Planning Commission - 03/29/1982 AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, March 29, 1982
6:30 PM, City- Hall
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath,
Hakon Torjesen, Virginia Gartner, Dennis
Marhula, Grant Sutliff, Robert Hallett
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. REVIEW -OF EDEN PRAIRIE'S DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND TAX
INCREMENT FINANCE PLANS FOR AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
approved
Monday, March 29, 1982 6:30 PM, City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath,
Hakon Torjesen, Virginia Gartner, Dennis
Marhula, Grant Sutliff, Robert Hallett
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Carl Jullie, City Manager
Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Torjesen moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Marhula seconded,
motion carried 7-0.
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None
III. REVIEW OF EDEN PRAIRIE'S DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND TAX
INCREMENT FINANCE PLANS FOR AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
� Jullie gave a brief presentation explaining the purpose of the Planning Commission's
review. Jullie mentioned that the Planning Commission had recommended a finding
that the Tax Increment Financing Plan conformed to the general plan for develop-
ment of the municipality as a whole on August 24, 1981. Jullie stated that the
new plan was almost identical in all cases to the plan #1 and requested that the
Commission find that the Amended Tax Increment Financing Plan conforms to the
general development of the municipality as a whole.
Torjesen introduced a resolution that he had prepared to the Commission and
passed out copies (included). He- voiced his concern over the inconsistencies
between the Tax Increment Financing Plan and the Guide Plan and the Ci.ty .erabarking
on such a grandeous improvement project and felt that it was an unwise gamble
in such poor economic times. Torjesen explained his .resolution and moved
approval of the resolution. Gartner seconded.
DISCUSSION
Bearman stated that a recent Yankolovich Study indicated that companies or
cities willing to take calculated risks over the next 15 years are the ones
which stand the best chance of success.
Sutliff stated that the company he works for is planning an expansion of $10
million in the housing industry to be completed by July.
Marhula stated that there is a demonstrated need for the road improvement projects
in the Major Center Area now.
Gartner stated that since we had already sold bonds, and already adopted the first
Tax Increment Financing District, we should proceed at this time.
Retterath stated that we should stimulate growth in the Major Center Area in order
to complement the growth in the entire City.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 29, 1982
Marhula felt that the Commission should find the plan generally in conformance
with the Guide Plan and perhaps attach Mr. Torjesen's findings.
Bearman felt there should be two motions; first that the Tax Increment_ Plan
is in general conformance with the Guide Plan; and a second which—would pass the-
comments by Mr. Torjesen on to the City Council for their concern.
Hallett felt that with all the planning that has gone into the Major Center Area,
preparation of this land, and these documents, i t ig-a correct direction
direction that the Planning Commission should approve. Comments by Torjesen
could be forwarded to the Council , but the motion as suggested by the Manager
ought to be approved.
Marhula asked to amend Torjesen's motion to include the Manager's motion under
item #1 and moves further for the Council to know the balance of Torjesen's
resolution. Hallett felt that the motions should both be separate and felt that that
amended motion as moved by Torjesen and amended by Marhula should be voted down
because of its confusing nature. Retterath agreed with Hallett. The question
was called, Gartner and Torjesen voting 'aye' , Marhula, Sutliff, and Hallett
voting 'nay' , and Bearman abstaining. Bearman abstained because his property
is directly affedted by improvements in the Tax Increment District.
Hallett moved the finding that the amended Tax Increment_Financing Plan conforms to the
General plan for the development of the municipality as a whole. Retterath seconded.
DISCUSSION
Torjesen urbed his collegues to vote against the motion on the grounds that it
is not consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Motion carried 5-1-1. Torjesen voting against and Bearman abstaining.
Retterath moved to pass along Mr. Torjesen's comments for the City Council hearing.
Sutliff seconded, motion passed 6-0-1. Bearman abstained.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
None
V. OLD BUSINESS
None
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Marhula moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:11 PM. Gartner seconded, motion
carried 7-0.
TORJESEN RESOLUTION
Resolved that the Planning ComMissiont
having reviewed the document entitled "Amended Development
District No 1 Program and Tax Increment Financing Plans for the
City of Eden Prairie* Mionneyota" t dated March 30+ 1982t and
having been requested by the City Council "to consider and
comment on whether the said documents are in accordance. with the
City's comprehensive plan,''
notes the following: .
1 , The public improvements numbered ay through f) on pages 1-2
and 1-3 of the development program are all projects that were
accepted and anticipated in the City's comprehensive plan^
2~ ' The timing and phasing of these projects, howevert appear to
be at variance with portions of the comprehensive plan~ The
obJectivet itated on page 1-0 of "promoting and securing the
prompt development" of these projects* through the sale, noted on
pages 3-12 and 1-6, of $22,875, 000 in general obligation bonds,
do not seen to conform with the following provisions of the
City/s comprehensive plan:
A. The comprehensive plan and the MCA PUD anticipated a phased
development of Schooner Blvd° Page 1-14 of the plan urges
funding efforts "to complete Schooner Blvd to a first phase
levelo ^ The same language appears on Page 2 of the 10/30/78
sommarq,
B^ The comprehensive plan/ on page 6-5/ calls for "expansion of
services and facilities IN PHASE with ACTUAL DEMAND^ " The .
10/30/78 summary calls for "Capital improvements, , ^staged WITH
development, not preceeding it. o
C^ The comprehensive plan specifically rejected the principle of
"stimulated growth^ t which had been proposed in earlier drafts/
and adopted a concept called "balanced growth" ^
In view of the abovet together with the present grave econoIhic
uncertainty and record high interest rates/ the Commission
recommends that the City reevaluate its course of action with
respect to these projects.
��