Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/05/2007 Council Minutes• • CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION November 5, 2007 APPROVED 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES 2 MINUTES 3 4 DATE : November 5, 2007 5 TIME STARTED : 5:35 P.M. 6 TIME ENDED : 9:35 P.M. 7 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council member Carlson, Reinert, O'Donnell, 8 Stoltz, and Mayor Bergeson 9 MEMBERS ABSENT : None 10 11 12 Staff Members Present: City Administrator, Gordon Heitke; Finance Director, Al Rolek; 13 City Engineer, Jim Studenski; Community Development Director, Michael Grochala; 14 Director of Administration, Dan Tesch; Economic Development Coordinator, Mary Alice 15 Divine; Public Service Director, Rick DeGardner; City Clerk, Julie Bartell 16 17 Hartford Group — Economic Development Coordinator Divine introduced Frank Janes 18 and Patrick Sarver of the Hartford Group. They will discuss a proposal for a senior 19 housing project for the Legacy at Woods Edge Project. Their proposal would require 20 some adjustments to the original master plan and they want to discuss them with the 21 council. An amendment to that land use plan would be required. Graphics were 22 distributed. 23 24 Mr. Janes noted that they have been working with staff on elements of the Legacy at 25 Woods Edge project that they believe could move forward. He remarked that the current 26 housing market makes this a challenging time. They are proposing a couple of projects 27 they think can move forward — a senior project and a multifamily project. He noted that 28 he would review the overall project to bring the council up to date. The graphics 29 reviewed were master plan site layout, southwest development conceptual layout and 30 conceptual layout site plan. 31 32 Mr, Janes noted that original plans had the senior site in a certain area and they are 33 proposing to move it adjacent to the park. They are trying to get a viable senior project 34 and the original location would be problematic with its commercial element in today's 35 market. Closer to the park would be preferable. They propose a building with a north 36 side portion with four stories, a middle portion with a two story center concept and then a 37 south portion tapering down to three stories, similar to a project in Maplewood. They are 38 looking at 140-160 units comprised of independent senior housing units (age restricted 39 senior apartment with no services — 40 units) along with the addition of independent 40 senior units with some limited services. Another component would be assisted living and 41 some "care suites". This would provide a continuum of care similar to other projects they 42 have done. There would be a combination of 1-2 bedroom units in the independent, and 43 the independent and assisted with services would be mostly 1 bedroom. Care suites 44 would be more segregated to provide for more care. Community space is included — card 45 rooms, salon, movie room, often a chapel, etc. Underground parking is included for • • CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION November 5, 2007 APPROVED 46 residents and some employees. They would like the council comments on this project in 47 particular. 48 49 Mr. Janes explained the second project they are looking at. In between the townhome 50 piece and Lakewood Apartments, they are tentatively proposing a four-story/two story 51 market rate apartment project. This would provide an architectural component to frame 52 the roundabout. This would be limited to about 72 units due to the amount of site parking 53 feasibility. 54 55 A council member asked about how the commercial to residential ratio changes from 56 with this proposed senior component. 57 58 Mr. Janes responded that he believes there is some reduction in the commercial space and 59 he explained where some commercial would be lost. The retail market is very tight — the 60 current Lakewood building calls for 14,000 square feet of retail and currently there are no 61 tenants. The retail with the senior component will not be started. It is hoped that 62 bringing in the people with the senior project and possibly the additional rental project 63 will help in preparing the area for retail. From a master planning viewpoint, simplifying 64 the commercial plans seems to make the area more attractive to development market. It 65 would make the commercial more visible from the freeway ramp also. 66 67 The council requested that specifics on any net change should be provided as they are 68 available. 69 70 On the question of managing the senior housing, the developers explained that they 71 would move forward with development of the senior element upon city approval of the 72 plans and then work on management plans with owners and operators who specialize in 73 the area. It would be an owner and operator with experience in the field. The senior 74 housing market is good now and, based on demographics, should continue to be good. 75 The Hartford Group is experienced in the area of senior housing in general and looks 76 forward to presenting a strong proposal for financing. 77 78 The council believes that senior housing will be welcomed in the area. Even the new 79 YMCA has attracted a lot of seniors. 80 81 A council member expressed support for the senior project. One area that seems to be 82 lacking however is an opportunity for a senior living in the community to sell a house but 83 not go into rental. Concern was expressed about the addition of the apartment building 84 and how that affects the ratio of apartments and townhomes. All rental as an end product 85 is not acceptable. 86 87 Mr. Janes explained that the ratio was 60/40 — the senior and Lakewood project would 88 pretty much meet that 40 % so the addition of the apartment element would raise the 89 level. The apartments could be built with the idea that they could be a future 90 condominium conversion project. A change in the ratio is really necessary since the 91 condominium and townhouse market is completely flat. • CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION November 5, 2007 APPROVED 92 93 Economic Development Coordinator Divine explained that the original development 94 agreement called for 450 homes with the 60/40 homeowner/rental but this would 95 basically reverse that to 40/60. 96 97 The two projects are brought forward separately. The senior project the developers are 98 confident they can do. They plan to ask for plan changes to facilitate development of the 99 rental building in the future. If they are asked to retain a condominium/townhome 100 project, they are doubtful that is something that could be brought forward within the next 101 24 months. 102 103 When a council member pondered the possibility of delaying the development, the 104 developers explained that it would not be wise because holding costs will remain and 105 escalate. They would like to move forward with a viable plan. 106 107 One council member expressed concern that the change in plans means the city isn't 108 getting what it was originally promised. If mixed use is not viable but was presented as a 109 selling point for the development, was it ever a good idea? Also it is disappointing to see 110 the increase in rental — that was not the original vision. There could be a shift in the 111 market sooner than later and a decision to change may be premature. 112 113 The Hartford Group representatives stated that they will be in a position to attract the 114 retail when the market makes that possible. The inclusion of retail was a part of the 115 original development plans dating back before Hartford's involvement but they still carry 116 the vision. Success for that mixed use can be created by bringing people into the area. 117 118 Another council member noted the importance of retaining a project even with some 119 changes. The senior component that is being requested is welcome. 120 121 A council member questioned how much parking is truly needed for senior housing since 122 cars become less used with a senior lifestyle. Staff explained that they do recognize that 123 nuance and generally would require less parking for senior housing. The developer has 124 experience from previous projects and feels comfortable they will be able to work with 125 city staff to get an appropriate parking ratio. 126 Community Development Director Grochala reviewed the proposed modifications in 127 detail. Staff will be working with the developers on technical issues brought about by 128 changes; staff is supportive of the senior housing component but not supportive of 129 changing some of the original plans, including all of the townhome portion. Overall it is 130 necessary to recognize and confront the market situation. 131 One council member expressed support for the inclusion of life cycle housing; it is an 132 important and growing area of the housing market. 133 The developer is hoping for a January 2008 submission requesting formal city approval 134 of the plans for the senior element. • 135 • • • CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION November 5, 2007 APPROVED 136 Zoning Ord. Amendment — Unsewered Residential Lot Requirement — Community 137 Development Director Grochala reviewed the proposed ordinance. The council had 138 directed staff to modify the amendment so that it would apply only to reverse mortgages, 139 however, the city attorney ruled against that suggestion. Staff has added some new 140 language that has been reviewed by the City Attorney including language that requires 141 that a structure remain on the lot to be divided. Also the city needs to receive written 142 verification of the requirements from the mortgage company. A recorded covenant must 143 be recorded restricting the owner from selling the portions separately, except in the event 144 that there is a foreclosure situation. 145 It was recommended that the proposed process should be checked with the financiers to 146 ensure this will accomplish what the city wants. 147 The council concurred that the process (referral of the ordinance to Planning and Zoning) 148 should continue. 149 2008 Budget — Finance Director Rolek noted that the council has had continuing 150 discussion about whether or not to include a change to in-house engineering services in 151 the 2008 budget. The council has not indicated a need for any additional information but 152 that their discussion of the issue would continue. 153 Since the council has a difference of opinion regarding moving on a change to in-house 154 engineering staff, a council member suggested that the decision be delayed (no in-house 155 services in 2008) but with a direction to include in the goals for 2008 a thorough analysis 156 for a discussion about inclusion in the 2009 budget. 157 Director Rolek explained that the impact to the 2008 budget of retaining the contracted 158 engineering services is negative $85,500. It is proposed that be covered by general fund 159 reserve. 160 One council member recalled (in writing) information distributed in 2003 that indicated a 161 higher amount that included an additional support position. Also the TKDA contract was 162 shown with a not -to -exceed amount. 163 Director Grochala recalled that the 2003 figures considered the community development 164 budget only and didn't take into consideration storm water, sewer and water costs that are 165 charged out. There was no pavement management or as extensive a surface water 166 management program in 2003. The support staff position has already been added so that 167 is no longer a part. 168 When asked if it would be possible for TKDA to offer a not -to -exceed cost for the 2008 169 funding year, staff indicated that would be a difficult proposal since the costs are mostly 170 reactive, dependent on work that comes forward. 171 City Engineer Studenski announced that it could be possible to get a not -to -exceed but 172 the specifics would have to be designated. 173 It was recommended by a council member that if funding for a support staff person is 174 included in one scenario, it should be included in both so that the numbers are true. 175 There was general concurrence with putting off the decision for change but also general 176 concern about the use of general fund reserve (savings) to cover the $85,500 budget 177 deficit. Could the proposed budget be further reduced to cover the deficit? CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION November 5, 2007 APPROVED 178 Finance Director Rolek indicated that the reserve is put forward as a possibility mainly 179 because the budget is pretty much bare bones already. 180 In looking at the 2008 budget further, a council member recognized that the changes in 181 valuations and base budget and how the city will address and meet those challenges 182 should be a part of strategic planning in the coming year. 183 Finance Director Rolek indicated that he will proceed with the budget amendment 184 previously proposed by staff if the council did not wish to approve the in-house 185 engineering proposal. 186 The council concurred that deleting the second clean-up day should be revisited in time to 187 possibly add the fall event next year. 188 2008-2012 Five -Year Plan - Finance Director Rolek reviewed the plan, as presented. He 189 noted that the plan is truly a compilation of city department directors presenting their 190 forecasts with consideration of city goals and obligation for services considered. 191 The plan anticipates an overall increase in expenditures of 45.72% over five years. 192 Anticipated growth in the tax base related to real estate value has been revised downward 193 reflective of that market. The net overall growth in tax base included in plan is 25.29%. 194 Therefore the plan does forecast a tax rate increase. There is a general inflation factor 195 included but also specific consideration given in some areas such as energy and insurance 196 costs. Anticipated increased staffing needs, including police that will hopefully be 197 covered by grant funds, are included. The plan is considered a guideline and it does not • 198 constitute authorization for future spending. 199 The cost drivers are personnel and capital costs. 200 One council member noted the change in the personnel requirements of the previous plan 201 (last year's approval) versus this plan. He'd like more time to review the details. 202 Director Rolek noted that the growth rate is really the driving factor since the previous 203 plan estimated a growth trend. The personnel costs are really not that much different. 204 The council has a resolution in place requiring a public hearing and approval of a plan in 205 December. 206 A council member suggested that more time for analysis is needed. The tax rate increase 207 will certainly be an item of discussion. 208 A member suggested that the name of the document be changed from a "plan" to a 209 "guideline". It was clarified that the City Charter calls for the plan by name. 210 Another member suggested that "tackling" the assumptions and how the council will deal 211 with them should be a certain item on the first strategic planning session in 2008. 212 It may be appropriate for the council to consider a different schedule of consideration 213 since the circumstances that determine plan details have changes quite drastically. 214 The estimate of valuation is a big factor; can that information be gained any sooner in the 215 regular process? • 216 Director Rolek indicated that that receipt of that information is completely reliant upon 217 when it is available from the County. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION November 5, 2007 APPROVED •218 The council concurred that taking the time to look at the plan properly is more important 219 than meeting an arbitrary deadline established by a council resolution. A special meeting 220 will probably be required and it may not be approved by the end of the year. 221 Director Rolek suggested that council could bring back questions to the next pre -council 222 meeting work session just for staff to receive them and use them to set up a larger 223 discussion. 224 It was suggested that the large increase in personnel in one year should be a matter of 225 review. 226 2008 Fee Schedule — City Clerk Bartell explained that, for efficiency and clarity, the city 227 chooses to consolidate city fees into one ordinance that is adopted on an annual basis. 228 The city's current fee schedule has been reviewed by staff and recommendations 229 submitted for updating. Changes recommended by staff include an increase in the city's 230 tobacco license fee, clarification of the city's policy and fees regarding provision of 231 public data, creation of fees associated with the city's new rental housing licensing 232 regulations, and general updates to building fees. The fee schedule, in ordinance form, 233 will be presented for first reading at the November 13 city council meeting. 234 Compensation System Audit RFP — Director Tesch noted that the draft RFP requested 235 by the council is presented for review. 236 When asked how many RFP's would be sent out, Director Tesch noted four 237 organizations. • 238 Regarding pay for performance, that should be a component of the regular compensation 239 system. 240 Without major changes, this could be sent out this week. The allowed time for response 241 is 30 days. 242 The council authorized staff to issue the RFP. 243 Minnesota Gang Strike Force — Public Safety Director/Police Chief Pecchia offered a 244 verbal explanation of the task force options that the department has considered. 245 The city is eligible to participate in this strike force in the metropolitan component. 246 There is a $50,000 grant offer per year (starting in 2008) to get a handle on a gang 247 presence or activity in the community and to serve the county as a whole. While there 248 may not be recognized gang activities in the city but there is some presence and this 249 would be a way to be proactive on gang related activities. 250 The city must provide the time of an officer (paid by grant funds) and the department 251 would absorb any other related costs in their 2008 budget. 252 The Chief supports accepting the $50,000 grant and even though there is some cost to the 253 of absorbed in the 2008 budget. 254 The council authorized that the necessary paperwork be placed on a future council 255 agenda. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION November 5, 2007 APPROVED 256 Rice Creek Watershed District Appointment — Administrator Heitke noted that this is 257 a reminder to the council that the city may chose to participate in this process. The 258 hydrological area that has an open position does contain a portion of Lino Lakes. 259 It may be good in the future to discuss with and submit a list in conjunction with other 260 cities in the district. 261 When a board representative who does live in Lino Lakes is considered for 262 reappointment, the council would like to hear from them. 263 West Oaks Sewer and Watermain Extension Petition - Engineer Studenski explained 264 that the city has received a petition from residents of the West Oaks Subdivision to 265 pursue the extension of sewer and water services. This is not an area scheduled for the 266 requested improvements or street reconstruction. Study of this request means that a 267 feasibility study would need to be prepared and since that involves a cost to the city, staff 268 requests council direction on how to proceed. 269 The council was concerned that these will be expensive improvements. Is there a way to 270 pass on the cost of the feasibility study? Also, the petition only requires fifty percent; 271 what do the rest of the residents think? 272 Getting feedback from all the residents could be an option. The engineer could send a 273 letter providing cost estimate information and other details and asking if residents would 274 be interested in paying for the feasibility study. 275 What does the submission of a petition require from the city? The city is only required 276 to accept the petition. 277 One council member suggested that there could be a meeting held at city hall providing 278 more details but the city engineer replied that there would no doubt be a low turn out so 279 that's not the best way to reach the most property owners. The suggestion was then to 280 offer the opportunity of a meeting in the previously mentioned letter. 281 The council will receive a draft letter at the December work session and can then await 282 feedback. The need for neighborhood meetings can be determined. 283 Communication Policy (Reinert, Bergeson agenda request) — The question relates to 284 establishing a policy regarding communication expectations. 285 Ideas for requests going in: shouldn't sit idle for many days (response within 24 hours 286 during the week - even a response about when a full response will be available); 287 courteous communication should be the key. 288 One suggestion is that a standardized form could be forwarded through the city clerk. 289 The city clerk could be responsible for forwarding the request to appropriate staff with an 290 estimate for response time. A copy to other council members should be a part of the 291 process. 292 One concern of the past has been excessive data requests that take huge amounts of time 293 and resources. All requests could be tracked and reported on a regular basis. 294 A council member commented that it would be a waste of time to track requests since . 295 provision of public data isn't a option but a legal responsibility. • CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION November 5, 2007 APPROVED 296 It was suggested that the clerk conduit could be a back up when timely responses aren't 297 received. 298 Perhaps just the addition of a standardized form would be all that is needed. 299 The council concurred that an acknowledgement to a request is always needed. Also a 300 point of closure is important that is agreed upon and understood by staff and council. 301 Every council member doesn't need to a part of each request until the end. The final 302 product should be provided to all council members. 303 Staff will come back in December with a policy proposal. 304 2008 City Council Meeting Schedule 305 Council may want to reserve it's "off Mondays" for special work sessions. 306 The schedule for budget discussions should be moved up to allow more time. 307 Review of November 13 regular meeting agenda 308 There were no changes to the council agenda. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. 309 310 311 312 313 • 314 315 316 31 318 • These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on January 28, 2008. Pts•P givaddvv ne Bartelllerk John J. Bergeson, Mayor