Planning Commission - 04/16/1979 - Joint Meeting AGENDA FOR JOINT MEETING
Eden Prairie City Council/
and Planning Commission
Monday, April 16, 1979
7:30 PM, City Hall (Lunchroom,
CITY CNMCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel , Sidney Pauly,
David Osterholt, Paul Redpath, and
Dean Edstrom
PLANNING COMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman , Matthew Levitt,
Oke Martinson, Liz Retterath, Virginia
Gartner, George Bentley, and Hakon Torjesen
STAFF MEMBERS: City Manager Roger Ulstad
Director of Planning Chris Enger
Planning Secretary Donna Stanley
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
A. Transition Ordinance for MCA vs . interim use agreements
B. Discussion of liason Couimil member
G. Development Review
1 . Totlots
2. Lot sates
3. City's development rate; need vs. existing services
4. Limiting radius of notification of residents
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
t. .
M1NUTES
loproved
'•�I I AY 1 PUL 16, 1979 7:30 PM, CITY 'MALL
CI1rT CMWIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel , Sidney Pauly,
David Osterholt, and Dean Edstrom
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ABSENT: Paul Redpath
rLAN;:ING COMMISSION MEM BERS
PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Matthew Levitt,
Liz Retterath, Virginia Gartner, George Bentley
and Hakon Torjesen
PLANNING C"ISSION MEMBERS
ABSENT: Oke Martinson,
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Donna Stanley, Planning Secretary
I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as published.
II . ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
A. Transition Ordinance for MCA vs . interim use agreements
Bearman summarized the conceens of the Planning Commission on this
subject, Explaining that as the Major Center Area continues to
grow with interim uses , the Planning Commission would like to have
guidelines to determine future proposed interim uses.
The drafting of a Transition Ordinance for the M.C ,A. was discussed,
and the following suggestions were made :
1 . Combication of ordinance and developer's agreement, tailored to
a situation.
2. Flexibility, rather than limited in approach.
3. Defini.tion of M.C.A. boundaries.
4. Time frame for interim uses , termination date, subject to review
periodically, with adequate notice given.
S. Protection of landowners.
6. Define purpose and objective
7. Consideration of abatement of taxes on single family homer.
S. Study of surrounding communities' policies and ordino noes directed
at «ils qutstior.
9. Request opinion from the City Attorney on the alternatives.
10. No additions to existing structures should be allowed.
Bearman requested the item be put on the Planninq Commission agenda
for the May 14th meeting for discussion and recommendation to the City
Council .
6. Discussion of liason Council n+w"r
Seaman discussed , what the Planning Commission felt %,o be a communication
link through a liason Council member, especially when large complex type
proposals cane before the Commission.
dr
Joint fty Council/ iappreved
Planning Ummission Minutes - 3 - April 16, 1979
3. City' s devel op wnt rate. .services (continued)
development in one area would overload the City' s road system.
The possible need for special assessments was discussed, and it was
suggested that a new opinion from ,Ehlers and Associates be requested
on the aonount. of funds to be used for public improvements .
Bearman suggested that more be done to protect home buyers from false
selling statements.
4. Limiting radius of notification of residents
The Planner explained the City' s procedure for notification of residents
of public hearings. Currently, the legal requirement for platting notification
is 350' , but the City has notified up to 1 ,000' because of location of homes.
He explained the mailing procedure has become very time consuming , and suggested
that a possible solution could be to request developer to purchase the Computer
run-off sheet from Hennepin County of addresses within the radius of his pro-
posal .
It was suggested that a radius of 500' of affected influence, but nQ less than
5001 , be used as the notification guide line.
Various suggestions were made on the notification process such as the possibility
of pubs i sh i r►g the public hearings , in addition to the legal notices already pub-
lished; and hand delivery of notices by local Girl Scout troops.
.1,JJOURRI-01T
MOTION: Torjesen moved to adnourn at 9:50 PM, seconded by Gartner. Motion carried _
unanimously.
=:+. .-. �..` _,;M..y'�',L";.A-:"�7"' ^',�iSi4•bR3S[ ��k.�9K'".Lfi:''R.f.:#S":,L/r -�.iM1(S�.e,�a�f' ".bnas .art+rr.r.«,.._
• ill � W
.1 a ,• i
Joint City Council/ ' oapproved
Planning Comtaission Minutes -► 2 - April 16, 1979
S. Discussion of liason Council wember (continued)
Various suggestions were made and discussed and ft was generally agreed 4nm that a
joint meeting be requested, in addition to the two meetings per fear suggested
by the City Council , whenever the need arose.
C. DevelopMnt Review
1. Totlots
The Planning Commission requested a definition of tot lot, how it
was authorized, and whether 'density vs, lot size" was to be used in
determining the need.
Mayor Penzel explained that it was a matter of definition, and that
various criteria were used such as :
1 . 1 acre of open space for thirty to forty units, maintained by home mom.
2. 10 acres to 20 acres for use as informal game area, with ball
fields, skating rink etc.
3. Tot lots were not regarded as trade-e fs because they are not large
enough, and the smaller the lot sizes were, the more the tots lots
are needed.
4. Avoidance of locating tot lots next to holding ponds for safety
purposes.
2. Lot sizes
The major ccncern of the Planning Commission was to receive the Council 's
thoughts on the concept of lower cost housing on smaller lot sizes.
The Mayor explained that th`re should be .a. stritt relationship hetween
the cost of housing and size of lot and two points should be considered:
1 . Income 2. Are we meeting lower cost and middle income housing?
This will be reviewed in depth during the Ordinance review.
The Planner pointed out that policies that are being discussed at this
stage may have very little effect, because most development will be
planned for within the next 2 to 3 years, therefore an ordinance with
long range vision should be adopted.
Cul-de-sacs were discussed, and it was generally agreed that tpe City kad A
too many, and they should he l ial ted to where they mWe sease iw a 'p'%.ct.
3. City' s development rate• need vs. existing services -
The question of how much development could absorD_in terms of road's and
services was discussed.
The Mayor explained that the City's financial consultant . Ehlers and
Associates , recommended that $3,000,000 yearly be spent for public
improvements.
The Planner explained that to the extent that we have development all
•t.4
over the City, our road systems will continue to absorb it, but intense