Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-24-14 WSCITY OF LAKEVILLE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES February 24, 2014 Mayor Little called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Marion Conference Room, Lakeville City Hall. Members Present: Council Members Swecker, LaBeau, and Davis, and Mayor Little Council Member Anderson participated via videoconference. Staff Present: Steve Mielke, City Administrator; Chris Petree, Public Works Director; Daryl Morey, Planning Director; Brett Altergott, Parks and Recreation Director; Allyn Kuennen, Administrative Services Manager; Judi Hawkins, Deputy City Clerk 2. Citizen Comments There were no citizen comments. 3. Townhome Assessment Policy (Sunrise Village) Chris Petree stated that in response to comments regarding the special assessments for Sunrise Village which were received at the November 18, 2013 public hearing, Council discussed this item at their January 28 work session and asked staff to provide additional options for calculating special assessments within Sunrise Village. Property owners in Sunrise Village compared their assessment to those in adjoining Niakwa Village 2 nd Addition. Project manager Monica Heil of WSB provided a brief overview of the assessments of both developments; Niakwa Village assessments were estimated at $1,083; in the Sunrise Village reconstruction area, the estimated assessments were based on half of a single family home, or $2,235 per townhome unit. Assessments are based on driveway access onto Flagstaff Avenue from Sunrise Village and Flagstaff Courts North and South from Niakwa Village, which were receiving different improvements. Ms. Heil provided four methodologies for consideration by Council and discussed how they each relate to current policy, how they would be calculated for Sunrise Village, any potential funding gaps, and alternatives for bridging any funding gaps. Option #1: Calculate Sunrise Village townhome units as described in the feasibility report and current policy at one -half that of a single - family home. This is consistent with past practice and there is no change in funding. Option #2: Several unique characteristics exist as a result of Sunrise Village's close proximity to County Road 46. If the driveway location could have been moved to intersect with Flagstaff close to County 46, the density of the development could have been 20 units. Original estimations Council Work Session Minutes February 24, 2014 Page -2- were based on the actual 16 units, however if those assessments were spread over 20 units, the cost would be $1,788. This method would create an estimated funding gap of $7,100 compared to what was proposed in the feasibility report. This gap could be funded with street reconstruction funds or redistributed among all the properties in the reconstruction area. Option #3: Use current methodology used to calculate assessments for institutional or public properties, i.e., Parkview Elementary, or the number of potential single - family lots based on zoning in the area. In Sunrise Village, four single - family lots could have been created with the 405 feet of front footage along the west side of Flagstaff. Those four units would each have an estimated assessment of $4,471. This would recalculate the existing 16 units to $1,117 or $1,145 each if Council determined these costs would be shared by all properties within the street reconstruction area. The result is a $17,884 funding gap from the original proposed amount. Option #4: Calculate assessments on a front footage basis, similar to mixed use and commercial/ industrial areas. Recalculating using 405 feet of front footage on Flagstaff Avenue and based on $40 per front foot, this would result in a net assessment of a $16,200 to the development, or about $1,012 per townhome unit and a funding gap of $19,572. If Council chooses not to move forward with assessments as outlined in the feasibility report, staff recommends Option #2, due to the unique situation created by the proximity of a county road. Council would need to determine if funding gaps would be funded with street improvement funds or by redistributing costs to all the properties within the project area. Mr. Mielke stated that choosing Option #3 or Option #4 could change the assessment policy for current and future townhomes developments. Option #2 provides for this unique situation. Council Member LaBeau agrees with staff s recommendation of Option #2 due to the county road and believes that Options 3 and 4 would create more future funding gaps. She believes it is very important for buyers to be aware of future responsibilities. Council Member Davis asked for a clarification on some figures. Mielke added that an increase in the single - family rate would require further discussions with the single- family homeowners. Darren Anderson, president of Sunrise Village HOA, distributed materials for Council and staff and provided examples of properties that were used in past assessment calculations, specifically the definition of private drive. He believes the costs are unfairly shifted from one development to the other when two different zoning densities are combined. Mayor Little stated that assessment policies attempt to be as fair as possible and believes Option #2 is a fair compromise to this situation. Council members believe it is a unique situation and appreciate the different perspectives the options have provided. There was a consensus to Council Work Session Minutes February 24, 2014 Page -3- support Option #2 and use street improvement funds for the funding gap. This will result in an estimated savings of approximately $447 per townhome unit. Bids will be opened on March 7, 2014. Council will be asked to accept bids and set an assessment hearing at their March 17 meeting. Actual assessments will be calculated at that time. 8. School Road Safety Task Force Mayor Little asked that citizen appointments, Council representation, and rules of operation be discussed. Brent James is a citizen recommended by Mr. Ettl who has experience working at 3M in traffic safety and technology. Little has contacted a student who was recommended by LNHS deans; she is considering the appointment but has not yet confirmed her participation. After discussion it was determined that Council Members Davis and LaBeau will serve on the Task Force, with Swecker as an alternate. At their first meeting the task force will elect a chair; they will operate under Roberts Rules of Order. 4. Proposed 2015 and 2016 Street Reconstruction Projects Chris Petree stated that staff is asking for Council support to move forward with neighborhood meetings on 2015 and 2016 Street Reconstruction projects. This will provide some additional time for staff to prepare for some unique challenges with the planning of the 2016 projects. Monica Heil of WSB, project manager for 2015 and 2016 Street Reconstruction Projects, provided an overview of the projects. Estimated project costs in the CIP are $11.2M for both years. Of that, $2.6M of water main improvements will be funded with utility funds. Approximate $5.2M will be funded with street improvement funds, $3.4M with special assessments. Council Member Davis asked about improvements to Hamburg Avenue. This is planned to be urbanized on the west side and rural on the east side. Swecker asked if the Kenrick Avenue project would move ahead given the unfinished I -35. Mr. Petree stated that at their March 17th meeting Council will be asked to authorize advertising for bids for miscellaneous repairs and collector road overlays, and approving plans and specifications including overlay and improvements on Kenrick Avenue between 185' and 205th. Mr. Petree stated that Kenrick would not be done prior to the work being completed on I -35 by MnDOT. Council will be discussing the 50/60 traffic diversion study which might have a greater impact on Kenrick. LaBeau asked how the CSAH 50 traffic study from Dodd to Cedar impacts the Hamburg Avenue design. Petree stated that due to the poor soils Hamburg is costly to maintain and a long -term solution is needed. Reclamation rather than overlay might be necessary on some collectors due to the conditions. It is recommended that due to the 50/60 traffic diversion, these major projects do not take place in 2015. Council Work Session Minutes February 24, 2014 Page -4- Heil discussed the 2016 Street Reconstruction Project which includes streets off of CSAH 50 in the north Lake Marion area. This is an older platted area with very narrow streets, some of which are not located within the right -of -way. Additional design considerations will be needed as well as discussions with residents regarding street width, curb type, etc. Watermain improvements proposed as part of the project will be funded by water operating funds. The project provides an opportunity for storm water improvements which would improve water quality of Lake Marion. Mielke asked if this means it is optional. Heil stated that discussions are being held with the watershed district regarding future changes to their policy regarding this issue. Currently there are no obligations for the City to install stormwater improvements, but there could be future requirements. Council Member Anderson agreed there will be a number of challenges in this area and asks that long -term impact on any existing structure would be minimized. Petree stated that this is a unique project area and looks forward to input from the residents and working through the challenges. Meetings with the 2015 property owners will be held in early summer of 2014; meetings for the 2016 property owners will be held in later summer of 2014. Council directed to staff to begin preliminary survey work in advance of neighborhood meetings, and evaluation of both project areas to determine utility replacement needs, easement needs, right of way issues, etc. so information will be available for neighborhood meetings. 5. Residential Boarders Ordinance Daryl Morey stated that a request for an ordinance change was the result of some complaints that had been received from residents regarding rooms being rented on a daily basis and the number of guests who can stay at a home. It was found that there are rooms in single family homes being advertised for daily rental on certain websites, specifically airbnb.com and craigslist.com Staff believes there are some compatibility issues with the practice of renting rooms on a short -term basis in residential neighborhoods. And there are conflicts within the zoning ordinance, including definition of hotels and compatibility with single - family homes in the neighborhoods. This was originally brought to the Council as part of a larger zoning ordinance amendment to make some minor housekeeping changes. Morey explained that a permitted accessory use allows an activity outright, provided the use is in compliance with the ordinance. An administrative permit requires an application and staff review and approval. Mayor Little stated that one of his main concerns is using Police resources for enforcement. Swecker supports adding this to the zoning ordinance along with language to define "boarding ". Council Member Davis asked if this same ordinance would regulate a B &B. Morey stated that bed and breakfasts are allowed by CUP in agricultural areas. Council Work Session Minutes February 24, 2014 Page -5- Dan Licht of The Planning Company stated that the requirement for an administrative permit adds an enforcement tool for staff. Davis agrees that people should be able to do what they want with their property to a certain extent but also agrees with staff's recommendation to allow this use with an administrative permit to help regulate. Boarders would be limited to two and must rent for at least 30 days. Licht explained that the 30 day minimum provides a homeowner an opportunity for a non - family rental as a secondary income. Anderson asked if this would affect home trades and exchange programs and does not want the amendment to restrict these activities. He believes "boarding" needs to be more clearly defined in the ordinance. Licht stated that other provisions of the zoning ordinance exempt exchange programs from this amendment. Anderson asked for information about other cities' ordinances. LaBeau asked about short-term temporary housing needed for people in transit. This would only apply if the room was being turned over in less than 30 days. Morey stated that the definition of "family" might also come into the situation in rental situations; however the ordinance's intent is to not allow the commercial rental of residential homes which would impact existing neighbors. Little stated there are several scenarios that don't fit and the ordinance is too broad. He would support incidental rental of single - family homes but not as a consistent long -term commercial business. Anderson believes the current ordinance should be sufficient to not allow nightly rental of single family homes when it is already restricted to B &Bs in proper zoning with a CUP. He believes the amendment will create unintended consequences. Swecker supports the amendment and believes it resolves unintended consequence, clarifies other language in the ordinance, and provides additional protection for the homeowners and the neighbors. Davis stated that it is not the intent to eliminate foreign exchange or home trades, but to provide a stronger enforcement tool; however, he believes that further definition and clarifications could be added. Mr. Mielke asked if an exchange student or a situation where the family receives compensation would be defined as a boarder. Licht believes the exception for foster care in the ordinance allows for that; however, an additional exception could be added. Council directed staff to continue to review and refine the language of the proposed ordinance and to allow the Planning Commission an opportunity to review revisions before bringing the amendment back to Council. 6. Chickens in Residential Zones Council received information from Associate Planner Frank Dempsey outlining the question of allowing residents to have chickens in an urban area, a topic which has come up for discussion Council Work Session Minutes February 24, 2014 Page -6- several times previously. Farm animals including chickens, goats, horses, bees, etc. are currently only allowed in agricultural zoned areas, which are generally larger in size and where there is less potential to impact a neighborhood. The Planning Commission's most recent discussion about this was in 2011 when they reviewed several zoning ordinance items based on feedback from the developers' forum. At that time the Planning Commission chose not to recommend a change. Mayor Little stated that he has received requests to allow chickens in residential areas mostly as a learning tool for children, as pets, and for urban farming. An online poll indicated stronger support for allowing chickens, and the Mayor would support allowing up to two chickens - hens only, not roosters - with some guidelines. Council Member Anderson would also support up to two chickens, with standards including eggs being for personal consumption only and not for commercial sale. Council Member Swecker asked if there are regulations on rabbits or ducks. Morey stated that ducks are poultry and would be a farm animal, but rabbits could be a domestic animal if contained in the principle structure. Swecker would support a maximum two chickens (hens) and the owner must reside on premises and produce is for their own consumption only. Council Member LaBeau is concerned about use of police resources to resolve neighbor conflicts created by dogs and chickens. Little wants the ordinance to be written to ensure that chickens do not infringe on neighbors' rights to enjoy their property, including standards for cleanliness and setbacks. Council Member Davis is not in favor of chickens in residential areas and believes it would open up requests for other considerations and would be difficult to enforce. Council Member LaBeau will discuss this with communities which have similar ordinances. Council directed staff to bring this item back for discussion at a future Planning Commission work session for the purpose of drafting performance standards, restrictions, etc. and return to Council, possibly at the April work session. Council Member Anderson signed off from the meeting. 7. Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan Parks and Recreation Director Brett Altergott stated that at the January 21 meeting Council requested an opportunity to highlight any issues or concerns prior to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Committee's review of the Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan. Dan Licht of The Planning Company has been working with the committee and staff on the update. Council is being asked to provide comments and concerns to be used as a basis for the Parks & Rec. Committee to address issues that are of importance to Council. Council Work Session Minutes February 24, 2014 Page -7- Mayor Little would like more focus on playground maintenance and a long -term plan for replacement of older equipment. Altergott stated that the life -cycle for a park playground is approximately 20 years and there are currently 14 that need to be replaced. The Parks Department is also working on a document outlining goals and timelines for general park maintenance. Little would also like to focus on water quality in the city's lakes. Council Member LaBeau believes neighborhood parks are not used to capacity; more creative park uses will be needed for an aging population. The Envision Lakeville results showed that changes to the amenities will be needed to create parks that attract a larger segment of the population and are more heavily utilized, such as King Park. There is a high cost for maintaining a large number of parks which are all used for the same purpose but are not used to their capacity. Instead of adding more parks, some of the current parks need to be repurposed; additional styles of parks would serve a larger variety of the community demographics. Mayor Little agreed that if some of the parks could be used for other purposes such as open space the cost for maintenance would be lower. LaBeau stated in other areas there are parks for a more mature age group that include trails or fitness stations. Altergott added that park use often cycles through peoples' children then grandchildren using the same park. Council Member Davis stated that he supports Mr. Licht assisting with the update based on what was learned with the Envision Lakeville process. Swecker would like to take a look at emerging trends and demographics and come up with creative uses for parks. LaBeau believes it is important to make people aware of the actual cost of park maintenance and equipment replacement. Many homes also have their own play equipment installed in their yards and she suggested amenities like pickle ball courts or gardens be installed in place of playgrounds. Mr. Mielke stated that the plan identifies an additional wooded area to be acquired for conservation purposes. Swecker believes the trails are the most popular and important amenity in the community. LaBeau is concerned that trails are under - utilized and maybe don't need to be built on both sides of a street. Davis agrees that not all trails are heavily used; however many are very busy. He believes this depends on destinations and demographics. Mr. Mielke asked if ongoing maintenance costs are incorporated into trail development policies. Mr. Licht stated this needs to be discussed with the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Committee from a policy standpoint, taking into account the trail as transportation and recreation, and how maintenance is built into the cost of the trail. Mr. Mielke believes the cost element should be added to this plan. Other comments included installation costs of box culverts versus building a trail on both sides; and the numerous requests for a dog park. Council Work Session Minutes February 24, 2014 Page -8- Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Committee member Jeanne Peterson stated that the demographics of some of neighborhoods are changing with lower numbers of children and other neighborhoods have attracted young families and are exploding with children. Council directed staff to place the contract for The Planning Company on the next agenda. 9. Other Only three applications have been received for advisory committee openings. The Chamber will also recruit from their membership and the article will remain in Messages and on the website. Staff will continue to advertise for applicants in Messages and on the Cable channel. The DLBA has requested a meeting with the Mayor and Economic Development Director to discuss the possible update of the Downtown Development Guideplan. 10. Adjourn Mayor Little adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ju i awkins, Deputy Clerk Matt Little, Mayor