Planning Commission - 03/16/1974 - Joint Meeting ''W
MINUTES
JOINT MEETING" EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
SATURDAY, MARCH 16, 1974 9 A.M. CITY HALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Osterholt, Councilpersons: McCulloch,
Meyers, Pauly, Penzel.
PLANNING COMMISSION .MEMBERS: Chairwoman Schee, Commissioners: Sorensen,
Lynch , Lane, Fosnocht.
Mayor Osterholt called the meeting to order at 9:12 A.M. and served as "
chairman of the meeting.
A. Review Planning and Zoning Commission Ordinance:
Mrs . Schee read Ordinance # 9 establishing function and duties of Zoning and
Planning Commission. Mr. Sorensen questioned a possible conflict of the proposed
Community Development Commission with the Planning and Zoning Commission
function. Mayor Osterholt felt there would be some overlap but it would not create
a conflict.
1. Review • functions from standpoint of Commission.
Mr. Sorensen stated the Planning and Zoning Commission should recieve guidance
and direction from the Council on specific development goals and policies regarding
land use. He suggested redrafting Ordinance # 9 up-dating the Guide Plan and
changing the residency requirement for Commission membership-possibly lowering
the 3 year requirement to 2 years. Mr. McCulloch questioned the ordinance review
procedure . The Council should set a policy and define the process for . review
• and inform the advisory' commissions. Mrs. Schee stated that the' advisory commissions
should'be used to provide citizen input, review and recommendations on proposed ordin-
ances .
2. Review functions from standpoint of Council.
Mayor Osterholt felt'the function of the ;Planning and Zoning Commission is one of
a body advisory, to the Council-its duties and functions are prescribed by law-dealing
with land use and development. Mrs.Meyers added that long-range land use planning
.was an important function and felt there was a possible different interpretation
among Council members of what constitutes land use: Mr Penzel stated that the
Planning and Zoning Commission provides expertise not found on the Council and
acts as a conduit to provide citizen input not available to the Council . Mr.McCulloch
and Mrs. Pauly were generally in agreement with these statements.
B. Discussion of seeing Reston:
Mayor Osterholt referred to the Planning Reference File and promotional literature on
Reston. He suggested a visit by various council members, commission members ,
and staff persons to visually review development innovations at Reston. Mrs.
Meyers questioned the value to Eden Prairie because of different bases of operation--
private ownership and development vs. public governmental body. Mrs Schee
wondered if Eden Prairie hasn't been doing such planning and working toward similar
goals but is at an earlier stage of implemenatation. Mayor Osterholt responded that
we could adapt some aspects of development policy such as architectural review
to Eden Prairie. Mr McCulloch suggested that we need a preview of Reston and
should explore inviting a representative of Reston to Eden Prairie to inform us of their
joint Council and Planning Commission Meeting March 16,1974
page 2
planning and implementation processes. Mr. Fosnocht felt an itinerary of the trip
was needed. If approved, all participants expressed a willingness to take the
trip but it was felt the number should be limited to control the cost to the community.
Mayor Osterholt will pursue the matter towards a specific proposal for May or early
June, exploring the possibility of Federal funding for the cost of the trip.
C. Neighborhood Meetings:
There was unanimous agreement that the Planning and Zoning Commission should
continue to hold such meetings when land use and development was involved but
perplexity as to how to motivate the public to attend and provide input.
D. Comprehensive Guide Plan:
It was agreed that the Guide Plan needed public review with an option being to
up-date it.
E. P U D Ordinance:.
Mr. Fosnocht stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission needs a policy
decision from the Council".regarding development variances allowable under PUD zoning,
lot size, density transfers, determination of project acres(net vs. gross),&set-backs .
The PUD concept is here to stay and it is generally acceptable but Mr. Fosnocht
felt we should have a means to quarantee a quality product. Mr.. Lynch felt it was
impossible to judge the character of certain developers as to the quality of their
finished construction product. Mr. Fosnocht felt we could insure quality development
through density denials which would affect builders operating rn economies of
scale. Mr. Sorensen responded that the PUD concept objective was to provide a
• variety in housing costs as well asstyles , etc. , and we are not achieving this ..
The product gmlity should be a responsibility of the Building Inspection Department.
He posed these questions--should the builiding code be designed to cover build-
ing * deficiencies? , should the code be strengthened to encourage quality constxu—
tion? Mayor Osterholt felt Eden Prairie has been too liberal in granting approvals
to developers.
F. Task Force Approach to Problem of Land Use and Developments:
It was strongly recommended to continue the task force approach to community
problem solving. The amount of input is of great value but the Council was cautioned
to recognize the possible prejudice of participants when reviewing and evaluating
report recommendations. The Council also was urged to assure a balance of views
among participating members when establishing task forces in the future.
Items G and H,(G-Building Heights, H-General Discussion and Additional Items) , on
the agenda were not covered in this meeting due to a previous appointment commit-
ment of the Council and Commission.
I. Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 11:52 A.M.
Joan Meyers
joint Meeting Secretary,