Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 02/24/1987 - Special Meeting APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1987 3:00 PM, CITY HALL LUNCHROOM COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harris, and Patricia Pidcock CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, Planning Director Chris Enger, Assistant Planner Dave Lindahl, Assistant Planner Don Uram, Recording Secretary Jan Nelson ROLL CALL: Councilmember Pidcock arrived at 3:50 PM. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 3:10 PM. Referring to his memoranda of January 30th and February 20th which provided background information on the Major Center Area, Planning Director Enger reviewed the development of the M.C.A. He said they currently use the 1982 Guide Plan to determine what uses are appropriate in the M.C.A. He also reviewed the statistics regarding the population of Eden Prairie, the number of jobs available in the City, the number of residents who work in the City, and the long-range impact of those statistics on traffic and development in the City. Enger enumerated several options he thought were available for directing development within the City including such things as providing additional housing diversity where possible, encouraging businesses such as high-tech that would provide higher salaried gobs, controlling the density of industrial/ commercial/office development, and encouraging the "company-town" concept. He said he was concerned that future development meet the needs of the resi- dents of Eden Prairie rather than just the needs of the transient population. Anderson asked if we have looked at the advantages and disadvantages of going in each direction with development; that is, providing for the residents or for the working population. Enger said a final population of 45-60,000 resi- dents would mean the same density as it is now throughout the City, and that he thought it would be important to have opportunities for the residents to work here. i Peterson asked if there are any numbers or opinions on the transitional 3 process that leads more residents to find employment in Eden Prairie and more people who work here to move to Eden Prairie. Enger said it would occur if there are employment opportunities and housing that match. Councilmember Pidcock arrived at 3:50 PM. p -2_ Bentley said he didn't think we can separate ourselves from a regional per- spective; therefore, we must do planning based on the needs as reflected by our own community while not ignoring the needs of our position in the region. In terms of development, he believes the market-driven aspect is going to continue to be the dominant feature determining where office/ commercial/industrial development occurs. He said he thought there is a limit to what a community can do in terms of prohibiting certain types of develop- ment. Peterson said he agreed that the market does drive development, but he also believes that what the community has decided to do in terms of education, parks and recreation facilities has been proactive and not market-driven. He said he thought we have a primary commitment to the life of the people who now live here and who will live here. Enger said he was concerned with what the response should be to a development proposal that requests a F.A.R. of 1.0. Peterson said he thought that is a problem and such a project would definitely cause more traffic problems. Anderson said he was concerned about the quality of life when the population reaches 50-60,000 and there are 150,000 jobs in the City, particularly in view of the fact that those figures may reached sooner than expected with the lower interest rates causing Increased numbers of housing starts. Focusing the scope of the discussion to the M.C.A. , Bentley said he has concerns regarding the existing document that deals with the M.C.A. as he believes many of the premises that the document was based upon are no longer valid. He believes tremendous development pressure is occurring in the M.G.A. while the area is guided very generally. He said the document does not support the concept of downsizing development in the area, and he is concerned that potential developers may be relying on the premises contained in the existing document. Enger said that the M.C.A. document is no longer valid; that it was adopted by resolution and is not an ordinance nor part of the Comprehensive plan. He said we haven' t used it for years and that the existing Comprehensive Guide Plan and zoning ordinances comprise the framework within which we are governed. He said the M.C.A. document should be used as an historical document to provide the philosophy and expectations for development in the past. Bentley said he was suggesting that we need to establish a new document of some sort that is derived based upon current thinking and a considerable amount of public input from the entire City. He said we should do that now before the opportunity escapes us. He said he supports the studies outlined in the memo, but he has a problem in terms of dictating the densities of development based on traffic projections only. Pidcock said she thought we could build on what we have rather than doing something new. Bentley said he thought that will be the end result but we have to get a cohesiveness. Harris asked about the 1982 Guide Plan. Enger said the 1982 Guide Plan is bona fide; whereas the M.C.A. document operates as a general plan or guideline but has no legal standing and is out of date. He noted that the M.C.A. document was by no means a far-ranging, community-wide document while the 1982 Guide Plan was developed with much community input. I -3- MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to direct that the following items be performed regarding the Major Center Area with a tentative deadline of May 1st to report back to the Council : 1) Reactivate the Development Commission and give them the task of developing a list of needed developments and services in the community; 2) Refer to the Parks Commission the issue of redefining an overview of our park and recreation goals in the M.C.A. ; 3) Refer to the Planning Commission the list of uses based upon the sectors outlined on the map provided by Staff for their review and comments as to how they feel about those uses; and 4) Update the existing 1985 traffic study. Enger noted that we have received a proposal for updating the traffic study and Director of Public Works Dietz will be bringing that to the Council soon. r t Peterson said there is merit in consideration of all these items but he was caught off guard by the suggestion to refer the items to the various commissions. Bentley replied that the Council should be in control of the overall , broad spectrum of the issue. A discussion followed as to whether such action could be taken at this meeting. City Manager Jullie asked how action regarding a possible request for a higher F.A.R. would fit into this recommendation. Bentley said that is a separate ' issue that is not even being addressed at this time. Enger said we have the comprehensive traffic study that can be used to answer requests for a higher p F.A.R. until something else is developed. Peterson said it was apparent that each member of the Council is concerned about the concrete issues and the philosophical issues and, further, that they would agree that what is being done is being done well . He said we have the proper documents and ordinances to tontine to do the job well but the major concern is with the remaining parcels. He hoped that the Council can at some point return to the philosophical issues, such as for whom are we bulding this community. Anderson noted that what we do with the M.C.A. has an effect on the total community; therefore, we need to ask what a particular development will do to this community and the quality of life. Bentley said there are many people in this community who feel very strongly that we will allow such things as taller buildings and higher densities in the M.C.A. For that reason we will have a lot of angry people when we say they can't build a nine-story building because of the traffic impact. Peterson said maybe we can work some creative partnerships for providing transportation or places to live. He believes there is an increasing impetus Y -4- for public transportation. Bentley said we cannot count or rely on any outside transportation system because the Met Council and the regional transit board have excluded Eden Prairie from any plans for such things as a light rail system. Pidcock asked if we have dealt with the pedestrian issue. Bentley said that was one of the specific issues he wanted Park b Rec to discuss. Peterson said he would not be in favor of the first item in the motion. Bentley asked how we will deal with the list of needed uses and services. Peterson said he thought that was part of the philosophical issue or would be determined by the market. Bentley said he thought we could determine how the property will be developed. Jullie said he thought Mr. Enger had provided a starting point for this issue in his report on what land is left and what the types of development are that we should have. He said he didn't see that the Development Commission would add to that process. Bentley said the Development Commission did this once before as to the primary development objectives for the City as a whole so he did not feel this was beyond the scope of what they have been asked to do. Harris said she thought Items 2 and 3 look at existing situations-and she was in favor of them, but she felt we should remove Item 1 until we have discussed the Development Commission and its mandate. Bentley said he thought there were two different issues here; one, that this list talks about allowable uses in different quadrants; and two, what do we need in the community. He felt we need to put the two issues together as an ultimate ' goal. He said that he would withdraw Item 1 with the understanding that the issue of development priorities in the M.C.A. for community needs will have to be addressed at some time. Peterson asked if there were any uses that the community may need that are not on the list of possible uses. Bentley said he meant developing a prioritized list of needs for the community, such as a convention hotel as our number one priority. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to amend the motion by deleting Item 1. Motion carried unanimously. i VOTE ON THE AMENDED MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. { MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to adjourn the meeting at 5:00 PM. i