City Council - 07/15/1975 - Joint Meeting IV,IN UTES
T C-'FF ' COUNCIL/ PLA.N NENG CC',:: G
Approved
July 15, 1975 8:00 PM City Hall
COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Osterholt, Wolfgang P enzel , Billy Bye.
PLANNING COMMISSION: Chairperson Don Sorensen, Herb Fosnocht,
Roger Boerger, Richard Feerick, Richard Lynch
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Roger Ulstad, City Attorney Harlan Perbix;
Planning Director Richard Putnam; City Engineer Carl F
jullie,Planntng Intern Dwight Picha; and Planning
Secretary Jean Egan.
I. WELCOME �
Councilman Wolfgang Penzel opened the meeting by welcoming the Council
and Planning Commission members.
II. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN REVIEW.
Mr. Ulstad backgrounded the Guide Plan process of 1968 and said the staff
has attempted to Illustrate the land uses, transportation,and utility change
from 1968 to 1975 through graphics and material compiled in the Compre -
hensive Guide Plan Update booklet.
Mr. Putnam reviewed the Comprehensive Guide Plan Update material relating
to development pattern, open space , parks , utility availability and tra►ispor-
tation systems within the City. '
_ h4ayor Osterholt inquired if everyone was familar with the update proposals
by BRW, Brauer & Associates, and Nason Wehrman & Chapman. Mr. Ulstad
said that copies had not yet been distributed to members other than the Mayor.
The Council requested the letters from Brauer & Associates and
Wehrman, Chapman, Associates be included in the minutes
r
>a.
May 30 , 1975
:•!r . Roger Ulstad
City Manager
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie , Minnesota 55343
RE : Comprehensive Guide Plan Update
71
- Mr. Ulstad:
'This letter proposal , which could be incorporated into an
-' agreement for professional services , outlines a scope of ser-
vices and fee schedule as an agreement between the CITY OF
E DEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation , referred to herein as
C:y'NER, and BRAUER & ASSOCIATES, herein referred to as the
PLANNER.
It is the intention of the O1%NER to retain the PLANNER to pro-
vide professional services required to assist OWNER staff in
c:. pleting an update of the 1969 Guide Plan , herein referred ,
to as the PROJECT.
A. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The PLANNER agrees to provide professional services to
assist 0WNER staff in the preparation an update of the
comr.rehensive city plan as follows :
1 . Preliminary Studies and Base Mapping
a. Pre-Planning Consultation with OTIN?ER, staff ,
z Planning Commission , Council , and other
boards and commissions in order to become
w familiar with concepts , concerns , and atti-
tudes which will effect or direct planning
a implementation , and to better understand
the problems and alternatives which must
Cn
Cr be considered and administered.
a
az b. Review and Check Updated Base Map to be pre-
cc pared by OWNER staff.
a
cc
rm
' ,-7-, 6440 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 (612) 9414660
�• . _ ::ast 10ih Avenue, lekev,!-od, Colorado 80215 (303) 238-7363
ca t-ioI; , Review and Pre a ? ^. O-
, lannina Data beginning with a restateiriant
of the conditions that existed in 1969 , a
description of current conditions (1975)
and e%lal;2ate them in regard to conformance
or ncn-conformance with the Guide Plan ,
goals , objectives , and policies , together
with corLments on the implications of de-
partures from the 1969 plan.
Tile PLANNER would provide an independent
objective overview of change , trends , and
directions of the development process as
well as actual developments tinder construc-
tion or approved by the City since 1970.
The OWNER will provide and the PLANNER will
evaluate the following general data:
(1) Demographics from past and present
census data (including recent devel-
oper projections) in order to ascertain
both changed (1969-1975) and future
population characteristics and dis-
tribution.
(2) Sociological/cultural characteristics
of past and p-resent and most likely
future populations as evidenced by
c-ansus tract data, solicited data,
(interview and questionaires) and
observation at public meetings during
investigation period.
(3) Relate the ^oirmunity to the Regional
area to assess the impact that past,
present, and future growth policies
(Regional) will or have had on com-
munity growth and development.
(4) Review past and present commercial,
industrial , and housing land use in-
cluding specially designated large
P .U.D. ' S and approved sector studies
to assess the impact, problems , and
trends inherent therein.
(5) Update and review previous natural
features studies to assess the impact
that new growth (Post 1969) on the
natural environment.
(6) Review transporation facilities and
proposals initiated or completed since
the orginal plan study including
r.�unicipal streets , and approved con-
cepts on plats , Hennepin County.
Minnesota Highway Dept. metropolitan
agencies and surrounding municipali-
1 ties.
( ' ) i<_.. utint_,r syste1-:s , parTicuiarly
in regard to investment --nd operat-
ing cost , phasing , geographic coverac
availibility and the influence of metro-
politan agency decisions .
( 8) !ccview community facilites existing
public as well quasi public facili-
ties , such as parks and open space ,
together with projected future needs .
d. Field Observation of the physical character-
istics of t e city from public roads and pro-
perties to provide a personal perspective of
the physical characteristics of the city doc-
ur„ented in the printed data, and attendance
at various community or organizational func-
tions in order to become familiar with
social characteristics and attitudes within
the community.
e . Design and Conduct one- f-ommunity interaction
seminar on a structural basis as a means of
generating a representative model of com-
munity response and acceptance . of both
reality and realistic alternatives. The
PLANNER will summarize the results and pro-
vide an analysis of the meaning or signifi-
cance of the results to the plan process.
f . Analysis of collected data together with
field observations to select and define
planning perameters , opportunities , con-
strains and other guidelines .
g. Presentation of suru•narized basis data from
investigation and analysis in oral , written
and graphic form to be made to the 01•7NER
staff. The material will be prepared in a
form and can be used as a working document
by the participants throughout the planning
process.
2 . Goal Formulation
Conn unity Participation Seminars
a. Two community participation seminars will
be designed and conducted on a small group,
interaction basis as a means to inform, ed-
ucate , and to stimulate non-competitive
interaction.
The principal focus of these sessions will
be to review basic planning data, implemen-
tation procedures (ie zoning, platting,
l assements , development techniques) inorder
to provide a basis for meaningful input in
The establishment of planning goals and
of objectives for the city planning process .
3. Guide Plan Develovment
a. The PLANNER will prepare a first draft version
of the updated Guide plan including recom-
mendations in the form of written concepts
goals, objectives, policies , and procedures ,
with supporting descriptive and explanatory
graphics .
b. Particular emphasis will be placed on a
"planning and policy framework" to_ be used
as a tool to evaluate future housing, com-
mercial and industrial development proposals .
4 . Aeetings with OWNER staff as required throughout 3
the planning period up to three (3) meetings with
the Council and Planning Commission, one(1)
meeting with each of the other appointed boards
and commissions in addition to the community
participation sessions outlined above .
5 . Additional Services such as ; actual collection
of data, preparation of base maps , additional
meetings , or presentations , brochures , graphics ,
models , plan documentation , or any other ser-
vices specifically requested and authorized as
an addendum to this Contract Agreement.
FEE 'S FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1. The MINER shall compensate the PLANNER for
completion of professional services as described
in paragraphs A. 1 ,2 , 3 , &4 in the amount of twenz_✓
seven thousand, eight hundred fifty dollars .
2 . Fees for the PLANNERS additional services as
described in paragraph A,5 will be computed on
the basis of the current hourly rate plus
expense schedule of the PLANNER.
i
W EH R MAN b. kc,in wetrman
CHAPrVIAN b. b Chapnfan
ASSOCIATES roy a anderson
June 17, 1975 INC lolin o. berg!y
riehard d. fredlund
charles a. w,natt5erg
Mr. Richard Putnam, Planning Director
Mr. Roger Ulstad, Manager
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343-
Gentlemen:
Thank you for the opportunity of meeting with you to discuss some of your
planning concerns and approaches that might be used to meet your long-
range planning needs. In the early 1960's, simply recognizing the need
for planning was a major step for many communities. In the 70's, it ap-
pears that it may be an even greater step to realize the need for keeping
the plan current. It was a pleasure to meet with you on Tuesday with the
though of helping you in the significant process.
Your Comprehensive Plan developed in 1968 has provided the basis for de-
velopment of a high standard recognized throughout the Nietropolitan Area.
Credit must be given to the Planning and Management Staff, as well as the
elected and al-pointed officials who have administered the effectuation
phase of the Plan.
The role of citizen and government involvement at all levels has marked
commanding strides in the last decade - some forward, some backward.
The influence of other units on planning at this point affects the plan-
ning process much more directly than it influences the end product of
planning. It is in this process that we see most of the emphasis should
be directed in reviewing and updating the Plan. Participation of citizens
in the 70' s will not allow a plan to be prepared for their future. It
77ust be developed with them and b`• them, utilizin__ Yrefessionals to assist
in analyzing alternatives and projecting their consequt;nces.
In addition to local concerns, other jurisdictional units (school districts,
County, Watershed Districts, Metro Council, State of Minnesota and various
Federal Agencies and Departments) will influence local planning decisions
that have an impact on broader public concerns. All of these must influence
your Plan update.
As discussed last Tuesday, we see our firm being of most value to you in
a two-stage approach to the Plan update, generally outlined as follows:
CD
planning—engineering—landscape architecture phone 1-612-546-4=-1415 lilac drive, minneapolis,minnesota 55422
C ; t%• of E3 cn Pr:, i r i e ? June 17 , 1975
1st Stage - RECONNAISSANCE
a. I=xamine the use and effectiveness of the present Plan.
o Is it bung used?
o Does it meet current needs? t
o Is it broadly understood?
o Are the development policies being followed?
o Can the Plan be easily interpreted and administered?
o Is the Plan used to support certain decisions and considered "out
of date" for others?
b. Determine attitudes of elected and appointed. officials, staff and
other community leaders regarding the basic plan and various more
detailed aspects of the plan.
o, What should the plan accomplish? 9
o How shoulc it be used?
o What role does each decision-making body play in using the plan?
o Is it effectively used now?
o What are the principal problems or shortcomings of the plan? K
C. Review the plan in terms of the changing regulations, guidelines and
` procedures of other governmental units.
o What changes or additions are necessary to comply?
o Are the local issues and broader issues defined?
d. Review the goals, policies and standards of the present plan in terms
of changing attitudes, development patterns, technology, and the direc-
tion of other planning units.
o Have planning policy decisions been made which should be incor-.
porated in an adopted Comprehensive Plan?
o Have certain policies been rejected over the last several years?
e. Investigate the planning issues that are presently unresolved.
o Are the-• broadly accepted planning issues or merely personal
..•}lims? I
o .hat puglic actions or lack of action brought these issues to the
surface?
2nd Stage - PLAN UPDATE
After completion of Stage 1, the 2nd Stage will be more clearly defined
to direct the planning effort to specific needs.
At this point we see a need to:
1 . Approach "the Plan" as a process rather than a product, utilizing the
Policy Plan technique.
2. Plan the community in units which reflect different development pat-
terns, attitudes and physical characteristics. r
City o*= .:den Prai ric 5 June 17 , 1975
z
3. Involve these smaller units in the plan formulation process.
4. Develop overall community goals and policies and then tailor these to
meet the needs of each planning unit, expressing the unique character
of each. .
r;
S. Prepare an Illustrative Guide Plan that puts the policies into graphic
form for easier understanding by the people it is intended to serve,
but clearly establish that the plan cannot be more flexible than the
policies on which it is based.
6. Encourage as little change as possible in the plan itself to foster
a feeling of security in public decisions and to assure residents that
the plan will change no more than necessary to keep abreast of current
planning practice and to recognize evolving development patterns.
7. Develop the effectuation procedures to establish the most direct and
understandable administration possible. (This step will probably
receive the most attention, depending on the results of the 1st stage) .
8. Recognize and improve the interrelationship between. the four local
participants in the planning process including the elected officials
(Council) ; appointed officials (Planning Commission) ; Staff (Manager,
Planner and Consultant) ; and the public.
in suruaary, this is obviously not a proposed planning program but rather
an approach that we feel is most appropriate to meet your needs at this
point in time. We see ourselves as an extension of your staff to provide
objective professional input and to perform needed technical services.
As you will be chiefly responsible for administering the plan, your in-
volvement in its preparation is essential.
As discussed previously with you, from our understanding of your needs
and your ability to provide assistance, and in general accordance with
the outline above, we would estimate that a range of S3,500 to 55 , 000
should be provided for the 1st Stage and perhaps $15,000 to $20,000 for
the 2-nd Stage. If you see the scope of services in substantial variance
with these figures, please contact us for a reassessment of our role.
Thank you again for the invitation to discuss an approach for providing
this assistance in this crucial planning step. Please call if we can
further define our role during your selection process.
Peace,
W EHRMAN, CHAPMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
B. Chapma President John 0. Bergl%,, . ssociate
job/bbc:c
..;r. Ulstad informed the Coun.- il and Commission that the cost for updating
the Guide Plan has been approximated as $ 25 , 000-30 ,000 by the 3 consultants .
7.1-Ascussion followed regarding how the update could be financed and
the staff was directed to investigate means of financing..
Mayor Osterholt suggested the consultants could present their update
approaches to the Planning Commission and the Commission could then
make a recommendation to the Council on a consultant to assist in the
Comprehensive Guide Plan updatp..
Sorensen felt the Planning Commission was in need of policy decisions
by the Council on issues that relate to the Guide Plan updating, i . e. ,
what will become of T. H. 5 in the next few years, will regional uses
be exclusively located in the MCA, and does the City still hold to policies
established in the Guide Plan text such as no strip zoning along major routes.
Fosnocht added that Council policy on 212 would assist the Commission
in their review of requests along the proposed 212 Corridor.
y
Mayor Osterholt did not feel the Council could establish concrete policies ,
but could develop guidelines .
Bye believed that the City aces not have control over T. H. 5, etc. , and
the City should be a "planning community" not a "planned community" .
Feerick felt an update would be valuable if it meets the needs of the City
and Its residents .
Lynch felt the 1968 Guide Plan is outdated in some respects and refinement
for tcdays problems is needed.
�o. ssion followed relative to now much time the staff could devote to the
update; and it was the general concensus that the staff' s input and knowledge
is valuable , but they do not have the time or staff to accomplish the
update without consultant help. Also discussed was the importance of
community involvement, how and when the community should be involved ,
and whether the uses on the Guide Plan should -be specific or general.
Penzel inquired how soon an update could be accomplished. Mr. Ulstad
stated the consultants' have estimated 9 - 10 months.
Mayor Osterholt asked if it was agreeable that a Guide Plan update is
needed and such an update should be accomplished by the staff and a consultant.
The Council and Commission agreed. The Mayor then asked if the Planning
Commission should make a recommendation to the Council as to the selection
:of a consultant. The Council and Commission agreed.
�..... :ssion '.. _cz . -3- : ��:ov�d . •
III. TOR Ci I\TTER CE_.
Ulstad believed zoning for the MCA should be accomplished in conjunction
with the Guide Plan update . He stated that meetings have been held with
the MCA landowners and they agree with the MCA concept, but desire
a method by which they can market their property.
s
Harlan Perbix suggested amending the Zoning Ordinance to include
a MCA Zone and establish necessary criteria to govern development.
a
Mr. Putnam said the regional center was identified in the 1968 Guide Plan
and questioned if regional uses will still exclusively be in the MCA.
Penzel believed the MCA should have concrete requirements and the City
shoi.ild provide zoning assurances to the property owners without losing
control on how the land will be developed.
Penzel, Boerger, and Sorensen all voiced concern that an urgent need exists
for a MCA Zone.
terholt suggested Mr. Perbix and Mr. Putnam work to draft
Os gg ether to dra
9
an amendment to Ordinance 135 outlining the MCA zoning district and
requirements.
IV. METROPOLITAN AIRPORT COMMISSION FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT STUDY.
Putnam refer ad to the June 25 th staff report which outlines a suggested
response the City could make to the Flying Cloud Airport Interim -
Master Plan. He stated the staff is suggesting the airport be retained
in its present classification - General Utility , and that an operational
plan be worked out with MAC, Flying Cloud Airport, and the City.
Sorensen inquired as to the advantages of going to a Basic Transport
classification because it may benefit the City by reducing safety
r isks as compared to an airport that conducts training maneuvers .
Pye suggested 1 response the City could take would be to keep Flying Cloud
as it is .
Feerick questioned what improv.err.erfswould be needed if the airport is
retained as a General Utility facility. Putnam felt the runways may be enlarged.
Mayor O sterholt stated he supported the approach to the Airport expansion
as expressed in the staff report and thought the commur;ity should support it.
Ulstad reminded the Council and Commission that a public hearing
will be conducted on August 21 st.
The Council members discussed the possibility of renting the Steelman
property to a Vietnamese family and suggested it be placed on their July
/ 22nd agenda.
t V. ADJOURNMENT.
Penzel moved , Bye seconded , to adjourn the meeting at approximately
11 :15 PM. The motion carried.
Respectfully Submitted
Jean Egan, Planning Secretary