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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

May 23, 2016


1.      Roll Call

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


2.       Pledge of Allegiance


3.       Approve Agenda

City Manager Trudgeon advised that Consent Item 8.b inadvertently included a request for an on-sale 3.2% non-intoxicating Liquor License for HR LLC, d/b/a Home 2 Suites Roseville, a hotel located at 2020 Iona Lane.  Mr. Trudgeon noted this item required a public hearing, which had been noticed, but should be considered as a separate agenda item.  The amended agenda provided as a bench handout included this item as Item 12.a to hear public comment and consider possible action.


Councilmember Laliberte requested removal of Item 8.f from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.


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


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


4.       Public Comment

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


a.            Kathy Ramundt, 1161 Laurie Road

Ms. Ramundt referenced a recent topic of discussion by the City Council last week related to and its use as a tool to inform citizens of city messages.  Ms. Ramundt reviewed the misconceptions about this tool, changes made over the last 4-5 years, features/controls available, and reviewed the process to sign up, advising that approximately 2,500 residents were signed up to-date.  Ms. Ramundt asked that the City Council consider this as one tool in their city toolbox of media options.


Ms. Ramundt advised that she had spoken with city staff on ways to make people aware of this and suggested ways the city could assist in those efforts while still emphasizing that this was a self-managed tool for and by residents, with the city not controlling the site. 


b.            Ellen Mechura, 3063 Victoria Street N and

Catherine Weldon, 3055 Victoria Street N

Ms. Mechura, on behalf of their neighborhood, presented a formal petition to City Manager Trudgeon with 87 signatures asking that the city connect the pathway on Victoria Street to connect County Roads C and D.  Ms. Mechura read the preamble to the signatures; and reviewed initial concerns related to her elementary-age children riding their school bus for ½ hour.  Ms. Mechura stated that, if there was a safe pathway for them to walk, her children and others would walk to school instead.  


Ms. Mechura and Ms. Weldon asked the City Council for their consideration with this request.


Mayor Roe thanked Ms. Mechura and Ms. Weldon for their timely request, advising that as part of the upcoming comprehensive plan update and review of the Pathway Master Plan, the city would be reviewing those priorities and making adjustments as appropriate.


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

Mayor Roe announced the upcoming kick-off for the A-line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along Snelling Avenue near Har Mar Mall, and provided logistic information and events scheduled as well as free ridership.


Mayor Roe noted two City Council seats were up for this fall's municipal election, and reviewed the filing schedule and process at City Hall or at Ramsey County Elections in downtown St. Paul.


Mayor Roe announced two vacancies on the City's Human Rights and Community Engagement Commissions, a synopsis of their respective advisory roles, and the application process.


Mayor Roe announced the Human Rights Commission' sponsored summer reading program this June, and details of the book chosen and discussion to follow, with events scheduled at the Ramsey County Library - Roseville branch.


Councilmember Laliberte reported on the most recent Cedarholm Golf Course Clubhouse Replacement Task Force meeting, with the topic of "uses," and including small group discussions and large group review of the parameters of the current building's functionality, site layout and constraints.  Councilmember Laliberte opined it was a good conversation, and well attended; and noted the next meeting was scheduled for June 9, 2016.  At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Councilmember Laliberte reported that, while most meetings are primarily held at the Clubhouse, given a scheduling conflict with a rental there, the June 9th meeting would be held at Autumn Grove Park.


Mayor Roe announced the annual Rosefest event coming up the end of June.


As part of Rosefest, City Manager Trudgeon announced the "Taste of Rosefest" sponsored by the Rotary Club, scheduled for June 23, 2016 at the Arboretum.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that tickets were available through him, at City Hall and/or area businesses.  Mr. Trudgeon noted this was a good opportunity to meet your neighbors, and advised that the ticket fee helped raise money for area charities, listing several of those past recipients.


City Manager Trudgeon noted the recent shredding day held at City Hall had resulted in a great turnout with approximately seven tons of shredded material received, as well as a similar event at Spire Credit Unit collecting approximately 10,000 pounds of material.  Mr. Trudgeon opined it had proven very successful at both sites, and with security and privacy concerns, was a no-cost service to residents of Roseville.  Mr. Trudgeon thanked the City's Public Works Department and Environmental Engineer Ryan Johnson for coordinating the opportunity.


6.      Recognitions, Donations and Communications


7.            Approve Minutes

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


a.            Approve May 16, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes

McGehee/Etten - 5/0

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the May 16, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended.



·         Page 2, Lines 8 - 11 (Laliberte)

Correct to read: "Councilmember Laliberte also reported on the Roseville Community Health Awareness Team (CHAT) and their recent meeting to review the [the recent] [upcoming] seminar"

·         Page 5, Lines 39 - 42 (Laliberte)

Correct to read: "Regarding the Golf Course Fund, Councilmember Laliberte noted that the [Clubhouse] Task Force [working on capital for a potential new clubhouse] heard from several other municipalities [having golf courses providing some ideas for] [regarding] funding capital needs versus daily operations."

·         Page 13, Lines 34 - 35 and 38 - 40 (McGehee)

Correct to read: "Councilmember McGehee opined that the position at that time had prove[n] extremely useful and provided an additional knowledge base at City Hall for residents to contact."  "Councilmember McGehee opined that it [would be detrimental to the Roseville city government structure and its residents to eliminate it.] [should be considered.]

·         Page 17, Lines 32 - 34 (McGehee)

Correct to read: "From a policy perspective, Councilmember McGehee opined that [it] this proposal sounds more top down from the city and Parks & Recreation Department rather than play space acquisition and types of activity[ies] [and] [with] providing input from residents."

·         Page 19, Lines 41 - 43 (McGehee)

Correct to read: "Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of [a] concerted [effort for those] [input from those] areas with pieces [impacting a specific geographic area] [directly impacted] to allow residents to respond."

·         Page 20, Lines 13 and 14 (Etten)

Correct to read: "limited services [if nay] and insufficient room on those buses.  Councilmember Etten recognized the significant population density [in that one area of Roseville] at Rice Street and Larpenteur Avenue."

·         Page 28, Line 19 (McGehee)

Typographical Correction: "EAW"


                        Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee, 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, May 23, 2016.


a.            Approve Payments

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


ACH Payments







Mayor Roe noted that the higher-than-usual total claims for this meeting was mostly the result of funds from a retired tax increment financing district being returned to Ramsey County in a lump sum payment.  Mayor Roe advised that, once the funds were redistributed to all taxing jurisdictions, including a portion to the City of Roseville, that windfall would go into the General Fund when received.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of business and other licenses and permits for terms as noted; with the exception of the 3.2 Non-Intoxicating Liquor License for HR LLC, d/b/a Home 2 Suites Roseville, as previously noted.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


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

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as noted in the RCA dated May 23, 2016, and Attachment A entitled, "2016 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," dated April 30, 2016; excluding the 3.2% Non-Intoxicating Liquor License for HR LLC d/b/a Home 2 Suites Roseville, for a separate public hearing as noticed, and possible separate action (Item 12.a).


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


d.            Approve Terms of 2016 - 2018 IUOE Local 49 Maintenance Contract

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approved the proposed terms and conditions of the 2016 - 2018 collective bargaining agreement with the Local 49 as presented; and directed staff to prepare the necessary documentation for execution, subject to City Attorney approval.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


e.        Termination of Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement 1385, approved by the Roseville City Council on July 13, 2009

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11321 (Attachment A) entitled, "A Resolution Terminating Planned Unit Development Agreement No. 1385, As Amended, Located at 2167 Lexington Avenue and 1126 Sandhurst Avenue."


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


g.    Adopt a Resolution Authorizing a Pilot Program for Greater Notification of Specific Land Use Applications

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11322 (Attachment A) entitled, "A Resolution Creating a Pilot Open House and Public Hearing Notification Program for Five Land Use Applications Processed by the Community Development Department;" for a six-month pilot open house and public hearing notification policy.


Councilmember McGehee noted this was a timely request, and thanked staff for pointing this out.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


9.         Consider Items Removed from Consent


f.             Amendment to Election Services Agreement with Ramsey County

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA and related attachments, May 23, 2016. City Manager Trudgeon noted recent legislation included a cost-share provision that remained pending until finalized, but starting this year and separate from the presidential primary.


Councilmember Laliberte thanked City Manager Trudgeon for the explanation clarifying that the 23% increase was not a change from the 2015-2016 elections only.  However, Councilmember Laliberte noted the significant jump for these services, and asked City Manager Trudgeon if it was due to increased wages for election judges or for Ramsey County staff for their administration.


City Manager Trudgeon advised that the most significant cost was for election judges and increase in minimum wages; noting that this year judges would be paid a flat fee of $150.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that a secondary driver of some of the cost increase was the high election participation rate in Roseville, and significant number of absentee voters raising operating costs, in addition to some inflationary costs included.


Councilmember Laliberte stated she was not opposed to continuing with Ramsey County, but thought it was worth noting, especially given her discomfort in approving a four-year extension, with the price for those services only available for the first two years or other increases coming due to unforeseen circumstances. 


Councilmember Laliberte clarified that none of this covers school board elections in odd years, with those costs borne by the school district.


City Manager Trudgeon confirmed that the school district handled their costs and arrangements.  Closer to the year 2020, and as information on projected costs becomes available, City Manager Trudgeon offered to provide that data to the City Council for further discussion.


Mayor Roe read the contract's termination clause for six month written notice the year prior to the next election and for either party.  Mayor Roe cautioned the need to keep that in mind if and when changes are indicated.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Manager Trudgeon advised that city staff still handled absentee voting, but a lot of processing occurred at Ramsey County, driving some of their costs.  Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the new absentee voting machine process within seven days of the election, opining that should improve the overall process.  At the further request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Trudgeon opined that from staff's perspective, he still thought this agreement with Ramsey County was a good deal.


Councilmember Willmus asked, with the advent of the new method of machine absentee voting within seven days, would Ramsey County provide staffing to oversee that or would city employees still be responsible and need training.


Interim Community Development Director Kari Collins

As former Assistant to the City Manager, Ms. Collins, advised that city staff had already received some training at Ramsey County to test out the new systems.  With some details of this new "voting early in person" still pending, Ms. Collins advised that a machine would be located at Roseville City Hall, and absentee voters could still opt for a paper ballot, even though the same number of city staff would be trained on the machine and available to assist voters.  Ms. Collins reported that the procedure for nightly delivery of ballots or tape printouts from the machine remained pending with Ramsey County.


City Manager Trudgeon advised that staff would be available to officially demonstrate machines to the City Council before elections.


Councilmember Laliberte applauded the legislature for passing the Presidential Primary, opining that a lot of people in the community felt disenfranchised or were unable to participate; and this was a good move and should allow for more participation accordingly.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of an Amendment to the agreement (Attachment A) between Ramsey County and the City of Roseville, extending Election Services for 2017-2020.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


10.        General Ordinances for Adoption


a.            Request for Approval of Minor Clarifying Amendments to Subdivision Code, Section 1103.06 (Lot Standards)

Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd revised this request as detailed in the RCA redlined and Exhibit B attached.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Lloyd clarified that everything in Section 10 of the City Zoning Code would remain intact, including lot size standards as spelled out in text.


Etten moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1501 (RCA Exhibit B) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Title 11 of Roseville City Code, Clarifying the Intent and Applicability of Certain Subdivision Regulations)."


Regarding text in the new Section F (page 2, lines 62 - 64), Councilmember Laliberte asked if language was appropriate where lots back "up on" or "upon" a thoroughfare.


Mr. Lloyd reported that, based on his research, the term "upon" was the correct terminology for referencing lots with two frontages.


Mayor Roe expressed appreciation for the thoughtfulness of staff and the Planning Commission in reviewing this, noting several lot side line issues had come up with a number of subdivisions recently.  Mayor Roe thanked them for their efforts; and even though these text amendments seemed like a lot of words, it should be helpful for developers in determining what works.  Mayor Roe expressed his personal acknowledgement of the work that went into this recommendation.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Etten moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1501 (RCA Exhibit C) entitled, "An Ordinance Summary Amending Title 11 of Roseville City Code, Clarifying the Intent and Applicability of Certain Subdivision Regulations)."


                                                Roll Call (Super Majority)

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

Nays: None.


11.        Presentations


12.        Public Hearings and Action Consideration


a.            Public Hearing to Approve/DENY an On-Sale 3.2% Non-Intoxicating Liquor License for HR LLC, d/b/a Home 2 Suites Roseville, a Hotel located at 2020 Iona Lane

Finance Director Chris Miller provided a brief summary of this request, and purpose of the public hearing to hear public comment on the application.  Mr. Miller advised that staff had reviewed all application materials and found them to be complete; and noted staff was currently performing background checks for managers of the facility.


Mayor Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 6:52 with no one appearing for or against.


Mayor Roe noted the applicant was not present in the audience.


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of an On-Sale 3.2% Non-Intoxicating Liquor License for HR LLC, d/b/a Home 2 Suites Roseville, a Hotel located at 2020 Iona Lane; pending completion of criminal background checks; and effective for a term December 31, 2016.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


13.        Budget Items


14.        Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Request for Approval to REZONE the Property at 1415 County Road B from High Density Residential-1 (HDR-1) to High Density Residential-2 (HDR-2) District

City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed this rezoning request by Good Samaritan Society as detailed in the RCA for their owned parcel at Albert Street and County Road B, in the proximity of Target One, Perkins Restaurant and TCF Bank.


Mr. Paschke noted that the request was precipitated on the applicant's desire for a 62-unit senior affordable housing facility that wouldn't work on the property given current size requirements under HDR-1 zoning.  Mr. Paschke noted that this project, to be financial feasible, required a greater density to achieve.  Mr. Paschke advised that he had plans available for the proposed project, but clarified that they were not part of this rezoning consideration. Mr. Paschke noted the Planning Commission had unanimously recommended approval, along with staff's recommendation for approval.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke revised impervious coverage and maximum allowable height for HDR-1 and HDR-2 zoning districts as follows.





Impervious Coverage



Maximum Height







Mr. Paschke clarified that there were other differences in the two designations, including setbacks and other items as they related to Table 1004.06, with any development bound by the city's main design standards including any and all multi-family development.


Under either HDR-1 or HDR-2, Councilmember Willmus asked if placement of the building itself would be subject to the "building forward" design, and asked if so, which intersection would it be pushed toward.


Mr. Paschke stated the building would be closest to the Albert Street and County Road B intersection.


As a long-term consideration and discussion for the City Council, Councilmember Etten noted that current setbacks for HDR-2 were very limited, and while understanding the increased density, he opined it was significantly less than setback requirements in HDR-1, with no apparent specificity for extra setbacks adjacent to low density residential (LDR) zoned areas.  Councilmember Etten expressed concern with potential impacts to neighboring areas and how best to adjust the current code for future projects.


When reviewing the traffic study, Councilmember McGehee asked Mr. Paschke if staff had consulted with the Public Works Department, noting current traffic issues already along that entire area.


Mr. Paschke advised that the traffic study had indicated no alerts for development scenarios up to 250 units, and while making some suggestions, indicated nothing major.


Councilmember McGehee noted that, by changing this zoning designation from LDR-1 to LDR-2, a project could actually significantly exceed 62 units.


Mr. Paschke confirmed that a project could do so, with nothing stopping a higher density project under LDR-2 zoning designation, and allowing for a much denser project on the site, thus the traffic study requirement as part of the application process.


In these types of situations, when particular requirements of a district appear to be problematic for development, Mayor Roe asked staff if they looked at zoning to a higher use to accommodate that development or if consideration was given (e.g. text amendments) changing components of the zoning district itself.


Mr. Paschke responded that staff had not looked at text amendments for the zoning district, and opined he wasn't sure if staff was overly concerned about requirements built into the code or design standards, since the goal was to balance the ordinance with city code (e.g. design standards, setbacks, parking, etc.) to achieve overall compliance.  Mr. Paschke stated he wasn't aware of any discussion about one being more problematic than another; and when accepting the application to go to a greater density to accommodate extra units on the site, the building would still have been placed on the same location based on current code requirements.


When redoing the zoning code in 2010, and not requiring any additional setbacks, Mayor Roe opined that may have been the context for adding HDR-2 amongst higher intensity uses.  Mayor Roe suggested that maybe wasn't a concern at that time, but language was added for staff to be able to consider greater setbacks for those types of developments if they are proposed next to less intense uses.

City Manager Trudgeon concurred with that context.  Specific to Mayor Roe's suggestion for a text amendment versus rezoning, Mr. Trudgeon suggested caution and further review of that, since the concern in creating HDR-2 was that this type of density wasn't recommended citywide, but only at very specific locations and to serve as a vehicle for greater density on each project's merits versus a general text amendment.  Mr. Trudgeon stated he would not advise a text amendment, but would advise keeping review on a case-by-case basis.


Applicant Representatives, Construction Consultant Nathan Kraft with Good Samaritan Society; and Enrico Williams, Kaas Wilson Architects, Bloomington, MN

Mr. Kraft reported that financials for this type of affordable senior housing project indicated a minimum of sixty units would work, with this current model seeking 62 units.  Mr. Kraft reiterated Good Samaritan's intention that there was no intention of moving toward any higher density than those 62 units.


Mr. Williams noted that the design of the proposed building actually follows HDR-1 zoning with the only exception that of density and pervious versus impervious areas, at 50%.  Mr. Williams advised that the proposed structure was intentionally kept under the maximum height requirements, with setbacks were within HDR-1 guidelines as well.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Williams advised that the maximum number of units in HDR-1 was 40 units according to acreage; and were insufficient to make the project affordable.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Williams clarified that the proposed one-bedroom units were between 650-700 square feet; and the two bedroom units were approximately 950 square feet, with no larger units intended.


Mayor Roe asked if potential long-term future use of the facility would allow easy combination of smaller units or if that would not be architecturally feasible, or if the units could be reconfigured to market rate units.


Mr. Williams stated, at this preliminary stage of design, he was unable to answer that question as to how feasible that may be.


For the benefit of the developer, Mayor Roe noted that the City Council was struggling with short- and long-term use and number of potential units allowed in HDR-2 zoning designation indefinitely, or 35 years from now when the property may redevelop once again, especially the potential for higher density HDR in that area.


Public Comment

Amanda Kappes, Policy Coordinator for Metro Interfaith Council on Affordable Housing (MICAH)

Similar to her comments at the Planning Commission's public hearing on this request, Ms. Kappes spoke in support of this housing in Roseville; and reiterated the goals of the Metropolitan Council and City of Roseville for increased affordable housing units in the community.  Ms. Kappes noted that the senior population was, and was projected to continue, as the fastest growing population in Minnesota, and in great need of affordable housing options. 


Gary Kwong, 1700 Fry Street, Falcon Heights, MN

Similarly to his comments at the Planning Commission public hearing, Mr. Kwong provided a brief history of his own family and their housing needs.  Mr. Kwong spoke in support of this request, and the amenities available in Roseville to retain a stable residential base and allow current residents to move into this type of housing and remain loyal to their community and their familiarity with it.


Councilmember McGehee stated her dilemma was similar to that of Mayor Roe.  While happy to have affordable housing for seniors, and 40 units would be nice, the potential for additional traffic in this already congested area was problematic for her.  Councilmember McGehee reiterated that she wasn't against the project, but with rezoning under current HDR-2 zoning designation indefinitely and the concern with higher density in the area.


Councilmember Willmus stated that he shared some of those concerns, but questioned staff as to the date the application was received compared to when the City Council approved the Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance.


Mr. Paschke clarified that the PUD ordinance was approved after receipt of this application; and while the city could request that the developer go through the PUD process, he questioned if the project would actually qualify.


Councilmember Willmus agreed with Councilmember McGehee's statements, and those made by Councilmember Etten earlier; and noted that his concern wasn't the proposed project in front of him but the fact the City Council needed to be cognizant of what could be the most intense use on that site, especially with HDR-2 zoning designation.


If the project were to return under the PUD ordinance, Councilmember Etten asked staff if the applicant's proposed 50% versus 75% to 80% impervious coverage would work in favor of the applicant.


Mr. Paschke advised that staff would need to review all PUD criteria to see what the developer was bringing to the table, not just specific to density, but if they could actually achieve the bar to begin the PUD process, which was long and drawn out, and had strict limitations on who could come forward to begin that process for a PUD on any site, including this one.


Councilmember Etten opined this was an important development for the community, and something currently lacking, since a lot of multi-family senior housing was available in Roseville, but not from an affordable standpoint.  With HRD-2 zoning on this site and its proximity abutting LDR on two sides, Councilmember Etten reiterated his concern in rezoning the property.


Mayor Roe noted the current designation in the Zoning Table of Uses with two distinct categories with varying characteristics for each: group living and family living with a certain number of units.  Mayor Roe referenced discussion during the time of the proposed development on County Road B and Cleveland Avenue and traditional rental property with a lower number of larger units and more amenities.  Mayor Roe suggested looking at that type of scenario and two types of living categories for this type of application as well: traditional family living rental units in HDR and a second category for group living that is more specific and regulated such as this; with a line added to the Table of uses for property standards distinguishing maximum density for each category.  Mayor Roe noted this would allow for more site-specific consideration for either type of category if applicable, and may prove an easier and quicker solution than the PUD process.


Councilmember McGehee stated her opposition to such a solution, since it would become applicable across the board based on the table already existing. Councilmember McGehee opined that this development proposal was a good fit for the PUD process; and if the PUD ordinance recently adopted was already found to have insufficient flexibility to consider a project such as this, a text amendment to the PUD ordinance seemed a simpler thing to accomplish, allowing the City Council to make a determination on this and future cases.  Councilmember McGehee noted the support for this type of project in the community, but also noted the need for conditions applicable to a 62-unit development but not applicable citywide; addressing this specific site without changing the rules for the entire community.


In response, Mayor Roe stated that he was personally supportive to change the rules across the board for this type of use, since it had come up on several occasions with a need for more density on a site and not necessarily adding a lot of other issues to surrounding properties. Mayor Roe expressed his concern in having a developer need to jump hoops or meet standards for a PUD simply to gain a little more density.


Councilmember Willmus stated his concerns with amending the Table that may have long-term applications and affect how this or any facility may change over the life of the infrastructure in place.  Councilmember Willmus noted the frequency of seeing apartments constructed as market rate and then converting to condominiums, creating his concern in amending the Table with such specificity as suggested by Mayor Roe.


Mayor Roe noted that these units were smaller and not as appealing for conversion, which could be a further consideration as well.


Mr. Paschke questioned whether this could qualify as group living under state statute; and noted the proposed financing from various agencies to develop this as affordable senior housing and the specific regulations for that financing.


Mayor Roe agreed that his suggestion may not suffice since he had incorrectly thought this proposal was for an assisted living type facility, and not for afford-able senior housing which is what is actually proposed.  Mayor Roe thanked staff for setting him straight and withdrew his text amendment suggestion.


As a point of information, City Manager Trudgeon noted that the PUD ordinance, specific to density, allowed for only up to a 10% increase in residential density, and with 42 units allowed, that would only increase units by another 4 units for a total of 46 units.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the developer had already stated that their proposal wasn't feasible for anything under 60 units.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of tabling this request pending further investigation of how to make it work short- and long-term.  Councilmember McGehee noted that this site was ideal for seniors to access amenities without driving; and she spoke in favor of this location, but not as HDR-2 zoning designation.


Mayor Roe noted the options included tabling or extending, depending on the land use review deadline and process.


Councilmember Willmus noted the review process could be extended by the City Council in writing for up to 60-days.


City Attorney Gaughan agreed, as per state statute, the City Council has the ability to extend the review period, as long as their specific reasons for the extension are provided to the applicant in writing.


From a staff perspective, Mr. Paschke stated that he was unaware of any easy process to accomplish what the City Council appeared to be seeking, whether timing was involved or not.  Mr. Paschke advised that a number of things would need to be analyzed and taken into consideration to patch in a text amendment as discussed, or for any other process.  Mr. Paschke noted that a number of area residents attended the developer's open house but had not subsequently shown up at the public hearing at the Planning Commission; and suggested that may be an indication of their lack of concern with the development.  While understanding concerns with future development or redevelopment, Mr. Paschke opined that it would not be possible to get a density of 250 units on this site even under today's city code, opining any development would be well below that number of units and may look dramatically different than this proposed development (e.g. parking and the structure itself), but still be subject to the same limitations.  Mr. Paschke recognized a significant amount of fear he was hearing from the City Council about the potential for increased density, but stated he could not see any density as high as the 250-units addressed in one of the traffic study scenarios.


Councilmember McGehee opined that those residents attending the open house weren't thinking long-term or ramifications if this proposed development didn't come to fruition, especially if the city was left with a parcel zoned HDR-2 and its implications.


Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, DENIAL of the HDR-2 rezoning request based on the findings that the intensity of such zoning use could result in a greater overall density, height and setbacks on that site, making it a concern due to its proximity to surrounding single-family properties.


Councilmember McGehee spoke to the points made by Councilmember Willmus and in agreement with them.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in having the applicant and city planning staff work on ways to make this type of development work for the developer and the city, through some other method than rezoning the parcel to HDR-2.


Councilmember Laliberte admitted she was struggling with this, but concurred with her colleagues: that it was a good proposal and a good addition for Roseville, but created discomfort for her in the build forward design standards resulting in a very tall building right up along the road.


Mayor Roe clarified that city code would require that the building be set back 30' from the street.


Councilmember Laliberte stated she was in favor of a project like this in Roseville, but not with the potential intensity of use on this parcel in the future.  Councilmember Laliberte stated she was open to other potential scenarios, but in this case, she would support the findings in the motion.


Councilmember Etten asked staff if there was a way to put a maximum on a structure in HDR-2 zoning, as it related to underground and/or surface parking.


Mr. Paschke responded that it would depend on the size of the units and community space and other amenities of the facility, all project-dependent.  On this particular site, Mr. Paschke stated that he could not define a specific maximum density.


Mayor Roe spoke in opposition to the motion to deny the rezoning request, while understanding the findings and concern about future development or redevelopment on the parcel if this project doesn't move forward.  However, if the project doesn't move forward, Mayor Roe noted the City still retained the option to change HDR-2 requirements or initiate its own rezoning of the property.  If the City Council is of the mind that this appears to be a solution for this project going forward, but concern remains that some other development may push the HDR-2 requirements, there is in the code already a footnote available to help mitigate the situation.  Mayor Roe stated that he was more uncomfortable with this discussion than with other potential paths (e.g. PUD process or his suggested text amendment) and therefore would oppose the motion.


Councilmember Etten stated he was in agreement with Mayor Roe.  While supporting the reasons stated for denial, Councilmember Etten opined that Mr. Paschke's point about the maximum potential density that could develop and Mayor Roe's point that if this development proposal fell through, the City could move to reinstate HDR-1 zoning, it was sufficient for him to noted that this was such an important project for Roseville, he would oppose the motion to deny.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of the motion to deny in the hopes that the city would work with the developer to come up with a solution to make the project work.


Councilmember Laliberte stated that this ongoing discussion had swayed her and she would oppose the motion to deny.  At the request of Councilmember McGehee as to her rationale in doing so, Councilmember Laliberte noted that the fear factor seemed to be a potential for 250 units, creating her original hesitation in supporting the project; and since it appeared not to be feasible, the overall need for and nature of this particular project is important to the community.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus and McGehee. 

Nays: Laliberte, Etten, and Roe.

Motion failed.


Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. ___ (Attachment G) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Title 10 of Roseville City Code, Changing the Zoning Designation of Certain Real Property;" rezoning the property addressed at 1415 County Road B from HDR-1 to HDR-2 District.


Councilmember Etten noted that he would appreciate other ways to make the project work outside rezoning, he had been convinced that the parcel was small enough that the feared 250 units could not be developed, negating that potential great negative as being unrealistic given current code restraints.


Councilmember Willmus expressed his concern with the overall height of the proposed building to those adjacent single-family parcels; and stated his continued opposition to the rezoning request.  Had the rezoning request not been successful, Councilmember Willmus opined that the PUD process could have sufficed, with little effort on the city's part.  Councilmember Willmus opined that the City Council was being shortsighted and taking the easy road out especially with long-term implications for the area in doing so.


Councilmember Laliberte asked Councilmember Willmus what path he saw going forward in proposing the PUD process at this stage.

Councilmember Willmus stated his preference to revisit the PUD ordinance.  Councilmember Willmus stated that he had no issue with the developer's proposed 62 units; but explained that his issue was that potential project that could occur.  Councilmember Willmus noted that he wasn't implying that this developer is going to change their proposal, but noted that they could market this parcel as HDR-2 without developing their proposed project; and there would be nothing the city could do.


Councilmember McGehee stated her only concern was that if the PUD ordinance is so restrictive it can't be used to facilitate a project like this that was sorely needed in Roseville and serving the population needing this type of housing at this favorable location, then something was wrong with that PUD ordinance.  Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Willmus that the City Council was being shortsighted.


For clarification purposes, and for the benefit of Councilmember McGehee, Councilmember Etten identified several HDR-2 areas in Roseville at this time.  Councilmember Etten noted City Manager Trudgeon's information about the actual 10% increase in units available with the PUD ordinance process if applicable; and questioned if that was applicable or the more significant increase of 30% or more in density, that may open the door to other implications, including through the PUD process.


Mayor Roe suggested this PUD ordinance discussion be a separate debate outside this rezoning request.


Mayor Roe noted that a text amendment to the PUD ordinance would require a public process and public hearing before the Planning Commission followed by the developer subsequently applying for and staff analyzing that application and then the approval process.  While it may sound simple, Mayor Roe suggested it may not be so given a number of mitigating factors (e.g. size of property, parking, stormwater management, etc.).  Mayor Roe noted that staff currently has the ability to require greater setbacks given adjacent uses; and also the City Council has the ability to re-designate zoning back to HDR-1.


Councilmember McGehee opined that this give and take is certainly germane to this rezoning request, and that it would be inappropriate for Mayor Roe to push forward the motion and arguing only his point of view.


Mayor Roe duly noted Councilmember McGehee's comment; but clarified that the City Council is not here to discuss the PUD process, but the motion currently before the body.


Councilmember Laliberte stated she was not concerned if there were a few extra steps needed for the PUD process to evolve; opining that was less a concern for her than doing what was right on this parcel.  Councilmember Laliberte stated she would vote to pursue the PUD process if it resulted in a better product no matter the time required to reach that goal.


Councilmember Laliberte withdrew her second to the motion.


Mayor Roe seconded the motion and restated the motion was to approve the rezoning request.


Roll Call

Ayes: Etten and Roe. 

Nays: Willmus, Laliberte and McGehee.

Motion failed.


Councilmember Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, reconsideration of the motion to DENY the rezoning request as previously stated.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte and McGehee. 

Nays: Etten and Roe.

Motion carried.


Roll Call (Original Willmus/McGehee Motion to DENY based on findings, now under reconsideration):

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte and McGehee. 

Nays: Etten and Roe.

Motion carried.


City Attorney Gaughan advised that a resolution memorializing the findings for denial would be prepared and presented at the next meeting of the City Council.


Interim Community Development Director Collins noted staff's sensitivities with HDR zoning; and advised that staff would look at those during the comprehensive plan update and how PUD fit with that.


Councilmember Willmus suggested a more immediate review by staff of the current PUD ordinance.  Councilmember Willmus noted the value of this type of project and community housing needs supported a text amendment, with components as suggested by Councilmember Etten, to the PUD ordinance.


Without objection, staff was so directed.


While admitting it may require a longer process, Councilmember Willmus opined the important thing was to ultimately get this right.


Ms. Collins advised that, if the applicant was still interested, staff would walk them through the process.


b.            Receive Update on Marion Street Park Proposal and Southeast Roseville Visioning

Interim Community Development Director Collins provided the City Council and public with an update on the Marion Street park proposal, and SE Roseville visioning as detailed in the RCA and attachments.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Collins confirmed that Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds were specific to this site and its particular use as a park. Ms. Collins referenced subsequent conversations between her and Ramsey County staff; and shared their responses related to the use of CDBG funds; and the County's willingness to work with the City on other options.


Councilmember Willmus stated his interest in not only developing this 1716 Marion Street parcel, but also incorporating it with other parcels further north; and asked if those CDBG funds could help develop that broader area.


Ms. Collins opined that Ramsey County was amenable as long as use of funds was for a similar purpose and in this same area.


Councilmember Willmus noted that action was needed on the $500 earnest money by June 1, 2016.



McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, authorizing staff to pay $500 in earnest money by June 2, 2016, as outlined in the terms of the Purchase Agreement (Attachment D) as presented; including all other contingencies as outlined in the RCA by August 1 to fulfill terms of the Purchase Agreement.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of this particular site for a park, mainly for the safety of a considerable number of children in the area.  Based on her observations, Councilmember McGehee noted that there was no green space but for this small interior parcel close to those residents; and key to her was to address this type of courtyard type housing and green space.  As she had done in the past and continued to do, Councilmember McGehee spoke of her ongoing advocacy for green space in multi-family housing facilities with children.  While this facility is older and without such green space available, Councilmember McGehee opined this was a unique opportunity to provide that assistance and ensure the safety for these children.


Councilmember Etten spoke in support of the motion as stated.


Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the acquisition of this parcel, even though he had some hesitation about some previous grant applications.  Councilmember Etten expressed his interest in looking at this parcel in conjunction with other parcels for a broader plan versus a piecemeal approach.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Collins reported on recent meetings for visioning SE Roseville, as detailed in the purchase agreement; and reviewed next steps for this multi-jurisdictional process.  Ms. Collins reported that one more preliminary planning session was scheduled in July, with the public and all stakeholders welcome to participate and address what they see as the needs in that area.


Mayor Roe noted the process idea still required more thought depending on individual municipalities and as a broader group, with the immediate need to hear from stakeholders to gain a baseline understanding of problems, opportunities and issues all on the table at the July meeting.  At that point, Mayor Roe stated that foundation could serve as a building block going forward, but would also allow everyone to be present to hear the same information and discussion.


Councilmember McGehee stated her interest in making sure each municipality had a voice and participated, but also to recognize that each of those communities, including Roseville was a separate entity, and could address certain areas on their own versus the broader approach, and suggested businesses get together to address their priorities as the main contingent on that boundary.


Councilmember Etten noted over 300 apartment units within a block of the corridor as well.


Mayor Roe noted this was indicative of the many types of things to be discussed and the varying interest and challenges (e.g. crime, victimization of new immigrants, shabby buildings, etc.), some of which were jurisdictional while others were cross-related among jurisdictions (e.g. development, types of uses, streetscaping, etc.).  Mayor Roe reiterated the need to establish an information base to build from and connect people accordingly.


Councilmember Willmus stated his appreciation for the multi-jurisdictional approach, but stated his main concern is whether everyone will have the same level of buy-in or desire to effect change.  Therefore, as Roseville, Councilmember Willmus spoke to the need to be fully prepared as a community to move forward whether the other stakeholders did so or not.  Councilmember Willmus noted some of these steps will be easier than others and have an immediate impact.  Councilmember Willmus stated his interest in seeing discussion along those lines, taking immediate steps to improve the quality of life in SE Roseville; and if and as necessary, for Roseville to take the lead in a lot of those issues and proceed forward accordingly.


Councilmember Etten spoke in support of Roseville moving forward and leading the charge.  However, Councilmember Etten opined that the first step needed to get community input from all stakeholders, including across from Roseville in other jurisdictions to better understand what others are talking about or concerned with.  Councilmember Etten opined it would ultimately prove more effective and successful to move forward in a common direction or through common pieces to work on together, and arrive at the ultimate answer all were seeking.  Councilmember Etten expressed concern that no wall be erected between jurisdictions, but that everyone works together.  Councilmember Etten clarified that this didn't mean that Roseville couldn't do things in Roseville, but the long-term results if pursued separate from neighboring communities could result in a process without that neighborhood support or common vision, even if not all areas or aspects are in agreement.

Councilmember Laliberte agreed with the comment expressed by all of her colleagues.  While working with other jurisdictions on the broader area and the larger neighborhood, Councilmember Laliberte recognized it had already taken considerable time to reach this point; and suggested taking advantage of opportunities as they occur, but also being ready to move forward as the Roseville community tells it what they want, while also working with surrounding communities on the bigger vision versus simply being reactionary.


As stated several times by City Councilmembers, City Manager Trudgeon noted the first step would be the July listening session with an ease in crossing borders.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that what came out of that session would be incumbent on the working group and individual communities to identify for commonalities, or specificities.  Mr. Trudgeon opined that while the listening session was multi-jurisdictional, it was a good first step but didn't stop Roseville from moving forward.


From his perspective, Mayor Roe noted past complaints about the City doing things piecemeal without getting necessary input, and stressed the importance of receiving that input in this case, whether Roseville-specific or collectively, but not to get ahead of the Roseville community.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Collins discussed options available for corridor revitalization along Rice Street and Larpenteur Avenue, depending on interest levels found at the July meeting.  Ms. Collins noted there was also the possibility for Roseville to have its own smaller neighborhood plan.  Ms. Collins noted that Ramsey County was already doing a traffic study along Larpenteur Avenue that would occur in tandem with this effort. 


Specific to the former Linders site, Ms. Collins reported that a Charter School primarily serving Hmong and Karen youth was planned, as least in the conceptual stage that she had found on Facebook; and subject to some approvals from the City of St. Paul, but appeared to be a significant campus.


Mayor Roe noted new ownership for one apartment in the area, with Ms. Collins reporting that 1721 Marion Avenue, a 30-unit structure, was currently being considered for purchase by AEON.  Ms. Collins anticipated a closing in early June, and noted its proximity directly across from the 1716 Marion Street parcel.


Regarding the 1716 parcel, Councilmember Willmus asked if the City had some provisions as part of the Purchase Agreement, for the seller to maintain the site.  Councilmember Willmus stated that his visit to the site earlier today indicated a fair amount of debris still strewn about, including a mattress and high grass.


Ms. Collins clarified that there was nothing embedded in the Purchase Agreement, other than correspondence between the City Attorney and current owner to keep the parcel tidy.  However, Ms. Collins advised she would alert code enforcement to check out the site.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Collins stated the plans for AEON were mostly for exterior rehabilitation of the 1721 Marion Street building, as she understood from their representative that the inside of the units were pretty well maintained, mostly 2-3 bedroom units housing approximately 30 immigrant families.


If the building was going to be rehabilitated, Councilmember McGehee asked that discussion re-ensue related to sprinkler systems.


Mayor Roe noted the need to be conscious that tenants are not displaced as a result of rehabilitating this or other buildings, and ensure that equity issues were addressed.


Ms. Collins noted this was an element of AEON and their sensitivities in their housing projects.


Mayor Roe reported that he had found St. Paul Councilperson Amy Brendmoen very receptive to this SE Roseville and broader area effort and proceeding with it.  Given the City of St. Paul's system, Mayor Roe opined that they should be able to plug in fairly well and bring an energy level to the process.  From his observation, Mayor Roe suggested the majority of the 200 names on the Facebook page were probably St. Paul residents.  Mayor Roe further opined that the City of Maplewood may be the least prepared for this effort, noting their size and different issues, and crime in the area their major concern.  Mayor Roe addressed the varying difference in the building conditions of those businesses among jurisdictions.  Mayor Roe further noted the importance of receiving feedback from each jurisdiction's City Council to get them on board under their governmental and community processes.


Without objection, Mayor Roe directed staff to publically notice future meetings of the informal working group for these multi-jurisdictional meetings, all of which may not provide for public testimony, but to allow communication and observation at a minimum, and to allow for a potential quorum of Roseville City Councilmembers to attend at any given time.  Without objection, Mayor Roe further directed staff to enhance the City's website to provide connections and links as applicable to the SE Roseville effort.


15.        Business Items - Presentations/Discussions


a.            Request to Amend City Code, Section 1004.09C (Improvement Area) to Allow Greater Development of Building Footprints and Paved Surfaces on Parcels in the Low Density Residential-2 (LDR-2) Zoning District

Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly summarized this unintentional disparity in city code adopted in 1998 related to building footprints and paved surfaces on LDR-2 zoned parcels, as detailed in the RCA and attachments.  Mr. Lloyd noted most of the challenges were found with older properties and smaller lots in the LDR-2 district that served as an important source for housing stock variety in the community.


Councilmember Willmus stated he found staff's recommended 50% allotment too excessive. Councilmember Willmus noted that one of the reasons he had found LDR-2 zoning designation attractive in the first place was it could help provide for smaller, but newer single-family homes at a more affordable rate within today's market, with those coverages and smaller lot sizes coming into play.  When he considered this 50% recommendation, Councilmember Willmus opined that you could wind up with a fairly significant home on an LDR-2 zoned lot, which was certainly not his intent to facilitate.


Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmember Willmus, especially the changes proposed compared to her maximum lot minimum areas and hard surface maximums when first adopted, and her interest in providing for smaller homes on smaller lots.  Councilmember McGehee noted that she continued to look for legislative changes to retain water on individual properties without significant investment in underground tanks or rain garden installations, creating a lifelong liability to maintain.  Councilmember McGehee opined that 40% was more than adequate for LDR-2 zoned parcels.


In reviewing proportionality, Mayor Roe provided his calculations and differences in area between LDR-1 and LDR-2 zoning and proportionality with the ultimate goal in mind.  Mayor Roe stated his lack of support for the 50% recommendation, but agreed to consider something between 35% to 50%.


Councilmember Etten noted that he had previously voted against LDR-2 and increasing impervious surface over six lots, and moving from 3 potential homes to six now, and arriving at a similar square footage of impervious surface at 30%.  Councilmember Etten stated that he was uncomfortable with the proposed big jump to 18,000 square feet or impervious surface over that area, but would be open to some increase.  Councilmember Etten stated his first concern was over water and stormwater drainage problems already in existence in that area.  Councilmember Etten also questioned the general purpose for LDR and allowing for sufficient space between homes, noting homes in LDR-2 sections of this development continued to increase in value resulting in some pretty expensive homes.


Councilmember Laliberte spoke in favor of some space, but also expressed concern about resulting large homes on tiny lots.  To keep continuity with what was already in Roseville, Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of what was already in place; and while being open to a smaller number, stated that the recommended 50% was too high for her.


Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Laliberte, and recognized Councilmember Etten's opposition to this development in the first place, since he is familiar with the topography of this area.  Councilmember McGehee noted that this touched on Councilmember Laliberte's comments, and involved how to move forward as a community with infill development and increasing density, and what the aesthetic of the community was.  While willing to give a little, Councilmember McGehee stated she would not support the recommended 50%, but would also not be unhappy remaining at the 30%.


Mayor Roe noted there were two Councilmembers not wishing to move from the current 30%, and three who might consider more than that.


Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, enacting an ordinance limiting a maximum improvement area to 35% rather than the current 30%.


City Attorney Gaughan specified that this ordinance was proposed as a specific text amendment at 50%; and therefore any action other than that would require DENIAL of the request with specific findings; followed by subsequent action by the City Council.


At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan recommended that the most appropriate subsequent action would be to go back to the Planning Commission process separate form this action.


Mr. Lloyd clarified that the request, at its core, was to consider more than 30% as is currently written in city code, with the 50% being a suggested and reasonable benchmark addressing building footprint and parking needs for LDR-2 zoning designation.  While it appeared in the application, Mr. Lloyd advised that the 50% was not the number being ultimately sought by the applicant.


Mayor Roe noted that there was a specific statement in paragraph three of the applicant's narrative seeking city code change for minimum area to 50% coverage; and deemed that represented a specific request.  Therefore, as noted by City Attorney Gaughan, Mayor Roe suggested denial of the request, with subsequent direction to staff to initiate another action if the City Council so chose to initiate a text amendment and go through that process.


City Attorney Gaughan clarified that specific findings for denial would need to be provide to the applicant as soon as possible, with a subsequent resolution memorializing tonight's action.


Councilmember Willmus withdrew his motion.


Willmus moved, McGehee seconded DENIAL of the request allowing 50% impervious surface in LDR-2 zoning designations, based on the following findings:

·         That percentage of impervious coverage would create an undesirable amount of runoff;

·         That percentage would be too limiting of sufficient green space between or surrounding individual homes; and

·         That percentage would change the character of LDR-2 neighborhoods.


Applicant: Golden Valley Land CO Representative Matt Pavek, Project Developer

Mr. Pavek expressed appreciation to the City Council for their consideration of the motion.  Mr. Pavek reviewed his firm's rationale in this request based on LDR-2 lot sizes of 6,000 square feet and the amount available for actual building.  As noted in their narrative, Mr. Pavek noted experience working with builders having difficulty to have space available on that size lot to provide a two-car garage and two-stall driveway, in addition to any sizable or marketable main floor livable footprint, or any patio or sidewalk to the front door.  Mr. Pavek noted the resulting homes would still be small modest homes, but with current constraints, the first floor living area became impractical.  Mr. Pavek opined that this may have been an inadvertent error in drafting the original ordinance, advising that he had never seen similar constraints in other communities in which they work.  Mr. Pavek asked the City Council to simply allow for some flexibility in constructing a single-family home that worked on these lots, with a two-car garage.


Specific to the drainage, Mr. Pavek reiterated past discussions on their project and planned infiltration basins as part of the project that would be upsized to handle the entire impervious surface on their parcels, while also picking up off-site upstream drainage on Dale Street.  After completion of the development, Mr. Pavek advised that the drainage would be better than current; and noted the stormwater engineering report had already been approved.


Councilmember McGehee stated her same concern with not having green space around the homes; and note that the developer was aware of current city code before going into this project and as indicated in the proposed homes being considered for these parcels.  Councilmember McGehee questioned how many empty nesters actually needed a two-car garage; and stated if the developer was interested to return with a different plan for these 6,000 square foot lots in accordance with the current city code.


Mr. Pavek opined that, if the city was going to keep this in their zoning code, it resulted in unbuildable lots in the current market environment.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Discussion ensued as to the direction to staff, with percentages between 35% to 40% suggested; and comparables to other communities without benefit of LDR-2 zoning in those communities researched; and confirmation from the Public Works Department as to potential volume of runoff specific to this situation as previously reviewed at the Planning Commission level.


Without objection, staff was directed to return with two options (35% and 40%) for Council consideration of an applicable text amendment. 


16.                        City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Trudgeon provided a preview of upcoming agenda items.


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, City Manager Trudgeon advised he would scan and disseminate the formal petition received tonight regarding the Victoria Street pathway.


17.        Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings


18.        Adjourn

Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:52 p.m.


                                 Roll Call

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

Nays: None.