Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-23-09 WSCity of Lakeville Work Session Minutes February 23, 2009 In attendance: Mayor Holly Dahl Council Member Mark Bellows Council Member Laurie Rieb Council Member Wendy WuIfF Council Member Kerrin Swecker Staff: Steve Mielke, City Administrator Daryl Morey, Planning Director Steve Michaud, Parks and Recreation Director Dennis Feller, Finance Director The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. ITEM #1-Wealshire of Lakeville Concept Plan Representatives of Wealshire introduced themselves: Dave Carlin, Executive Vice President of Stonehenge; Alan Dale, Dale Properties; Tom Wiscow, Wealshire of Lakeville; and Gary Tushie, Tushie Montgomery. • The property consists of approximately 133 acres located west of I-35W, north of 205t" Street. The land is partially guided as commercial and partially as residential. Planning Commission members reviewed the sketch plan on January 8, 2009 and support the proposed use as being consistent with the City's life-cycle housing goals. The proposed facility has been sited more centrally on the property since that time. An EAW will be required due to the ultimate number of units in all phases. Since this project is ahead of the Met Council's formal approval of the Comp Plan, a rezoning of the site to a Planned Unit Development would be necessary to meet the requirements for a residential care facility within the O-R District. The first phase is proposed to be 122 units of Alzheimer's care; Phase II would add 56 units plus 66 units of assisted living, and some. independent senior living. Approximately 200 people would be employed with the first phase; there would be over 300 when Phase II is finished. Development of this five-acre parcel will provide a buffer between the commercial uses and future mixed residential uses. Exteriors of the multilevel buildings will be Class #1 construction materials. In addition to employee parking behind the building, there are 44 parking spaces planned for the front, as required. The developers would like to minimize the infrastructure to be completed at this time in order to leave options open for future development of the remaining property when Keokuk Avenue is extended. With the Council's support of the land use and rezoning, the developers will move forward • with the EAW process and return with the preliminary plat for consideration. City Council Work Session Minutes February 23, 2009 Page -2- Richard and Karen Carron, owners of the former asphalt plant, River Valley Asphalt, and property to the west, were present and discussed future development of and access to their property. Staff will work with the owners of the Wealshire property to coordinate access points. Mr. Morey has discussed this with the developer who has indicated a willingness to make adjustments in the accesses to accommodate the River City Asphalt property. Access to the northern 30-acre Carron parcel will need to be from the north or through property they currently own. ITEM #2 -Cedar Avenue Transitway Update City Administrator Mielke updated the Council and asked for input and direction regarding the Cedar Avenue BRT. Dakota County is preparing to enter the final road design process for Cedar Avenue from 138th Street in Apple Valley to 181~t Street in Lakeville. In so doing they are asking the cities of Lakeville and Apple Valley to concur with their design alternatives. Apple Valley has approved a Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County for design only which includes several stipulations. Apple Valley's concerns are with the proposed location and bus pullouts for 140th/147th bus areas. They are also concerned about funding for this project. Construction of the project will require an additional agreement. Dakota County is asking the City of Lakeville to approve the design concept that was outlined in their Environmental Assessment, which reaches all the way to Lakeville's southern border. Issues with truck traffic have been outlined, especially in the industrial area. There are also • concerns with the requirement of 167th Street intersection to be made into athree-quarters access at this time.. Lakeville does not feel that current traffic levels justify making that improvement as part of this project. There are also issues regarding lack of a signal at Glacier Way and access to the proposed Park and Ride station at 181~t Street. Staff would like Council to consider an agreement with stipulations, similar to what Apple Valley approved, outlining the .concerns while allowing them to move forward with design only. The cities will continue to meet with the county to resolve their differences, as well as funding issues. A funding arrangement similar to the one used for improvements at I-35 and CR50 is being discussed. ITEM #3 -Park Dedication Fee Review Parks and Recreation Director Steve Michaud provided background on park dedication fees. The primary financing sources for park improvements are park bond referendums and park dedication fees collected from developers when plats are approved. A recent survey by Decision Resources concluded that it was unlikely that a park bond referendum would be successful at this time. The five-year Parks Comprehensive Plan update was completed in 2006, along with a capital improvement plan. The estimated cost of future improvements is approximately $101.6 million. If a bond referendum is not possible, financing of future park capital improvements is • primarily dependent on revenues from park dedication fees. An analysis of the fee structure was prepared based on the park improvement plan, assuming 4% of financing will be derived City Council Work Session Minutes February 23, 2009 Page -3- from other sources such as grants. The analysis also assumes that the Park Dedication Fee structure will be adjusted for inflation, based on the Consumer Price Index. Staff is proposing the Park Dedication Fee be adjusted by 6.8% for 2009 and 6.8% for 2010. This would generate sufFcient funds to finance improvements identified in the Comprehensive Park Plan. A survey comparing park dedication fees of cities in the metro area shows Lakeville at approximately the mid-range. Both residential and commercial developers are feeling the effects of the economy and have not expressed support for raising park dedication fees at this time. Council suggested it might be a good time to review the priority list and re-evaluate the long-range plan before committing to a revenue structure based on a certain set of expenses, or amend the expenses to lower the expectations of the ultimate park system. Mr. Michaud stated that in addition to neighborhood parks, bigger challenges are the purchase of larger, natural resource properties and athletic complexes for the next 20 years. Staff feels it is imperative that funds be set aside in the event an opportunity comes up to acquire property that has been identified in the Comprehensive Park Plan. Some funds have been set aside for future matching grants. Council members stated it is important to provide consistent services throughout the park system, reflecting the quality of life in the community and meeting people's expectations. An increase in the park dedication fees is appropriate to take care of the existing park system, but there was a consensus that a park referendum would not be successful in this economy. Other funding sources need to be explored such as grant funds through the state parks, trails and arts legacy fund which was approved in the last election. Council members expressed • concerns about whether this is a good time to increase park dedication fees. It was suggested that staff bring a prioritized project list back to Council for further discussions on park funding. Ron Mullenbach, D.R. Horton, asked that the disparity between a land contribution and a cash contribution be considered. ITEM #4 - HiPP Memorandum of Understanding At the last work session Council members received information on the MOU that would restructure the Dakota County HiPP process. They are asking each of the cities to formally commit to participating so that everyone plays an active role in the projects. The original list of 20 possible projects was scaled back to six, and the new board will determine what projects should be pursued next. Council members were asked for their involvement on this committee, for which Council Member Swecker volunteered. Staff will place this item on a future Council agenda for consideration. ITEM #5 - 2009-10 Budget Overview City Administrator Mielke stated that department directors have been asked to suggest areas where they could reduce their operating budgets by up to 10%. Priorities from each department have been compiled, but ultimately the City Council will be asked for guidance. The first steps are to discuss what the problems are and the possible impacts of various options. City Council Work Session Minutes February 23, 2009 Page -4- Finance Director Dennis Feller stated that the budget problem is revenue based, rather than expenditure based. Revenues are being lost in several areas: economic growth, community growth, taxation, and government aid. Council is being asked to provide a vision of what services and programs they feel are most important to the City, not just to solve problems of today and next year, but also to provide long-range guidelines. According to the State Auditor, Lakeville has one of the lowest per-capita expenditure rates in the state, meaning the City has been fiscally prudent and responsible. Community growth has slowed down, along with revenue generating items such as building permits, connection charges to build infrastructure, and lowering of the tax base. Considering the large supply of existing homes on the market, significant new development in the near future is unlikely. The good news is that Lakeville is one of the top three metro cities where growth is most likely to resume first. Some of the biggest impediments of the budget process are state laws regarding taxation: 1. State aid for properly tax relief. 2. Tax Levy to recapture MVHC revenue loss. 3. Levy limits -growth limitations. 4. Public safety personnel costs. Financial planning needs to address short term and intermediate term goals, which will help to determine long term objectives. Long term objectives will have a major role in determining how short term and intermediate term goals are managed. As service levels are developed, does the Council foresee services returning to their current levels, or would they be maintained at the reduced level? Council members feel the focus should be on essential services that would not be available if the City were not providing them, such as public safety and snow plowing. Other services and programs might come with a user charge in the future. Council was asked to reserve March 23~a and 30th for further budget discussions. ITEM #6 -Board and Commission Appointments StafF presented the application of Sheila Longie for the vacancy on the Economic Development Commission. Council members are familiar with the applicant and decided not to go through the formal interview process but to place the item on the next Council agenda. Council felt that additional applicants should be sought for the Planning Commission vacancy. Candidates who have already been interviewed should be retained for further consideration. ITEM #6c -Public Access Channel 12 Update Assistant to the City Administrator Brian Anderson provided a memo with information on the status of Channel 12 management. StafF is asking Council's direction in exploring opportunities to expand programming through a partnership with the Apple Valley, Farmington, Rosemount Cable Commission (AFRCC). City Council Work Session Minutes February 23, 2009 Interagency Reports: Page -5- MVTA: The City Administrator and Mayor have been attending MVTA board meetings as ex- ofFcio members to gain exposure to the organization with the anticipation of joining at some point. At this time it is felt that monitoring the agendas and attending on an as-needed basis will be adequate. I-35W Solutions Alliance: Currently discussing the legislative position on the Dan Patch Line. Lakeville's position is to oppose additional discussions at this time. Transportation Advisory Board: Working with MnDOT on distribution of stimulus funding. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 pm. • RespectFully submitted,