Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 12/11/1984 - Special Meeting `y APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1984 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BOARDROOM CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel , Richard Anderson, George Bentley , Paul Redpath, and George Tangen PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Bob Hallett, Stan Johannes , Dennis Marhul a, Ed Schuck , Hakon Torjesen CITY STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, Director of Planning Chris Enger. Director of Community Services Bob Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael ROLL CALL: Mayor Penzel arrived at 9: 30 p.m. Planni na Commission member Dennis Marhula was absent. I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen , `o approve the Agenda as published. - Motion carried unanimously. II . ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION A. Rol a of Ci ty Counci 1 , P1 anni ng Commi ss i on; and Staff in Development Process City Manacler Jullie stated that Planning Director Enger had included in the packets a list of items usually covered by the Staff in reviewing a project. Jullie asked if this was the approach the City Council and the Planning Commission wished to use or would a narrative format be better. He also asked for input recardi no the general tone of the Staff Reports should the "devil 's advocate" approach be used. should there be a more positive approvach, or should it be limited to facts. Redpath said he felt he needed the recommendations fror. the Staff. he said he did not feel he could spend the amount of time on any one pro- posal that Staff can and he has crown to rely on the Staff Reports , Bentley stated he feat the Staff Reports were very qood and very thorough. He said he had heard from others that they felt the reports were thorough, comprehensive and should be continued in their present form -- they should delineate the good and the bad. Bentley pointed out that one of the problems is that the Staff Reports are sometimes used and viewed as City Council Meeting --2- December 11 , 1984 an absolute in the review process whereas they should be regarded as a tool . He said there are things which should be looked at above and beyond the Staff Report; this should be done by the Planning Commission and by 4 the City Council . Torjesen said he felt the recommendations included in the Staff Reports were a good idea but he felt they should be graduated. He said he felt there should be room for people to disagree. He said there is a real effort to get beyond the site plan itself. Redpa th said it was often unnecessary to look beyond the site plan if the proposal conformed to the Guide Plan. Torjesen said there are implications on what goes on around various proposals , �7 Jullie indicated there was feedback from developers and others that Staff Reports were being perceived as bei na more nevati ve than they needed to be. The implication was that the Staff was running the show. He said he had discussed this with Enger and they had decided that Staff Reports could be amended in format to eliminate that perception. The descriptive words were deleted and the reports were made to be more factual . Rather than a recommendation of denial , a list of what might be changed was in- Fi• eluded; just the facts were given , Jull ie stated he felt the Staff Reports were fine in this format. Schuck said the Planni nq Commission needed all the help it could net from Staff. He said he would not like to see a change because the Commission has grown to rely on the recommendations; he said he was very frustrated by the fact the Staff was not able to make recommendations . Bearman stated he felt care must be taken in evaluating data and in the way that it was presented;, some data has come across as being rather neg- ative when that really was not the case. Bearman noted that sometimes a developer will come in totally unprepared . He pointed out that most people don' t realize the amount of work necessary to review these projects: it is imperative to have Staff Reports. He said developers must realize they must come prepared. Hallett said he felt Staff was doing an exceptional job. He indicated he liked the way Staff Reports were written earlier; he did not feel his: "hands were tied" because of the recommendations included in the Staff Reports, Gartner noted that the Planning Commissioners often disagree with the recommendations in the Staff Reports and that changes are made. Redpath said he had met with a developer who was concerned and he had tried to point out that it is the job of the planner to help the developer through the maze of the likes and dislikes of a number of individuals who would ultimately make the. approvals or disapproval s regarding a proposal . Bentley stated this had been an on-going concern for six or eight years. He said he felt developers had a tendency to come forward unprepared; perhaps things would have to be looked at a little more tightly rather than attempting to fast track items . Bearman said he thought there seemed to be a rush on Friday afternoons to get the materials into the planner for review. Torjesen said he would like to see the Staff Report express judgements and not only the facts , City Council Meeting -3- December 11, 1984 Enger indicated the "Staff Review of Development Proposals" would be made available to developers. Tangen said he had never seen anything like that before and felt it was a positive step. He said he felt Staff Reports are very important and should be continued. Bearman said he knew of developers who felt a positive Staff Report assured approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council . Anderson said he perceived the Staff Report as a method of getting the necessary information to the Planning Commission and/or the City Council for its review. He said he felt the reports were informative. As a result, developments are ending up better. He said he thought Staff had been doing a good job in catching mistakes. -° Tangen said he thought developers should be expected to feel they will get approval if they are following the guidelines and the policies. Hallett noted that Staff accepts the fact that not all the recommendations included in the Staff Reports are going to be accepted. Redpath stated that these guidelines mean that everyone is looking at the same things. Enger said that seventy projects had been reviewed in 1984. The average time to go through the development process was less than three and a half months. He said there were two denials out of the seventy proposals. Enger called attention to the materials which had been presented to the Council and the Commission this evening which included a review of planning proposals in 1983 and 1984 along with maps . B. Review of R1-9.5 Zoning District Bearman said the Planning Commission had been told by developers that the 9. 5 zoning district would bring down the price of the lots and that would mean more affordable housing. Torjesen said the Commission should ask Staff to look at how the Ordinance might be rewritten so that it would accomplish what was intended. Enger explained the chart which is included in the City Code, Enger noted that by lowering the density, the City should accomplish its goal of pro- viding more affordable housing. Torjesen said the City needs to say "no" to more of the 9.5 requirements. Bentley suggested that perhaps the 9.5 zone could be changed_ by putting a maximum density per acre: this zone could only be used in areas "guided" as medium density. The variance process would have to be used. Bentley questionned whether the 9.5 zone a truly a low-density zone. He said he felt it was a medium-density zone Enaer noted that there would be an "expense" in saying that 9.5 was a medium-density zone as medium-density areas command a greater price, i City Council Minutes -4- December 11, 1984 Redpath said that if the Council were to limit 9.5 districts to only medium density areas then these would not be scattered throughout the community. Bentley said he felt the City had accomplished 9.5 zoning by default. Torjesen suggested the 9.5 district be abolished. Bearman said 9.5 was not a low-density project, it is medium-density. Tangen suggested there be two categories and recommended a 70' standard be adopted right now and that a 3.5 density be kept in the medium-density area. Anderson concurred. Enger said lot widths in a 9.5 zone at between 55' and 70' : in a 13 .5 zone they are 75 ' and 85' . He indicated this makes for better propor- tioned lots. Redpath said he felt the number of projects sent to the Board of Appeals & Adjustments for variances is disturbing. C. Analysis of High-tech Projects and Recommendations for Zoning District Changes Enger referred to his memorandum of December 6; 1984, in which this subject was addressed. He also showed slides of representative high-tech projects 2 in the City. Bearman said the Planning Commission has not been able to define hi-tech; it is a conglomerate of many things . Redpath asked if it might be helpful if there were another step -- a step up. Bearman said there did not seem to be a problem with high-tech as long as it was in an office zone; it did become a problem when it was in the industrial zone. Anderson noted the City was finding a problem in transition areas where developers want a campus effect. We are not looking at the industrial areas of old that we are accustomed to. He said he liked what he was seeing. r. Ender asked if the Council and Commission would think it appropriate to amend the industrial zone to allow for 75% office use. Tangen said con- sideration must be given to what is allowed in an industrial zone versus what is allowed in an office zone. Hallett said that what happens inside a building does not concern many as much as what it looks like on the outside. He said he felt the City must remain flexible on this . How a building fits in is important Tangen noted there are varying requirements regarding parking. Redpath said concern must be given regarding the second user. Johannes pointed out that the market creates the users . He said the way to control use is by the money that must be put into the project such as landscaping. etc. Johannes said the economics of each development must be looked at. Penzel arrived. City Council Minutes -5- December 11 . 1984 Enger noted the industrial designation bothers people; this has been true for the past couple of years. He said he would suagest that the Ordinance be amended to allow more uses in the office district -- the dilemna is that this cannot be done in the office district right now. Johannes suggested approvals be made on a case-by-case basis . Enqer said the City could opt for the most conservative approach such as 10% office use in an industrial zone. Penzel asked how this is being controlled presently and how do we know what percentage is used for what? Enger said it is done on a complaint basis or as parking becomes a problem. Bentley said perhaps a worksheet process could be used based on established criteria with a score based on that. This approach could control the building. This would have to be reviewed after a certain period of time to see if if was working. Staff would be asked to come up with a scoring or qrading system. If it does not work then the City might try something else. Bentley said this would give the City the greatest amount of flexibility. Anderson asked what percentage of the City has been developed in the past ` two years . Enger said about 25%. Anderson said that was a large percentage of the City to be experimenting with. Beat-man said he was uncomfortable in putti nct this in ordi fiance form. He said he would rather see controls via a PUD. ` Redpath said he was looking at getting away from the variance process . Hallett said he could support what Bentley was talkinq about (using a work- sheet. ) Johannes asked how many of the proposals the Planning Commission had looked at would fit into that type of review process (using a worksheet) . Enger said about half would. The consensus was that the Code should be amended to reflect the fact that consideration must be given to allow a certain percentage of office use in an industrial zone. Staff will review this further. 0. Comprehensive Guide Plan Review Criteria and Justifications Redpath reviewed the definition of "guide. " Penzel asked what degree of change will be found proper, is the change compatible with the uses within a certain number of feet? Bentley asked what the word compatible meant; he questionned PUD changes Penzel said he felt compatibility meant not more than one zoning classifi- cation away from each other. Bearman said compatibility means what might fit in that particular instant. City Council Minutes -6- December 11, 1984 Enger said that some developers do not justify their Guide Plan changes. Tangen said he felt that sometimes the City gets too hung-up on Guide Plan changes. He said he did not feel there had to be compelling reasons for making changes. He said the City must be able to move with the times, =q He stated there must be justification for changes. He approved of the "Substantiation for Guide Plan Changes" which was included in the infor- mation distributed for this evening . Redpath concurred. Bentley said he felt justice was not given if a project had Guide Plan changes, variances , rezoning, etc . , etc. He said he felt that in proposals where a Guide Plan change was being requested, only that issue should be considered at a particular meeting. Redpath said Muirfield pointed that out very well . Bentley asked whether the City Attorney had looked at the role of the Planning Commission in the Guide Plan change process. Jullie said he had asked for an opinion from the Attorney General regarding this and that legislation will be introduced to clarify this matter. Enger noted that some Guide Plan chat-toes generate so much information that it is sometimes as easy to consider more than just the Guide Plan at a given • meeting. E. Cash Park Fee Background on Preserve and Edenvale PUD's Lambert reviewed the history as to why the City does not collect cash park fees in the Edenval a and The Preserve PUDs . Torjesen asked to what extent the City was going to renegotiate these PUDs. Penzel said the City can initiate changes but that is rather hard to do unless the City can go in and purchase the property, F. Comprehensive Guide Plan Density Designations and Zoning District Densities Enger stated that in some communities the guide plan densities correspond to the zoning designations. Penzel suggested this might be a good thing to look at when the Guide Plan is reviewed. III. OLD BUSINESS Tangen expressed his appreciation for all the work the Planning Commission has done. He noted that being a Commission member is a tough and time-consuming job. Tangen said he felt this was the best meeting he had been a part of in long time. Redpath concurred and suggested that the Commission and the Council get together more often. IV. NEW BUSINESS There was none. V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.