Loading...
09-22-80 PC Minutes r:��,� Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 1980 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at 7:30 p.m. on Sept- ember 22, 1g80, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Va11ey Road, Golden Valtey, Minnesota. ViceChairperson Forster called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners : Edstrom, Forster, Hughes, PoTachek, Sehlin, Specktor and Thompson. Commissioner Eastes was absent. Also present were Jeff Sweet, City Manager; Martin Farrell , Assistant City Planner, and Dixie Peterson, Secretary. I . Approval of the Minutes - September 8, 1980. Commissioner Edstrom requested that the Planning Cornmission Minwtes reflect that at the request of the City Councit , the Planning Commission attended the City Council Meeting on September 8, from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. , and that Commissioner Specktor was in attendance at that Council meeting. The Planning Commission meeting followed at 9:30 p.m. It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Sehlin, to approve the September 8, 1980 Planning Commission minutes. The motion was carried unanimously. I1 . Report on the City Council Meeting - September 15, 1980• Commissioner Sehlin reported that there were no Planning Cammission items on the City Council agenda of September 15, 1980. III . Report on the HRA Meeting - September 16, 1980. Commissioner ?hompson requested that his report on the September 16 HRA meeting be deferred until the next meeting. IU. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning APPLICANT: City of Golden Va11ey LOCATION: Northwest corner of Lindsay Street and T.H. 100 frontage road. REpUEST: Rezone from ''(I-4) lnstitutional" to "Residential" Martin Farrell presented the staff report and recommended approval of the rezoning. Commissioner Edstrom questioned if the Planning Commission's recommendation of July 23, 1980 was the same as the zoning request before them now. Martin Farrell stated that it was. .feff Sweet, City Manager, represented the proponent. Mr. Clayman, 5600 Phoenix Street, asked what the plan was for this property and what type of residential dwelling would be put on this property. Martin Farrell replied that the highest residential use for the property would be a duplex. Kit Nissum, Lindsay Street, questioned if the access road on Lindsay Street to T.H. 100 would be closed, as they were told at a meeting several years ago. Jeff Sweet replied that the State Highway Department has asked that this access be closed because it is dangerous. The reason it has not been closed is because Page 2 ��.� Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1980 of the fire station. The City will pursue this and address the closing of the Lindsay Street access to T.H. 100 when the rezoning is discussed at the City Council meeting. Mr. Corcoran, 1O15 N. Lilac Drive, questioned how many duplexes or single dwellings are planned for the site. Martin Farrell reptied that the City has no p1ans for developing the property, but simply rezoning the property so that it can be sold. The property will maintain its residential character once the property has been sold. Jeff Sweet clarified that the City may not demolish the structure itself, but that it may sell the property and have the builder demolish the property. There being no further questions from the audience, it was moved by Edstrom, seconded by Sehtin, to approve the rezoning from "(I-4) Institutional" to "Residential" the property located on the northwest corner of Lindsay Street and the T.H. 100 frontage road, which previously housed the No. 2 Fire Station. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Specktor, seconded by Sehlin, that the Planning Commission recom- mend to the Council that they explore the possibility of closing the Lindsay Street access to T.H. 100. Commissioner HugF�es expressed concern that this may interfere with the neighborhood's access to T.H. 100 and asked how the neighbor- hood fett regarding this. Edstrom stated that these advantageous accesses to T.H. 100 are sa�fety hazards and strongty urges that they be closed off. Motion carried unanimously. V. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning APPLICANT: General Mills, Inc. LOCATION: g200 Wayzata Blvd. REQUEST: Rezone from ``Open Development" to "Industrial" Martin Farrelt presented the Sfaff report and recommended approval of the rezoning. Scott DeLambert represented General Mills, lnc. Commissioner Thompson questioned if General Mills has any plans for developing this property. Scott DeLambert replied that General Milts has no plans at this time for daveloping the property. Commissioner Thompson also questioned plans for I-394 in regard to this property. Martin Farrell stated that a smatl portion of the property probably w�ould be acquired, according to the latest MnDot proposaa . Commissioner Edstrom expressed concern that while the property is zoned "Open �evelopment" the City stilt has some control over the proposed use of the property. At various times General Mills has been asked to disclose what their plans are for that piece of land. Commissioner Edstrom stated he was reluctant to ''clean up General Mills' housekeeping" without having the benefit of Generat Mills ' development intentions, even if they do not have any specific plans. Commissioner Thompson questioned the permitted uses that would be aYlowed an property zoned "lndustrial". Martin Farrell responded to this. Commissioner Specktor expressed concern -for the natural areas on this site, which have been looked at by the Open Space Committee, and said they would be losing control over their responsi6ility of planning the best use of this property, if the rezoning is given now with no idea of the plans General Mills ( . � �� . .. . . . .... .�::.F.::�: . Page 3 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1980 has for the property. Martin Farrell responded stating that only a small portion of the subject property was in the Open Space parcel and that the land was currently being used as industrial use. The hearing was then opened to the public. Donald Ralph, 44o Decatur Avenue, stated he agrees that he would like to know the 'plan of General Mills before this is rezoned. He expressed his concern for the large amount of traffic Fn the area that could be increased if this were rezoned. He also expressed concern for the amount of traffic that would be generated if ballfields were put on the property. Martin Farrell stated that this petition did not involve the ballfieJds. There being no further questions or comments from the audience, the hearing was closed. It was moved by Edstrom, seconded by Specktor, to tabte General Mills request to rezone the 12.3 acre and 18 acre site from Open Development to Industrial . Roll call was taken: Edstrom, Yes; Hughes , No; Polachek, Yes; Sehlin, Yes ; Specktor, Yes; Thompson, No. Motion carried. It was moved by Edstrom, seconded by Specktor, and carried unanimously, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council request General Mills, Inc. to prepare a master plan for utilization of their property, before -Further consideration by the Planning Commission ofi General Mills ' request to rezone. Commissioner Thompson questioned if this request has ever been made to any other proponent, and whether they have the right to do this. Edstrom stated . he feels this is reasonable, and recatls having asked the loca'F F�ospital to provide similar plans. Specktor stated it is up to t e Council to act on this recommendation. Martin Farrell responded tha on one other occasion the Planning Commission deferred action on a rezoning for the Lundstrom rezoning from , "Multiple Family" to "Business and Professional Office" until they provided a traf�fic analysis of the area. VI . Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning APPLICANT: General Mills, Inc. LOCATION: 9200 Wayzata' B1vd. REQUEST: Rezone from "Open Developmen " to "Business & Professional Office'' Martin Farre] T presented the staff report and recomme ded approval of the rezoning. Commissioner Thompson questioned who is to develop th baseball fields, the City or. General Mills? Scott DeLambert replied that four aseball diamonds , a volley ball court, and a track are proposed, and will be pai for by General Mills. The City of Golden Valley would maintain these on a 1 ase situation that would most likely be set up for ten years. At this time the hearing was opened to the public. Don Ralph, 440 Decatur, commented that they have just one road for getting in and out of the area and was concerned with additional traffic being generated. k�� �� Page 4 .., Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1980 Marilyn Gorden, 2101 Marquis Road, referred to the area being in a flood ptain and commented that a low income housing project was built across from County Road 18 in a flood plain. Kathy Kozar, 9147 Highway 55, questioned if the ball park were to go in what other access would there be. Pat Freund, g145 w• Highway $5, questioned what General Mitts ptans were for the foot traffic that would be generated by the ballfields. Would people be walking across the condominium property to reach the batlfields. Martin Farrell suggested that the Planning Commission was losing sight of the situation. The ballfields are a concept. Items being addressed naw would be addressed when it comes in as a conditional use. The question at hand is whether or not the property should be rezoned to "Business � Professional Office." Rnnette Kronin, 9145 Highway 55, questioned why General Mills has made several inquiries into buying condominium land if they have no plans for the area. Leo Mullen, lives on the property bordering the 39 acres , and stated he has enjoyed the wooded area and the good times in the past as a neighbor to General Mills and hopes they do not end now. : Commissioner Hughes stated he agrees that open areas are nice but that owners have the right to develop their own land, but he would tike to have a specific development in mind before 39 acres of land are rezoned. lt was moved by Hughes, seconded by Sehlin, to deny the rezoning from "Open Development" to ''Business � Profiessional Office", a 39 acre site of land located directly north of Betty Crocker Drive, based on the fact that it has been submitted without a specific proposal -for development. Commissioner Specktor asked if Commissioner Hughes would withdraw his motion so that tfiis rezoni:ng request could also be tabTed, and request a master plan for this rezoning, as well as the previous rezoning request by Genera] Mills. Commissioner Hughes stated he would not withdraw his motion. Commissioner Edstrom stated he supported Commissioner Hughes motion. Commissioner Thompson made a substitute motion that the Planning Commission defer action on the rezoning and request that General Mitls provide their development plans -for this property. The motion was seconded by Specktor. The motion was carried. Commissioner Hughes voted against the motion. VII. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning APPLICANT: H. I . Enterprises LOCATION: Southwest corner of Winnetka � T.H. 12 REQUEST: Rezone from "Open Devetopment" to ''Commercial" Martin Farrell gave a brief staff report, and recommended approval of the rezoning peti_tion, but voiced his objections to the proposed project as a gross over use of the site. He advised the Ptanning Commission that favorable consideratian of the rezoning request does not mean approval of the proposed project. Mrs. Beverty Kottas, the proponent, addressed the Planning Commission, and ,� _�� � ��� Page 5 � Mi:nutes..of th�-Ptanni:ng Commission Meeting I, September 22, 1980 � I I entertained questions. I It was moved by Thompson, second�d by Potachek, and carried unanimousty to approve the rezoning petition to'H. I . Enterprises , 7921 Wayzata Blvd. VIII . Concept Plan Approval - P U.D. 30 APPLICANT: Henry Hyatt LOCATION: Mendelssohn Avenue North REQUEST: Concept 'Approval for P.U.D. 30 Martin Farretl gave the staff report, and recommended denial of Concept Approval for P.U.D. 30. Henry Hyatt, the proponent, addr�ssed the Planning Commission and entertained questions. Mr. Hyatt stated that he requested to be heard before the Ptanning Commission to discuss the general use ofi the property, and that this is a very preliminary concept plan. It was never his intent that this be proposed as a plan for development, but rather ;as a talki�g piece to discuss the generalized use of the property. Mr. Hyatt stated that they had heard from various sources that there has been an interest i�,n potentially looking at this plan as it links to the Gallant's defaulted P.U.D. He stated he was not coming before the Planning Commission wi�h a speci�fic plan f�or a specific development. Mr. Hyatt stated he was before the Planning Commissiqn to see if there is a desire to have some fiorm of assisted housinq on this ,site. Mr. Hyatt detailed the technical aspects of the plan and stated that the density permitted under the ordinance for a two story structure can go as high as 16 units to the acre. He re�erred to the standard for building coverage under the zoning ordinance, and stated they, in facf, comply with the upper limits of that standard, 20i. He conceded parking was limited, but stated he has data on garage usages in Section 8 developments , and there are indications that even when one garage is provided per unit that the usage does not exceed fifty percent. He again reiterated that the plan presented to the P1anning Commission was for illustrative purposes. Commissioner Thompson stated that the Planning Commissior� is concerned with land use and quest'ioned Mr. Hyatt as to the number of units he had used in applying to the -Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. Mr. Hyatt stated there had been a typographical error in one of the documents, and they had actually applied for thirty seven (37) units. Commissioner Specktor questioned if Mr. Hyatt had met with any of the neighbors previous to this evenings meeting. He stated he had not, and that he would be willing to meet with the neighbors if the meetings could be productive. Commissioner Edstrom stated they were prepared to ignore the plan and disauss the concept. He said there were a number of things they would be interested in and tf�at the Planning Commission has not had any direction from the Council on this matter. He questioned Mr. Hyatt on the issue of the GalTant properties to the East. Mr. Hyatt replied that this matt-er was brought to the Councit and the HRA. There was a directive from the Council to the Planning Commission to discuss two or three items, including the concept of 100% assisted housing and the concept of the development of ths Gallant property. Mr. Hyatt had copies of the minutes with him. Commissioner Specktor requested to see a copy � . � � !_l�l� Page 6 : Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1980 of the minutes. Mr. Hyatt read from the June 24, 1980 HRA minutes. He stated that one of the reasons he did not invest a tremendous amount of time in the development ofi sophisticated plans was because he thought there were mar�y other issues beyond the development itself that the Planning Commission was asked to address. He said he was embarrassed that they seemed to be discussing a set of plans. Martin Farrell stated that this issue came to the Planning Commission through Chairperson Eastes. At that time they discussed the possibility of setting up a housing policy committee that would look into the suggestions made at the Council meeting. The Housing Policy Committee has been formed and they have met on several occasions. They are in the process of putting together a housing poiicy. Afi that time it was also brought up by the Planning Commission that if any proposed devetopment under Section 8 woul.d come into the City, that it would have to come in on an individual basis and be dealt with in the same manner as any other Planned Unit Development. For that reason, Mr. Hyatt was requested to come in under the P.U.D. Ordinance, as any other developer would. Commissioner Thompson concurred, and stated the point is that this is a P.U.D. , and we are talking abaut land use. Despite Mr. Hyatt`s statement to the contrary that this is a preliminary plan, Mr. Hyatt has asked for approval for thirty seven (37) units and that his ptans call for thirty seven (37) units. Commissioner Thompson stated that he felt the Planning Commission should look at the proposed plans. Cotnmissioner Specktor stated that when a plan comes before this body for concept approvat they basically look at two things. First of alt , whether it is a good use of the land, and secondly, no matter what density is proposed, they �an recommend a density that they are comfortable with as the best density for that parcel of 1and. Mr. Hyatt stated' that in his discussion with staff and certain people on the HRA that this area ought to be treated as more than just a particular site and that it ought to include something that could be done with the Gallant defaulted P.U.D. He said he was open to working out a pla� that involved both properties. At the same time, he recognized that a 100i assisted development of 20q, 30i, or 40i assistance linking both this property and the Gallant property could be feasible. It would involye a very complicated process of tax increment financing and community development assistance could be used. He said at the suggestion of certain staff, he went so far as to contact Gallant and see if his property was available. He said it was available, but at a price that was impossible. He said at that point he knew it would take public action if the Galtant situation was going to be cleaned up, and that is why, in part , that he came with a plan that was merely a concept. He came prepared to` discuss what he thought was a City Council or an HRA directive to discuss Section 8 Housing in Golden Valley. Commissioner Specktor questioned if the 37 units of this concept include the Gallant P.U.D. Mr. Hyatt stated there is no encroachment et all on the Gallant property. Commi"ssioner Specktor questioned if he would come in with a second ' concept, then, for the Gallant property. Mr. Hyatt stated that yes, he would, and that concept would invotve probably two, three or four site ptans that involve a variety of different kinds of uses and that he thinks it is very clear that it would x;,,°�s) ..�,_, Page 7 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting September �2, 1980 have to be a partiatly assisted development. ViceChairperson Forster then asked the Planning Commission to stay on the subject of Concepf Approval for P.U.D. 30 and not Mr. :�allant"s;property. Commissioner Specktor asked the Chair if the Planning Commission had answered the proponent 's question as to whether they were interested in having Section 8 housing explained. Commissioner Thompson objected, stating that it was not the point of the meeting, that they were discussing land use and not Section 8 housing. The Informal Public Hearing was opened to the public. Mr. Adams, 2348 English Circle, made the following three points : 1) he feels tfiat assisted housing of such density avoids the problem of poor transportation in the area;; 2) shopping is limited in the area; 3) traffic at the corner of Medicine Lake Road and Mendelssohn is extremely bad in the morning and evening, end to add te that congestion would require .traffic lights in the very least. Bruce Duffy, 2304 English Circle, stated that one of the problems� they have been having in the Kings llalley Development is the runoff that they be�n experiencing. With all the blacktop proposed for the driveways they will be flooded out. � Mar�in Farrell addressed the question. At this time all the prop�nent is required to present is whatever he deems necessary to explain his general intent. No project would be allowed to be built in Golden Valley without -co,ming under tl�e careful scrutiny of the Engineering Department and a drainage plan would be required during General Plan Approval . At this time we are looking at land use. Commissioner Specktor added that if a motion were to be made on this Concept, the concerns fhat he raised could be included in the motion to be included in the General P1an. John Dessund, Vice President of the Kings Vatley Homeowners Association, stated that he i:s also concerned with the water and drainage problems in the Kings Ualley Complex. He stated because of the improper drainage anc! water runoff from Duluth Street, they are �'looding out in Kings Valley and having major foundation problems. He atso mentioned that density has been considered the major problem in their complex because of water, no drainage, and an improper sewer system. He stated that they did not realise those were private streets in the complex when they bought, and because they were private streets the builder was able to put in a greater density of individuals per acre. He feels that Kings Valley was not watched closely enough and he fears other developments witl not be watched closely. Don Otto, Kings Valley, stated he agreed the density was too high in Kings Valley. He questioned how much tax money would the City derive from P.U.D. 30 compared to Kings Valtey. Jean Johnson, Kings Va11ey, stated they were concerned with their property values. She stated they objected to the Gallant project, and are concerned with rental property so close to their property would decrease the value. ;����� Page 8 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting September 22, lg$0 Joni Levine, Kings llattey, expre5sed concern over the number of children in this proposed development and wonders where they will play. She feels they will either end up playing in their Kings Valley area, McDonald's parking lot, or the 7-ll store. Carl And�rson, Golden Valley, opposed the proposaa . Steve Wells, 2228 Kings Va11ey East, stated he was also concerned with water. They have a small problem with children from the area coming down the embankments toward the ponds. He stafied they had a fire there last year which was attributed to horse- play. He feels the 37 proposed units will produce a large number of children and some effort should be made to take care of the needs of these young people. He stated Mendelssohn Road traffic will increase and become a hazard with 37 additional units. Lisa Bistamins, Cameron Trail , questioned if the appropriate provisions for necessary transportation, such as vans, etc. , to approach the handicapped units have been incorporated into the plans, so they can be of real use for the people living there. Marilyn Gorden, 2101 Marquis Road, questioned one car garages for 2 and 3 bedroom units with families. She suggested that 2 garages may not even be enough, and with the additional cars from 37 units , tra�ffic on Mendelssohn will be horrendous. The public hearing was ctosed, and the proponent addressed atl of the questions that were raised. Mr. Hyatt stated that he fett the area was appropriate for this housing development. The�re is convenient shopping nearby, and with an average of one car per unit, the people will have access to the three shopping centers that are nearby. There is an elementary school with a daycare facility nearby. There is bus service availabte, not just rush hour service, 14 inbound, and l7 or, 18 outbound buses. There is recreation nearby, including a large park. There is a church nearby, and the site is served by sanitary sewer, water and gas. They will address the question of storm sewer drainage. A traffic study has not been investigated but they will be more than prepared to do a traffic study for the site, and the city coutd review this study. Mr. Hyatt 5tated futl taxes are paid and the municipality should be reimbursed for the 50i abatements normalty received for these kinds nf developments. Mr. Hyatt stated that the question of rental versus ownership is not a Planning Commission matter. It is beyond the land use matter. Mr. Hyatt said he is prepared to take representatives of Kings Vatley to see his previous developments to alteviate their concerns about the impact of this type of development. Mr. Hyatt said projections indicate there will be approximately 56 children in the deveiopment and that typicaiiy fhey wili be preschool or elementary school age. Mr. Hyatt said handicapped units are a matter of state law and there are stringent state and federa1 standards that must be followed. Mr. Hyatt stafed that Bitt Hennemuth, Rieke-Carroll-Mu'Iler Associates, architects , was also here with him this evening. He stated they are dealing with people of experience and they are prepared to work with the Commission in terms of finding a development that makes sense on the site whether it be a lower density, a higher density, or a different structure type. He wouTd hope they had the abitity if it is the desire o� the community, to work directly with them and with this Commission in find'►ng an acceptabte use for this property. T�:�;, � ,..,...:�� page 9 � � Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting September 2�, 1980 ViceChairperson Forster closed the informal hearing for discussion by the Commission. Commissioner Specktor moved, seconded by Sehtin, for the purpose of discuss- ion, to recommend that the Concept Plan be approved ati thirt,y two (32) units, and that the General Plan include: an adequate drainage plan, provision for play areas for children, an adequate landscaping plan, an internal traffic p'Jan that takes into account the needs of handicapped vehicles , that the proponen;t meet with the neighborhood to discuss the provisions of Section 8, the proponent develop a management plan in conjunction with the Human Riohfs Commission and the proponent meet with the City Council to discuss the possibitity of including the Gallant property in the develop�ent. Commissioner Thompson requested permission from the Chair to ask the proponenf who will pay for the maintenance of the private streets in the development. Mr. Hyatt replied that the development s�ill be under single awnership and controt . Therefore, fhe development itself will pay for the maintenance of the streets. They will be under a very tight document called a regulatory agreement with the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. Commissioner 7hompson- questioned if this were supposed to l�e 100% subsidized. Mr. Hyatt replied, "not necessarily." The state has also expressed interest in doing a partially subsidized development. Commissioner Thompson objected to Commissioner Specktor's motion and stated this p.U.�. has nothing to do with the Gallant property and that it should be reviewed as proposed. Commissioner Edstrom stated tha.t in the past they have requested developers of large P.U.D. `s to meet with adjacent property owners of undeveloped land to attempt to coordinate the development. Commiss+oner Thomps.on urged the Commission to defeat the motion and stated' that this is an overuse of the property. He does not think this commission has the authority, nor is it in their best interest to set an arbitrary number of units to be built. Commissioner Thompson did not think that the developer, with all his good intentions , has devoted enough study to the area for the number of units the site can adequately handle. "i am not about to send along to the City Council a smaller number of units without seeing a plan. I am reactinq to this plan." He said, "If may be a preliminary plan, but that is atl that we are looking at, and I am not going to redesign his plan for him at this table. I would -be happy to defer the matter for further study but will not send along the recommendation as I do not think it is in the best interests of this City to do so." Commissioner Specktor pointed out that at the concept appro�ral the Commission does not have the right to ask for a detailed pJan, but by requesting the number of units and by requesting the stipulations that were put on her motion, "we are giving them some guidelines to develop their general plan. If this is approved by the Planning Commission and by the Council it will come back to the Planning Commission with the genera,l plan within those guidelines and then the plan can be taken apart �by the Planning Commission." Commissioner Edstrom stated that if the Commission continues to recommend against without attempting to modify at tf�is level , that ''we are setting _ ���� Pac�e: 1 Q . Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting September 2�, 1980 ourselves up to be thwarted by the Council . We are not going to win. We are appointed by, and our entire constituency is the Council . 1 am going to say something that is very unpopular right now. All o� you are citizens of Golden Va11ey, residents, voters , taxpayers. i commend you for being here tonight. Everything you said I have taken notice of. I am not going to base my recom- mendation or vote to the Council on your wishes. The Council has appointed me and the rest of us to this Cammission to advise them on land use and land use only, and I would never presume to tell the Council what the citizens of Golden Va11ey want. So ifi 1 vote one way or another it is because of my feelings for land use." He strongly urged the citizens to represent themselves at the Council meeting. Commissioner Specktor addressed the audience and stated she made the motion so that fheir valid concerns would be addressed by the Council, and stated that she beiieves the Council is committed to diversified housing, whether it be at this site or elsewhere. Commissioner Hughes stated he would vote against the motion because the density is stitt too high at 32 units. Commissioner Thompson further stated, "Even though we are talking about tand use, we are atso addressing subsidized housing. For us to "ok" the development in this phase is also going along with the type of financing in this development. I am very much opposed to financially segregated housing. A community is heatthier if it has a diversity of incomes in it and not scattered in ghetto locations throughout the community_ I think it is wrong to have penple who are atl within a certain income group tiving by themselves in a set development. On principal I think this is wrong." A roll catl was taken as fotlows : Edstrom, Yes; Hughes, No; Polachek, Yes; Sehlin, Yes; Specktor, Yes; Thompson, �Jo. Motion was carried. iX. General Plan Approval - P.U.D. 29 APPLICANT: United Properties LOCATJON: Rhode Island Avenue between &olden Vatley Road and Country Club Drrve REQUEST: . General Pian Approvai - P.U.D. 29 Martin Farrell presented the staff report and recommended denial af P.U.D. 29 as presented. Boyd Stofer, Vice President and Director of Development for United Properties represented the proponent, and gave some background information on the plan. Dick Wolsfeld, Bather, Ringross, Wolsfeld, Jarvis and Gardner, gave a traffic presentation to the Planning Commission and discussed three things : 1 . The amount and character of traffic versus a general office use; 2, Access patterns, and, 3. Parking. Ron Erickson', an architect for Fiffh Northwestern Bank, addressed the Planning Commission and answered design questions. Mr. Wally Klus, Banco, discussed the average number of transactions during the . ,.� �__,a'.�: � � � � Page 11 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1980 day and stated thafi the average transaction is 9 minutes each, and they woutd have five tellers at the proposed bank. After numerous questions from the Planning Commission related to traffic problems, pedestrian access, etc. , the meeting was opened to the public. Mr. Hal Lutz, 7547 Country Club DriYe, stated Mr. Stofer met with him in his home about a year ago presenting the plans for the site and that no mention was made then of any bank being proposed. He stated he objected to the drive-in bank facility in a residential area. Mr. Dennis Jackson, 6745 Country Club Drive, stated he finds the proposed plan totally unacceptable. He stated he is a member of the Va11ey Square Commission and that the plan is unacceptable as related to the ring road. Commissioner Edstrom stated the kind of bank they are talking about is a major generator of large volumes of traffic. He stated he does not object to a bank in the Valley Square Area but does not think the area proposed by United Properties is a good plan. It was moved by Edstrom, seconded by Sehlin, and carried unanimously, to deny General P1an Approval for P.U.D. 29. X. Otson School Report - Polachek Commissioner Polachek reported on the Olson School Reuse Committee meeting of last Wednesday. The next meeting will be October 1 , 1980, and a report will be forthcoming to the Planning Commission sometime in October. He stated the neighbors were very concerned. Don Hughes stated that he has also been appointed to the Olson School Reuse Committee by Mayor Thorsen but that he is not able to attend the meetings which are held on Wednesday evening as he is employed elsewhere at the time. Commissioner Hughes asked for a v�lunteer to substitute for him. There were no volunteers. XI . Covenant Manor - Change in P.U.D. Martin Farrell reported on an amendment to Covenant Manor P.U.D. Five interior parking spaces are being added. This change in design witl have to be approved by the City Council . XII . East I-394 SubCommittee Commissioner Sehlin reported on the East I-394 SubCommittee meetings , and stated they are at an impasse. The last meeting of the Committee will be October 1 , on October 13 the proposal will go to the Council , and there wi-11 be a public hear'rng the last meeting in October. Commissioner Sehlin suggested that a letter be sent by the Chairperson to the Council regarding the I-394 Position Paper. The Planning ;Commission prepared and submitted a position paper on I-394 which was reviewd by the Council before they adopted a position paper for the City Council . �`�";r Page 12 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1980 Commissioner Sehlin requested the Chair to find out what action was taken by the City Council . The meeting was adjourned at 11s52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, �G� ° William Forster, Vice Chairperson David Thompson, Secretar