Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 11/13/1975 - Joint Meeting MINUTES JOINT COUNCIL. / PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING approved anursday, Novemberl3 , 1975 7:00 PM City Hall COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor David Osterholt, Wolfgang Penzel,. Billy Bye , Joan Meyers , Sidney Pauly PLANNING COMMISSION: Chairperson Don Sorensen, Norma Schee, Richard Lynch, Richard Feerick STAFF PRESENT: Roger Ulstad City Manager, Dick Putnam Planning Director, & jean Johnson I . City_ Council's and the Planning Commission's responsibilities in the planning process . ' The mayor welcomed the Council and Planning Commission members to the joint meeting. City Manager, Roger Ulstad , stated the first item on the * agenda . is for reviewal of the members feelings as to responsibilities, guidelines, etc. Sorensen said the commission has had concern that the Council and Planning Commission do not view the issues from the same criteria . The mayor , referring to a tally on Council&Planning Commission actions, felt disagreements occur very infrequently. Sorensen agreed that there has not been alot of disagreements on proposals , but the ones that have occurred s involvd major policies as viewed by the commission. The Council then briefly discussed their reasons for approving the community commercial use at the intersection of T. H. 5 and Mitchell Road. Feerick and Schee expressed concern that the guidelines • the Planning Commission so carefully considers when reviewing proposals do not seem to be heavily consi- dered at the Council level . Sorensen believed the Planning Commission should be appraised of the Council's reasoning when action contrary to a commission recommendation is made so the commission can understand the situation. Meyers felt more definitive tools for development and land use ( ordinances, procedures, etc. , ) , would alleviate some misunderstandings. Feerick was concerned that if the Council allows uses outside of established guidelines it weakens the City's policies. . Bye believed a commercial void would develop in Eden Prairie if the Council did not consider economic and present circurnstances when reviewing proposals. Meyers believed the present lack of commercial within Eden Prairie is not because of City pol icy , but due to its small population and large area which is not suffi- dent to attract _ commercial. approved Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting -2- Nov. 13, 1975 i Penzel questioned if the Planning Commission feels each Council decision is a policy situation. Feerick answered that it is difficult for the commission to determine if a policy change has occurred and that is why a need -for communi- cation, exists . Sorensen said the commission could benefit from knowing the Council's thoughts , . ideas, and guidelines on actions that oppose a commission recommendation. Penzel stated that in most instances no policy change occurs, but merely a F variance situation, i. e , allow a 1 .2 acre industrial development in an I-2 G Industrial Zoning District. t The Council concurred that it would be possible to convey their reasons for i basing a decision to the commission when it contradicts a commission recommendation. Mayor Osterholt suggested methods by which Council decisions and basis of action could be transmitted to the commission be developed. Bye asked if the Planning Commission operated on the planner's recommendation. Sorensen responded negative and explained that the planning staff has the time and opportunity to develop a full range of alternatives on a proposal _ and the commission agrees , disagrees , or modifies the suggested recommendations. Sorensen added that when a disagreement arises between the commission and planning staff the disagreement is understood and the commission would like the same ( communication between the Council and commission_ Schee believed : since the Planning Commission is an advisory commission it would be best if they were acquainted with policies and policy changes before the: fact and not after the fact. Motion: Penzel moved, Meyers seconded, to direct the staff to draw up a list of assumed policies that concern development proposals within 30 days for the Council's consideration and ultimate submission to the Planning Commission so both bodies know what is and what is not policy. _Discussion: Sorensen suggested the commission submit what they consider policy to the Council and then the Council could acknowledge whether it is or is not policy . The Council members agreed that if any commission member desired to lanow the Council's basis for an action it can be communicated through the staff or the commission member can call the Council members. Vote: The motion carried unanimously. C • i a pproved joint Council/Planning Commission Minutes -3= Nova 13, 1975 9 TT . . Discussion of Guide Plan Consultants. Penzel asked for clarification of the review process whereby 1 firm was unanimously selectedto update the guide plan. Sorensen responded that the review committee listened to the 4 final consultant firms and after a full dis- cussion the committee wholeheartedly endorsed the 1 firm and did not feel the other firms came close enough to rate them 2nd, 3rd, or 4th. Penzel then questioned the circumstances around Brauer & Associates resubmission. Feerick explained that initially Brauer had mixed emotions about the update and had not submitted ample information, later he submitted a more detailed request for proposal. Pauly stated Mr. Licht was not as impressive at theCouncil presentation as he may have been before the commission. Schee stated that the review committee ' did not react to just an individual, but selected the firm as a whole. Feerick stated he was impressed with Midwest Planning & Research and Mr. Licht ? ' because: they are available as a resource body after a job is completed; they have knowledgeof; Metro affairs , environmental concerns grants; they have a strong approach to community involvement; theyhave a large resource of individuals; and they appear to be the best buy for the money. Bye believed a first step of the update process should have been If the firm who did ' the 1968 Plan should do the update. Motionl: Penzel moved , Meyers seconded, to appoint Midwest Planning & Research as the firm to assist in the City Comprehensive Guide Plan update. Discussion: Bye asked what dollar amount the firm had submitted. Meyers responded the range was $ 15, 000-30, 000 and negotiable. Pauly stated it is felt Don Brauer did an outstanding job on the original guide plan and she feels he relates very well to persons in the community. Penzel agreed that Brauer did an excellent'job on the 1968 Plan, but the Brauer staff has been depleted since then. Mayor Osterholt stated he was not Impressed with the listing of staff in the Midwest Planning & Research firm. Meyers felt the Midwest Planning & Research firm has the knowledge to give a fresh look to the Eden Prairie update. Bye said he still had questions concerning the consultants & would abstain from voting. f Vote on Motion 1 : The motion failed with Meyers and Penzel voting aye, Osterholt and Pauly voting nay, and Bye abstaining. Motion 2: Penzel moved, Bye seconded, to continue consideration of a Guide Plan update consultant to the Council''s November 25th agenda . The motion carried unanimously. r approved Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting -4- Nov. 13, 1975 Staff Report 1 . Schooner Boulevard - Re: F.A.U . and County participation. Mr. Ulstad reported that letters from Hennepin County show a commitment of 2 . 6 million dollars 5-6 years from now. from capital Finprovement program funds. He added the Ring Road is also being considered for FAU funding. 2 . E. Q.C. Requirements and its Effect on the MCA. Mr. Ulstad reported EISs have been submitted for the Hikeway/ Bikeway Report and the Riley Lake Park. Plan and presently the EQC is considering the City's request to have the MCA reviewed In whole. ` 3 . Future Joint Meetings. Meyers said the Planning Commission desires a tentative - schedule of joint meetings. Sorensen suggested joint meetings on either the Council's or Planning Commission's regularly scheduled nights 1 hour before the meeting can a quarterly basis. W Bye felt joint meetings would be helpful and meetings could also be held more - frequently if necessary. Motion: Bye moved, Penzel seconded, to set quarterly meetingsbetween the Council and t Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously. Adjournment Pauly moved, Penzel seconded, to adjourn the joint Council / Planning Commission meeting at 10:15 PM. The motion carried. Respectfully Submitted jean Johnson r