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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

April 25, 2016


1.      Roll Call

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


2.       Pledge of Allegiance


3.      Approve Agenda

At the request of Councilmember, Willmus, a brief discussion was held regarding moving Agenda Item 14.e ahead on the agenda.  Without objection, Mayor Roe duly noted that this requested change would be considered as the meeting progressed depending on the timing for remaining items and the number of audience members in attendance for this and other items on tonight's agenda.


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


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


                             Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


4.       Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.  No one appeared to speak.


6.       Recognitions, Donations and Communications


a.       Recognition of Commissioners for their Service to the City of Roseville

Mayor Roe recognized those advisory commissioners leaving and presented certificates of appreciation to retiring commissioners in the audience tonight, with others to be disseminated by staff.  Present to be recognized at tonight's meeting were: Todd Anderson from the Ethics Commission; Dwayne Stenlund from the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission; and David Singleton from the Human Rights Commission.


b.            Introduction of New Firefighters

Fire Chief Tim O'Neill intruded two new Battalion Chiefs: Neil Solstrom and Sam Baker, and two new firefighters: Erin Stone and Dave Doucut.  Each firefighter provided a brief biography as way of introduction to the City Council and Roseville community.


c.            Police Officers' Memorial Day/National Police Week

Mayor Roe read a proclamation recognizing May 15, 2016 as Police Officers' Memorial Day and May 15 - 21, 2016 as National Police Week, honoring and commemorating law enforcement services and their faithful and loyal devotion to their responsibilities rendering dedicated service to their communities.


Etten moved, McGehee seconded, proclaiming May 15, 2016 as Police Officers' Memorial Day and May 15 - 21, 2016 as National Police Week in Roseville, MN.


                                      Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


5.         Council and City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements

Mayor Roe announced the Police Department's collection of supplies for the Harriet Tubman Center through "April Showers for Babies in Need" through April of 2016.


Councilmember Laliberte reported that she had recently taken part in a conference for healthcare providers at which she had highlighted the recent Roseville Advanced Care Planning seminars.


Councilmember Laliberte announced the next meeting for the Cedarholm Golf Course Task Force.


City Manager Trudgeon reported that purchase of the Owasso Fields had been finalized last week, with the city now owning the property and working with United Properties as they proceed with development of their adjacent project.


City Manager Trudgeon reported that the Dale Street Project was progressing well with a number of units up along Cope Avenue, and more in process.


City Manager Trudgeon reported that the former ICO station at the intersection of Larpenteur Avenue and Rice Street was currently being demolished, and much appreciated by residents in that area and of benefit for the entire community.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that a new building would be constructed soon.


City Manager Trudgeon announced the upcoming meeting related to the Karen Culture, hosted by the Lake McCarrons Neighborhood Association.


For the benefit of the City Council, City Manager Trudgeon announced that the League of Minnesota Cities summer conference would be held in St. Paul on June 14 - 17, with additional information from staff to follow soon for registration.


City Manager Trudgeon reported that last week, he and Mayor Roe and Councilmember Laliberte had attended the annual meeting for Metro Cities.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that Councilmember Laliberte had been elected to their Board of Directors, and congratulated her on this distinction.


Mayor Roe clarified an error in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, reassuring the public that Mayor Roe, not Mayor "Moe" as reported was still at the helm as mayor of the City of Roseville.


Mayor Roe recognized the arrival of retiring Human Rights Commissioner Kaying Thao and recognized her with a certificate of appreciation for her service to the City of Roseville.


7.      Approve Minutes

Comments and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight's meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council packet.


a.            Approve April 11, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the April 11, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended, reserving the right to provide staff with additional minor typographical or grammatical revisions as time allows for a more detailed review.



·         Page 3, Lines 6-7 (Laliberte)

Correct to read: "be held with the Minnesota Ethnic Council [and all metropolitan school districts and watershed districts]."

·         Page 9, Line 8 (McGehee)

Councilmember McGehee asked that staff double check the references to lines in the draft PUD document.

·         Page 24, Lines 4 - 6 (Willmus)

Correct to read: "Councilmember Willmus suggested an amendment [to the] [with] specific installation location to accommodate interference with [the] underground cable [and addressing how the applicant could install the footings if the needed to sever those footings]."

·         Page 27, Line 13 (City Manager Trudgeon)

By previous City Council request, City Manager Trudgeon reported that he had reviewed the meeting tape and clarified that Condition a was accurate with the exception of striking {as needed} from the condition.


                   Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Approve April 18, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the April 18, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended, reserving the right to provide staff with additional minor typographical or grammatical revisions as time allows for a more detailed review.



·         Page 6, Line 24 (Willmus)

Typographical correction last word of sentence: "it" rather than "sit."

·         Page 27, Lines 1-2 (Willmus)

Correct to read: "[that tax base] [tax receipts] to flow outside the city to a greater extent than they even currently do.  Councilmember Willmus sought a broader discussion with Ramsey County Board members [at] [as] to the"


                   Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


8.       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, April 25, 2016.


a.            Approve Payments

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

ACH Payments


81057 - 81187









                              Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


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

Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as noted in the RCA dated April 25, 2016, and Attachment A entitled, "2016 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," dated March 31, 2016.


                             Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


c.            Municipal State Aid System Revisions

For the benefit of the listening audience, Mayor Roe clarified, with confirmation by staff, that the mileage calculations would benefit state funding at this time, and increase MSA allocation to the City.


Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11314 (Attachment A) entitled, "Approving the Revocation and Designation of Municipal State Aid (MSA) Roads."


                             Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


9.         Consider Items Removed from Consent


d.          Acceptance of a Conservation Partners Legacy Grant for Langton Lake Park

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA and related attachments, April 25, 2016.


Councilmember McGehee stated she was supportive of the grant.  However, Councilmember McGehee addressed several issues of concern to her, including asking City Manager Trudgeon to bring to the Parks and Recreation Department's attention that while the city seems to be relying heavily on use of the University of Northwestern for scientific assistance, since much of the work is ecological in nature, there was also similar expertise available through a department at the University of Minnesota, and suggested broadening the city's use of resources.  Also, Councilmember McGehee noted that the city had done some water restoration adjacent to Langton Lake on the west side, but not on the east side of the park, given the city parking lot(s) and playground shed directly into the lake, suggesting the city look into that on its own.


As a volunteer for collection through the Metropolitan Cities, Councilmember McGehee reported that she attempted her first sampling of the season yesterday, and found the water to be extremely cloudy throughout the entire lake, and further reported she therefore been unable to pump a full sampling through the filter.  Councilmember McGehee advised that she had alerted the Rice Creek Watershed District of the situation, and noted she was not sure what the results of or impact to the standard measuring tool, the Sechi disk, would mean, but had asked the watershed district to look into it.


McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, authorizing acceptance of a Conservation Legacy Partners (CLP) Grant from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in the amount of $95,415 for Langton Lake Phase II Buffer Habitat Restoration with a city cash match of $12,000 to be funded from the Parks and Recreation Park Renewal Program (PMP).


                             Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


10.      General Ordinances for Adoption


11.      Presentations


a.            Roseville Visitors Association (RVA) Update

Chief Executive Officer Julie Wearn and Director of Sales and Marketing Carrie Ford were present for the RVA's annual report to the City Council and public.  Provided as bench handouts were a copy of their slide presentation and financial statements ending December 31, 2015.


Ms. Wearn highlighted the RVA's recognition as "2015 Best of Award" by Minnesota Meetings and Events Magazine for Best Convention - Visitors Bureau for town/area in the population range of 25,000 to 80,000.


Mayor Roe thanked Ms. Wearn for the informative presentation.


Councilmember Laliberte asked about the slide presenting goals achieved and exceeded and sought additional information as to how the locations/events were chosen for RVA participation, this year the Cities of Madison, WI and Duluth, MN.


Ms. Ford responded that the RVA used Google analytics for areas showing the most online traffic to the RVA website; and determined those with family/leisure shows (e.g. kids and women's expos as they proved most beneficial) and selected those destinations accordingly.

Ms. Wearn reported that those destinations were continually reviewed, with the Madison show not proving as beneficial as first indicated, and therefore other destinations would be considered for the next time; with Duluth remaining a fabulous resource for the RVA.


Ms. Ford noted that the RVA used to frequent the Winnipeg show as Canada provides a big market for the Twin Cities; however, with the current exchange rate, that would not be pursued this year.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Ms. Ford reported that the visitor guides were through a cooperative advertising venture with Explore MN Tourism, and by buying into that program, the majority of the guides were distributed within the Midwest (States of WI, IL and IA), with areas chosen at the discretion of the RVA based on tracking interest areas.


Ms. Wearn noted that the cooperative program made it affordable for the RVA to participate as Explore MN bought down the cost through bulk purchases.


With new policies reportedly adopted by the RVA's Board of Directors, Councilmembers Laliberte and Willmus requested a copy be forwarded to the City Council, duly noted by Ms. Wearn.


Mayor Roe clarified that the policies related to investment of only the portion of the RVA reserves that exceed the approximately 6 months of operating costs that by policy must be kept for cash flow purposes, with the idea being that those additional funds could serve as an endowment to provide funding for special projects or efforts by the RVA beyond their standard promotional activities.


On page 5 of the financials presented showing revenues and expenditures, Councilmember Willmus noted a significant uptick in revenues received up to $33,000 and expenses up by approximately $45,000, and asked where those variations came from.


Ms. Wearn reported that the 2015 lodging tax, especially at the newly located County Inn and Suites and Courtyard, were driving those numbers and far outperforming her initial projections.


Ms. Wearn further noted that in the Programs and Services category, more monies were being allocated to marketing and promotion versus travel as a result of the increased lodging tax revenue.


Councilmember Willmus asked Ms. Wearn if she had any additional thoughts on OVALumination.


Ms. Wearn reported that currently, if Friends of the OVAL can sustain the event since it is their major fundraising opportunity, they may choose to continue the event in the future based on their experience in marketing the event this coming year.  Ms. Wearn advised that the RVA's staff of four was unable to sustain the event, since it took all four of their staff to promote, sell and organize the event without being able to see any return on their investment, and therefore no longer feasible for the RVA to continue with.  Ms. Wearn advised that the RVA would continue to assist the Friends of the OVAL with their initial attempts to market the event, and if successful perhaps could generate sufficient funding for a part-time person to take on that promotional work for the Friends of the OVAL.


Councilmember Laliberte expressed her personal congratulations to the RVA on their award; and thanked Ms. Wearn for stepping in to take the lead for the launch event for the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) from former Community Development Director Paul Bilotta who had served as the lead before leaving the City of Roseville.


For those Councilmembers interested, Mayor Roe announced that more detail on expenses was provided in the Audit Report (pages 6 - 7) available from Ms. Wearn.


Mayor Roe thanked Ms. Wearn and Ms. Ford for their attendance, their ongoing efforts on behalf of the Roseville community and hospitality industry, and for tonight's presentation.


10.        Public Hearings and Action Consideration


a.            Public Hearing to Approve/DENY an On-Sale 3.2% Non-Intoxicating Liquor License for HIX Roseville, LLC, d/b/a Holiday Inn Express Roseville, a hotel located at 2715 Long Lake Road

At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Chris Miller-briefly summarized this request as detailed in the RCA, noting that the Holiday Inn had not had such a license in the past, but upon reopening after their remodel, would now like to offer this for their guests.  Mr. Miller reported that staff had reviewed license application materials and found all to be in order, and recommended approval.


Mayor Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 6:52 p.m. with no one appearing for or against.  The applicant was not present at tonight's meeting.


McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, a motion to approve HIX Roseville, LLC's request for an On-Sale 3.2% Non-Intoxicating Liquor License, located at 2715 Long Lake Road for the term January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016, subject to successful background checks

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.     Consider Resolution Approving the Vacation of an Easement for Wheaton Woods Final Plat

For the benefit of the public, Mayor Roe noted this was the first step in considering approval of the Final Plat for this development.


At the request of Mayor Roe, City Engineer Jesse Freihammer briefly summarized this request as detailed in the RCA and attachments.


Mayor Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 6:57 p.m. with no one appearing for or against.


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11315 (Attachment A) entitled, "Approving the Vacation of an Easement Described as the North 60' of the South 478.56" of the SE ¼, SE ¼, SE ¼ of Section 2, Township 20 North, Range 23 West, which Lies Westerly of the East 33' Thereof;" subject to approval of the Final Plat


                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


11.        Budget Items


12.        Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Consider Approval of a Public Improvement Contract for Wheaton Woods Subdivision

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Engineer Freihammer briefly summarized this request as detailed in the RCA and related attachments.


For clarification, Mayor Roe confirmed with Mr. Freihammer that the Tree Preservation Plan was included as an exhibit to the contract for reference only.


Councilmember McGehee stated that, as a more recent project, this included consideration of the current major issues related to recharging aquifers, and suggested that similar to when installing curb and gutter, would a swale behind the curb in city right-of-way retain some water before it got to the street.  Councilmember McGehee opined it seemed a swale would be judicious to retain some of that water ahead of time.


City Engineer Freihammer responded that this proposal includes curb cut raingardens with water flowing into the street and then into infiltration basins.  If the project required construction of the entire boulevard to capture some of that runoff, Mr. Freihammer advised that it would create difficulties in conveying the stormwater without more extensive grading.  In turn, Mr. Freihammer noted that the more extensive grading would then limit the scope for street grading elevations.  Mr. Freihammer advised that if doing the project as suggested by Councilmember McGehee, grading limits would need to be extended out further for minimum slopes and impact more trees and other elements of the project.


Mayor Roe questioned if this could also move project components outside the right-of-way as well, confirmed by City Engineer Freihammer that they could also be impacted.


Councilmember McGehee opined that in this case, no trees would be being saved, and while it may not be an issue for this project, asked that the Public Works Department think about it for future projects, and subsequently for City Council consideration in the future.  Councilmember McGehee noted that opportunities didn't always present themselves for installation raingardens as this project did.


Mayor Roe suggested staff could add this to their list of best management practices (BMP's) for this type of project going forward, duly noted by staff.


No one appeared for public comment on this item.


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the Public Improvement Contract (Attachment A) for Wheaton Woods, subject to approval of the Final Plat.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Consider Approval of the Wheaton Woods Final Plat

At the request of Mayor Roe and as detailed in the RCA, City Planner Thomas provided a status update of the six conditions for approval of the Preliminary Plat, reporting that all six had been met for this specific proposal.  Mr. Paschke advised that staff recommended adoption of the Final Plat.


No one appeared to speak to this item.


Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11316 (RCA Exhibit C) entitled, "A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Wheaton Woods as presented and dated April 18, 2016 (PF 16-003).


For the record and for the benefit of those familiar with this area and the history of this property, Councilmember Willmus reported on his research of the actual ownership of this property within the generations of the Reiling family, of initial concern to him during his review of the application and listed property owners.  Councilmember Willmus advised that he had verified earlier this afternoon with staff a copy of the Title Commitment from Golden Valley Land Company showing ownership of the parcel by Mr. Reiling's son, and not the Reiling Estate.  Councilmember Willmus stated this cleared up any questions on his part that the property may be held in trust, therefore allowing his support of the project going forward.


Councilmember Etten stated that he would not support this Final Plat for LDR-2 designation, based on the same reasoning he expressed during Preliminary Plat discussions, including existing drainage issues before additional impervious surfaces with this proposed project.  Councilmember Etten noted that the homes were billed by the developer as 'step-up" homes, but his observations indicated they were now being marketed in the $500,000 range on smaller lots, creating an entirely different development than originally proposed.


Councilmember Laliberte noted the driveway access for Unit 12 spilling onto Dale Street and questioned if Ramsey County had expressed any concerns with its location so close to the intersection.


City Planner Paschke advised that he didn't have the site plan immediately available, but asked City Engineer Freihammer to respond.


City Engineer Freihammer responded that Ramsey County had reviewed the Plat and found the driveway meets minimum setback requirements.  Mr. Freihammer stated that, during morning or afternoon peak rush hours, there may be some vehicle stacking that blocked the driveway, bur Ramsey County was satisfied that it met minimum setbacks at that threshold.


Mayor Roe clarified as long as the driveway is located at the northern most location on that parcel.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, City Engineer Freihammer confirmed that the applicant was aware they could not deviate on that driveway location.


                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: Etten.


Motion carried.



Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:11 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 7:18 p.m.

c.            Receive Zoning Notification Task Force Report

Planning Commission Chair Michael Boguszewski and City Planner Thomas Paschke were available for presentation of this task force report.


At the request of Mr. Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke provided a brief background of the task force process, with him and former Community Development Director Paul Bilotta serving as staff liaison to the task force.  Mr. Paschke noted that the charge was to review the current zoning notification process and determine if possible modification was indicated for noticing specific applications for public hearings.  From staff's perspective, Mr. Paschke advised that their role was basically in providing the task force with historical data and current processes; and then to work with the task force on items they wanted to implement to create more community engagement and make citizens aware of what was happening in their community.  Mr. Paschke opined that he had found it interesting an enlightening work with the task force; and further opined that the work of the task force provided good recommendations for the City Council's consideration.


Mr. Boguszewski reviewed the priority provided to the task force in 2015 to review the process, and from time to time, review current practices and whether or not it was adequate as outlined in the report (Attachment A).  Mr. Boguszewski provided an overview of the report. Mr. Boguszewski thanked his colleagues on the task force, including Planning Commissioner Jim Daire, and Community Engagement Commission Commissioners Gary Grefenberg and Michelle Manke.


Mayor Roe noted the two basic recommendations of the task force were the inclusion of renters and to extend notification in certain "extraordinary" cases (page 7 of the report).


Mr. Boguszewski concurred, noting there were other tools or methods to consider as part of that recommendation, including signing the property as an option versus mailed or newspaper notice.  Mr. Boguszewski noted this would need further details worked out as to the actual mechanics, but suggested other means were available to achieve the same purpose without necessarily using a mailing and associated costs as such.


Councilmember Willmus noted the long-standing advocacy by Mr. Grefenberg to find ways to get land use notices to renters, recognizing that a recommendation serving that purpose was now actually before the City Council.


Mr. Boguszewski noted that Mr. Grefenberg had served as Defacto Chair of the Task Force, and spent considerable time on the report and did an outstanding job with this Task Force.


Councilmember Willmus thanked Mr. Grefenberg for his efforts with that.


Regarding signage on a development parcel, Councilmember Willmus asked why a major trigger was needed to put forward a sign, no matter what the size was determined to be.


Mr. Paschke responded that the current staff goal is to place signs for all projects requiring public hearing notification; and advised that staff would need to review impacts in-house and bring recommendations back to the City Council for actual projects (e.g. Conditional Use, Planned Unit Development, Rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment) but perhaps not smaller projects such as variances on residential property or those things not rising to that level of notification.  However, before making any detailed recommendations, Mr. Paschke advised that staff would need to work through a policy for City Council consideration for their direction.


Councilmember Willmus expressed his appreciation of staff developing a draft policy to address projects beyond a minor subdivision.


Mr. Paschke suggested a policy for any developments of three of more lots as a minimum trigger for signage.  At the request of Mayor Roe as to signage practices, Mr. Paschke reported that typically 4' x 8' sheets of plywood are used, providing a brief generic summation of the project and contact information for more details, similar to signage used by the Cities of Maplewood and Champlin as examples.


Councilmember Laliberte reported her observation in another city of property signs showing the date of the public hearing and phone information, noting she'd taken a photo of that example for staff's information and offered to forward it.  Councilmember Laliberte suggested additional discussion was needed on the sign information and how they were used to make things clear for the public and to avoid any arbitrary perceptions by the public.


Mr. Paschke agreed that a policy needed to be developed for City Council review and approval.


Councilmember Etten thanked the task force for their completion of this important work, and expressed his appreciation for their inclusion of renters and tenants of commercial buildings.  Regarding the report's reference to adjacency to schools and/or parks, Councilmember Etten questioned what zone area was being recommended for defining adjacency to those uses.


Mr. Boguszewski responded that the task force intended adjacency to refer to across from or adjacent to, or an area with over-average public use.  Mr. Boguszewski opined that the key phrasing was not to say it was required but suggesting a case by case assessment depending on the proposed use.  Mr. Boguszewski noted the concept was if the project was close to places where people congregated, it could affect their use of that area whether or not they resided nearby.


On page 8, letter B, Councilmember Etten noted that the project by project basis was addressed there, but sought clarification as to the meaning of the task force and if certain things automatically required notification efforts moving to that extraordinary level.


Mr. Boguszewski advised that, to this point, the only trigger would be an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), otherwise each case would require human thinking.


Councilmember McGehee opined that, for instance, crushing concrete, was a project that should be considered and would require extraordinary notice.  Councilmember McGehee stated that this community did little with EAW's, and if indicated, they were initiated by citizens versus the city.  Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of the signage as a tool, noting that she had lived in other states and cities where such signage was common practice.  When staff returns with a draft policy, Councilmember McGehee suggested they have a uniform size, noting that she had even seen them used when a new subdivision of home was being constructed, with sketches on the signage providing another visual of the project.  Not to downplay use of the United States Postal Service, but Councilmember McGehee suggested there were other less expensive tools that were just as effective (e.g. working with landlords having a large number of renters or tenants and posting information next to mailboxes or congregate areas versus mailing). Councilmember McGehee suggested the same for tenants in multi-tenant commercial buildings; and since the local newspaper is not as widely distributed as the city would like to see particularly to inform renters, suggested trying to get to those not typically involved whether through signage or use of other tools.


Hearing both the task force presentation and comments of his colleagues tonight, Mayor Roe used the past Twin Lakes project and sitting City Council discussion at that time as an example of an extended notice area.  At that time, Mayor Roe noted that the question became who to notice and when extended notice was required, and how far that notice should extend.  To the extent possible to put guidelines in place through a policy, Mayor Roe opined it would serve the City Council and staff better to understand expectations versus creating potential areas for misperception.  Under that guise, Mayor Roe suggested a more specific policy was indicated, especially in the case by case considerations and criteria for those cases; opining it was important to think about those things proactively.


Mr. Boguszewski noted, as an example, the actual shape of the property and/or the use in a particular neighborhood as it may or may not be defined within certain chunks of geography, could all impact the extended notice area.  Sometimes that could indicate an entire neighborhood should be notified, but Mr. Boguszewski noted there were various levels of complexity from the task force's perspective so they had reverted to the case by case basis.  As neighborhood associations evolve, or with community engagement during the comprehensive plan update process proceed, Mr. Boguszewski opined that this task force report should be considered to be a minimum recommendation from that perspective and subsequently built upon.


Task Force Member Gary Grefenberg arrived at approximately 7:37 p.m. to participate in the discussion.


Interim Community Development Director Kari Collins

Ms. Collins applauded the efforts of the task force and resulting report, noting it addressed something city staff struggled with continually.  However, Ms. Collins asked that some caution be exercised for staff's benefit on the level of subjectivity.  Ms. Collins suggested staff's creation of an attachment to the report outlining a baseline for notification requirements and certain footages for notice unless other variables come into play.  Ms. Collins stated she didn't want to set staff up to fail, since in some cases it may not be evident that a project is unique until after the fact and after the notice has gone out.  Ms. Collins suggested there were a number of unique and creative things that could address various situations, noting the potential for a scantron on the signs for the public to use to get more information.  Ms. Collins advised that staff would discuss some of those options before making subsequent recommendation to the City Council as an attachment to the report and outlining how staff proposed to operate upon direction from the City Council.


Mayor Roe stated the need for a specific resolution and/or ordinance changes adopted by the City Council that would serve to well-memorialize future staffs and City Councils.


Mr. Boguszewski noted the support Mr. Bilotta had for the task force report, but further noted all were note expecting it to serve as the final word, but simply the initial task force recommendations.


Mr. Paschke agreed, opining that the key was for the City Council to receive the task force report and then direct staff to fine-tune the process, including identifying cost estimates for various tools and addressing the criteria for defining extraordinary notification and identifying distances, and other parameters.


Mayor Roe added that the policy discussion also needed to incorporate a public input process.


Mr. Grefenberg stated he thought the task force decision was a conscious one to not include a specific number of feet (e.g. asphalt plant project), but opined that the genius of the recommendations was the inclusion of renters and business lessees.  Citing other examples, Mr. Grefenberg opined that some projects may affect the entire city, and suggested that the Planning Commission was that in a good position, with Planning staff, to review projects for extraordinary notification status and recommending the square footage to be involved.  Mr. Grefenberg reminded Mayor Roe that this was one initially put forth by Mayor Roe approximately eight years ago, and was now coming to fruition.  Noting other cities using notification zones beyond state requirements depending on potential concerns, Mr. Grefenberg opined that the Planning Commission versus city staff should be the decision-point for who received notification.


Mayor Roe clarified that he was not suggesting that the city leave it to staff to determine the policy, but simply to initiate the discussion process, subsequently involving the Planning Commission and public comment in that process.  Mayor Roe further clarified for the benefit of Mr. Grefenberg that the Planning Commission didn't get development proposals before them before they had already been noticed; and thus the need for a policy in place recognizing unique situations, while setting a base line to mitigate second-guessing in the future.  Mayor Roe noted that no one wanted to be put in that situation.


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, receipt of the Zoning Notification Task Force Report; and directing staff to prepare a draft policy for City Council review including budget implications for the various methodologies; processes; and addressing criteria for defining extraordinary notifications and identifying distances and other parameters.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Paschke estimated that staff could have an initial draft prepared for the City Council sometime in May.


For the record, Mr. Grefenberg noted his criticism of staff at times in the past, but expressed his personal appreciation of the honest and sincere cooperation and leadership provided by Mr. Paschke and Mr. Bilotta.  Mr. Grefenberg opined that this was collaboration and served to illustrate the realization of a City Council goal to encourage citizen involvement.  Mr. Grefenberg also thanked the other two members of the task force, Commissioners Manke and Daire.


Public Comment

Lisa McCormick, Wheeler Street

Ms. McCormick expressed her pleasure to see this report come forward, noting she had initially raised issues when the current Twin Lakes discussions had started; and personally thanked the Task Force for their work in providing these recommendations.


With apologies for not bringing this to the attention of the Task Force before, Ms. McCormick noted that they had said they had noticed her of the meetings, but suggested that notification was one area needing improvement, as she had not received any such notification.


Specific to the signage of development lots, Ms. McCormick noted that she found the sign currently posted for the Twin Lakes Parkway extension project difficult to read.   When it was first installed, Ms. McCormick stated her difficulty in understanding what it actually was, and suggested directing people's attention somehow by putting an article in the City News newsletter about what such signs meant so they would immediately pay more attention to them.


Regarding other options for notification, Ms. McCormick suggested dropping them into


As she had brought to someone's attention in the past, in addition to a project page, Ms. McCormick suggested an early email notification access for those interested, such as currently being used for RFP's.  Ms. McCormick opined that zoning applications may be applicable through that system as well, noting that the City of St. Paul did so, as she was on their notification list, and they provided the entire application.  Ms. McCormick suggested this would relieve some of the burden on staff as well.  Ms. McCormick further suggested that the Community Development Department's web page have a dedicated page for definitions of an actual project (e.g. rezoning, etc.).


Ms. McCormick advised that, with the closure of Fairview Avenue, there was a notice, but when she contacted Public Works Director Mark Culver and attempted to reach out to him, she only found signs anticipating preparation for the project.  Ms. McCormick opined that it would have been helpful to have a week's notice of traffic closures; and suggested this type of notice could also apply in those cases.


In response to Ms. McCormick's concern about Task Force meetings not being noticed, Mr. Boguszewski clarified that they had been very intentional and careful to notice their meetings, and expressed his assurance that they had been duly noticed.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Without objection and at urging of Councilmember Willmus, given the full audience attending for the Item, Item 14.e was moved forward on tonight's agenda at this time.


e.            Consider Approval of an Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map to Re-Designate Property from LR to HR and a Corresponding Rezoning from LDR-1 District to HDR-1 District

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Planner Thomas Paschke presented this request, as detailed in the RCA, clarifying this request before the City Council for their consideration, for a proposed comprehensive plan amendment (CPA).  Mr. Paschke noted this was a prerequisite to any subsequent action (e.g. rezoning), and was seeking to re-designate the property from Low Residential to High Residential, and a corresponding future rezoning from LDR-1 (Low Density Residential -1 District to High Density Residential-1 District).  Mr. Paschke noted the delay in Planning Commission recommendation due to their request that the developer provide a traffic study, included in tonight's material, and subsequent 6/1 approval by the Planning Commission for re-designation from LR to HR, as also recommended by staff.  Mr. Paschke referenced the draft resolution also included in meeting packet materials.


Councilmember Willmus asked, if the property was rezoned to HDR, was their anything in current city code binding the developer and/or property owner to build this specific project.


Mr. Paschke responded that there was not specific to rezoning other than the limits of current city code.  Mr. Paschke advised that this was part of the rationale in seeking three separate proposals for the traffic study.  However, Mr. Paschke noted that the stated intent of the developer and owner was one of a trust factor as it related to the rezoning.


As previously stated by Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd, Councilmember Etten noted that, if the City Council approves this amendment, nothing would come before the City Council for further review, such as approval of final platting.


Mr. Paschke agreed with that summation, noting that the proposed development would become a permitted use as with other permitted uses, and the City Council would have no additional touches on how the site was laid out beyond requirements that they achieve all HDR-1 zoning and design standards, with no additional conditions applicable on the development proposal.


Mayor Roe clarified that any necessary re-platting or property divisions would involve another process or if they came forward with a PUD or Variance request.  Absent those situations, and if they met current code standards, Mayor Roe clarified and reiterated that staff would proceed with administrative approvals for building permits and other requirements of the development at that point.


Mr. Paschke affirmed that assessment.


Prior to opening up the meeting for public comment, Mayor Roe advised the audience that the City Council was in receipt of emails up to 5:37 p.m.  Mayor Roe further noted that individual City Councilmembers were also in receipt of prior emails, in addition to those included in the meeting packet, allowing their prior review of those comments.  Further, Mayor Roe noted that the City Council had before them minutes of the January and April 2016 Planning Commission meetings. 


Mayor Roe advised that he was not stating this to dissuade public comment on this issue; but in the interest of time respectfully requested that those having already expressed their thoughts could be assured that the information is available for the City Council, and that it would be taken into account without the need to reiterate their testimony. 


Before receiving public comment, Mayor Roe offered the applicant representative an opportunity to speak.

Applicant Representatives

Jamey Bowe, River Valley Architects

Mr. Bowe advised they were available to address any operational questions specific to the project.  Mr. Bowe noted this type of proposed project had been done and done well in other metropolitan communities.  Mr. Bowe confirmed that the intent was to construct a home-like facility on this property, upon approval by the City Council.  Mr. Bowe opined he saw no reason the project would not go through and was cognizant of the City Council's concern that there was no written guarantee in place other than zoning code requirements.


Dan Paulson, Developer

With a zoning change, Mr. Paulson noted concerns of neighbors with the potential for a huge townhome development or something other than this proposed project.  As previously brought up by city staff, Mr. Paulson noted that their development was limited to current city zoning requirements, and with the 50 square foot units proposed, they were intended for assisted living or memory care, and were not suitable for any conversion to a condominium development or other use, as that would only accommodate a potential of 27 units and not financially feasible.


Jon Bauer, Developer

Mr. Bauer noted that their development team had put considerable time and effort into this proposal, in addition to meeting on more than one occasion with neighbors.  As a result of those meetings and concerns expressed by neighbors, Mr. Bauer noted revisions for design elements to place the building for the least impact to the neighborhood.  Mr. Bauer reiterated that their development team was trying to be good neighbors; and if the economics should change twenty-five years from now, as noted by Mr. Paulson, only 27-units could be facilitated on this site.  In response to other concerns expressed by neighbors, Mr. Bauer advised that they had provided underground parking and would meet or exceed the extensive landscaping and planting requirements of city code.  Mr. Bauer reiterated their development team's great track record in other metropolitan communities, and expressed their interest in being a neighbor in Roseville.


In response to a question of the public specific to the traffic study and its validity based on who paid for it, Mayor Roe clarified that the city had requested that the consultant provide the study, it had been ordered by the city, and subsequently paid for by the developer.


To further clarify the requested action before the City Council tonight, and in response to process concerns raised by Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe reviewed the planning levels undertaken by the city.  As with any other zoning issue coming before the City Council, as noted by Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe, noted that unless there is a zoning change requested by an applicant/developer, the City Council would have no weigh in for a permitted use in that particular zoning designation. 


However, Mayor Roe noted that this is a requested comprehensive plan amendment, one of two levels of planning done by a municipality such as Roseville, with the comprehensive plan serving as a strategic planning document and updated by the city every ten years, and approved by the Metropolitan Council.  Mayor Roe noted that the City of Roseville, along with most other metropolitan communities, would be updating their current comprehensive plan starting in 2017 for the next decade.


For this specific requested amendment, Mayor Roe noted that this is the first step, and if the City Council approves a change in comprehensive plan designation, and the Metropolitan Council approves that designation, the request would then return to the City Council for consideration of rezoning the parcel.  Mayor Roe sought to provide a clear distinction for the public, and reiterated the distinctions in terminology between comprehensive plan designation and zoning.


Councilmember Laliberte asked that Community Development Department staff provide a preface related to the notification process so the public clearly understood the stages in that process.


In response, Mr. Paschke advised that there had been two notifications: the first for the original Planning Commission held at the Planning Commission level, following the developer open house(s) related to the project; with both notices sent to all property owners of record within 500' of the subject parcel.


While staff did not send out the developer open house notices in 2015, Mr. Paschke advised that they had provided the mailing list of those same property owners of record within that 500' area, and was unsure if one or more notices were sent by the developer before and after the traffic study was completed when the project returned to the Planning Commission. However, Mr. Paschke noted that two public hearing notices for the project have been confirmed by and sent by staff, in addition to one or more open house notices provided by the developer.


Regarding public concern expressed that no notice had been sent out for tonight's meeting, Mayor Roe clarified that by law and how the city operates, is that the official public hearing is held at the Planning Commission level, at which state-mandates notification is provided at that 500' distance and 10 days in advance of that public hearing.

Public Comment

In addition to the written comments included in the agenda packet, additional written comments received via email and after dissemination of the meeting packet, and all in opposition, were received from the following residents, and provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Marietta Booth, 2230 Midland Grove Road #203; Kathleen Hartmark and Kjell D. Hartmark, 2200 Midland Grove Road #206; Linda Hegg, 2230 Midland Grove Road #308; Florence Holmsten, 2240 Midland Grove Road #107; Vijay Pothapragada and Satya Tata, Midland Grove, 2250 Midland Grove Road #105; Vivian Ramalingam, 2182 Acorn Road; Roxanne Roeller, 220 Midland Grove Road #302; Kristine Talley, 2025Midland Grove Condominiums; and Kathleen Turner, 2250 Midland Grove Road.


Vijay Pothapragada, 2250 Midland Grove

For the record, attached hereto and made a part hereof, Mr. Pothapragada presented a petition with 105 signatures in opposition, stating: "We the residents and/or owners of Midland Grove, strongly oppose a change in the Zoning Code to High Density, to allow the construction of the 54-unit "commercial" Gracewood Assisted Living Facility, or any other 54-unit Projects at 2025 County Road B.  We are open to considering other reasonable ideas."  In response to a question about the process, Mayor Roe asked Mr. Pothapragada to submit the petition to City Manager Trudgeon; at which time Mr. Trudgeon provided copies for individual Councilmembers and for the public copy in the Council Chambers.


Rick Poeschl, 2220 Midland Grove Road, #111

(Written Comments Submitted)

As per written notice, Mr. Poeschl expressed his opposition to this project, reviewing the character of the neighborhood versus this "commercial" building; as well as potential decreases in property values, additional traffic and safety issues, and aesthetic degradation for his view as a result of this project.


Mike Gregory, 1945 Sharondale Avenue

Mr. Gregory reviewed his perception of the neighborhood of 56 single-family homes, and concerns in setting a precedent with this "commercial" building along County Road B and Cleveland Avenue and what it could prompt going forward.  Mr. Gregory advised that he was just noticed by a neighborhood flyer last Friday regarding tonight's meeting; but spoke in opposition to the project, opining there was already sufficient HDR zoning in Roseville and other locations for this type of project could be found other than in his neighborhood.  Mr. Gregory agreed with the previous speaker and voiced his concerns about impacts to speed issues frequently already needing enforcement by the Roseville Police Department.  As a Roseville business owner as well, Mr. Gregory opined the city was trading off profitability for the developer while sacrificing and negatively impacting the residential neighborhood.


Fred Christianson, 2220 Midland Grove Road

As a long-term resident of Roseville, Mr. Christianson provided a history of this subject parcel as a farmstead, noting his property was immediately south of the parcel.  When expressing his concerns to the Planning Commission regarding the methodology used for the traffic study, Mr. Christianson reported that they didn't provide data or monitor traffic over a twenty-four hour period as they were supposed to do, but had only sampled it.  Mr. Christianson expressed ongoing concerns with the accuracy or validity of that type of study.  Mr. Christianson addressed his concerns for the safety of children at the Midland Grove complex getting to and from buses, with parents frequently parking on both sides of Midland Grove Road waiting to pick up of drop off those children; and vehicles, including semi-trucks, frequently making wrong turns into the Road and with limited turnaround space available, creating yet another barrier between traffic lanes.  Mr. Christianson also noted his concerns with this proposed project for ambulances, visitors or delivery traffic with this type of operation and needs of the residents in the facility, in addition employee shifts.  Mr. Christianson opined it would be a terrible mistake to change the code; stating his opposition to this type of project.


Cynthia Albing, 2020 County Road B

Ms. Albing stated her objection to the proposed zoning change.  Ms. Albing referenced her family's participation in 1998 of a Roseville-sponsored program for rehabilitating their home b adding a second story and addition.  At that time, after a lot of consideration knowing of the empty corner lot across the street, Ms. Albing advised that they decided to reinvest in their home.  Since the neighborhood was zoned residential, Ms. Albing advised that they never considered it would be zoned any other than that, and if so would have never expended money for the remodel.  Ms. Albing expressed concern that this proposed project is even being seriously considered, and urged Councilmembers to vote against this zoning designation.


Kathleen Turner, 2250 Midland Grove Road.

(Written Comments Submitted)

Ms. Turner provided a personal history of for her selection of this neighborhood to live in due to its character.  Ms. Turner shared concerns expressed related to safety, apparent errors in the traffic study, and potential loss of property values.  Ms. Turner asked that the City take a closer look; and stated she was not opposed to retaining current zoning designation and subdivision of the parcel, but asked that the city preserve the park-like nature of the area.


Ward Nefsted, 2240 Midland Grove Road, #103

As a faculty member at the University of Minnesota, with expertise in appraisals and property valuations, Mr. Nefsted stated that studies clearly show that when zoning changes, property values are impacted.  Mr. Nefsted reviewed the "highest and best use" considerations and process used by appraisers, and provided his personal example as an owner of investment property in Ramsey, MN.    Mr. Nefsted stated there was a direct impact on zoning and property values.  Mr. Nefsted noted that there were a considerable number of residents in this neighborhood in retirement or close to retirement, without a generous salary, and depending on their property value as part of that retirement package.  Since this is such a fragile economic group, Mr. Nefsted cautioned the City Council to be attentive to that and impacts of their decision-making on that group of residents.  Mr. Nefsted reiterated the traffic discussion, whether for retired or working residents in the area, and cited an example he'd witnessed last winter and intervention of several to correct a semi that had mistakenly turned on to Midland Grove Road, blocking traffic for some time.  Mr. Nefsted agreed that the road was very narrow, and expressed concern even with construction vehicles; and spoke against rezoning for the reasons stated.


Joyce Theilen, 2210 Midland Grove Road, #203

Ms. Theilen agreed with previous speakers, and conversations held at the Planning Commission meeting related to traffic and safety concerns.  Ms. Theilen also addressed the previous proposal for this parcel nine years ago, to which she also objected based on the property itself, and potential drainage issues from development of such density on this adjacent property.  Ms. Theilen reviewed the considerable drainage issues for Midland Grove Condominiums, and their expenditure to-date in excess of $1 million to keep water from frequently seeping into their basement garages.  Ms. Theilen opined that the area could not stand to have any more HD development; and when she had spoken to state representatives nine years ago, they admitted allowing Midland Grove to be constructed was a mistake due to ongoing drainage issues.  Ms. Theilen asked the City Council to consider those concerns; and expressed her definite opposition to any more HD zoning in that area.


Kevin Schultz, 2250 Midland Grove Road, #106

As a resident in this area for over thirty years, Mr. Schultz opined that it was a wonderful place to live.  Mr. Schultz stated his big objection to this whole project is the aspect of rezoning; opining that the property could easily be sold at a profit for construction of single-family homes with no rezoning needed versus the complaints to-date about the proposed building.


Steve Enzler, 1995 West County Road B

Mr. Ensler provided a background and history of his property, noting he was a victim of the old PUD process, and had purchased their single-family zoned home, assuming it was that.  Unfortunately, Mr. Ensler noted they later learned the necessity of understanding definitions and terms, having experienced rezoning of properties to meet comprehensive plan designation to meet state requirements, such as they were now acutely aware given their experience.  Because of that process, Mr. Ensler noted they were not designated MDR as a result of development of the Ferriswood property directly behind their property; and due to the topography challenges of their parcel and current zoning, it has severely impacted their right to enjoyment of their property.  Mr. Ensler complimented this City Council and the City for fixing that problem, even though it will inescapably come up again.


Specific to this property, Mr. Ensler stated he would personally have a problem with a multi-stage jump in zoning, and opined it was problematic as well as sending a bad message.  Mr. Ensler further opined that the entire comprehensive plan process and any changes should be done through a planned process receiving neighborhood input before moving forward.  Given the plan provided by the developer for this proposed project, and the lack of setback for adjacent single-family homes, Mr. Ensler noted it did have transfer to his parcel.  While recognizing the property owner's attempt to maximize the property value, Mr. Ensler asked if that should be at the expense of neighboring properties.


Between this proposal and that submitted nine years ago and the process in place then and now, Mr. Ensler recognized the advantages of the project introduced under the new PUD process.  However, Mr. Ensler, while wishing his neighbor success, expressed hope that he could do so while at the same time blending his development into existing properties of different densities.  Mr. Ensler noted that the neighborhood already had HDR, MDR and single-family options, and spoke in support of retaining that harmony.  Mr. Ensler offered his commitment to helping the property owner achieve that harmony; but admitted there is neighborhood fatigue in evidence, with many residents very upset, some more accepting that this is the lesser of two evils.  However, Mr. Ensler stated this isn't how residents wanted to live, and suggested finding a solution for all involved.


Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane

Mr. Grefenberg referenced the comments made by Mr. Ensler.  Mr. Grefenberg noted the city is set to begin a new comprehensive plan update process, which he considered as a contract between city officials and residents.  Mr. Grefenberg opined that to consider an amendment to the current comprehensive plan designation from LR to HR because of a developer, would simply remove any eagerness of citizens to work on that new comprehensive plan if it could so easily be overruled.  Mr. Grefenberg opined that the integrity of the comprehensive plan was more valuable than any profit that may accrue to the city from this development.


Mr. Grefenberg opined that it was hard to get the residents in this neighborhood to believe the city was concerned about them; or that there was any control for those already living here versus those who want to come in and make a profit.  For the sake of the comprehensive plan, Mr. Grefenberg reiterated that this request should be rejected, unless the city wanted to emphasize the futility of the process and erode the community's trust.


Mr. Grefenberg reviewed his concerns with particular parts of the process based on his attendance at last fall's open house and his understanding that the developer was committed to complying with new rules established by the Planning Commission to send all those attending the open house a copy of their meeting notes or summary prior to submitting them to the city.  Mr. Grefenberg asked Mr. Paschke why the procedure had not been followed and a copy of the developer's report provided to attendees.


Mr. Grefenberg opined that there was a higher and best use for this land, noting that this whole area of Roseville was without a community park or recreation center, even though there was money in the city coffers that had been organized for by neighbors for facilitating it.  With this parcel originally serving as an orchard with mature trees and a topography allowing for privacy, Mr. Grefenberg questioned why the city wouldn't consider using funds for its purchase.  Mr. Grefenberg further opined that with the current density of the neighborhood, it was more important to provide recreational opportunities for the neighborhood, and in conjunction with the Midland Grove complex, it would be a nice area for a park building as well as escaping further HD in the neighborhood. 


Mr. Grefenberg noted that nine years ago, the City Council rejected a similar project, and stated he could see no reason to redo the comprehensive plan at this point.  Mr. Grefenberg stated his agreement with Planning Commissioner Shannon Cunningham as noted in the meeting minutes.


Mr. Grefenberg clarified that he was speaking on his own behalf and not as a member of any city advisory commissions.


Vijay Pothapragada, 2250 Midland Grove

(Written Comments Submitted)

Mr. Pothapragada expressed his personal strong opposition to this request, as well as that represented on the petition as submitted and comment heard tonight.  Mr. Pothapragada expressed appreciation to the City Council for their responsiveness and efforts at communication with the neighborhood.


Jim Wright, 2210 Midland Grove Road

Mr. Wright reviewed the negative impacts this proposed project would have on him personally and as a resident on the first floor, corner unit looking directly at this proposed facility.  Of special concern to him Mr. Wright stated was how many stories the facility would be; and how the traffic study was done and its validity.  Mr. Wright suggested immediate installation of a "No U-Turn" sign at the entrance to Midland Grove Road.  Mr. Wright addressed his concerns for the safety of younger families and their children in the area, especially with the s curve and narrow road, and "No Parking" signs on the east side of the road and no signage on the other side at all. 


Mr. Wright noted comments made by the Planning Commission Chair at their meeting, also apparently a member of the School Board, related to children accessing the school bus by walking out to County Road B, and noted for approximately two weeks, the school bus had used Midland Grove's parking lot for the children's pickups and drop offs. Mr. Wright expressed additional concern for their safety with the possibility of having to walk through a construction area further complicating their safety.  Mr. Wright noted cars parking on both sides of the road every day now, with cars driving around or between those vehicles, creating additional problems for those children.  Mr. Wright opined that developers would have to agree there would be more negative impacts especially with the hill and speeds and right turns intended at Cleveland Avenue but blocking vehicles coming out of Midland Grove Road, signaling too soon.


Unless these problems and concerns can be addressed, Mr. Wright stated his opposition to this request.


Dave Sellergren, President, Ferriswood Condominium Association, 2191 Ferris Lane

(Written Comments Submitted)

Mr. Sellergren referenced the October 2015 letter from him expressing the concerns of the Board; primarily related to how the unique quality of that particular site would be preserved with this type of development, especially with the challenges with drainage, trees, and topography.  Without knowing the ultimate development, Mr. Sellergren stated the Board remained opposed.  If the developer and city staff could lock in a plan, Mr. Sellergren opined that some of the fears and concerns would go away, while admitting not all of them would be alleviated. 


Etten moved to close public comment at this time; with Mayor Roe ruling the motion failed for lack of a second.  However, Mayor Roe stated that he would allow for one more comment, and reiterated that he was not attempting to restrict the freedom to speak, but noted that the many of the comments already heard had been addressed in emails and reviewed in previous testimony, and tonight's testimony was consistent with previous information provided.


Richard Elliott, 2181 Ferris Lane (Twinhome directly at the NE corner)

(Written Comments Submitted)

Mr. Elliott stated he was speaking for himself personally as well as with permission of his next door neighbor who was out of town today, and even closer to this parcel.  As a professor and former dean at the University of Northwestern in Roseville, Mr. Elliott reviewed his rationale for locating in Roseville and specifically in this neighborhood with the attraction to this low-density neighborhood and beautiful views. While it may have been a mistake to construct Midland Grove Condominiums, Mr. Elliott opined they had done a good job in landscaping that area, and even though it was a multi-story building, there was a buffer around it and underground parking reduced traffic flow for those surrounding it.  Even though it was a HD property, Mr. Elliott opined that it was beautiful. While struck with the low density of the area surrounding Midland Grove Condominiums, and with MDR designation for Ferriswood, and single-family homes to the south and west, Mr. Elliott opined that it seemed strange to him from the Planning Commission's conversations that this property would jump to HDR simply because of the HDR designation of Midland Grove, especially when the plat is arranged differently.  As a close neighbor, Mr. Elliott expressed no grave concerns with the development, but opined MDR would be far more appropriate than LDR to surrounding properties.


Subject Property Owner, Andy Weyer, 2025 County Road B

Mr. Weyer opined that a lot of things said are opinions, but not always based in the reality of today.  Mr. Weyer stated that he had held multiple walkthroughs of his property, and continued to invite the City Council or neighbors to view the property with him to see the actual plans.  Mr. Weyer advised that this development was not the same plan submitted nine years ago, nor was he seeking a PUD or setback variances, and the plans were all proposed within the perimeter of the property as currently fenced as indicated in the actual schematic and layout of a small parking lot and access points.  Mr. Weyer stated his desire to have people get the feel of the property's and project's dimensions and setbacks, including topography and water drainage issues.  Mr. Weyer noted that those taking him up on his invitation to tour the parcel end up realizing the site is bigger than they originally thought, and had assurances that there would be no drainage from this parcel to others in the neighborhood.  As for lighting from the site, Mr. Weyer noted berming is intended to shield those lights from hitting other buildings, as taken into consideration by the developers in response to neighbor concerns.  Mr. Weyer clarified that the reason they had sought comprehensive plan amendment before rezoning was based on the city's process.


Mr. Weyer provided a history of this family property, opining the family worked the land, now it was time for the land to work for the family.  Mr. Weyer noted that a previous proposal for 16 - 17 single-family homes, as mentioned by some speakers tonight, had actually resulted in a purchase agreement in place and in the design phases for the project when it was found to be unfeasible to bring before the city, thus necessitating rescinding public notice.  Then, Mr. Weyer stated, he started working through the process again to address potential concerns of neighbors.  Mr. Weyer noted that this particular developer is in the business of doing this type of project.


Mr. Weyer spoke respectfully of those opinions expressed and the formal petition, but reiterated the actual plans for the parcel, attempting to alleviate any unknowns for those expressing concern, while recognizing that the project isn't part of this comprehensive plan amendment or subsequent rezoning request as such.  Mr. Weyer asked that everyone be aware of the reality and challenges of developing this parcel, reviewing the history of the last project's attempt, emphasizing the apparent clerical zoning error in identifying the parcel as HDR when it was intended to be stated as LDR.


After a history of nine years in attempting to develop this parcel, Mr. Weyer advised that he wasn't going to return now without a viable project, but asked that he be able to move on the sale of this property to this developer and move on.  Mr. Weyer opined that he and his family had been good stewards of the land, and further opined this was a good plan for development of the parcel.


Mr. Weyer noted the importance of the City Council's consideration of this request and thanked them for their consideration.


Mayor Roe closed public comment at this time, and addressed several of the questions raised.


In response to identifying this use as "commercial," Mayor Roe clarified that this is a residential use as per city code, and the requested comprehensive plan amendment was for one type of residential use to a denser type of residential use.


While the developer may be under no obligation to construct this proposed project on the site based on this comprehensive plan amendment as some expressed concern given the unknowns at this point, Mayor Roe noted that there were still a number of requirements in city code that a developer would need to comply with (e.g. tree preservation, stormwater management updated since construction of the Midland Grove project, maximum height in HDR-1 designations at 65', lighting standards through landscaping berms, etc.).  Mayor Roe assured the public that those standards were in place no matter what was done on the parcel, whether single-family or HDR and a project would be required to meet the requirements of that designated zone.  Mayor Roe noted that these design standards and code requirements were specifically intended to address impacts and protect neighbors, while allowing development without every project needing to be approved by the City Council at each step.


Not being a professional traffic engineer, Mayor Roe deferred to the engineer's professional expertise regarding the methodology of the traffic study.


Regarding a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Mayor Roe noted that current PUD ordinance in place does not allow a project to go forward with a use other than one permitted within the underlying zoning designation, still requiring a comprehensive plan amendment and subsequent zoning change to HDR.  Mayor Roe suggested that the former PUD parameters and process had proven problematic, thus the city's rationale in revising it.


Mayor Roe noted that the comprehensive plan cannot be easily overruled, and was intentionally protected in state law and required a 4/5 vote of the City Council.


Regarding attendees of the open house and their receipt of meeting notes from the developer, Mayor Roe stated he would leave that follow-up to be addressed by staff or the developer.


Regarding the number of stories, as previously noted, Mayor Roe advised that in that zone, the maximum height could not exceed 65'. 


Mayor Roe advised that concerns raised related to signage of roads in the development area were a separate subject for follow-up discussion and worth looking into at some point.


Mayor Roe reminded his colleagues that, if the action is to deny the requested comprehensive plan amendment, it would require findings for that denial.


Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. ___ DENYING an amendment to the comprehensive plan land use plan map from Low Density Residential (LDR) to High Density Residential (HDR) at 2025 County Road B (PF16-001).


Councilmember Willmus stated that in accordance with Metropolitan Council guidelines for increasing density in the City of Roseville can be met in other available areas of the community already zoned HDR.


Councilmember Willmus noted comments made by Mr. Grefenberg during public comment as to process, and stated he couldn't disagree with those statements more as to the function and process involved in comprehensive plans and any amendments.  Councilmember Willmus referenced a report authored by former Community Development Director Paul Bilotta to the City Council dated February 22, 2016.


Councilmember McGehee expressed her agreement with Councilmember Willmus, including the matter of taking the comprehensive plan seriously, stating that was something each Councilmember didn't change without considerable thought.  Even knowing this potential project was already in the pipeline, Councilmember McGehee noted that the City Council had previously taken action on any and all subsequent HDR issues in the overall community by putting in place a moratorium to look further at the HDR issue.  Councilmember McGehee commended residents, the property owner, and developers for the process held this evening, and indications of a very engaged community.  Councilmember McGehee noted this is observed over and over when an important issue comes up, people get out to speak, indicating they are following events and activities in their community.


Councilmember Etten suggested another finding, that HDR is not a good buffer between some of the other residential uses in the area (e.g. single-family and MDR), even though HDR is directly behind the parcel, a better buffer would be with the current zoning or MDR, but opined it would not be beneficial to add yet more HDR in that area when taking into consideration neighboring properties.


Councilmember Laliberte agreed with her colleagues, and with the comments of Councilmember Willmus on the importance of the comprehensive plan.  Councilmember Laliberte noted she had been very vocal about looking at HDR coming out of the last comprehensive plan update process and her personal questioning of the amount of and placement of HDR areas already identified, but not specific to this request.


Specific to findings for denial with this request, Councilmember Laliberte stated she saw single-family uses predominantly along County Road B, and felt that use was more fitting, or at best no higher density than MDR as stated by Councilmember Etten, and serving as a more suitable buffer than HDR.


Councilmember Laliberte thanked the applicant for bearing the cost of the traffic study and addressing needs and concerns expressed by neighboring property owners as far back as the previous proposal nine years ago, and noted she didn't want to discount those efforts, and hoped they would serve as part of the thought process with any proposal(s) going forward.  Councilmember Laliberte also recognized the concerns of property owners in the area and preservation of the character of the neighborhood as much as possible.  Councilmember Laliberte stated that she still had concerns with traffic in this area and was not confident the traffic study truly addressed the reality of the concerns in this area.


Potential Findings Restated

·         Metropolitan Council guidelines for multi-family housing in the City of Roseville can be met in other available areas of the community already zoned HDR. (Willmus)

·         HDR is not a good buffer between some of the other residential uses in the area (e.g. single-family and MDR), even though HDR is directly behind the parcel, a better buffer would be with the current zoning of MDR, but opined it would not be beneficial to add yet more HDR in that area when taking into consideration neighboring properties. (Etten)

·         With existing single-family uses predominant along County Road B more consistent and preferred or at best no higher density than MDR serving as a more suitable buffer than HDR. (Laliberte)

·         With the nearby Cleveland Avenue serving as a major thoroughfare from the considerable amount of University of Minnesota employee traffic at considerable speeds without being ware of a school bus stop in this immediate area, vehicular and pedestrian navigation is a concern, in addition accessing this parcel and Midland Grove versus those accessing the I-35W freeway from Cleveland Avenue, as well as being precluded from any other available access point off County Road B. (McGehee)

·         Given the current comprehensive plan and rezoning are a result of years of public input, this body doesn't want to go back on those efforts in a piecemeal fashion (Willmus, paraphrased by City Attorney Gaughan)

·         With the approaching significant review and update of the comprehensive plan intended for initiation later this year involving significant efforts to ensure citywide review of the current comprehensive plan and zoning code, this particular proposal is best reviewed at that time. (Willmus, paraphrased by City Attorney Gaughan).


Mayor Roe spoke in opposition to this motion, not because he didn't support the motion to deny, but because he couldn't support comments indicating this particular parcel had come up for specific review during the last periodic comprehensive plan update, causing him concern about the validity of that point.  Mayor Roe stated he could also not support the findings related to safety and traffic as stated.


Councilmember Laliberte clarified that there is a process for allowing the City Council to re-examine areas between comprehensive plan updates; and she had asked on several occasions for a review of current HDR designations.  Councilmember Laliberte stated she was not opposed to make changes in between, but could support this motion as stated and based on the findings outlined.


                   Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte and Etten. 

Nays: Roe.

Motion carried.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 9:24 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 9:29 p.m.

d.            Receive Recommendation Regarding Neighborhood Associations from the Community Engagement Commission


Mayor Roe welcomed and introduced Community Engagement Commission (CEC) Chair Scot Becker and Commissioner Gary Grefenberg.


Chair Becker presented the report and CEC recommendations regarding neighborhood associations, as tasked to the CEC, and briefly reviewed and highlighted sections of the report.  Chair Becker noted the "affiliation" terminology used was open to various perceptions, and suggested the City Council, during their review and future consideration may want to use their discretion in revising that term.


Chair Becker noted that there were additional expectations the City Council may wish to consider, but had not received consensus of the CEC for formal recommendation (lines 190 - 199)


Commissioner Grefenberg asked, as the City Council discusses this report in the future, that the CEC be invited to the table in Worksession format to further review some points.  If additional document was requested by the City Council, Commissioner Grefenberg noted the CEC's willingness to provide that documentation as applicable.


At the request of Commissioner Grefenberg to respond to any public comments received tonight, Mayor Roe clarified that the primary purpose tonight was to receive the report.  While the City Council would take questions and receive comments from the public, Mayor Roe advised that any discussion by the City Council would be subsequent to this meeting.

Councilmember Laliberte recognized the considerable time and effort of the CEC and original Neighborhood Association Task Force in developing this report, and acknowledged their work.  Councilmember Laliberte expressed appreciation for the good information provided for consideration and future discussion at a City Council Worksession.


Public Comment

Sherri Sanders, McCarrons Boulevard

Having served on the original Neighborhood Association Task Force from its inception to end, Ms. Sanders expressed her opposition to these recommendations.  Ms. Sanders stated her respect for many efforts of the CEC and Task Force members, including those efforts of the five participants who felt compelled to resign.  However, Ms. Sanders expressed her disappointment in the overall process used without any outreach to the greater community, and encouraged the City Council to revisit these recommendations and seek that public input.


Ms. Sanders opined that the report misconstrued the actual idea of community engagement, and she found it dangerously exclusive of homeowner associations, not mandated by local government.  In her role as Chair of the Lake McCarrons Neighborhood Association, the oldest neighborhood association in Roseville, Ms. Sanders encouraged the City Council not to waste any more resources on this effort until Roseville residents request forming neighborhood associations and requested assistance from their local government to do so.  Ms. Sanders expressed her interest in Roseville residents also welcomed to the table at an upcoming City Council Worksession.


Diane Hilden, Bayview Drive

Ms. Hilden asked the City Council to shelve this document until future community engagement is heard from the public.  Ms. Hilden noted frustrations and subsequent resignations of others serving on this effort who had given their permission to her to speak on their behalf.


Mayor Roe clarified that tonight's public testimony would remain focused on this report and not involve comments on the process.


Ms. Hilden opined that community engagement is the process, and this document is not representative of community engagement, but simply a manifesto of certain individual input.  Ms. Hilden further opined that the City of St. Louis Park did not represent ideal or even reasonable practices for Roseville; and speaking for the Lake McCarrons Neighborhood Association advised they would not support it.  As a fluid, community-driven neighborhood association, Ms. Hilden opined that it was not a wise thing for the City Council or city to take time to regulate this type of activity.


Ms. Hilden stated that community engagement values a large number in the community and condensing their interest versus creating policy.  Ms. Hilden strongly recommended a publicized community conversation series be used to vet neighborhood associations for ideas; in addition to collaboration with the Roseville Police Department's Community Relations Coordinator Cory Yunke to hear his work with block clubs and their processes.


Lisa McCormick, Wheeler Street

Ms. McCormick stated she had asked to speak last tonight and thanked the City Council for their patience, consideration and the process she observed earlier tonight, opining it was a beautiful thing to watch, especially how it had turned out.


Mayor Roe cautioned that beauty was always in the eye of the beholder.


Ms. McCormick noted her questions to audience members in the hallway as to whether or not they had a neighborhood association representing the full Council Chambers tonight, with their confirmation that they were not formally organized.  Ms. McCormick expressed her personal appreciation for residents being willing to attend meeting and share comments on issues of interest to them.


Regarding this report, Ms. McCormick noted that the objective was to further meaningful community engagement and questioned if this report or the process to get here was necessary to fulfill that objective.  Ms. McCormick opined that, rather what the City Council did here tonight will further that objective when people are invited to come and allowed to voice their concerns and see those concerns acted upon.  Ms. McCormick opined that was what community engagement is and what was necessary.


In following the comments of previous speakers, Ms. McCormick opined that this report is premature.  Having listened to the presentation at a CEC meeting by the Community Liaison for St. Louis Park, Ms. McCormick noted she said the neighborhood association structure had been formed at the request of residents asking for it.  Ms. McCormick noted that this was not the case in Roseville.  As one of the early proponents to get to this point, Ms. McCormick stated she had been naïve and thought it had been vetted more in the community than it had been.  Ms. McCormick stated that the original draft of this report was her work product; and as the author opined this report should be tabled.  As she had originally shared with the Neighborhood Association Task Force, Ms. McCormick opined that the right questions weren't being asked, and at that point had changed her position.  At this point in time, Ms. McCormick noted operations were like block groups or neighborhoods, and to move from that to a formal neighborhood association overnight was not only premature but unwise.


Ms. McCormick noted the City Council could change their charge based on her understanding from "encourage and facilitate neighborhood associations" to "encourage cohesive neighborhoods," and leave the second part unchanged, yet still achieve the same effect.  While recognizing there was good work put into this report, Ms. McCormick opined it was not the right time for it.  Ms. McCormick asked that the City Council table the report, which was unfortunate given that the CEC and Neighborhood Association Task Force were both deeply committed to community engagement.  However, Ms. McCormick opined everyone should be more on the same team, and for whatever reason due to the apparent strife during the process, things happened; and even a really great work product when it provided the wrong answer was still wrong no matter how it looked.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, receipt of the CEC recommendations regarding neighborhood associations, and directed staff to include City Council discussion of the report on a subsequent Worksession.


Councilmember Willmus expressed his interest at a later date in hearing from Ms. Sanders, Ms. Hilden and Ms. McCormick if the City Council were to adopt this report how it would limit any group's ability to maintain an informal neighborhood association or an existing one as currently structured.


Councilmember Laliberte stated she would support the motion to receive the report; advising she did want to have future conversation about the recommendation, opining too much time and effort was expended by a lot of people.  Councilmember Laliberte recognized there were lots of diverging thoughts, but opined to table the report would be a disservice to those thoughts, and welcomed that future conversation, whether or not it was determined these were things that may or may not be needed.


Mayor Roe clarified that his initial intent was not to move forward drastically in forming neighborhood associations, but to have a structure in place for anyone wanting to create an association and an ultimate framework in place to do so and be of assistance to them.  Mayor Roe expressed his recognition that there were obviously still things that needed to be discussed as part of that effort.



Councilmember McGehee stated she wasn't sure if the City Council had received precisely what they needed at this point, but if a neighborhood association wanted to get together, at least there was a list available to work from without the need to start from scratch.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


On behalf of the City Council and staff, Mayor Roe thanked the CEC and Task Force members who had worked on this report as a means to start the conversation and move forward accordingly.


Motion to Extend Curfew

At approximately 9:57 p.m., McGehee moved, Etten seconded, to extend the meeting curfew for completion of this item 14f.


Willmus moved an amendment to the motion to extend the meeting curfew for no more than ten minutes.  Mayor Roe declared the motion failed due to lack of a second.


Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Laliberte, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: Willmus.

Motion carried.


f.             Ramsey County Library Roseville Branch Hamline Avenue Access Discussion

City Manager Trudgeon noted the RCA and background and most recent conversations by staff with Ramsey County Public Works regarding this access concern expressed by Councilmember Laliberte.  Mr. Trudgeon advised a revised resolution from that in the packet was provided a bench handout and made part of the RCA.


At the request of Mayor Roe, City Engineer Jesse Freihammer summarized an email that had been provided earlier to the City Council.


Based on his reading of the document, Mayor Roe noted the apparent differences of opinion among library and public works staff at Ramsey County.


In her review of the document, Councilmember McGehee questioned if the library would accept conversion of the lower access (closer to the intersection at Commerce Street) now serving as an entry/exit to a right-hand turn and exit only.


Mayor Roe suggested it may be more viable to adjust the northern access at Hamline Avenue and Commerce Street, which had been part of the discussion at one point to limit that access to right-in, right-out. 

In response, Councilmember Laliberte opined that the library would want to retain all available access to that driveway since the book drop was on that side.  Councilmember Laliberte further opined that the entire traffic flow in site was very convoluted to begin with, especially on the south side of the library, with numerous one-ways and drive-through restrictions.  Councilmember Laliberte recognized the library's point if book drop-offs were limited on the south end, it would become problematic and only serve to increase the traffic flow issues.  However, Councilmember Laliberte stated that still didn't change the fact that cars currently stacked up at the intersection and most didn't have a clear view as to why they were stopped and waiting, but still creating a significant traffic issue.  Councilmember Laliberte questioned if it wasn't feasible to move the book drop to the north side of the building.


Mayor Roe opined that would create several architectural challenges for the library.


Councilmember Willmus agreed with the safety issues in having full access at that drive and its proximity to and left turn lane into Commerce Street, with southbound traffic having to stop at the intersection to allow left turns into the library.


If Ramsey County created a right-in, right-out access only, Councilmember Willmus noted it would provide law enforcement more options.  Councilmember Willmus suggested another option would be for Ramsey County to close that entrance and align an access point with the Commerce Street intersection, since their library property runs all the way north to that intersection.  Councilmember Willmus suggested that Ramsey County consider other potential scenarios to improve traffic flow and address the significant volume increase on Hamline Avenue that will occur in the very near future as Lexington Avenue bridge construction begins.  Councilmember Willmus expressed his hope that Ramsey County would be receptive as well as expeditious in taking proactive measures before even more serious or dangerous issues arise.


Mayor Roe suggested another option to move the access south to line up with the southern edge of the east/west roadway into the parking lane, creating a longer southbound lane to allow making that turn.  Mayor Roe noted that it is illegal to make a left turn into the dedicated northbound left turn lane, but if there are cars in that lane, they stack there to make the turn.  Mayor Roe suggested another turn location further south, off Hamline Avenue, could eliminate the northern library entrance or restrict it to right-in, right-out only.


Councilmember Etten noted there was a moderate grade change to take into consideration there, but expressed his support for some possible solution within the next few weeks, not months when this situation only got worse with closure of the eastbound Highway 36 entrance.  Councilmember Etten emphasized weeks, not months, to find a viable solution before this roadway became even busier.  Councilmember Etten expressed his interest in hearing any ideas form City Engineer Freihammer, while recognizing this roadway was not within the City of Roseville's jurisdiction, but how the City could possibly best affect a solution sooner rather than later.


City Engineer Freihammer responded that Ramsey County would need to be on board with any proposals the City Public Works/Engineering staff and/or City Council put forth.


City manager Trudgeon noted that, based on his verbal conversations with Ramsey County Public Works, even if a solution could be agreed on, Ramsey County was not willing to pay for that solution.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that Ramsey County had had three years to think about a solution.


Mayor Roe questioned if the City had even had much to say about access when the library was reconstructed, noting that it was a Ramsey County facility on a Ramsey County Road.


At the request of Mayor Roe as to Ramsey County standards for access, City Engineer Freihammer advised that if such access were proposed with today's standards, Ramsey County would not approve that access.


While appreciation the suggested southern access solution, Councilmember Laliberte noted traffic dropping off books was heading out that way, and additional vehicles would be entering under that option.


Mayor Roe noted space north of the existing book drop off traffic, westbound at the northern edge of the building, with east/west parking lot traffic served north of that.


Councilmember Laliberte referenced the recent Mudslinger's relocation off Lexington Avenue with their driveway close to the County Road B and Lexington Avenue, Ramsey County required them to construct a concrete pork chop to remove the option of a left turn.  Councilmember Laliberte opined that the City Council formally resolve to ask the Ramsey County Public Works staff, with or without agreement from the Ramsey County Library-Roseville Branch, to take a position to address their expectations for public and private entities to be addressed when similar concerns were evidenced.


Public Comment

Steve Gjerdingen, 1363 W County Road B

Having lived in two different locations in this immediate area over the last five years, Mr. Gjerdingen confirmed how busy that Hamline Avenue roadway is.  While liking the idea of closing the left turns, Mr. Gjerdingen noted he also drove through there on occasion during afternoon rush hour observing that left turn into the library.  While supporting closure, Mr. Gjerdingen asked that it be done in a way to also improve pedestrians crossing Hamline Avenue.  Mr. Gjerdingen noted that at this time, the natural crossing spot is at Sandhurst Drive lining up with the entrance into Dunn Brothers Coffee.  Mr. Gjerdingen questioned why a median had yet to be installed or a pedestrian island at Sandhurst Drive or the entrance to Dunn Brothers, which was his main concern should the northern access into the library be closed and additional turns moved to the southern access point.


Laliberte moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11317 entitled, "Resolution Requesting Ramsey County Library Modify the North Access at the Roseville Branch;" as revised via bench handout.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Councilmember Laliberte reviewed the provisions outlined in the revised resolution compared to that included in the meeting packet materials for comparison.


Councilmember McGehee sought a reasonable place within the draft resolution to interject pedestrian accommodations, noting she had heard from other residents about that concern.


Councilmember Laliberte asked that this action focus on the turn issue first and any subsequent conversations Ramsey County brought back to the City Council.


For the record, Councilmember McGehee opined a pedestrian island or safety for pedestrians should be part of the permanent fix.


Councilmember Etten spoke in support of the motion; expressing hope that it will bring up the level of concern with Ramsey County and make clear the City of Roseville's interest in a solution as soon as possible.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


15.         Business Items - Presentations/Discussions


16.         City Manager Future Agenda Review


17.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings


18.         Adjourn

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:17 p.m.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.