Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 01/21/1980 - Joint Meeting ,m i JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING CONWISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JANUARY 21, 1980 CITY COUNCIL M01BERS PRESENT: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel and Councilman Dean Edstrom CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ABSENT: Sidney Pauly, David Osterholt, and Paul 3 Redpath PLANNING COHNIISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Matthew Levitt, Liz Retterath, Virginia Gartner, and George Bentley PLANNING COPWISSIOh MEMBERS ABSENT Oke Martinson STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Roger Ulstad, City Manager, Chris Eager, Director of Planning:. Jeanie Ohnsorg, Planning Secretary I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved provided that the following items be added: E. Discussion on the progress of the Hennepin County Library. F. Discussion on Road improvements in Eden Prairie. Approval was unanimous. II. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION A. Are penalties in our ordinances and development agreements strong enough to assure compliance? Bearman summarized the concerns of the Planning Commission on this subject, explaining that there have been some violations to developer's agreements by the developers causing, in some cases, irreversable. damage. Roger Pauly, City Attorney, stated that there is the possi- bility of separating the developers agreement into two parts; one being the items that are filed with the county, the other being items that are not filed with the county. tie also stated that there is a possibi lity of including more iteir.s to be assured under a bonding comn-ittment. T}ie Commission had the following inquires: What can be done after the developer has already done damage. slow should the City nionsure the damages caused l,y the developer? [low can the City determine if the damage~ were intentional or an error of the person hired to do the construction? Joint Meeting. Minutes -2- January 21, 1980 What can be done in this area in order to keen the public's confidence in the City Council and the Planning Commission? Mayor Penzel requested that Roger Pauly look into what legal action can be taken to enforce the developer agreements. B. Planning Commission recommendations based on changes to a developer' s plan. l The Planner gave an explanation of this topic , and summarized the concerns of the Planning Commission. The Commission emphasized that when they make recommendations for appoval of a project subject to stipulations that they wish it to be considered a recommendation for approval only if all the stipulations are met. The Commission will in the future include in their motions extra emphasis on these items. Mayor Penzel responded that he felt in most cases the Council does not alter the Planning Commission recommendations, how- ever, in some cases the Council had exercised there discre- tion on specific items based upon discussion presented to the Council. `fir,► Searman stated that he felt it might be clearer to forward items to the Council having worked out most of the stipula- tions ahead of time. C. Energy conservation in Planning. Development of remaining parcels according to the'Guide Plan goals. The Planner explained that m the remaining undeveloped parcels of land in the City, energy conservation should be considered. One of the ways the City can have an effect on energy conservation would be through providing development incentives for cluster housing by the use of density transfer from the unbuildable portions of the site. Mayor Penzel inquired if the flood plain zone that was adopted two years ago prevented development in the flood plain? The Planner stated that this ordinance does not prohibit devel- opment in the flood plain but does require a developer to obtain a permit to fill or develop portions of it. Roger Ulstad stated that at the present time the City may allow tip to 20a cnchronchment into the flood plain. Mayor Penzel states that lie felt it would be a good idea to allow density transfer on only developable land. The Planner questioned whether density transfer would have any realling if it were only allowed on developable land. Joing Meeting Minutes -3- January 21 , 1980 Bearman stated that he felt that there was an advantage in allowing density transfer from undevelopable land in that it provides density on the gross basis it has been planned . .k for in the over all services structure of the City. He felt that building the number of units planned for could be profitable to the City in that it helped reimburse previously incurred costs. There did not seem to be any concise policy out of the discussion as to how to treat density transfer in general. The feeling seemed to reflect review of projects on an in- dividual merit basis. D. Evaluation of a development project based upon a past track record. : Bearman summarized the concerns of the Planning Commission and inquired if they can use the developer's past track record in evaluating thier proposal for approval or denial. Roger Pauly stated he would not advise formalizing a devel- opers past track record as it could cause legal problems. He stated that it is best to handle this through enforcement of a developers agreement. The Planner stated that there is a certain amount of trust in the developers agreements and inquired what can be done 4Lif a developer has shown the City that he can not be trusted. Mayor Penzel requested that Roger Pauly look into what legal action can be taken in this area. E. The Council and Planning Commission also had discussion on the Hennepin County branch library in Eden Prairie, and highway improvements for Eden Prairie highways. 4L �YO 4 iv