08-28-72 PC Minutes �5
I�INUTFS OF THE GOLDIId VALLEY
PLANIJING OOA�IISSION
August 28, 1972
A regular me� .ing of the Golden Valley Planning Commission was held at 7.30 P.M.
on Monday, August 28, 1972 at the Civic Ce nter, 7800 Golden Valley Road,
Golden Valley, Minnesota.
Chairman Lundsgaard presided and the following members were present:
Vice Chairman Franzen, Commissioners Anderson, Becker, Edstrom, Sampson, a�nd
Swanson. Also present was Village Consul.tant Carl �le and Reeording Secretary
Jon Westlake.
Members absent: Commissioners Christiansen and Van Horn.
l. APPI�OVAL OF MINUTES: N➢JVEA by Sampson, secondeii by Franzen, carried
unanimously, �o approve the minutes of the August 11�, 1972 meeting as amended.
2. RESIDIIJTIAL PLAT
(a) Lovering Addition
Robert Lovering, owner - b525 Glenwood Avenue
Three (3) Residential lots 1601 east of Hampshire Avenue
south of Glenwood Avenue, and north of Western Avenue
Mr. Gary Bickel, Chairman of the Enaironmental Commission, reviewed with the
Planning Commission the July 17, 1972 and August 1lt, 1972 IIzvironmental Commission
minutes regarding this request. The Planna.ng Commission then reviewed the
following Flanning Considerations:
"l. This matter has been considered by the Planning Commission at previous
meetings. A previous proposal was to subdivide the land into four (1t) lots.
It was noted at that time that much of the land in question has the appear-
ance of being, if not in fact, a lake or pond. Various questions were
raised at that time related primarily to water storage axeas, potential
extension of Western Avenue, filling requirements, and current drainage needs.
2. Earlier, this area had been recommended for preservation as ��public open space";
denelopment at this time, however, seems to rule out the feasibility of '�public
open space". Open space under private ownership, however, is still a strong
possibility and a desirable community objective. The Village Engineer notes
that ponding in this area will not be essential in the future �rhen storm
sewers are installed; even so, it is suggested that natural open space,
including water, is desirable to the living environment and that the pond/lake
is of public cancern due to environmental eonsiderations.
3. The current subdivision request indicates utility and drainage easements
(for por�d area) that were not required for lots to the west; this may result
in some future problems. The lake is an existing land feature and the future
need for storm water storage may be irrelevant to the actual public issue.
The public issue is one of the fact that a lake or pond now exists and some
property o�ers may h�ve differing opinions as to:
��
Planning Commissian
August 28, 1972 page 2
a) If water should remain.
b) Water level and silting problems.
c) Private responsibilities for maintenance vs public respon�ibilities.
d) The need for public control and access for maintenance.
1�. Regardless of engineering needs for storm water disposal, it is suggested
that a pond and wildlife area should be preserved.
5. In the absence of any home owner�s association or other form of cooperative
private agreement, it should be noted �hat the public interest cannot be,
preserved without formal participation on the part of government.
6. Utility and drainage easements are proposed for the current subdivision;
it has been recommended that similar agreements be reached with the six lots
facing Hampshire Ave. N. to the west of the property in question. Without
. such agreements, serious problems of lake management can arise due to disa-
greements between property owners as to the mai.ntenance and repair of lake
conditions.
7. With these comments, the current proposal seems reasonable provided any
lake filling is done under strict supervision of Village staff to preserve
the integrity af the pond area.f'
The Planning Commission noted the proposal is for th�ee (3) large residential
lots which exceed the Village platting requirements. The proposed plat also
contains a utility and drainage easement to preserve the pond area. It was
also pointed out the proposed plat will provide !�0 feet of right of way on the
north for street purposes.
Rev. Lovering was present and asked if �he easement for ponding, as indicated
on the RTorthwest corner of I,ot 1 on the proposed plat, could be located £urther
to the west. ,
It was moved by Franzen, seconded by Swanson, caxried unanimously, to recommend
approval of the plat of Lovering Addition, noting that if Mr. Lovering would
like to relocate the pond easement line in the Northwest corner of Lot 1, it
would require review and approval by the �ngineering �epartment.
The Planning Commission also discussed Item #6 of the Planning Considerations
regarding similar tztility and drainage easements which are not on the plat of
Janelle Addition.
It was moved by Anderson, seconded by Franzen, carried unanimausly, to request
the Engineering Department �o recommend a location for the utility and drainage
easement of Janelle Addition and also to request that further research be made
by the staff a5 to �eans of acquiring this easement to preserve the ponding �rea.
(b) G. V. '��omson, owner - l��y00 Golden Va11ey Road
Mrs. Kruger Libbey, �avid C. Bell Company, developer
Six (6} Residential lots north of Ciolden Valley Road
Mr. Carl Dale, Village Consultant, reviewed the following Planning Considerations:
8?
Planning Commission
August 28, 1972 pa�� 3
�'1. A proposed subdivision plan for this site had been submitted and �onsidered
earlier but objected to because of the large lot sizes proposed and the lack
of a plan showing how these lots could be re-subdivided later into a logical
pattern if the desire arises; such a pl.an has now been submitted.
2. Perhaps the only matter now of prime concern has to do with enforcement of
the desired cor,ditions; while proposed (in current Village Plan Reports)
subdivision and zoning regulations provide for such situations, existing
regulations in force do not. The suggested conditions are as follows;
a) The subdivision should be planned such that the large lots can be
re-subdivided later into additional and more standard lot sizes in an
efficient and logical mann�r; and
b} Adequate safeguards be provided for the maintenance of Bassetts Creek
in this area.
3. �he potential re-subdivision plan seems reasonable but public enforc�nent
authorization and procedures seem inadequate pending adoption of new and
up-dated orda.nances. It is suggested, however, that certain other steps
can be taken, at least as an interim measure:
a) Approve the plat subject to certain administrative provisions recommended
to the Village Council plus a required maintenance and access easement
for the proper preservation of Bassetts Creek. While State Law covers
Creek protection to some extent, it is suggested here that this is not
sufficient in a practical sense - local control is necessary. �Local
control of� Bassetts Creek should be obtained wherever possible since
State and other controls are considered inadequate.)
b) The potenti.al re-subdivision p].an can be enforced by recommending to
the Village Council that the future re-subdivision plan be placed on
file and that all buildi.ng permits be issued oril.y after an adminstrative
decision that the building locations are in conformity to the existing
and potential subdivision plan. (A more forma7. procedure would be to
adopt an "Official Map" but this is considered premature at this time
for reasons of total community planning.)
c) A suitable easement should be required along Bassetts Creek to assure
proper Creek and fZood plain ma�ntenance. While such easemer.ts have
not been required along much of the creek in past, it is not too late
to begin such a program. While certain. state laws do apply, these are
not considered as adequate to meet all public needs and concerns."
Mrs. Kruger Libbey was present to answer questions regaxding the plat. In
discussing the proposed plat the Planning Commission noted the plat contains
six (6} large lots which exceed the present requirements of the Platting
Ordinance. Commissioner Sampson questioned. the long t'pan handle" on �ot 1 of
the proposed plat. The Commission also noted there is a ponding area on th�
North �nd of the proposed Lot 5 adjacent to Bassetts Creek which would require
special consideration if the lot was re-subdivided later, as indicated by the
proposect future smaller lot guide plat.
88
Planning Commission
August 28, 1972 page �
It was moved by Swanson, seconded by Franzen, carried to recornmend approval of
the proposed plat, subject to #3 a, b, and c of the Planning requirem�.nts arzd
review by the Bassetts Creek Flood Control Commission. The motion carried
with 5 yea and 1 nay.
3. PUBLZC INFORMATI�NAL MEETING - GENERAL PLAN (�.U.D. #8)
Shelter �evelopment Corporation - �over Hill
23b Housixig Proposal containing 112 family un�.ts and 122 elderly units
Location: Soutr of Medicine Lake Road, West of Mpls. Northfield & Southern
�ailroad, and 600t East of Winnetka Avenue
Messrs. Peter Boosalis and Bud Egge of Sh�I.ter Corporation, Peter Jarvin and
Jerome Benshof of Bather Ringrose Wolsfeld, Orlyn Miller of Nasor,, Wehrman,
Chapman Associates, Lonnie Oxton of Winsor Faricy Architacts, and Gordy Fdberg
of Graven �9imond Associates, Inc., individuals representing Shelter �evelopment
Corporation, informed the Planning Commission of a proposal for housing under the
Federal 236 program. Their application is for general plan approval under the
Planned Unit Development Ordinance. In presenting their request to the Commission,
it was pointed out the area is located on a 13.6 acre site south of Medicine La�e
Road, east of Rhode Island Avenue, and west of the Mpls. Northfield & 5outhern
Railroad. It was explai.ned how the surrounding zoni.ng and land use would function
with this proposal.
The proposed site will contain a seven story building containing 122 one-bedroom
units (approximately 600 square feet per unit) for those 62 years of age or
older with eight units for the handicapped. The proposed �terior material is
stucco with bronze glass and balcanies of rough cedar. The interior wi11 include
area for beauty and barber shop, game room, small library, laundry� and crafts.
There are 112 Family units for low or moderate income. These fami�.y units will
be two and three story buildings designed in two 56 unit "U" shaped complexes.
These family units �ri.11 be a townhouse variety will all two and three bedroom
units having ground f'l.00r access. The !t8 one-bedroom units wi,ll be on the third
floor. There will be !�8 two-bedroom �inits and 16 three-bedroom units, maki.ng a
total of 112 units. A cammunity building is provided far the family units with
gaest parking. Also, there are two tot lots, one of which has been enlarged.
Shelter Cnrporation further explained they will provide one (1) parking space
for each two units on the si�e. There is sufficient land i.n green area which can
be used for more parking if needed. The garages are not in accordance with the
Village Ordinance, waivers will have to be applied for. They are providing gaxages
for the family units as follaws: 1 garage for each one and two bedrooms and
1 1/2 garages for each three bedrooms.
Sn explaining the landscaping plat�, they stated they are providing an extensive
landscaping program, including 3 1/2" to !�" trees. A berm will be created along
the side adjacent to the Railraad, which will include a fence for safety. Also,
certain areas will be left in a natural state. The site will contain a number
of sidewal.ks, and also propossd are sidewalks along Medici.ne Lak� 8oad and
Rhode Island Avenue. The site coverage is 3�t�, which includes all buildings,
driveways, and parking areas-leavi.ng an open space of 66�. The proposal is for
17.2 units per aere.
�9
Planning Commission
August 28, 1972 page 5
The proponent, also reviewed a traffic report whieh had been mailed to the
Planning Commission members previously.
Shelt�r Corporation also reviewed the follvwing statistics with the Planning
Commission:
The maximum amount of rent that can be charged in Hennepin County
under the 236 program is:
$132 per month for one bedroom 1 or 2 people
$163 per month for two bedroom 3 or !� people
$18s per month for three bedroom S or 6 people
The above figures include all utilities and garages.
The income range is as follows:
1 bedroom vnit $l�,�00 to $6,300 two i.ndividuals
2 bedroom unit $5,60� to $7,$� family of 3 or 1�
3 bedroom unit $5,300 to $8,800 family of 5 or 6
The projected population of the development could break down as follows:
Seven story elderly (122 units)
80� single = 98 adults
20� couples= total 1.lt6 elderly and handieapped
Two and three story family units (112 units)
Lt8 one bedroom = 73 adults, 5 children
1�8 two bedxoom . = 88 adults, 60 children
16 three bedroom= 32 adults, !t!� children
193 adults,109 children
Total population of t�l�8 people.
Land Cost and Taxes
Land cost is $230,000, broken dot�n i.nto three different examples:
Ind�ustrial building $15 per squaxe foot. 200,000 square feet.
Total land and building $3,23�,000
Base tax $12�,000 - 40� fiscal disparities pool would eq,ual
$72,00� + � back on fiscal disparities.
Single Family Home Value of $35,�0 (1t0 homes �Total $1,l�00,000
Base tax $lt�,l�8lt ($250 sales tax credit each unit) equals
�35,48l� taxes
Shelter proposal - Building $3,500,000, Total land and building
$3,730,000
Full and true value of $1,2Lt2,090 assessed
on a subsidy at 20� = a base tax of $69,5l�0.
��
Planning Commission
Augnst 2fi, 1972 page 6
The Planning Commission discussed several of the points as presented by the
proponent. The more specific questions were in regard to the elderly housing,
size of units, traffic, access to and from the site, density, quality� of
construction of units, concern about stucco for exterior material (proponent
stated they could go brick or other material), security, air conditioning, and
garages for the senior citizens.
Gary Bickel, Chairman of the Environmental Commission, reviewed the August 1lt, 1972
Environmental Commission minutes.
Mr. Walter Barninski, a member of the New Hope Plaa�ni.ng Commission, stated they
a re not opposed nor in favor of the request; but they are concerned about t�affic
and multiple development in their community to the north of this site if this
proposal is approved.
Mr. Wayne Cox, a member of the staff of the Metropolitan Council, read a letter
addressed to Peter Boosalis from Albert J. Hofstede encouraging Shelter Developrnent
Corporation to proceed with the proposal.
Mrs. Phyllis Jordahl, representing the Senior Citizens, stated this type of housing
is needed for the elderly. Mrs. Rivel Greenberg, Chairman of the housing Committee
for the League of Women Voters, stated they supported this project. Mr. Joseph
Burgess, Presiden� of the Senior Citizens, stated they are in favor of the project,
but they would like attached garages for the senior citizens building. He said
they were also concerned about the security system and how the project will be
taken care of if Shelter Corporation sold it.
The following residents voiced their concern as follows: Mr. John Hagen of
2145 Kelly 33rive was cQncerned about traffic. He also presented the Chairman
with a petition containing approximately 70 signatures opposed to the proposal.
Mr. 0'Neil of 21l�0 Pennsylvania Ave. N. questioned site location, taxes, schools,
and statistics given by Shelter Corpora�ion. N[r. Stone of 2020 Pennsylvania Ave. N.
was concerned about traffic, schools, taxes, and condition of structure five or
ten years from now. Mr. Johnson was opposed to a seven story building. Mr�� Wilson
of 2220 Pennsylaania Ave. N. was concerned with traffic and how property will be
cared for.
The Planning Considerations by the Village Consultant are as follows:
r'1. The proposed PUD use (residential) would not be in conformity ta the existing
Vill.age PIan as reflected in the Zoning Ordinance nor the currently proposed
Comprehensive Municipal Plan. All current Village plans indicate the proposed
PUD :�i�� to be most suited to i.ndustrial use.
2. I� is suggested that the basic question is one of proper land us� and that
questions relating to specific site develo.pment plans, social issues of housing
need, the merits of subsidized housing, aesthetics of a high-rise structure,
traffic, and others are secondary to the primary issue. The first question
to be asked and answered is - ��Should the Vil].age Plan be amended to elimi-
nate the industrial classification for the site and, if so, what is the most
appropriate use of the land?" If residential is selected as being the most
appropriate use, this should be in consideration of general living amenities
91
Planning Commission
August 28, 1972 page 7
and not just the more narrow view of elderly, low income family, handica,pped�
and Federally subsidized housi.ng. It must be �onsidered that the criteria
for a good Iiving environment does not change i.n selecting residential sites
for differ�nt income, age, racial, social, or other groups. There are ex��p-
������� �however, such as certain sites being highly suited for elderly hou�ing
(such as a �owntown location) but not so desirable for families with children.
3• There are no readily apparent reasons to suggest that the existing industrial
classification is improper. Residential Classification would, howeaer, seem
highly questionable for the following reasons:
a) The site is almost totally isolated from normal Community, neighborhood
public facilities and residential. services (parks, playgrounds, scl�ools, etc.;
b) The site would not be part of any established or potential future resi-
dential ''neighborhood". (In this respect, the fact that the proposal is
for low-income housing may have a bearing; the possibility and ramifications
of establishing a low-income �'ghetto" should not be ig�ored. In fact,
eurrent planning concepts seem to call for blending low-income housing
into the�fabric to the entire community rather than creating ��projects"
as identified by the public image created.}
c) The site is greatly aff�cted by adjacent land use (major street, com-
m�rcial, railroad, i.ndustrial, pond area) which combine to create a
most difficult environmental situation for living ��nities. Onl.y to
the south is some relief offered by vacant and pond areas.
d) It seems highly unlikely that a developer/investor would select this
site for higher income housing due to the environmental factors. Even
so, the Village must decide if this is suitable residential land.
!t, The Environmental Commission has ruled that - ". . .the proposed development
as p��v�:ded in the general plan in relationship to the environmental aspects
contained therein..." is acceptable. A motion to support the PUD development
for the social and environmental "benefits�' to be gained by the Cotnmunity
failed.
5• Under existing conditions, it is suggested that it is the responsibility of
the developer to demonstrate to the Planning Commission and Village Council
that the proposed PUD is equal to or better than the indicated land use
(industrial) on the Comprehensive Village Plan. Public money has been spent
in recent months and years to arrive at an industrial classification and it
would seem ill-advised to expend public funds and effort to accomodate the
desires of one developer.
6. Regardless of the estimates of future resident school children at the site,
alI of these wou]..d be ehildren not present if industrial deve].opment is to
be the ultimate use. In any event, the school district should be consulted
with respect to affect ugon school capacities and, more important� their
opinion of the pedestrian and transportation aspects of school children at
this site.
7. Pedestrian movements into and out of this area would seem most difficult
ar�d hazardous if not impossible. If the project is to be approved, it is
suggested that "neighborhood�� pedestrian circulation needs be studied to
determine if the proposed sidewalk plan is adequa�e.
��
Planning Commi.ssion
August 28, 1972 page 8
8. Landscape plans indicate recreational. facilities to include a "community
buildingt� ar�d two (2) lots; due to the isolated nature of the site, this
may not be adequate. Active play area for other age groe�ps seems advisable.
This should be examined by appropria�� Village departments.
9. The current request is for general plan approval and this is a one-step
process including concept approval. For this reason, the developers have
submitted rather lengthy and detailed plans. ':his planning re,port, however,
questions the basic concept (land use) for the specific si.te. It shotiild be
nated that this project will be reviewed by the Metropolitan Council staff
and others due to Federal subsidies involved; the site may be ogen for
highly critical. scrutiny by these agencies and it may be well. to consider
snch opinions at this time.
10. In the event that the Village proceeds to approve this project with some
speed, two phases of planning analysis have been developed which would nat
normally be done under preliminary concept review. First, the details of
the site plan have been reviewed in some depth and secondly, a rough draft
PUD permit has been prepared for your review.
Site Plan
a) The site plan, in �eneral, seems quite satisfactory. It is evident
that considerablp thought and effort has gone into this plan�
b) MeQtin�s h�ve been held with V;.11age staf�' and nesded revisions such
as additional fire lanes c�,n be made with relative ease.
c) The adsquacy af recreation areas is questionable.
d) Access to and from the developznent aroa by pedestrians seems inadeq'aate.
e) Vil�age parking requirements have �at been met in total; the number of
spaces provided (open and enclosed} for the high-rise structure does
not r�e�t Village standards. Village standards however do not reasonably
apply to ho`zsing for the elderl;�. Recent surveys conducted at similar
housing projec�s indicate that the 68 parking spaces to accomodate
122 alderly housing units is more than adequate. It is our estimate that
abou� forty (1�0) parking spacc�s would be quite �dequate. For this reason,
it is suggested that the potential "future parking�' area i.nd3cated on the
plans is superflunus and might be better suited for a playground or other
recreation area.
f) Dwelling unit density and site coverage in re�ationstu.� to open space
see:ns quite adequate for �he type c�f project en��ision�d.
g) While the idea o� leaving the open mar�� in a natural state is a good
fea�ure of the plan, it m+ast again be nated that such areas must be
"managed and maintained" and that Village supervision of such management
and maintenance should be pro�vided with expert advise» (See previons
recommendation to esta�alish position of Village Forester or Park Keeper.)
11.. This report does not question the nsed for more diversified housing in
Golden Valley nor does it quarrel with the need far housing the elderly
and �andicapped. It does questi.on the desirability of the specific site
propnsed for housing of a.� type. G�uestions of traffic, tax base, natural
feat�ares to be preserved, and the like seem rather secondary to the basic
concept of what constitutes a desirable living environment.
��
Planning Comm�ssion
August 28, 1972 page 9
12. The fear that public criticism may result from critical scrutiny of this
pr�posed project should not over-shadow and place undue burdens upon the
decision making process. It is suggested that the most fair and objective
way to evaluate this proposed project is to consider only the classifi-
cation of land use proposed and not the income or other specialized types
of needs for those proposed to be housed. A more positive public policy
woul.d be to evaluate housing proposals as a "land use"and that a11 persons
should be treated equally in the selection of suitable living environments.
A still more positive role eould be played by government by participating
in the process of determining specific and specialized housing needs and
aiding private and public developers to find suitable sites to meat the
apparent needs.
13. S�
It is recommende�d that the developer be asked to demonstrate first the
feasibility and desirability of the proposed land us� change in terms of
sound public land use policy as well as from a private investment viewpoint.
Should the Planning Commission be convinced that a cha,nge from industrial
to residential is in the public interest, the next step would be to fully
evaluate the ,proposed building and site plans and to consider conditions
which should be incorporated i.nto the PUD Permit (rough draft submitted
herewith) .
It was moved by Sampson, seconded by Anderson, to recommend appro�ral of
Planned Unit Development #8, su3ject to:
1. development of an adequate traffic plan to minimize problems on
Medicine Lake Road and surrounding streets,
2. development of a plan to insure adequate staffing for the project
including security and maint�nance,
3. building plans to be reviewed by the Building Board of Review,
!t. requirements of the P.U.D. Permit #8,
5. review by the Golden Valley Trail Commi.ttee,
6. review by the Board of Zoning Appeals,
7, meeting the requirements of the Public Safety Depaxtment and
Fire �epartment,
8. construction of a comgrehensive sidewalk plan within 1/2 mile
radius of the project.
Upon vote being taken by roll call, the following members voted in favor of the
motion: Anderson, Becker, Edstrom, and Sampson. The following voted against
the same: Franzen and Swanson. The motion carxied.
Commissioners Franzen and Swanson stated they were opposed ior the following
reasons: traffic, density, other locations might be found which are more
suitable, limited to recreational areas, and also the concern the Village
of New Hope expressed.
��
Planning Commission
August 28, 1972 page 10
Commissianer Christiansen sent a letter to the Chairman of the Planning Commission
because he could no+ attend th�s meeting. It was moved by Franzen, seconded b�
S��anson, carried unanimously, to include the lett�r in the minutes as follows:
'�Since I wi11 be out of town on vacation and will not be able to attend the
Planning Commission meeting on August 28, 1972, I would like to express my
thoughts re�arding the planned Federal 23b Housing Project at Medicine Lake Road,
west of Winnetka Avenue.
This project, on this t,ract �f land, is certainly not suited for low cost housing
at this particular location and the P�,anning Commission has recognized for many
years that this plot of land i5 more suited for industrial use. The araa is
certainly not conducive from an asthetic point of view in this particular area.
Tt would certainly cause a traffic problem in an already congested area. Thera
are no parks or recreation faci�ities available to make it more desiral�le for
the low inc�me families wi.th children.
According to the information we have received ta date, the amount which wi11 be
charged is certainly not for low income families; we have some apartments situated
around Golden Valley which are renting fbr less than what they are asking.
I further believe that if Golden Valley does feel. that this type of a project is
needed, it should be located in an area west of the Civic Center near our
Golden Valley Industrial Paric, adjaeent to Bassett Creek. This would be more
accessible to medical facilities, near the Golden Valley Shoppin� Center. The
Golden Valley Shopping Center would be more accessible for any other necessities
for their living needs. They would have access to the new library, near the
Civie Cent�er and they would also be near the Brookview Golf Course so that they
could walk to the golf facility for recreation. In addition, an adequate play-
graund facility could be provided near Bassstt Creek, creating a better surrounding
for children which would be liv�:ng in this complex.
In closing, Mr. Carl �ale, Planning Consultant, has also raised some very serious
doubts and a number of points that we as Planning Commission members should
consider regarding this project.�� '
�t. WAIVER OF THE PLATTING ORDINAIJCE
(a) Earl E. �ilson (5 Residential Lots)
1600, 160l�, 1608, 1612, and 1616 C.�aunty ftoad 1$
The request is to build on five (5) residential lo�s as they are presently platted;
but because of the Merger of Title Ordinance, the proponent is appearing before
the Planning Commission. The lots are 9, 10, 11, 1.2 and 13 Block 13 Lakeview Heights.
The Planning Commission noted that the proponent is not upgrading the lot but a
majority of the lots in this block are platted with a 60-foot frontage.
95
Planning Commission
August 28, 1972 page 11
It was moved by Franzen, seconded by Swanson, carried unanimously, to recommend
approval of the five lots as platted, subject to a drainage plan approved by
the Village Engineer and other requirements of the Engineering �epartment.
(b) Alvin G. Stobbe (2 Residential Lots)
155 and 201 Paisley Lane
This property was divided by Hennepin County in 196l� but had never received
approva,I Prom the Village Co3.incil. Even though the lots axe shaped in a
triangle form, they meet the requirements of the platting ordinance.
It was moved bp Swanson, seconded by Edstrom, carried unanimously, to approve
the waiver of the Platting Ordinance, subject to an easement as required by
the Engineering �3epartment.
(c) Cleo J. Kennedy (2 Residential Lots)
1535 and 1551 June Avenue South
The proponent is proposing to divide Tract H of Tyrol Hills Addition into two lots.
I� was moved by Anderson, seconded by Swanson, carried unanimously, to approve
the waiver of the Platting Ordinance, noting both lots exceed the requirements
of the platting ordinance.
5. MIT&JEST FLANNING AND ftES�ARCH, TNC. - OOMPREfiIIdSIVE FLAM
Mr. Larry Giesler of Midwest Planning and Research, Inc. discussed two areas of
the Plan with the Planning Commission. The first area is the transportation plan
of Precinct #5. The Planning Commission, after discussing the transportation
plan in Precinct #5, decided that until an indica�ion is given on the 391t proposal
the Commission would show Western Avenue as a loeal strest and inc2ieate
Pennsylvania Ave. from Laurel to Wayzata Boulevard as a collector street.
The second area I�r. Giesler discussed with the Commission was the Village Square-
as to setting up special standards or inelude the Village Square in the new
Zoning Code. After further discussion, it was decided to include this in the
new Zoning Cc�de and special standaxds could be set up in the future if so desired.
There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on motion,
duly seconded, adjourned at 1:1�0 A.M.
Chairman Waxren Lundsgaard Secretary I,owe�l Swanson
P� PLANNIRTG (70IWII�TSSIQN MEETING SEPTII�BER 11, 1972