HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-26-99 WSLAKEVILLE CITY COUNCIL RETREAT
WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26,1999
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Zaun at 6:38 p.m. in the Lakeville Water Treatment
Facility community meeting room.
Those present: Mayor Duane Zaun; Councilmembers Tom Ryan, Betty Sindt, and David Luick;
City Administrator Robert Erickson; City Engineer Keith Nelson; Administrative Assistant John
Hennen; Associate Planner Ron Mullenbach; Transportation Consultant Denny Eyler of SRF
Consulting Group, Inc.; Joni Hubred, Life & Times; Jon Lloyd, Sun Current; and Diane Trailer
and Dr. Bill Morris of Decision Resources, Ltd.
Those Absent: Councilmember Lynette Mulvihill
Item No. 1: Opening Dinner Remarks
• Dr. Bill Moms (Decision Resources, Ltd.) provided openin remarks, which included an
g
overview of trends that have taken place in the suburbs throughout the metropolitan area since
1995, and the results from his recently completed 1999 study. The results of the 1999 study will
serve as a benchmark for measuring results of the 1999 Lakeville Community Survey.
In particular, Dr. Morris noted that Lakeville has done a good job of addressing issues related to
growth, crime, and quality public services. At the same time, the City Council has maintained a
high approval rating. In addition, residents have reported high rates of positive contacts with
City staff.
Item No. 2: Review Final Draft of City Survey Questions
Mayor Zaun began by stating that the draft 1999 community survey has 229 questions, 9 more
than in 1997. The City Council discussed the need to eliminate six to eight questions to allow
the survey to be completed within the recommended time limits. Mayor Zaun also indicated that
past surveys results indicate a need to focus on reaching Lakeville residents within Independent
School District #192 (Farmington), who historically have felt less connected to the. City.
The City Council proceeded to review and discuss the draft survey questions with Ms. Traxler
and Dr. Morris. The following items were discussed:
•
•
Minutes from the February 26-27, 1999 City Council Retreat
Question #5 "(N = 397)" needs to be removed.
Question #6 the term "only fair" should remain unchanged to maintain its status as a
negative response.
Question #12 Delete.
Question #19 should read: "Have you noticed a change in drinking water quality?"
Question #20 add an additional "sub-question" asking how people were treated by
Inspections Department staff.
Question #37 substitute actual dollar amount in place of "one-third".
Question #38 should be kept to assist the Police Department in making decisions on
snow removal parking policies.
Questions #39-40 relocate this question to follow question #18 to improve flow of survey.
Question #52 should ask if residents would support a tax increase to pay for additional
street .lighting. Dr. Morns indicated that cross-tabulation would be done to
determine where additional street lighting, if any, is needed.
Questions #56-8 Delete; the questions are "hold-overs" from the 1997 Community Survey.
Question #_ Administrative Assistant Hennen noted that a question regarding the
outdoor storage of recreational vehicles was inadvertently omitted from
the draft. Staff forwarded draft text to Decision Resources, Ltd. to be
included in the survey.
Question #73 the terms "odd years" and "even years" should be changed to read "odd
numbered years" and "even numbered years"..
Question #85 Delete; questions #86 and #87 are sufficient.
Question #103 needs to be kept to receive Dakota County funding landfill abatement for
the recycling program.
Question #111 Delete.
Question #136-7 The City Council did not come to an agreement of these questions.
Discussion was continued to the Saturday session.
Questions #139-40 move to area of Question #167 to improve the flow of the survey.
2
Minutes from the February 26-27, 1999 City Council Retreat
Question #155 Delete.
Question #156 Delete the preface to this question.
Questions #165-67 The City Council did not come to an agreement on this set of questions.
Discussion was continued to the Saturday session.
Question #196 Ms. Trailer will reword this question.
Questions #220-222 Combine into one question.
These comments will be incorporated into the final draft of the 1999 Community Survey.
Item No. 3: Review I-35 and CSAH 50 Interchange Alternatives
Denny Eyler of SRF, the City's transportation consultant, was present to provide a
comprehensive overview of the I-35/CSAH 50 interchange alternatives, including cost estimates
as requested by the City Council.
The City Council considered six alternatives for each side of I-35 and associated cost estimates.
• The cost estimates assume funding availability from MnDOT and Dakota County. SRF believes
that alternatives W-6 and E-3 will meet MnDOT and Dakota County approval and will be the
preferred submittal for additional funding through the Surface Transportation Program (STP) for
the years 2002-2004. Additional Federal TEA-21 funding could lower the City's share of the
improvement costs.
The following items were discussed:
• Alternative E-3 provides the best overall traffic operations, is a conventional solution and fits
the City's transportation system. MnDOT and Dakota County have considered this
alternative acceptable.
• Alternative W-6 does include ramp widening and adequate intersection spacing. MnDOT and
Dakota County have considered this alternative acceptable. In addition, Alternative W-6
includes additional right-of--way capacity to handle traffic growth, less right-of--way needs,
avoidance of potentially environmentally sensitive azeas, and the flexibility to help
accommodate I-35 through-traffic when the main line bridges aze replaced. While
Alternative W-6 has substantial costs, it can be submitted for Federal funding of up to 80% of
the construction costs, thus reducing the City's share of the project costs to approximately
$1.2 million.
• Alternatives W-1, W-3, E-lA, E-1B, E-2, E-4, E-5, and E-6 would not be considered
acceptable because there is at least one intersection on each alternative where the critical lane
volume exceeds 1,400 vehicles for the peak hour
3
Minutes from the February 26-27, 1999 City Council Retreat
• • SRF considered locating the northbound entrance ramp to the park-n-ride facility near 167tH
Street. While this alternative was not ruled out in discussions with. MnDOT, it was
determined that the alternative would still require left hand turning motions onto Kenrick
Avenue from CSAH 50, which is too close to the underpass. The underpass is too narrow to
handle stacking for this turning movements. Left turn movements also slightly exceeded the
critical peak hour lane volume of 1,40 vehicles per hour.
• Councilmember Ryan favors E-6 as the preferred alternative for improvement on the east side
of the interchange. Alternative E-6 includes a northbound entrance loop from eastbound
CSAH 50. This alternative would require the acquisition of Burger King and Amoco. Mr.
Eyler indicated that the northbound entrance loop could be added later, if desired.
Alternative E-6 exceeds the critical lane peak hour volume at 175tH Street, so the realignment
of 175tH Street to 176tH Street West would also be added to this alternative.
• The improvements on the east side of I-35 should be constructed in a specific order to
prevent poor traffic operations. Since the main concern is the number of eastbound CSAH 50
left turning vehicles, the realignment of 175tH Street to connect at 176tH Street needs to be
completed prior to removing the full access intersection at Kenrick Avenue. The City and the
developer(s) of adjacent property would share the cost of the 175th/176th Street realignment.
• Dakota County and MnDOT have expressed reluctance to install signals at the east I-35 ramp
until restrictions are made to Kenrick Avenue and the current signal is removed.
In summary, SRF recommends that Alternatives E-3 and W-6 be selected. Alternative E-3 can
• be developed in stages, if necessary, and W-2 could become the fallback alternative if sufficient
funding cannot be secured for Alternative W-6.
The City Council determined that SRF's findings should be presented at a neighborhood
meeting. A final decision would be made based on the input at the neighborhood meeting. The
City Council also directed staff to contact Lezlie Vermillion, Dakota County Highway, to
determine which alternative would be the best candidate for Federal TEA-21 funding, available
in the years 2002-4.
Item No. 4: Adjourn
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
•
4