so before unsuccessfully.


Councilmember Laliberte pointed out that the city talking about a 10' easement; with a statement available from the applicant that they're willing to move the fence location south up to 5'.  While recognizing that no one wants to create a "no man's land," Councilmember Laliberte noted this would put the full burden for maintenance on the owner for both sides of the fence, especially since residential property owners are saying they're not looking for a wall between the properties, simply a buffer; and this would still accomplish that intent.


City Manager Trudgeon concurred with the City Attorney specifically that this proposed motion left a lot of discrepancy; and by having a clear definition however the City Council chooses to word it, on behalf of staff he would appreciation further refining the motion, noting the considerable amount of time and energy already having been spent by staff.For clarification, Mayor Roe restated the motion, as amended, was in accordance with the language of the August 24, 2015 action.


Discussion ensued along the same lines; with City Attorney Gaughan suggesting that the city define how many feet off the property line they wanted the fence installed, or if they wanted it to stay right on the property line.


Councilmember McGehee suggested leaving out the language about the easement agreement completely and making it clear the fence was to be installed on the northernmost property line.


City Attorney Gaughan noted that the reference was in the 1968 document about a utility easement; and since it remains unknown as to whether or not that remains exclusive or if it still exists or not, it remained as referenced.  Mr. Gaughan noted that it would be better than having the motion conditioned on anything.


First Amendment to Motion

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, amendment to Condition A of the proposed motion as follows:

a.    A solid opaque fence approximately 6.5' in height shall be installed 5' south of the northernmost property line.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that was her original motion that hadn't received a second.


Councilmember McGehee stated she would not support this amendment creating a 5' area between, opining that the location should be on the property line especially since no easement agreements have come forward nor anything more definitive.


After further consideration, Councilmembers Willmus and Laliberte withdrew their amendment.


Second Amendment to Motion

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, amendment to Condition A of the proposed motion as follows:

a.    A solid opaque fence approximately 6.5' in height shall be installed the entire length of the northern edge of the property except as needed to make adjustments to avoid underground utility cables.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.



Amended Motion as Restated

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11312 (Attachment G) entitled, "A Resolution Approving Limited Production and Processing as a Conditional Use at 2830 Fairview Avenue;" subject to the following conditions:

a.    A solid opaque fence approximately 6.5' in height shall be installed the entire length of the northern edge of the property except to make adjustments to avoid underground utility cables.

b.    All required screening shall be installed no later than July 29, 2016\

c.    All work associated with limited production and process be contained indoors

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:55 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 9:02 p.m.


b.            Authorize Entering into a Professional Services Contract with Economic Development Consultant

Interim Community Development Director Kari Collins reviewed staff's recommendation for a contract with Economic Development Services, Inc. as detailed in the RCA dated April 11, 2016.  Ms. Collins noted inclusion in the agenda packet of a biography with Ms. King's expertise and credentials.  Ms. Collins noted that Ms. King was also a Roseville resident.


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, authorizing entering into a Professional Services Contract for Economic Development services with Economic Development Services, Inc. for preparation of a Phase I Economic Development Strategy; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document.


Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of this motion, but for the purposes of full disclosure and noting that Ms. King is a resident of Roseville, advised that Ms. King was also a resident in her direct neighborhood.  While having no direct connection to her business, Councilmember Laliberte sought to make that clear.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


c.            Recycling Request for Proposals (RFP)

Public Works Director Marc Culver reviewed this request for City Council approval of the draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for a new curbside recycling contract for the City of Roseville, as detailed in the RCA dated April 11, 2016 and related attachments. 


As part of his review and presentation materials as made available to the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission at their February 2016 monthly meeting, Mr. Culver provided comparisons with the current contract and this proposed RFP.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Culver clarified that costs and averages in the current Eureka contract were offset by expected revenue and didn't include actual costs for that buy-down.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte for a comparable contract with the RFP, Mr. Culver confirmed that the RFP maintained single-sort collection and continued option for every other week collection cycle.


As part of his presentation, Mr. Culver reviewed the evaluation criteria and weighting that will be used as part of the Best Value Procurement process; and covered next steps after incorporating tonight's City Council feedback on the RFP, its release and timeline for proposals and their analysis.


Councilmember McGehee noted that the previous contract spent considerable time and effort to identify where the City of Roseville's recycling materials ended up after leaving the community to determine if and how they were properly recycled.  Councilmember McGehee asked where that was addressed in this RFP.


Mr. Culver advised that even in the existing three-year contract with Eureka Recycling, there was no requirement that materials be handled locally.  However, Mr. Culver clarified that this was part of the weighting criteria in the Community Values portion of the evaluation process for scoring as high as 10% based on where a proposer intended to deliver materials.  Based on market conditions at any given time, Mr. Culver noted that this varied for contractors; and further clarified that the City didn't hold Eureka to any requirements that they prove to the City of Roseville that they use a local market versus identifying where they actually send it.  Mr. Culver reiterated that this was due to today's market fluctuations and in some cases, lack of local markets.


Councilmember McGehee opined that she considered that an important piece of Roseville's process all along, and didn't want it to get lost in the fine print or reduced to a less important role.


Councilmember McGehee asked how trash buckets were currently handled in city-owned parks.


Mr. Culver responded that Park & Recreation Department maintenance staff emptied their own bins.


Councilmember McGehee questioned if it would be possible, based on her personal review of the map showing parks, to obtain a more effective price if once every week, Parks staff picked up recycling materials at the same time they did trash and took it to a central location (e.g. Central Park or City Hall campus).  Councilmember McGehee suggested staff consider that option as part of the RFP, since she anticipated a large cost for a vendor to perform that pick-up multiple times at multiple locations.


As included in the Appendix price sheets, Mr. Culver noted different options for a separate pick-up of individual containers at various locations versus a central location in each park.  Mr. Culver opined that this should allow sufficient comparison information to allow Park staff to consider their resources and ability to assist that process.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Culver confirmed that a total of 14,000 cans were available including for multi-family residential units.  Mr. Culver clarified that this also accounted for those multi-family buildings, a total of approximately 9,000 units citywide, having more than one unit per container.  Mr. Culver noted that some buildings have only a few actual bins and that the totals were not based on a one-to-one container per unit; but provided for at least one-to-one containers for each single-family residents, with some of those utilizing multiple bins.


Regarding the cost of cart ownership by the city, cost for staff administration and storage of carts addressed by Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Culver clarified that even if the result was for city-ownership of the carts, the contractor would still be required to manage and store the carts, with the city just maintaining ownership of them.


Councilmember Willmus opined that the RFP would reflect that those contractors would not store or manage the carts for free.


Mr. Culver noted that this was a recognized option, and would be reflected in the price per unit, identifying storage, swapping out and other logistical expenses.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Culver confirmed that the RFP included a proposal for weekly pick-up versus every-other-week.


Specific to revenue sharing and current market conditions, Councilmember Willmus suggested that the RFP provide a conduit for or incentive for some type of reward program or system for its customers.


Mr. Culver advised that each proposer/contractor would be able to add such incentives to their value-added submissions as part of the proposal.  Mr. Culver reviewed some options used by other communities, such as a coupon program based on the amount of recycling and earning points from participating vendors.


Councilmember Laliberte advised that she had been asked about coupon programs, and also told of incentives used by other communities when recycling tonnage increased, and asked if rebates or other considerations could be part of the value-added component of the RFP.


Mr. Culver advised that a contractor could propose such a program as part of their value-added RFP submittal.  Mr. Culver stated that he wasn't sure how other communities had handled credits for increasing tonnage.  However, given the past experience and good revenue sharing achieved with Eureka's contract when there was a market available, Mr. Culver opined that it would be interested to see how proposers address that area in the value-added portion of the RFP given today's market for recyclable materials.


Aside from organics, and in recognition of the eight city licensed solid waste haulers Councilmember Laliberte asked if their programs, if any, could be considered as part of their weekly trash pick-up; and asked if so, could that information be provided to those haulers at some point.


Mr. Culver advised that those licensed haulers could be asked those questions, and could be submitted to the City Council when staff returned with recycling proposals.


In proposed language of the RFP (page 20), Councilmember Etten noted language addressing educational tags used by contractors for curbside materials that were unacceptable; and expressed his wholehearted agreement with that language.  However, on that same page, Councilmember Etten noted different language for that same situation for multi-unit dwellings and that education tags would be left 'if available" and questioned the difference in language.


Mr. Culver advised that was an error, and he would strike "if available" to make it mandatory as with the first language.


On page 28, Section 6.06, related to public education materials and community outreach, Councilmember Etten questioned if there was any way that such outreach and efforts to encourage participation in recycling could be given assistance through translation for those lower participating communities with a language barrier.  Councilmember Etten stated that his intent was to help the contractor and residents to accomplish that outreach in targeted parts of the community.


Regarding recycling in parks and a one-to-one rollout, Councilmember Etten opined that this was a big deal; and he shared concerns as pointed out by his colleagues, using the example of 24 new bins in Central Park Lexington as just one case.  Councilmember Etten questioned if a proliferation of cans was the best practice, or if there should be targeted areas moving forward in more incremental stages.  Councilmember Etten noted it could become problematic as well as taking considerable staff time to manage another 139 carts; and while he might consider it more cost-effective for city staff to collect and haul to a central location, it would be a big change, and questioned how best to balance those needs and resources.


Along those same lines, Councilmember McGehee suggested having trash vendors pick up recycling in the parks as part of their service.  Councilmember McGehee further questioned if it would be better to focus recycling collection at those parks most heavily used. 


Specific to cart storage, Councilmember McGehee noted the variable sizes of carts, and if the city got in the cart business, perhaps it would be best to handle only one size rather than attempting to handle the cosmetic aspect of cart manipulation.


As previously noted by staff, Mayor Roe clarified that the contractor would be storing the carts, no matter who owned them.


Regarding education tags, Councilmember Laliberte presumed that this RFP retained the single-sort and would not revert to "shaming" versus "educating" about sorting.


Mr. Culver reiterated that the goal was for education.


Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, receipt of the Recycling Request for Proposals (RFP) as presented (Attachment A); and approval of the RFP for advertisement; as amended to correct language as noted above by Councilmember Etten related to education tags being mandatory.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


d.            Twin Lakes Parkway East Collector Project - Authorization to Proceed with Final Design

Public Works Director Marc Culver provided an update on study of the Twin Lakes Parkway and Fairview Avenue corridor over the last few months as previously approved by staff and completed by SRF consultants.


In addition to the detail provided in the RCA dated April 11, 2016, and maps attached to the report, Mr. Culver's presentation included background information on the project; additional upgrades in and around the area, including the interchange at Cleveland Avenue and I-35W; Twin Lakes Parkway extension; new signals at Twin Lakes Parkway and Terrace Avenue; and recent redevelopment in the area.


Mr. Culver reviewed project goals of this specific Twin Lakes East Collector Project to promote through-movements from Twin Lakes Parkway to Snelling Avenue, to improve intersection operations at Lincoln Drive and County Road C-2, and to improve those through-movements throughout the area, particularly at major intersections.


As part of the study by the consultant SRF, traffic forecasts were done for eastbound County Road C-2 at Snelling, both existing and projected 2030 peak afternoon vehicles.


Mr. Culver reviewed some proposed design features, including changing some movements for eastbound to northbound traffic at Lincoln drive while maintaining a three-way stop at that intersection with County Road C; adding dual left turn lanes on County Road C-2 to northbound Snelling Avenue to allow additional capacity; closure of the median; and right in/right out only movements for 2875 and 2887 Snelling Avenue, while having full access at Lincoln Drive.


Mr. Culver provided projected costs for these improvements, including signal upgrades and/or signal replacements since MnDOT is scheduled to replace one signal in 2020 and cost-share with the City of Roseville may be a viable option for this Minnesota State Aid (MSA) roadway; cost containment due to no additional rights-of-way requirements, only temporary easements for grading and landscape removal at Lincoln Drive and Terrace Avenue during construction.  Mr. Culver noted that revenue would be allocated through Tax Increment Financing District 13 for roadway and engineering costs, anticipated to total approximately $205,000.


Mr. Culver reported that staff had sought preliminary feedback from area businesses that would be affected, including the University of Northwestern with student housing in the former Comfort Suites building, Grumpy's Restaurant, Scandinavian Design and Midway Ford (no response received).  To-date, Mr. Culver advised that Scandinavian Design had communicated with staff on their concerns with loss of full access along County Road C-2, as previously noted to the City Council.


Mr. Culver advised that the purpose of tonight's request from staff is to seek authorization for staff to hold a neighborhood meeting on the conceptual design of the project and authorization to complete final design of the project for City Council consideration before going to bid.


Councilmember Etten thanked Mr. Culver for taking the initiative on this project, opining it was necessary as part of the "big picture" improvements for this area.  As part of the concept design presented by Scandinavian Design, Councilmember Etten noted that on idea was to change the median to allow one turn lane west bound from the County Road C-2 intersection using the city's easement on the south side of the road to create additional room.  Councilmember Etten asked Mr. Culver for his thoughts on that idea, which would increase costs for additional road surface but allow Scandinavian Design more access to their property.


In displaying a map of the concept design from Scandinavian Design, Mr. Culver reviewed potential issues with the location of the signal pole and need to extend the radius from the existing location along the right-of-way line, requiring an additional easement from Scandinavian Design for relocating the signal pole.  Mr. Culver advised that he was not sure at this point on other existing utilities and their potential location that might also be impacted.  Mr. Culver noted that with that concept and resulting significant grade, there may be the need for a retaining wall to protect the parking lot of Scandinavian Design, with loss of boulevard trees.  While there would be impacts and additional costs with that design, Mr. Culver noted that MnDOT would also have some say with the traffic signal location; and further noted MnDOT's past lack of support with left access and median openings, creating traffic stacking back toward Snelling Avenue.


Councilmember Willmus advised that he had received the scanned concept plan from Scandinavian Design along with their communication; and from his observation living in that area and frequenting that intersection on a daily basis, especially during peak period times, access into that drive is already restricted due to traffic stacking.  Councilmember Willmus opined that the question was whether or not Scandinavian Design's proposed access would be useful during those peak times, and expressed his disinterest in exacerbating the problem when traffic volume increases.  Therefore, Councilmember Willmus stated that he was inclined to look more favorably on staff's design proposal.  Councilmember Willmus asked staff if the property and right-of-way between Grumpy's and Midway Ford had been 100% acquired from the current property owners.


Mr. Culver stated that staff presumed it was platted, but noted a more detailed search on how it was initially obtained would be necessary; and if vacated, typically half of the property would go to the Grumpy's property and the other half to Midway Ford property owners.


Councilmember Willmus suggested staff research records back to the original easement transactions; suggesting that from his recollection, originally Terrace Drive or the frontage road may now actually be part of Midway Ford's parking lot.


Mayor Roe noted that part of the design process and feasibility report would be identifying those issues.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in opposition to this entire plan, opining the city needed to hold off until the entire piece was done (Twin Lakes Parkway extension) to see how much traffic is actually generated.  Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of the city's businesses, and opined this access is important to Scandinavian Design, especially during peak hours if vehicles stack and block access to their parking lot, creating problems, for their customers, employees, and delivery trucks.  Councilmember McGehee opined that she considered this to be a significant impediment for Scandinavian Design, and if the intent was to proceed with the project, she stated she would argue strongly that consideration be given to the cost and possibility of pursuing the design concept presented by Scandinavian Design.


Mayor Roe suggested it may be feasible to move the current northern access into Scandinavian Design further west to line it up with the proposed Lincoln Drive access to create a quasi-intersection further west of Snelling Avenue alleviating some of the stacking and give them an identified turn lane from the city's excess median.  However, Mayor Roe noted that Scandinavian Design would then need to move their access and perhaps reconfigure their parking lot.  While understanding the perspective of Scandinavian Design, Mayor Roe noted if their firm agreed with such a proposal, pending location of utilities and other approvals, it could be a solution, noting his preference to keep the proposed median.  Mayor Roe stated that overall he was generally supportive of this project, noting the current need to address the intersection at County Road C-2 and northbound Snelling Avenue, currently at a dangerous level and needing to be addressed.


Public Comment

Steve Gjerdingen, 1363 W County Road B

Mr. Gjerdingen expressed appreciation for seeing plans for this project.  Mr. Gjerdingen asked why there were so many wide truck-style turns on Terrace Avenue and Lincoln Drive, expressing his interest in buttoning up the intersection and making it more pedestrian friendly.  Mr. Gjerdingen opined that the corners didn't need to be so rounded as it decreased safety.


Toward County Road C-2 and Lincoln Drive, Mr. Gjerdingen provided several options as well as concerns for through-movements to continue northbound on Lincoln Drive past the County Road C-2 intersection without yielding; however, he cautioned the need to address pedestrians in the crosswalk with the blind view created, especially with college student housing in the immediate vicinity and lack of sidewalks on Lincoln Drive.  Mr. Gjerdingen noted that the overall concept for the Twin Lakes area is to be pedestrian friendly and integrate public and private s paces to enhance walkability.  Mr. Gjerdingen asked that be a definite consideration going into this process.


Mr. Gjerdingen noted that attempting to cross Snelling Avenue in this area now was challenging, but at least the median provided some safe refuge for pedestrians; with natural zigzag movements created with sidewalk access.  If the project is contemplating extending the roadway into the right-of way at County Road C-2 west of Snelling Avenue, Mr. Gjerdingen suggested a sidewalk along County Road C-2 to facilitate pedestrian movements and other pedestrian accessibility throughout the area and as part of this process.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, receipt of the staff presentation for a proposed Twin Lakes East Collector project; and authorizing staff to hold a neighborhood meeting on the project; complete final design; and bring that final design to the City Council prior to review and consider future bidding of the project.


Councilmember McGehee opined that Mr. Gjerdingen brought up excellent points and expressed her hope that they be taken into consideration especially with the businesses in the immediate area and along Snelling Avenue.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the broader point was that this roadway coming off I-35W was simply a thoroughfare primarily for those trying to go north on Snelling Avenue.  As the project is defined in the RCA, Councilmember McGehee opined that it did nothing more than bringing more traffic through Roseville with no particular purpose.  While she supported bringing traffic in for jobs and shopping, Councilmember McGehee spoke to the need to limit that traffic to ensure safety in high pedestrian traffic areas.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that this is a really bad spot with few options for the city; and similar to her stated opposition to other proposals and/or projects for this area, stated that this is not the right thing to do with the traffic being invited off I-35W that will only further clog an already difficult and dangerous intersection regularly used by Roseville residents.


Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of the motion to receive additional information about cost and design, noting that it contain additional concept designs as suggested by Mayor Roe with different access options for Scandinavian Design.  Councilmember Laliberte specifically asked that staff include that option when going out to neighborhood meetings for their feedback as well.


Councilmember Etten agreed with the comments of Councilmember Laliberte, in addition to the comments of Mr. Gjerdingen about that intersection design and facilitating pedestrian crossings.  Councilmember Etten reiterated discussion that there was already a capacity problem with this intersection, and more traffic volume anticipated with the extension of Twin Lakes Parkway, opined that it was important to get this project started.


                        Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: McGehee.

Motion carried.


At approximately 9:57 p.m., McGehee moved, Etten seconded, extending the meeting curfew to complete Item 16.a.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


16.        Business Items - Presentations/Discussions


a.            Southeast Roseville Redevelopment Discussion

Councilmember Willmus provided a brief background on how this redevelopment discussion initiated based on current properties available for consideration.  Along with Interim Community Development Director Kari Collins, GIS Technician Joel Koepp was available for this presentation, with detailed information and maps included in the RCA dated April 11, 2016 and related attachments.


Interim Community Development Director Kari Collins

Ms. Collins noted the four areas outlined for discussion and City Council feedback as noted in the RCA; with the presentation including socioeconomic data based on the current census tract and its rationale, scope of the geographic area along the Rice Street/Larpenteur Avenue corridor, and how to define the area and identify development swells and those properties in need of reinvestment.


Establishing the Boundaries of SE Roseville

Seeking to have that SE Roseville scope and its boundaries discussion in context, Mayor Roe noted that this is not just a Roseville jurisdiction discussion, but needed to envision the Cities of Maplewood and St. Paul beyond just their currently engaged leadership.  However, Mayor Roe noted that there were some things in Roseville proper that were independent of those joint efforts and that the city could make decisions along those lines or consider the opportunities.  Mayor Roe suggested, rather than the displayed aerial map showing the SE Roseville boundaries from Dale Street and County Road B and/or Dale Street to I-35E, suggesting that the city concentrate more primarily along a smaller area.


Councilmember Willmus agreed that would be much more beneficial and manageable.  Councilmember Willmus opined that he didn't see the city doing a lot soon with established residential neighborhood, and suggested paring the boundaries down from roughly the current National Guard Armory parcel to the Margolis parcel and then along the Larpenteur Avenue/Rice Street corridor.

Mayor Roe concurred, noting that on the east side, the railroad tracks could be used as a boundary with the City of Maplewood used as the other boundary.


Councilmember McGehee agreed with that corridor approach, creating a large "L" shape, or as staff identified it "high, upscale boot" shape.


As a counter thought, Councilmember Etten noted when the former Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) looked at this corner; it was the only census tract in Roseville identified with a high concentration of poverty.  If the current armory parcel redevelops at some point into more residential, Councilmember Etten opined that it could result in a significant number of homes and fostering investments in existing homes, something that the city may not want to manipulate too much.  Instead, Councilmember Etten noted the greatest need from his perspective was closer to the Rice Street/Larpenteur intersection even though as other data points were reviewed, there were greater needs within the entire "box."


Councilmember Laliberte agreed with Councilmember Etten's comments, but also with comments focusing from the armory parcel down the corridor and up to the Margolis area.  Councilmember Laliberte noted that this was a big geographical area and questioned if the city could bite off that entire census tract at once, or if it would be better to make significant strides by working with other agencies on smaller bites allowing bigger successes in the end.  For those opportunities deeper into Roseville proper, Councilmember Laliberte suggested the city could respond as those situations arose, but reiterated her preference to start off by finding successes along the Rice Street/Larpenteur corridor.


Defining the Scope/Collaborators for SE Roseville Redevelopment/Reinvestment

Mayor Roe opined that collaborators had already been addressed in previous discussions, with the consensus to engage adjacent communities and residents and businesses in those communities as well.

Councilmember Willmus agreed, opining that the immediate next step was to chart a path for Roseville and to get started, since people in Roseville had been waiting for generations to revitalize this area, and it needed to be addressed now.


Councilmember McGehee agreed, and from the choices, agreed with corridor development initiative as part of this process.  Councilmember McGehee opined that perhaps the planning didn't need to be as expensive as a design Charrette, noting that the Dale Street Process using corridor Development Initiatives (CDI) had proven very effective and resulted in good feedback from the neighborhood.


Councilmember Etten agreed with his colleagues, and opined that the process must include the Cities of St. Paul and Maplewood noting that whatever they did impacted us and therefore, a great partnership was needed for all.  However, Councilmember Etten opined that the City of Roseville needed to be the leaders for any process moving forward, and actively encourage, engage and push those neighborhood communities.


Mayor Roe concurred, also noting that whatever Roseville did also affected those neighboring communities.  Mayor Roe opined that the key was that Roseville should be the leaders since it was in the position to begin, but also cautioned that Roseville not leave those other communities behind, but involve them in the process to any extent possible, while still being proactive in Roseville but not too much in the lead that those other communities are left out of the process.  Mayor Roe agreed that the process in those communities may take longer or look different, but suggested in these early phases in identifying the problems, their input was a vital part of the dialogues.  As to the process itself, Mayor Roe stated his leaning toward an approach similar to the Charrette Design option; even though it is more expensive it resulted in a more inclusive process and end product of more substance.


Councilmember Laliberte agreed with the comments of her colleagues related to working with other partners.  However, Councilmember Laliberte noted that there were things the city could do in the meantime and not wait for them on areas applicable to acting along.  Since it affects all three cities, Councilmember Laliberte noted that the City of Roseville could make all the greatest improvements in the world and if those adjacent communities didn't pay attention to those same areas, it would make no difference.  Councilmember Laliberte noted that there were no jurisdictional boundaries for those living or working along that corridor, and while continuing to work with those agencies, supported working on things farther off the corridor that were Roseville-specific and could be done sooner rather than later.


As to the process component, Councilmember Willmus agreed with Councilmember McGehee on the CDI process, with the possibility of incorporating a Design Charrette later in the process, or use a hybrid approach of the two.


Before stating her preference for a process, Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was interested in the partners for that process since some planning discussions were already held and coordinated in that area with Chambers of Commerce and the three communities; and questioned the status of that planning.


Ms. Collins reviewed the primary content of those collaborative and preliminary meetings to-date, and their one common denominator indicating conversations needed to continue.  While all parties want to work together, Ms. Collins reported that each jurisdiction was coming at it from a different angle, with Roseville leading the charge from the community engagement position and Maplewood's challenges coming from the public safety standpoint and seeking collaborative police and public safety efforts.  Ms. Collins further reported that the City of St. Paul was looking at it from a market analysis perspective keyed up to addressing larger scale collaborative zoning efforts to guide properties together for future redevelopment.  While each one was looking through a different lens, Ms. Collins noted that the City of Roseville was doing so with the most momentum; and while there was some interest coming out of those initial discussions, there was no robust momentum to get going. 


Following the Chamber of Commerce opportunity, Ms. Collins noted there was significant interest, but mostly to continue conversations since each community has their own challenges; and while all agree that reinvestment is needed, the City of Roseville was more interested in what that vision would look like, while the other parties also had some level of interest, but basically she considered them to be at the preliminary stages at this point.


Jeanne Kelsey, Housing and Economic Development

Ms. Kelsey advised that funds were available should the City be interested in property acquisition.  Regarding the St. Paul Chamber of Commerce and their interest in this corridor, Ms. Kelsey noted that the reality was that they had a number of things on their plate, and agreed with Mayor Roe that the City of Roseville may need to take the lead.


With other cities involved in the independent conveners of those preliminary planning meetings, Councilmember Laliberte asked that to avoid looking like someone was pushing someone else, she would like answers given to those participants if the Chamber and Smart Growth America efforts were not going to take a lead; and to ensure that Roseville wasn't trying to recreate the wheel.


Ms. Collins suggested expanding on those initial efforts, and agreed that the St. Paul Chamber of Commerce was very interested in what was being done, as indicated on those materials included in tonight's meeting materials, suggesting that the City of Roseville could serve as a catalyst and rebirth that intent.


To that point, Councilmember Etten referenced Attachment C and summary report from Smart Growth America that suggests initiatives be implemented but without specific ideas or community-specific information. Therefore, Councilmember Etten opined that follow-through requires the city to move on, especially since the city's motivation is stronger at this point. 


Specific to a promise he made to bring this issue up at tonight's meeting, Councilmember Etten addressed who had or should have control of the former ICO gas station on the corner, opining that while he didn't think it was possible, the site was actually now uglier than it had been a year ago.  Councilmember Etten stated that he had encouraged city staff to facilitate getting the current structure demolished immediately and to assist the current owners however possible.  Councilmember Etten noted that staff had attempted to get clarity of the situation and permitting as applicable; however, he opined that it was now time to use the city's enforcement tools to get the job done now.


Regarding the design process, Ms. Collins asked for staff guidance on boundaries for the project area and the style of visioning/redevelopment plan desired.


Mayor Roe stated that he had no problem with a hybrid between the CDI and Design Charrette process.  Mayor Roe stated that his concern with only using the CDI approach was a limited number of meetings (4), and therefore supported a more hybrid approach.


Councilmember McGehee agreed with the hybrid approach.


By consensus the SWOT approach was ruled out, with Mayor Roe noting that as things moved through the process they would become more refined.


Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of the Design Charrette as it allowed from full participation from all jurisdictions, as per the consensus of the City Council.


Mayor Roe noted that the process would start by identifying problems and engage all stakeholders as part of that; and once those problems and issues had been identified a process could be determined to address them that may not be the same process or same participants, and therefore suggested not ruling out the Charrette design.


In response to Councilmember Laliberte regarding process and staff's comments, Councilmember Willmus expressed his strong preference that as a city, Roseville needed to be prepared to carry forward with this process even if other stakeholders or jurisdictions aren't interested in participating; and therefore would not condition this on any other party's participation, and while inviting them to participate, continue moving forward as a community.


Councilmember McGehee stated that she looked at it slightly differently, and while agreeing with Councilmember Willmus, once a process was outlined, she would invite businesses and residents from those other cities.  However, whether or not those other communities wanted to be involved, Councilmember McGehee opined it should not preclude the residents and/or business people from those communities to continue their involvement not matter their jurisdiction, and suggested that perhaps it would take their involvement and interest to bring their community leaders along.


Councilmember McGehee's thought were shared by consensus by her colleagues.


Currently Available Properties


211 N McCarrons Blvd. (The Armory)

Ms. Collins noted that there was an immediate opportunity to look at this site, with Roseville having the first right of refusal followed by Ramsey County, with the city's interest needed by the Department of Military Affairs in the very near future.  As detailed in the RCA, Ms. Collins reviewed the appraised value; and noted that several from staff had toured the site.  During that tour, Ms. Collins reported that the building had challenges, with staff agreeing that the best option would be to raze the current building and redevelop the parcel for a different and better use.  Ms. Collins offered to set up a tour of the facility for interested Councilmembers.


Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in a tour.


Councilmember Willmus stated that he was familiar with the interior of the facility, having toured it several times, and therefore was not interested in another tour.  Councilmember Willmus further stated that he was not interested in leaving the parcel zoned Institutional, but would be interested in seeing what the city could do for a zoning change to greatly restrict and guide its future use to avoid the city being put in a situation where they wouldn't be as involved or worry about this parcel as with some others in question in that immediate area.


Since Ramsey County has the second right of refusal on the parcel, Councilmember Etten asked if staff had held conversations with them as to their level of interest.


Ms. Kelsey reported that she had spoken with Ms. Heather Worthington of Ramsey County, and at this point they stated they may consider it, but had no actual decision at this point.  Ms. Kelsey further reported that they had stated that they may be willing to partner with the city on a collaborative effort should one or the other parties be unable to take on the parcel.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Ms. Kelsey opined that Ramsey County's intended collaboration would be of a financial nature.


Councilmember Laliberte expressed interest in a tour, but stated she trusted staff's judgment and their assessment.  Councilmember Laliberte noted that this situation prompted the city's need for a discussion on what future zoning they'd like to see for this parcel, and with that in mind, suggested advising the Department of Military Affairs to extend the city's timeframe for consideration, especially since this is the first conversation being held and obviously more vetting was needed. 


Mayor Roe also supported an extension for City Council deliberation and consideration.


Mayor Roe noted that the city couldn't take advantage of all opportunities presented to it, and opined he wasn't even sure if this rises to the top of the list.  While having some interest in the parcel, Mayor Roe noted the challenges, not limited to how to finance its purchase, but agreed with extending the city's time for considering before passing it off to the next entity in line.


Councilmember Willmus was also agreeable with an extension, but if the desire was to potentially control what could come of this site in the future, he reiterated the need to have serious discussions on rezoning the parcel in the near future.  Councilmember Willmus spoke preliminarily of zoning for single family, LDR-2 or MDR zoning designation.


Mayor Roe noted that internal process was needed as well as responding to a formal request to extend deliberations.  Mayor Roe noted one or all of the zoning designations supported by Councilmember Willmus could apply even though they all had different characteristics, given the size of the parcel it could be split into different zoning designations as well.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of having Ms. Kelsey continue her discussion with Ramsey County to see what ideas they might suggest.


On the other issue of possible rezoning, Mayor Roe noted the need for a public input process and that should also be key and part of the timeframe, with initial discussions with the immediate neighborhood and then going into the zoning process versus them responding to the city's process.


196 S McCarrons

Ms. Kelsey reported that this parcel had been identified three years ago, as detailed in the RCA and had since fallen into Estate status and the Trustee was seeking cit interest in purchasing the parcel.  After staff's tour and due to the condition of the property and code issues, Ms. Kelsey reported that there would be challenges, unless the lot could be used to leverage a larger redevelopment with adjacent property at 210 S McCarrons Boulevard.


210 S McCarrons

Ms. Collins reported on this property as detailed in the RCA, and potential for the parcel with adjacent property as previously referenced to clean up lot lines and wrap into one parcel.  Ms. Collins noted that this particular parcel was currently listed for sale.


Councilmember Willmus expressed his interest in looking at the potential for using the Housing Replacement Program to acquire these parcels for recombination and resale, providing city control over the site in an area needing more pro-activity by the city than in the past.  Councilmember Willmus noted that this would serve to extend redevelopment efforts further toward Larpenteur Avenue.


Councilmember Etten agreed with having acquisition discussions, noting the parcels were along the edge of where the city could have significant influence.  Councilmember Etten stated his only concern was with the significant difference in asking prices and values.


Ms. Collins responded that, if the city was interested in acquiring the parcels, the next step would be to seek an appraisal for both parcels.


Unless staff returns with a significantly lower price for the 210 parcel, Councilmember McGehee expressed concern with pursuing purchase of 210, and questioned the need for an appraisal on the 196 parcel based on the asking price.


Ms. Kelsey responded that appraisals differ between single-family and commercial sites.


Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was intrigued with this possibility in an area where the city was attempting to make change, which was hard to do without ownership.  Councilmember Laliberte stated she was interested enough to get appraisals and determine if there was a more realistic approach available for the 210 parcel.


Councilmember Etten spoke in support of an appraisal on the 210 parcel, but perhaps not on the 196 parcel at the lower price and already examined a part of the HRP.  However, Councilmember Etten noted that a much clearer understanding of their value and the city's potential investment was needed.


Mayor Roe stated his willingness to spend public dollars on an appraisal to understand where the parcels are at.  While not saying this was his approval to staff to proceed with acquisition, Mayor Roe did recognize the opportunity since they were on the market now and if the city wanted to lock them up for redevelopment, it would be better to do so.


Without objection, Mayor Roe requested that staff order an appraisal on the 210 parcel.


In the interest of time, Mayor Roe suggested moving on to discuss the ICO site and perhaps continue this discussion at a future meeting.


1681 Rice Street (former ICO Site)

In working with City Planner Thomas Paschke, Ms. Collins advised that the current owner is no longer interested in pursuing this site as another filling station; with current plans for retail under urban design standards pushed up to the corner.  Ms. Collins reported that staff was in the final stages of working out access points with the property owner; and anticipated a considerable amount of improvement on the site.


At the request of Mayor Roe and Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Kelsey noted her understanding that a demolition permit had been pulled.


City Manager Trudgeon noted that the application for demolition created other issues and delays with the Fire Department in removal of the existing underground fuel tanks.


Mayor Roe opined that this still indicated some progress, and expressed his appreciation that the building would be pulled up to the corner and hoped its design would be more compatible with long-term plans versus the situation on Lexington and Larpenteur Avenues with meaningless windows along the building that may follow the letter but not the spirit of the intent.  When those designs come before the City Council, Mayor Roe encouraged his colleagues to be cognizant of that intent.


Prior to her time on the City Council, Councilmember Laliberte recognized the decision for urban design and buildings up to the street lines.  However, Councilmember Laliberte stated she was unsure if she was a huge fan of that option; and while not opposed, expressed concern that those buildings could interfere with sight lines and other issues.


Councilmember Willmus clarified that building forward design was the result of significant discussions in 2008 through 2010, and while it ultimately often made him cringe, he remained willing to provide for some flexibility on proposals presented that helped with area aesthetics.


Mayor Roe closed discussion on SE Roseville for tonight, due to the lateness of the hour; and thanked audience members for staying for the discussion.  Mayor Roe clarified that the purpose of tonight's discussion was not intended as a public hearing, but to make the public aware of City Council thoughts and a preliminary process moving forward.


17.                        City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Trudgeon provided a preview of upcoming agenda items.


18.        Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings


19.        Adjourn

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately10:46 p.m.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.