04-11-83 PC Agenda r— ---_ - - -
i �i
; ;� , ----------__ I
i
�,
' GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION '
(Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road) :
I � April 11 , 1983
' 7:00 P.M.
I ;
' AGENDA ;
� I . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 2B, 1983
�
' II . SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING
APPLICANT: David A. Reinke '
LOCATIAN: 9025 23rd Avenue North
REQUEST: Change Zoning from Residential (Single Family)
to Two Family (R-2) Residential Zoning District �
'
III . DISCUSSION AND RECpMMENDATIOPJ ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CITY
HOUSING POLICY
IV. REPORT ON CITY CQUNCIL MEETING - APRIL S, 1983
� —
i
i � V. REPORT ON PACAC MEETING - APRIL 5, 1983 '
VI . REPORT ON P1INNESOTA FLANNING CONFERENCE ,�
�
� �
I
i
; _,
�I
I
i __ .
6 .
� MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY
P LANNING COMMISSION
March 28, 1983
A regular meeting of the Planning Comnission was held in the Council Chambers of
the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chairman
Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
T hose present were Comnissioners Forster, Leppik, Prazak, Thompson and Tubman.
Commissioners Polachek and Singer were absent.
Also present was Alda Peikert, Assistant Planner.
I . Approval of Minutes - March 14, 1983
It was moved by Comni ssioner Leppik, seconded by Comni ssioner Prazak and carried
u nanimously to approve the minutes of the March 14, 1983 Planning Comnission
m eeting as recorded.
II. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat
APLICANT: Independent School District #270 (Hopkins)
� L OCATION: 5400 Glenwood Avenue
R EQUEST: Approval of Preliminary Plat of
"Meadowbrook School Addition"
C hairman Thompson introduced this agenda item. Dr. E. John Young, Director of
B usiness Affairs for Hopkins Independent School District #270, was present to
represent the proponent. Also present were two persons who identified them-
s elves as prospective buyers of the former administration building on Lot l of
the proposed plat.
C hairman Thompson reviewed the staff report and then asked Dr. Young whether he
wished to provide the Planning Commission with any additional information. Dr.
Y oung reported that the only information he wished to add was that the School
District had submitted two petitions for waivers, one on each of the two lots in
the proposed plat, to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) and that he had con-
tacted and received informal approval of the waivers from 12 of the 13 a djacent
p roperty owners. Dr. Young added that the Diabetes Association will have been
in the former administration building five years as of the end of June. Dr.
Y oung explained that the School District previously initiated the platting pro-
c ess in the belief that the Diabetes Association would be moving out of the
building. However, the Diabetes Association decided not to move at that time.
D r. Young confirmed that the Diabetes Association has now notified the School
District that it is moving and the School District has determined that the
f ormer administration building is surplus and should be sold and returned to the
� tax rolls.
s �
Planning Comnission Minutes of March 28, 1982 Page 2
� C hairman Thompson asked Dr. Young why the School District could not redraw the
lot lines of the former administration building parcel to meet the one acre
minimum lot size requirement and eliminate a number of the variances required
f or the proposed plat. Dr. Young replied that the lot was drawn to be as large
as possible within the constraints imposed by existing conditions on the site.
D r. Young listed those constraints beginning with the right of wa�y required for
Glenwood Avenue on the south. On the north the administration building parcel
is constrained by a steep drop from the administration building level to the
level of the school playground below and by the location of a garage which
houses equipment for the elementary school. Dr. Young explained that the garage
is used for storage of maintenance equipment with gasoline engines which the
Fire Marshal prohibits from storage in the school building. On the west side
the property line is drawn to include the former administration building parking
a rea but to maximize distance from the school building. On the east placement
of the� lot line is constrained by the existing bus access drive to the school
site and by desire to maintain a 1Q0 foot width between lot lines. Dr. Young
described drawing of the plat as a delicate balancing process given the site
constraints.
Comnissioner Leppik asked whether the garage has a special drain due to the
s torage of gasoline engines and whether it would be movable. Dr. Young replied
that the garage was originally a frame structure to which brick facing was added
to comply with required conformance with surrounding development. Dr. Young
q uestioned whether it could be moved without damaging the brick facing. Dr.
� Y oung said that the garage does not have a special drain. Dr. Young added that
the school acreage is currently at desirable size and that loss of area to the
f ormer administration building parcel would restrict school adctivity.
C ommissioner Leppik asked whether the school children play on the hillside next
to the former administration building and whether the School District has a
p olicy on fencing of school playgrounds from adjacent uses. Dr. Young said that
the children do pla`y on the hillside, that fencing of the playgrounds depends on
the ad,jacent uses and that the School District has no written policy on fencing ,
p laygrounds.
Com�nissioner Tubman said that it was her understanding that use of Meadowbrook
School was to be phased out. Dr. Young stated that Meadowbrook School is one of
six elementary schools earmarked for continued use.
Comni ssioner Prazak asked whether parking on the west side of the former ac�ni-
nistration building could be placed elsewhere on the lot in order to provide
g reater setback of parking and drive from the west property line. Dr. Young
s tated that parking on the west side is necessary unless the total number of
p arking speces could be reduced. Assistant Planner Alda Peikert confirmed that
the 36 spaces shown on the parking plan are the exact number required by the
Zoning Ordinance for an office building the size of the former administration
building. `
F
.
. i
Planning Comnission Minutes of March 28, 1982 Page 3
� Commissioner Thompson asked Dr. Young to explain the bus circulation pattern on
the school site. Dr. Young stated that the buses load and unload students at
the north end of the school building and that the buses use the access drive off
Glenwood Avenue twice a day. Dr. Young reported that while addition of a turn-
a round to permit closing of the Glenwood access had been discussed, the turning
radius of the buses necessitates a prohibitive amount of turnaround space.
Cort�ni ssioner Prazak asked whether the number of parking spaces currently pro-
vided for the former administration building is adequate for current building
u se. Dr. Young replied that there has never been a parking problem at the
building under current use or previous school administrative offices use but
that there is overflaw parking along the access drive to the east. Dr. Young
e xplained that provision of 36 spaces is proposed specifically to meet Ordinance
requirements.
M s. Peikert reported that staff had discussed with Dr. Young the possibility of
extending the former administration building parcel to the east boundary of the
plat with the School District maintaining an access easement over the property.
C ommissioner Prazak expressed the feeling that the School District should main-
tain ownership of the access drive used primarily by the school and other
Planning Comnissioners concurred with this opinion.
C hairman Thompson expressed the feeling of the Planning Comnission that the
School District does not appear to have choices in drawing of the plat for the
• p urpose of disposing of the former administration building.
C hairman Thompson opened the informal public hearing for public input. There
w as no one present who wished to speak on this agenda item, and Chairman
T hompson closed the public hearing.
C ommissioner Tubman stated that Planning Commission action appeared limited to
either recommendation of approval subject to BZA waivers or recomnendation of
denial. Commissioner Tubman stated that she favored approval and wished to make
a motion. Ms. Peikert informed the Planning Comnission that the City Engineering
s taff recommended addition of a condition requiring an easement along the South
Fork of Bassett Creek.
I t was moved by Comni ssioner Tubman and seconded by Corrmi ssioner Prazak to
recommend City Council approval of the preliminary plat for "Meadowbrook School
A ddition" subject to the following conditions:
1 . Rezoning of Lot 1, the former administration building parcel,
f rom the Institutional (I-1) to the Business and Professional
Offices Zoning District.
2. Revi ew of the proposed prel imi nary pl at by the Mi nnesota
D epartment of Transportation (MnDOT) and compliance with any
M nDOT recommendations.
•
a /
Planning Comnission Minutes of March 28, 1982 Page 4
� 3. Waivers from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for lot area
a nd for building, parking and drive setbacks which do not
meet requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance.
4. Closing of the east access drive to the former administration
building parking area.
5 . Addition of a 50 foot easement from the centerline of the South
F ork of Bassett Creek located in the northwest corner of the
p 1 at.
C orr�nissioner Prazak asked staff to address the condition requiring compliance
with recommendations of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) . Ms.
P eikert explained that review and comment had not yet been received f rom MnDOT
but is expected prior to City Council action on the preliminary plat. Ms. Peikert
s tated that the only State comment anticipated by staff relates to encroachment
of the Glenwood access drive onto State right of way.
A vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
III. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning
APPLICANT: Independent School District #270 (Hopkins) �
� LOCATION: 5400 Glernrood Avenue
REQUEST: Change Zoning from Institutional (I-1) to
B usiness and Professional Offices
C hairman Thompson introduced this agenda item. Dr. E. John Young, Director of
B usiness Affairs for Hopkins Independent School District #270, was present to
represent the proponent, and Chairman Thompson asked him whether he had any
information to add. Dr. Young stated that he wished to point out that the pro-
p osed rezoning would not change the use of the former administration building.
C hairman Thompson opened the informal public hearing for public input. There
w as no one present who wished to speak on this agenda item, and Chairman Thompson
closed the public hearing.
C orr�nissioner Tubman asked the prospective buyers of the former administration
building whether a contract or conditional purchase agreement had been concluded.
T he prospective buyers replied that no contract had been signed. Dr. Young
informed the Planning Comnission that the School District has listed the property ,
a nd that it has been shown to a number of interested parties but that no con-
tract has been signed as yet.
C hai rman Thomp son revi ewed the condi ti ons of approval recorr�nended i n the staff
report. Assistant Planner Alda Peikert noted that the approval conditions
should be clarified to reflect that all conditions should be fulfilled prior to
�
Planning Comnission Minutes of March 28, 1982 Page 5
� City Council approval of a rezoning and further noted that the condition con-
cerning proof of space for the required number of parking spaces had alrea�y
b een met.
It was moved by Commissioner Leppik, seconded by Comnissioner Prazak and carried
u nanimously to recommend City Council approval of the rezoning requested by
Hopkins School District #270 of Lot 1, Block 1 of the proposed "Meadowbrook
School Addition" from the Institutional (I-1) to the Business and Professional
Offices Zoning District based on no change in land use and based on com-
p atibility with surrounding land use and zoning. The recommendation for appro-
v al is subject to the following conditions which must be met prior to final City
C auncil approval of the rezoning:
1 . Approval of "Meadowbrook School Addition".
2 . Waivers from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for lot
a rea, for front building setback and for setback of parking
a nd drive from the west property line.
Correnissioner Tubman stated that she wished to make a comment on behalf of the
Planning Comnission by way of explanation to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
that the Planning Comnission seldom recommends approval of a proposal requiring
the number of waivers required for the proposed "Meadowbrook School Addition"
a nd rezoni ng, but that the P1 anni ng Comni ssi on feel s the wai vers are necessary
� in this case due to right of way requirements and existing constraints on the
s i te.
I t was moved by Comni ssi oner Leppi k, seconded by Cor►eni ssi oner Prazak and carri ed
u nanimously to return to the second item on the agenda, the preliminary plat for
"Meadowbrook School Addition", to take action on the request received f rom the
H opkins School District for waiver of the park dedication requirerr�nt.
I t was moved by Comni ssi oner Tubman and seconded by Comni ssi oner Leppik to
recommend that the City Council waive the land donation or payment of cash in
lieu thereof for park purposes required by Section 440:80 (2) of the City
Subdivision Regulations based on no change in land use and based on maintenance
of school playground and open space in school and commu nity use.
C hairman Thompson suggested that the park dedication requirement is suited more
to a developing community than to a fully developed neighborhood with adequate
e xisting open space. Conenissioner Tubman added that the proposed plat does not
affect community use of the school property, and Comnissioner Leppik suggested
that application of the requirement would be appropriate if the school use ever
changes.
A vote was �aken and the motion carried unanimously.
�
n L
Planning Comnission Minutes of March 28, 1982 Page 6
� IV. Report on City Council Meeting - March 15, 1983
Cor�nissioner Prazak provided the Planning Commission with a report on the March 15,
1983 City Council meeting.
V . Report on Tax Exemp t Financing Comnittee Meeting - March 28, 1983
C hairman Thompson provided the Planning Comnission with a report on the March 28,
1983 meeti ng of the Tax Exemp t Fi nanci ng Comni ttee.
VI. Report on Valley Square Comnission Meeting - March 24, 1983
C hairman Thompson provided the Planning Comnission with a report on the March 24,
1983 Meeti ng of the Val l ey Square Comni ssi on.
VII. Discussion of Planning Comnission Guidelines for Public Input
C hairman Thompson reported receiving a suggestion on the Planning Comnission
Guidelines for Public Input that Planning Comnission procedure be changed to
h ear the proponent prior to receiving the staff report.
C omnissioner Prazak stated that he feels the current sequence makes mare sense
and that it would put the proponent at a disadvantage to delay the staff report.
Cortenissioner Forster expressed agreement with Comnissioner Prazak's opinion.
• C omnissioner Leppik stated that she prefers to receive a report and clarifica-
tion from staff prior to questioning the proponent, and Comnissioner Tubman
a dded that she also prefers the opportunity to question staff first.
C hairman Thompson stated that he favors current Planning Comnission procedure,
a nd it was agreed that the Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input
s hould be forwarded to the City Council as approved at the last Planning
Commission meeting.
VIII. Report on Minnesota Planning Conference
C hairman Thompson deferred the report on the Minnesota Planning Conference until
the next Planning Comnission meeting in order to allow for preparation of
materials to be sent out ahead of time in the agenda packet and to wait for the
return of Planning Comnissioners absent from this meeting.
The meeting was ad,journed at 8:30 P.M.
Respectful ly submi tted, "
avi ompson, airman a rgaret eppi , ecretary
�
• T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 6, 1983
FROM: ALDA PEIKERT, ASSISTANT PLA�NER
SUBJECT: SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - REZONINr, OF 9025 23RD
AVENUE NORTH FROM THE RESIDENTIAL (SINGLE FAMILY) TO THE TWO
FAMtLY (R-2) RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT
Mr. David Reinke, owner/occupant of the home at 9045 23rd Avenue North and owner
of the adjacent vacant lot at 9�25 23rd Avenue North, requests rezoning of the
vacant property at g025 23rd Avenue North from the Residential (Single Family)
to the Two Family (R-2) Residential Zoning District to allow construction of a
duplex.
Mr. Reinke appeared before the Planning Commission and City Council in April
1981 with a request for waiver of the platting ordinance to allow the lot division
which separated the easterty portion of his property from his home to create
the subject vacant lot. Mr. Reinke indicated at the time of the lot division
that he desired to make use of the+newly created lot for construction of a duplex.
The lot metthe area requi.rement for a doubte but not the width requirement in
effect at that time. Mr. Reinke was informed that a waiver from the Board of
Zoning Appeals (BZA) would be required for construction of a duplex on the lot.
. Mr. Reinke did not pursue the waiver or proceed with construction at that time.
Under the current revised zoning ordinance, the subject lot meets both area and
width requirements. for a double unit lot, but rezoning to the R-2 Zoning District
is required. Mr. Reinke requests rezoning with the intent of selling the lot
as a duplex site.
AP:kjm
� �
. a
�
T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 6, 1983
FROM: ALDA PEIKERT, ASSISTANT PLANNER
SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY HOUSING
POLICY
Attached for consideration of the Planning Commission is a draft statement
on implementation of the City of Golden Valley Housing policy which
focuses on provision of senior citizen or empty nester housing. Planning
Commission discussion of Housing Policy implementation at the February 14,
1983 meeting seemed to lead to emphasis on provision of senior citizen
housing as a means of also opening up family housing vacated by seniors.
AP:kjm
�
�
� Y
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY HOUSIFJG POLICY
� 1983
�
As a means of implementing the "Housing Policy in Golden Valley", adopted by the
Golden Valley City Council on January 20, 1981 , the City of Golden Valley proposes
to concen�rate efforts on provision of additional senior citizen and empty nes�er
housing in Golden Va] ley. Golden Valley feels that the City can achieve greater
progress toward accomplishing the goals outlined in the Housing Policy by focusing
on one area of housing rather than attempting to pursue diverse housing efforts
at the same time. The decision to emphasize senior citizen housinq is based both
on need for senior citizen housing and on the fact that provision of senior
citizen housing indirectly improves availability of family housin� by encouraging
the elderly to move out of underoccupied single family homes.
In accordance with the overriding housing goal stated in the Golden Valley Housing
Policy of providing housing for alt income levels and maintaining a diversity
of living environments, the effort proposed in the area of senior citizen housing
will extend to housing for persons on all �conomic levels and to housing of various
types as outlined in the Housing Policy. Concerninq economic level , the City intends
to encourage provision of senior citizen housing appropriate to al1 income levels,
including market rate housing as well as subsidized low and moderate income senior
citizen housing. The Housing Policy lists a number of factors under type of unit,
and efforts in the senior citizen housing area will extend to different styles,
to both rental and ownership units, to various densities and to diverse designs.
� The City of Golden Valtey has already made significant progress in the provision
of elderly housing, but there is need for. additional senior citizen housing as
evidenced by waiting lists for the existent projects. Subsidized low and moderate
income senior citizen housing in Golden Valley includes the senior citizen building
portion of the Dover Hill Development and the Calvary Center Apartments. As of
April 1983, the waiting list for senior citizen units at Dover Hill numbers 89,
which translat.es to a 3 1/2 year wait. The Calvary Center Section 202 rental project
received 240 applicants for 80 units the first day that applications were accepted
prior to construction. The building was occupied in December 1981 , and applications
were cut off in approximately April 1982 with a list of 445. The waiting list in
April 1g83 consists of 300 applicants with expected turnover of only 10 units per
year. Market rate senior citizen housing in Golden Valley includes Covenant Manor,
which involves a purchase for life arrangement, and the Calvary Center Cooperative
currently under construction. In April 1983 management of Covenant Manor reports
that demand is such that construction of 24 units in addition to the existing 97
is desired. At the same time, Calvary Community Services reports that two thirds
of the 120 units in the Calvary Center Cooperative have been sold.
Programs availabte for assistance to senior citizen housing development include
the following:
t . Section 202 Rental Subsidy Program
Metropolitan Council staff reports that continued funding of the Section 202
Program is expected and that Golden Valley is eligible for Section 202 funds.
• Section 202 funding levels have been cut back, but Metropotitan Council
expects continued funding of four or five projects per year in the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area. Despite recent comptetion of the Calvary Center Apartments
. e
Page 2
� Section 202 project in Golden Valley, the City is still eligible to compete
for additional Section 202 funding. The Metropolitan Council Housing
Atlocation Ptan for the 1980-1983 funding cycte shows that Golden Valley has
fulfilled the family housing allocation but has remaining allocation of 24
elderly housing units. Metropolitan Council uses five criteria for evaluation
of competing Section 202 project proposals, one of wliich is whether the project
is the first elderly housing project in a community. However, Metropolitan
Council staff reports that the majority of proposals received are from communities
tNhich already have elderly housing and that the four other criteria, including
proximity of services and community performance in the area of family housing,
are equatly important.
2. MHFA Section 501 Nonprofit Moderate Income Elderly Housing Program
The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) in 1982 initiated a Moderate Income
Elderly Housing Program for nonprofit applicants and in early 1983 announced a
request for proposals with a deadline date of March 31 , 1983• City of Golden
Valley staff shared the developer's packet with an interested developer who
decided not to pursue the program at this time. However, MHFA reports that the
Section 501 Program will become �an ongoing program given developer interest.
The program does not involve Federal funding and is dependent only on MHFA
ability to sell bonds and on a market for this type of housing. Interested
developers should remain in touch with MHFA, and the City may refer potential
users of the program to MHFA.
� 3• MHFA Rollover Housing Demonstration Program
The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) in February 1983 announced completion
of a mortgage revenue bond sale in the amount of $10 million to fund the Rollover
Housing Demonstration Program. The program offers mortgage loan commitments to
eligible sellers of underoccupied housing to be purchased by first time home�
buyers. The mortgage loan interest rate is 10 7/8 percent. Requirements for
participation are as follows:
1 ) Eligible sellers are defined as a household of not more than two persons
where at least one of the persons is over the age of 45.
2) The maximum sales price for an eligible seller's home may not exceed
$75,000 in the seven county Twin Cities area.
3) The maximum adjusted gross income of an eligible first time home buyer
may not exceed $30,000 in the seven county Twin Cities area.
Banco Mortgage Company has been designated by MHFA to coordinate mortgage loans,
and a list of 50 participating lending institutions throughout the state is
avail.able.
4. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program
The City of Golden Valley receives an annual CDBG allocation which may be used
• for subsidy of housing projects. CDBG funds were used in part for acquisition
and clearance of parcels for the Calvary Center Apartments development. Funds
Page 3
�
for the current funding year, Year IX of the Urban Hennepin County Program,
are allocated to redevetopment partially due to absense of a specific housing
project. Use of CDBG funds in future �ears or reprogramming of unused CDBG
funds from previous years is possible for subsidy of an elderly housing '
project.
Due to the fact that Golden Valley is a futly developed community, there are few
available sites suitable for new canstruction of a senior citizen housing project
in the City of Golden Val�ley. A listing of six potential housing project sites
available as of April 1983 is offered for consideration. A map of the City showing
approximate locations is attached along with a fact sheet on each of the sites.
The City of Golden Valley proposes to encourage the development of senior citizen
or empty nester housing by means of the following:
1 . Seeking out potential developers of senior citizen or empty nester housing
development.
2. Seeking out and comptiling information on availabte sites within the City
suitable for senior citizen or empty nester housing development.
3. Providing to potential developers information on available sites for senior
� citizen or empty nester housing within the City.
4. Seeking out and compiling information on available assistance programs for
subsidy of senior citizen housing devetopment.
5• Sharing with potential developers information on subsidy programs for senior
citizen housing development.
6. Atlocating grant monies available to the City for subsidy of low and moderate
income senior citizen housing development.
7. Investigating innovative financing arrangements for funding of senior citizen
or empty nester housing development and remaining receptive to the use of
innpvative financing methods.
i
.
� illOdt]�MI11 JO All�
o � O
� 8 Y 8 8 S 8 Y : � 9 a °. e « ° 0 8 8 � ° � 8 I
w I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I i I .I I I I � �I � � z
� � �%l a--T.—
Z�e oo�c- `� . . - . �— 1 F-
s „�e— • e`-�.�` � L,"'� c�c:.�c '�/�1�X �'�2�
�;� � ,�'�. ��r ,� �� ';�.,',°f�j� �,���,
OCCQ- W�1` \�"�i �4'' 1� �F ��q'+Q'I•([��S.`f:{ �y .��`. f
OO�q� � �� Y ¢, �\ •�5�� A",�a¢G .K� "�j '��\j'r/
�� � f'r Z,�F. F��.1���''< T'C�~��"+�x 'Yld � .
a�•oaM�aaoe � a �.��'� �"`� x � 'A s�'��+F .S4ir.�Yys'`''��..� . '�' -, 22 8 8 S
�_ •�°/r `Fn'lbA`f.w'.'' 't"`��: .A a�'y.� . ror .- ' $Q$8$ 8 �8 g R . e .
�i% �4F ,r"'� 5��,�!i�'n�.af' ;la"''.A�S9"y, �:$f"�!o.«i - ,� K...��.i6X_-••o
oota-- �' ��'�'� �a t�,�+,�' ,���..�,�� av. r;�,a 7?L.ci��'"T�c I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 � I �
!o �Q_.. �. � r . G �tf "���"�,F'f�t' ```°'�� ��Lj+.�..��r'�w,��- .�-- r�-1� -o0sf
11�� OO6Q-- �i4'F����, r0 ����S+.Z Lyt-4�, •���c ����.."_v�%f��l�d1=��-000�
g •F � ��' y1 �' � - Y 1� i!' � � t -OOi�
o g °ous "� �.s� � �z� ''" ��t fR'�7 g�'sc� � F� �
S �e °� .� � :oa.- - �" �•� '`b�'�es,°.�z ��.'.�I��Q � � �p�$ ,�'+�%- -mz.
I I I I I 1 looz.-. ���� '... . ..,��;,� 1�.g't 1 - 6�i r J°`° -ooc�
oar-��=-sit'�—r�v-.T- _.�. � � � ;', ��1�.�,��'?�L`+ r I'3���`�.�eL�� a+n�- � � ',,� �y��+i -oo..
,r �� �.�f-�. �¢ . b'
��� �"__"pP i--�I � ,\ yr�' .�r� � . � ; I @, - �'+$�� � �: � �� -ooa•
°oow- � � • _9� ."ri�s �� '.v,� aFarF �' ��� � �g �. �_��� ma.
� ,;nZ� �'-� .r �7 � '�i -� � � -oou
"mw- �C� ''� �'J \ � ,�>�r� , .. -�m '�---f�_. y �,` � o�
�c...—ue�aae rya..
ooa�- - --' — � �r$'� me �. .. L 7' �?,�.�yg!� .w-�.�_�L� � � � -am�
� ���.-u�� �, .. 1 i`�- �.+++c�.R � -oa+
`e oosr- I - { _ _ � � \'''�.a,�s������ '� �$ �.�,oa ��.s�
1 ♦ '�l .� i�. -000a
� �`�-- . ��� ----�� ��� ��-ao�v
000c- � _���. ._._.��ii '- !) �, - a� _oozc
0019- � �� �� ����°" �I�II I ;�;Y_ , `/; ^ -� � '' �y -�
� xx F. , ,j ,,, ) �
s OOE9- I' `_ill �__�i�-1��� ,� ��_- iii Qa'��' .y4�pe�i� ! �"' p�R�ara�n � I
f�Q_ �� '� ��� �� P�S1✓�� -opi
�iii�MF1�-����7 f �f� ��
OGfL� � E� �L�.-JC__uy,'��� �J � �i�1�N OOGG
1Ulq ]fll OP !M Nl �y .. I �,�
000a-� �--,� t'i ( -�
���I] � � � 'v���_ — _ L� -� .
ooa` �I-
� � ` �oca
OQL9- y�����.��'p � %
0064-,`,�����" � ' f� ���� ��� `� �, 00l9
J �� y�' �_ �(��� .;7" ,� �r��
� 6�g�.�}�+ � -000s
� 000l-' _! � Q .J�-=�-- � .�S,�y� � '�I �� -0019 �
OON--�� - .- ��. � , i yyd �u`__, I i
o ��_ � �� i � I( '� ��. g ��`�'' y�.,�� � S r-0089
se ��Wr—�• -o0fs
��_: � +rJi��nc� t
oa,_ `, �;--, :—_��I,�,�a,� � ^i►: _,,.,
�y_ r_. -/, i = �i� '` �`y r lre�_ ,� �; -oas
� L � � � I.. ::av � � I1' e
� °°s•- �� i /`-, .0 ��;r---� 1!�'�, �� ��.—�` -�
��.— ' � � f �� ��{��-t1�;� . N,� i I'� —� �
I L�mm3 I 1
�..., �� S��- I I��, � i.�s.�1 � ���� I I -pppt
� �� �t- ✓ I I\ � E��YA$ I�rt0.�II -OOIt
� � �
� � ..3 _-ao�a ���G. , e� ; ` /.I:� 4�-.a ou_I� 8'. ; -oou
�1 � aou- � I �� : +x V °_'� �' -°°e`
# W �� �� �� :�.r�y�,��' I� I
� �g �- �s-`/�!',��-;• -- ��� "r'°'1 1 '��`��—.�� . 'I -aoca
� � .
..a+� � I r"'"""°'' r
� 'as °°`'- _ ' 11 �`-�'��id� ; II -uosi
�_
� � �,,.—� r �„��.
� Z= �.Q �_ s�.t��� et � ��� —�
� �� ��"- J ' -�--'• L�y . ... 'JMl �OOBL
� 2 . OpN- _ �—(�.�r-'�1 / .1 `��'-\"."�`y�.4ilf�_ (fGw i- '� -OOOY
6 OOOY- F ���� :="y�V�4��'-'�`.w U
yy W p 'ks`k;'i. � -OOIt
2 �� ��- � f g ��� • � �
■Ii z � . _ ��'...
� _ - e � � / ti,-�-'.' a,.ni"{- � �„-:..�:..1 I -msa D
ooa- �'\
5. „� , , �,`° , , -1 ��.e-�� �Y�� ��;°;g -�
P " � � ' ';-vN,.�e��..�� `���i�,�'�gp,� � -aow
G°°°- ��� :�Y: �A'�.ti � yy.'�. I -oow
i Gp9- i � ��`_' �� ' =`12.T2y�
�'�y.Y�-z�'�+t `:'��='4�p,'�d„G.� I -OOqp
�- i — _ -OOIY °
i '
� 000-- `� �N I -� �
�- �7 � , -msa
ma- -�
,,,,_ '� � r L I _�,.
° Oos- +_� �' ^ - - �"�� ��f � _OOES u
= pp�- I 1. �� -OOCf
�- v;dr�a�?�� � ��m"r �' I ��\, �'�- -^o..
°°'"- ��y6�ii'� C�.—. g '�` -��4T�;� -oa.
°°°°_,r`-a��'nnnnr"a� rr�—
I � I I � I I I I I I I I I � 1 I � 1 1 I � •I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I
� � � � � g � � � � ! � ! # � 8 � � 3 g ! i � � i g i s s##�3��s�a e
��ti � � o
�
l . SITE LOCATION: 810, 822 and 830 Rhode Island Avenue North
. ACREAGE: 1 .8 acres
ZONING: Institutional (I-1)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Valley Square Study Area
DESCRIPTION: The Calvary site consists of three existing single family houses
located on one lot. The lot is owned by Calvary Lutheran Church, and the houses
are currently used for the Calvary Day Care Center and for housing for seminary
studen�ts or refugee .families. The City HRA transferred the property to Calvary
Lutheran Church anticipating removal of the houses and eventual use of the
property for Calvary Lutheran Church parking. The Church in early 1983 approached
the City concerning sale of the property, indicating plans to acquire other
property on Quebec Avenue North for more convenient Church parking area.
Use of this site for senior citizen housing develapment would require clearance
of three existing single family residences. �
CONTACT PERSON: David Thatcher, Business Manager
Calvary Lutheran Church of Golden Valley
545-5659 �
!�,'t �� ---! � --+- ' ��RSi_ �. u. .'• 9 A� 4 '_ t'_
� �.� _� , �.,z �. .a - - .
, . �-
"" ,.' , ' -., s s
'�u , ro• ;� :�u �. o . � ..� � '� ��
� , - -��c-
� ?�ero,n „ �e a•s' ��• i.� ��tii � °����;.� � .Z ye � 7 � 8�. I
:�c.� '�A I� AUL � ° ,.a c w �
�` ., � „•s �
• I� ' •�c . ; _.
�_ • � ~ ..• U036 � s�z� _�CHICAGO
- � t:-� — - -
j� IO' .'�Jt.r�l • M � ��.id.5u Mt1i0� —__ —___- rE ___ _
Iy��J�� _!t. r
iy t!a �� . �.� t�s.f �eoi H�'' �.: H
f. � i � : 0 0 •^�
i - 3� �c� `'n'"` � 'o - � -- -�
� � ----�'',•- -,1 ' W ' �l�;:
, W ` Q � •".
' -� Q �
_ �^ s� �. �
.., <
• �1 ;
.1� � � � ---- Oo
L� �' I Z � `` 4•ITl.7� �- �� �.
i �..,
� ,s e ' W J � •-c C;?� 4!
' p fA S�o �� � o> . �
L� w �r � � '�� 1 I Q Hs i • 7or
37 `�: '�!A c�i .. • R:��, O «s � 3
!$ � V W 4'LI; y ---
� , � --y ♦
G •K��� ,,, � N .ai aoo
31 `! �
'�-
o: � � � a i � �i�..M. _. ��•sa--- -.--
•fi 3 v � } p .
�mts ._,�^ � , Q 2 � $
m.� � �► , 4 t.•,i : Z' � �0 — — -
. � a �J i ►��.� -
• ' � �/~f. 'Q 2 � i
.39 g � ... �.:r5 V O • °�' , S! . .
' � �q'.;.a, o � , y- �, ,.
i � � ��'.t°� �'e
inso:- q _t'{� fl' � �� gy"!
.��+" 's $� } i 4:S �C �.- h. +
� • �i� V � rA. �?""' � , KO Y�n • �nf.0
. � ,��� �J� '.���,f'��y 49"� SZ� S„ ,�
(x �' �� 1 • � � 1 n��1 N h f`r u J � '
� 40,41 � mn, �ro° ..s raid' :sr.i--i � `I �#�f'nj � ae � ' �
��,�-- ' n�..ar�,46 4T � � � 51� �
c"r ..�s »
' � : �o' � P.ar Or � , $ • -
� � ` .__. _ � �O
�q " a..s „ , � Sp u.
' �,�_ ��.�,,¢� ��y! 1• Il. t �.M, N/.M t �' 14 ` M
� �:ii�+� � �{r,ied PT67) ' qA.a :
�—'+'�-is .-� b r•M'_._. '���-�B—�fZ�-- �Rmr.�lwai a..
•'�'k•trt� r�r.K.a�� __-tGNtftss.-.
►..._.. . -
2. SITE LOCATION: Northeast corner of the intersection of Laurel Avenue
with Jersey Avenue South
� ACREA�E: 6 acres
ZONING: Institutional ( I-1)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Public and Semi-Public (Schools)
DESCRIPTION: The Good Shepherd site consists of undeveloped property owned
by the Church of the Good Shepherd. The property is to the south of and at
a lower elevation than the Church and convent buildings.J The property appears
to have been used for ball fietds but is otherwise vacant.
CONTACT PERSON: Father Hayes
Church of the Good Shepherd
521-2845
�
� � ��
:counen. �
�.. - ...se�±i s ,;. <
�� 'f �� ' . r13 L �9 _ �
AVE s — - ' -
,�,,.,, ,,, ,_o_ , — ----- -- — �, . 4 `���� r:�ti���i�,�:t . �WESTERP: - AVE
; ♦ -'p a :8 Sa 6:
�I6 � 1�' �w� • �CORTL �!F •�o �? �
aso: �. § ....« .� � �" yZJ• ,Q �;•
. � a: '�•°n:�� • g�g �2�, �ssro" C'� ° ,�;a Z
c, O• u .._ . , !� '�s!^ „f �` =•d:
�� 8;Q,2 s� =,:�'" •`NO�i�li` �,C 6 `'w.`- j--�!�,Ya^ _ •
a 1� �o . Z i�yq �.e°�� a�if,��A /V �� `l��1►'r`
N Q.b'_ aSy . 2 ..
��v K:� �� e 8~ ��YD///OIU,`�`, �' w � w y •
. ,' � � � • , � . _ 2�'. C��C` �II� �
�a . . c�. a a�_ b�,; ��- �es: ; r M F •
� ��-- � ea m Jr
Y
i� e� c � �`�!�.��•��� .9 s :�:j,��► .,0 3
i , .
� 3 ;�;>e .6,_UTH CORTLAWN '"CIRCLE .{;;,:
r � ' Yc o v. ,
n � � '4 1 . .o ; �
� ° '` Y •�.`...�s��1• .°. • '�L "�S '�4 '�3` , •
�ru � � � �ss,s� _�:` a ' ' S�ECT/�N : 4� Z
�: • S >:� � Chu�c.�of He !'ioa! • �* i ne.�s
p � � �`� Y Sneo�.� , ' i
s e Y� �i �
- ..0 \,
ROAD S �
�' em
(9��0'
i ,
� �
\ i
�K� I•�0 56°,<o'r�
�U EL °~ s -�<i%�- - ... .
7� .,
$'*�3$ if.:�d/•2i•57) 39 VE. s s.�..
n �
/� 489'�o'!5•E i0 ly�o�yE _ - .c ya —
VO�O I . � ,
' � ��
� —t!e
"� ': � ��1
x: A� �" ; g � .,
,
xM s� � � N ' � � e :
i '°� � �q g ; �" "A �
� � � - ...
�� � „ WlRT 0 «x
b{�B�y s' . REG�STERE LANG ;�
� —a -- o
'���,e�'"°� 2 ' � N30 648 � � �j� �
_ sn•w-,�zv _ sxu _ �4�► +� — �
3• SITE LOCATION: Northeast of the intersection of Douglas Drive with
Duluth Street
• ACREAGE: 5 plus acres
ZONING: Residential (Single FamiTy)
COMP.REHEN5IVE PLAN: Low Density and Medium Density Residential
DESCRIPTION: The site at Douglas Drive and Duluth Street consists of eight
single family lots occupied by existing single family residences. The lots
surround to the north and east the church located on the northeast corner
of the intersection of Douglas Drive and Duluth Street. The site includes
frontage on Douglas Drive, Duluth Street and Brunswick Avenue North providing
possible points of access from three streets. Coldwell Banker has arranged
assembly of the�property for sale as a single site. Use for senior citizen
housing development would require clearance of existing single family homes.
CONTACT PERSON: Bob Stockdill
Coldwell Banker
553-1810
^ 1 e-�,� • ..��vv��nnv.a �-[�' ' �_ �
'x O.JOnsd � s �� : � r
� _ I.SD ? .( �aG'aM 107 U' `w' .r O�� w a
H ae7� uui °y., � T . • r�:« $
° y + 3 .i� EZ• :� � • 6 1� �S 4 ���1nr0` ��
Cw So 10 $� ��� Y; : b0 11S Jf - 82.6� tS ` edt
4. /SO /30.t5 ?.37 iot 1! Sy � 2a ...�C�.a5°
�; ne:, uf!•�T�o-w u..r ` :�S��f—�— aart aa�a ,
^'�°� � $ " � � �aai no na;
0
��.b ,,.. � '�SEC tVD OF BRt1N�WICK ��
• � .,_ aa..� . .��i- ) ° � ' T J `ei,_
R�� � ��r„'- Q ='�}I � �� 3 I ��a ol�S .,.
�•q O yv _ lO/ 0 /00 /O� � �
—�► �in era�s� dG :t .nCg a e•�p'
_'ti % I.I• '� ', n J•+�." ^ �:.:F•I � Y�M3'4141Cfu$•g �•
•iy b(� �• V�W7r�
��� W e� i asi� '`°r° COUR .� � �n•:
o.
ti �i • S ::w� ; 3:i a�s=�a ��6��.a ue ' pu�i�r
µ. '• .... ' 'k [ �scsc .,rsr,•�� „�t?ssc�. si:
- e.e �s. ' r � $� K N TM se.e: .xyy Y rna?� ' .
�i�.� � 2 � � � �ac �OG 72� $
_ � .,'•� ; q�r`�. 6� o•
�E � ��� 1 ♦ �
w • �3� �` � � 4 �;�.J s� 2 �i i�a' z _
x
Z � �• � Rt�l � tN � !/0 � flY_11.
` .� . � � � _ __�,21.71 Ilf'SI'io'M - ' .�'
� . � PO
,
� � 2 _o.i
. . : , . _
:� 3 � �'
�!
� ��'
. , � Q u�
a .w` � G h9IIlr�.. �q•.
N A� ��' � � 1 J� • �k� e�r•
Q' '� e%r�' G�ii L:' •��
*y.;4� .�P � � � t ta � . p.t5:.
, .,� • �.ti.��� �.,�inr ���ii •
�^ � � •e• �'"n' o�
- 1�te c•�» a
— � � 1 ' •M 5lDho'oB[ uaa 'A , � lor.e i�:��.tH: '- . 1ursr , ,
J;., yisie . zJi.a ieaa �� J�j},m. iy c:7:b3 . _
T' ; 9J � a: rasro ru.
C J i �"b. � �� ra�e-sa I er r l N��
�.,' r� � :+`�o :ll� � /rrar. ...v •r...
�� • L ~1s a � OF e�u�S
W � COU '� �CK
U3 3�' : p q ' ` � T � f
• ,� �� � � Yi� �3o JJTO �3s.ci.'. .
• ~ � �a4f1" r71 � !�r ��8�A
- iat ios.l 3 ` !K.H 3 ,n_rSM1d7 -'
� ; N:
� �-- - - - - - - - - -� �. � ;s0 " �3"E �BR 11( WI
i � � �'�� • �.�,.
.s
m H�.7J ioo 17i T! °'
• � �� � ° L T A.n�� �'Re�.
� � � 0 /� � • 4 1. �o�- i0o JSH •� • :�!
� . �� . ��.� 'O A/ i '�;� ' � ?. 'dY � *f�r
� �:l_ J•, �'� s / _ = � � : �pURT•� Q..
' / • ,�, ' e ins sT� �ee •a 3 � ,cs.�so' 8'
• �cw.l� , . .o� �s ���� . A� 4N� � ♦ . �o�
! 5'
4. SITE LOCATION: 1245, 1315 and 1335 Lilac Drive North (adjacent to
Highway 100 and south of Golden Valley Road)
� ACREAGE: 3 acres
ZONING: Residential (Single Family)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential
DESCRIPTION: The site on the west side of Highway ]00 consists of three adjoining
single family residences on deep lots. Homeowners are of retirement age, wish
to move to other housing and have joined together in an effort to sell their
properties as a single site. As of April 1983 the three owners are selling
separately but are considering joint listing with a realtor. Use of the property
for development of senior citizen housing would require clearance of three
single family homes.
CONTACT PERSON: Andrew Jagodzinski
Owner of southerly property at 1245 Lilac Drive North
, 545-4557
g :, .^' � a.w..-� � 3 $;; PLAZA�'°AOD/T/ON ��
� ~.�' � �.,,., 9 � •Z- .
5G24i •�S.T' � •.e.ee �:ox�
oa c : ���: Na.os SBOC
� . _ see•zrss-n m•s C�I F " :
vt•��:�1toJ (MEDICINE LAKE R0�0) Avf!}?u3c+: �� � � f� :
ts�sv se�s sr. ,
o� ,� (3dIC) �ET", u
23 ! !s!ai) oes�:. �0 1395�) G36Ac. � � • • � o� r • J3 ;
:.;. I ss�.7 '' ?i:is'.:.' --�- •-g ^� � - t•' 9
, '
• � n'a1-*Jr,' a�te �'6G A In �� ° '^ � �' . � •°•-••---••-•-- �
�
�� e� (n�:o� � '.�.'O'^.. 1 � • :'� �
� � ..�.�, r :e�.ls �, (3890) �
, • t/d.J ,: �i � i : �. � ,1 .� -
n••� ^ }.� h
i a�o�• ��jv Z: ' . �I � i2 J � u, ` :�
21 I�'�' ' S;- " �.G�• �S ��4 e� �s3aoo 2���• - l3B8---�'--
,� '�-> . .. . "" •" �s� `• 5; �
I �vylOT'2 4U0.�o � iq'��! j. 'Gi5 �'�•6p� `--� -
20 E� SUB N0.7�6.�,•'"A t� COME I; . .O` `—,�•
,� .' eWEL �E,P ,�. :iau, ��se,
� 67.! « � ..'! a, o p�E ��a! '°y'`. �:\ . �
i��r � y�tilra• •- a� ,,..-�? .ti ,t: t •`� �.
°' (�:
I �� •. 2. 3: �Myt•e = : , .e�.T �r.
• � �� • a LOT 2 AUD•�� P i ' �..� � .
'�/ � x UB Nb.346 �� �K r4G!•o� ; c �
• �'O • t7 !r • F� ,' S � �c � ; I
I. �a �._��•.!,' iie �w e w •6 , �� �- � 0 �
e Q�, {+ i.. �. a� -�-- „^�
♦�� V �'�� � I
� � � � ° ..:�oT iUD��� _ �_M� s"" '�3 �°°t'� � ' � '
� I i . � -s�e e sae.i =�4rA� r�.i-`yW a ��°�a
. i r� •.o _• �L--;c . S �'
; ,,�� � � ...�... ������ �e� -= ��liA e.12t. 3 'S1+o y D� y, . I
yA v
^ 0 ,; Iee ' � �r' E �pA So` � � �S�s.. .0 r �� i
/,� �-,s��111.1i ' 110.l1� 17.� lOt.2 'n��3sj. i ,{ Q� Q „� Z � � �b � `?A 5� ,EI'
°��:��IB �' � ,J ._.•,;� �W _ �'I . 6 PD;�a� ;; s j
� � o {� ,
��74•�/J/ •I_ ..ro ��� N },.,c E .ww..�� X �'�bb�Q1��4 l.b5 ' j �r� � I
• '1L8�' � {t+�/�. � �
�e�L 5T�L. ,i1t�' iG,�I �� _oe+__ .
� �' 6 S 'A 4 � 3 ,` • p. �:� �, 2 �� � . � at3o� .
wti
'se ' ,tPe� = ,l�°n � � _ ' .a.ti :�:'� io Go ive ,eo � u,� • �w'
'� 4
3 4 6 �, . , � ,._ ��� t�,,, ! �, . �oeO� j
�� �o� ���.� ����� _•2 � � a o , w
� ` „ „� �• ' �Bi;'+ yfo� � �:'.5 6 � o0
1 '� J V
I �\ �{,�y'd�, .'����.f 11 � � S� �u •�• �
1 e J Pi � ,r' ���a °� 4 � —�°� _ ? o .
,• ,�: � •• �e• e
� I .. �ae�,., 9_{�` `��` `S.��tt r�� `e O' `
� �.• 0 , � .+o:. �` •;�e�tliY V� � � .
� \ , � �� � S 1
.Y�''Y' ; �� \ N 8 .1�.� ' S' °— 5 - J • �o
�ya�°`'� Qz'�jg P�_ � ie°-. O 3 �' ' •�'
, , w '
� ��Y H�� _... tOD E3,:'. ��i
� � ^---- - _ ... .. ,
� "'��' `- i 9 �� !a�i , ''�
�....... �ea,- - s ,� �AOp� so ia eoR.see!:e
�`'`g na►crs a,s�c e.�.s.so�r—e�r oF oo�ceN vpucr
?3, T ?t 8, R.2! .
5• SITE LOCATION: 900 Lilac Drive North (adjac�nt to Highway 100 and
north of the railroad line)
� ACREAGE: 3.5 acres
ZONING: Open Development
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential
DESCRIPTION: The site on the east side of Highway 100 consists of two parcels
in separate ownership. The property is at a lower elevation than the
residential development and Unity Avenue directly to the north. The northerly
of the two parcels is vacant land formerly Dundee Nursery, which reverted to
the state tax forfeit and was purchased by a builder in Golden Valley. The
southerly parcel is occupied by one single family residence located to the back
or east side of the property. The builder who owns the northerly parcel reports
that he was contacted by the owner of the southerly parcel concerning extension
of utilities to the site and at that time discussed combining on development.
CONTACT PERSON: Wilfred (Bill ) Cavanaugh
Owner of northerly parcel
544-3525
' � � � -� ` ' ' �' � �
°e��w $ 6 � ; oe : 'S�S _ 5• J•°8�1 I: 0� �
. z g•�a s�s-4j_ ns as ; n
�S� �,s �.ru M > `��, �
� �e �Qe µ � g��e � • g •7 _ �• � a �e .�„
_Lb �� ;� TL• ..Ft� � nA -t.y p� `A` •y. `�^_��'�Sp Q
, ' f� :t f bi : � ., . �^ ��,
: �.4.0 � :.-iy/��:�oo�„ .��� R :� R AD s�-� s
;S, yr�, "V'!- y •:Ji .R �;� i, . �
I� ' :ti `. f� : 1! � - a oo iee �ec o
-'rb� ��� � � —rrt 8 2Tl. 'r.s • • I• i,►. e.f �.¢�
� � z 3 W � °, t• 5 - 4 3 F� � �x�
F- C ; M� ~ • ��1ne r r_w��.I 3
� � �/11S C
{ � �:W �;'° Rr.�,� z ;a '" �.• si - � $ _
4,�. � ..
��S � � � $ ��RS +'i+� �Il i-e ,�.� t w. c.°.�
a
o . , ' ,
. : - � . r
:: ` 1lr 2� lu IN se •h* y : .' •�'
— --------•- � itr 5 6� � a.. �^`� •.�'�-
;�•..� � � ��• 7 'r' � -
i � �r � - �t o Ze
- � s ;"e o 0 8 of ` 9� �e. Z •�: -
;�E � ' - � •- '� 1 � u�.. _
M_ � _ "'_'-•---•- � i - O � � a 9, ,�oo' j i.
:' ~ �el � w_ !�S f' M IS L . •n� (V K. �
,- � o o � a ��`,�551 �G� 4 —
i i, ; ., �,e��, ny`�,.0��.6° .°�- � '+ 4l:•
r � € s�.- /is • �.. 6 "
�=::' '• ;pNGEllf� ° � •. uu.� ��r.,e` �.M
Cp��A60 ," ' �r.r: i . � ,.� , iuia) •'
1w a u'U.� li o
/W •�4'.i1- ' h.
(4001 frr A;w�n M�5�ru' tI.uq.u' '��•
I s�c d�c.n•.Mtme S.�t:Me �
� (1036 ps g121
� �� uf!t :2o Jee��
(4876) Y
� � � NDUD4r � =� �
a ,��j�a��_�.�1�i �J � '
•�', � ` � '
•� ���� I
+V l `� �___ C E 1
...p__ ,iL_..��. � • � i ` ��i� i
�. =�� �, vpv
,ts °. r�ecs> �,,• � ,.��.
. �
� � . P -
' '• .� • + `� � G
:�O.� �
�.• �iu a v
� .` ..ct�S- � ' (NS21
6 ij=— --_��,.. � a
• _ : �
6. SITE LOCATION: 2301 Zenith Avenue North
� ACREAGE: Indefinite
ZONING: Institutional (I-1)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Public and Semi-Public (Schools)
DESCRIPTION: The St. Margaret Mary site consists of the St. Margaret Mary
Convent building. The Church reports in April 1983 consideration of conversion
of the convent consisting of 14 single rooms into 10 apartments for the elderly.
The Church hopes to draw residents from the surrounding neighborhood but an
initial survey conducted within the Church elicited few potential residents.
Also under consideration in April 1983 is use of the building for day care,
which could be a short term use still atlowing eventual conversion to senior
citizen housing.
CONTACT PERSON: Rosemary Marrs
588-6394
�.;�� ' • � o•
.. a•, �-�• r
�� �Ia �B o� ¢ a'��` d I'� y�,0
s ' ',t{C M H _ �L-I c°� `,:i ',aa °�i i �+'��.a� !":
�'� �"°r.. � � �:' � a� '�,�_.M ' � ��o°� : ��h y?:r,.
� {� tso, 3�� 'a �" M � : r
yI ��• N,_ e#��4 Q' c � �4 t ��6�.
�7� p7i� �� ', Yf/o!I' �� � a C � 1�I ��' y`A Le Y � .
!�/M t ef �� ��'�Y � �0� , fi .0 r� C
p +_..- sv � ��= J�V,yt�. : `Z ��, �� �s--�
� 9 0"" i �'• •
N y-'S7� ; G ��i`ms;�r�,' ¢�S` ��, •.�� 7C � .
� ,.,.: - ac. ��,, �t= o�° od J . �`,., � . :.
�4 Y � c `�� n y� �L 4�\ ,� w
fii •t� a� �i4 p ,` 0 �" � •."'.
1A C �' v . ./ /e � 9���Q � 'j-y=
.j. ^ � �1 �'� I �' ' Zy y: Jf(• ';. -"",
� � �.
i,, , ¢ a .t �i°.' �� �
: �
�P` �'+��+ -� +'` a °r�,, s& t eR., �• `x �� z
_�. D, w ` r•• !._=fY•..
: , ' �tyCrJ I �J� ' � Z�-���Y „t�ph
– J��O —,�.�L__ __ _—___ � – N ' Cr! _> !
� . �c � . _:��-�?1�;;, � d�-.
L� .��° � �F �, . ;�-=�. ,�a�a�ti ��.
6 � Z� :� 1 . ���jNu:
I � ,f S�OQuT� [i; �ro`+a:.
' �, ..
Pl' � �1:
^ \ a�Y • ��' � � S�;♦
� �9 � \\ � sE:_ `` `, �.
y�'� I ��� � \\\\\ g m � o, •�;.
� •<• iY'ar '�,S...O�1 :►
/L �o � •: • � '•�
�� �±"��,j'_�' �• ,:�
� Z A� be�''',
� � s� `� ��
1 7� •�;w qi6� f
� ,� $� :� � ,�''
-� �� a � `���
. �
,��� .. :��,-
- �v �� �N�• ��
c.- dqs �� 1 •.` r"� ��.
i�
d � i �}�T�7 --� \ � {R� '
�' �
3�=—•=°-�- ���`� � ._- a,,. `'�;�• .�.;�e' �• �I •,�'
� .� S^�i1���t9 . � •
\ (i0/0��. tru 1'�1�. 't4 i� ..: iw�µ� �a
� 1APL5.� PARK• OA, t��"�. � O t a�Ji3n�Ylf � �� I � �
�+4f q,�• a,l� ,,.
S', A' O �--��.�7� i Tl N
''_ y` �. b + �"� . "J•�. / N'��j V
tAPProx. �d'lAre!% •�n �M`"�i/ .: "..• .. .�' �.
m Co..Pd��) % ���y j �.w,"� -` r�`"�, � ••
V � . �`, � l4 � � $�(r� \ � J .
. . • I .� i��0 v^! . ��� { ��: .
• , .. ' . . . ` ` �`p �(
� /0` `�� '�n.N' �� ��i�q;.
, � ,
— . ..-. /; `3 p �` �` •N o 1�.'{�, � ;
r �,�..;.,rr„ . � s _a� h�` �� /4i�.•.
.. � L, y
�:�.:.,��.���`\ . � �. _,� . � � ``+• ��. �'l�„ �,S ,
AS`ar�'_. . . . : " ' �` ni`ra. •� �-- •'~
� T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COM�IISSION DATE: APRIL 6, 1983
FROM: ALDA PEIKERT, ASSISTANT PLANNER
SUBJECT: REPORT ON PACAC MEETING - APRIL 5, 1983
The Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Planning Area Citizen Advisory Committee (PACAC) for Planning Area One
met at the Golden Valley Civic Center orn April 5, 1983• Commissioner
Prazak represents the City of Golden Valley on the Committee and will
provide the Planning Commission with a report on the meeting.
AP:kjm
�
.
• April 4, 1983
TO: Planning Conunissioners
FR�DM: David Thompson
SUHJECT� Annual Conference of Citizen and Professional Plannezs
Duluth, MN March 20-22, 1983
Bill Forster and I attended this conference and, like all conferences,
it had useful and not-so-useful sessions. A verbal report will be
sufficient for nast of the sessions.
By far the most interesting session was on Tuesday morning, from 9-11 �
a.m. It was conc]ucted by Hans Blefker, a Swiss by birth, who ie
co-founder and primary instructor of the Institnte for"Participatory
Planning, at the University of Wyoming, Laramie. Bleiker•s topic was
entitled: "Developing Informed Consent: How to Solve Touqh Public
Sector Problems When There is no Win-win Solution. Bleiker made an
excellent presentatioa, using slides and an overhead projector.
Because of the nature of his presentation, i.e., slides, I believe
� we can better understand and discuss what he said by zeading foz
ourselves his points.
Bleiker was also the brunch speaker, and, in effect, continued his
morning presentation, developing it a little further. I took notes
and am inc2uding his brunch talk as well.
•
Developing Informed Consenta How to Solve
• Tough Public Sector Problems When There is
No Win-Win Colution.
Hans Bleiker, Institute for Participatory
Planninq, at 1983 Annual Conference of
Citizen and Professional Pla�nners, Duluth.
How to get controversial projects, prograias, plans, proposals.
regulations, taxes, etc. II�LEMENTED.
1. How is it done? �
By developing Informed Consent---or Substantial Effective Agreement
on a Course of Action (SEACA)
Methodology---Systematic Development af Informed Consent (SDIC)
SDIC is a management strateay that should be used for designinq
and executing the whole problem/analysis� solution/generation,
decision-makinq process.
The popularity or non-popularity of the project has little to do
with whether you will get it implemented or not.
� 2. Effective Public Sector problem-solving and decision-making requizes
two parallel processess
A. A rigorous technical problem-solving process
B. A process fo= SDIC.
The product of (A� , if done well, 3s understanding of the problem,
development of alternative solutions and recognition of the impacts
(effects) of the alternatives.
The Product of (B) will be that your PAIs (Potentially Affected Interests) '
will have a reasonable grasp of the problem, your responsibility to
solve it, alternative solutions and their impacts.
3. You can reach SEP,CA by achieving CP (Citizen Participation) Objectives
through CP Techniques. (SEACA(�---CP ObjectiveF---CP Techniques)
Bleiker outlined 15 CP Objectives. The first five he tertRed "Responsiblity
Objectives." The second five are 'Responsiveness Objectives.• And the
third five, 'Effectiveness Objectives."
•
� l. Establiah legitmacy of your acency.
2. Maintain legitmacy of your agency.
RESPONSIBILITY 3. Establish legitimacy of the process.
O&TECTIVES 4. Maintain legitimacy of the process.
5. Establish and maintnin legitimacy and validity
of major assumptions of earlier decisions.
6. Get to know all of the PAIs.
RESPONSIVENESS �• ��'n to see the project through eyes of PAIs.
OBJECTIVES 8• Identify problems.
9. Help find and improve solutions.
10. Articulate and clarify key issues.
11. Nurture ar�d protect your credibility.
12. Make sure all outgoing conununications are
EFFECTIVENESS received and understood by the PAIs.
OB.TECTIVES 13. Receive and understand all incoming
conaaunications from the PAIs.
14. Modernte conflict between PAts with
conflicting values.
15. Help de-polarize polarized PAIs.
CP Objectives are ends. CP Techniques are the means to those ends, and
should not be confused. Bleiker says there are no good CP Techniques
and no bad ones. Use whatever techniques are necessary to achieve the
objectives. But he does caution care. Use of the wrong techniques can
� destroy your work and make it impossible to achieve your CP Objectives.
SIX MOST COMMON & SERIOUS ERRORS
l. Doing CP (Citizen Participation) for the wrong reasvns.
A. Strictly because of guidelines ana regulatfons.
Bleiker says design a program that serves your
needs. Then look at guidelines.
8. Because it is the "In" thing to do.
C. An effort to become more popular.
2. Confusing means and ends.
SDSC Techniques (taols) are Means
SDIC Objectives {p�pose) are Ends.
3. Confusing adviceqfving (the tight to be heard) with decision-makfng
(the right to prevafl).
�
H p
� 4. Over-use of a few SDIC techniques, such as meetinqs and advisory
committees. Both are good, but shouldn't be overused. They can
be expensive and time-consuming without beinq productive.
5. Trying to aubstitute Citizen Participatfon for responsible
project/agency management.
6. Failing to see the "Big Picture."
Znformed Consent �►eans PAIs aqree that:
1. Your proposal addresses a serious problem.
2. You are the right agency to address the problem.
3. The Way you aze addreasing the problem is reasonable.
4. Yau are wi113nq to listen to all potentially affected interests.
5. The c�onsequences of implementing no solution, an the whole,
would be far worse that your solution.
.
.