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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

July 25, 2016


1.      Roll Call

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


2.       Pledge of Allegiance


3.       Approve Agenda

Councilmember Etten requested removal of Item 8.i from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.


Councilmember Laliberte questioned why supporting documentation wasn't included with Consent Item 8.c; with City Manager advising with renewals, staff typically didn't include the supporting document that was supplied with new license applications.


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


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, 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.


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

Mayor Roe announced the upcoming initial meeting to receive public input in the process of considering broad issues, concerns and opportunities in the area of SE Roseville Mayor Roe noted this meeting was a partnership of the Cities of Roseville, St. Paul and Maplewood, Ramsey County and the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce for consideration of improvements along the Rice Street and Larpenteur Avenue corridor.


Mayor Roe announced in-person absentee voting dates and hours at Roseville City Hall for the upcoming August primary; and contact information for questions or additional information.


Councilmember Laliberte asked that staff also notify the Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce about the SE Roseville community dialogue meeting as they had also expressed interest in participating.


On behalf of the community and City Council, Councilmember Laliberte recognized the recent national advocacy award received by Rep. Alice Houseman, presented by the National Housing and Redevelopment Association.


City Manager Trudgeon announced an upcoming "Discover Your Parks" at Howard Johnson Park; and reminded the public and City Council of the upcoming Family Night Out at Central Park, and the annual Night to Unite, with 90 different neighborhoods at last count planning neighborhood activities.


City Manager Trudgeon also announced an upcoming Community Conversation at the Fairview Community Center sponsored by Roseville School District No. 623 for an opportunity to have conversations with fellow community members related to recent local and nationwide events.


6.         Recognitions, Donations and Communications


a.            Night to Unite Proclamation

Mayor Roe read a proclamation declaring August 2, 2016 "Night to Unite" in Roseville, calling all citizens to joint in this annual neighborhood event.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, proclaiming August 2, 2016 as "Night to Unite," calling upon all Roseville citizens to join Roseville Neighborhood Watch Groups and the Minnesota Crime Prevention Association in supporting this annual event.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


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 July 11, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the July 11, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as presented.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Approve July 18, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the July 18, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended.



·         Pages 10 - 12 (McGehee)

Change all references from "Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)" to "Environmental Review Worksheet (ERW)"


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Etten, and Roe. 

Nays: None.

Abstentions: Willmus.

Motion carried.


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) dated July 25, 2016 and related attachments.


a.            Approve Payments

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


ACH Payments


82147 -  82361





                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Consideration of New 2016-2017 Massage Therapist Licenses

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of annual business licenses as detailed, dependent on successful background checks.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


c.            Consideration of Renewal of 2016-2017 Massage Therapist Licenses

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of business license renewals for terms as noted, dependent on successful background checks.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


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

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as noted in the RCA dated July 11, 2016, and Attachment A entitled, "2016 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," dated June 30, 2016.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


e.            2016 Policy Priority Planning (PPP) Document Update

Councilmember Etten thanked staff for the formatting and robust progress evidenced on the PPP Update.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, receipt of the 2016 Policy Priority Planning Second Quarter Update as presented.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


f.             Receive 2016 2nd Quarter Financial Report

For the benefit of the public and in conjunction with the 2017 budget review process currently underway, Councilmember McGehee noted that the quarterly financial report lists three of the city's funds (Water Utility, Sewer Utility and Golf Course) in "fair" condition, while others are rated in "good" to "excellent" condition.


Mayor Roe noted the key take-away in the financial update was that the condition of those funds needed the City Council's attention; but also noted revenues versus expenditures to-date for 2016 appeared to be ahead of track, which was a positive indicator.  Specific to the Water and Sewer Utility Funds, Mayor Roe noted that those funds continued to have a steady revenue stream, with rate adjustments according to annual review; which he anticipated would continue to improve.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, receipt of the 2016 Second Quarter Financial Report as presented.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


g.            Consider renewing the IT Shared Service Agreement with the City of White Bear Lake

Councilmember Laliberte noted the acknowledged changes for this contract, and the updated agreement; but asked staff if the amount financial reimbursement for any service changes also change reflectively.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Miller advised that dollar amounts for each of these joint power agreements were reviewed and revised annually depending on changes in the scope of services provided by the City of Roseville's Information Technology staff.  Mr. Miller noted staff's use of individual task orders to define time spent on these contracts to determine services provided annually to these partners rather than using an open-ended contract.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of renewal of an Information Technology Shared Service Agreement (Attached) with the City of White Bear Lake for the purpose of sharing the City's IP telephony system and other support services.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


h.            Wagner Lift Station Project Approve Final Payment

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11340 (Attachment A) entitled, "Final Contract Acceptance " Wagener Lift Station;" accepting the work completed, starting the one-year warranty; and authorizing final payment in an amount not to exceed $4,328.15.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


9.            Consider Items Removed from Consent


i.             Consider Approval of License for Multi-Family Rental Dwelling with Five or More Units - 885 Highway 36 W

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


With the requested removal of this item by Councilmember Etten, Mayor Roe deferred to Codes Coordinator David Englund to respond to questions and provide further clarification.


Mr. Englund reviewed the violation history of this property in 2014, 2015 and in 2016 to-date; and previous short-term licenses due to those ongoing violations. 


Councilmember Etten shared his concerns that this property didn't seem to take seriously the need to correct violations until the last ultimatum; and questioned what else was going on in that building that could cause additional safety concerns.  At this time, Councilmember Etten stated he was not willing to support a three-year renewal for this property, since if the property owner had not taken their final 30-day compliance notice from the city seriously, the staff would have been forced to bring a non-renewal action item before the City Council.  Councilmember Etten questioned if the property owner took the actual gravity of the situation seriously.


Mayor Roe asked Mr. Englund staff's rational in recommending a three-year renewal versus a shorter renewal period, given the property owner's compliance record to-date.  Also, Mayor Roe asked the ramifications if the City Council does not approve the three-year renewal, and the process and options available to the property owner in applying for renewal for a term less than three years.


Mr. Englund noted staff's recommendation for a three-year renewal term was due to their final 30-day inspection after this year's scheduled inspections, seeking correction of remaining violations within that timeframe or ramifications.  At that most recent inspection on June 30, 2016, Mr. Englund reported that all necessary violations had been corrected; thus staff's recommended three-year renewal.  Mr. Englund reported four remaining minor outstanding violations were within one apartment that was inaccessible to management or city staff due to sensitivity of the unit's occupant(s).  Mr. Englund noted that the city's license term is based on the number of violations that dictated the length of term; and with four remaining violations, that puts them in the three-year renewal category.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Englund reviewed the nature of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as detailed in the RCA of this date, with all but one item completed; and thus the notice if all items are not completed, a public meeting before the City Council would occur for revocation of the current license and staff's recommendation for non-renewal.  However, as noted by Mayor Roe, all items listed in the MOU have been brought into compliance as of the last city inspection.


Councilmember McGehee asked the nature of the violation categories found during the most recent May 2016 inspection.


Mr. Englund reviewed the various categories, noting most involved minor maintenance issues: inoperable bath fan, broken patio door latch, and only one life safety item due to missing fire and carbon monoxide detectors.  Mr. Englund advised the remainder were considered minor maintenance issues, with the most significant violation being painting of the building's exterior, which has now also been completed.


Councilmember McGehee stated it seemed that the current city policy for addressing violations had been addressed even though this was a fairly new program and procedure.  Councilmember McGehee noted it seemed Councilmember Etten was questioning if the city's policy needed revised; and agreed with concerns if involving health, safety and welfare of Roseville citizens.  However, Councilmember McGehee opined that if the issue happens to be one particular problematic tenant that had removed smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. it created a tricky situation, and made her question whether it was necessary to change a policy based on the established process followed by staff in this instance.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Englund reviewed staff's rationale for putting in place a six month MOU to address seasonal timing for exterior painting, and budgeting, hiring and having work completed by a contractor as weather permitted.  As noted by Mayor Roe, Mr. Englund clarified that the property owner was no longer served by the MOU upon completion of the exterior painting and other violations; and thus now on their honor, since there would be no inspections, if this renewal was approved, until the end of the three-year term.


In terms of grounds to deviate from the current numerical violations standards in code, Mayor Roe questioned if the City Council had any discretion similar to that in its liquor licensing process.


City Attorney Gaughan advised that if staff and the City Council have agreed and approved these particular rules, standards and procedures, they be followed accordingly to ensure equal treatment.


Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of a three-year multi-family rental dwelling license renewal for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2019, for property owner Mailand Management Corporation, for their facility located at 885 W Highway 36, Roseville, MN.


Mayor Roe noted that tenants or other Roseville residents could file a complaint with the city for any noticeable violations that would then be addressed per the city's recourse as laid out in Chapter 301 of city code.


Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of those concerns raised by Councilmember Etten, but deferred to the advice of City Attorney Gaughan.


Councilmember Etten also agreed with the advice of City Attorney Gaughan.  However, Councilmember Etten wondered if future review was possible to provide some leeway for problems such as this in the future.  Councilmember Etten stated that he found this type of issue troubling with repeat violations and lack of response by a property owner until the last minute or when they had received a final notice of noncompliance.


City Attorney Gaughan noted that the best course of action was not to deviate from policies in place; but suggested the City Council could review its current policy and establish guidelines moving forward.


Mayor Roe noted that would be a separate action from the motion currently on the table.


Councilmember McGehee agreed with the suggestion of City Attorney Gaughan, and the difficulty in allowing the City Council some reasonable discretion unless it came up with a different policy and significant changes in the current process.  Councilmember McGehee opined this was not an area the City Council should exercise discretion for individual properties.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Etten moved, directing staff to create reasonable discretion recommendations for the City Council to review and consider, allowing reasonable discretion when rental licensing program properties are found to have ongoing violations.


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


10.        General Ordinances for Adoption


11.        Presentations


12.        Public Hearings and Action Consideration


a.            I-35W Managed Lane

Mayor Roe introduced this proposed Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) project as detailed in the RCA; and in turn, Public Works Director Marc Culver introduced MnDOT Project Manager Jerome Adams for a presentation on the project as a preliminary before the scheduled Public Hearing.


Mr. Adams presented the project detail entitled, "I-35W n Preliminary Design updated 4/7/2016."  Mr. Adams reviewed the main scope, spot improvements for bridge work and ramps, and an auxiliary lane between the ramps between County Road E-2 and I-694, with other successive ramp work to assist in interchanging traffic.  Mr. Adams also noted a buffer lane for interchange clover leaf work similar to that provided with a more expensive flyover design; and also the proposed auxiliary lane between I-35W and Highway 610 providing additional benefits to I-35W even though it impacted westbound Highway 10 by connecting a third lane back to the southbound exit ramp on I-35W and additional capacity on northbound Highway 10.


As part of the project, Mr. Adams noted noise wall design is included as an option, and specific to Roseville would be proposed for installation on the east side of I-35W south of County Road D and north of the ponds located closer to County Road C and up to County Road D.  Mr. Adams noted this presentation and public hearing were the first steps, with the next step for those benefitting property owners to vote on the noise wall in that area.  Mr. Adams displayed a photo of the current noise wall prototype used by MnDOT, constructed of brown wood with pine tree motifs and tan colored concrete posts.  Mr. Adams noted the noise wall location was proposed from north of the County Road C interchange up to County Road D at the Roseville border.


Mr. Adams reviewed one of three triggers allowing for Municipal Consent, in accordance with MN Statute 161.16, as detailed in the RCA.   With the increased capacity for the I-35W freeway, Mr. Adams advised that triggered the municipal consent clause. 


Mr. Adams advised that at this point there was no cost to the city for the project, with funding entirely by the state or federal governments.  However, Mr. Adams noted that at this time, there was a funding gap for the project, that would impact the actual start date (2018 or 2019) and the project itself.  However, Mr. Adams advised that MnDOT staff is currently working with Mr. Culver and Roseville Public Works/Engineering staff on possibly addressing a larger sanitary sewer and storm sewer issue at the County Road C interchange to see if there was a clever solution to tie into the MnDOT project.  While there was no final verdict at this time, Mr. Adams advised that that potential work would not be contingent upon building the proposed MN PASS lane, in case no solution could be found.  Mr. Adams advised that work would continue on a potential solution for the utility issue if and when necessary; and an update would be provided at that point.


As noted in the RCA, Mr. Culver noted once the MnDOT project goes into final design, any additional stormwater improvements above and beyond the scope of the MnDOT project itself or any other possible cooperative project with Ramsey County (e.g. improved intersections or signal upgrades) may involve some cost participation for the city.  However, before the project went to bid, Mr. Culver clarified that a cooperative maintenance agreement would be negotiated between all parties at which point city costs would be clearly identified.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Adams and Mr. Culver reviewed the location of the four proposed bridge replacements; and addressed her observation that some recent bridge reconstruction projects provided nicer finishes - as well as noise walls - than done in the past.  Councilmember McGehee suggested these bridges and noise walls receive similar aesthetic improvements as well.  Specifically, Councilmember McGehee noted the unappealing nature of the current noise wall along Highway 36.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, provided they get voted in by benefitting property owners, Mr. Adams confirmed that noise walls were part of the current cost estimate as outlined, $208 million total; and if not voted in, the total cost would be reduced accordingly.


If the managed lane project moves forward in the future, Mayor Roe noted it may be a candidate, referencing a similar existing noise wall on the east side of I-35E now being replaced.  Mayor Roe questioned if the managed lane project continued into Minneapolis, would there be some opportunity to get a new noise wall.


Mr. Adams advised that an advisory committee had been meeting for over a year now, with Mr. Culver serving on that committee along with staff representatives from the corridor spanning two counties, to review the visual quality of bridges.  Mr. Adams advised that this current bridge prototype design matched what was recently completed on Highway 96 and I-35W and current County Road I bridges, providing a more consistent and aesthetically pleasing appearance versus the old ones.  Mr. Adams displayed schematics for various bridge faces and textures for various applications, including options for those with high abutments.  Specific to the noise wall on the south side of Highway 36 referenced by Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Adams recognized it was much older.


Given the location of the proposed noise wall and adjacency to Roseville commercial properties between County Roads C and D, Councilmember Laliberte asked if there was a process for them to weigh in.


Mr. Adams advised that any commercial properties immediately adjacent to noise walls would receive a vote. 


While more details will be available by the end of August of 2016, Mr. Culver stated that based on his understanding, commercial property owners would receive two votes per parcel.  With the city owning trail property adjacent as well, it would be considered a tenant, the city would also have a voice and one vote on the noise wall.  Mr. Culver noted the interest of commercial property owners along that stretch in balancing visibility of their businesses versus noise levels; especially from complaints heard by hotel owners from their patrons about that freeway noise.  Mr. Culver stated he anticipated numerous new sign permits coming forward if and when a noise wall was completed.


In his attendance as the grand openings of several of those newest hotels, Mayor Roe noted that was a topic of discussion by their management team and trade-offs involved.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Adams reviewed the current schedule, with this first public hearing meeting one key requirement for municipal consent and October 2016 deadline.


Mr. Culver further reviewed steps over the next 60-90 days from tonight's public hearing and additional public comment opportunities after a vote by property owners on the noise wall and prior to final municipal consent vote.


For clarification, Mayor Roe confirmed that unless the city specifically requests an add on to the MnDOT project (e.g. storm sewer and sanitary sewer infrastructure improvements), there would be no financial participation from the city. 


Mr. Adams confirmed that, at this point, the City of Roseville would have no cost participation; and would only have a cost if they added to the MnDOT project as noted by Mr. Culver related to attempted resolution of the sanitary and storm sewer conflicts noted at County Road C, with this project serving as an opportune time to address those issues if feasible.


Mayor Roe opened the public hearing at approximately 6:57 p.m. for the purpose of receiving public comment on a proposed MnDOT project along I-35W adding a managed lane in each direction from Trunk Highway 36 in Roseville to Anoka County State Aid Highway 17 (Lexington Avenue) in Blaine, MN; tentatively scheduled for spring of 2019, pending finalization of full funding, and possibly as early as spring of 2018.  With no one appearing for or against, Mayor Roe closed the public hearing at approximately 6:58 p.m.


Mayor Roe reiterated that the proposed project would return to the City Council for official action probably within ninety days.


13.        Budget Items


14.        Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Discussion Regarding High Density Residential (HDR) Housing Districts and the Planned Unit Development (PUD)Process (PROJ0039)

Mayor Roe introduced this item and recognized City Planner Thomas Paschke for up update based on past discussions and direction to staff from the City Council.  As detailed in the RCA, Mr. Paschke reviewed the current HDR and PUD processes and issues, and outlined several potential options for consideration by the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council (page 2, lines 31-34).  Mr. Paschke advised that staff felt these revisions addressed the two areas of concern and allowed more flexibility in HDR-1 and HDR-2 to address those issues.


Specific to the PUD issue and possible amendment to increase density, Mr. Paschke noted lines 36 - 86 addressed staff's analysis related to senior and other housing.  Mr. Paschke cautioned that staff thought this may have intended consequences, and therefore at this time, could not support revisions as noted.


Interim Community Development Director Kari Collins noted the purpose of tonight's discussion was to gather the objectives and outcomes the City Council would like to see for HDR proposals (e.g. senior housing classifications as lower impacts); and whether they thought the Conditional Use (CU) process addressed any and all uses, if done on a case by case review.  As mentioned by Mr. Paschke, Ms. Collins noted the proposed PUD text amendment pending Planning Commission review and recommendation and City Council approval that would include density language and increase it to 30%.  However, Ms. Collins noted this also involved the acreage component that also may need amending, but advised staff was seeking which option the City Council found more to accomplish the desired outcomes it was seeking (from 24 to 36 units as outlined in the proposed draft at 50% versus 30%).  Assuming the CU allow up to 50%, Ms. Collins noted it could also be a percentage not necessarily that high, but subject to discussion by the City Council to address mitigation and cost versus benefit analyses.


Mr. Paschke agreed, noting that a subsequent traffic study and case by case review during the CU process may determine that an increase up to 36 units may not work, while something in between may be more preferable and thus recommended rather than the maximum number of units per acre.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Paschke confirmed the maximum building height would remain the same.


Specific to the Good Samaritan proposal and rezoning request that brought this discussion forward, Councilmember Willmus advised his concern was whether or not that was the highest and best use for those parcels.  Councilmember Willmus stated he still struggled with that, and therefore wasn't sure if staff's recommendation to move from 24 to 36 units per acre sufficed, without also addressing a maximum building height and design considerations.  For reference, Councilmember Willmus stated he wasn't interested in seeing a duplication of the situation at 6800 Xerxes Avenue in Edina, MN; with single-family residential use on one side of the street and 65' to 70' buildings directly across the street.  Councilmember Willmus noted the impacts for solar access for those single-family properties; stating the real issue for him was the overall height and proximity of this type of use to surrounding single-family residential and what those existing neighborhoods would be faced with.  Councilmember Willmus questioned if increasing units per acre addressed either of those variables.


Mayor Roe noted, with confirmation from Mr. Paschke, the 30' setback form the side property line that would remain in effect.  At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke confirmed that there were no HDR-2 zoned parcels yet built upon, but several zoned accordingly.  Therefore, Mayor Roe noted any development would need to request rezoning from the city to add height over the 65' in the HDR-1 zone.


Councilmember McGehee noted the existing PUD process now in place, and stated her lack of interest in changing it, since it changed across the entire city, not just for one parcel.  Councilmember McGehee noted the city had a history of doing that spot rezoning, which she was not supportive of.  However, Councilmember McGehee questioned the best option for a site and desirable project such as the Good Samaritan project where it provided needed housing stock, and whether it was possible to provide a CU for this particular parcel and specify the number of units sought by the developer with appropriate height and setbacks addressed.  Councilmember McGehee opined she found their site plan and overall layout reasonable; but struggled with how to specify CU running with the land and to what extend to ensure it conformed with no more than 48 units and the proposed overall building footprint and height, specific to a CU.


Mayor Roe clarified that staff's recommendation was to change the number of units per acre, with all other zoning requirements for HDR-1 and HDR-2 districts remaining unchanged.  Mayor Roe noted the Good Samaritan project met all zoning requirements for HDR-1 except the number of units per acre; and this proposed revision attempted to address that, while not changing any other standards already met.  Mayor Roe opined that if the City Council wanted a CU to apply more restrictions on other elements, it sounded more like a PUD process to change density.


Mr. Paschke noted the PUD process, up to 36 units in the case of the Good Samaritan project, would serve to limit that project to a certain number of units on the site and other conditions that would run with the property.  Mr. Paschke noted the majority of the project met most other HDR-1 conditions.


At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan clarified that any conditions reasonable related to and pursuant to the CU process and the actual project itself allowed the City Council some latitude and direction under the PUD process to include more ancillary conditions as indicated, and as noted "reasonable" and already within the city's PUD language ordinance.


Mayor Roe clarified the reasons for concern and rationale in looking at PUD's was the notion of providing all other changes when looking to address a particular proposal that met all other requirements of HDR-1, other than rezoning for units per acre, as with the Good Samaritan project.  However, Mayor Roe noted that discussion opened up other discussions related to height and setbacks on the site that would follow the property in perpetuity.  Therefore, Mayor Roe suggested the city keep the rest of the zoning parameters in place, and allow for no density in CU versus the PUD process; noting that wasn't relevant to this proposal; and therefore suggested not putting that into play in this situation when considering density per acre.


Councilmember McGehee agreed; and questioned if there was a specific reason to bump up HDR-1 and HDR-2 units per acre.


Mayor Roe advised that the reason was to clearly define the number of units at a maximum of 36 units to avoid an infinite number, and as confirmed by Mr. Paschke, anything else would fall under the PUD process.


Under those circumstances, Councilmember McGehee stated her satisfaction with the proposal at 36 units, allowing the Good Samaritan project to reach their preferred goal.


Discussion ensued between Mayor Roe and Councilmember Willmus related to two different zoning categories for a 30% increase in HDR-1 at 36 units per acre. Councilmember Willmus advised he wasn't supportive of HDR-1 at 36 units, and expressed interest in HDR-2 zoning to look at a unit cap per acre; as well as tweaking setback requirements.


Councilmember Etten expressed his appreciation for the latitude this allowed the City Council.  However, Councilmember Etten stated one remaining concern was how this worked with the single-family buffers in LDR-1 and LDR-2 zoning for density, referencing the HDR chart and setback requirements based on where they're located for HDR-1 and HDR-2; questioning if the same could be done for height.


Mr. Paschke agreed that could be done, suggesting a 10' allowance for increased density in both districts.


Councilmember Etten stated that would alleviate some of his concerns; but still did not agree with the setbacks for HDR-2, which are often significantly less than those found in HDR-1; with no allowances whether next to LDR-1 or LDR-2 zoned properties; and without that protection, higher density remained problematic from his perspective.


Mr. Paschke advised that staff would need to further review those requirements and how they fit with overall design standards in city code, and what could be accomplished with setbacks.


Mayor Roe noted there were other sections of code that dealt with adjacency to single-family parcels, maybe not across the street, but those directly adjacent.


Ms. Collins noted the subscript in the RCA below Table 1004-6 (page 2) addressing dimensional standards.


Mayor Roe noted there were less setback requirements for HDR-1 districts placed in or around Regional Business designations or more intense uses with greater height allowed.  Since there isn't anything currently being built on HDR-2 zoned parcels, Mayor Roe noted this allowed the ability for the City Council to look at every proposed HDR-2 parcel next to single-family parcels.  Mayor Roe noted this may have been the rationale for setting it up that way and may make sense for some parcels while not with others, all unknown at this point; and allowing future City Councils the discretion to make those changes accordingly.  For this specific Good Samaritan project, Mayor Roe opined HDR-1 was what worked for this parcel; and suggested HDR-2 may be part of the comprehensive plan update discussion and MDR and HDR process within the community, providing broader discussion and more public input.


Discussion ensued related to the CU process and ability of the City Council to make decisions on a case by case basis and as part of public health, safety and welfare considerations to review surrounding land uses.


Specific to the calculations for the Good Samaritan project, if around 30%, it would allow for 33 plus units, not much different than the requested 36 units; and suggested that number was appropriate for this particular proposal.


Councilmember Etten stated his preference to think about this more broadly, and not change the chart (page 2) for just this specific project, but to address the building height concern at a maximum of 50' to 55' when adjacent to LDR-1 and LDR-2 parcels.  Councilmember Etten opined that may satisfy both needs and give more latitude for the city.


Mayor Roe clarified that there was no recommended change to the chart tonight; and agreed he would like to see height restrictions addressed in code; and preferred that this recommendation come back to the City Council after further refinement and research of those items noted by staff before going through the Planning Commission process with that additional information included.


Mayor Roe also asked that an increase to 36 units per acre be looked at through the CU lens for other properties recently under discussion and deviation from HDR-1 for their specific acreage.  If the City Council wants to make this change and CU approval, if it was found that 80% of those other properties fell within that range, Mayor Roe opined that it would provide helpful information within that context and for subsequent discussion.


Without objection, Mayor Roe directed staff to review city code setback language, building height related to adjacencies, and capping units per acre at 36 without conditions specific to subsequent HDR-1 discussions.


Councilmember McGehee asked if there was a way to simply tweak the PUD ordinance for those projects offering much in terms of amenities and material, to allow a 10% increase in residential density depending on the number of site amenities included.  Councilmember McGehee noted once the increase in density was specified at 30% for the PUD, it would be binding and run with the property in perpetuity.  Councilmember McGehee stated she saw that as an alternative route to the CU.


Mayor Roe suggested making the PUD increase potential consistent with the CU potential, with the developer having the option to pursue either route for additional density preferences, based on other considerations as a trade-off.  Mayor Roe further suggested, if just a density issue, the developer could follow the PUD process, but noted further discussion may occur on that specific issue during subsequent discussion of the City Council when this item returns in the near future.


Councilmember McGehee opined she saw that as a value-added path in the PUD process; but stated she wasn't sure if there was a 10% increase allowed in the context of current requirements; and suggested those discussions be held all-inclusively.


Councilmember Laliberte stated her preference to talk about existing weaknesses in the PUD process, especially since that work was so recently completed; and may need a fresh look to determine if it was working as originally intended.  Councilmember Laliberte agreed with tonight's discussion, and agreed with one last review before it went to the Planning Commission.  Councilmember Laliberte clarified her rationale in voting against this originally, seeking that this closer attention to potential inadvertent weaknesses could be addressed.


Councilmember Etten stated his approval in having this come back, both or either topic.  Councilmember Etten noted if the PUD allowed up to a 50% increase and review of each specific case for other features, he was fine; but stated he wasn't interested in changing the bulk of current provisions.


Mayor Roe clarified he was seeking discussion, not personally advocating; but wanted to further think about both avenues.


Mayor Roe thanked staff for bringing this additional information forward and their thoughtful approach in doing so.


b.            Consideration of an INTERIM USE to Allow Temporary Concrete and Asphalt Crushing, Recycling, and Storage at the Former PIK Terminal, 2690 Prior Avenue (PF16-015)

City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed this request and staff's analysis (lines 32-108) as detailed in the RCA and displayed maps. 


Mr. Paschke referenced the Planning Commission's review and noted action as detailed in lines 109-147.  In response to feedback at the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Paschke noted the applicant has subsequently relocated the stockpile from its original intended general area and proposed locating it near the corner as shown to enhance security with fencing; as well as it being further away from any potential drainage issues toward Langton Lake.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Paschke reviewed other crushing operations that may have occurred in the Twin Lakes area in the past or more recently, advising the only other he was aware of was on Walnut Street when a large building was demolished and crushed on site.  Mr. Paschke advised that a permit was approved as an IU on the Dorso site in the past when the area was under a Master Plan developer, but the project had not come to fruition.


Councilmember McGehee noted there was no analysis about the potential for asbestos, and advised that often in older concrete, asbestos was used as a method to strengthen the concrete.  Councilmember McGehee also expressed concern with the potential for dust, whether containing asbestos or not that may occur and be significant.  Specific to the asbestos, Councilmember McGehee advised that confirmation of its existence could only be done through testing of the concrete; and based on her review of documentation there was nothing addressing such testing.  Also, if the intent is to make this area look better and have this site shove-ready, Councilmember McGehee questioned how a stockpile of quasi-crushed material on the site for up to two years could accomplish that goal.  Regarding the potential for asbestos in the concrete to be crushed on site, Councilmember McGehee opined there was no oversight from any government agency on that crushing as it now stands.


With the city being in the role of environmental monitoring, Mr. Paschke advised that other than the required permits issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), he was unsure of other requirements the developer and/or contractor would need to comply with.


Mayor Roe and Councilmember Etten referenced the Response Action Plan (RAP) completed by the applicant (Attachment C, page 5) for that information.


Councilmember McGehee disputed that as in adequate, opining that the RAP addressed buried building materials, requiring a certified inspector to address on site; but clarified she was not referring to buried material, but existing concrete poured during a period in time when it was common to include asbestos fibers in concrete for stability.  Councilmember McGehee advised that she had provided City Manager Trudgeon with an article about that practice.


Mayor Roe clarified with Councilmember McGehee that her concern was that asbestos may be in the concrete and could be tested to make that determination.


Applicant Representative/Contractor, Bob Vollhaber, Forest Lake Contractors, 14777 Lake Drive, Forest Lake, MN

Councilmember Etten noted that in 2014, various soil probes had been done, and asked Mr. Vollhaber what those probes tested for.


Mayor Roe referenced Attachment C, figure 2 (site diagram); and asked if the applicant had that information as requested by Councilmember Etten.


Mr. Vollhaber advised that this was before he was brought onto the project as a contractor, and responded that he was not familiar with those previous probes.


Under the circumstances, with that information not available tonight, Mayor Roe asked Mr. Vollhaber if he was aware of any testing he was aware of that may indicate if asbestos was in the concrete currently on site.


Mr. Vollhaber advised that, as part of the requirement when any building is removed, asbestos testing was necessary; and since it looked like all building materials had been removed to-date, if there was asbestos found, it was now only involving the concrete pavement.


Mayor Roe admitted this was the first he'd heard about the possibility for those environmental concerns and construction work done over 30 years ago.


Councilmember Willmus agreed it was common practice from the early 1900's up to the 1970's; and noted Councilmember McGehee had a valid point.


Public Comment

Mayor Roe noted that the formal public hearing had already been heard at the Planning Commission; but offered an additional opportunity for public comment at this point.


Duane Metz, Roseville resident on Mildred Drive between County Road C-2 and Lydia Avenue (east side of Langton Lake)

With relocation of the stockpile as now indicated, Mr. Metz opined any runoff should go into the storm sewer rather than directly into Langton Lake.  However, Mr. Metz stated he still had a concern with air pollution, as noted by Councilmember McGehee, and the potential dust generated that would create issues for his family with asthma issues, and others hindered form walking around the lake and park due to dust generation.


In general, Mr. Metz also expressed with concern with water quality of Langton Lake and current work on Twin Lakes Parkway.  With recent heavy rains, Mr. Metz noted the runoff dams built during the construction have been quite inadequate and the results were that the lake had turned brown from that runoff.


Mr. Metz further addressed his concerns related to noise pollution with this project, specifically start time, noting even the neighborhood refuse haulers didn't start before 8:00 a.m. and if this project started earlier, it would be of major concern for him as an area resident.

Council Deliberation

Provided the applicant didn't request and receive a waiver from city code, Mayor Roe advised that hours of operation applied with no crushing activity allowed other than during those specific hours. 


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No.11342 (Attachment E) entitled, "A Resolution Approving an INTERIM USE for Crushing and Stockpiling of Aggregate Material on the PIK Terminal Property, 2690 Prior Avenue;" Etten; amended as follows:

·         Add Condition #7: "Prior to removal, concrete will be tested for asbestos.

As part of his second to the motion, Councilmember Willmus asked that the proposed Condition #7 be revised to include testing of the foundation poured prior to 1970, with concurrence by Councilmember Etten and language further finessed as follows:

·         "Prior to crushing operations, concrete will be tested for asbestos; [and the portion of the foundation poured prior to 1970 will also be tested prior to any crushing and/or removal;] and if any asbestos is found, work will be halted to create an appropriate change to the crushing and/or removal of stockpiled materials."


Councilmember Etten expressed appreciation for the prior conditions recommended by staff and the Planning Commission, noting they were necessary to prepare the site as shove-ready for redevelopment.


Councilmember Willmus reiterated that Councilmember McGehee had a valid point; and with the additional condition it would address his concerns.


Councilmember Laliberte asked why the IU allowed up to two years to stockpile the material; with Mayor Roe clarifying that was the maximum period allowed under the IU.  Councilmember Laliberte stated it was not her preference that the stockpile should remain for that full two year period.


Councilmember McGehee stated she would not support this motion, even as amended, opining the city was failing in its duty to protect citizens, especially those using the pathway constructed by the city for their enjoyment.  Without any oversight other than the word of the contractor present at tonight's meeting; and with no reasonable condition related to an air monitoring system set up and continually running to monitor the amount of dust in the area, she was even more concerned.  Councilmember McGehee noted the fact this was most likely heavily contaminated soil, only identified by the contractor but not by a municipal or state official; and with that material to be crushed on site with the potential to leach into the ground water and then Langton Lake, she could not condone this request.  Councilmember McGehee noted the city was supposed to be responsible for cleaning up these contaminated sites, whether lightly or heavily contaminated concrete, and for that material to be crushed on site at the risk of city residents, hotel patrons, or workers on the project, and potentially stored on site for up to two years, she also found of grave concern.  Since this site was so close to the freeway, Councilmember McGehee opined there was no reason, other than additional cost to the contractor and/or developer, the material could easily be hauled off site and clean Class 5 material be hauled in to prepare the site for building.  If there was an immediate use eminent for the site and some real oversight of the actual contamination of these materials, Councilmember McGehee stated she may be persuaded, but since there was apparently no use at all of those materials on this site, and the unknown nature of whether they will eventually be hauled off site of not, she didn't see what the city was gaining if allowing the crushing operation on site other than having a shove-ready and clean site.  Councilmember McGehee further noted this site wasn't out in the middle of nowhere but of potential risk for new tenants on the lake and others around the site; and consisted of known contaminated materials as evidenced by other excavations and soil borings, making it a matter of how much it was contaminated.  Councilmember McGehee opined if left up to the contractor to make the determination, which she found to be an inadequate check, it was incumbent upon the municipality to assume responsibility for activities or monitoring of those activities in a scientific way to protect the quality of the park and health of its residents and neighbors, as well as patrons of its public amenities.


Councilmember Laliberte sought clarification on the 30-day period intent.


While unsure if they had yet to be applied for pending approval of the IU by the City Council, City Manager Trudgeon noted that was the anticipated timeframe for the developer/contractor to obtain permit approvals from the state and county with that timeframe yet to be determined depending on the processes of those agencies.


Councilmember McGehee asked Mr. Vollhaber for a cost comparison for hauling the materials off sight versus crushing and storing them on site.


Mr. Vollhaber responded that it would depend on the market for the materials at the time they became available; but anticipated it would be in the range of $40,000 to $60,000 in savings to crush them on site and re-use them in the local area.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee as to whether the reason for seeking the IU to crush on site was solely a financial decision, Mr. Vollhaber responded that it was that partly as well as a wise use of recycled materials in the area in which they were generated rather than trucking them off site.  Mr. Vollhaber advised that the intent was to start crushing operations this fall as soon as permits are obtained.


In the RAP, Councilmember Etten noted it spoke to MPCA testing and approvals (pages 3-4) and what happened with known contaminated soils and how any contamination would be addressed.  Councilmember Etten asked if there was a process in place dictated at some level by the MPCA.


Specific to Condition 1 recommended by staff and the Planning Commission, Councilmember Laliberte asked if it should be amended to include Ramsey County as well; with Mr. Paschke clarifying he was not aware of any county permits needed.


At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon advised he was unsure, but noted sometimes demolition required both city and county approval, and while it may or may not be required in this specific case, since it involved a foundation, he suggested including the county in Condition 1 as a safeguard.


Without objection, the maker and seconder of the motion agreed to amend Condition #1 to state; "all government agencies."


Since there were several foundations involved, Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of testing all of them, regardless of when they were poured, since it was unclear of their status without further expert information on when use of asbestos was banned.  Councilmember Laliberte stated she'd prefer not to have the language so precise as proposed in the motion for the year 1970; and asked that the specific year be removed from new Condition #7.


Councilmember Willmus stated his opposition to removing that year, opining it would be highly unlikely to find asbestos in concrete poured after 1970, as referenced in RCA information.  Councilmember Willmus reiterated his preference to test the area of the building built before 1970.


Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, amendment to the motion that Condition #7 be revised to state "all concrete will be tested, regardless of the date poured," with removal of the specific 1970 date.


If that was done, Councilmember Etten suggested the need to specify somehow that testing was done on each separate iteration of the foundation addition separately.


Councilmember Etten suggested, Roe seconded amendment to Condition #7 to specify that testing be separately done on each foundation addition independently.


Councilmember Laliberte sought clarification for which separate foundations were being addressed to test each independently, noting reference wasn't sufficient for the "west" building and "east" building without creating confusion.


City Attorney Gaughan noted the "west" and "east" building foundations were the descriptors as noted on the displayed map; and expressed concern that those descriptors of identifying them as "each segment" was too vague.


Councilmember Etten noted the other outbuildings on site as well.


Mayor Roe suggested language consisting of "testing of foundations regardless of their date of construction."


Mayor Roe questioned if that provided sufficient and clear direction to staff for them to know which sections should be tested.


City Attorney Gaughan stated his concern that this was getting into a fence line issue and creating more vagueness in the attempt to get more specific.  Mr. Gaughan suggested the year of construction may be the cleanest way to clarify the intent.


Mayor Roe clarified that everything installed before 1970 should be tested; and anything after that didn't need to be tested.


City Attorney Gaughan referenced the original motion as stated; noting that the point was to address the area of highest likelihood to contain asbestos; noting that may in and of itself trigger MPCA interest.


Discussion ensued regarding actual motion language desired; and preferred due diligence by the city for this parcel and potential contaminants.


Mayor Roe refocused discussion on the current amendment before the body, restated as: Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, amendment to the motion that Condition #7 be revised to state "all concrete will be tested, regardless of the date poured," with removal of the specific 1970 date.


After further discussion, Councilmember Laliberte recognized the vagueness of her motion, and difficulty for staff to enforce; but reiterated her concern that the year was not appropriate to include.


                        Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte and McGehee. 

Nays: Willmus, Etten and Roe.

Motion failed.


Councilmember McGehee reiterated her concerns with the lack of enforcement with the motion before the body; and opined the contractor and land owner both had significant financial benefit not to pursue necessary permits to address asbestos contamination; noting it would actually be a financial discouragement for them to find contaminated soil, given the expense in treating asbestos contaminated soils and materials.  With the contractor left to make those determinations on their own, Councilmember McGehee opined it simply left the material floating around the city without any accountability.


McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, amendment to add Condition #8 to read as follows: "An air monitoring system shall be set up during crushing operations."


Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of the motion, opining she didn't see that additional measurement of air quality to be a burden.


                        Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte and McGehee. 

Nays: Willmus, Etten and Roe.

Motion failed.


Specific to Condition 1 whether necessary, Mr. Paschke suggested revising it to read "all government agencies" and to make language of Conditions #1 and #2 consistent.


            Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: McGehee.

Motion carried.


Original motion as amended and restated as follows:

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No.___ (Attachment E) entitled, "A Resolution Approving an INTERIM USE for Crushing and Stockpiling of Aggregate Material on the PIK Terminal Property, 2690 Prior Avenue;" Etten; amended as follows:

·         Revise Conditions 1 and 2 for consistency and to read "all government agencies."

·          "Prior to crushing operations, concrete will be tested for asbestos; [and the portion of the foundation poured prior to 1970 will also be tested prior to any crushing and/or removal;] and if any asbestos is found, work will be halted to create an appropriate change to the crushing and/or removal of stockpiled materials."


                        Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, Willmus, Etten, and Roe. 

Nays: McGehee.

Motion carried.


c.            Review Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Comprehensive Plan Update, and Provide Input on Modifications to the Draft; and Direct Staff to Issue the Request for Proposals (PROJ0037)

Interim Community Development Director Kari Collins introduced the latest draft RFP for consideration, following initial input from the City Council and Planning Commission, and incorporated into the draft for further guidance and direction to staff.


Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly summarized draft RFP (Attachment B).


Public Engagement, Section D, Page 5

Mayor Roe asked that this section include a requirement and emphasis that consultants to show their previous public engagement efforts informing this update; and that past Roseville-specific public engagement processes include a model similar to that of the Park Master Plan process, in addition to those listed (e.g. Imagine Roseville 2025).  In other words, Mayor Roe asked that an emphasis be placed in that paragraph that this comprehensive plan update process be informed by previous public engagement of the consultant and successful models in Roseville.


References, Section 4, Page 6

Mayor Roe questioned the need for specific references; but suggested it be noted that the consultant would be evaluated on their public engagements efforts in the past.


Selection Criteria, Section #, Page 9

Mayor Roe asked that selection criteria include the consultant's experience with public engagement planning.


In this section, Councilmember McGehee questioned the need to include the bullet point: "Ability to work as a team with City Council, advisory commissions and committees, and staff."  Councilmember McGehee also questioned the need to include "Familiarity with Roseville," since that may preclude a proposer, while they could bring their own past experience and/or ideas to the table.


Councilmember Willmus agreed with the comments of his colleagues so far with the exception of leaving in the criteria for "Familiarity with Roseville."  Councilmember Willmus stated he wasn't interested in out-of-state consultants, opining the geographic locale and familiarity was important.


Mayor Roe agreed with a familiarity at least with the Twin Cities area or Roseville-type communities (e.g. Richfield, MN) was important.


Proposal, Section 3, Additional Information, Page 7

Item d

Councilmember McGehee asked staff what was intended by this additional information request.


Mr. Lloyd responded it was intended to include a consultant's methods for getting input (e.g. survey methods, etc.).


Item b

In reading the city's own most recent survey, Councilmember McGehee noted 50% of the community weren't on line; so the idea of having the technology component as a requirement from her perspective didn't seem like a big plus.  Councilmember McGehee asked staff to bear in mind that many in the community didn't depend on cell phones or were able to use the internet.


Regarding the use of technology, Mayor Roe stated when he read that section, he took it as not engaging the public through technology so much as a consultant's interaction with staff and working more efficiently.


Mr. Lloyd clarified that the language was intended to cover a full range of technological advantages.


Mayor Roe recognized Councilmember McGehee's concerns, but also spoke in support of not losing sight of electronic efficiencies throughout the process.


Public Safety, Section C.1, Page 5

Councilmember Etten asked if it was common to have this section included and sought comparisons with other community comprehensive plan updates.


Mr. Lloyd responded that he was not aware of chapters specific for public safety, but at the low end of what may be involved would include a view toward environmental design.  Mr. Lloyd noted this would include intentional landscape design focused on public safety, such as scenarios that didn't' increase the risk for pedestrians or traffic to address design guidelines (e.g. lighting, allowing more eyes on the street, etc.).


Section C, 3, Thrive MSP 2040 Outcomes, Page 5

Councilmember Willmus noted the Planning Commission's discussion on this area, and asked staff to expand on what the Metropolitan Council was actually looking for.


Mr. Lloyd responded that it was not a requirement or nothing formal was required, but through the Metropolitan Council's latest planning efforts advised they were finding themes in regional feedback related to stewardship (e.g. Green Step Cities participation) to encourage cities to be good environmental stewards.


Related to posterity, Mr. Lloyd stated he considered that related to well-functioning economies, and Economic Development Authority (EDA) efforts of late to create a business-friendly environment (business retention).


Specific to equity, Mr. Lloyd stated this was making sure people in the community were provided with more choices for numerous elements in their lives.


While unable to specifically address livability, Mr. Lloyd suggested there may be examples provided in the Thrive Outcome models.


Mr. Lloyd advised that sustainability involved more environmentally-focused communitywide efforts.


Mr. Lloyd advised that there was a much longer list previously discussed with the City Council and Planning Commission; and as one commissioner had mentioned, these five MSP outcomes represented many of the things already being talked about in the community.  Therefore, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff summarized the list for evaluation of what planning Roseville was already involved in, even though it may not be explicitly noted most of the time.  By including these elements, Mr. Lloyd opined that overall it improved the comprehensive plan and showed the community's commitment to the broader strong, thriving region, as well as to the City of Roseville itself.  Mr. Lloyd noted this could provide a theme during development of the comprehensive plan and address city and area health in general.


Mayor Roe noted there was quite a bit of information on the Metropolitan Council's website about Thrive MSP 2040.


Councilmember McGehee stated those five items should be incorporated into the community vision as well as the comprehensive plan and be used in all areas.  Councilmember McGehee opined that sustainability involved financial interests as well as environmental interests, and also included livability.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that the majority of the Imagine Roseville 2025 goals and strategies were included in the previous comprehensive plan update. Councilmember McGehee stated she didn't see the community surveys or community core values having changed that much; and as this update moves forward, it presents a vision that should include these five elements.  In her reading of those items included on page 4, Councilmember McGehee noted it was suggested a consultant would be hired if meeting certain requirements; but opined the comprehensive plan update should go beyond simply meeting requirements.


Ms. Collins clarified that the intent of including these criteria in the RFP was to make sure the city found a consultant familiar with MSP 2040 Outcomes; but to what degree they actually shaped the final product would come out of public comment opportunities.


Mayor Roe agreed those MSP 2040 Outcomes were implicit, and under the next layer below the surface; and if the comprehensive plan talks about these elements in a broader, more regional scope, it would be looked upon favorably by the Metropolitan Council.


Section C, Other Planning Elements, Page 5

Councilmember Laliberte noted the need to also focus on other areas in this section.  Councilmember Laliberte referenced the joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission at which time discussions were held on the comprehensive plan update, and apparent focus on the technical update.  When discussion involved other elements, such as proximity to grocery stores, etc., Councilmember Laliberte noted there was no interest in delving that deep into updating the comprehensive plan.  Councilmember Laliberte noted the many differing opinions across the region on Thrive MSP 2040, and opined that she found including that deviated from past discussions about what the update should include.  Councilmember Laliberte asked for more comment from her colleagues; and asked if the Thrive MSP 2040 was incorporated, the city's comprehensive plan became a regional planning effort, while previously the City Council chose not to discuss Thrive even though it affected the city, unless it just never got around to doing so.  Councilmember Laliberte noted it was a huge document that she wasn't sure should be included without a full discussion, since she didn't think that was the initial direction in which the update was intended.


Councilmember Etten agreed there were specific things that the City Council didn't previously flesh out, but suggested using the Thrive MS 2040 as another lens for the consultant to be aware of in the process.  Councilmember Etten opined that awareness was different than incorporating them as goals; and therefore he was comfortable with them remaining in the RFP.  Councilmember Etten further opined that they provided a broad picture of how things are looked at and how they've ultimately framed.


Councilmember McGehee stated she was also comfortable leaving them in, as noted by Councilmember Etten, they provided an additional lens and may only involve updating little pieces for mechanical approval and provided things to keep in mind as part of protecting city residents and being responsible citizens of the broader region.


Councilmember Willmus stated he looked through the lens of things the city was already doing, as noted by Mr. Lloyd, rather than embracing the whole of Thrive MSP 2040.


Mayor Roe suggested opposition to MSP 2040 ideas may have more to do with political opposition to the Metropolitan Council or differing points of view that were outside Roseville-specific ideals.  Mayor Roe agreed with using that MSP 2040 lens involving broad categories that didn't require specific mandates; but simply recognized the positive things Roseville was already doing, allowing for a better understanding of community goals as well as demonstrating the city's fit and interest in the broader regional picture.  As far as the city's involvement in regional planning, Mayor Roe noted the city was already involved statutorily under the Metropolitan Council as the regional planning agency.  By incorporating some of that language into the Roseville comprehensive plan, Mayor Roe opined did not cause him any concern in that context.


Councilmember Laliberte concurred with the comments of Mayor Roe, and clarified it was not her intent to take a political stance either, nor did she wish the city to do so.  Councilmember Laliberte further clarified that her thought was toward previous discussions on the scope of the RFP and plan update.  Councilmember Laliberte opined that, since the Thrive MSP 2040 elements had not been looked at yet, including them could be a fairly expensive add on if starting from scratch.  Therefore, Councilmember Laliberte suggested Section C be considered as an add on or option, but not included in the core of the technical update, but something the city could choose to do or not depending on the specific cost of that component.


Mayor Roe noted the talk tonight had been using this component as a way to inform the update process.


Councilmember Laliberte noted the need to be conscious of staff time and resources; and costs and staff resources required for an update versus complete redo of the previous comprehensive plan.


As previously discussed by the City Council, Councilmember Etten noted the intent remained a blend of the technical update and broader review.  As noted on page 5, in the preamble in Section C (Other Planning Elements), Councilmember Etten noted some of the previous plan's goals would be revised, possibly some new chapters added, or other ideals to guide this review and update.  Councilmember Etten stated he didn't think the Thrive MSP 2040 was needed, but thought it could guide the update as another lens, clarifying he didn't intend it would involve any new chapters for any of the primary regional outcomes.


Specific to stewardship, Councilmember McGehee suggested it may involve a simple statement about the city's capital improvement program (CIP) and the progress made to-date and planned going forward.  Councilmember McGehee noted that could be incorporated in a simple phrase or two.  Councilmember McGehee asked that context of the comprehensive plan was its use as a guide for the community over the next ten years, but not creating a great deal of specificity, other than visionary goals that may or may not be incorporated over that decade.  Councilmember McGehee clarified that would not require a consultant to create a whole special section; and opined that was not what she understood from staff's perspective.


Working Group Make-up

At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Lloyd noted his discomfort with the word "working group," but wanted to make sure it didn't have the same connotation as the previous update's "steering committee," but would serve as an intermediary between the consultant and formal city bodies.


With the City Council meeting three times each month, Councilmember Etten asked if the intent of staff was that the working group meet mid-week; or how staff envisioned this group working versus once per month advisory commission meetings and the three City Council meetings.


Ms. Collins responded that that would shape the work of the consultant, the cost for their services, and how or what the working group review involved, including the frequency of their meetings that might hinge on how public engagement is actually shaped.


Mayor Roe asked if staff's concept was that the working group provide a stage of review between staff, the Planning Commission and City Council; and that they provide feedback that may not be seen by the viewers of the final product.


Mr. Lloyd responded that, while not well defined at this point, it was anticipated that the working group would shape content that came forward.


Mayor Roe noted it would be similar to the steering committee, but be a larger body with a specific role such as last time; and stated he wasn't entirely comfortable with that concept.


Councilmember Etten asked how many people would be involved, and how staff envisioned the group operating.


City Manager Trudgeon stated staff had heard loud and clear from the City Council that they didn't want a steering committee for this update, but an intermediate review of public engagement as it came forward rather than having the City Council, Planning Commission, or some mix of staff and advisory commissioners and public representatives, have to sift that raw data into an organized format for public presentation.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that would involve how often the City Council wanted updates (e.g. monthly, quarterly or otherwise), or if they were comfortable having the consultant and staff say, "This is what we thought we heard;" or if they preferred interaction and input from other community representatives attending public engagement meetings, but not a full task force.


Councilmember McGehee asked if there was an arrangement for open meetings with the public, an engagement strategy with preliminary rough draft notes from staff and the consultant, allowing for discussion with whomever showed up from the public on a given night and collating that input to bring forward.  Councilmember McGehee opined people were interested in specific topics, if meetings were arranged by topic; and could show up accordingly allowing for open civic engagement, while not becoming overwhelming or impossible to manage.


Mayor Roe opined that from his perspective, the role of the Planning Commission was to serve that purpose as a buffer between staff, the consultant, and the City Council.  In the last update, Mayor Roe noted the steering committee reported to the Commission via public hearings, and then to the City Council.  Mayor Roe opined the Planning Commission was the informal working group, with open meetings that may require additional special work sessions of their body to hash topics out.  However, Mayor Roe noted the importance for public feedback before the formal public hearing process, which he thought citizens had come to appreciate, and allowed them informal back and forth discussion before the draft product was formalized.  Mayor Roe referenced the recent code updates (tree preservation and PUD process) as a successful model.  Mayor Roe suggested the working group consist of the Planning Commission to provide an informal opportunity for public feedback before the formal public hearing at the Planning Commission level and ultimate City Council action.  Mayor Roe stated he agreed with the need for public input, but suggested the RFP simply allow consultants to make a recommendation on the public engagement process based on their expertise.


Councilmember Willmus agreed with the comments and suggestion of Mayor Roe.


Councilmember McGehee stated her agreement as well; however, she asked that the process be further enhanced.  When the step reaches the Planning Commission by area or chapter, Councilmember McGehee suggested a preliminary hearing allowing the public to come back and provide additional feedback.


Mayor Roe stated he wasn't sure if the Planning Commission had to perform that, as long as the public was able to participate; and noted his lack of interest in dictating format to the consultant or Commission.


Councilmember McGehee clarified that wasn't here intent either, but noted in the past the city hadn't allowed a more grass roots level public participation process; and for those interested, she wanted to have a process in place where citizens could come in and participate before being handed a large document on which they were asked to comment.  While recognizing the Planning Commission was made of residents as well, they were appointed by the City Council, and served a different role.


Mayor Roe clarified that the whole point of community engagement was to engage the public prior to having a draft document available; then to synthesize public comment into a document.  Mayor Roe emphasized this was the key component; and suggested, if necessary for clarity, those two elements needed to be explicit in the RFP.


Councilmember Etten agreed with Councilmember McGehee's preference for stages, but to recognize it as part of the engagement process.


In summary, Mayor Roe noted the consensus was not to appoint a "working group" but for the Planning Commission to fill that role; and therefore strike "working group" form the RFP entirely.  Since the comprehensive plan's chapters involve other areas, Mayor Roe noted relevant advisory commissions would be involved in the update as part of that process.


Ms. Collins duly noted the direction to staff as discussed by the City Council.


Public Comment

Laliberte moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the draft Request for Proposals (RFP) and directing staff to issue the RFP, amended during tonight's discussion as follows:

·         Section C.3 Thrive MSP 2040 Outcomes, Page 5, specified as a separate add on or option; identifying additional costs and resources for that component.


Mayor Roe clarified with the maker of the motion other revisions to the RFP discussed tonight and as follows:

·         Section D, Public Engagement, Page 5

Include a requirement and emphasis that consultants show their previous public engagement efforts informing this update; and that past Roseville-specific public engagement processes include a model similar to that of the Park Master Plan process, in addition to those listed (e.g. Imagine Roseville 2025).  In other words, Mayor Roe asked that an emphasis be placed in that paragraph that this comprehensive plan update process be informed by previous public engagement of the consultant and successful models in Roseville.

·         Section C.4, References, Page 6

Review the need for specific references; but note the consultant will be evaluated on their public engagements efforts in the past.

·         Section E, Selection Criteria, Page 9

Fourth bullet point from bottom, revise to read: "Ability to work as a team with City Council, advisory commissions and committees, [and] staff, [the public, and in geographic areas beyond Roseville]"


Councilmember Laliberte noted her interest in getting the RFP in a timely manner, but knowing specifically what any extra work for Thrive MSP 2040 would involve cost-wise.  While understanding it wasn't part of the City Council's previous discussion, Councilmember Laliberte stressed her concern that those costs and time commitments were called out.


Motion to Amend

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, amending the motion to include all changes outlined by Mayor Roe, but striking the initial Laliberte language as follows:

·          Section C.3 Thrive MSP 2040 Outcomes, Page 5, specified as a separate add on or option; identifying additional costs and resources for that component.


Mayor Roe suggested removing that from the original motion and make that component a separate element.


Councilmember Etten stated he wasn't sure that component would involve any significant extra work, of necessitated pulling it out for a cost element, if it was intended as a guide and lens.  Councilmember Etten noted that during tonight's discussion he had spoken of pulling out the "Public Safety"component as a separate item (Section C.1, page 5),


Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Etten's preferred use of the Thrive MSP 2040 as a guide and lens as an important component to the city's overall vision, and therefore was not supportive of removing it or separating it out.


Councilmember Willmus stated he had no problem removing that element; but either way had no issue with it remaining in or pulled out.  While interested in seeing what the cost of that section may run, Councilmember Willmus stated he had no issue separating it.


Councilmember Laliberte clarified that her intent was for the City Council to get more information rather than less, thus her proposal to separate that item.


Mayor Roe clarified that the intent was that the Thrive MSP2040 component be broken out, not pulled out completely.


Councilmember Laliberte confirmed that intent to call it out to determine the actual cost for that specific provision.  From her perspective, Councilmember Laliberte noted it was a matter of having more versus less information; and while she may not be opposed to it remaining in the RFP, she wanted to know its actual cost, thus her request that it be included as an option or add on.


Councilmember McGehee opined it was a vague idea and therefore hard to remove; but suggested if Councilmember Laliberte was not opposed to that element, she didn't think anything would be gained by having it as an option, since she didn't see it as a significant cost if those five areas are simply used as a lens.


Councilmember Laliberte noted she and Councilmember McGehee differed in their interpretations.


Mayor Roe called the motion for the Motion to amend (Etten/McGehee), clarifying that the amendment was to not ask for the Thrive MSP 2040 element to be called out for a separate price.


                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Etten, and Roe. 

Nays: Laliberte and Willmus.

Motion carried.


Original motion as amended, restated as follows:

Laliberte moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the draft Request for Proposals (RFP) and directing staff to issue the RFP, amended as follows:

·         Section D, Public Engagement, Page 5

Include a requirement and emphasis that consultants show their previous public engagement efforts informing this update; and that past Roseville-specific public engagement processes include a model similar to that of the Park Master Plan process, in addition to those listed (e.g. Imagine Roseville 2025).  In other words, Mayor Roe asked that an emphasis be placed in that paragraph that this comprehensive plan update process be informed by previous public engagement of the consultant and successful models in Roseville.

·         Section C.4, References, Page 6

Review the need for specific references; but note the consultant will be evaluated on their public engagements efforts in the past.

·         Section E, Selection Criteria, Page 9

Fourth bullet point from bottom, revise to read: "Ability to work as a team with City Council, advisory commissions and committees, [and] staff, [the public, and in geographic areas beyond Roseville]"


Councilmember Laliberte stated she would oppose the motion, as this was an important component for residents and the City Council to know. 


After further discussion and consideration, Councilmember Laliberte withdrew her original motion.


NEW Motion

Etten moved, Roe seconded, approval of the draft Request for Proposals (RFP) and directing staff to issue the RFP, amended as follows:

·         Section C.1 Public Safety, Page 5

Strike this paragraph entirely

·         Section D, Public Engagement, Page 5

Include a requirement and emphasis that consultants show their previous public engagement efforts informing this update; and that past Roseville-specific public engagement processes include a model similar to that of the Park Master Plan process, in addition to those listed (e.g. Imagine Roseville 2025).  In other words, Mayor Roe asked that an emphasis be placed in that paragraph that this comprehensive plan update process be informed by previous public engagement of the consultant and successful models in Roseville.

·         Section C.4, References, Page 6

Review the need for specific references; but note the consultant will be evaluated on their public engagements efforts in the past.

·         Section E, Selection Criteria, Page 9

Fourth bullet point from bottom, revise to read: 'Ability to work as a team with City Council, advisory commissions and committees, [and] staff, [the public, and in geographic areas beyond Roseville]


                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten, and Roe. 

Nays: Laliberte.

Motion carried.


d.            Consider a Conditional Use (CU) to Allow a Drive-through at 2425 Rice Street (PF15-0012)

City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed this request brought before the Planning Commission in July of 2015 for approval of a proposed drive-through as a Conditional Use at 2425 Rice Street, with modified conditions.  Mr. Paschke advised that soon after, with some concerns raised before City Council approval as recommended by the Commission, the applicant was asked to defer the drive-through until a tenant was found for the corner parcel and the actual use of the facility could be further analyzed by the city's planning and engineering staff specific to parking, traffic flow on site, and onto city and county streets.  Mr. Paschke noted those concerns were with circulation of the site itself depending on drive-through configuration and potential traffic stacking. 


Since that time, Mr. Paschke advised that the applicants had worked toward and found a tenant for that space; and staff had subsequently analyzed modifications to the drive-through as presented tonight; and addressed in recommended Condition D of the draft resolution (Attachment E) to provide signage, striping and curbing of the drive-through beyond general and specific criteria previously reviewed as part of a drive-through use as a CU.  Mr. Paschke noted additional mitigation for impacts related to noise from the speaker box and from headlights in the parking lot.  Mr. Paschke noted conditions will be predicated accordingly as site improvements are finalized.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke reviewed conditions for revised lanes on site curving to the back of the site to avoid cars stacking on County Road B-2, especially now with the tenant known; how many seats inside, and anticipated higher impact with this use and the site as modified.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke used the displayed site plan to identify the general area of the speaker box, and related screening and landscaping in the island where it will be located.  Mr. Paschke noted this would serve as a decorative element, but also serve to block noise from neighbors.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke clarified the tenants of the building, noting the window tinting firm was the owner of the building, but not of this business requesting the drive-through, now publically identified as a Dunkin' Donuts franchise.


Councilmember McGehee noted previous concerns raised at the Planning Commission related to hours of operation that she found to be valid, especially when viewing the aerial map and for those residents directly across the street in Little Canada who will receive the full impact with the parking lot facing Rice Street without screening along that area.  Councilmember McGehee noted that appeared to be a big issue for those public speakers, and asked staff how that concern would be addressed for light and noise.


Mr. Paschke clarified that conditions addressed areas of concern, other than the hours of operation in accordance with city code, and clarified that staff nor the Planning Commission were recommending that those hours be restricted additionally.  Mr. Paschke stated he was unable to address the drive-through or business hours of operation at this point.


Mayor Roe reiterated that city code would address both aspects unless further conditioned.


On the boulevard along County Road B-2 as well as in the island, Councilmember

Laliberte expressed concern with sight lines on the end of the island for someone coming around the drive-through, but not in it.


Mr. Paschke clarified that the sight line would be taken into consideration, and that neither landscaping nor any fencing was intended to the tip of the island.  Since it was intended as decorative and noise blocking, Mr. Paschke noted that additional landscaping along the parameter was also required to address headlights, with that area no currently having a lot of landscaping at present, but assured it would be worked out going forward.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Paschke clarified the intended floor plan for this two-tenant building.


With Councilmember McGehee reiterating her interest in a provision for some sort of buffering landscaping along Rice Street, Mr. Paschke suggested an additional condition of approval at the City Council's discretion.


Mayor Roe offered an opportunity for public comment at this time, with no one coming forward to speak.


Co-Applicant Josh Krsnack, Sun Control Property, LLC, Partner AND Co-Applicant Dave Rustad, Ryststp, 2425 Rice Street (resident at 329 S Owasso Blvd., Roseville), Partner

Mr. Krsnack reviewed the tenant search process over the last year for this blighted building without much curb appeal; and their excitement in having Dunkin' Donut choose this site as the first franchise in the Twin Cities at this time.  Mr. Krsnack noted the improvements on the building's façade to make it more aesthetically pleasing. 


Councilmember McGehee commended Mr. Krsnack on the building façade improvements; but asked their plans to address her concerns and those previously raised by the public.


Specific to the drive-through, Mr. Krsnack used the site plan and photos to address the concern with headlights across to the residents on Rice Street.  Mr. Krsnack advised that he had spoken to the owner of this Dunkin' Donuts franchise, and they had addressed the noise issue with their speaker system radiating sound no more than 15' out, or the equivalent of one parking spot.  Regarding other concerns (e.g. lights), Mr. Krsnack noted their intent to be good stewards for and within their neighborhood.  Mr. Krsnack clarified that most of the area along Rice Street would be used for parking, advised that Dunkin' Donuts would serve a small breakfast and lunch clientele in the limited building and parking space, but anticipated the majority of the business would be done via the drive-through.  Mr. Krsnack advised that they had not planned to add any landscaping across the front along Rice Street to avoid hiding their building and businesses.  Mr. Krsnack further clarified that most of the parking would be off to the side; with Sun Control taking up the majority of the building front and not having a lot of customers stopping at the shop.


Mr. Rustad noted he had observed that the south side of their property points directly to a commercial garage at the mobile home park across Rice Street, and not directly into a residential mobile home.  Mr. Rustad opined any headlights would be directed to that road and the six-staff garage built when the road was widened at that corner.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11341_ (Attachment E) as presented and entitled, "A Resolution Approving a Drive-Through as a CONDITIONAL USE at 2425 Rice Street."


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


15.        Business Items - Presentations/Discussions


16.        City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Trudgeon provided a preview of upcoming agenda items.


Mayor Roe noted a joint meeting immediately before the scheduled budget hearing, and asked City Manager Trudgeon's consideration of that schedule.


Councilmember Laliberte asked that staff pursue getting those pending items plugged back into upcoming agendas (e.g. Speak Up! Roseville).


17.        Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

At some point, Councilmember Laliberte asked at a minimum for an annual work session to review capital improvement program (CIP) items to discuss the rationale, and decision-making for staff recommendations on any items for deferral or those needing immediate attention.  As an example, Councilmember Laliberte noted her surprise in the bathroom renovations that had been completed that she was unaware of before tonight until seeing it on the consent agenda.  Councilmember Laliberte asked that individual council members be informed on the factors that went into that decision-making.


While the City Council adopts an annual CIP spreadsheet, Mayor Roe agreed that a prior touch with staff or the appropriate Department Head could provide that more detailed information on how those decisions are made.


18.        Adjourn Meeting

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:11 p.m.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.