Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-5- <br /> <br />engineer from Bather Ringrose ,. ~presenting the applicant, indi .tOO that the property, if <br />developed as proposed, would generate approximately 3,900 vehicle trips per day. <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />~IT. Frmh~ Hasselman, Gluek Lane, indicated the residents feel that the amount of traffic <br />p,enerated by this proposal will create traffic congestion and hazzards. <br /> <br />Mrs. Margaret Smith, 1706 Ryan, expressed concern about the effect of the development on <br />B and Snelling. She urged the Planning Commission to urge the Council to place a moratorium <br />'In the development of this property until the traffic problem at B and Snelling is resolved. <br /> <br />!vIr. Hasselman indicated that the residents want the property developed as badly as the owner <br />but that they are very concerned about traffic. <br /> <br />Mr. Don Panzer, representing the Brimal1 PTA, expressed concern about the safety on County <br />!~ad B for the children. <br /> <br />Mr. Dwayne Burg, 1835 Gluek Lane, felt that the real issue ''las whether there was going to <br />be retail sales south of Highway 36. He stated that he would not want to see thatoccur. <br /> <br />Property owner on Gluek Lane inquired ''lhat would happen to the property if these Uses \,rere <br />not approved. <br /> <br />~r. Griffin responded that if the plan were turned down he felt retail uses on the property <br />was probably not going to be approved. He stated that Allied Stores must use the land for <br />economic reasons and, therefore, the only recourse would be to sell it for a use compatible <br />with the I-I zone. . <br /> <br />Mr. Malone, G1uek Lane, preferred that industrial development occur on the property. He <br />found nothing undesirable about an industrial use. He felt that the City should conduct its <br />O\-m traffic study in the area. <br /> <br />!>Ir. Dahlgren indicated that he personally felt an industrial use in the area would not be <br />compatible with other uses such as residential, schools and the park. He felt that the <br />mixture of uses included in this proposal would be the best overall solution to the potential <br />traffic problem that may be caused by development of the property. <br /> <br />Hrs. Margery Alman, Gluek Lane, indicated that the residents do not want retail south of <br />Highway 36. She stated she does not want traffic all day and 7 days a week. She would prefer <br />to have industrial development. <br /> <br />Mr. Rukavina indicated thatit was a very nice development but he felt that the traffic remains <br />to be a problem. He stated that the item which comes to the front is the large voltnne of <br />traffic generated by LaBelle's. He stated his opposition to the proposal because of the <br />traffic. <br /> <br />~~. Simons indicated that he was opposed aesthetically to industrial uses in the area. <br />rbwever, he also was concerned about the traffic generated by the proposed development. <br /> <br />~~. Mastel indicated that he was concerned about the traffic safety and congestion and that <br />he opposed the development. <br /> <br />Mr. G. Johnson expressed his concern about what could be built on the property in the I-I <br />zoning. t~ stated that he was a little bit opposed to commercial development south of 36, <br />but that he had to consider this as a reasonable application. <br />