Loading...
Planning Commission - 06/15/1974 - Joint Meeting MINUTES JOINT COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION Saturday, June 15, 1974 9:00 AM City Hall PRESENT: Council : John McCulloch, Joan Meyers, Wolf Penzel Planning Commission: Don Sorensen, Norma Schee, Wayne Brown, Skip Lane Staff : Robert Heinrich, Dick Putnam Mrs. Meyers. reviewed the reasons for her requesting this meeting at the previous Council meeting and reviewed the, . handout which was sent to all of the participants including the goals/objectives, and plan element section of the 7 968 Guide Plan, and a copy of the proposed contract for"Guide Plan review services from Brauer's and Associates. She felt that it was important that the Planning Commission and Council get together and discuss-: many of the policies relating to growth and expectations for development to enable better communication and functioning of the Planning Commission , staff, and Council. Mrs. Schee, chairing the meeting, asked that we consider the objectives on page 13 of the attached material from the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Reviewing those objectives some questions were raised by the members. Meyers, Schee, and Sorensen, questioned_the objective of.' preserving farming as an occupation wondering why it was included and if it could be economically possible. When the Guide Plan was completed the.City was pri marily rural and farming was •a major occupation. The feeling of the group was that the phasing-out.of farming through the period of urbanization was most critical to protect those long term residents. Also the thought of protecting 'certain areas for farming activities by not extending utilities, or as park open space might be possible. Sorensen raised many questions to which he felt the Council" must address itself to and discuss with the Commissions and staff to establish policies which may be dearly understood. The areas would be: 1 . - Controlled-Growth and what does it mean-for Eden Prairie. 2. Limited building heights or varied heights within the community as a policy. 3. How should densities be determined and what should the densities be in planned unit developments, new and existing. 4. The population limitations or growth strategies. 5 . Percentage of each type of residential structures witll-innthe community as well as the percentage of jobs related to households. 6. What is the sizing of utilities,and 1does it encourage or retard higher densities and greater growth, 7. Should all of the community be sewered or not, and in what time frame. Meyers indicated that there were many mechanisms provided for growth control methods, such as density transfers and large scale development, these are provided in the plan ,element section of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. joint Council & Planning Commission Meeting June 15,1974', page 2 ' McCulloch encouraged the City to control development through the extension of utilities and that when development is encouraged utilities should certainly be part of that development. Lane questioned what was really meant by controlled growth and that it was a confusing issue. Heinrich indicated that staff members had participated in controlled growth seminars at a national level and many had a very good handle on the techniques availakle . The City is currently using various mechanisms to stimulate growth in desired areas and limit growth in others through the Capital.Improvements Program, development agreements, planned unit development approvals, zoning, ordinances,etc. He indicated that it if it was the Council's wish the staff could pursue the controlled growth issue and provide the necessary information that the Council may need to make a decision relative to Eden Prairie's growth strategy. McCulloch asked who really controls growth; he many times fbels that it is not the City butthe developer. Putnam suggested that controlling of suburban growth requiresthe' coordination of the City's development policy and the market place. He felt the City must provide opportunities for varied types of development so that the opportunities exist for all prospective residents. Sorensen, Meyers&McCulloch _ agreed that the Commercial Needs Study would be required to'guide commercial development. Also consideration of the entire developm t guid a must be made to establish where the community is at this. time related to develo ment. McCulloch questioned the blanket variances which have been given. Putnam responded that Ordinances 1_35 & 93 are intended toprovicb Variance provisions for PUD develop- ments specifically and that the staff has worked out a revised Planned Unit Develop- ment Ordinance which clarifies the questions '.of variances from Ordinance 135. He pointed out that'it was easy to see the confusion due to the zoning of land within PUD's of categories under Ordinance 135, hence implying the set-back standards, etc, The third objective 'which dealt with building a professional staff seemed to be.an area where individuds had strong feelings. Putnam expressed his personal opinion that the Council has not provided leadership in a positive manner by changing or reaffirming policies which would. enable the staff and advisory commissions to function as expected , Putnam believed that the staff morale was not a function of the administration within, , the-City Hall but rather actions by, members of the City Council which do not encourage employees;' examples such as; the salary review question which was left hanging for two months, and the feeling that the City Hall was over-staffed and the innuendo questioning the quality of the staff. Specifically Putnam balieved that Joint Council & Planning Commission Meeting June 15,1974 page 3 charges had.been made, but had they been checked with staff members would have been • clarified without dealing with them in a public meeting. He cited two examples from a previous Council meeting where the Mayor had suggested the staff members had made decisions which-should have-been--made- by the Manager-or the Council r---- He cited the example of Prairie Park and a Lutheran Church site where the planner had-acted incorrectly. . These charges were made at a public Council Meeting -- without first checking withthe Planner. Putnam responded that he and other staff n-emba-s'have had other job offiars,and wished the Council would be more supportive of the work which they are doing. Most of those present believed that negativism in decision making , did not provide positive leadership unless it was clarified. Schee believed that communicaton between the Commission, staff and Council 'could and should be•.improved, Penzel believed that decisions that are made must be : clarified so that leadersip is provided but that specific projects do not provide the opportunity to establish policy rather policy should-be set-by the--Council specifically and not implied - through a series of disconnected decisions.. - Sorensen affirmed .'the right to vote no being- as reasonable as rating yes for . _ any project and-felt that-in-voting no reasons may be given but .not required. Schee indicated that no one is dealing with personalities but rather with the • decision making process-and that the Council-and Commission should be confronting the issues and establishing policies to-direct them. .Sorensen agreed that any changes in policy from one Council to another must be made known to the Commission and staff for them-to-function and'should-be -done-through the policy making process rather than by specific votes He indicated any staff that is worth having should - try to influence :p6liclpz ift-..-a-;pos.it v-e-mann-er--and where pcl cy-doas not exist to initiate policy. Schee believed that.communication--between'th$ staff,.Council,and Planning _ -Commission in-establishing pQl:icie _toward development,:open:space.,,-etc, , is,�•-rT3,, r • _ . ; . mandatory for their functioning. What to do with fie Commercial Needs Study - _ Penzel believed that we _need the`Commercial Weeds-Study to assist us in making _- these decisions or to base our-decision upon established policy in the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Meyers bell eved. that the - Comprehensive Guide Plan review as outlined by Brauer's office would-not answer the questions which confront us now which relate to policy at the Council level . Also she believed that the Guide Plan which exists has not beendiscussed to determine which is inappropriate or what are still viable objectives. The members .present indicated in reviewing-a few.elements of the Guide Plan that • the Guide Plan was -still vaild and that=the cbjecti:ves set then are still valid today. ' r Joint Council & Planning Commission Meeting June 15,1'974 page 4 - Meyers indicated some issues which concerned her that must be addressed by the staff and Council- these included: 1 . Homeowners' Associations 2. Sector planning philosophy and its impact 3. Capital Improvements Program 4. Park and Open Space System and financing 5. Financing for public improvements 6. Ordinance related to Controlled Growth 7. Ordinances such as the Sign & Flood Plain 8. Development ordinance for the.Major Center Area 9. Revised Planned Unit Development Ordinance 10. The Trails Task Force and its implications throughout the community 11. The up-dating of the Guide Plan data. Many commission members ' questioned what the Council'a feeling was regarding the Major Center Area and whether it was still a valid concept.• Sorenseri questioned whetlgthe 212 alignment"should be ",where it is or whether it should be on Highway 5,or whether the road should be bLdt at all. He indicated that is one example of where the Guide Plan has not remained static and that decisions must be made rdative'to the diangErg development. John McCulloch asked the planner how he felt about the Guide Plan review. Putnam responded that he believed that revicwof the Guide Plan should be done" • annually by the City Council and Planning Commission at a special meeting. He indicated that the staff was putting together the"basic data as outlined in- the first section of Brauer's proposal. which should enable.the City Council and Planning commission to make-an-evaluation"of-=where the" City-isTtoday in.relation- ship to the 1968 Comprehensive Guide Plan. A decision whether to pursue a complete review of the Guide Plan or rather specific elements such as the Commercial Need Study might be made based upon this information. 116 bblieved the City had followed the policies established-in the 1968 Guide Plan-and has-implemented those in- numerous ways. - - . Individual Members'Summary McCulloch: He believed that we did not need a full blown study of the Comprehensive Plan at this time but rather that the Council and Commission should evaluate the data being gathered by the staff and make a decision based upon.that data. That the use of , consultant dollars to update the Guide Plan should be important to provide quidance in this area. He believed that it was important to have informal discussions such as this meeting and appreciated the - openness from the members present. V ' Joint Council & Planning Commission Meeting - June 15,1974 page 5 Penzel He felt that it was a good acchange and agreed with the-comment that Mr. _ McCulloch made. He believed that the Council_ decision - - on--the=Guide--Plan--should be.-ba-sed-upon--the research data being -provided and should allow a certain amount of flexibility for changes. He}be=lieve&the-situation of_Commercial development,around 4 & 5 was not consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan and since _ - the Commercial Needs Study would not be completed:on schedule. xx _ that,action should be. given=to:zthose.developers.:-Ile-,indicated._the meeting was consistent with the open meeting law°in that it was discussed at the previous Council Meeting and•a date established, andreflected in the minutes -Brown: He was happy to hEar that the Guide Plan was still a valid document and that nosignificant changes were discussed .at.ahe: •Meeting. .. He expressed •- concern that not all the Council members- were there to an-swer-questions and, hea.r;.various opinions., he-did:not .believe Lti .bein agtiUxe -i -,the mo-st_- f c _- _ g.�._ d'. � e fi ient=,fashio-n,- _to:� _..-, rx Implement Council policy and their administrative frame work. - He felt _ that-the volume._o1 w.crk was;exeerssive-.for the staff_to handle and - morale-has--been adversaly--affected-by Council action -He-believed - - that the staff'-s freedom to express ideas has been inhibited and that . their specific expertise ha.s-not-beeen fully utilized. He was happy_ with the meeting which discussed many of these '.matters openly. Meyer sS Mrs. Meyers agreed with the three previous speakers. She believed..._ ` :th a1mportant_`_prio-.to making decisionsthatthe:upd o - on,the Comprehensive-Guide-Plan review for Commercial Needs. She ague ha ' e b$ ded l on;:speci is areas,po itav dialogue - - between Comniissfons:&Council the;citizen.information process - - needs-to.-be--updated--neighborhood meetings should be-held to discuss .,general community:ma--it a-nd-that-the= CounclLs-hQu4A-consider _ .. .�_.- - e ta}sl=ishin4= pddldi aadbordir4ance-s in conjunction with•thet.-:. - advisory commissions and staff. -Sorensen:- He•agree d-.with�alLdhatP.had--beon.:saxd..- Hs_bWeved__that the meeting - -• .,. ,41_ ishbuld-rbek-�aken yaps�rro _� r�on rlly'intended to individuals rather. to , `�disagr-ae-without:b_sr�g di agreeable; He also believed.that the Council should make the time' to address itself to policy decisions using information provided-by the advisory commissions and staff. Lane; He believed that the Guide Plan Is.doing the job and that we have been updating it for rmnyyears. He was not sure if the Commercial --Needs-5fudy was necessary now orinight be better-at a later date. - He `=did not believe- `-W-dw-Pairie�nias_growing too;-fast and that most of his neighbors agreed,: He believed that the communication between __ 4' Joint Council & Planning Commission Meeting June 15,1974 page 6 each group seemed to be the problem more than any specific individual-or issue. -He also believed for a staff it would be better to be over-staffed than under-staffed in dealing with community problems. Schee: She complemented Meyers on stimulating the meeting and hoped ' _ that others would do-_so--also as this-proved—to-be-very beneficial. She-supported the ideas-of previous members and hoped that everya one:was working-for the good of the tool community and that in dealing with citizens and 'other decision makersthat honesty and cpe nness sYDuld be used. She was happy to see the dialogue and discussion. of the issues at this meeting and thanked all members for attending. -The meeting adjourn.*ed at 12:12 PM Submitted by Dick Putnam, City Planner- --