Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 04/16/1979 - Joint Meeting JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSIONf . '' MINUTES approved sMONDAY, APRIL 16, 1979 7:30 PM, CITY HALL CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel , Sidney Pauly, David Osterholt, and Dean Edstrom CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ABSENT: Paul Redpath PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Matthew Levitt , Liz Retterath, Virginia Gartner, George Bentley and Hakon Torjesen 6 : PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS k ABSENT: Oke Martinson. STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Manning Donna Stanley, Planning Secretary 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as published. 11. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION A. Transition Ordinance for MCA vs. interim use agreements x Bearman summarized the concerns of the Planning Commission on this subject, explaining that as the Major Center Area continues to grow with interim uses , the Planning Connission would like to have guidelines to determine future proposed interim uses. The drafting of a Transition Ordinance for the M.C.A. was discussed, and the following suggestions were made : 1 . Combination of ordinance and developer's agreement , tailored to a situation. -2. Flexibility, rather than limited in approach. 3. Definition of M.C.A. boundaries. -4. Time frame for interim uses, termination date, subject to review periodically, with adequate notice given. _ 5. Protection of landowners. 6. Define purpose and objective. 7. Consideration of abatement of taxes on single family homes, 8. Study of surrounding communities ' policies and ordinances directed at this question. 9. Request opinion from the City Attorney on the alternatives . 10. No additions to existing structures should be allowed. Bearman requested the item be put on the Planning Commission agenda for the May 14th meeting for discussion and recommendation to the City Council. B. Discussion of liason Council member Bearman discussed , what the Planning Commission felt to be a communication link through a liason Council member. especially when large complex type 't Joint City Council/ iapproved . Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 16, 1979 B. Discussion of liason Council member (continued) -'� Various suggestions were made and discussed and i,t was Qpnarally aarped imnn that a g • joint meeting be requested, in addition to the two meetings per'year suggested by the City Council , whenever the need arose. C. Development Review 1 . Totlots The Planning Commission requested a definition of tot lot, how it was authorized, and whether "density vs. lot size" was to be used in determining the need. Mayor Penzel explained that it was a matter of definition, and that ►.—{n..o i•ri'Fnr iy Wp1^P ..a.n� r.a•A �c .Y► .VY.. 1. 1 acre of open space for thirty to forty units, maintained by home owners. 2. 10 acres to 20 acres for use as informal game area, with ball fields, skating rink etc. 3, Tot lots were not regarded as trade-offs because they are not large enough, and the smaller the lot sizes were, the more the tot lots are needed. 4. Avoidance of locating tot lots next to holding ponds for safety purposes. 2. Lot sizes The major concern of the Planning Commission was to receive the Council 's thoughts on the concept of lower cost housing on smaller lot sizes. The Mayor explained that there should- be •a• strict relationship between the cost of housing and size of lot and two points should be considered: 1 . Income 2. Are we meeting lower cost and middle income housing? This will be reviewed in depth during the Ordinance review. The Planner pointed out that policies that are being discussed at this stage may have very little effect, because most development will be planned for within the next 2 to 3 years. therefore an ordinance with . long range vision should be adopted. Cul-de=sacs were discussed, and it was generally agreed that the City had too many, and they should be limited to where they made sense in a project. 3. City's development rate ; need vs. existing services The question of how much development could absorb in terms of roads and services was discussed. The Mayor explained that the City's financial consultant, Ehlers and Associates, recommended that $3,000,000 yearly be spent for public improvements. The Planner explained that to the extent that we have development all q . over the City, our road systems will continue to absorb it, but intense Joint City Council/ iapproved Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - April 16, 1979 3. Cityf s development rate. .services (continued) development in one area would overload the City's road system. The possible need for special assessments was discussed, and it was suggested that a new opinion from Ehlers and Associates be requested on the amount of funds to be used for public improvements. Bearman suggested that more be done to protect home buyers from false selling statements. 4. Limiting radius of notification of residents The Planner explained the City's procedure for notification of residents of public hearings. Currently, the legal requirement for platting notification is AR01 9 but the City hac nntifiaef iin to i . nnn' because of location of homes. He explained the mailing procedure has become very time consuming, and suggested that a possible solution could be to request developer to purchase the Computer run-off sheet from Hennepin County of addresses within the radius of his pro- posal . It was suggested that a radius of 500' of affected influence, but no less that 500' , be used as the notification guide line. Various suggestions were made on the notification process such as the possibility of publishing the public hearings , in addition to the legal notices already pub- lished; and hand delivery of notices,by local Girl Scout troops. I. ' 0 WOUR,"IN t1T MOTION: Torjesen moved to adnourn at 9:50 PM, seconded by Gartner. Motion carried unanimously.