Loading...
Planning Commission - 09/26/1983 AGENDA • Monday, September 26, 1983 7:30 p.m., City Hall COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Eager, Director of Planning Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. August 22, 1983 B. August 29, 1983 III. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. LILLIAN BECKMAN. Request for Preliminary Plat of 4.5 acres into three 3) single family detached lots. Location: 12400 Gerard Drive. A public hearing. • B. MAPLE HILL, by Charis. Request for Zoning District change from Rural to R1-13.5 for single family detached land use and Preliminary Plat of 5.3 acres for nine (9) lots. Location: 18811 Duck Lake Trail. A public hearing. C. BLUFF RIDGE, by Mark Charles. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning from Rural to RM-6.5 and R1-9.5 for 88 units, and Preliminary Plat of 16.2 for mixed residential use. Location: Southeast quadrant of County Road #1 and Franlo Road. A continued public hearing. D. APPLE GROVES, by Northwest Properties. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review, Planned Unit Development District Review for a mixed residential land use, Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5, R1-9.5, and RM-6.5, Preliminary Platting of 40.91 acres for 162 attached and detached single family units, and Environmental 'Assessment Worksheet Review. Location: South of Valley View Road and West of Lorence Addition. A continued public hearing. E. PAULSEN'S ADDITION, by Dirlam Development. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 and R1-9.5 and Preliminary Plat of 21.6 acres for 43 single family residential lots. Location: South of Valley View Road, east of Ticonderoga Trail. A public hearing. F. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF EDINA. Request for Site Plan Review and Zoning District Amendment for a Drive-through Banking Facility. Location: Prairie Center Drive and Franlo Road. A public meeting. IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS VI. PLANNER'S REPORT VII. ADJOURNMENT 00 MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 26, 1983 City Hall, 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried--7-0-0 • II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Torjesen, to approve the minutes of the August 22, 1983, Planning Commission meeting, subject to the following change: Page 7, first paragraph, add the following to the second sentence, "With single family on the west and the tree line, multiple family to the east. . ." Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Gartner, to approve the minutes of the August 29, 1983, special Planning Commission meeting as printed. Motion carried--5-0-2 (Johannes and Torjesen abstained) III. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. LILLIAN BECKMAN. Request for Preliminary Plat of 4.5 acres Planning Commission Minutes 2 September 26, 1983 into three (3) single family detached lots. Location: 12400 Gerard Drive. A public hearing. Due to the error in the hearing notice for the previous meeting on this proposal, the notice was republished to hold an additional public hearing at this meeting. Staff reviewed a letter sent by Karin and Larry Hanson, property owners to the west of Mrs. Beckman, indicating their concern regarding inclusion of their property with respect to future development of Mrs. Beckman's land. The letter stated that they had no intentions of developing their property beyond a single family dwelling, as it currently existed. Mrs. Hanson was present and stated that their concern was based on the fact that a drawing had been included in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission, which could possibly be interpretted to mean that the they (the Hansons) intended to develop their property. This was not their intention. Mrs. Hanson added that, in the past on several occasions, similar plans had been made for their property without their knowledge, and they did not want this drawing to indicate to the City that they intended to develop. Gartner reassured Mrs. Hanson that the Commission was fully aware that the sketch included in the Planning Staff Report was a representation of what could happen, not necessarily what would happen. Torjesen concurred with Gartner, adding that he understood why the Hansons were concerned. Mrs. Hanson stated that one of the situations was a map showing a trail across their property from the Cardinal Creek area. She stated that the trail had been discussed in detail at meetings of the Council and yet no one could find a map showing its location. Staff stated that there had been discussion at one time to extend a trail from the Cardinal Creek area south through the Hanson property. However, plans to extend this trail had been abandoned by the Council for various reasons. Howard Kaerwer, 12800 Gerard Drive, asked if the future development of the Beckman property was now a "dead" issue. Staff stated that, as far as the sketch included in the Staff Report was concerned, it was only a study to see what possibilities were available for future development of the property to ensure that what was being proposed at this time would not be a detriment to the future. Staff pointed out that only a private property owner, not the City, could initiate subdivision of property. Mr. Kaerwer stated that they had dedicated two acres of land to the City for purposes of a wildlife preserve area. He stated that he felt it would defeat the purpose of dedicating the land to the City in the first place if this area would be allowed to develop. Mrs. Barbara Kaerwer, 12800 Gerard Drive, stated that she felt it would be granting an unfair advantage to anyone who would develop Planning Commission Minutes 3 September 26, 1983 the Beckman property by allowing them to develop next to land that they (the Kaerwers) had dedicated to the City for park. Mrs. Hanson stated that she felt the City should have looked at alternatives in all directions from the Beckman land, north, south, east, and west; however, the sketch had been done only with consideration for the property to the west of the Beckman land. MOTION 1 : Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to ratify the recommendation of the Planning Commission meeting of September 12, 1983, recommending to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat for Lillian Beckman for three single family lots on 4.5 acres, based on plans dated May 27, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 9, 1983. Motion carried--6-0-1 (Schuck abstained) B. MAPLE HILL, by Charis. Request for Zoning District change from Rural to R1-13.5 for single family detached land use and Preliminary Plat of 5.3 acres for nine (9) lots. Location: 18811 Duck Lake Trail. A public hearing. Bill Bonner, Charis, presented revised plans to the Commission for review. Mr. Bonner had revised the plans previously reviewed by the Planning Commission by extending the cul-de-sac further to the south. The revised plan accomplished four major items: 1) eliminated the need for refurbishing the exterior of the existing home on the property; 2) eliminated the 30 ft. wide frontages on the two lots for which proponent was previously requesting variances, bringing these lots into conformance with the Code requirement of 55 ft. of frontage on a cul-de-sac; 3) provided for more lots within the subdivision (11 instead of 9) for the proponent, all of which met the Code requirements; and 4) allowed for a lessening of the grade of the street from 8% to 6%. Staff stated that the revised plan met all Code requirements. Chairman Bearman asked how long the cul-de-sac would be. Mr. Bonner stated that it would be less than the 500 foot maximum allowed by City Code. Hallett asked if the Shoreland Management Ordinance still had an affect on Lot 11 (formerly Lot 9) . Staff stated that it did and F that the lot could be built upon only in the area south of the Shoreland setback requirements. Planning Commission Minutes 4 September 26, 1983 • Marlin Rodgers, 6865 Tartan Curve, stated that he was located adjacent to proposed Lot 8. He questioned what would happen to the values of the existing homes in the area. Mr. Bonner stated that it was their intention to develop in the range of $125-$135,000, which would match the value of those existing in the area at this time. There would be no effect on home values in the area. Mr. Rodgers asked how many trees would be removed with development. Mr. Bonner responded that only those necessary for building pads for the homes would be removed, and the pine trees along the north area of the property would be relocated. David Messerli, 6905 Tartan Curve, asked if any variances would be required for this plat. Staff responded that there would not be with the redesigned plat for eleven lots. Darrell Rodenz, 6801 Tartan Curve, expressed concern for drainage in the area. He stated that during heavy rains, water would be standing on his I'ot. Mr. Rodenz presented the Commission with a letter to that effect, asking that it be made part of the record for the project and that his concerns be dealt with as soon as possible. Planning Staff responded that the Engineering Department would be able to study the situation and make a recommendation by the time the matter would be reviewed by Council. • Steve Krause, 6832 Sugar Hills Circle, expressed concern for the number of trees to be removed with development. Mr. Bonner stated that it was their intent to remove as few trees as necessary for development. Bob Medved, 18901 Duck Lake Trail, asked if there would be a need for additional utilities to service this project. Staff responded that adequate utilities were available to the site to service all of the lots. Mr. Rodenz asked when construction would begin. Mr. Bonner responded that the street would be graded this year, but construction of homes and utilities would likely not take place until Spring, 1984. Torjesen asked if there would be greater cuts required in the lots since the grade of the street had been lowered. Mr. Bonner stated that the amount of additional grading required because of this would be minimal. Torjesen expressed concern that the trees to remain after construction be protected as much as possible during construction to avoid damage and to maintain the existing character of the site. Barb Rodgers, 6865 Tartan Curve, stated that it appeared as if more than one-third of the trees would be removed with construction of the street and lots. Torjesen stated that when a developer proposed a project which was less dense than the Guide Plan permitted and in complete conformance Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 26, 1983 • with the Code requirements, it would be difficult to require more of that developer than was required of those that did not meet all Code and Guide Plan regulations. In this case, he stated that he felt the proponent was making a concerted effort to maintain and preserve as many trees as possible. Mr. Rodenz asked how the City would be certain that spring rains did not wash out or erode the property or adjoining properties during construction. Mr. Bonner stated that the standard erosion control methods recommended by the City Engineering Department would be followed throughout construction of the project. MOTION 1 : Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Charis for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for single family detached use • for Maple Hill, based on plans and written materials dated September 23, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 9, 1983 subject to the following changes: Eliminate #la and #3a of the Staff recommended conditions, and, add to #2 the following words at the end of the stated condition, ". . . with particular care taken to deal with storm sewer to the west," and, add a #3d to read, "Trees shall be protected with snow fencing or some other appropriate method during construction." Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 3• Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Charis for Preliminary Plat of 5.3 acres for eleven (11) lots for Maple Hill, based on plans and written materials dated September 23, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 9, 1983, subject to the following changes: Eliminate #la and #3a of the Staff recommended conditions, and add to #2 the following words at the end of the stated condition, . . with particular care taken to deal with storm sewer to the west," and a #3d to read, "Trees shall be protected with snow fencing or some other appropriate method during construction." Motion carried--7-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 6 September 26, 1983 C. BLUFF RIDGE, by Mark Charles. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review for a mixed residential use and Zoning from Rural to RM-6.5 and R1-9.5 for 88 units, and Preliminary Plat of 16.2 for mixed residential use. Location: Southeast quadrant of County Road #1 and Franlo Road. A continued public hearing. Charles Coombs, representing Mark Charles, reviewed with the Commission the revised plans for the site including graphics showing sight lines, grading plan revisions showing the cuts and fills, and site plan revisions regarding entrances of driveways onto public streets. Mr. Coombs explained the revised storm drainage system, which was a matter of concern at previous meetings on this proposal. The revised system had been worked out with the Engineering Department Staff. Chairman Bearman asked what the City's obligations were with respect to private roads. Staff responded that obligations of maintenance and repair were left to the association and not the responsibility of the City. Chairman Bearman asked Staff to check with the City Attorney regarding any possible liabilities on the part of the City with respect to private roads. Hallett asked who would be responsibile for the construction of a bike trail along County Road #1 . Staff responded that the City would be and added that the construction of the trail had not be scheduled into the City's capital improvements at this time. The development had provided for adequate right-of-way for the trail by the proposed plat. Torjesen asked about provisions made for buffering of the units of this project from the future land uses to the southeast. Planner Enger stated that it had been recommended that two units in the southeast area be eliminated to provide for adequate space for such a buffer. Chairman Bearman asked if, because of the grade differential, 70 feet would be an adequate amount of space for provision of a buffer in the southeast area. Planner Enger stated that it was Staff opinion that it would be enough. Chairman Bearman asked who would be responsible for the cost of installation of the pipe to the southeast for storm drainage purposes. Mr. Coombs responded that Mark Charles would pay for the pipe. Jerry Hegge, 10015 Pioneer Trail, stated that, currently, drainage from the future City park, located adjacent to Bluff Ridge, was draining across their yards. Mr. Hegge stated that he felt it would be important to implement some form of erosion control from the City's park, through the Bluff Ridge area, during their development. Planning Commission Minutes 7 September 26, 1983 Torjesen asked about the land uses to the north of the site. Staff responded that immediately north of the property was a site designated for "church" by the Comprehensive Guide Plan, with townhouses located directly across County Road #1 . Torjesen asked about land uses to the west. Staff responded that the single family residential development of Bluffs East was located across Franlo Road from this property, abutting the cluster portion of the Bluff Ridge property, only. Marhula asked about construction of the roadway to the east. Staff stated that the road would be constructed to the east property line of Bluff Ridge, allowing for extension through the properties to the east at some time in the future. Marhula asked if the grades of the road had been matched to allow for extension of the road in a proper manner at some time in the future. Staff stated that they had. MOTION 1 : Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 2• Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City Council approval of the Bluff Ridge Planned Unit Development District Review for mixed residential land use and Zoning from Rural to RM-6.5 and R1-9.5 for 88 units, based on plans dated September 21 and 22, 1983, and written materials dated September 21, 1983, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 23, 1983, with the following added conditions: #12. An easement be granted over the private road for public use; and, #13. City Engineering Department and Community Services Department be asked for recommendations regarding the drainage from the park area adjacent to Bluff Ridge and erosion control methods to be used during and after construction. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 3: Move to recommend to the City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat of Bluff Ridge for Mark Charles of 16.2 acres for mixed residential land use, based on plans dated September 21 and 22, 1983, and written materials dated September 21, 1983, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 23, 1983, with the following added conditions: #12. An easement be granted over the private road for public use; and, #13. City Engineering Department and Community Services Department be asked for recommendations regarding the drainage from the park area adjacent to Bluff Ridge and erosion control methods to be used during and after construction. Planning Commission Minutes 8 September 26, 1983 Motion carried--7-0-0 D. APPLE GROVES, by Northwest Properties. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review, Planned Unit Development District Review for a mixed residential land use, Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5, R1-9.5, and RM-6.5, Preliminary Platting of 40.91 acres for 162 attached and detached single family units, and Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review. Location: South of Valley View Road and West of Lorence Addition. A continued public hearing. Mr. Hani Hayek presented the revised plans for the subject project, showing changes to the number of units from 181 to 162. Townhouse units had been reduced from 98 to 65. Single family detached lots were introduced adjacent to Valley View Road. Staff reviewed the recommendations of the September 23, 1983 Staff Report evaluating the project changes. Marhula asked if there was a need to extend Williams Lane to the south boundary of the property. Staff stated that there was not a need for this, but that Lorence Way should be so extended to connect to the proposed development to the south-southwest. Hallett asked if an internal walkway system had been provided within the project. Staff responded that a five-foot wide sidewalk had been shown on the south side of Lorence Way, and along Liv Lane to Valley View Road. Hallett asked if it would be appropriate to require an internal walkway system within the multiple family area which would provide access to the public walkways and parks. Chairman Bearman expressed concern for the public use of the private roadway planned within the project as to the public liability involved. Bob Nardi, 18141 Valley View Road, asked what the price range would be for the homes abutting the existing single family homes to the west. Mr. Hayek responded that the price range would be $120- 150,000. Ted Brinkman, 18117 Valley View Road, asked if fill would be required in the low area south of Valley View Road in order to locate single family homes in this area. Mr. Hayek stated that some fill would be required, however, the homes would be at a lower elevation than Valley View Road upon completion. Mr. Brinkman added that he felt the changes shown at this meeting by the developer were positive changes and he expressed appreciation for the Mr. Hayek's efforts in this regard. • Steve Nixon, 18105 Valley View Road, asked what would happen to the bike trail along Valley View Road. Staff stated that it would remain as is. Mr. Nixon stated that he felt the size of the development, particularly because of the multiple residential units, rendered a need for additional, internal recreational facilities. Planning Commission Minutes 9 September 26, 1983 Donna Nardi, 18141 Valley View Road, questioned why the City would accept multiple residential in this single family area and asked how much multiple residential would be enough. Staff responded that, at the time the community leaders were reviewing the various housing and other needs for the commmunity, it had been their decision that a strong tax base would be desirable. In order to attract large businesses to aid the City's tax base, the City needed to provide housing for the employees of such companies within a reasonable price range and within reasonable commuting distance from their place of work. The City had been successful in attracting many corporate headquarters types of uses over the past several years. It had been determined that the vast majority of those employed at such facilities would require more moderate cost housing in order to work and live in the City. One way to meet this need was by providing a variety of multiple housing units. Therefore, the community leaders determined the desirable amount of business necessary for a strong tax base, balanced against the housing needs for support of such a business community, and determined that by 1990 a desirable ratio of multiple to single family housing would be 60% to 40%. Mrs. Nardi asked what would happen to transplanted trees that died due to unsuccessful transplanting. Staff responded that, to the extent that such trees were used as a buffer between the townhouse units and the single family units, the City would require replacement of trees. Debbie Noderman, 7103 Parkview Lane, stated that the trails in her area were becoming worn and said that she felt the addition of people to the neighborhood would only add to the deteriorating condition of the streets. She asked who would be responsible for repair or replacement of these trails. Staff responded that in the particular case of her neighborhood, it had been the homeowners' association that was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the trails. However, since that time, the homeowners' association had been dissolved. The possibilities for repair included assessment of the cost of improvements against the neighborhood. Staff stated that they would refer the matter to the Community Services Department. Bob Cole, 7160 Parkview Lane, stated that, regarding the potential 60% multiple housing forecast for 1990, he felt this would be defeating the basic philosophy of Eden Prairie. He suggested that such a high percentage of multiple residential uses would drive out those wanting high income properties for their residences. MOTION 1 : Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to close the public hearing. + Motion carried--7-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 10 September 26, 1983 MOTION 2• Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Northwest Properties for Planned Unit Development Concept for medium density residential use for the Apple Groves proposal, based on revised plans dated September 19, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports of August 19, and September 23, 1983. Marhula asked if it was the intention of the motion that the number of townhouse units be increased or left the same and units spread out over the area where the proposed public and private road met. Torjesen stated that he intended that the number of units not be increased, but spread out over the area. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 3• Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City Council approval of the Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5, R1-9.5, and RM-6.5 for Apple Groves proposal by Northwest Properties, based on revised plans dated September 19, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports of August 19, and September 23, 1983. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat of Apple Groves by Northwest Properties for 159 attached and detached single family units on 40.91 acres, based on revised plans dated September 19, 1983. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 5• Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City Council adoption of a negative declaration for the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Apple Groves proposal by Northwest Properties, based on revised materials dated September 19, 1983, in that there is no significant impact. Motion carried--7-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 11 September 26, 1983 • E. PAULSEN'S ADDITION, by Dirlam Development. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 and R1-9.5 and Preliminary Plat of 21.6 acres for 43 single family residential lots. Location: South of Valley View Road, east of Ticonderoga Trail. A public hearing. Dennis Dirlam, Dirlam Development, reviewed the site plan with the Commission, pointing out the site features and proposed development characteristics. Staff reviewed the report on this project, stating that a major point of concern was the connection and coordination of storm sewer systems between this property and that of the development directly adjacent to the east. Marhula stated that, while he did not feel the density of the property was a difficulty for this project, he was concerned about the relationship of abutting land uses, i.e. an R1-13.5 Zoning District abutting an R1-9.5 Zoning District with no transition or buffer planned. The only "transition" was the public street between these two zones within the project as proposed. Marhula stated that he felt this was inappropriate. Barb Olson, 18208 Valley View Road, asked what would happen to the trees along the old railroad track bed (adjacent to Valley View . Road) . Mr. Dirlam responded that some would be removed for building pads. He added that it would be difficult for the existing residents on the north side of Valley View Road to see the units which would be located on the south side of Valley View Road due to the trees in this location. Bob Cole, 7160 Parkview, expressed concern for drainage of the area and how it would affect his lot, in particular. Staff responded that they would refer the drainage problem to the Engineering Department for review prior to Council action on the project. MOTION 1 : Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Johannes, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for the Paulsen Addition, based on plans dated September, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 23, 1983, and with the following addition to • condition #la: "No variances shall be allowed." Motion carried--6-1-0 (Torjesen against) Planning Commission Minutes 12 September 26, 1983 Torjesen stated that he voted against as he felt the variances could be allowed as long as the density requirements were met for the property, and, in this case, the density was below what was allowed by the Comprehensive Guide Plan. MOTION 3: Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request for Preliminary Plat of the Paulsen Addition, based on plans dated September, 1983, for 43 single family residential lots on 21.6 acres, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 23, 1983, and with the following addition to condition #la: "No variances shall be allowed." Motion carried--6-1-0 (Torjesen against) F. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF EDINA. Request for Site Plan Review and Zoning District Amendment for a Drive-through Banking Facility. Location: Prairie Center Drive and Franlo Road. A public meeting. David Shea, Shea Architects, representing the proponents, reviewed the site features and characteristics of the proposal with the 40 Commission. Staff pointed out that this was different from what was originally proposed for the site in that the original banking facility was to be a full service facility, while this one was being proposed on a smaller scale at this time and would be expandable. The Commission discussed the exterior materials of the structure with proponent in detail. Mr. Shea stated that it was their preference to use the wood exterior, as opposed to brick. Staff pointed out that if less than 25% of any elevation was wood, it would not require a variance from the Code. Chairman Bearman asked for questions and comments from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION• Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend approval of the request of First Bank Edina for Site Plan Review and Zoning District Amendment, based on plans dated August 30 and 31, 1983, and written materials dated September 7, 1983, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 23, 1983. Motion carried--6-1-0 (Johannes against) Johannes stated that he felt the City should be consistent in its requirements for brick as an exterior material, particularly in the Major Center Area. Therefore, he voted against the motion on that basis. Planning Commission Minutes 13 September 26, 1983 IV. OLD BUSINESS None. V. NEW BUSINESS Mrs. Karin Hanson, 13008 Gerard Drive, asked to comment to the Commission. She expressed concern regarding the planning of her property without her consent or knowledge. She stated that she felt the City Council and Commissions should understand that homeowners take it rather seriously when lines are drawn across their property, whether possible or probable, and such sketches are made part of the City's official files on a project. She added that she felt it was important, and only fair, that all surrounding properties be reviewed for potential development, not just one or two, as was done in her case with respect to the Beckman property proposal . The Commission apologized for any misunderstandings that may have occurred as a result of the sketch involving her property with respect to the Beckman proposal and assured Mrs. Hanson that it was, in the City's opinion, only a possibility of what could happen in the area. The Commission assured Mrs. Hanson that the City could not initiate subdivision or rezoning of her property without her being involved, nor could they foresee reason for condemnation of any of her property at this time. VI. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Marhula, seconded by Torjesen. Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 12:40 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate Karnas Planning Secretary