City 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